Elecciones

Highlights The U.S. and China are moving toward formalizing a trade ceasefire that reduces geopolitical risk in the near term. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is finished – removing a major downside to European assets. Spanish elections reinforce our narrative of general European political stability. Go long 10-year Italian BTPs / short 10-year Spanish bonos for a trade. Geopolitical risks will remain elevated in Turkey, rise in Russia, but remain subdued in Brazil. A post-mortem of Canada’s election suggests upside to fiscal spending but further downside to energy sector investment over the short to medium term. Feature After a brief spike in trade war-related geopolitical risk just prior to the resumption of U.S.-China negotiations, President Trump staged a tactical retreat in the trade war. Chart 1Proxy For Trade War Shows Falling Risk Negotiating in Washington, President Trump personally visited the top Chinese negotiator Liu He and the two sides announced an informal “phase one deal” to reverse the summer’s escalation in tensions: China will buy $40-$50 billion in U.S. agricultural goods while the U.S. will delay the October 15 tariff hike. More difficult issues – forced tech transfer, intellectual property theft, industrial subsidies – were punted to later. The RMB is up 0.7% and our own measures of trade war-related risk have dropped off sharply (Chart 1). We think these indicators will be confirmed and Trump’s retreat will continue – as long as he has a chance to save the 2020 economic outlook and his reelection campaign. Odds are low that Trump will be removed from office by a Republican-controlled senate – the looming election provides the republic with an obvious recourse for Trump’s alleged misdeeds. However, Trump’s approval rating is headed south. While it is around the same level as President Obama’s at this point in his first term, Obama’s started a steep and steady rise around now and ended above 50% for the election, a level that is difficult to foresee for Trump (Chart 2). So Trump desperately needs an economic boost and a policy victory to push up his numbers. Short of passing the USMCA, which is in the hands of the House Democrats, a deal with China is the only way to get a major economic and political win at the same time. Hence the odds of Presidents Trump and Xi actually signing some kind of agreement are the highest they have been since April (when we had them pegged at 50/50). Trump will have to delay the December 15 tariff hike and probably roll back some of the tariffs over next year as continuing talks “make progress,” though we doubt he will remove restrictions on tech companies like Huawei. Still, we strongly believe that what is coming is a détente rather than the conclusion of the Sino-American rivalry crowned with a Bilateral Trade Agreement. Strategic tensions are rising on a secular basis between the two countries. These tensions could still nix Trump’s flagrantly short-term deal-making, and they virtually ensure that some form of trade war will resume in 2021 or 2022, if indeed a ceasefire is maintained in 2020. Both sides are willing to reduce immediate economic pain but neither side wants to lose face politically. Trump will not forge a “grand compromise.” Our highest conviction view all along has been – and remains – that Trump will not forge a “grand compromise” ushering in a new period of U.S.-China economic reengagement in the medium or long term. China’s compliance, its implementation of structural changes, will be slow or lacking and difficult to verify at least until the 2020 verdict is in. This means policy uncertainty will linger and business confidence and capex intentions will only improve on the margin, not skyrocket upward (Chart 3). Chart 2Trump Needs A Policy Win And Economic Boost Chart 3Sentiment Will Improve ... Somewhat The problem for bullish investors is that even if global trade uncertainty falls, and the dollar’s strength eases, fear will shift from geopolitics to politics, and from international equities to American equities (Chart 4). Trump, hit by impeachment and an explosive reaction to his Syria policy, is entering into dangerous territory for the 2020 race. Trump’s domestic weakness threatens imminent equity volatility for two reasons. Chart 4American Outperformance Falls With Trade Tensions Chart 5Democratic Win In 2020 Is Market-Negative First, if Trump’s approval rating falls below today’s 42%, investors will begin pricing a Democratic victory in 2020, i.e. higher domestic policy uncertainty, higher taxes, and the re-regulation of the American economy (Chart 5). This re-rating may be temporarily delayed or mitigated by the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden is still leading the Democratic Party’s primary election race. Biden is a known quantity whose policies would simply restore the Obama-era status quo, which is only marginally market-negative. Contrary to our expectations Biden's polling has not broken down due to accusations of foul play in Ukraine and China. Nevertheless, Senator Elizabeth Warren will gradually suck votes away from fellow progressive Senator Bernie Sanders and in doing so remain neck-and-neck with Biden (Chart 6). When and if she pulls ahead of Biden, markets face a much greater negative catalyst. (Yes, she is also capable of beating Trump, especially if his polling remains as weak as it is.) Chart 6Warren Will Rise To Front-Runner Status With Biden Second, if Trump becomes a “lame duck” he will eventually reverse the trade retreat above and turn into a loose cannon in his final months in office. Right now we see a decline in geopolitical risk, but if the economy fails to rebound or the China ceasefire offers little support, then Trump will at some point conclude that his only chance at reelection is to double down on his confrontation with America’s enemies and run as a “war president.” A cold war crisis with China, or a military confrontation with Iran (or North Korea, Venezuela, or some unexpected target) could occur. But since September we have been confirmed in believing that Trump is trying to be the dealmaker one last time before any shift to the war president. Bottom Line: The “phase one” trade deal is really just a short-term ceasefire. Assuming it is signed by Trump and Xi, it suggests no increase in tariffs and some tariff rollback next year. However, as recessionary fears fade, and if Trump’s reelection chances stabilize, U.S.-China tensions on a range of issues will revive – and there is no getting around the longer-term conflict between the two powers. For this and other reasons, we remain strategically short RMB-USD, as the flimsy ceasefire will only briefly see RMB appreciation. BoJo's Brexit Bluff Is Finished Our U.K. indicator captured a sharp decline in political risk in the past two weeks and our continental European indicators mirrored this move (Chart 7). The risk that the U.K. would fall out of the EU without a withdrawal agreement has collapsed even further than in September, when parliament rejected Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s no-deal gambit and we went long GBP-USD. We have since added a long GBP-JPY trade. Chart 7Collapse In No-Deal Risk Will Echo Across Europe Chart 8Unlikely To See Another Tory/Brexit Rally Like This The risk of “no deal” is the only reason to care about Brexit from a macro point of view, as the difference between “soft Brexit” and “no Brexit” is not globally relevant. What matters is the threat of a supply-side shock to Europe when it is already on the verge of recession. With this risk removed, sentiment can begin to recover (and Trump’s trade retreat also confirms our base case that he will not impose tariffs on European cars on November 14). Since Brexit was the only major remaining European political risk, European policy uncertainty will continue to fall. The Halloween deadline was averted because the EU, on the brink of recession, offered a surprising concession to Johnson, enabling him to agree to a deal and put it up for a vote in parliament. The deal consists of keeping Northern Ireland in the European Customs Union but not the whole of the U.K., effectively drawing a new soft border at the Irish Sea. The bill passed the second reading but parliament paused before finalizing it, rejecting Johnson’s rapid three-day time table. The takeaway is that even if an impending election returns Johnson to power, he will seek to pass his deal rather than pull the U.K. out without a deal. This further lowers the odds of a no-deal Brexit as it illuminates Johnson's preferences, which are normally hidden from objective analysis. True, there is a chance that the no-deal option will reemerge if Johnson’s deal totally collapses due to parliamentary amendments, or if the U.K. and EU have failed to agree to a future relationship by the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020 (which can be extended until the end of 2022). However, the chance is well below the 30% which we deemed as the peak risk of no-deal back in August. Johnson created the most credible threat of a no-deal exit that we are likely to see in our lifetimes – a government with authority over foreign policy determined to execute the outcome of a popular referendum – and yet parliament stopped it dead in its tracks. Johnson does not want a no-deal recession and his successors will not want one either. After all, the support for Brexit and for the Tories has generally declined since the referendum, and the Tories are making a comeback on the prospect of an orderly Brexit (Chart 8). All eyes will now turn toward the impending election. Opinion polls still show that Johnson is likely to be returned to power (Chart 9). The Tories have a prospect of engrossing the pro-Brexit vote while the anti-Brexit opposition stands divided. No-deal risk only reemerges if the Conservatives are returned to power with another weak coalition that paralyzes parliament. Chart 9Tory Comeback As BoJo Gets A Deal Chart 10Brexit Means Greater Fiscal Policy Whatever the election result, we maintain our long-held position that Brexit portends greater fiscal largesse (Chart 10). The agitated swath of England that drove the referendum result will not be assuaged by leaving the European Union – the rewards of Brexit are not material but philosophical, so material grievances will return. Voter frustration will rotate from the EU to domestic political elites. Voters will demand more government support for social concerns. Johnson’s own government confirms this point through its budget proposals. A Labour-led government would oversee an even more dramatic fiscal shift. Our GeoRisk indicator will fall on Brexit improvements but the question of the election and next government will ensure it does not fall too far. Our long GBP trades are tactical and we expect volatility to remain elevated. But the greatest risk, of no deal, is finished, so it does make sense for investors with a long time horizon to go strategically long the pound. The greatest risk, of a no deal Brexit, is finished. Bottom Line: Brexit posed a risk to the global economy only insofar as it proved disorderly. A withdrawal agreement by definition smooths the process. Continental Europe will not suffer a further shock to net exports. The Brexit contribution to global policy uncertainty will abate. The pound will rise against the euro and yen and even against the dollar as long as Trump’s trade retreat continues. Spain: Further Evidence Of European Stability We have long argued that the majority of Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 11). This month’s protests in Barcelona following the Catalan independence leaders’ sentencing are at the lower historical range in terms of size – protest participation peaked in 2015 along with support for independence (Table 1). Table 1October Catalan Protests Unimpressive Our Spanish risk indicator is showing a decline in political risk (Chart 12). However, we believe that this fall is slightly overstated. While the Catalan independence movement is losing its momentum, the ongoing protests are having an impact on seat projections for the upcoming election.  Chart 11Catalonians Not Demanding Independence Chart 12Right-Wing Win Could Surprise Market, But No Worries Since the April election, the right-wing bloc of the People’s Party, Ciudadanos, and Vox has been gaining in the seat projections at the expense of the Socialist Party and Podemos. Over the course of the protests, the left-wing parties’ lead over the right-wing parties has narrowed from seven seats to one (Chart 13). If this momentum continues, a change of government from left-wing to right-wing becomes likely. However, a right-wing government is not a market-negative outcome, and any increase in risk on this sort of election surprise would be short-lived. The People’s Party has moderated its message and focused on the economy. Besides pledging to limit the personal tax rate to 40% and corporate tax rate to 20%, the People’s Party platform supports innovation, R&D spending, and startups. The party is promising tax breaks and easier immigration rules to firms and employees pursuing these objectives. Chart 13Spanish Right-Wing Parties Narrow Gap With Left Another outcome of the election would be a governing deal between PSOE and Podemos, along with case-by-case support from Ciudadanos. After a shift to the right lost Ciudadanos 5% in support since the April election, leader Albert Rivera announced in early October that he would be lifting the “veto” on working with the Socialist Party. If the right-wing parties fall short of a majority, then Rivera would be open to talks with Socialist leader Pedro Sanchez. A governing deal between PSOE, Podemos, and Ciudadanos would have 175 seats, as of the latest projections, which is just one seat short of a majority. As we go to press, this is the only outcome that would end Spain’s current political gridlock, and would therefore be the most market-positive outcome. Bottom Line: Despite having a fourth election in as many years, Spanish political risk is contained. This is reinforced by a relatively politically stable backdrop in continental Europe, and marginally positive developments in the U.K. and on the trade front. We remain long European versus U.S. technology, and long EU versus Chinese equities. We will also be looking to go long EUR/USD when and if the global hard data turn. Following our European Investment Strategy, we recommend going long 10-year Italian BTPs / short 10-year Spanish bonos for a trade. Turkey, Brazil, And Russia Chart 14Turkish Risk Will Rise Despite 'Ceasefire' Turkey’s political risk skyrocketed upward after we issued our warning in September (Chart 14). We maintain that the Trump-Erdogan personal relationship is not a basis for optimism regarding Turkey’s evading U.S. sanctions. Both chambers of the U.S. Congress are preparing a more stringent set of sanctions, focusing on the Turkish military, in the wake of Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northeast Syria. At a time when Trump needs allies in the senate to defend him against eventual impeachment articles, he is not likely to veto and risk an override. Moreover, Turkey’s military incursion into Syria, which may wax and wane, stems from economic and political weakness at home and will eventually exacerbate that weakness by fueling the growing opposition to Erdogan’s administration and requiring more unorthodox monetary and fiscal accommodation. It reinforces our bearish outlook on Turkish lira and assets. Chart 15Brazilian Risk Will Not Re-Test 2018 Highs Brazil’s political risk has rebounded (Chart 15). The Senate has virtually passed the pension reform bill, as expected, which raises the official retirement age for men and women to 65 and 63 respectively. This will generate upwards of 800 billion Brazilian real in savings to improve the public debt profile. Of course, the country will still run primary deficits and thus the public debt-to-GDP ratio will still rise. Now the question shifts to President Jair Bolsonaro and his governing coalition. Bolsonaro’s approval rating has ticked up as we expected (Chart 16). If this continues then it is bullish for Brazil because it suggests that he will be able to keep his coalition together. But investors should not get ahead of themselves. Bolsonaro is not an inherently pro-market leader, there is no guarantee that he will remain disciplined in pursuing pro-productivity reforms, and there is a substantial risk that his coalition will fray without pension reform as a shared goal (at least until markets riot and push the coalition back together). Therefore we expect political risk to abate only temporarily, if at all, before new trouble emerges. Furthermore, if reform momentum wanes next year, then Brazil’s reform story as a whole will falter, since electoral considerations emerge in 2021-22. Hence it will be important to verify that policymakers make progress on reforms to tax and trade policy early next year. Our Russian geopolitical risk indicator is also lifting off of its bottom (see Appendix). This makes sense given Russia’s expanding strategic role (particularly in the Middle East), its domestic political troubles, and the risks of the U.S. election. The latter is especially significant given the risk (not our base case, however) that a Democratic administration could take a significantly more aggressive posture toward Russia. Political risk in Turkey and Russia will continue to rise. Bottom Line: Political risk in Turkey and Russia will continue to rise. Russia is a candidate for a “black swan” event, given the eerie quiet that has prevailed as Putin devotes his fourth term to reducing domestic political instability. Brazil, on the other hand, has a 12-month window in which reform momentum can be reinforced, reducing whatever spike in risk occurs in the aftermath of the ruling coalition’s completion of pension reform. Canada: Election Post-Mortem Prime Minister Justin Trudeau returned to power at the head of a minority government in Canada’s federal election (Chart 17). The New Democratic Party (NDP) lost 15 seats from the last election, but will have a greater role in parliament as the Liberals will need its support to pass key agenda items (and a formal governing coalition is possible). The NDP’s result would have been even worse if not for its last-minute surge in the polls after the election debates and Trudeau’s “blackface” scandal. Chart 17Liberals Need The New Democrats Now The Conservative Party won the popular vote but only 121 seats in parliament, leaving the western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan aggrieved. The Bloc Québécois, the Quebec nationalist party, gained 22 seats to become the third-largest party in the House. Energy investment faces headwinds in the near-term. The Liberal Party will face resistance from the Left over the Trans Mountain pipeline. Trudeau will not necessarily have to sacrifice the pipeline to appease the NDP. He may be able to work with Conservatives to advance the pipeline while working with the NDP on the rest of his agenda. But on the whole the election result is the worst-case scenario for the oil sector and political questions will have to be resolved before Canada can take advantage of its position as a heavy crude producer near the U.S. Gulf refineries in an era in which Venezuela is collapsing and Saudi Arabia is exposed to geopolitical risk and attacks. More broadly, the Liberals will continue to endorse a more expansive fiscal policy than expected, given Canada’s low budget deficits and the need to prevent minor parties from eating away at the Liberal Party’s seat count in future. Bottom Line: The Liberal Party failed to maintain its single-party majority. Trudeau’s reliance on left-wing parties in parliament may prove market-negative for the Canadian energy sector, though that is not a forgone conclusion. Over the longer term the sector has a brighter future.   Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Appendix GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The investors we met last week were ready to hear some good news: The constructive story we told across three days of client meetings is more sanguine than the consensus view, but clients were open to considering it. Global economic weakness and the elevated risk of a U.S. recession were primary concerns, … : As our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have suggested, it will take some time for investors to be convinced that global manufacturing really has seen the bottom and that the U.S. isn’t flirting with a recession. … followed by trade tensions and corporate indebtedness, … : Our small sample suggests that investors may have become de-sensitized to the daily ebb and flow of the U.S.-China conflict, though we continue to believe it looms large in the minds of corporate managements. … but nothing matches the anxiety provoked by Elizabeth Warren’s ascent: Every client asked about the potential consequences of a Warren White House. Feature We spent most of last week meeting with a subset of wealth management and family office clients. They are more focused on absolute returns than relative returns, but their primary concerns are nearly identical to their relative-return peers’. Our meetings touched on a broad constellation of questions about the fate of the expansion, the equity bull market, global growth and the U.S.-China trade negotiations. Clients also asked about the credit outlook and if inflation should be on their radar, but the topic that they raised with the most fervor, in every single one of our meetings, was the prospect of a Warren or Sanders presidency. Q: What is the bond market telling us? We think of the bond market as having two distinct components, rates (Treasuries) and credit (spread product). We have gotten used to regular retracements in the 10-year Treasury yield since it bottomed in July 2016, but watching it melt from 3.25% last November to 1.5% this August has challenged our constructive take on the U.S. economy. Falling yields are not necessarily signaling imminent economic trouble, however, so we continue to hold the view that a recession won’t occur before late 2021 or early 2022. We see this year’s falling Treasury yields as a coincident reflection of decelerating growth, not a harbinger of a recession. On a purely domestic basis, the principal driver of the decline in yields has been the shift in monetary policy expectations. The Fed’s dovish pivot did not occur in a vacuum, of course. Clear signs of decelerating growth set the stage for easier policy, both here and abroad. Whether or not the Fed was always calling the tune, all three step-function declines in 12-month forward fed funds rate expectations occurred as it was guiding markets to expect easier policy: ahead of the March FOMC meeting, when Fed speakers began warning of the danger of inflation expectations becoming unanchored on the downside; in May, when they were busily preparing the ground for a rate cut; and after the July meeting raised the prospect that the July cut would not be a one-off event (Chart 1). Chart 1The Fed's Dovish Pivot, ... Sovereign rates are not entirely determined domestically, and much of the softness in Treasury yields reflects the softness in yields in the rest of the world. So far this year, 10-year sovereign yields have moved in lockstep on either side of the Atlantic (Chart 2), preserving no-arbitrage conditions in currency-hedged Treasuries, gilts and bunds. Crude prices are another global variable, and their decline has weighed on inflation break-even rates (Chart 3), dampening the inflation compensation demanded by Treasury buyers. From a rates perspective, we think the bond market is telling us that global growth has slowed, central banks have taken monetary accommodation up a notch, and oil prices have slid. That’s not exactly an ideal growth backdrop, but it hardly spells the end of the expansion. Chart 2... And European Sovereigns' Gravitational Pull Have Dragged Treasury Yields Lower The credit market concurs. It doesn’t betray a whit of concern that the expansion is in trouble. Spreads quickly unwound last year’s fourth-quarter spike, and have since hung around their post-crisis lows (Chart 4). Non-financial corporations have become more indebted throughout the expansion, but servicing the debt is not at all onerous with yields at rock-bottom levels (Chart 5). Our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s proprietary corporate health monitor is signaling that corporate balance sheets have weakened (Chart 6, third panel), but the other elements required for a meaningful widening of spreads – a completed monetary tightening cycle1 (Chart 6, second panel), and a tightening of lending standards (Chart 6, bottom panel) – are not yet in place. Chart 3Falling Oil Prices Have Smothered Inflation Worries Chart 4Spreads Are Tight, ...   Chart 5... And Debt Service Is Easy Q: Isn’t it time to reduce credit exposures? Tight spreads may be a contrarian warning sign. Though it is sensible to shift some of a company’s financing burden to debt when it is so much cheaper than equity, combining a larger debt burden with degraded covenant protections is a concern. Low interest rates will keep debt service costs from chafing, and help keep defaults in check for now, but the bond market is increasingly vulnerable. Chart 6Spread Widening Conditions Aren't Yet In Place Chart 7Income Investors Need Not Apply Despite that vulnerability, when the next default cycle arrives, it will not have anywhere near the impact of the housing bust because it will deal no more than a glancing blow to the banks. Single-family homes collateralize the American banking system; corporate bonds are held by a diffuse assortment of unlevered players. It stinks for any unlevered investor when it loses money, but it doesn’t cause much of a ripple in the overall economy. Today’s buildup in corporate borrowing is not analogous to 2006-7’s residential mortgage Superfund site, and suggestions to the contrary are ill-founded. Elevated corporate leverage is a vulnerability, but it is not enough for an investor to identify a vulnerability; s/he also has to identify the catalyst that will cause it to snap. Nonfinancial corporate debt levels are a fissure that has been made longer by debauched covenants. Markets won’t suffer until the fissure lengthens and widens enough to turn into a crack that no investor can ignore. It is our view that easy monetary conditions will keep the fissure out of sight and out of mind for several months at least. Defaults only occur when a borrower is unable to refinance its maturing obligations. As long as there is at least one lender willing to extend new credit at manageable terms, the borrower won’t go bust. The current monetary policy backdrop, featuring zero/negative interest rate policy in much of the major economies, all but ensures a steady supply of willing lenders. Life insurers, pension funds and endowments with a need for income to offset fixed liabilities have been forced out the risk curve to source income sufficient to meet them (Chart 7). The net result has been to provide even wobbly credits offering an incremental 50 or 75 basis points with a line of would-be lenders out the door and around the corner. The global manufacturing sector has already succumbed to recession, but stout performance in the service sector has allowed developed economies to keep expanding. The weakest credits will not find lifelines, but plenty of dubious ones will. The current ultra-loose monetary policy environment is simply not a backdrop in which defaults pick up in earnest. Until central banks get a little less prodigal, the marginal lender won’t become more selective, the plates will keep spinning, and spread product will continue to generate excess returns over cash and Treasuries. Q: Things look worse outside the U.S. What’s your global growth outlook? Chart 8Manufacturing May Be Bottoming, ... The global manufacturing sector is in recession, but the overall global economy is not (Chart 8). A manufacturing recession does not necessarily lead to a full-blown recession, and the ongoing expansion in developed economies’ much larger service sector provides a formidable bulwark against manufacturing’s struggles (Chart 9). While it is too early to conclude if or when global activity will accelerate, our global leading economic indicator, and the diffusion index that leads it, suggest that it is in the process of bottoming (Chart 10). Chart 9... And Services May Have Stopped Decelerating ... Chart 10... If Leading Indicators Have Found A Footing Chart 11From Headwind To Tailwind Our China Investment Strategy team sees scope for Chinese growth to gather some steam in the first quarter of 2020, when local governments will be freed from the budget constraints imposed by Beijing through the end of this year. In the meantime, September money and credit growth topped expectations, and policymakers have been undertaking modest stimulus measures like trimming bank reserve requirement ratios. Changes in Chinese credit growth lead changes in global growth (Chart 11), via China’s credit-reliant import channel. Its imports are Europe’s, Japan’s, Asian EMs’, and Australia’s, Brazil’s and Chile’s exports. As their exports rise, so too does their aggregate demand, giving rise to a self-reinforcing virtuous circle. Q: What would President Warren mean for markets? Investors’ concerns about a Warren presidency are surely justified; Senator Warren has openly, and often gleefully, expressed hostility for banks, defense contractors, drug companies, oil companies engaged in fracking, and big tech. That’s quite a list, and it accounts for a considerable share of S&P 500 market capitalization. It is fair to say that a Warren administration would be unfriendly to equity investors, but there are several points to keep in mind before liquidating one’s portfolio and fleeing the country. It’s too early to award her the Democratic nomination. In October 2007, the smart money was certain that Hillary Clinton had already locked up a berth in the finals against the eventual Republican nominee. Very few Americans could have named the freshman senator from Illinois, known for little more than a well-received speech at the 2004 convention, but he became President Obama. A lot could still happen between now and the Iowa caucuses on February 3rd. Unseating an incumbent president is a tall order. As long as the economy does not enter a recession between now and next November, and the administration can achieve a policy victory without suffering a high-profile policy failure, our Geopolitical Strategy colleagues argue that Trump should be the presumed winner of the 2020 election. Their presumption applies no matter who captures the Democratic nomination, even as the U.S. electorate is shifting to the left over time (Chart 12). Transforming Washington is easier said than done. The framers designed the federal government to be fairly resistant to sweeping change. The Electoral College tamps down popular passions in the presidential election, and Congress and the courts limit the power of the executive branch. Administrations with majorities in the House and Senate routinely find themselves with less freedom than they would like, especially after they exhaust political capital achieving one major legislative initiative (as with the Obama Administration and the Affordable Care Act). Even if the Democrats ride President Warren’s coattails to control over Capitol Hill next November, legislators from conservative or swing districts and states will balk at her entire suite of proposals. Chart 12Democratic Voters Are Leaning More Left Investment Implications Our sunnier view of the global economic outlook translates into more constructive equity allocations across global regions and blocs. The BCA house view recommends equal weight allocations to Emerging Markets and the Eurozone within global equity portfolios across tactical (0-3-month) and cyclical (3-12-month) timeframes. We expect to upgrade EM and Eurozone equities to overweight, and downgrade U.S. equities from overweight, across those timeframes once global growth begins to accelerate. We would also favor higher-beta currencies versus the dollar, and limit or avoid exposure to lower-beta currencies like the yen or the Swiss franc, if the data are poised to validate our base-case growth scenario. BCA’s recommendations have become especially data dependent because global investors seem to be firmly ensconced in “show-me” mode. It has been our sense as a firm, supported by the impression we got from last week’s meetings, that investors are reluctant to give growth prospects, and risk assets, the benefit of the doubt. Ground down by trade-related tweets, and skeptical that the latest wave of extraordinary monetary policy measures will have a perceptible impact on growth or inflation, they want to see definitive evidence of a turn before they’ll adjust their portfolio positioning to accommodate it. The wariness is also a reflection of the conflicting signals issued late in the business cycle and the elevated levels of geopolitical uncertainty. If the global economy turns as we think it soon will, global investors should be prepared to add cyclical exposures to their portfolios, even if Elizabeth Warren solidifies her current status as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. That sense of wariness keeps us recommending benchmark duration exposure in fixed income portfolios over the 0-to-3-month tactical timeframe, though we have little appetite for interest-rate exposure looking out beyond the near term, and are below-benchmark duration over the 3-to-12-month cyclical and greater-than-12-month strategic timeframes. We still like spread product over the full 12-month horizon, as we expect stronger growth will make viable U.S. corporations better credits and that ZIRP/NIRP will continue to protect some of the rest. We endorse the house view that relative U.S. equity returns may slow, but global growth should give a boost to absolute equity returns, and we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We are in accord with Chair Powell’s stated view that the rate cuts are mid-cycle cuts, not the beginning of a new easing cycle.

Puntos destacados El acuerdo comercial interino de "fase 1" alcanzado la semana pasada representa un avance significativo hacia una distensión en la guerra comercial entre China y EE. UU. Independientemente de lo que ocurra después en las negociaciones del Brexit, se evitará una salida dura. Mantener posición larga en la libra. Es probable que el crecimiento de los beneficios en EE. UU. sea plano en el tercer trimestre, en contraste con las expectativas "bottom-up" de una caída interanual. El crecimiento de los beneficios debería repuntar a medida que el crecimiento global vuelva a acelerarse hacia fin de año. Un crecimiento global más fuerte presionará a la baja al dólar estadounidense. Mantener sobreponderación en acciones globales respecto a los bonos en un horizonte de 12 meses. Las acciones cíclicas deberían comenzar a superar a las defensivas. El sector financiero finalmente tendrá su momento de gloria. Vientos favorables del comercio En nuestra Perspectiva estratégica del cuarto trimestre publicada hace dos semanas, argumentamos que las acciones globales habían entrado en una fase de "demuéstramelo", lo que significa que sería necesaria evidencia tangible de una desescalada en la guerra comercial y una recuperación del crecimiento global para que los índices bursátiles subieran.1  Recibimos algunas noticias positivas en el frente comercial el pasado viernes. A cambio de suspender la subida prevista de aranceles del 15 de octubre del 25% al 30% sobre $250 mil millones de importaciones chinas, China acordó comprar entre $40 y $50 mil millones de dólares de productos agrícolas estadounidenses por año, mejorar el acceso al mercado para las empresas de servicios financieros de EE. UU. y aumentar la transparencia en la gestión del tipo de cambio. Admitimos que aún queda mucho por hacer. El texto del acuerdo aún no se ha finalizado. Ambas partes apuntan a concluir el pacto para la cumbre de la APEC en Santiago, Chile, los días 16 y 17 de noviembre. Teniendo en cuenta que quedan sin resolver una serie de cuestiones clave, incluyendo qué tipo de mecanismos de cumplimiento y resolución se incluirán en el acuerdo, son posibles más retrasos o incluso un colapso en las conversaciones. El acuerdo interino pactado la semana pasada también aplaza la espinosa cuestión de cómo manejar las protecciones de propiedad intelectual a una "fase 2" de las negociaciones programada para comenzar poco después de que se cierre la "fase 1". Según la independiente y bipartidista Comisión sobre el robo de la propiedad intelectual estadounidense, los productores de EE. UU. pierden entre $225 y $600 mil millones anuales por el robo de PI.2 China a menudo ha sido considerada entre los peores infractores. Dada la importancia del tema de la PI, será necesario un progreso significativo para asegurar que no se introduzcan aranceles del 15% sobre aproximadamente $160 mil millones de importaciones chinas el 15 de diciembre. Trump quiere un acuerdo A pesar de los muchos obstáculos que quedan, los acontecimientos de la semana pasada aumentan significativamente las probabilidades de una distensión en la guerra comercial de 18 meses. Como autoproclamado "maestro negociador", el presidente Trump ha puesto en juego su credibilidad al describir las negociaciones como un "festival de amor", llamar al pacto comercial "el mayor y mejor acuerdo jamás hecho para nuestros grandes y patrióticos agricultores" y decir que tiene "poca duda" de que se alcanzará un acuerdo final. Al igual que hizo con el sucesor del TLCAN, el USMCA —un acuerdo que es sustantivamente similar al que reemplazó— es probable que Trump pase a modo de promoción, pregonando el nuevo acuerdo "tremendo" que ha negociado en nombre del pueblo estadounidense. Desde el punto de vista político, esto tiene perfecto sentido. Con razón o sin ella, los votantes valoran más a Trump por su manejo de la economía que por cualquier otra cosa (Gráfico 1). Una guerra comercial prolongada socavaría la economía estadounidense y, por tanto, dañaría las perspectivas de reelección de Trump. Gráfico 1 Trump recibe calificaciones relativamente altas por su manejo de la economía, pero no por mucho más Kumbaya Kumbaya Gráfico 2 Las empresas chinas no están soportando la mayor parte de los aranceles Kumbaya Kumbaya A pesar de sus afirmaciones en sentido contrario, la evidencia sugiere firmemente que son los consumidores estadounidenses, más que las empresas chinas, quienes están pagando la mayor parte de los aranceles. Gráfico 2 muestra que los precios de importación de EE. UU. desde China apenas han disminuido, aun cuando las tasas arancelarias sobre las importaciones chinas han aumentado. En la medida en que las últimas rondas de aranceles se centran en bienes chinos para los que hay poca competencia en EE. UU. o en terceros países, la capacidad de los productores chinos para repercutir el coste de los aranceles solo aumentará. Si se implementaran todas las subidas de aranceles anunciadas, la tasa arancelaria efectiva sobre las importaciones chinas subiría desde alrededor del 15% a finales de agosto hasta un máximo del 25% en diciembre (Gráfico 3). Tal tasa arancelaria reduciría los ingresos disponibles de los hogares estadounidenses en más de $100 mil millones de dólares, borrando la mayor parte de las ganancias de los recortes fiscales de 2017. Trump no puede permitir que la guerra comercial llegue a ese punto. Gráfico 3 Las sucesivas rondas de aranceles han empezado a acumularse Las sucesivas rondas de aranceles han empezado a acumularse. Las sucesivas rondas de aranceles han empezado a acumularse. ¿China adoptará una postura dura? Un riesgo para una resolución favorable de la guerra comercial es que China vea cada vez más a Trump como desesperado por cerrar un acuerdo. Esto podría llevar a los chinos a adoptar una postura dura en las negociaciones. Aunque no se puede descartar este riesgo, lo atenuamos por tres razones: Primero, aunque los exportadores chinos han podido mantener cierto poder de fijación de precios durante la guerra comercial, los volúmenes comerciales han sufrido, con las exportaciones a