Asia del Sur
Aspectos destacados
Las acciones globales son muy vulnerables a una corrección. Pero cíclicamente la Fed está comprometida con un exceso de inflación y la economía global se está recuperando.
El impulso fiscal y de crédito de China cayó bruscamente, lo que deja a las acciones cíclicas globales y a las materias primas expuestas a una retirada.
Más allá del corto plazo, la necesidad de China de estabilidad política debería evitar un endurecimiento excesivo de la política. El riesgo está concentrado en el corto plazo.
El censo de población de China subraya uno de nuestros megatemas: la política interna de China es inestable y puede traer sorpresas negativas.
Las elecciones estatales de India, celebradas en medio de una enorme ola de COVID-19, sugieren que el partido gobernante sigue siendo favorito en 2024. Esto implica continuidad en las políticas.
Mantener un sesgo cíclico alcista pero estar preparado para cambiar si China comete un error de política.
Artículo principal
Gráfico 1
La inflación asoma la cabeza
La inflación asoma la cabeza
La inflación asoma la cabeza
Los mercados globales se estremecieron esta semana ante un dato fuerte de inflación subyacente en EE. UU. así como por temores más amplios al resurgimiento de la inflación tras un largo letargo (Gráfico 1).
Cíclicamente todavía esperamos que los inversores roten fuera de las acciones de EE. UU. hacia acciones internacionales y que el dólar estadounidense caiga a medida que la economía global se recupere (Gráfico 2). Sin embargo, esta visión también implica que las acciones de mercados emergentes deberían comenzar a superar a sus pares de mercados desarrollados, lo cual no se ha materializado hasta ahora este año. Los mercados emergentes no solo son intensivos en tecnología y vulnerables a la subida de los rendimientos de los bonos estadounidenses, sino que además se ven ahora desafiados por el hecho de que el estímulo de China ha alcanzado su pico.
Gráfico 2
El mercado de acciones tiembla
El mercado bursátil tiembla
El mercado bursátil tiembla
Gráfico 3
La economía global y el sentimiento se recuperan
La economía global y el sentimiento se recuperan
La economía global y el sentimiento se recuperan
Gráfico 4
Cíclicos globales frente a defensivos vacilando
Cíclicos globales frente a defensivos vacilan
Cíclicos globales frente a defensivos vacilan
Lo único en lo que podemos confiar es que el despliegue de la vacuna contra el COVID-19 continuará permitiendo una recuperación del crecimiento global (Gráfico 3). El dólar estadounidense está señalando algo similar. El billete verde rebotó en el primer trimestre por el mejor desempeño relativo del crecimiento de EE. UU., pero desde entonces ha retrocedido. Un dólar en caída es positivo para las acciones cíclicas frente a las defensivas, aunque las cíclicas indican que la operación de reflación está sobreextendida en el corto plazo (Gráfico 4).
El crecimiento de China se convierte ahora en el punto focal crítico. Un error de política en China trastocaría la visión alcista cíclica. El endurecimiento de la política monetaria y fiscal en China es un riesgo político global importante que hemos señalado este año y que ahora se está materializando. No obstante, también hemos señalado las limitaciones al endurecimiento. En la actualidad China se encuentra justo en el umbral del sobreendurecimiento según nuestros puntos de referencia. Si China endurece más, adoptaremos una postura fundamentalmente más defensiva.
También en este informe revisaremos los resultados del censo de población de China y las implicaciones de las recientes elecciones estatales de India frente a la última gran oleada de infecciones por COVID-19. Por ahora no haremos cambios a nuestra visión alcista sobre India, pero la ponemos bajo vigilancia.
China: El riesgo de sobreendurecimiento
Los problemas de China provienen del cambio en curso de su modelo económico, que pasa de depender del comercio exterior a depender de la demanda interna. Esta fue una decisión estratégica que el Partido Comunista tomó antes del ascenso del presidente Xi Jinping. Xi también ha llegado a encarnar y reforzar esta visión estratégica y la confrontación con Estados Unidos.
El objetivo de Pekín era gestionar una transición suave y estable. La turbulencia financiera de 2015 y la guerra comercial de 2018-19 pusieron en peligro ese objetivo, pero los responsables de la política finalmente prevalecieron. Luego estalló el COVID-19 y causó la primera contracción económica real desde la década de 1970. Aunque China contuvo el virus y rebotó con otra ronda masiva de estímulo (13,8% del PIB desde el inicio de la guerra comercial hasta el pico de 2021), ahora enfrenta una transición aún más difícil.
Gráfico 5
Aumento de la propensión al ahorro en China
La creciente propensión de China a ahorrar
La creciente propensión de China a ahorrar
La necesidad de mejorar la calidad de vida es más urgente dado que el PIB potencial se ha desacelerado. La necesidad de contener el riesgo financiero sistémico es más urgente dado el gran nuevo aumento de la deuda. Y la necesidad de diversificar la economía es más urgente dado que EE. UU. está ahora formando una coalición de democracias para confrontar a China en una serie de políticas. El aumento en la “propensión marginal al ahorro” entre personas y empresas chinas —medida por la proporción de depósitos a plazo largo frente a depósitos a corto plazo— es una indicación de que el país está aquejado de problemas y que los ánimos empresariales están deprimidos (Gráfico 5).
El impulso fiscal y de crédito de China está girando a la baja tras la gran expansión de 2018-21. Los responsables de la política han señalado desde el año pasado que retirarían el estímulo de emergencia y ahora el impacto es aparente en los datos reales. El dinero, el crédito y los impulsos combinados de crédito y fiscal de China se correlacionan con el crecimiento económico tras un rezago de seis a nueve meses. Esto es cierto independientemente de qué indicadores se usen para los ciclos de dinero y crédito y la actividad económica de China (Gráficos 6A y 6B). El impulso económico de China está en su punto máximo y se convertirá en un viento en contra para la economía global más adelante este año y en 2022, aunque el resto del mundo disfruta de los vientos favorables de la vacunación y la reapertura económica.
Gráfico 6A
El impulso fiscal y de crédito de China cae bruscamente …
El impulso fiscal y crediticio de China cae bruscamente...
El impulso fiscal y crediticio de China cae bruscamente...
Gráfico 6B
… al igual que los impulsos de dinero y crédito
... Al igual que los impulsos de dinero y crédito
... Al igual que los impulsos de dinero y crédito
La desaceleración del impulso fiscal y de crédito presagia una caída de la demanda de materias primas, materiales y otros bienes que China importa, especialmente para el consumo interno. (Las importaciones chinas de piezas e insumos que forman parte de sus exportaciones manufacturadas al resto del mundo se ven más saludables a medida que el resto del mundo se recupera). Este cambio dificultará que los elevados precios de los metales y otras apuestas vinculadas a China, como las acciones suecas, sigan subiendo sin una corrección (Gráfico 7). La posición especulativa favorece en gran medida a las materias primas en este momento. La divergencia entre China y los mercados de metales que domina parece insostenible a corto plazo (Gráfico 8).
Gráfico 7
Las operaciones de reflación de China cerca de los picos
Operaciones de reflación en China cerca de máximos
Operaciones de reflación en China cerca de máximos
Gráfico 8
Choque entre el ciclo del dinero y los precios de las materias primas
El ciclo monetario y los precios de las materias primas chocan
El ciclo monetario y los precios de las materias primas chocan
La transición global hacia sistemas de energía verdes o renovables (es decir, la descarbonización) es alcista para los metales, especialmente el cobre, pero no podrá compensar la caída de la demanda china en el corto plazo, como ha mostrado nuestra Estrategia de Mercados Emergentes. Los usos internos del cobre en China para la construcción y la industria representan aproximadamente el 56,5% de la demanda mundial de cobre, mientras que la carrera por la energía verde —es decir, la producción de paneles solares, aerogeneradores, coches eléctricos— representa solo alrededor del 3,5% de la demanda mundial.
Este número subestima algo el programa verde ya que también se prevé el reacondicionamiento y la adaptación de sistemas y estructuras existentes, como las redes eléctricas. Pero el punto es que una caída en el consumo de cobre de China actuará en contra del gran aumento del consumo en Estados Unidos y Europa, sobre todo dado que el programa de infraestructura de EE. UU. no empezará hasta 2022 como muy pronto. Por lo tanto, la demanda mundial de cobre se ralentizará en los próximos 12 meses en respuesta a China, aunque la demanda del resto del mundo esté subiendo.
Los responsables de la política chinos aún no han señalado que estén preocupados por un sobreendurecimiento de la política o que vayan a aflojar la política de nuevo. La reunión del Politburó a finales de abril no contenía un cambio de política importante respecto a la Conferencia Central de Trabajo Económico en diciembre o al Informe de Trabajo del Gobierno en marzo (Tabla 1). Pero si hubo una diferencia significativa, residió en reducir aún más el sentido de emergencia del año pasado al tiempo que se proyectaba algún tipo de esquema para responsabilizar a los funcionarios locales por la deuda oculta. La implicación es la continuación de una política estricta, y por ende el riesgo de sobreendurecimiento sigue siendo sustancial.
Tabla 1
Declaraciones macroeconómicas recientes de la política de China: eliminando el estímulo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
Gráfico 9
Puntos de referencia para el endurecimiento de la política en China
Puntos de referencia para el endurecimiento de la política en China
Puntos de referencia para el endurecimiento de la política en China
Cierto es que las señales de la reunión de abril pueden leerse de varias maneras. La declaración de abril omitió frases sobre “mantener el apoyo de política necesario” en la orientación macroeconómica general, lo que implicaría menos apoyo para la economía. Pero también omitió el objetivo de mantener el crecimiento de la oferta monetaria (M2) y del crédito (financiación social total) en línea con el crecimiento del PIB nominal, lo que podría verse como permitir un repunte en el crecimiento del crédito. Sin embargo, el Banco Popular de China mantuvo este objetivo de crédito en su informe de política monetaria del primer trimestre, por lo que no se puede estar seguro. Observa que, según este criterio, China está justo en el umbral del “sobreendurecimiento” de la política que hemos utilizado para medir el riesgo (Gráfico 9).
Basándonos en la formulación de políticas china durante las últimas dos décadas, esperaríamos que cualquier punto de inflexión importante se anuncie en la reunión del Politburó de julio, no en la de abril. No consideramos que abril suponga un cambio importante respecto a las reuniones previas – ni lo considera nuestra Estrategia de Inversión en China. Por lo tanto, el endurecimiento excesivo de la política sigue siendo un riesgo real para la economía china y global durante los próximos 12 meses. Nuestra lista de verificación para el endurecimiento excesivo subraya este punto (Tabla 2).
Tabla 2
Lista de verificación para el endurecimiento de la política china
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
El descenso del impulso fiscal y de crédito de China está ocurriendo antes del vigésimo congreso nacional del partido, que tendrá lugar a lo largo de 2022 y culminará con la rotación del liderazgo superior (el Comité Permanente del Politburó) en otoño. La economía está suficientemente estimulada para el centenario del Partido Comunista el 1 de julio de este año, por lo que los responsables de la política están centrados en prevenir excesos. La prevención del riesgo financiero, la regulación antimonopolio y la contención de la burbuja inmobiliaria son las órdenes del día. El aumento de los impagos y quiebras de bonos corporativos y gubernamentales subraya la disposición del liderazgo a avanzar con la reestructuración económica y la reforma, lo cual está bien documentado en los últimos años (Gráfico 10).
Gráfico 10
Destrucción creativa en China
China al borde del endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde del endurecimiento excesivo
Los inversores no pueden asumir que el congreso del partido en 2022 sea una razón para que el liderazgo afloje la política. Ocurrió lo contrario en la antesala del congreso de 2017. Sin embargo, los inversores tampoco pueden asumir que China se sobreendurezca y hunda su propia economía antes de un evento tan importante. La estabilidad será el objetivo, como ocurrió en 2017 y en congresos anteriores, y esto significa que en algún momento habrá un alivio de la política si la ronda actual de endurecimiento se vuelve demasiado dolorosa financiera y económicamente. Los activos vinculados a China son vulnerables en el corto plazo hasta que los responsables de la política alcancen su punto de inflexión.
De paso, la aproximación del vigésimo congreso nacional del partido será un imán para la intriga política y eventos impactantes. El líder máximo normalmente destituye a un rival prominente antes de un congreso como muestra de fuerza en el proceso de promoción de su facción. El gobierno también endurece el control de los medios y reprime a los disidentes, que pueden alzar la voz o protestar en torno al evento. Pero en 2022 las apuestas son más altas.
Originalmente se esperaba que el presidente Xi dimitiera en 2022, pero ahora no lo hará, lo que suscitará al menos cierta oposición. Además, bajo Xi, China ha emprendido tres revoluciones políticas históricas: está adoptando un modelo de liderazgo autoritario, en detrimento del modelo de liderazgo colectivo bajo los dos presidentes anteriores; está enfatizando la autosuficiencia económica, en detrimento de la liberalización y la apertura; y está enfatizando el estatus de gran potencia, en detrimento de la cooperación con Estados Unidos y sus aliados.
Conclusión: Las acciones globales, las materias primas y las “apuestas vinculadas a China” están en riesgo de una corrección sustancial como resultado del endurecimiento de la política en China. Nuestro caso base es que China evitará el sobreendurecimiento, pero los últimos números de dinero y crédito rozan nuestro umbral para cambiar esa visión. Otra caída pronunciada en estos indicadores exigirá un cambio.
Fuerza laboral desaparecida de China
En última instancia, una de las limitaciones al sobreendurecimiento de la política es la caída del crecimiento potencial del PIB de China como resultado de su población en edad laboral en disminución. El séptimo censo de población de China se publicó esta semana y subrayó los profundos cambios estructurales que afectan al país y su economía.
El crecimiento de la población en los últimos diez años se desaceleró hasta el 5,4%, la tasa más baja desde el primer censo en 1953. La tasa de fecundidad cayó a 1,3 en 2020, por debajo de la tasa de reemplazo de 2,1 y del objetivo de 1,8 establecido cuando las autoridades chinas relajaron la política del hijo único en 2016. La tasa de fecundidad también es más baja que las estimaciones del Banco Mundial (1,7 en 2019) e incluso que la de Japón. La tasa de natalidad (nacimientos por 1.000 personas) también cayó, con el número de recién nacidos en 2020 en el punto más bajo desde 1961, el año de la Gran Hambruna. La tasa de natalidad se ha convergido con la de los países de ingresos altos, lo que implica que el desarrollo económico está teniendo el mismo efecto de desalentar la procreación en China, aunque China está menos desarrollada que esos países.
Gráfico 11
La población en edad laboral de China cae más rápido que la de Japón en los años 90
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
La cohorte más joven aumentó del 16,6% al 17,95% de la población, la cohorte más anciana aumentó del 8,9% en 2010 al 13,5% hoy, mientras que la cohorte en edad laboral cayó del 75,3% al 68,6%. La población en edad laboral alcanzó su pico en 2010 y cayó 6,79 puntos porcentuales en los últimos diez años. En contraste, la población en edad laboral de Japón alcanzó su pico en 1992 y cayó 2,18 puntos porcentuales en la década posterior (Gráfico 11).
En otras palabras, China está experimentando la transición demográfica que afectó a Japón a principios de los años 90, pero la población en edad laboral de China podría caer incluso más rápido. El país está experimentando este cambio tectónico socioeconómico en un nivel de riqueza per cápita más bajo del que Japón había alcanzado.
El desafío demográfico presionará el sistema socioeconómico y político de China. El milagro chino, como otros milagros asiáticos, se basó en el uso de la manufactura orientada a la exportación para generar grandes cantidades de ahorro que podían reorientarse para el desarrollo nacional. La caída de la población en edad laboral de China coincide con el desarrollo económico y una probable disminución de la tasa de ahorro a largo plazo. Esto se muestra en el Gráfico 12, que presenta dos imágenes diferentes de la población trabajadora de China junto con la tasa de ahorro nacional bruta. A medida que aumenta la ratio de dependencia, la tasa de ahorro caerá y habrá menos fondos disponibles para repropositar. El costo del capital aumentará y la reestructuración económica se acelerará.