EE. UU. cayendo casi un 22% interanual en septiembre. Segundo, como han demostrado las sanciones paralizantes contra ZTE, China sigue siendo muy dependiente de las tecnologías estadounidenses. Esto le da a Trump mucha palanca en las negociaciones comerciales. Gráfico 4 ¿Quién ganará la nominación demócrata de 2020? Kumbaya Kumbaya Tercero, como al propio Trump le gusta decir, a China le resultará más fácil negociar con él durante su primer mandato que en un segundo. Esperar que Trump perdiera su intento de reelección podría haber tenido sentido para China hace unos meses cuando Joe Biden iba por delante en las encuestas; pero ahora que Elizabeth Warren ha emergido como la favorita para asegurar la nominación demócrata, esa esperanza se ha desvanecido (Gráfico 4). Como señalamos hace varias semanas, es probable que China encuentre a Warren no menos problemática en asuntos comerciales que a Trump.3  Todo esto sugiere que China, al igual que Trump, buscará formas de enfriar las tensiones comerciales en las próximas semanas. ¿Avance en el Brexit? Cuando se cierra esta edición, las perspectivas de un acuerdo del Brexit han mejorado. Aunque los detalles aún no se han publicado, el acuerdo propuesto pondría efectivamente a Irlanda del Norte en una verdadera superposición cuántica donde está tanto en el mercado común europeo como en el Reino Unido al mismo tiempo. Esta hazaña se conseguiría manteniendo a Irlanda del Norte dentro de la jurisdicción política del Reino Unido pero aún alineada con las normas regulatorias de la UE. Las negociaciones aún podrían torcerse. A pesar de la garantía del primer ministro Boris Johnson de que logró "un gran nuevo acuerdo", el socio de coalición de los conservadores, el Partido Unionista Democrático de Irlanda del Norte, todavía está reteniendo su apoyo al pacto. El líder laborista Jeremy Corbyn también ha rechazado el acuerdo, diciendo que es aún peor que el pacto originalmente propuesto por Theresa May. Independientemente de lo que ocurra en los próximos días, seguimos pensando que se evitará un Brexit duro. A lo largo de todo el calvario del Brexit, hemos sostenido que no existía suficiente apoyo político dentro de la clase dirigente británica para un Brexit sin acuerdo. Esa convicción solo se ha reforzado a medida que los datos de opinión han revelado que una mayor proporción de votantes elegiría permanecer en la UE si se celebrara otro referéndum (Gráfico 5). Hemos mantenido una posición larga en la libra frente al euro desde el 3 de agosto de 2017. La operación ha ganado un 6.6% en este periodo. Los inversores deberían mantener esta posición. Basándonos en los diferenciales de tasas de interés reales, GBP/EUR debería cotizar cerca de 1.30 en lugar del nivel actual de 1.16 (Gráfico 6). Esperamos que el cruce se mueva hacia su valor justo a medida que disminuyan aún más los riesgos de un Brexit duro. Gráfico 5 Angustia por el Brexit: un caso de arrepentimiento por Brexit Angustia por el Brexit: Un caso de Bremorse Angustia por el Brexit: Un caso de Bremorse Gráfico 6 Importante potencial alcista en la libra Potencial Alcista Sustancial en la Libra Potencial Alcista Sustancial en la Libra   Mejoran las perspectivas de crecimiento global Gráfico 7 La desaceleración del crecimiento ha sido más pronunciada en los datos blandos La desaceleración del crecimiento ha sido más pronunciada en los datos suaves La desaceleración del crecimiento ha sido más pronunciada en los datos suaves Gráfico 8 La producción manufacturera se recupera en medio del desplome del ISM La producción manufacturera se recupera en medio de la caída del ISM La producción manufacturera se recupera en medio de la caída del ISM Una distensión en la guerra comercial y una resolución de la saga del Brexit deberían ayudar a sostener el crecimiento global. La debilidad en los datos económicos ha sido mucho más pronunciada en las medidas denominadas "blandas", como las encuestas empresariales, que en las medidas "duras" como la producción industrial (Gráfico 7). Notablemente, la producción manufacturera estadounidense se ha estabilizado en los últimos tres meses, aun cuando el índice manufacturero ISM se ha desplomado (Gráfico 8). A medida que el sentimiento se recupere, los datos blandos deberían mejorar. Las condiciones financieras globales se han relajado significativamente en los últimos cinco meses, en gran parte gracias al giro acomodaticio de la mayoría de los bancos centrales (Gráfico 9). El número neto de bancos centrales que recortan tasas suele adelantar al PMI manufacturero global entre 6 y 9 meses (Gráfico 10). Además, la decisión de la Fed de volver a comprar bonos del Tesoro aumentará la liquidez en dólares, contribuyendo así a unas condiciones financieras más laxas. Gráfico 9 Condiciones financieras más fáciles impulsarán el crecimiento global Condiciones financieras más favorables impulsarán el crecimiento mundial Condiciones financieras más favorables impulsarán el crecimiento mundial   Gráfico 10 Los efectos de la relajación de la política monetaria deberían filtrarse pronto a la economía Los efectos de la flexibilización de la política monetaria deberían llegar pronto a la economía. Los efectos de la flexibilización de la política monetaria deberían llegar pronto a la economía. Un estímulo chino reforzado también debería ayudar a activar el crecimiento global. El crecimiento del dinero y del crédito en China superó las expectativas en septiembre. El PBoC ha estado recortando los requisitos de reservas, lo que ha contribuido a reducir las tasas interbancarias. Es probable que se realicen nuevos recortes a la facilidad de financiación a medio plazo durante el resto de este año. Los cambios en el crecimiento del crédito chino adelantan al crecimiento global en aproximadamente nueve meses (Gráfico 11). Gráfico 11 El crédito chino debería apoyar la recuperación del crecimiento global El crédito chino debería respaldar la recuperación del crecimiento mundial El crédito chino debería respaldar la recuperación del crecimiento mundial Mantener sobreponderación en acciones globales Aunque el camino para finalizar un acuerdo de "fase 1" a tiempo para la cumbre de la APEC probablemente será accidentado, reiteramos nuestra recomendación de que los inversores sobreponderen acciones globales frente a bonos en un horizonte de 12 meses. Esperamos mejorar la valoración de las acciones de mercados emergentes (EM) y europeas en las próximas semanas una vez que veamos más evidencia de que el crecimiento global está tocando fondo. En última instancia, la trayectoria de las acciones dependerá de lo que ocurra con los beneficios. La temporada de resultados en EE. UU. comenzó esta semana. Hasta la semana pasada, los analistas esperaban que las EPS del S&P 500 disminuyeran un 4.6% en el tercer trimestre respecto al mismo trimestre del año anterior, según datos compilados por FactSet. Tenga en cuenta, sin embargo, que el crecimiento de las EPS ha superado las estimaciones en alrededor de cuatro puntos porcentuales desde 2015 (Gráfico 12). Por tanto, una apuesta razonable es que los beneficios estadounidenses se mantendrán planos este trimestre, superando una baja barrera de expectativas. Gráfico 12 Las EPS reales generalmente han superado las estimaciones Kumbaya Kumbaya Gráfico 13 Los beneficios y el PIB nominal tienden a moverse al unísono Las ganancias y el crecimiento del PIB nominal tienden a moverse al unísono Las ganancias y el crecimiento del PIB nominal tienden a moverse al unísono El hecho de que el 83% de las 63 empresas del S&P 500 que han informado beneficios hasta ahora hayan superado las estimaciones —mejor que la media histórica del 64%— respalda la opinión de que las estimaciones actuales para el tercer trimestre son demasiado pesimistas. Mirando hacia adelante, el crecimiento de los beneficios debería mejorar a medida que se acelere el crecimiento del PIB nominal (Gráfico 13). Las acciones europeas y de mercados emergentes generalmente superan al referente global cuando el crecimiento global mejora (Gráfico 14). Esto se debe a la naturaleza más cíclica de sus mercados bursátiles. Además, como moneda contracíclica, el dólar tiende a debilitarse en un entorno de crecimiento más rápido. Un dólar más débil beneficia de manera desproporcionada a las acciones cíclicas (Gráfico 15).   Gráfico 14 Las acciones de EM y de la zona euro suelen superar cuando mejora el crecimiento global Las acciones de los mercados emergentes y de la zona del euro suelen tener un mejor rendimiento cuando mejora el crecimiento global. Las acciones de los mercados emergentes y de la zona del euro suelen tener un mejor rendimiento cuando mejora el crecimiento global. Gráfico 15 Las acciones cíclicas superarán si el dólar se debilita Las acciones cíclicas tendrán mejor desempeño si el dólar se debilita Las acciones cíclicas tendrán mejor desempeño si el dólar se debilita Incluiríamos a los financieros en nuestra definición de sectores cíclicos. A medida que mejore el crecimiento global, los rendimientos de los bonos a largo plazo aumentarán en el margen. Dado que los bancos centrales no tienen prisa por subir las tasas, las curvas de rendimiento se empinarán. Esto impulsará los beneficios bancarios y los precios de las acciones (Gráfico 16). Las acciones cíclicas están actualmente bastante baratas en comparación con las defensivas (Gráfico 17). Del mismo modo, las acciones no estadounidenses son relativamente baratas en comparación con sus homólogas estadounidenses, incluso si se ajusta por diferencias en la composición sectorial entre regiones. Mientras que las acciones estadounidenses cotizan a 17.5 veces las ganancias a futuro, las acciones internacionales cotizan a un PER a futuro más atractivo de 13.7. La combinación de mayores rentabilidades por beneficios y tipos de interés más bajos en el extranjero implica que la prima de riesgo de la renta variable es aproximadamente dos puntos porcentuales más alta fuera de Estados Unidos (Gráfico 18). Gráfico 16 Curvas de rendimiento más empinadas beneficiarán a los financieros Curvas de rendimiento más pronunciadas beneficiarán al sector financiero Curvas de rendimiento más pronunciadas beneficiarán al sector financiero Gráfico 17 Las acciones cíclicas son más atractivas que las defensivas Las acciones cíclicas son más atractivas que las defensivas Las acciones cíclicas son más atractivas que las defensivas   Gráfico 18 La prima de riesgo de la renta variable es bastante alta, especialmente fuera de EE. UU. La prima de riesgo de las acciones es bastante alta, especialmente fuera de Estados Unidos. La prima de riesgo de las acciones es bastante alta, especialmente fuera de Estados Unidos. Esperamos mejorar la valoración de las acciones de mercados emergentes (EM) y europeas en las próximas semanas una vez que veamos más evidencia de que el crecimiento global está tocando fondo.   Peter Berezin, Jefe de Estrategia Global Estrategia Global de Inversiones peterb@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1Consulte Estrategia Global de Inversiones, “Perspectiva estratégica del cuarto trimestre de 2019: un mercado 'muéstrame',” con fecha 4 de octubre de 2019. 2 “Actualización del Informe de la Comisión sobre el Robo de la Propiedad Intelectual: El informe de la Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property,” The National Bureau of Asian Research, 2017. 3Consulte Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren y los mercados,” con fecha 13 de septiembre de 2019. Estrategia & tendencias del mercado Modelo MacroQuant y puntajes subjetivos actuales Kumbaya Kumbaya Recomendaciones estratégicas Operaciones cerradas

Highlights Geopolitical risks are starting to abate as a result of material constraints influencing policymakers. China needs to ensure its economy bottoms and a debt-deflationary tendency does not take hold. President Trump needs to avoid further economic deterioration arising from the trade war. The U.K. is looking to prevent a recession induced by leaving the EU without an agreement. Iran and the risk of an oil price shock is the outstanding geopolitical tail risk. Feature Readers of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy know that what defines our research is our analytical framework – specifically the theory of constraints. Chart 1The Electoral College – An Overlooked Constraint The theory holds that policymakers are trapped by the pressures of their office, their nation’s global position, and the stream of events. These pressures emerge from the material world that we inhabit and as such are measurable. If a leader lacks popular approval, cannot command a majority in the legislature, rides atop a sinking economy, or suffers under stronger or smarter foreign enemies, then his policy preferences will be compromised. He will have to change his preferences to accommodate the constraints, rather than the other way around. Case in point is the U.S. electoral college: it proved an insurmountable political constraint on the Democratic Party in 2016. The college is intended to restrain direct democracy or popular passions; it also restrains the concentration of regional power. In 2012, Barack Obama won a larger share of the electoral college than the popular vote, while in 2016 Hillary Clinton won a smaller share (Chart 1). Clinton’s lack of appeal in the industrial Midwest turned the college and deprived her of the prize. The rest is history. In this report we highlight five key constraints that will shape the direction of the major geopolitical risks in the fourth quarter. We recommend investors remain tactically cautious on risk assets, although we have not yet extended this recommendation to the cyclical, 12-month time frame. China’s Policy: The Debt-Deflation Constraint We have a solid record of pessimism regarding Chinese President Xi Jinping’s willingness and ability to stimulate the economy – but even we were surprised by his tenacity this year. His administration’s effort to contain leverage, while still stimulating the economy, has prevented a quick rebound in the global manufacturing cycle. The constraint limiting this approach is the need to avoid a debt-deflation spiral. This is a condition in which households and firms become pessimistic about the future and cut back their spending and borrowing. The general price level falls and drives up real debt burdens, which motivates further cutbacks. A classic example is Japan, which saw a property bubble burst, destroying corporate balance sheets and forcing the country into a long phase of paying down debt amid falling prices. China has not seen its property bubble burst yet. Prices have continued to rise despite the recent pause in the non-financial debt build-up (Chart 2). Looser monetary and fiscal policy have sustained this precarious balance. But the result is a tug-of-war between the government and the private sector. If the government miscalculates, and the asset bubble bursts, then it will be extremely difficult for the government to change the mindset of households and companies bent on paying down debt. It will be too late to avoid the vicious spiral that Japan experienced – with the critical proviso that Chinese people are less wealthy than the Japanese in 1990 and the country’s political system is less flexible. A Japan-sized economic problem would lead to a China-sized political problem. This is why the recent drop in Chinese producer prices below zero is a worrisome sign (Chart 3). Policymakers have loosened monetary and fiscal policy incrementally since July 2018 and they are signaling that they will continue to do so. This is particularly likely in an environment in which trade tensions are reduced but remain fundamentally unresolved – which is our base case. Chart 2China's Property Bubble Intact Chart 3China's Constraint Is Debt-Deflation Are policymakers aware of this constraint? Absolutely. If the trade talks collapse, or the global economy slumps regardless, then China will have to stimulate more aggressively. Xi Jinping is not truly a Chairman Mao, willing to impose extreme austerity. He oversaw the 2015-16 stimulus and would do it again if he came face to face with the debt-deflation constraint. Is China still capable of stimulating? High debt levels, the reassertion of centralized state power, and the trade war have all rendered traditional stimulus levers less effective by dampening animal spirits. Yet policymakers are visibly “riding the brake,” so they can remove restraints and increase reflation if necessary. Most obviously, authorities can inject larger fiscal stimulus. They have insisted that they will prevent easy monetary and credit policies from feeding into property prices – and this could change. They could also pick up the pace when it comes to reducing average bank lending rates for small and medium-sized businesses.1 In short, stimulus is less effective, but the government is also preferring to save dry powder. This preference will be thrown by the wayside if it hits the critical constraint. The implication is that Chinese stimulus will continue to pick up over a cyclical, 12-month horizon. There is impetus to reduce trade tensions with the U.S., discussed below, but a lack of final resolution will ensure that policy tightening is not called for. Bottom Line: China’s chief economic constraint is a debt-deflation trap. This would engender long-term economic difficulties that would eventually translate into political difficulties for Communist Party rule. If a trade deal is reached, it is unlikely alone to require a shift to tighter policy. If the trade talks collapse, stimulus will overshoot to the upside. Trade War: The Electoral Constraint The U.S. and China are holding the thirteenth round of trade negotiations this week after a summer replete with punitive measures, threats, and failed restarts. Tensions spiked just ahead of the talks, as expected. Immediately thereafter President Trump declared he will meet with Chinese negotiators to give a boost to the process and reassure the markets.2 Trump’s major constraint in waging the trade war is economic, not political. Americans are generally sympathetic to his pressure campaign against China. Public opinion polls show that a strong majority believes it is necessary to confront China even though the bulk of the economic pain will be borne by consumers themselves (Chart 4). Yet Americans could lose faith in Trump’s approach once the economic pain fully materializes. Critically, the decline in wage growth that is occurring as a result of the global and manufacturing slowdown is concentrated in the states that are most likely to swing the 2020 election, e.g. the “purple” or battleground states (Chart 5). Chart 4Americans To Confront China Despite The Costs? Chart 5Trump Faces Pressure To Stage A Tactical Trade Retreat Furthermore, a rise in unemployment, which is implied by the recent decline in the University of Michigan’s survey of consumer confidence regarding the purchase of large household goods, would devastate voters’ willingness to give Trump’s tariff strategy the benefit of the doubt (Chart 6). Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two critical states, have seen a net loss of manufacturing jobs on the year. The fear of an uptick in U.S. unemployment will prevent Trump from escalating the trade war. An uptick in unemployment would be a major constraint on Trump’s trade war – he cannot escalate further until the economy has stabilized. And that may very well require tariff rollback while trade talks “make progress.” We expect that Trump is willing to do this in the interest of staying in power. As highlighted above, the Xi administration is not without its own constraints. Our proxies for China’s marginal propensity to consume show that Chinese animal spirits are still vulnerable, particularly on the household side, which has not responded to stimulus thus far (Chart 7). Since this constraint is less immediate than Trump’s election date, Xi cannot be expected to capitulate to Trump’s biggest demands. Hence a ceasefire or détente is more likely than a full bilateral trade agreement. Chart 6Waning Consumer Confidence On Big Ticket Items Foreshadows Rise In Unemployment Trump’s electoral constraint also suggests that he needs to remove trade risks such as car tariffs on Europe and Japan (which we expect he will do). We have been optimistic on the passage of the USMCA trade deal but impeachment puts this forecast in jeopardy. Chart 7China's Trade War Constraint? Animal Spirits   Bottom Line: Trump will stage a tactical retreat on trade in order to soften the negative impact on the economy and reduce the chances of a recession prior to the November 3, 2020 election. China’s economic constraints are less immediate and it is unlikely to make major structural concessions. Hence we expect a ceasefire that temporarily reduces tensions and boosts sentiment rather than a bilateral trade agreement that initiates a fundamental deepening of U.S.