En el caso de Japón, el cambio demográfico coincidió con la crisis financiera de 1990 y luego con un cambio nacional en el comportamiento económico. La tasa de ahorro cayó a medida que la economía evolucionó, pero los ahorros generados aún superaron la inversión debido a la falta de demanda privada y a la presión de grandes cargas de deuda. Las empresas se centraron en pagar la deuda en lugar de expandir la inversión y la producción (Gráfico 13). Todo esto ocurrió cuando el entorno externo era benigno, mientras que China enfrenta un desafío demográfico similar en el contexto de una creciente presión económica debido a tensiones geopolíticas.
Gráfico 12
Los trabajadores chinos son cada vez más escasos
Trabajadores chinos cada vez más escasos
Trabajadores chinos cada vez más escasos
Gráfico 13
Altos niveles de ahorro permiten derroches de deuda hasta que la deuda abruma
Los altos ahorros permiten un derroche de deuda hasta que esta se vuelve abrumadora.
Los altos ahorros permiten un derroche de deuda hasta que esta se vuelve abrumadora.
China hasta ahora ha evitado una crisis financiera debilitante y un colapso de los precios de la vivienda que condenaría al país a una trampa de liquidez traumática. Las autoridades chinas son dolorosamente conscientes del peligro de la burbuja inmobiliaria y por ello están ansiosas por prevenir excesos financieros y frenar la actividad con rasgos de burbuja. Esto es lo que hace que el riesgo de sobreendurecimiento sea significativo. Pero un error en cualquiera de las dos direcciones puede conducir a una caída hacia la deflación. La administración de Xi ha estimulado la economía cada vez que la actividad se ralentizaba excesivamente o la inestabilidad financiera amenazaba con salirse de control, como se ha señalado arriba, pero este es un acto de equilibrio difícil, razón por la cual vigilamos tan de cerca el riesgo de endurecimiento excesivo.
Algunos otros puntos notables del censo de población de China incluyen:
La política de dos hijos no está teniendo éxito hasta ahora.
COVID-19 podría haber tenido un efecto negativo en la fecundidad, pero no podría haber afectado mucho a los nacimientos debido al momento. Así que las tendencias no pueden estar demasiado distorsionadas por la pandemia.
La urbanización rápida continúa, con la tasa alcanzando el 64% de la población, 14 puntos porcentuales más que en 2010.
Las discusiones de política enfatizan elevar la edad de jubilación; ofrecer incentivos financieros para tener hijos; una serie de controles de precios para hacer más asequible tener hijos, destacando la supresión de la burbuja inmobiliaria; y medidas para asegurar que los precios de la vivienda no caigan demasiado rápido en las ciudades más pequeñas a medida que continúa la migración desde el campo.
La población de minorías étnicas de China, que constituye el 9% de la población total, creció mucho más rápido (tasa del 10%) durante la última década que la mayoría Han, que representa el 91% de la población (creciendo al 5%). Las minorías están exentas de la política del hijo único (y de la de dos hijos). Sin embargo, han surgido tensiones étnicas, particularmente en regiones autónomas como Xinjiang, lo que ha provocado un mayor escrutinio internacional de las políticas de China hacia las minorías.
El desafío demográfico de China es ampliamente conocido, pero el último censo refuerza la magnitud del reto. El crecimiento potencial de China está disminuyendo mientras que la ratio de dependencia creciente subraya cambios sociales que exigirán más al gobierno. Mayores necesidades de gasto fiscal y social requerirán difíciles compensaciones económicas y decisiones políticas impopulares. El cambio económico y el movimiento de personas también profundizarán las disparidades regionales y de riqueza.
Todos estos puntos subrayan uno de nuestros megatemas constantes de Estrategia Geopolítica: los riesgos políticos internos de China están subestimados.
Conclusión: El censo de 2020 de China refuerza el declive demográfico que está en la raíz de los crecientes desafíos socioeconómicos y políticos de China. Aunque China tiene un gobierno central fuerte con el poder consolidado bajo un solo partido gobernante y un historial de gestión exitosa de sus distintos desafíos en las últimas décadas, la magnitud de los cambios que están ocurriendo es abrumadora y traerá sorpresas económicas y políticas negativas.
India: las elecciones estatales no representan un punto de inflexión contra Modi
En el apogeo de la segunda ola de COVID-19 en India, se celebraron elecciones en cinco estados indios. Los resultados para el estado de Bengala Occidental fueron los más importantes. Bengala Occidental es un estado grande, que representa casi una décima parte de los legisladores en la asamblea nacional de India, y el gobernante Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) del primer ministro Narendra Modi había declarado que ganaría cerca del 70% de los 294 escaños allí.
Al final, Bengala Occidental entregó una victoria aplastante al All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC), un partido regional. A pesar de que el AITMC enfrentaba una anti-incumbencia de dos mandatos, el recuento de escaños del AITMC alcanzó un máximo histórico. Pocos lo habían previsto, como lo demuestra el hecho de que el desempeño del AITMC superó las previsiones hechas por la mayoría de encuestadores.
¿Qué deben hacer los inversores con la pérdida del BJP en este estado clave? ¿Fue una reacción contra la gestión de la pandemia por parte de Modi? ¿Presagia un cambio de gobierno y de política nacional en las elecciones generales de 2024? No realmente. Aquí destacamos tres conclusiones clave:
Conclusión n.º 1: El desempeño del BJP fue notable
Gráfico 14
India: el BJP consigue penetrar en Bengala Occidental
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
Si bien el BJP no alcanzó sus objetivos en Bengala Occidental, el estado no es un bastión del BJP. Se sabe que el BJP tiene tracción natural en las regiones de habla hindi de India y Bengala Occidental es un estado de habla no hindi donde tradicionalmente se veía al BJP como un forastero. Además, este estado es conocido por ser inusualmente renuente al cambio. Por ejemplo, antes del AITMC, la Izquierda estuvo en el poder durante un récord de 34 años en este estado. En ese contexto, el desempeño del BJP en 2021 en Bengala Occidental es notable: el partido aumentó su número de escaños a 77, en comparación con solo 3 escaños en 2016 (Gráfico 14).
Este desempeño catapulta ahora al BJP a convertirse en el principal partido de oposición en Bengala Occidental. También indica que el BJP puede tardar, pero tiene lo necesario para construir tracción en estados que no son bastiones tradicionales. Dado que logró esta hazaña en un estado donde tiene poca fuerza histórica, su actuación es significativa como señal de que el BJP sigue siendo una fuerza a tener en cuenta.
Conclusión n.º 2: La popularidad del BJP se resintió pero aún se le considera favorito para mantener el poder en 2024
Aunque el descontento contra el BJP está aumentando por su mala gestión del COVID-19 y la consiguiente angustia económica, no existe una alternativa viable al BJP a nivel nacional.
Las recientes elecciones estatales, no solo en Bengala Occidental, confirman que la oposición, el Indian National Congress (INC), aún no ha organizado su actuación. El partido del Congreso se hundió de 44 escaños en Bengala a 0 escaños. Más importante aún, el Congreso aún no ha resuelto dos cuestiones críticas, es decir, la necesidad de designar o elegir a un líder interno con atractivo masivo y la necesidad de desarrollar una agenda política identificable.
La debilidad del Congreso significa que, aunque el número de escaños del BJP podría disminuir respecto a su rendimiento máximo de 2019, nuestro escenario base para 2024 sigue siendo el de un gobierno liderado por el BJP que mantiene el poder en India. La continuidad de las políticas y la posibilidad de alguna reforma estructural siguen siendo el caso base.
Conclusión n.º 3: El auge constante de los partidos regionales de India
El ascenso del BJP en la última década ha coincidido con pérdidas de escaños tanto por parte del Congreso como de los partidos regionales de India. Sin embargo, la ronda más reciente de elecciones estatales indica que el BJP no puede comprimir drásticamente la cuota de escaños de los partidos regionales. Por ejemplo, en Bengala Occidental consiguió 77 escaños por sí solo, pero esto no fue a expensas del AITMC, que es el actor dominante en este estado. En otro estado grande donde se celebraron elecciones a principios de este mes, es decir, Tamil Nadu, el control continúa fluctuando entre dos partidos regionales bien afianzados.
Gráfico 15
India: el BJP alcanzó su pico en 2019 pero sigue siendo favorito para 2024
China, al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China, al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
Las elecciones generales de 2019 vieron que la cuota de los partidos regionales (definidos como todos los partidos excluyendo al BJP y al Congreso) cayó al 35% desde casi el 40% observado en las elecciones generales de 2014 (Gráfico 15). Las elecciones de 2024 podrían de hecho ver aumentar un punto la cuota de escaños de los partidos regionales, ya que el conteo máximo de escaños del BJP podría disminuir respecto a los máximos de 2019.
El próximo auge de los partidos regionales de India es una tendencia arraigada en una dinámica simple. Con el BJP como incumbente de dos mandatos en las elecciones de 2024, los votantes podrían optar por gratificar a los partidos regionales en el margen, en ausencia de cualquier alternativa al BJP a nivel nacional.
El BJP sigue en condiciones de ser el partido más grande de India en 2024 con un número de escaños superior a la marca de la mitad. ¿Podría surgir una situación en la que el partido gobernante incorpore a un partido regional para mantenerse por delante de la marca de la mitad con un amplio colchón? Absolutamente. Pero, por supuesto, 2024 aún está lejos. Gestionar el COVID-19 y sus secuelas económicas hará más difícil de lo habitual para el BJP superar su rendimiento de 2019. La siguiente tanda de elecciones estatales clave en India está prevista para febrero de 2022 y el estado más grande de India, Uttar Pradesh, celebrará elecciones. Con el BJP actualmente en el poder en este estado de habla hindi, las elecciones de febrero de 2022 arrojarán más luz sobre la capacidad del BJP para mitigar el efecto de anti-incumbencia de la pandemia y el shock económico.
Conclusión: La popularidad del BJP en India se ha sacudido pero no de forma dramática. El BJP sigue firmemente en una posición para ser el partido más grande en India con un número de escaños que debería superar la marca de la mitad en 2024. Así que la estabilidad gubernamental no es una preocupación en este mercado emergente por ahora.
A la luz de los riesgos políticos internos de China y de la continuidad política en India, mantendremos nuestras apuestas en India por el momento (Gráficos 16A y 16B). Sin embargo, estamos llevando a cabo una revisión de India en su conjunto y actualizaremos a los clientes con nuestras conclusiones en un próximo informe especial.
Gráfico 16A
Mantener posiciones largas en bonos indios frente a mercados emergentes
Mantener posiciones largas en bonos indios frente a los mercados emergentes (EM)
Mantener posiciones largas en bonos indios frente a los mercados emergentes (EM)
Gráfico 16B
Mantener largo en India / corto en China
Manténgase largo en India / corto en China
Manténgase largo en India / corto en China
Conclusiones de inversión
Mantener operaciones refugio a corto plazo. Cerrar posiciones largas en futuros de gas natural con una ganancia del 19.8%.
Mantener una posición alcista cíclica (12 meses) con preferencia por las acciones de valor sobre las de crecimiento. Mantener posiciones largas en materias primas, incluidos los metales de tierras raras, y en mercados emergentes. Pero estar preparado para recortar estas operaciones si China sobreendurece la política según nuestros puntos de referencia.
Por ahora, continuar sobreponderando bonos indios en moneda local respecto a pares de mercados emergentes y acciones indias respecto a acciones chinas. Pero estamos revisando nuestra postura alcista sobre India.
Gráfico 17
Las acciones de ciberseguridad se animan en medio de la caída tecnológica
Las acciones de ciberseguridad repuntan en medio del desplome del sector tecnológico
Las acciones de ciberseguridad repuntan en medio del desplome del sector tecnológico
Mantener posiciones largas en acciones de ciberseguridad, aunque seguir prefiriendo aeroespacial y defensa sobre ciberseguridad como una apuesta geopolítica de “vuelta al trabajo”. Las acciones de ciberseguridad se animaron respecto al sector tecnológico durante la venta general de tecnología en la última semana. El ataque masivo de ransomware a Colonial Pipeline en EE. UU. cerró temporalmente una red importante que suministra alrededor del 45% del combustible de la Costa Este (Gráfico 17). No obstante, el ataque a la infraestructura crítica destaca que la ciberseguridad es un tema secular y los inversores deberían mantener exposición. Las acciones de ciberseguridad han superado al sector tecnológico en general desde el descubrimiento de la vacuna (Gráfico 18).
Gráfico 18
La ciberseguridad es un tema secular
La Ciberseguridad Es Un Tema Secular
La Ciberseguridad Es Un Tema Secular
Matt Gertken Vicepresidente Estrategia Geopolítica mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Asociada de investigación yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editora/Estratega Ritika.Mankar@bcaresearch.com
Highlights The Biden administration is combining Trumpian nationalism with a renewed push for US innovation in a major infrastructure bill that is highly likely to become law. Populism and Great Power struggle with China and Russia are structural forces that give enormous momentum to this effort. Don’t bet against it. President Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure and green energy plan has a subjective 80% chance of passing into law by the end of the year, as infrastructure is popular and Democrats control Congress. The net deficit increase will range from $700 billion to $1.3 trillion depending on the size of corporate tax hikes in the final bill. The second part of Biden’s plan, the roughly $2 trillion American Families Plan, has a much lower chance of passage – at best 50/50 – as the 2022 midterm elections will loom and fiscal fatigue will set in. While the US infrastructure package is a positive cyclical catalyst, it was largely expected, and the Biden administration still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea. Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk. In emerging markets, stay short Russian and Brazilian currency and assets – and continue favoring Indian stocks over Chinese. Feature The “arsenal of democracy” is a phrase that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to describe the full might of US government, industry, and labor in assisting the western allies in World War II. The US is reviving this combination of productive forces today, with President Joe Biden’s $4 trillion-plus American Jobs and Families Plan unveiled in Pittsburgh on March 31. The context is once again a global struggle among the Great Powers, albeit not world war (at least not yet … more on that below). The US is reviving its post-WWII pursuit of global liberal hegemony – symbolized by its role, growing once again, as the world’s chief consumer and chief warrior (Chart 1). Biden promoted his plan to build up the US’s infrastructure and social safety net explicitly as a historic and strategic investment – “in 50 years, people are going to look back and say this was the moment that American won the future.”1 It is critical for investors to realize that they are not witnessing another round of COVID-19 fiscal relief. That task is already completed with the Republican spending of 2020 and Biden’s own $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which together with the vaccine rollout are delivering a jolt to growth (Chart 2). Chart 1America Pursues Hegemony Anew Chart 2Consensus Expects 6.5% US GDP Growth After American Rescue Plan Our own back-of-the-envelope estimates of growth suggest that there is considerable upside risk even under current law (Chart 3). The output gap is also guesstimated here, and it will tighten faster than expected, especially as the service sector revives on economic reopening. Chart 3Back-Of-Envelope: US GDP And Output Gap Show Upside Risk After American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) A growth overshoot is even more likely considering that the first part of Biden’s proposal, the $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan consisting mostly of infrastructure and green energy, is highly likely to pass Congress (by July at earliest and December at latest, most likely late fall). Our revised estimates for the US budget deficit show that this bill will add considerably to the deficit in the coming years, peaking in three or four years, thus averting the “fiscal cliff” in 2022-23 and adding to aggregate demand in the years after the short-term COVID-era cash handouts dry up (Chart 4). The net deficit increase will be $700 billion if Biden gets all of his tax hikes and $1.3 trillion if he only gets half of them, according to our sister US Political Strategy. Chart 4US Budget Deficit Will Remain Fat In Coming Years We give Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan an 80% chance of passing through Congress by the end of the year. Infrastructure is broadly popular – as President Trump’s own $2 trillion infrastructure campaign proposal revealed – and Democrats have just enough votes to push it through the Senate via budget reconciliation, which requires zero votes from Republicans. Biden’s political capital is still strong given that his approval rating will stay above 50% as long as Trump is the obvious alternative and the Republicans are deeply divided over their own future (Chart 5).2 The second part of his plan, the $1.95 trillion American Families Plan, is much less likely to pass before the 2022 midterm elections – we would say 50/50 odds at best, if the infrastructure deal passes quickly. Chart 5Biden’s Political Capital Is Sufficient To Pass Another Major Law Of course there are very important differences between Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure plan and the similarly sized proposal that Trump would have unveiled this month had he been re-elected: Biden’s proposal is probably heavier on innovation and research and development, and certainly heavier on unionization and labor regulation, than Trump’s would have been. Biden’s plan integrates infrastructure with sustainability, renewable energy, and climate change initiatives that will help the US catch up with Europe and China on the green front. The plan will consist of direct government spending – rather than government seed money to promote private investment. It will be partially offset by repealing the corporate tax cuts in Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Most importantly – from a geopolitical point of view – Biden is making a bid for the US to resume its post-WWII quest for global liberal hegemony. He argued that the US stands at the crossroads of a global choice between “democracies and autocracies” and that rebuilding US infrastructure is ultimately about proving that democracies can create consensus and “deliver for their people.” Autocratic regimes, fairly or not, routinely call attention to the divisiveness of modern party politics in the West and the resulting policy gridlock which produces bad outcomes for many citizens, resulting in greater domestic dysfunction and “chaos.” It is important to note that this bid for hegemony will be more, not less, destabilizing for global politics as it will make the US economy more self-sufficient and insulated from the world. It will intensify the US-China and US-Russia strategic competition while making it more difficult for Biden to conduct bilateral diplomacy with these states given their differences in moral values and frequent human rights violations. What is happening now is the culmination of political shifts that pre-date the pandemic, but were galvanized by the pandemic, and it is of global, geopolitical significance for the coming decade and beyond.3 Biden and the establishment Democrats – embattled by populism on their right and left flanks – are shamelessly coopting President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” nationalism with a larger-than-life, infrastructure-and-manufacturing initiative that emphasizes productivity as well as “Buy American” protectionism. Biden explicitly argued that Americans need to boost innovation to “put us in a position to win