-China economic engagement. U.S. Policy: The Economic Constraint The 2020 U.S. election is a critical political risk both because of the volatility it will engender and because of what we see as a 45% chance that it will lead to a change in the ruling party governing the world’s largest economy. Will Trump be the candidate? Yes. If Trump’s approval among Republicans breaks beneath the lows plumbed during the Charlottesville incident in 2017 (Chart 8A), then Trump has an impeachment problem, but otherwise he is safe from removal. Judging by the Republican-leaning pollster Rasmussen, which should reflect the party’s mood, Trump’s approval rating has not broken beneath its floor and may already be bouncing back from the initial hit of the impeachment inquiry (Chart 8B). The rise in support for impeachment and removal in opinion polls is notable, but it is also along party lines and will fade if the Democrats are seen as dragging on the process or trying to circumvent an election that is just around the corner. Chart 8ARepublican Opinion Precludes Trump’s Removal Chart 8BRepublican-Leaning Pollster Shows Support Holding Thus Far How will all of this bear on the 2020 election? Turnout will be high so everything depends on which side will be more passionate. A critical factor will be the Democratic nominee. Former Vice President Joe Biden, the establishment pick, has broken beneath his floor in the polling. His rambling debate performances have reinforced the narrative that he is too old, while the impeachment of Trump will fuel counteraccusations of corruption that will detract from Biden’s greatest asset: his electability. According to a Harvard-Harris poll from late September, 61% of voters believe it was inappropriate for Biden to withhold aid from Ukraine to encourage the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor even when the polling question makes no mention of any connection with Biden’s son’s business interest there. Moreover, 77% believe it is inappropriate that Biden’s son Hunter traveled with his father to China while soliciting investments there. With Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s candidacy now defunct as a result of his heart attack and old age, Elizabeth Warren, the progressive senator from Massachusetts, will become the indisputable front runner (which she is not yet). In the fourth primary debate on October 15, she will face attacks from all sides reflecting this new status. Given her debate performances thus far, she will sustain the heightened scrutiny and come out stronger. This is not to say that Warren is already the Democratic candidate. Biden is still polling like a traditional Democratic primary front runner (Chart 9), while Warren has some clear weaknesses in electability, as reflected in her smaller lead over Trump in head-to-head polls in swing states. Nevertheless Warren is likely to become the front runner. Chart 9Biden Polling About Average Relative To Previous Democratic Primary Front Runners The recession call remains the U.S. election call. Two further considerations: Impeachment and removal of President Trump ensure a Democratic victory. There are hopes in some quarters that President Trump could be impeached and removed and yet his Vice President Mike Pence could go on to win the 2020 election, preserving the pro-business policy status quo. The problem with this logic is that Trump cannot be removed unless Republican opinion shifts. This will require an earthquake as a result of some wrongdoing by Trump. Such an earthquake will blacken Pence’s and the GOP’s name and render them toxic in the general election. Not to mention that Pence’s only act as president in the brief interim would likely be to pardon Trump and his accomplices. He would suffer Gerald Ford’s fate in 1976. Which means that a significant slide in Trump’s approval among Republicans will translate to higher odds of a Democratic win in 2020 and hence higher taxes and regulation, i.e. a hit to corporate earnings expectations. We expect this approval to hold up, but the market can sell off anyway because … The market is overrating the Senate as a check on Warren in the event she wins the White House. It is true that relative to Biden, Warren is less likely to carry the Senate. Democrats need to retain their Senate seat in Alabama, while capturing Maine, Colorado, and Arizona (or Georgia) in addition to the White House in order to control the Senate. Biden is more competitive in Arizona and Georgia than Warren. But this is a flimsy basis to feel reassured that a Warren presidency will be constrained. In fact, it is very difficult to unseat a sitting president. If the Democrats can muster enough votes to kick out an incumbent and elect an outspoken left-wing progressive from the northeast, they most likely will have mustered enough votes to take the Senate as well. For instance, unemployment could be rising or Trump’s risky foreign policy could have backfired. Chart 10Business Sentiment Threatens Trump Re-Election In our estimation the Democrats have about a 45% chance of winning the presidency, and Warren does not significantly reduce this chance. The resilient U.S. economy is Trump’s base case for success. But Trump’s trade policy and the global slowdown are rapidly eating away at the prospect that voters see improvement (Chart 10). This speaks to the constraint driving a ceasefire with China above, but it also speaks to the broader probability of policy continuity in the U.S. As Warren’s path to the White House widens, there is a clear basis for equities to sell off in the near term. Bottom Line: Trump’s approval among Republicans is a constraint on his removal via impeachment. But the status of the economy is the greater constraint. The recession call remains the election call. While we expect downside in the near term, we are still constructive on U.S. equities on a cyclical basis. War With Iran: The Oil Price Constraint The Senate will remain President Trump’s bulwark amid impeachment, notwithstanding the controversial news that Trump is moving forward with the withdrawal of troops from Syria, specifically from the so-called “safe zone” agreed with Turkey, giving Ankara license to stage a larger military offensive in Syria. This abandonment of the U.S.’s Kurdish allies at the behest of Turkey (which is a NATO ally but has been at odds with Washington) has provoked flak from Republican senators. However, it is well supported in U.S. public opinion (Chart 11). Trump is threatening to impose economic sanctions on Turkey if it engages in ethnic cleansing. The Turkish lira is the marginal loser, Trump’s approval rating is the marginal winner. The withdrawal sends a signal to the world that the U.S. is continuing to deleverage from the Middle East – a corollary with the return of focus on Asia Pacific. While the Iranians are key beneficiaries of this pivot, the Trump administration is maintaining maximum sanctions pressure on the Iranians. The firing of hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton did not lead to a détente, as President Rouhani has too much to risk from negotiating with Trump. Instead the Iranians smelled U.S. weakness and went on the attack in Saudi Arabia, briefly shuttering 6 million barrels of oil per day. The response to the attack – from both Saudi Arabia and the U.S. – revealed an extreme aversion to military conflict and escalation. Instead the U.S. has tightened its sanctions regime – China is reportedly withdrawing from its interest in the South Pars natural gas project, a potentially serious blow to Iran, which had been hyping its strategic partnership with China. This reinforces the prospect for a U.S.-China ceasefire even as it redoubles the economic pressure on Iran. As long as the U.S. maintains the crippling sanctions on Iran, there is no guarantee that Tehran will not strike out again in an effort to weaken President Trump’s resolve. The fact that about 18% of global oil supply flows through the critical chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ace in the hole (Chart 12). It is the chief constraint on Trump’s foreign policy, as greater oil supply disruptions could shock the U.S. economy ahead of the election. Trump can benefit from minor or ephemeral disruptions but he is likely to get into trouble if a serious shock weakens the economy at this juncture. Chart 11U.S. Opinion Constrains Foreign Policy Chart 12Oil Price Constrains U.S. Policy Toward Iran An oil shock does not have to originate in Hormuz shipping or sneak attacks on regional oil infrastructure. Iran is uniquely capable of fomenting the anti-government protests that have erupted in southern Iraq. The restoration of stability in Iraq has resulted in around 2 million barrels of oil per day coming onto international markets (Chart 13). If this process is reversed through political instability or sabotage, it will rapidly push up against global spare oil capacity and exert an upward pressure on oil prices that would come at an awkward time for a global economy experiencing a manufacturing recession (Chart 14). Chart 13Iran's Leverage Over Iraq Chart 14Global Oil Spare Capacity Constrains Response To Crisis Bottom Line: Iran’s power over regional oil production is the biggest constraint on Trump’s foreign policy in the region, yet Trump is apparently tightening rather than easing the sanctions regime. The failure of the Abqaiq attack to generate a lasting impact on oil prices amid weak global demand suggests that Iran could feel emboldened. The U.S. preference to withdraw from Middle Eastern conflicts could also encourage Iran, while the tightening of the sanctions regime could make it desperate. An oil shock emanating from the conflict with Iran is still a significant risk to the global bull market. Brexit: The No-Deal Constraint The fifth and final constraint to discuss in this report pertains to the U.K. and Brexit. We do not consider the October 31 deadline a no-deal exit risk. Parliament will prevail over a prime minister who lacks a majority. Nevertheless the expected election can revive no-deal risk, especially if Boris Johnson is returned to power with a weak minority government. Chart 15U.K.: Public Opinion Constrains Parliament And No-Deal Brexit While parliament is the constraint on the prime minister, the public is the constraint on parliament. From this point of view, support for Brexit has weakened and the Conservative Party is less popular than in the lead up to the 2015 and 2017 general elections. The public is aware that no-deal exit is likely to cause significant economic pain and that is why a majority rejects no-deal, as opposed to a soft Brexit. Unless the Tory rally in opinion polling produces another coalition with the Northern Irish, albeit with Boris Johnson at the helm, these points make it likely that a no-deal Brexit will become untenable when all is said and done (Chart 15). If Johnson achieves a single party majority the EU will be more likely to grant concessions enabling him to get a withdrawal deal over the line. We remain long GBP-USD but will turn sellers at the $1.30 mark. Investment Implications The path of least resistance is for China’s stimulus efforts to increase – incrementally if trade tensions are contained, and sharply if not. This should help put a floor beneath growth, but the Q1 timing of this floor means that global risk assets face additional downside in the near term. We continue to recommend going long our “China Play” index. U.S.-China trade tensions should decline as President Trump looks to prevent higher unemployment ahead of his election. China has reason to follow through on small concessions to encourage Trump’s tactical trade retreat, but it does not face pressure to make new structural concessions. We expect a ceasefire – with some tariff rollback likely – but not a big bang agreement that removes all tariffs or deepens the overall bilateral economic engagement. Stay long our “China Play” index. We remain short CNY-USD on a strategic basis but recognize that a ceasefire presents a short term (maximum 12-month) risk to this view, so clients with a shorter-term horizon should close that trade. We are long European equities relative to Chinese equities as a result of the view that China will stimulate but that a trade ceasefire will leave lingering uncertainties over Chinese corporates. U.S. politics are highly unpredictable but constraint-based analysis indicates that while the House may impeach, the Senate will not remove. This, combined with Warren’s likely ascent to the head of the pack in the Democratic primary race, means that Trump remains favored to win reelection, albeit with low conviction (55% chance) due to a weak general approval rating and economic risks. The risk to U.S. equities is immediate, but should dissipate. The U.S. is rotating its strategic focus from the Middle East to Asia Pacific, which entails a continued rotation of geopolitical risk. However, recent developments reinforce our argument in July that Iranian geopolitical risk is frontloaded relative to the China risk. This is true as long as Trump maintains crippling sanctions. Iran may be emboldened by its successes so far and has various mechanisms – including Iraqi instability – by which it can threaten oil supply to pressure Trump. This is a tail risk, but it does support our position of being long EM energy producers.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research, China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Mild Deflation Means Timid Easing,” October 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 China knows that Trump wants to seal a deal prior to November 2020 to aid his reelection campaign, while Trump needs to try to convince China that he does not care about election, the stock market, or anything other than structural concessions from China. Hence the U.S. blacklisted several artificial intelligence companies and sanctioned Chinese officials in advance of the talks. The U.S. opened a new front in the conflict by invoking China’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang, which is also an implicit warning not to create a humanitarian incident in Hong Kong where protests continue to rage. These are pressure tactics but have not yet derailed the attempt to seal a deal in Q4.

La diferencia de precio a la que el crudo pesado y ácido canadiense cotiza frente al referente norteamericano WTI se verá empujada a -$20/bbl hasta 1T20, ya que las limitaciones de transporte siguen ralentizando la salida del barril marginal desde Alberta. El aumento de la demanda de combustibles destilados de bajo azufre a medida que las normas mundiales de combustible marítimo se endurecen bajo las regulaciones IMO 2020 el próximo año también contribuirá a debilitar los precios del crudo canadiense. Durante los próximos tres a cinco años, la política interna determinará si la industria petrolera canadiense podrá atraer la inversión necesaria para crecer. Y eso dependerá de cómo se resuelva la incertidumbre en torno a la expansión de oleoductos. Permitir que la capacidad de los oleoductos se expanda para que más crudo pueda enviarse al sur podría conducir a un repunte significativo en las valoraciones de capital de los productores canadienses. Los costos de equilibrio de la industria ahora están a ambos lados de $50/bbl para crudo pesado entregado en Cushing, OK. A medida que la producción de crudo ligero y dulce en las lutitas de EE. UU. aumenta, la demanda por el crudo relativamente escaso y más pesado probablemente se recupere, redundando en beneficio de los productores canadienses. Aspectos destacados Energía: Sobreponderar. Las operaciones en la instalación de procesamiento de crudo Abqaiq y en el yacimiento petrolero Khurais de Saudi Aramco se restablecieron en gran medida a finales de septiembre, en línea con la orientación de la dirección. La capacidad en el Reino es de 11.3mm b/d, mientras que la producción funciona en 9.9mm b/d. Abqaiq y Khurais fueron atacados por drones y misiles de crucero, una operación que EE. UU. y Arabia Saudita creen fue orquestada por Irán. El domingo, el príncipe heredero Mohammad bin Salman, hablando en 60 Minutes de CBS News, estuvo de acuerdo con la caracterización del secretario de Estado estadounidense Mike Pompeo del ataque como un acto de guerra por parte de Irán, y advirtió: “Si el mundo no toma una acción fuerte y firme para disuadir a Irán, veremos más escaladas que amenazarán intereses mundiales. Los suministros de petróleo se verán interrumpidos y los precios del petróleo subirán a números inimaginablemente altos que no hemos visto en nuestras vidas.” En la entrevista con Norah O’Donnell, añadió una declaración de que el Reino prefiere “una solución política y pacífica” para resolver sus problemas con Irán. El príncipe heredero, con un tono conciliador, dijo que el presidente Donald Trump y el Reino buscan la paz, pero que “los iraníes no quieren sentarse en la mesa.”1 Metales básicos: Neutral. La producción de acero de China aumentó 9.3% interanual en agosto a 87.3k MT, según la World Steel Association (WSA). Esto representó el 56% de la producción global, según datos de la WSA. La producción china alcanzó un récord de 89.1k MT en mayo. Metales preciosos: Neutral. Los precios de los metales preciosos colapsaron cuando el amplio USD ponderado por el comercio se disparó a principios de esta semana. Los precios del platino cayeron 5.5% desde el cierre del viernes hasta el martes, mientras que el oro y la plata bajaron 1.3% y 2%, respectivamente. Agrícolas/Productos blandos: Infraponderar. Los precios del maíz y la soja se dispararon a principios de la semana tras un informe alcista del USDA sobre existencias. El maíz de diciembre subió 5.7%, mientras que la soja subió 4.1%. Artículo principal La demanda de crudo pesado canadiense está funcionando con fuerza en Asia, como se ve en el aumento de las exportaciones a través del Golfo de EE. UU. durante el periodo de mayo a mediados de septiembre. Según el análisis de ClipperData, se enviaron 16mm de barriles de crudo canadiense en ese periodo, más del doble del volumen total enviado a Asia en 2018.2 La demanda canadiense se está viendo impulsada por el colapso de la industria petrolera de Venezuela, que ha eliminado alrededor de 1.5mm b/d de crudo pesado del mercado desde 2016. Si bien las exportaciones canadienses a los mercados asiáticos están en auge, este aumento de la demanda insinúa una oportunidad aún mayor si se expande la capacidad de oleoductos de norte a sur. Las exportaciones acumuladas de crudo canadiense a EE. UU. en lo que va del año suben ~ 2.5% interanual a un promedio de 3.5mm b/d, según la EIA de EE. UU. Este crecimiento está limitado por la capacidad de exportación que se expande lentamente.3 Restricciones de salida del petróleo canadiense De 2010 a 2017, la producción de petróleo del oeste de Canadá creció un impresionante 6.5% anual, llevando la infraestructura de oleoductos y almacenamiento a una utilización máxima (Gráfico de la semana). El desarrollo de la infraestructura de apoyo no produjo la capacidad de salida requerida, encerrando la producción de betún dentro de la Cuenca Sedimentaria del Oeste de Canadá (WCSB). En consecuencia, los inventarios de crudo de Alberta crecieron por encima de niveles normales y el descuento del Western Canadian Select (WCS) respecto a Cushing WTI se disparó, alcanzando -$50/bbl en 3T18. Si bien esto incentivó los envíos de crudo por ferrocarril (CBR), los precios recibidos por los productores albertense cayeron por