the global competition with China in the upcoming years.” At Biden’s first press conference on March 25, he made a similar point about China: So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.4 The US trade deficit is set to widen a lot further under this massive domestic buildout. It aims to be the largest government investment program since Dwight Eisenhower’s building of the highways or the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon space race. But it explicitly aims to diminish China’s role as a supplier of US goods and materials and the US trade deficit already shows evidence of economic divorce (Chart 6). The US is bound to have a larger trade deficit due to its own savings-and-investment imbalances but it has a powerful interest in redistributing this trade deficit to its allies and reducing over-dependency on China, which is itself pursuing strategic self-sufficiency and military modernization in anticipation of an ongoing rivalry this century. Chart 6Biden's Coopts Trump's Trade And Manufacturing Agenda Bottom Line: Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan has an 80% chance of passing Congress later this year with a net increase to the fiscal thrust of between $700 billion and $1.3 trillion, depending on how many and how high the corporate tax hikes. The other $2 trillion social spending part of Biden’s plan has only a 50/50 chance of passage. The infrastructure and green energy rebuild should be understood as a return of Big Government motivated by populism and Great Power competition – it is a geopolitical theme with enormous momentum. The result will be faster US growth and higher inflation expectations, with the upside risk of a productivity boom (or boomlet) from the combination of public and private sector innovation. Investors should not bet against the cyclical bull market even though any increase in long-term potential GDP is speculative. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis And The Cuban Missile Crisis Biden’s American Jobs Plan reserves $50 billion for US semiconductor manufacturing, a vast sum, larger than expectations and far larger than the relatively small public investments that helped revolutionize the US chip industry in the 1980s. But it will take a long time for these investments to pay off in the form of secure and redundant supply chains, while a semiconductor shortage is raging today that is already entangled with the US-China rivalry and tensions over the Taiwan Strait. The risk of a diplomatic or military incident is urgent because the chip shortage exacerbates China’s vulnerabilities at a time when the Biden administration is about to make critical decisions regarding the tightness of new export controls that cut off China’s access to US semiconductor chips, equipment, and parts. If the Biden administration appears to pursue a full-fledged tech blockade, as the Trump administration seemed bent on doing, then China will retaliate economically or militarily. Before going further we should point out that there are still areas of potential US-China cooperation under the Biden administration that could reduce tensions this year (though not over the long run). Biden and Xi Jinping might meet virtually as early as this month to discuss carbon emission reduction targets. Meanwhile China is positioning itself to serve as power-broker on two major foreign policy challenges – Iran and North Korea. Biden expressly seeks Chinese and Russian assistance based on the mutual interest in nuclear non-proliferation. Notably, Beijing’s renewed strategic dealings with Iran over the past month highlight its confidence that Biden does not have the appetite to stick with Trump’s “maximum pressure” but rather will seek to reduce sanctions and restore the 2015 nuclear deal. Hence China will seek to parlay influence over Tehran in exchange for reduced US pressure on its trade and economy (Chart 7). Beijing is making a similar offer on North Korea. Chart 7China Holds The Key To Iran, As With North Korea? Ironically both Iranian and North Korean geopolitical tensions should skyrocket in the short term since high-stakes negotiations are beginning, even though they are ultimately more manageable risks than the mega-risk of US-China conflict over Taiwan. China cannot gain the advanced technology it needs to achieve a strategic breakthrough if the US should impose a total tech blockade, e.g. draconian export controls enforced on US allies. Yet it is highly unlikely to gain the tech by seizing Taiwan, since war would likely destroy the computer chip fabrication plants and provoke global sanctions that would crush its economy. The result is that China is launching a massive campaign of domestic production and indigenous innovation while circumventing US restrictions through cyber and other means. Still, a dangerous strategic asymmetry is looming because the US will retain access to the most advanced computer chips via its alliances and on-shoring, whereas China will remain vulnerable to a tech blockade via Taiwan. This brings us to our chief global geopolitical risk: a US-China showdown in the Taiwan Strait. Highlighting the urgency of the risk, Admiral John Aquilino, the nominee for Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that China might not wait six years to attack Taiwan: “My opinion is that this problem is much closer to us than most think and we have to take this on.”5 To illustrate the calculus of such a showdown – and our reasons for maintaining an alarmist tone and building up market hedges and safe-haven investments – we turn to game theory. Game theory is not a substitute for empirical analysis but a tool to formalize complex international systems with multiple decision-makers. An obvious yet fair analogy to a US-China-Taiwan crisis is the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.6 The standard construction of the Cuban missile crisis in game theory goes as follows: if the US maintains a blockade and the Soviets withdraw their missiles a compromise is achieved and war is averted; if the US conducts air strikes and the Soviets maintain or use their missiles then war ensues. The payouts to each player are shown in the matrix in Diagram 1. Diagram 1Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 One concern about this construction is that the payouts may underestimate the costs of war since nuclear arms could be used. We insert a comment into the diagram highlighting that the payouts could be altered to account for nuclear war. Note that this alteration does not change the final outcome: the equilibrium scenario is still US blockade and Soviet withdrawal, which is what happened in reality. If we model a US-China-Taiwan conflict along similar lines, the US takes the role of the Soviet Union while China stands where the US stood in 1962 (Diagram 2). This is a theoretical scenario in which the US offers Taiwan a decisive improvement in its security or offensive military capabilities. However, because of the unique circumstances of the Chinese civil war, in which the victors established the People’s Republic of China in Beijing in 1949 and the defeated forces retreated to Taiwan, China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in any showdown over Taiwan. If Beijing suffered a defeat that secured Taiwan’s independence while degrading Beijing’s regime legitimacy and security, the Chinese regime might not survive the domestic blowback.7 Diagram 2Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis – What Happens If The US Offers Game-Changing Military Support To Taiwan? Thus we reduce the Chinese payout in the case of American victory. In the top right cell of Diagram 2, the row player’s payout falls from two points (2ppt) in the first diagram to one point (1ppt) in this diagram. This seemingly slight change entirely alters the outcome of the game. Beijing now faces equally bad outcomes in the event of defeat, whereas victory remains preferable to a tie. Therefore as long as China believes that the US will not resort to nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan (a reasonable assessment) then it may make the mistake of opting for military force to ensure victory. Fortunately for global investors the US is not providing Taiwan with game-changing military capabilities, although it is ultimately up to China to decide what threatens its security and the US is in the process of upgrading Taiwan’s defense in an effort to deter Beijing from forceful reunification. Thus the exercise demonstrates why we do not expect immediate war – no game-changer yet – but at the same time it shows why war is much likelier than the consensus holds if the military or political status quo changes in a way that China deems strategically unacceptable. A lower-degree Taiwan crisis should be expected – i.e. one in which the US maintains tech restrictions, offers arms sales or military training that do not upend the military balance, or signs free trade agreements or other significant upgrades to the US-Taiwan relationship.8 We would give a 60% probability to some kind of crisis over the next 12-24 months. The global equity market could at least suffer a 10% correction in a standard geopolitical crisis and it could easily fall 20% if US-China war appears more likely. What would trigger a full-fledged Taiwan war? We would grow even more alarmed if we saw one of three major developments: Chinese internal instability giving rise to a still more aggressive regime; the US providing Taiwan with offensive military capabilities; or Taiwan seeking formal political independence. The first is fairly likely, the second lends itself to miscalculation, and the third is unlikely. But it would only take one or two of these to increase the war risk dramatically. Bottom Line: The Taiwan Strait is still the critical geopolitical risk and Biden’s policy on China is still unclear. Iranian and North Korean tensions will escalate in the short run but the fundamental crisis lies in Taiwan. Since some kind of showdown is likely and war cannot be ruled out we advise clients to accumulate safe-haven assets like the Japanese yen and otherwise not to bet headlong against the US dollar until it loses momentum. Emerging Markets Round-Up In this section we will briefly update some important emerging market themes and views: Chart 8Favor USMCA Over Putin's Russia Russia: US-Russia tensions are escalating in the face of Biden’s reassertion of the US bid for liberal hegemony, which poses a direct threat to Russia’s influence in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is expected to see a renewed conflict this spring. The top US and Russian military commanders spoke on the phone for the second time this year after Ukrainian military reports indicated that Russia is amassing forces on the border. We also assign a 50/50 chance that the US will use sanctions to prevent the completion of the NordStream II pipeline from Russia to Germany, an event that would shake up the German election as well as provoke a Russian backlash. The Russian ruble has suffered a long slide since Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 and the country’s currency and equities have not staged much of a comeback amid the global cyclical upswing and commodity price rally post-COVID. We recommend investors favor the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso as oil plays in the context of American stimulus and persistent Russian geopolitical risk (Chart 8). We also favor developed market European stocks over emerging Europe, which will suffer from