debajo de $20/bbl, un nivel significativamente inferior a los niveles de equilibrio necesarios para sostener la inversión. Gráfico de la semana El aumento de la producción de crudo pesado ... La producción de crudo pesado se dispara ... La producción de crudo pesado se dispara ... Ante múltiples retrasos en los desarrollos de oleoductos, la entonces primera ministra Rachel Notley anunció en diciembre que el gobierno provincial impondría restricciones obligatorias de producción de petróleo de ~ 325k b/d a partir de enero de 2019. Además, su gobierno aseguró contratos para arrendar 4,400 vagones de ferrocarril – ~ 120k b/d para mediados de 2020 – con Canadian National (CN) y Canadian Pacific (CP) para mover crudo fuera de la WCSB. La intervención del gobierno de Alberta distorsionó rápidamente el mecanismo de precios del mercado. Inicialmente, la reducción de producción ordenada por el gobierno tuvo el impacto deseado. El componente de transporte del descuento WCS-WTI comenzó a reducirse, y los inventarios de crudo de Alberta empezaron a disminuir (Gráfico 2). Gráfico 2 ... Pero la infraestructura se retrasa ... Pero la infraestructura se queda rezagada ... Pero la infraestructura se queda rezagada Sin embargo, la intervención del gobierno de Alberta distorsionó rápidamente el mecanismo de precios del mercado. Para ser rentable, mover petróleo por ferrocarril requiere un descuento WCS-WTI que se sitúe en algún punto entre -$12/bbl y -$22/bbl además de un descuento por calidad, y posiblemente más alto cuando se necesitan inversiones adicionales en trenes y tripulaciones (Gráfico 3). En enero de 2019, el descuento de transporte sobrepasó su equilibrio – estrechándose a -$2.90/bbl por debajo del componente de calidad – lo que debilitó los volúmenes de crudo por ferrocarril y condujo a una acumulación de inventarios. Gráfico 3 La política del gobierno provincial distorsiona la dinámica de precios del crudo pesado Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense El gran acto de equilibrio Para abordar estos desequilibrios, el gobierno provincial comenzó a flexibilizar gradualmente las restricciones de producción (Gráfico 4). Pero esto es un trabajo en progreso: en última instancia, su objetivo es encontrar el equilibrio correcto entre los niveles de producción y el diferencial WCS-WTI – es decir, el incentivo de precio necesario para que el mercado mueva más crudo por ferrocarril (CBR). Los siguientes proyectos siguen avanzando por parte de los desarrolladores. Sin embargo, no se espera capacidad de salida adicional significativa antes de 2S20 (Gráfico 5): Gráfico 4 La política sigue siendo un trabajo en progreso Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Gráfico 5 Los mercados intentan corregir el déficit de salida Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen Reemplazo de la Línea 3 de Enbridge. Este oleoducto forma parte del sistema Enbridge Mainline. Este proyecto restaurará la capacidad original del oleoducto Línea 3 existente a 760k b/d desde 390k b/d. El reemplazo va desde Hardisty, AB, hasta Superior, WI en EE. UU. Desde su anuncio inicial en 2014, el proyecto ha enfrentado múltiples vientos en contra, más recientemente, un retraso en los permisos del Estado de Minnesota respecto al impacto de un posible derrame cerca del Lago Superior. La compañía sigue esperando que el proyecto se complete en 2S20. Las porciones canadienses y de Wisconsin ya están completadas. Keystone XL de TC Energy. Este es el mayor de los proyectos propuestos. Aumentará la capacidad de exportación canadiense a EE. UU. en 830k b/d. El proyecto fue propuesto por primera vez en 2008, y correrá de Hardisty, AB a Steele City, NE. Recientemente, la Corte Suprema de Nebraska aprobó la ruta de Keystone XL, levantando uno de los últimos retos legales pendientes – y probablemente el más importante – que enfrentaba la construcción del oleoducto. Esto es un desarrollo positivo para los productores canadienses de petróleo. No obstante, el proyecto aún enfrenta una demanda federal en Montana presentada por grupos ambientalistas que bloquea el nuevo permiso del presidente Trump, el cual dio luz verde al proyecto. Se programó una vista para el 9 de octubre; esto es una victoria crucial para TC Energy.4 Tomar una Decisión Final de Inversión (DFI) antes de fin de año hace posible una finalización para finales de 2022. Expansión federalmente propiedad de Trans Mountain. La solicitud inicial se presentó en 2013 y se proyecta que agregará 590k b/d de capacidad desde Edmonton, AB, hasta Burnaby, B.C. El oleoducto fue comprado por $4.5 mil millones el año pasado por el gobierno federal. A principios de este mes, un juez del Tribunal Federal de Apelaciones rechazó seis de los 12 desafíos legales a la expansión, desestimando reclamaciones centradas en cuestiones medioambientales. La construcción continuará; el gobierno espera que la expansión esté operativa a mediados de 2022. Expansión de capacidad en oleoductos existentes. Esperamos que se produzcan algunos aumentos marginales de capacidad en oleoductos existentes entre 3T19 y 3T20. Enbridge comunicó que podría añadir hasta 450k b/d sin construir nuevos oleoductos para 2022. En este momento, creemos que ~150k b/d se añadirán gradualmente antes de finales del próximo año. Además, Enbridge mencionó que podría aumentar la capacidad en su línea Express en ~60k b/d antes de finales de 2020. Por último, Plains Midstream Canada anunció capacidad adicional en su línea Rangeland en ambas direcciones, Norte y Sur.5 Esto ayudará a los productores canadienses que esperan el reemplazo de la Línea 3 en 2S20. Los retrasos en poner en línea nueva capacidad de salida obligaron al nuevo gobierno provincial Conservador dirigido por Jason Kenney, que llegó al poder en abril de 2019, a extender el programa de recortes hasta diciembre de 2020. Esperamos que este acto de equilibrio continúe durante los próximos 12 meses.6 Perspectiva a corto y medio plazo Esperamos que las necesidades de CBR superen 450k b/d para equilibrar el mercado En nuestro informe del 7 de marzo de 2019, argumentamos que el componente de transporte del diferencial WCS-WTI necesitaba aumentar en ~ $10/bbl para apoyar volúmenes incrementales de crudo por ferrocarril. De marzo a julio, el descuento de transporte aumentó solo $4.80/bbl hasta ~$12/bbl – el límite inferior de nuestro rango estimado de precio ferroviario – y se derrumbó poco después. Esto no logró catalizar volúmenes ferroviarios suficientes para despejar el exceso del mercado. Las estimaciones preliminares de los volúmenes de CBR basadas en datos de CN y CP muestran que se mantuvieron en gran medida planos en agosto y septiembre (Gráfico 6). Gráfico 6 Los envíos por ferrocarril se estancan Envíos de crudo por ferrocarril se estancan Envíos de crudo por ferrocarril se estancan A medida que el gobierno continúa relajar los recortes de producción – alcanzando 100k b/d en octubre – seguimos creyendo que el descuento de transporte necesita subir desde los niveles actuales. Los movimientos recientes en el descuento, promediando $10.3/bbl desde principios de mes, respaldan nuestra visión, y esperamos que esto continúe hasta que alcance ~$15/bbl. Esperamos que las necesidades de CBR superen 450k b/d para equilibrar el mercado hasta que el reemplazo de la Línea 3 se complete, en algún momento de 2S20 (Gráfico 7). También esperamos que el descuento por calidad del crudo WCS comience a aumentar a medida que se acerque IMO 2020. En lo que va del año, el descuento por calidad se ha mantenido relativamente estrecho, debido a la escasez global de oferta de crudo pesado y ácido (Gráfico 8).7 A partir de enero de 2020, la demanda de crudo pesado se moderará a medida que los transportistas se adapten a la nueva regulación de combustible marítimo, compensando parte del efecto de la oferta limitada. Proyectamos que esto añadirá $5/bbl al diferencial WCS-WTI. Gráfico 7 Se requiere capacidad adicional de CBR Se requiere capacidad CBR adicional Se requiere capacidad CBR adicional Gráfico 8 El mercado de crudo pesado sigue apretado El mercado del crudo pesado sigue ajustado. El mercado del crudo pesado sigue ajustado. Combinados, el descuento por calidad y el de transporte deberían empujar el diferencial WCS-WTI hacia -$20/bbl durante los próximos 6 meses, lo que, creemos, perjudicará los flujos de caja de los productores canadienses. Esperamos que la oferta de la WCSB se mantenga plana interanual en 2019. El próximo año, se espera que la producción crezca 4%, y en 2021 otro 1.2% interanual. Perspectiva de producción a largo plazo La inversión en el sector petrolero canadiense nunca se recuperó verdaderamente del colapso de los precios del petróleo de 2014, a pesar del repunte de los precios del crudo (Gráfico 9). El gasto de capital total de Canadá excluyendo petróleo y gas ha estado aumentando desde 2016, reduciendo la participación del gasto de capital en extracción de petróleo y gas al 14% desde el 27% en 2014 (Gráfico 10). Esto se refleja en nuestra previsión de producción a más largo plazo: Esperamos que la producción de la WCSB promedie 5.1mm b/d en 2022 frente a 5.3mm b/d que pronostica la Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). El conjunto finito de fondos disponibles para el sector petrolero y gasífero canadiense compite con el desarrollo de las lutitas en EE. UU. Un entorno regulatorio y fiscal favorable, ciclos de inversión más cortos y retornos iniciales más rápidos atraen la mayor parte de los fondos asignados al desarrollo de petróleo y gas hacia EE. UU. en detrimento de Canadá (Gráfico 11).8 Más recientemente, la divergencia en los flujos de inversión se centra en el acceso al mercado Gráfico 9 La inversión en petróleo canadiense se queda atrás Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen Gráfico 10 El sector de petróleo y gas de Canadá pierde peso Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Gráfico 11 EE. UU. percibido como alternativa de inversión favorable Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen Las empresas extranjeras están abandonando el sector petrolero canadiense, desinvirtiendo más de $30 mil millones desde 2017.9 La intervención del gobierno para limitar la producción llevó a las empresas a posponer nuevos proyectos en Alberta. El conteo de plataformas en Canadá sigue siendo débil y no muestra señales de recuperarse (Gráfico 12).10 No obstante, el sector debería ofrecer una oportunidad para los inversores en los próximos años. Una vez que se resuelva la incertidumbre en torno a la finalización de los oleoductos, creemos que podría producirse un repunte significativo en el rendimiento de las acciones de los productores canadienses (Gráfico 13). La mejora tecnológica ha reducido los costos de equilibrio de las arenas petrolíferas a algún punto entre $45/bbl-$55/bbl para petróleo entregado en Cushing.11 Además, las bajas tasas de declinación del suministro de las arenas petrolíferas lo convierten en una fuente de suministro más estable y predecible en comparación con la producción de lutitas. Gráfico 12 Las reducciones de capex reducen el conteo de plataformas Reducciones del CAPEX reducen el número de plataformas Reducciones del CAPEX reducen el número de plataformas Gráfico 13 Los precios de las acciones energéticas podrían recuperarse Los precios de las acciones del sector energético podrían recuperarse Los precios de las acciones del sector energético podrían recuperarse La próxima nueva capacidad de oleoducto que permitirá entregar más crudo pesado canadiense a las complejas refinerías de la Costa del Golfo de EE. UU. revivirá el sentimiento hacia los proyectos de arenas petrolíferas canadienses. Canadá está posicionado de manera juiciosa para ser el claro ganador en la guerra por cuota de mercado librada por los países productores de crudo pesado para asegurar capacidad en las refinerías del Golfo de EE. UU. El crudo canadiense ya domina las importaciones de PADD 2, y ha ido aumentando su participación en las importaciones de PADD 3 (Gráfico 14). La escasez mencionada de crudo pesado presenta una excelente oportunidad para que Canadá capture espacio adicional en las refinerías de PADD 3. El colapso de Venezuela y los recientes ataques a infraestructura petrolera crítica en el Reino de Arabia Saudita (KSA) resaltan el atractivo del crudo pesado canadiense para las refinerías de EE. UU. Gráfico 14 Fuerte demanda estadounidense por el petróleo de Canadá Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Probablemente se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Impacto de las próximas elecciones federales canadienses Canadá se está preparando para unas elecciones federales el 21 de octubre. El consenso sostiene que el Partido Liberal del primer ministro Justin Trudeau permanecerá en el poder con un gobierno minoritario, o posiblemente en coalición con el Nuevo Partido Democrático (NDP) de izquierda y/o el Partido Verde. Nuestros estrategas geopolíticos creen que las probabilidades de que Trudeau mantenga una mayoría de partido único son mucho más altas que el consenso (que ronda el 25%), dado que se presenta con el respaldo de una economía bastante fuerte, un acuerdo comercial renegociado con Estados Unidos y un entorno sociopolítico estable (Gráfico 15). Gráfico 15 El riesgo político canadiense está contenido y debería mantenerse así El riesgo político canadiense está atenuado y debería permanecer así. El riesgo político canadiense está atenuado y debería permanecer así. Aunque la popularidad de Trudeau ha disminuido, su índice de aprobación todavía lo sitúa en el rango superior de los primeros ministros canadienses y no enfrenta un rival carismático. Tiene una base firme en ambos bastiones tradicionales del poder político, Ontario y Quebec, y las proyecciones de escaños muestran a los liberales liderando en ambas provincias. Los partidos pequeños no están en buenas cifras en las encuestas; el NDP está rindiendo mal en Quebec y es poco probable que le quite muchos votos a los liberales. Todavía podrían haber sorpresas, pero es indicativo que los liberales permanezcan al frente a pesar de los escándalos y controversias de último minuto que los amenazan. Las elecciones canadienses deberían producir un resultado de statu quo que no cambie las perspectivas del sector energético. Para el sector energético, el resultado más positivo es una mayoría conservadora; de lo contrario, una mayoría liberal renovada es el statu quo y por tanto el resultado menos negativo. Trudeau es criticado por los conservadores y en Alberta por comprometer los intereses energéticos de Canadá, aunque su apoyo al oleoducto Trans Mountain lo pone en desacuerdo con los partidos de izquierda. El peor escenario para el sector energético sería si Trudeau se viera obligado a depender de estos partidos en el parlamento – y esto es una posibilidad real aunque no nuestro caso base. Conclusión: Las elecciones canadienses deberían producir un resultado de statu quo que no cambie las perspectivas del sector energético – sin embargo, conllevan un riesgo no trivial de forzar a los liberales a integrarse en una coalición con partidos de izquierda cuyas posturas son negativas para el mercado del sector energético. Si se evita este resultado, espere que el mercado celebre a corto plazo, aunque los efectos a largo plazo de un segundo mandato de Trudeau no son positivos en el frente energético.   Hugo Bélanger, Analista Senior Estrategia de Commodities y Energía HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Notas a pie de página 1      Véase Mohammad bin Salman niega haber ordenado el asesinato de Khashoggi, pero dice que asume la responsabilidad, que se emitió el domingo 29 de septiembre de 2019 en CBS News. En un desarrollo relacionado la semana pasada, Arabia Saudita anunció un alto el fuego limitado con el Movimiento Houthi respaldado por Irán en Yemen, con el que ha estado en guerra desde 2015; véase Saudi Arabia agrees to limited ceasefire in Yemen, publicado por Arabian Business el 28 de septiembre de 2019. 2      Véase Las exportaciones de petróleo pesado de Canadá a Asia desde EE. UU. se disparan: datos, comerciantes publicado el 27 de septiembre de 2019 por reuters.com. 3      La expansión del oleoducto de 100k b/d de Enbridge Inc. programada para estar operativa en diciembre aumentará marginalmente los envíos canadienses hacia el sur. Enbridge es el operador dominante de oleoductos en el oeste de Canadá. Está intentando que los transportistas firmen contratos a largo plazo – frente a los contratos mensuales existentes – durante su actual temporada de subastas para el espacio en oleoducto. Su regulador “tiene preocupaciones respecto a la equidad del proceso de temporada abierta de Enbridge y la percepción de abuso del poder de mercado de Enbridge.” Véase El regulador canadiense ordena a Enbridge detener el plan de reforma del oleoducto debido a la 'percepción de abuso' publicado por reuters.com el 27 de septiembre de 2019. 4      Véase La corte confirma la ruta alternativa del oleoducto Keystone XL a través de Nebraska, publicado el 23 de agosto de 2019 por reuters.com. 5      Véase “Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Developments Projects (2019-2039),” publicado por el Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), julio de 2019. 6      El nuevo gobierno hizo cambios pequeños adicionales a la política previa. Por ejemplo, dará a los productores un aviso de 2 meses sobre cualquier cambio en los límites, aumentó el límite base a 20k b/d desde 10k b/d y permite al ministro de Energía usar discreción para fijar los límites de producción tras fusiones y adquisiciones. Véase la sección límite de producción de petróleo del sitio web del gobierno de Alberta. 7           Como se discutió en nuestro informe de marzo de 2019, nuestra expectativa de alta adhesión a los recortes de producción acordados por los países de OPEC 2.0, que principalmente exportan crudos pesados y ácidos; mayores de lo esperado descensos en la producción venezolana de crudo pesado; y sanciones sobre los volúmenes de exportación de petróleo iraní limitan la oferta de crudo pesado disponible para los consumidores. 8              En junio de 2019, el gobierno canadiense aprobó el Proyecto de Ley C-69, llamado “La modernización de la Junta Nacional de Energía y la Agencia Canadiense de Evaluación Ambiental.” Esta ley cambia el proceso federal de evaluación ambiental. Los críticos argumentaron que esto repelería a los inversores energéticos y limitaría la aprobación de proyectos de oleoductos. Adicionalmente, el Senado canadiense aprobó el Proyecto de Ley C-48 – que pretende prohibir grandes petroleros en las aguas al norte de la costa de B.C. Esta ley dificulta que Alberta envíe su petróleo vía instalaciones de exportación del norte de B.C. Las empresas ahora están probando el envío de betún semisólido en lugar de en forma líquida para evitar cumplir con la nueva legislación. Véase El crudo de las arenas petrolíferas navega desde B.C., eludiendo la prohibición federal, publicado por el Edmonton Journal el 26 de septiembre de 2019. 9           Véase La diáspora de $30 mil millones: Las empresas petroleras extranjeras siguen abandonando el sector energético de Canadá publicado por el Financial Post el 22 de agosto de 2019. 10             El conteo de plataformas no captura completamente la producción de petróleo canadiense. La producción de betún a partir de minería representa ~30% de la producción total. Sin embargo, creemos que el conteo de plataformas sigue siendo un buen proxy del capex en el sector. 11             Véase “Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Developments Projects (2019-2039),” publicado por el Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), julio de 2019. Visiones y temas de inversión Recomendaciones Recomendaciones estratégicas Operaciones tácticas RENDIMIENTO DE RECOMENDACIONES DE OPERACIONES EN 2019 3T Es probable que se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Es probable que se amplíen los diferenciales del crudo canadiense Tabla de referencia de precios de commodities y jugadas Operaciones cerradas en 2019 Resumen de operaciones cerradas Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen. Diferenciales del crudo canadiense probablemente se amplíen.