renewed US-Russia tensions. Brazil: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s domestic political troubles are metastasizing as expected – the rally-around-the-flag effect in the face of COVID-19 has faded and his popular approval rating now looks dangerously like President Trump’s did, relative to previous presidents, which is an ominous warning for the “Trump of the South,” who faces an election in October 2022 (Chart 9). The COVID-19 deaths are skyrocketing, with intensive care units reaching critical levels across the country. The president has reshuffling his cabinet, including all three heads of the military in an unprecedented disruption that compounds fears about his willingness to politicize the military.9 Meanwhile the judicial system looks likely (but not certain) to clear former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to run against Bolsonaro for the presidency, a potent threat (Chart 10). Bolsonaro’s three pillars of political viability have cracked under the pandemic: the country remains disorderly, the systemic corruption and the “Car Wash” scandal under the former ruling party are no longer at the center of public focus, and fiscal stimulus has replaced structural reform. Chart 9Brazil: Will ‘Trump Of The South’ Face Trump’s Fate? Our Brazilian GeoRisk Indicator has reached a peak with Bolsonaro’s crisis – and likely breaking of the fiscal spending growth cap put in place at the height of the political crisis in 2016 – while Brazilian equities relative to emerging markets have hit a triple bottom (Chart 11). It is too soon for investors to buy into Brazil given that the political upheaval can get worse before it gets better and a Lula administration is no cure for Brazil’s public debt crisis, though a short-term technical rally is at hand. Chart 10Brazil’s Lula Looks To Be A Contender In 2022? Chart 11Brazil: Policy Risk Peaks, Equities Hit Triple-Bottom Versus EM India: A lot has happened since we last updated our views on India, South Asia, and the broader Indian Ocean basin. Farmer protests broke out in India, forcing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to temporarily suspend his much-needed structural reforms to the agricultural sector, while China-backed military coup broke out in Myanmar, and the US election set up a return to negotiations with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire, despite boiling tensions over India’s decision to make Jammu and Kashmir a federal union territory. The ceasefire is temporary but it does highlight a changing geopolitical dynamic in the region. India and Pakistan ceased fire along the Line of Control where they have fought many times. The ceasefire does not resolve core problems – Pakistan will not stop supporting militant proxies and India will not grant Kashmir autonomy – but it does show their continued ability to manage the intensity of disputes while dealing with the global pandemic. An earlier sign of coordination occurred after the exchange of air strikes in early 2019, which preceded the Indian election and suggested that India and Pakistan had the ability to control their military encounters. India’s move to revoke the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, along with various militant operations, created the basis for another major conflict this year. After all, the Kargil war in 1999 followed nuclear weaponization, while the 2008 conflict followed the Mumbai attack. But instead India and Pakistan have agreed to a temporary truce. A major India-Pakistan conflict would be a “black swan” as nobody is expecting it at this point. Not coincidentally, India and China also reduced tensions after the flare-up in their Himalayan territorial disputes in 2020. China may be reducing tensions now that it no longer has to distract its population from Trump and the US election. China is shifting its focus to the Myanmar coup, another area where it hopes to parlay its influence with a Biden administration preoccupied with democracy and human rights. Sino-Indian tensions will resume later, especially as China continues its infrastructure construction at the farthest reaches of its territory for the sake of economic stimulus, internal control, and military logistics. The Biden administration is adopting the Trump administration’s efforts to draw India into a democratic alliance. But more urgently it is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan and cut a deal with Iran, which means it will need Indian and Pakistani cooperation and will want India to play a supportive role. Typically India eschews alliances and it will disapprove of Biden’s paternalism. For both China and Pakistan, making a temporary truce with India discourages it from synching up relations with the US immediately. Still, we expect India to cooperate more closely with the US over time, both on economic and security matters. This includes a beefed up “Quad” (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) with Japan and Australia, which already have strong economic ties with India. Biden’s attempt to frame US foreign policy as a global restoration of democracy and liberalism will not go very far if he alienates the largest democracy in the world and in Asia. Nor will his attempt to diversify the US economy away from China or counter China’s regional assertiveness. Therefore Biden will have to take a supportive role on US-India ties. We are sticking with our contrarian long India / short China equity trade (Chart 12). India cannot achieve its geopolitical goals without reforming its economy and for that very reason it will redouble its structural reform drive, which is supported by changing voting patterns in favor of accelerating nationwide economic development. India will also receive a tailwind from the US and its allies as they seek to diversify production sources and reduce supply chain dependency on China, at least for health, defense, and tech. Meanwhile China’s government is pursing import substitution, deleveraging, and conflict with its neighbors and the United States. While Chinese equities are much cheaper than Indian equities on a P/E basis, they are not as pricey on a P/B and P/S basis (Chart 13) – and valuation trends can continue under the current macro and geopolitical backdrop. Indian equities are more volatile but from a long-term and geopolitical point of view, India’s moment has arrived. Chart 12Contrarian Trade: Stick To Long India / Short China Bottom Line: Stay long Indian equities relative to Chinese and stay short Russian and Brazilian currencies and assets. These views are based on political and geopolitical themes that will remain relevant over the long run but are also seeing short-term confirmation. Chart 13Indian Stocks Not As Over-Priced On Price-To-Book, Price-To-Sales Investment Takeaways To conclude we want to highlight two investment takeaways. First, while the market has rallied in expectation of the US stimulus package, Biden must now get the package passed. This roller coaster process, combined with the inevitable European recovery once the vaccine rollout gets on its feet (Chart 14), will power an additional rally in cyclicals, value stocks, and commodities. This is true as long as China does not tighten monetary and fiscal policy too abruptly, a risk we have highlighted in previous reports. Chart 14Europe's Vaccination Problem While the US is pursuing “Buy American” provisions within its stimulus package, its growing trade deficit shows that it will be forced to import goods and services to meet its surging demand. This is beneficial for its nearest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, and Europe – as well as China substitutes further afield in some cases. Our European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary has pointed out the opportunities lurking in Europe at a time when vaccine troubles and lockdowns are clouding the medium-term economic view, which is brightening. He recommends going long the “laggard” sectors and sub-sectors that have not benefited much relative to “leaders” that rallied sharply in the wake of last year’s stimulus, vaccine discovery, and defeat of President Trump (Chart 15). The laggard sectors are primed to outperform on rising US interest rates and decelerating Chinese economy as well (Chart 16). Therefore we recommend going long his basket of Euro Area laggards and short the leaders. Chart 15Europe’s Laggards And Leaders Chart 16Macro Forces Favor The Laggards over the Leaders Chart 17Will OPEC 2.0 Maintain Production Discipline To Keep Oil Supplies Tight? Commodities – especially base metals – will continue to benefit from the global and European reopening as well as the US infrastructure buildout, assuming that China does not shoot its economy in the foot. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy highlights that global oil prices should remain in a $60-$80 per barrel range over the coming years on the back of tight supply/demand balances and ongoing OPEC 2.0 production management (Chart 17). We continue to see upside oil price risks in the first half of the year but downside risks in the second half. The US pursuit of a deal with Iran may trigger sparks initially – i.e. unplanned supply outages – but this will be followed by increased supply from Iran and/or OPEC 2.0 as a deal becomes evident. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 White House, "Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan," Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 2 A bipartisan bill is conceivably, barely, since Republicans face pressure to join with such a popular bill, but they cannot accept the corporate tax hikes, unionization, or green boondoggles that will inevitably occur. 3 The pandemic and President Trump’s hands-off attitude toward it helped galvanize this revival of Big Government, but the revival was already well on its way prior to the pandemic. 4 White House, "Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference," March 25, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 5 Again, "the most dangerous concern is that of a military force against Taiwan," though he implied that Beijing would wait until after the February 2022 Winter Olympics before taking action. He requested that the US urgently increase regional military defense. See Senate Armed Services Committee, "Nomination – Aquilino," March 23, 2021, armed-services.senate.gov. 6 At that time the Soviet Union stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba that threatened the US homeland directly and sent a convoy to make the missile installation permanent. The US imposed a blockade. A showdown ensued, at great risk of war, until the Soviets withdrew and the Americans made some compromises regarding missiles in Turkey. 7 Note that this was not the case for the US in 1962: Cuba did not have special significance for the legitimacy of the American republic and the American regime would have survived a defeat in the showdown, although its security would have been greatly compromised. 8 Taiwan is proposing to buy a missile segment enhancement for its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile defense system for delivery in 2025, though this is not yet confirmed by the Biden administration. See for example Yimou Lee, "Taiwan To Buy New U.S. Air Defence Missiles To Guard Against China," Reuters, March 31, 2021, reuters.com. 9 See Monica Gugliano, "I Will Intervene! The Day Bolsonaro Decided To Send Troops To The Supreme Court," Folha de São Paulo, August 2020, piaui.folha.uol.com.br.
Highlights China and India periodically fight each other on their fuzzy Himalayan border with zero market consequences. A major conflict is possible in the current environment – but it would present a buying opportunity. Chinese escalation with India would not have a negative impact on global trade and economy, unlike escalation with the US or its East Asian allies. If China gets into a major conflict with India, it is less likely to stage major military actions in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. It would reduce much more significant geopolitical risks. Go strategically long Indian pharmaceuticals. Feature India and China have engaged in their first deadly military clash since 1967. An Indian colonel and at least 20 troops died in fighting on June 15 in the Galwan Valley, Ladakh, where territorial disputes have heated up over the past month.At least 50 Chinese troops are estimated dead.1 Chart 1Regional Equities May Not Shrug Off War In Himalayas ... At First It was a minor incident. No shots were fired. Combatants used stones and knives and threw each other off cliffs. However, the occasion of the battle was a negotiation to de-escalate tensions, and talks have gone on since June 3. So that bodes ill. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has not responded but China’s foreign ministry is making conciliatory remarks. Normally India-China border clashes occur during the summer, when weather permits, and do not last long and do not impact the rest of the world, either politically or financially. However, the structural and cyclical drivers of the conflict suggest it could escalate over the summer. A major escalation between nuclear powers is unlikely but could conceivably cause volatility in global financial markets. Global equity investors are focused on other things (COVID-19, global stimulus), but recent volatility suggests that Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani bourses could be vulnerable to any major military escalation (Chart 1). However, a Himalayan-inspired selloff would be short-lived and would present a buying opportunity. India-China tensions are far less relevant to global financial markets than China’s disputes with the United States in East Asia. If the US uses India as a pretext for tougher actions on China, then that is a different story. But it is unlikely for reasons explained below. Our base case strategic assessment of India remains the same: Chinese expansionism will pressure India to speed up economic development to gain greater influence in South Asia. India will also pursue better trade and defense relations with the United States and its allies in East Asia and the Pacific. We are tactically cautious on global equities, but strategically we expect equities to beat bonds and cyclicals to beat defensives. Selloffs stemming from Himalayan conflict will create buying opportunities for emerging market equities, especially India. The Drivers Of The Ladakh Skirmish India and China have a 2,170-mile border in the Himalayan mountains that is disputed in India’s northwest (Aksai Chin) and northeast (Sikkim; Arunachal Pradesh). These border disputes have simmered for decades and occasionally flare into violent incidents, usually meaningless. An India-China border war could occur, but is unlikely. Today’s clashes are mostly taking place in eastern Ladakh, as with disputes in 2013-14. Minor incidents have also occurred in India’s northeast (Naku La, Sikkim). These may be unrelated, but they may also suggest a broad India-China border conflict is in the works (Map 1). Map 1India And China Often Fight Over Undefined Himalayan Border When Ice Melts There is always a local spark for clashes along the Line of Actual Control. These tend to be triggered by infrastructure construction or military patrols that cross the countries’ various border claims. Typically China triggers the incident as it is always pouring more money and concrete into new structures to solidify its territorial claims, whereas India’s resources are more limited. However, in recent years India has grown more capable. Both sides may also be surging infrastructure spending amid the recession (Chart 2). Chart 2China No Longer Alone In Nation-Building In Himalayas Chart 3China's Slower Growth Jeopardizes Communist Party Legitimacy In the current dispute both sides claim the other broke the peace. Indian builders supposedly violated China’s space while working on the Darbuk-Shayok-DBO road which connects to an airfield near Galwan Valley, the site of the clash. But the Indian side argues that Chinese military forces have ventured several miles from their usual outposts and amassed major forces on their side suggesting they are preparing for a bigger effort to expand their control of territory. 2 We may never know who “started” it. There is no clear border and even the Line of Actual Control is hard to define.3 Investors should not confuse the proximate cause of this conflict for the underlying cause. There are structural and cyclical factors at work on both sides: 1. China’s declining domestic stability and rising international assertiveness. The crises of 2008, 2015, 2018-19, and 2020 have caused a hard break in China’s economic model. Slower trend growth jeopardizes the Communist Party’s long-term monopoly on power (Chart 3). The Xi Jinping administration has responded to each crisis by tightening the party’s grip and reasserting central Beijing control. This is true at home, in peripheral territories like Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and abroad, as in the South China Sea and the Belt and Road Initiative. Territorial disputes have flared up across China’s borders. India is no exception, with incidents in 2013, 2014, 2017, and now 2020 marking the change (Table 1). Table 1China’s Territorial Assertiveness Triggers Clashes With India The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor strengthens the alliance between these two countries and deepens India’s insecurities. India perceives China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a threat of economic and eventually military encirclement. In 2017, the Doklam dispute between China, Bhutan, and India – which lasted over two months – served to distract the Chinese populace from a major increase in US pressure on China’s periphery. That was President Trump’s “fire and fury” campaign to intimidate North Korea into entering nuclear negotiations (Chart 4). In 2020, China faces its first recessionary environment since the mid-1970s as well as rocky relations with the United States over trade, technology, Hong Kong, North Korea again, and possibly even the Taiwan Strait. It is a convenient time to turn the public’s attention to the Himalayas. Chart 4China's Last Dispute With India Occurred During US-North Korea Tensions 2. India’s emerging national consensus and international coming-of-age. India’s rise as a global power has accelerated since the Great Recession, especially after oil prices fell in 2014. Prime Minister Modi has won two smashing general elections with single-party majorities, in 2014 and 2019. His movement also maintains the upper hand in state legislatures, which is important given that India’s weak federal government cannot simply force structural reforms onto the country (Map 2). Modi’s electoral success reflects a deeper national consensus on the need for stronger central leadership, faster economic development, deeper international trade and investment ties, and pro-efficiency reforms such as the creation of a single market. The policy retreat from globalization benefits insular and service-oriented economies like India at the expense of mercantilist trading powers such as China. America’s pivot to Asia and “Indo-Pacific” strategy create a chance for India to attract investment as multinational corporations diversify away from China (Chart 5). Map 2Modi’s Political Capital At State-Level Chart 5India Attracts Investment As Supply Chains Diversify From China Chart 6US And India Fiscal Stimulus Enable Supply Chain Shift Out Of China In August 2019, after Modi’s big election victory, he launched an ambitious agenda of state-building. He converted the autonomous region of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories under New Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This change of status quo angered China and Pakistan, which felt their own territory threatened. Chinese territorial pressure could be retribution for these administrative reforms. China and Pakistan will also want to undermine Modi’s party in upcoming elections for the state assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. China’s territorial encroachments reflect its desire to gain control of the entire Aksai Chin plateau. India does not want China to gain such a strategic advantage at the head of the Indus River and valley. The global pandemic and recession reinforced these structural and cyclical trends by pushing both India and China to use nationalist devices to divert their populations from domestic ills. The use of fiscal stimulus across the world enables leaders to pursue risky strategic policies (Chart 6). There is also a tactical issue: India took over the chairmanship of the World Health Assembly in May, while the US is lobbying on behalf of Taiwan’s long desire to be represented in the World Health Organization in the wake of COVID-19. China is resisting this call and