Aspectos destacados El apoyo del presidente Trump entre los republicanos y la falta de evidencia concluyente impedirán su destitución. El riesgo comercial aumentará si la aprobación de Trump se beneficia de los procedimientos de juicio político y la economía estadounidense es resiliente. El riesgo político en la Europa continental está disminuyendo. Sin embargo, ojo con Rusia y Turquía, y mantener posiciones cortas en gilts a 10 años frente a 2 años. Una nueva elección en España puede no resolver el estancamiento político. Anotar ganancias en nuestra posición corta en el Hang Seng de Hong Kong. Análisis Los procedimientos de juicio político contra el presidente de los EE. UU., Donald Trump, el audaz ataque iraní a Arabia Saudita, la persistencia del riesgo de guerra comercial y datos adicionales débiles de China y Europa sugieren que los inversores deberían mantenerse adversos al riesgo por ahora. En concreto, el juicio político de Trump podría impulsarlo a buscar distracciones en el extranjero: abandonar la retirada táctica de una política exterior y comercial agresiva que apenas había comenzado. El riesgo geopolítico fuera de los focos calientes está cayendo, especialmente en Europa. El riesgo de un Brexit sin acuerdo se ha desplomado en línea con nuestras expectativas. Italia y Alemania han agradado a los mercados al proporcionar cierto estímulo fiscal sin populismo. En Francia, la popularidad del presidente Emmanuel Macron se está recuperando. Y, como discutimos en este informe, la elección en España no sumará un factor de miedo significativo. A continuación presentamos un nuevo Indicador de GeoRiesgo, revisamos la señal de todos nuestros indicadores del último mes y luego nos centramos en España. Teman la política estadounidense, no el juicio político La decisión de los demócratas de la Cámara de acusar a Trump da a los inversores otra razón para mantenerse cautelosos con los activos de riesgo. ¿Por qué no ser alcistas? Es cierto que el juicio político sin evidencia concluyente aumenta las posibilidades de reelección de Trump, lo que es positivo para el mercado en comparación con una victoria demócrata. El presidente Trump es prácticamente invulnerable a las medidas demócratas de juicio político mientras los republicanos continúen apoyándolo en un 91% (Gráfico 1). Los senadores no desertarán en estas circunstancias, por lo que Trump no será destituido del cargo. Trump es invulnerable a las medidas de juicio político siempre que el apoyo republicano se mantenga alto. Además, la transcripción de su conversación telefónica con el presidente ucraniano Volodímir Zelenskiy no produjo una bomba informativa: no hay un quid pro quo explícito en el que el presidente Trump sugiera que retendrá la ayuda militar a Ucrania a cambio de una investigación sobre las acciones del exvicepresidente Joe Biden y su hijo Hunter en relación con Ucrania. Cualquier conducta indebida es, por tanto, debatible, a la espera de pruebas adicionales. Esto incluye evidencia más allá de la “denuncia del informante”, que sugiere que el equipo de Trump intentó sofocar la transcripción de la mencionada llamada telefónica. El punto es que las bases del partido republicano y el Senado son los árbitros finales del debate. El problema es que el escándalo y el juicio político probablemente seguirán alimentando la volatilidad del mercado de acciones (Gráfico 2). Los demócratas de la Cámara podrían sacar nuevas pruebas ahora que están totalmente centrados en el juicio político y en escuchar a denunciantes de la comunidad de inteligencia. Gráfico 1 Los republicanos aún no están dispuestos a iniciar un juicio político contra Trump Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – Actualización GeoRisk: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – Actualización GeoRisk: 27 de septiembre de 2019 El juicio político también tiene un impacto negativo en el mercado a través de las primarias del Partido Demócrata. Elizabeth Warren aún no ha desplazado a Biden en las primeras primarias demócratas. Gráfico 2 Los procedimientos de juicio político probablemente aumentarán la volatilidad Los procedimientos de juicio político probablemente aumentarán Vol Los procedimientos de juicio político probablemente aumentarán Vol Si lo hace, tendrá un impacto negativo considerable en los mercados de acciones, ya que el presidente Trump seguirá siendo solo ligeramente favorito para ganar la reelección. En cualquier caso, esta elección será extremadamente reñida, tendrá implicaciones significativas para la política fiscal y la regulación, y por lo tanto generará mucha incertidumbre entre ahora y noviembre de 2020. El episodio del informante, si acaso, ha agravado esta incertidumbre. Como se mencionó al principio del informe, si los procedimientos de juicio político alguna vez ganan tracción, podrían impulsar a Trump a buscar distracciones en el extranjero: abandonar la retirada táctica de la política exterior y comercial agresiva que apenas había comenzado. Por último, la reelección de Trump, aunque más favorable para el mercado que la alternativa y probablemente desencadene un repunte de alivio, no es tan alcista como parece. Las políticas de Trump en un segundo mandato no serán tan favorables para las empresas como en el primer mandato. Liberado de preocupaciones electorales pero aún enfrentando una Cámara dominada por los demócratas, Trump no podrá recortar impuestos, pero probablemente llevará a cabo su política exterior y comercial de manera aún más agresiva. Esta no es una perspectiva positiva para el mercado, independientemente de si es beneficiosa para los intereses de EE. UU. a largo plazo. Conclusión: La aprobación del presidente Trump entre los votantes republicanos es el dato crítico. A menos que abandonen la fe en él, el Senado no cambiará de postura, y el apoyo a Trump incluso puede aumentar. Pero esto no es motivo para volverse alcista. El próximo año verá inevitablemente un espectáculo horrendo de disfunción política estadounidense que conducirá a volatilidad y potencialmente a conflictos en escalada en el extranjero. Presentamos… Nuestro Indicador de Riesgo Comercial Sino-Estadounidense Esta semana presentamos un nuevo Indicador de GeoRiesgo para la guerra comercial EE. UU.-China (Gráfico 3). El indicador se basa en el mejor rendimiento de las acciones de mercados desarrollados en general en relación con esas mismas acciones que tienen alta exposición a China, y en el crecimiento del crédito privado de China (“financiación social total”). Como muestra el comentario de nuestro gráfico, el indicador corresponde con el curso de los acontecimientos a lo largo de la guerra comercial. También se correlaciona bastante bien con medidas alternativas de riesgo comercial, como el recuento de términos clave en los informes de noticias. Gráfico 3 El riesgo comercial aumentará a partir de ahora Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Al cierre de esta edición, nuestro indicador sugiere que el riesgo relacionado con la guerra comercial está aumentando. En el último mes Trump ha realizado una retirada táctica en política exterior y comercial para controlar los riesgos económicos antes de las elecciones. Nuestro indicador sugiere que esto ya está descontado. El problema es que el riesgo de reelección de Trump permite a China exigir condiciones más duras, lo que se confirma tentativamente por la detención de un empleado de FedEx por parte de China (señalando que puede perjudicar a empresas estadounidenses) y la cancelación de una gira por granjas en Montana y Nebraska. No fueron eventos mayores, pero sugieren que China percibe la vacilación de Trump y está pasando a la ofensiva en las negociaciones. Los negociadores principales se reunirán a principios de octubre para una ronda de conversaciones muy significativa. Si estas resultan en declaraciones públicas de progreso sustantivo —y en evidencia de que el borrador casi terminado de abril se está completando— podrían preparar una cumbre entre los presidentes Xi Jinping y Donald Trump en noviembre, en la cumbre de la APEC en Santiago de Chile. En ese caso tendríamos que elevar nuestra probabilidad del 40% de que se concluya un acuerdo antes de noviembre de 2020. Si las conversaciones no concluyen con resultados públicos positivos, los inversores no deberían tomarlo a la ligera. Las negociaciones del cuarto trimestre (Q4) son posiblemente el último intento de llegar a un acuerdo antes de las elecciones estadounidenses. Si no hay noticias de una cumbre Trump-Xi, confirmará nuestra perspectiva pesimista sobre la fase final. Es poco probable que las conversaciones comerciales EE. UU.-China produzcan un acuerdo duradero. En última instancia, no creemos que las conversaciones entre EE. UU. y China produzcan un acuerdo concluyente y duradero que elimine sustancialmente el riesgo y la incertidumbre de la guerra comercial. Esto es especialmente cierto si la presión de los mercados financieros y la economía —en medio del relajamiento de la política monetaria global— no es lo suficientemente intensa como para obligar a los responsables a comprometerse. Pero vigilaremos de cerca cualquier señal de que la retirada táctica de Trump está sobreviviendo a los procedimientos de juicio político y provocando reciprocidad por parte de China, ya que esto apuntaría a una perspectiva más optimista. Conclusión: Mientras la calificación de aprobación del presidente se beneficie de los procedimientos de juicio político del Partido Demócrata, y la economía estadounidense sea resiliente, como esperamos, Trump puede evitar cualquier capitulación a un acuerdo superficial con China. El riesgo comercial podría aumentar a partir de aquí. En la misma línea, los procedimientos de juicio político podrían eventualmente forzar a Trump a cambiar de táctica una vez más y adoptar una postura mucho más agresiva en asuntos exteriores. Si el juicio político gana tracción, o se desarrolla un mercado bajista, podría volverse más agresivo que en cualquier otra etapa de su presidencia, y esta agresión podría dirigirse a China (o Irán, Corea del Norte, Venezuela u otro país). El riesgo para nuestra visión es que China acepte la posición comercial de Trump para conseguir un respiro para su economía y las dos partes acuerden un pacto en la cumbre de la APEC. El riesgo europeo cae, mientras que el riesgo ruso y turco difícilmente puede caer más En otros lugares, nuestras medidas de riesgo geopolítico indican una disminución de las tensiones en varios mercados desarrollados y emergentes (ver Apéndice). En Alemania, el riesgo puede subir un poco desde los niveles actuales pero está mayormente contenido; esto no ocurre en el Reino Unido más allá del muy corto plazo. En Rusia y Turquía, el riesgo difícilmente puede disminuir más. Tómese, para empezar, Alemania, donde el riesgo político disminuyó después de que la coalición gobernante de la canciller Angela Merkel acordara un paquete de gasto fiscal de 50.000 millones de euros para combatir el cambio climático. Este acuerdo confirma nuestra valoración de que, si bien la política alemana es fundamentalmente estable, la administración será reactiva más que proactiva al aplicar estímulos. Europa tendrá que esperar a una crisis global, o a un nuevo gobierno alemán, para un verdadero “cambio de juego” en la política fiscal alemana. Quizá el Partido Verde, que se dispara en las encuestas y que empujó a Merkel a este gasto climático, posibilite tal desarrollo. Pero es demasiado pronto para decirlo. Mientras tanto, los años de transición de Merkel y factores externos evitarán que el riesgo político desaparezca por completo. Vemos las probabilidades de aranceles estadounidenses a los coches en no más del 30%, al menos mientras persistan las tensiones sino-estadounidenses. Por el contrario, los riesgos políticos del Reino Unido no están contenidos a pesar de una mejora notable este mes. La decisión del Tribunal Supremo del 25 de septiembre de anular la suspensión del parlamento ordenada por el primer ministro Boris Johnson clavó otro clavo en el ataúd de su amenaza de sacar al país de la UE sin un acuerdo. Fue una maniobra para extraer concesiones de la UE que ha fracasado por completo.1 Dado que fue la amenaza más creíble de una salida sin acuerdo que probablemente se pueda montar, su fracaso debería marcar una disminución del riesgo político para el Reino Unido y sus vecinos. Sin embargo, paradójicamente, nuestro indicador GeoRisk no corroboró la fuerte caída de la libra durante el verano y ahora, cuando la opción sin acuerdo está descartada, ha dejado de caer. La razón es que la tasa de depreciación de la libra permaneció relativamente plana durante el verano, mientras que el PMI manufacturero del Reino Unido —una de las variables explicativas de nuestro indicador— cayó mucho más rápido al desplomarse la manufactura global. Como resultado, nuestro indicador registró esto como una disminución del riesgo político. El mundo temía más una recesión que un Brexit sin acuerdo, y esto resultó ser el llamado correcto por parte del mercado. Pero la situación se invertirá si el crecimiento global mejora y se convocan nuevas elecciones británicas, ya que estas podrían revivir el riesgo de una salida sin acuerdo, especialmente si los conservadores regresan con una mayoría estrecha bajo una coalición. La verdad es que la saga del Brexit está lejos de terminar y el Reino Unido se enfrenta a una elección, a la posible llegada de un gobierno de izquierdas y, en última instancia, a un populismo resiliente una vez que quede claro que ni salir ni quedarse en la UE resolverán la angustia de la clase media. Nuestra recomendación larga en GBP-USD es necesariamente táctica y venderemos cuando llegue a $1.30. En los mercados emergentes, Rusia y Turquía han visto caer el riesgo político hasta niveles tan bajos que resulta difícil imaginar que baje más sin que algún desarrollo político provoque un aumento. Según nuestra última valoración, Turquía está casi segura de ver un pico en el riesgo en el futuro cercano. Esto podría ocurrir por la formación de una alianza política doméstica contra el presidente Recep Erdogan o por el aumento de riesgos externos centrados en el frágil acuerdo EE. UU.-Turquía sobre Siria. Las tensiones con Irán también podrían provocar shocks en el precio del petróleo que debiliten la economía y envalentonen a la oposición. En cuanto a Rusia, nuestro caso base es que continuará centrando sus problemas internos al descuidar los objetivos exteriores, lo que ayuda a mantener bajo el riesgo geopolítico. Con la política estadounidense en crisis y un posible conflicto con Irán en el horizonte, Moscú no tiene razones para atraer atención hostil hacia sí. No obstante, Moscú ha demostrado ser impredecible y agresivo durante la era Putin, no tiene una lealtad real hacia Trump y podría ser víctima de la ira de los demócratas, y tiene incentivos para avivar las llamas en Oriente Medio y la región Asia-Pacífico. Así que esperar que el riesgo geopolítico baje mucho más es tentar al destino. Conclusión: El riesgo político europeo está disminuyendo, pero el estatus de Merkel como figura en transición y la guerra comercial hacen que el riesgo alemán tenga probabilidades de aumentar desde aquí a pesar de fundamentos políticos estables. El Reino Unido sigue afrontando un riesgo político elevado en términos generacionales a pesar de la feliz conclusión del riesgo de no-acuerdo este verano. Vender en corto gilts a 10 años frente a 2 años. Rusia debería mantenerse tranquila por ahora, pero Turquía está casi asegurada a experimentar un aumento del riesgo político. España: la elección podría sorprender, pero los riesgos son bajos Los votantes españoles acudirán a las urnas el 10 de noviembre por cuarta vez en cuatro años después de que los líderes políticos no lograran un acuerdo para formar un gobierno permanente. El Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) ha ejercido como gobierno en funciones tras ganar 123 de los 350 escaños en las elecciones anticipadas de abril. Una nueva elección en España no resolverá el actual estancamiento político. El primer ministro y líder del PSOE, Pedro Sánchez, no logró ser confirmado en julio y desde entonces ha intentado cerrar un acuerdo de gobierno con el partido de izquierdas y anti-establecimiento Podemos. Sin embargo, el PSOE no busca una coalición completa sino meramente apoyo externo para seguir gobernando en minoría. Por tanto, solo está ofreciendo a Podemos agencias no ministeriales (en lugar de puestos de alto nivel en el gabinete) en las negociaciones, dejando a Podemos y a otros partidos listos para unas elecciones. El resultado de las próximas elecciones puede no diferir mucho de las de abril. El elector español no está demandando cambios. El desempleo y el subempleo han ido disminuyendo, y el crecimiento salarial ha sido positivo desde 2014 (Gráfico 4). En las encuestas de opinión, el apoyo a los distintos partidos no ha variado significativamente (Gráfico 5, panel superior). El PSOE sigue liderando con una diferencia considerable. Gráfico 4 El elector español no está exigiendo cambios El votante español no exige cambios El votante español no exige cambios Sin embargo, la elección aumentará la incertidumbre en un momento inoportuno y podría producir sorpresas. El apoyo al PSOE ha disminuido ligeramente desde finales de julio, cuando las negociaciones con Podemos empezaron a desmoronarse. Gráfico 5 Poco cambio en las encuestas... No hay mucho cambio en las encuestas... No hay mucho cambio en las encuestas... Incluso si PSOE y Podemos forman un pacto de gobierno, su apoyo popular combinado no es significativamente mayor que el apoyo combinado de los tres principales partidos conservadores. Estos son el Partido Popular, Ciudadanos y Vox (Gráfico 5, panel inferior), que recientemente demostraron que pueden trabajar juntos al cerrar un acuerdo de gobierno para dirigir la comunidad regional de Madrid. Gráfico 6 ...pero una menor participación podría perjudicar a la izquierda Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 El Partido Socialista espera captar votantes marginales de Ciudadanos, es decir, aquellos escépticos respecto al giro populista de derechas de ese partido y a su postura más dura sobre Cataluña. Sin embargo, incluso captando hasta la mitad de los votantes de Ciudadanos, el apoyo al PSOE se situaría en ~37% —muy lejos de lo necesario para formar un gobierno mayoritario de partido único. Otro factor que puede perjudicar al PSOE es la participación electoral. Los votantes españoles han mostrado cada vez menos interés en apoyar a cualquier partido desde las elecciones de abril. Una disminución de la participación perjudicaría más a los partidos de izquierda, dado que los votantes culpan a Podemos y al PSOE más que al PP y a Ciudadanos por la incapacidad de formar gobierno (Gráfico 6). Los resultados más probables son mantener el statu quo o una alianza PSOE-Podemos. Pero no se puede descartar una victoria conservadora. En los dos primeros casos, la implicación es una acomodación fiscal algo más positiva que es beneficiosa a corto plazo, pero con el riesgo de perder ímpetu en las reformas que tendría consecuencias negativas a largo plazo. Para poner esto en contexto, la política española sigue orientada al ámbito doméstico, no es una amenaza para la integración europea. Los votantes en España son de los más europeístas del continente, tanto en términos de la moneda como de la pertenencia a la UE (Gráfico 7). España es uno de los principales beneficiarios de las asignaciones presupuestarias de la UE, junto con Italia. Incluso el partido de extrema derecha Vox no se considera “fuertemente euroescéptico”. Dentro de España, sin embargo, la polarización política es un problema. La desigualdad y la inmovilidad social son motivo de preocupación, aunque no tan extremas como en Italia, el Reino Unido o Estados Unidos. Además, la crisis separatista catalana es divisiva. Aunque no está prevista una nueva elección catalana hasta 2022, la coalición proindependentista de Izquierda Republicana de Cataluña y Cataluña Sí ha ido ganando impulso en las encuestas, y el apoyo a Ciudadanos se desplomó desde que el partido endureció su postura sobre Cataluña a principios de este año (Gráfico 8 Gráfico 7 A los españoles les gusta Europa Los españoles aman Europa Los españoles aman Europa Gráfico 8 Cataluña es un tema divisivo Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 A muy corto plazo, la parálisis electoral introduce vientos en contra para la política fiscal. Por un lado, las comunidades autónomas pueden verse obligadas a recortar gasto. Las regiones esperaban recibir 5.000 millones de euros más que el año pasado, que se prometió gastar, en parte, en sanidad y educación. Hasta que un gobierno estable (o al menos en funciones) pueda aprobar un presupuesto para 2019, las regiones basarán sus presupuestos de 2019 en las cifras del año anterior, lo que significa que tendrán que recortar cualquier incremento previsto del gasto. Sin embargo, por otro lado, el déficit presupuestario se ampliará al no recaudarse algunos impuestos. A finales de 2018 España aprobó aumentos por decreto en las pensiones, los salarios de los funcionarios y el salario mínimo, pero cualquier aumento de ingresos correspondiente que se iba a implementar en el presupuesto de 2019 no se materializará hasta que haya gobierno, ejerciendo presión al alza sobre el déficit. Más allá de las elecciones, la tendencia debería ser una mayor empuje fiscal debido a la desaceleración continental. España tiene cierto margen fiscal para jugar: se proyecta que su déficit presupuestario disminuya al 2% en 2019 y al 1,1% en 2020.2 La estimación más conservadora de la Comisión Europea prevé déficits para 2019 y 2020 de 2,3% y 2%, respectivamente (Gráfico 9). Esto significa que España puede proporcionar aproximadamente entre 10.000 y 15.000 millones de euros adicionales de estímulo en 2020 sin siquiera insinuar el inicio de procedimientos por déficit excesivo, un cambio bienvenido tras casi una década de austeridad. El riesgo es que el impulso de las reformas estructurales de España pueda perderse con consecuencias negativas a largo plazo. En 2012 España llevó a cabo dolorosas reformas laborales y de pensiones que sustentaron su impresionante recuperación económica. La economía sigue creciendo más rápido que la media de sus pares, el desempleo ha caído un 12% en los últimos seis años y la competitividad exportadora ha tenido una de las recuperaciones más pronunciadas de Europa desde 2008 (Gráfico 10 Gráfico 9 España tiene cierto margen fiscal España tiene cierto margen fiscal España tiene cierto margen fiscal Esto es más probable que se evite si ocurre una sorpresa y los conservadores vuelven al poder, aunque eso también implicaría políticas menos acomodaticias a corto plazo. Gráfico 10 La recuperación empieza a desacelerarse La recuperación empieza a desacelerarse La recuperación empieza a desacelerarse Conclusión: Nuestro indicador de riesgo geopolítico señala niveles contenidos de riesgo para España. Esto encaja, ya que la elección puede no cambiar nada y, en cualquier caso, el país permanecerá en un equilibrio inquieto. La política es fundamentalmente más estable que en los países desarrollados aquejados por el populismo —EE. UU., Reino Unido e Italia. Sin embargo, un resultado que produzca un gobierno de izquierdas conducirá a una mayor acomodación fiscal a corto plazo a costa del destacado progreso reciente de España en reformas estructurales. Tareas administrativas Estamos cerrando ganancias en nuestra posición corta en el Hang Seng de Hong Kong. Los disturbios no han terminado, pero están a punto de alcanzar su punto máximo a medida que nos acercamos al 1 de octubre, Día Nacional de la República Popular China, y Pekín buscará evitar una intervención agresiva.   Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Analista de investigación ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vicepresidente Estratega geopolítico mattg@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1 El Tribunal Supremo consideró que la suspensión del parlamento por parte del gobierno de Johnson fue una frustración ilegal del papel del parlamento como legislador soberano y supervisor del gobierno sin una justificación razonable. El tribunal fue mayor de lo habitual, con 11 jueces, y fallaron por unanimidad contra la suspensión. Esperábamos al menos que la votación fuera estrecha —dado los usos históricos de la suspensión del parlamento, el hecho de que el parlamento aún tenía tiempo para actuar antes del Brexit del 31 de octubre y la autoridad histórica del primer ministro sobre asuntos exteriores y tratados—. Pero el Tribunal Supremo ha intervenido para llenar el vacío de poder creado por la parálisis del parlamento en la saga del Brexit; ha “anulado” lo que podría haber llegado a ser un precedente neo-Stuardo por el que los primeros ministros pueden restringir el papel del parlamento en momentos importantes. La consecuencia pragmática a corto plazo es la reducción de los riesgos políticos y económicos de una salida sin acuerdo; pero la consecuencia a largo plazo puede ser el ascenso del poder judicial a una mayor prominencia dentro del sistema constitucional en constante evolución de Gran Bretaña. 2 Consulte “Stability Programme Update 2019-2022, Kingdom of Spain,” disponible en www.ec.europa.eu. Reino Unido: Indicador GeoRisk Reino Unido: GEORISK INDICATOR Reino Unido: GEORISK INDICATOR Francia: Indicador GeoRisk FRANCIA: INDICADOR GEORISK FRANCIA: INDICADOR GEORISK Alemania: Indicador GeoRisk ALEMANIA: GEORISK INDICATOR ALEMANIA: GEORISK INDICATOR España: Indicador GeoRisk ESPAÑA: INDICADOR GEORISK ESPAÑA: INDICADOR GEORISK Italia: Indicador GeoRisk ITALIA: INDICADOR GEORISK ITALIA: INDICADOR GEORISK Rusia: Indicador GeoRisk RUSIA: INDICADOR GEORISK RUSIA: INDICADOR GEORISK Turquía: Indicador GeoRisk TURQUÍA: INDICADOR GEORISK TURQUÍA: INDICADOR GEORISK Brasil: Indicador GeoRisk BRASIL: INDICADOR GEORISK BRASIL: INDICADOR GEORISK Taiwán: Indicador GeoRisk TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR Corea: Indicador GeoRisk COREA: INDICADOR GEORISK COREA: INDICADOR GEORISK ¿Qué hay en el radar geopolítico? Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Sección III: Calendario geopolítico