could be using Ladakh as a pressure tactic.4 How Far Will Sino-Indian Conflict Escalate? Reports suggest that India and China have reinforced troops in and near Ladakh and have brought more firepower and airpower into range.5 Some of this activity, on both sides, consists of seasonal military drills. So it is not certain that a build-up is occurring. China is less constrained and more capable of escalation than India. If China continues pressing its territorial advance, or if India tries to reclaim territory or take other territory in compensation, then the fight will expand. The conflict is taking place in rocky recesses at a far remove from the rest of the world, so there is a temptation to believe that any escalation can be controlled.6 This may be false and lead to tit-for-tat escalation. Table 2Military Balance: India Versus China In Himalayas Which side faces greater constraints? China is least constrained and most capable of escalation. Over the short run, China can utilize improved military command and capabilities in the area and can control the media and political response at home. Besting India would demonstrate that all Asian territorial claimants should defer to China. However, over the long run, aggression would cement the balance-of-power alliance between the US and India. India is more constrained than China, less capable of escalation: Modi has considerable political capital, but his conventional military advantage in this area is eroding and China has the higher ground from which to stage attacks (Table 2). India’s loss in the 1962 Himalayan war with China was a national humiliation. A repeat of such an event could destroy much of Modi’s mystique as a strongman leader and national savior. In the worst-case scenario, China would demonstrate superior military capability while the US and its allies would remain utterly aloof, leaving India looking both weak and isolated. Therefore India will engage in tit-for-tat military response while seeking diplomatic de-escalation. The US lacks interest in the dispute: Trump has already offered to mediate, presumably to demonstrate his deal-making skills again before the election. But the US does not have a compelling interest in this dispute and India does not want US mediation. If Trump takes punitive measures against China it will be for other reasons. Serious punitive measures require the stock market and economy to relapse, since at the moment Trump’s average approval rating is 43% and he hopes financial and economic gains will help him recover (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Odds President Trump Will Hike Tariffs On China Before US Election The above points suggest that China can afford to escalate if it wants to show India and the rest of Asia that the US is toothless and that China’s territorial claims in Asia should not be opposed. Since COVID-19, China has been aggressive in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, despite the fact that these areas bring economic risks. The Himalayas do not. The implication is that China’s risk appetite is large, particularly in territorial disputes, and driven by social and economic pressure at home. Investment Takeaways Because India and China (and Pakistan) have nuclear arms, and because the US could get involved, it is possible that a major escalation could occur and cause volatility in global financial markets. But it would not last long and no parties will use nuclear arms over Himalayan territorial disputes. A major conflict that results in a Chinese victory would subtract from Prime Minister Modi’s political capital and hence weigh on Indian equities, which have broken down badly since COVID-19 (Chart 7). The reason is that strong political support for Modi would enable India to continue making structural economic reforms that increase productivity. Chart 7Indian Equities Underperforming Since COVID-19 Chart 8India’s Path To Regional Primacy Lies Through Economic Opening And Reform In the long run, a major conflict, especially a humiliating defeat, would accelerate India’s attempts to improve national economic prowess for the sake of strategic security. Since India cannot achieve its strategic objective of primacy in South Asia merely through military power, it will need to do so through a stronger economic pull (Chart 8). This is an impetus for structural economic reform even beyond Modi. Hence our secularly bullish outlook on India. Indian pharmaceutical equities offer an investment opportunity (Chart 9). In an attempt to address land acquisition, which is one of the biggest constraints faced by companies looking to invest in India, New Delhi has announced that it is developing an area the size of Luxembourg to attract businesses moving out of China. The government reached out to over 1,000 US companies in April with incentives for them to move their facilities to India, with a focus on industries in which India has a comparative advantage, such as medical equipment suppliers, food processing units, textiles, leather, and auto part makers. Chart 9US And Indian Stimulus Policies Will Boost Investment In Indian Pharma While India is not as economically competitive as China, it could be attractive for non-strategic industries that would not want to relocate to the US but are looking to reduce uncertainty from US-China tensions. The next round of US fiscal stimulus is also likely to contain significant provisions that will incentivize companies to relocate from China, particularly in the medical and health care sector. For global investors, while a major Sino-Indian escalation could lead to short-term volatility, it would ultimately be a positive development if Beijing vented its nationalism on a strip of earth that is not globally relevant, rather than on the seas, which are highly relevant. Conflict between the US and China in East Asia is a far greater risk than Sino-Indian conflict. Indeed Chinese and American actions over the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, or the South and East China Seas are still far more likely than Sino-Indian tensions to affect global trade and stability and financial markets this year. The US could impose sanctions on Chinese tech and trade, a military incident could occur in the Taiwan Strait, North Korea could provoke US President Donald Trump into a new round of “fire and fury” that triggers a showdown with China, or the US and China could fight a naval skirmish in the South or East China Sea. None of these options is low probability, especially surrounding the US election. Over the short run, global investors should prepare for greater equity volatility, primarily because of hiccups in delivering new stimulus in the US, EU, and China, plus US domestic political risks and US-China-Asia strategic tensions. Stay long JPY-USD. Over the long run, a global growth rebound driven by massive global fiscal and monetary stimulus will drive the US dollar to weaken, global equities to outperform bonds, and cyclicals to outperform defensives. We remain long China-sensitive plays as well as infrastructure, cyber-security, and defense stocks. Strategically, go long Indian pharmaceuticals relative to the emerging market benchmark. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Guardian, "Soldiers fell to their deaths as India and China’s troops fought with rocks," June 17, 2020. 2 See Ashley J. Tellis, "Hustling in the Himalayas: The Sino-Indian Border Confrontation," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 4, 2020. See also Mohan Guruswamy, "India-China Border Dispute: Is A Give And Take Possible Now?" South Asia Monitor, June 3, 2020. 3 The Treaty of Tingmosgang (1684) only specifies one checkpost, at the Lhari Stream near Demchok, leaving everything else to disputed Indian and Chinese claims. See Alexander Davis and Ruth Gamble, "The local cost of rising India-China tensions," June 1, 2020. 4 See Nayanima Basu, "India Isn’t Worried About Tension With China, Unlikely To Give In To US Pressure On Taiwan," May 13, 2020. 5 See Ren Feng and He Penglei, "PLA Xizang Military Command holds coordinated exercise in plateau region," China Military Online, June 15, 2020. See also "空降兵某旅积极探索远程兵力投送新模式 空地同步 奔赴高原". 6 The reason escalation is normally limited is because of the extreme difficulty of operating extended military operations and resupply at 13,000-feet altitude. Both sides have the ability to surge reinforcements and equalize the contest. The cost and difficulty of retaking lost territory is often prohibitive. And while India’s conventional military power may overbalance China in this region, China has the uphill advantage and has made leaps and bounds in operational capabilities in recent decades. In short, escalation is normally controllable. See Aidan Milliff, "Tension High, Altitude Higher: Logistical And Physiological Constraints On The Indo-Chinese Border," War On The Rocks, June 8, 2020.
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
Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.
Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy. We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can. Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst. Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity. This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). South Korea Over Taiwan Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Yes. He literally said that. Geopolitical Calendar