Following drone attacks on critical oil infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) over the weekend, which removed ~ 5.7mm b/d of output, the U.S. is likely to conduct a limited retaliatory strike. In addition, the U.S. will continue to build up forces in the Persian Gulf to deter Iran and prepare for a larger response if necessary. After this initial response, the Trump administration will likely seek to contain tensions, as neither Trump nor the United States has an immediate interest in launching a large-scale conflict with Iran. But that does not mean that one will not happen – indeed, the odds are now higher that this risk could materialize. If the oil-price shock caused by these attacks becomes prolonged and unmanageable – either because of additional attacks against Saudi Arabian or other regional infrastructure, or direct Iranian action to restrict the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf – the negative impact on the global and U.S. economy will grow. Faced with a recession – which is not our base case but is possible – the incentive for Trump to engage war with Iran will rise sharply. Attack On KSA Will Prompt U.S. Retaliation If Iran is confirmed as the base, it will limit Trump’s options and ensure that any retaliation leads to a greater escalation of tensions. Over the weekend, Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility for attacks on two critical oil assets in Saudi Arabia, removing ~ 5.5% of world crude output – a historic shock to global oil supply, and the largest unplanned outage ever recorded (Chart 1).1 U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of being behind the attacks and said there was no evidence that Houthis launched them from Yemen. As we go to press, neither Saudi Arabian officials nor President Trump have confirmed Iran was the culprit, although the sophistication of the attack’s targeting and execution suggest that they will. President Trump said the U.S. is “locked and loaded depending on verification” and offered U.S. support to KSA in a call to Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.2 Chart 1Oil Supply Disruption + Volume Lost A direct missile strike from Iran is the least likely source, as the Iranians have sought to act through proxies this year, in staging attacks to counter U.S. sanctions, precisely in order to maintain plausible deniability and avoid provoking a full-blown American retaliation. If Iran is confirmed as the base, it will limit Trump’s options and ensure that any retaliation leads to a greater escalation of tensions, relative to a situation where militant groups in Iraq or Yemen (or even in Saudi Arabia) are found to be responsible. Assuming the strike came from outside Iran, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia would presumably retaliate against its proxies in those locations – e.g., the Houthis in Yemen, or the Shia militias in Iraq. Washington is certain to dial up its military deterrent in the region and use the attacks to gain greater worldwide support for a tighter enforcement of sanctions to isolate Iran. This deterrence includes a multinational naval fleet in the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Gulf, where ~ 20% of the world’s crude oil supply transits daily. Electoral Constraints Facing Trump There are several reasons President Trump will not rush to a full-scale conflict with Iran. First, the attack did not kill U.S. troops or civilians. Miraculously, not even a single casualty is reported in Saudi Arabia. Yet, unlike the Iranian shooting of an American drone, which nearly brought Trump to launch air strikes on June 21, the latest attack clearly impacted critical infrastructure in a way that threatens global stability, making it more likely that some retaliation will occur. Second, Trump faces a significant electoral constraint from high oil prices. True, the U.S. economy is not as exposed to oil imports as it was (Chart 2). Also, global oil producers and strategic reserves including the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) can handle the immediate short-term loss from KSA (Chart 3). However, the duration of the cut-off is unknown and further disruptions will occur if the U.S. retaliates and Iranian-backed forces attack yet again. Third, there is still a chance to show restraint in retaliation, contain tensions over the coming months, limit oil supply loss and price spikes, and thus keep an oil-price shock from tanking the U.S. economy. Chart 2U.S. Imports Continue Falling But as tensions escalate in the short term, they could hit a point of no return at which the economic damage becomes so severe that President Trump can no longer seek re-election based on his economic record (Chart 4). At that point the incentive is to confront Iran directly – and run in 2020 as a “war president” intent on achieving long-term national security interests despite short-term economic pain. Chart 3Key SPRs Are Still Adequate Chart 4An Oil Price Shock Lowers Trump's Re-Election Chances U.S.’s Volatile Attempt At Diplomacy What triggered the attack and what does it say about the U.S. and Iranian positions going forward? Ever since Trump backed away from air strikes in June, he has become more inclined to de-escalate the conflict he began with Iran by withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as terrorists, and imposing crippling sanctions to bring Iran’s oil exports to zero. Even as Rouhani and Trump publicly mulled a summit and negotiations, Rouhani insisted that any negotiations with the United States would require Trump to rejoin the JCPOA and remove all sanctions. What prompted this backtracking was Iran’s demonstration of a higher pain threshold than Trump expected. President Hassan Rouhani, and his Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, were personally invested in the 2015 nuclear deal with the Obama administration, which they negotiated despite grave warnings from the regime’s conservative factions that they would be betrayed. Trump’s reneging on that deal confirmed their opponents’ expectations, while his sanctions have sent the economy into a crushing recession (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Sanctions Hammer Iran's Economy With Iranian parliamentary elections in February 2020, and a consequential presidential election in 2021 in which Rouhani will seek to support a political ally, the Rouhani administration needed to respond forcefully to Trump’s sanctions. Iran staged several provocations in the Strait of Hormuz to warn the U.S. against stringent sanctions enforcement (Map 1). And recently, even as Rouhani and Trump publicly mulled a summit and negotiations, Rouhani insisted that any negotiations with the United States would require Trump to rejoin the JCPOA and remove all sanctions, a very high bar for talks. Map 1Abqaiq Is At The Very Core Of Global Oil Supply Realizing the large appetite for conflict in Tehran, and the ability to sustain sanctions and use proxy warfare damaging global oil supply, Trump took a step back – he withheld air strikes in late June, discussed a diplomatic path forward with French President Emmanuel Macron, and subsequently fired his National Security Adviser John Bolton, a known war hawk on Iran who helped mastermind the return to sanctions. The proximate cause of Bolton’s ouster was reportedly a disagreement about sanctions relief that would have been designed to enable a meeting with Rouhani at the United Nations General Assembly next week. Such a summit could possibly have led to a return to the pre-2017 U.S.-Iran détente. If Trump had compromised, Iran could have gone back to observing the 2015 nuclear pact provisions, which it has only gradually and carefully violated. Moreover the French proposal to convince Iran to rejoin talks by offering a $15 billion credit line for sanctions relief was gaining traction. Apparently these recent moves toward diplomacy posed a threat to various actors in the region that benefit from U.S.-Iran conflict and sanctions. Hardliners in Iran want to weaken the Rouhani administration and prevent further Rouhani-led negotiations (i.e. “surrender”) to American pressure. On August 29, three days after Rouhani hinted that he might still be willing to talk with Trump, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s weekly publication warned that “negotiations with the U.S. are definitely out of the question.”3 The IRGC and others continue to benefit from black market activity fueled by sanctions. And Iranian overseas militant proxies have their own reasons to fear a return to U.S.-Iran détente. Saudi Arabia and Israel also worry that President Trump will follow in President Obama’s footsteps with Iran and strategic withdrawal from the Middle East, which has considerable popular support in the United States (Chart 6). Both the Saudis and Israelis have been emboldened by the Trump administration’s support and have expanded their regional military targeting of Iranian-backed forces, prompting Iranian pushback. The hard-line factions know that a full-fledged American attack would be devastating to Iranian missile, radar, and energy facilities and armed forces. The Iranians remember the devastating impact on their navy from Operation Praying Mantis in 1988. But with the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions cutting oil exports nearly to zero, Iran’s economy is getting strangled and militant forces may feel they have no choice. Chart 6Americans Do Not Support War With Iran Moreover Trump’s electoral constraint – his need to make deals in order to achieve foreign policy victories and lift his weak approval ratings ahead of the election – means that foreign enemies have the ability to drive up the price of a deal. This is what the Iranians just did. But negotiations may be impossible now before 2020. Rouhani may be forced to play the hawk, Supreme Leader Khamenei is opposed to talks, and the hard-line faction is apparently willing to court conflict with America to consolidate its power ahead of the dangerous and uncertain period that awaits the regime in the near future, when Khamenei’s inevitable succession occurs. Bottom Line: We argued in May that the risk of U.S. war with Iran stood as high as 22%, on a conservative estimate of the conditional probability that the U.S. would engage in strikes if Iran restarted its nuclear program outside of the provisions of the JCPOA. Recent events make the risk even higher. This does not mean that Rouhani and Trump cannot make bold diplomatic moves to contain tensions, but that the risk of widening conflict is immediate. Supply Risk Will Remain Front And Center The risk to supply made manifest in these drone attacks will remain with markets for the foreseeable future. They highlight the vulnerability of supply in the Gulf region, and, importantly, the now-limited availability of spare capacity to offset unplanned production outages. There’s ~ 3.2mm b/d of spare capacity available to the market, by the International Energy Agency’s reckoning, some 2mm b/d or so of which is in KSA (Chart 7). These drone attacks highlight the need to risk-adjust this spare capacity. When the infrastructure needed to deliver it to markets comes under attack, its availability must be adjusted downward. Chart 7Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Chart 8Commercial Inventories Will Draw ... In the immediate aftermath of the temporary loss of ~ 5.7mm b/d of KSA crude production to the drone attacks, we expect commercial inventories to be drawn down hard, particularly in the U.S., where refiners likely will look to increase product exports to meet export demand (Chart 8). This will backwardate forward crude oil and product curves – i.e., promptly delivered oil will trade at a higher price than oil delivered in the future (Chart 9). Chart 9... Deepening Forward-Curve Backwardations We expect the U.S. SPR to monitor this evolution closely. It is near impossible to handicap the level of commercial inventories – or backwardation – that will trigger the U.S. SPR release, given the unknown length of the KSA output loss, however. Worth noting is the fact that U.S. crude-export capacity is limited to ~ 1mm b/d of additional capacity. Thus, the SPR cannot be directly exported to cover the entire loss of KSA barrels. Other members of OPEC 2.0 will be hard-pressed to lift light-sweet exports, which, combined with constraints on U.S. export capacity, mean the light-sweet crude oil market could tighten. Interestingly, these attacks come as the U.S. has been selling down its SPR. The sales to date have been to support modernization of the SPR, but, for a while now, the Trump administration has been signalling it no longer believes they are critical to U.S. security. That likely changes with these events. The EIA estimates net crude-oil imports in the U.S. are running at 3.4mm b/d. The SPR is estimated at 645mm barrels. There are 416mm barrels of commercial crude inventories in the U.S., giving ~ 1.06 billion barrels of crude oil in the SPR and commercial inventory in the U.S. This translates into about 312 days of inventory in the U.S. when measured in terms of net crude imports. China has been building its SPR, which we estimated at ~ 510mm barrels. As a rough calculation using only China imports of ~ 10mm b/d, and production of ~ 3.9mm b/d, net crude-oil imports are probably around 6mm b/d. With SPR of ~ 510mm barrels, the public SPR (i.e., state-operated stocks) equates to roughly 85 days of imports.4 Members of the IEA – for the most part OECD states – are required to have 90 days of oil consumption on hand. The IEA estimates its SPR totals 1.54 billion barrels, which consists of crude oil and refined products. Together, the IEA’s SPRs plus spare capacity likely could cover the loss of KSA’s crude exports, but the timing and coordination of these releases will be tested. KSA has ~ 190mm b/d of crude oil in storage as of June, the latest data available from the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI) Oil World Database. If the 5.7mm b/d of output removed from the market by these oil attacks persists, these stocks would be exhausted in 33 days. Based on press reports, repairs to the KSA infrastructure will take weeks – perhaps months – which means the longer it takes to repair these facilities the tighter the global oil market will become. This is exacerbated if additional pipelines or infrastructure in KSA come under attack or are damaged. Critical Next Steps How the U.S. follows up Pompeo’s accusations against Iran will be critical. The next steps here are critical: Tactically, the Houthis or other Iranian proxies could continue with drone attacks aimed at KSA infrastructure. They’ve obviously figured out how to target Abqaiq, which is the lynchpin of KSA’s crude export system (desulfurization facilities there process most of the crude put on the water in the Eastern province). The Abqaiq facility has been hardened against attack, but these attacks show the supporting infrastructure remains vulnerable. In addition, militants could target KSA’s western operations on the Red Sea, which include pipelines and refineries. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the bottom of the Red Sea empties into the Arabia Sea. More than half the 6.2mm b/d of crude oil, condensates and refined-product shipments transiting the strait daily are destined for Europe, according to the U.S. EIA.5 In addition, the 750-mile East-West pipeline running across KSA terminates on the Red Sea at Yanbu. The Kingdom is planning to increase export capacity off the pipeline from 5mm b/d to 7mm b/d, a project that will take some two years to complete.6 During a July visit to India, former Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih stated importers of Saudi crude and products, “have to do what they have to do to protect their own energy shipments because Saudi Arabia cannot take that on its own.” On top of all this, Iran could ramp up its threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz once again. These actions could put the risk to supply into sharp relief in very short order. Even Iranian rhetoric will have a larger impact in this environment. In the immediate aftermath of the drone attacks on critical KSA infrastructure, markets will be hanging on every announcement coming from the Kingdom regarding the duration of the outage. How the U.S. follows up Pompeo’s accusations against Iran will be critical. Whether the deal being brokered with France – and the $15 billion oil-for-money loan from the U.S. that goes with it – is now DOA, or is put on a fast track to reduce tensions in the region will be telling. It is entirely possible the U.S. launches an attack on Yemen to take out these drone bases and to neutralize the threat there. If Iraq is identified as the source of the attacks, the U.S., along with Iraqi forces, likely would stage a special-forces operation to take out the bases used to launch the drone attacks. The U.S. has significant forces in theater right now: The U.S. 5th Fleet is in Bahrain, with the Abe Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike force on station at the Strait of Hormuz; and the USS Boxer Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are on patrol in the Red Sea under the command of the U.S. 5th Fleet (Map 2). In addition, the U.S. also deployed B52s earlier this year to Qatar to have this capability in theater. Map 2U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group Disposition, 9 September 2019 Bottom Line: In the immediate aftermath of the drone attacks on critical KSA infrastructure, markets will be hanging on every announcement coming from the Kingdom regarding the duration of the outage that removed 5.7mm b/d of crude-processing capacity from the market and damaged one Saudi Arabia’s largest oil fields. We expect the U.S. will conduct a limited retaliatory strike, and will continue to build up forces in the Persian Gulf to prepare for a larger response if necessary. While neither President Trump nor the United States has an immediate interest in a large-scale conflict with Iran, the risk of such an outcome has increased. If the oil-price shock caused by these attacks becomes unmanageable – either because of additional attacks against Saudi Arabian or other regional infrastructure, or direct Iranian action to restrict the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf – the risk of recession increases. While this is not our base case, it could push Trump to adopt a “war president” strategy going into the U.S. general election next year.   Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The massive 7-million-barrel-per-day processing facility at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field, which produces close to 2mm b/d, were attacked on Saturday, September 14, 2019.  Since then, press reports claim the attack could have originated in Iraq or Iran, and could have included cruise missiles – a major escalation in operations in the region involving Iran, KSA and their respective allies – in addition to drones.  Please see Suspicions Rise That Saudi Oil Attack Came From Outside Yemen, published by The Wall Street Journal September 14, 2019. 2      Please see "Houthi Drone Strikes Disrupt Almost Half Of Saudi Oil Exports", published September 14, 2019, by National Public Radio (U.S.). 3      See Omer Carmi, "Is Iran Negotiating Its Way To Negotiations?" Policy Watch 3172, The Washington Institute, August 30, 2019, available at www.washingtoninstitute.org. 4      China is targeting ~500mm bbls by 2020, and is aiming to have 90 days of import oil cover in its SPR. 5      Please see The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is a strategic route for oil and natural gas shipments, published by the EIA August 27, 2019. 6      Please see "Saudi Arabia aims to expand pipeline to reduce oil exports via Gulf," published by reuters.com July 25, 2019.

Informe especial

Following drone attacks on critical oil infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) over the weekend, which removed ~ 5.7mm b/d of output, the U.S. is likely to conduct a limited retaliatory strike. In addition, the U.S. will continue to build up forces in the Persian Gulf to deter Iran and prepare for a larger response if necessary. After this initial response, the Trump administration will likely seek to contain tensions, as neither Trump nor the United States has an immediate interest in launching a large-scale conflict with Iran. But that does not mean that one will not happen – indeed, the odds are now higher that this risk could materialize. If the oil-price shock caused by these attacks becomes prolonged and unmanageable – either because of additional attacks against Saudi Arabian or other regional infrastructure, or direct Iranian action to restrict the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf – the negative impact on the global and U.S. economy will grow. Faced with a recession – which is not our base case but is possible – the incentive for Trump to engage war with Iran will rise sharply. Attack On KSA Will Prompt U.S. Retaliation If Iran is confirmed as the base, it will limit Trump’s options and ensure that any retaliation leads to a greater escalation of tensions. Over the weekend, Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility for attacks on two critical oil assets in Saudi Arabia, removing ~ 5.5% of world crude output – a historic shock to global oil supply, and the largest unplanned outage ever recorded (Chart 1).1 U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of being behind the attacks and said there was no evidence that Houthis launched them from Yemen. As we go to press, neither Saudi Arabian officials nor President Trump have confirmed Iran was the culprit, although the sophistication of the attack’s targeting and execution suggest that they will. President Trump said the U.S. is “locked and loaded depending on verification” and offered U.S. support to KSA in a call to Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.2 Chart 1Oil Supply Disruption + Volume Lost A direct missile strike from Iran is the least likely source, as the Iranians have sought to act through proxies this year, in staging attacks to counter U.S. sanctions, precisely in order to maintain plausible deniability and avoid provoking a full-blown American retaliation. If Iran is confirmed as the base, it will limit Trump’s options and ensure that any retaliation leads to a greater escalation of tensions, relative to a situation where militant groups in Iraq or Yemen (or even in Saudi Arabia) are found to be responsible. Assuming the strike came from outside Iran, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia would presumably retaliate against its proxies in those locations – e.g., the Houthis in Yemen, or the Shia militias in Iraq. Washington is certain to dial up its military deterrent in the region and use the attacks to gain greater worldwide support for a tighter enforcement of sanctions to isolate Iran. This deterrence includes a multinational naval fleet in the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Gulf, where ~ 20% of the world’s crude oil supply transits daily. Electoral Constraints Facing Trump There are several reasons President Trump will not rush to a full-scale conflict with Iran. First, the attack did not kill U.S. troops or civilians. Miraculously, not even a single casualty is reported in Saudi Arabia. Yet, unlike the Iranian shooting of an American drone, which nearly brought Trump to launch air strikes on June 21, the latest attack clearly impacted critical infrastructure in a way that threatens global stability, making it more likely that some retaliation will occur. Second, Trump faces a significant electoral constraint from high oil prices. True, the U.S. economy is not as exposed to oil imports as it was (Chart 2). Also, global oil producers and strategic reserves including the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) can handle the immediate short-term loss from KSA (Chart 3). However, the duration of the cut-off is unknown and further disruptions will occur if the U.S. retaliates and Iranian-backed forces attack yet again. Third, there is still a chance to show restraint in retaliation, contain tensions over the coming months, limit oil supply loss and price spikes, and thus keep an oil-price shock from tanking the U.S. economy. Chart 2U.S. Imports Continue Falling But as tensions escalate in the short term, they could hit a point of no return at which the economic damage becomes so severe that President Trump can no longer seek re-election based on his economic record (Chart 4). At that point the incentive is to confront Iran directly – and run in 2020 as a “war president” intent on achieving long-term national security interests despite short-term economic pain. Chart 3Key SPRs Are Still Adequate Chart 4An Oil Price Shock Lowers Trump's Re-Election Chances U.S.’s Volatile Attempt At Diplomacy What triggered the attack and what does it say about the U.S. and Iranian positions going forward? Ever since Trump backed away from air strikes in June, he has become more inclined to de-escalate the conflict he began with Iran by withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as terrorists, and imposing crippling sanctions to bring Iran’s oil exports to zero. Even as Rouhani and Trump publicly mulled a summit and negotiations, Rouhani insisted that any negotiations with the United States would require Trump to rejoin the JCPOA and remove all sanctions. What prompted this backtracking was Iran’s demonstration of a higher pain threshold than Trump expected. President Hassan Rouhani, and his Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, were personally invested in the 2015 nuclear deal with the Obama administration, which they negotiated despite grave warnings from the regime’s conservative factions that they would be betrayed. Trump’s reneging on that deal confirmed their opponents’ expectations, while his sanctions have sent the economy into a crushing recession (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Sanctions Hammer Iran's Economy With Iranian parliamentary elections in February 2020, and a consequential presidential election in 2021 in which Rouhani will seek to support a political ally, the Rouhani administration needed to respond forcefully to Trump’s sanctions. Iran staged several provocations in the Strait of Hormuz to warn the U.S. against stringent sanctions enforcement (Map 1). And recently, even as Rouhani and Trump publicly mulled a summit and negotiations, Rouhani insisted that any negotiations with the United States would require Trump to rejoin the JCPOA and remove all sanctions, a very high bar for talks. Map 1Abqaiq Is At The Very Core Of Global Oil Supply Realizing the large appetite for conflict in Tehran, and the ability to sustain sanctions and use proxy warfare damaging global oil supply, Trump took a step back – he withheld air strikes in late June, discussed a diplomatic path forward with French President Emmanuel Macron, and subsequently fired his National Security Adviser John Bolton, a known war hawk on Iran who helped mastermind the return to sanctions. The proximate cause of Bolton’s ouster was reportedly a disagreement about sanctions relief that would have been designed to enable a meeting with Rouhani at the United Nations General Assembly next week. Such a summit could possibly have led to a return to the pre-2017 U.S.-Iran détente. If Trump had compromised, Iran could have gone back to observing the 2015 nuclear pact provisions, which it has only gradually and carefully violated. Moreover the French proposal to convince Iran to rejoin talks by offering a $15 billion credit line for sanctions relief was gaining traction. Apparently these recent moves toward diplomacy posed a threat to various actors in the region that benefit from U.S.-Iran conflict and sanctions. Hardliners in Iran want to weaken the Rouhani administration and prevent further Rouhani-led negotiations (i.e. “surrender”) to American pressure. On August 29, three days after Rouhani hinted that he might still be willing to talk with Trump, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s weekly publication warned that “negotiations with the U.S. are definitely out of the question.”3 The IRGC and others continue to benefit from black market activity fueled by sanctions. And Iranian overseas militant proxies have their own reasons to fear a return to U.S.-Iran détente. Saudi Arabia and Israel also worry that President Trump will follow in President Obama’s footsteps with Iran and strategic withdrawal from the Middle East, which has considerable popular support in the United States (Chart 6). Both the Saudis and Israelis have been emboldened by the Trump administration’s support and have expanded their regional military targeting of Iranian-backed forces, prompting Iranian pushback. The hard-line factions know that a full-fledged American attack would be devastating to Iranian missile, radar, and energy facilities and armed forces. The Iranians remember the devastating impact on their navy from Operation Praying Mantis in 1988. But with the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions cutting oil exports nearly to zero, Iran’s economy is getting strangled and militant forces may feel they have no choice. Chart 6Americans Do Not Support War With Iran Moreover Trump’s electoral constraint – his need to make deals in order to achieve foreign policy victories and lift his weak approval ratings ahead of the election – means that foreign enemies have the ability to drive up the price of a deal. This is what the Iranians just did. But negotiations may be impossible now before 2020. Rouhani may be forced to play the hawk, Supreme Leader Khamenei is opposed to talks, and the hard-line faction is apparently willing to court conflict with America to consolidate its power ahead of the dangerous and uncertain period that awaits the regime in the near future, when Khamenei’s inevitable succession occurs. Bottom Line: We argued in May that the risk of U.S. war with Iran stood as high as 22%, on a conservative estimate of the conditional probability that the U.S. would engage in strikes if Iran restarted its nuclear program outside of the provisions of the JCPOA. Recent events make the risk even higher. This does not mean that Rouhani and Trump cannot make bold diplomatic moves to contain tensions, but that the risk of widening conflict is immediate. Supply Risk Will Remain Front And Center The risk to supply made manifest in these drone attacks will remain with markets for the foreseeable future. They highlight the vulnerability of supply in the Gulf region, and, importantly, the now-limited availability of spare capacity to offset unplanned production outages. There’s ~ 3.2mm b/d of spare capacity available to the market, by the International Energy Agency’s reckoning, some 2mm b/d or so of which is in KSA (Chart 7). These drone attacks highlight the need to risk-adjust this spare capacity. When the infrastructure needed to deliver it to markets comes under attack, its availability must be adjusted downward. Chart 7Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Chart 8Commercial Inventories Will Draw ... In the immediate aftermath of the temporary loss of ~ 5.7mm b/d of KSA crude production to the drone attacks, we expect commercial inventories to be drawn down hard, particularly in the U.S., where refiners likely will look to increase product exports to meet export demand (Chart 8). This will backwardate forward crude oil and product curves – i.e., promptly delivered oil will trade at a higher price than oil delivered in the future (Chart 9). Chart 9... Deepening Forward-Curve Backwardations We expect the U.S. SPR to monitor this evolution closely. It is near impossible to handicap the level of commercial inventories – or backwardation – that will trigger the U.S. SPR release, given the unknown length of the KSA output loss, however. Worth noting is the fact that U.S. crude-export capacity is limited to ~ 1mm b/d of additional capacity. Thus, the SPR cannot be directly exported to cover the entire loss of KSA barrels. Other members of OPEC 2.0 will be hard-pressed to lift light-sweet exports, which, combined with constraints on U.S. export capacity, mean the light-sweet crude oil market could tighten. Interestingly, these attacks come as the U.S. has been selling down its SPR. The sales to date have been to support modernization of the SPR, but, for a while now, the Trump administration has been signalling it no longer believes they are critical to U.S. security. That likely changes with these events. The EIA estimates net crude-oil imports in the U.S. are running at 3.4mm b/d. The SPR is estimated at 645mm barrels. There are 416mm barrels of commercial crude inventories in the U.S., giving ~ 1.06 billion barrels of crude oil in the SPR and commercial inventory in the U.S. This translates into about 312 days of inventory in the U.S. when measured in terms of net crude imports. China has been building its SPR, which we estimated at ~ 510mm barrels. As a rough calculation using only China imports of ~ 10mm b/d, and production of ~ 3.9mm b/d, net crude-oil imports are probably around 6mm b/d. With SPR of ~ 510mm barrels, the public SPR (i.e., state-operated stocks) equates to roughly 85 days of imports.4 Members of the IEA – for the most part OECD states – are required to have 90 days of oil consumption on hand. The IEA estimates its SPR totals 1.54 billion barrels, which consists of crude oil and refined products. Together, the IEA’s SPRs plus spare capacity likely could cover the loss of KSA’s crude exports, but the timing and coordination of these releases will be tested. KSA has ~ 190mm b/d of crude oil in storage as of June, the latest data available from the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI) Oil World Database. If the 5.7mm b/d of output removed from the market by these oil attacks persists, these stocks would be exhausted in 33 days. Based on press reports, repairs to the KSA infrastructure will take weeks – perhaps months – which means the longer it takes to repair these facilities the tighter the global oil market will become. This is exacerbated if additional pipelines or infrastructure in KSA come under attack or are damaged. Critical Next Steps How the U.S. follows up Pompeo’s accusations against Iran will be critical. The next steps here are critical: Tactically, the Houthis or other Iranian proxies could continue with drone attacks aimed at KSA infrastructure. They’ve obviously figured out how to target Abqaiq, which is the lynchpin of KSA’s crude export system (desulfurization facilities there process most of the crude put on the water in the Eastern province). The Abqaiq facility has been hardened against attack, but these attacks show the supporting infrastructure remains vulnerable. In addition, militants could target KSA’s western operations on the Red Sea, which include pipelines and refineries. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the bottom of the Red Sea empties into the Arabia Sea. More than half the 6.2mm b/d of crude oil, condensates and refined-product shipments transiting the strait daily are destined for Europe, according to the U.S. EIA.5 In addition, the 750-mile East-West pipeline running across KSA terminates on the Red Sea at Yanbu. The Kingdom is planning to increase export capacity off the pipeline from 5mm b/d to 7mm b/d, a project that will take some two years to complete.6 During a July visit to India, former Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih stated importers of Saudi crude and products, “have to do what they have to do to protect their own energy shipments because Saudi Arabia cannot take that on its own.” On top of all this, Iran could ramp up its threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz once again. These actions could put the risk to supply into sharp relief in very short order. Even Iranian rhetoric will have a larger impact in this environment. In the immediate aftermath of the drone attacks on critical KSA infrastructure, markets will be hanging on every announcement coming from the Kingdom regarding the duration of the outage. How the U.S. follows up Pompeo’s accusations against Iran will be critical. Whether the deal being brokered with France – and the $15 billion oil-for-money loan from the U.S. that goes with it – is now DOA, or is put on a fast track to reduce tensions in the region will be telling. It is entirely possible the U.S. launches an attack on Yemen to take out these drone bases and to neutralize the threat there. If Iraq is identified as the source of the attacks, the U.S., along with Iraqi forces, likely would stage a special-forces operation to take out the bases used to launch the drone attacks. The U.S. has significant forces in theater right now: The U.S. 5th Fleet is in Bahrain, with the Abe Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike force on station at the Strait of Hormuz; and the USS Boxer Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are on patrol in the Red Sea under the command of the U.S. 5th Fleet (Map 2). In addition, the U.S. also deployed B52s earlier this year to Qatar to have this capability in theater. Map 2U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group Disposition, 9 September 2019 Bottom Line: In the immediate aftermath of the drone attacks on critical KSA infrastructure, markets will be hanging on every announcement coming from the Kingdom regarding the duration of the outage that removed 5.7mm b/d of crude-processing capacity from the market and damaged one Saudi Arabia’s largest oil fields. We expect the U.S. will conduct a limited retaliatory strike, and will continue to build up forces in the Persian Gulf to prepare for a larger response if necessary. While neither President Trump nor the United States has an immediate interest in a large-scale conflict with Iran, the risk of such an outcome has increased. If the oil-price shock caused by these attacks becomes unmanageable – either because of additional attacks against Saudi Arabian or other regional infrastructure, or direct Iranian action to restrict the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf – the risk of recession increases. While this is not our base case, it could push Trump to adopt a “war president” strategy going into the U.S. general election next year.   Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The massive 7-million-barrel-per-day processing facility at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field, which produces close to 2mm b/d, were attacked on Saturday, September 14, 2019.  Since then, press reports claim the attack could have originated in Iraq or Iran, and could have included cruise missiles – a major escalation in operations in the region involving Iran, KSA and their respective allies – in addition to drones.  Please see Suspicions Rise That Saudi Oil Attack Came From Outside Yemen, published by The Wall Street Journal September 14, 2019. 2      Please see "Houthi Drone Strikes Disrupt Almost Half Of Saudi Oil Exports", published September 14, 2019, by National Public Radio (U.S.). 3      See Omer Carmi, "Is Iran Negotiating Its Way To Negotiations?" Policy Watch 3172, The Washington Institute, August 30, 2019, available at www.washingtoninstitute.org. 4      China is targeting ~500mm bbls by 2020, and is aiming to have 90 days of import oil cover in its SPR. 5      Please see The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is a strategic route for oil and natural gas shipments, published by the EIA August 27, 2019. 6      Please see "Saudi Arabia aims to expand pipeline to reduce oil exports via Gulf," published by reuters.com July 25, 2019.

Highlights We remain bullish on global equities and spread product but acknowledge a variety of risks to our thesis. One such risk involves a scenario where a weaker U.S. economy hurts President Trump’s re-election prospects, causing investors to price in an Elizabeth Warren victory. According to the betting markets, she is the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination. A Warren presidency would likely be bad news for drug makers and health care insurers, defense contractors, banks, oil and gas companies (especially frackers), and tech stocks. Infrastructure and home builder stocks would probably benefit at the margin. Despite these risks, equity investors can take comfort in the following: 1) Global growth should strengthen, thanks in part to easier monetary policies; 2) China will be more keen to cut a trade deal with Trump if Warren looks like she will become the Democratic nominee; and 3) A Warren victory is less likely to translate into a Democratic takeover of the Senate than, say, a Biden victory. Feature The Warren Factor We remain bullish on global equities and other risk assets but continue to be on the lookout for evidence of any scenario that could undermine our thesis. One particular risk, which we explore in this week’s report, is the possibility that a weaker U.S. economy further undermines Donald Trump’s poll numbers, thus raising the odds that Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren wins the White House next year. Presidential approval ratings tend to correlate well with the state of the economy (Chart 1). Since 1952, no sitting president has lost an election when unemployment has been falling except for Gerald Ford in the wake of Nixon’s scandal and unprecedented resignation. In contrast, two presidents (Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush) have lost against the backdrop of rising unemployment. Chart 1Incumbents Fare Better When The Economy Is Doing Well President Trump’s approval ratings are quite poor given how low unemployment is these days. His perceived handling of the economy is the only area where he has continued to poll relatively well (Chart 2). If he were to lose his standing on this issue, his re-election prospects would deteriorate substantially. Chart 2Trump Gets Reasonably High Marks On His Handling Of The Economy, But Not Much Else Among the Democratic contenders, Elizabeth Warren is currently running behind Joe Biden in the polls, but bests Biden in online betting markets such as PredictIt (Chart 3). It is not clear if Warren’s standing in the betting markets is a statistical anomaly or truly reflects the “wisdom of the crowds.” Warren tends to poll best among better-educated voters – the sort who are more likely to use betting markets. Like Andrew Yang, who PredictIt gives a rather dubious 12% chance of winning the Democratic nomination (above the 11% garnered by Kamala Harris), Warren’s prospects may be inflated by the composition of the betting pool. That said, Warren is benefiting from a deep-seated shift to the left in political preferences among Democratic primary voters, as BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recently observed in a report entitled “American Politics Warrants Near-Term Caution.1” Chart 4 shows that the share of Democrats who identify as “liberal” has more than doubled since the mid-1990s at the expense of those who identify as “moderate” or “conservative.” The “Great Awokening” is transforming the Democratic Party into a much more radical force than it was under Bill Clinton or even, for that matter, under Barack Obama.2 Chart 3Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? Chart 4Democratic Party Shifting To The Left   Soak The Rich If Donald Trump was the right’s answer to populism, Warren, along with fellow traveler Bernie Sanders, is the left’s embodiment of the populist spirit. Not only has Warren pledged to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, she has promised to roll back Trump’s corporate tax cuts. If that were not enough, she has also touted a 2% annual wealth tax on households with a net worth in excess of $50 million (rising to 3% for those with a net worth above $1 billon). Her team claims the wealth tax would bring in $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period (roughly 1% of GDP).3 It would help finance free universal health care coverage, fund a “Green New Deal,” and pay off most student loans. A Different Type Of Protectionist While Warren holds fairly protectionist views on international trade, they are qualitatively different from Trump's vision. Whereas Donald Trump has focused his efforts on reducing America’s bilateral trade deficits with other economies, Warren has concentrated on “social justice” issues. In the first few decades following World War II, trade agreements strove to cut tariffs and other overt trade barriers. Once this had been largely achieved, negotiations began to focus on fostering what trade economist Robert Lawrence has called “deep integration.” This involved harmonizing tax and regulatory policies across countries, strengthening intellectual property rules, and so on. Warren and other critics on the left have complained that this newfound emphasis of trade policy has helped multinational companies at the expense of ordinary workers. She has espoused creating prerequisites for all future trade agreements, including stronger protections for human rights, collective-bargaining, and environmental standards. Such preconditions would make it difficult for many countries, China included, to reach a deal with the U.S. on trade. What Warren Means For Investors Regardless of what one thinks about the overall merits of Elizabeth Warren’s political agenda, it is reasonable to conclude that equity investors would suffer if most of her preferred policies were implemented. In fact, as we were writing this report, Warren retweeted a CNBC story entitled “Wall Street executives are fearful of an Elizabeth Warren presidency” with a trollish comment saying “I’m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message.”4 Box 1 reviews the impact of a Warren victory on various industries. Briefly stated, a Warren presidency would likely be bad news for drug makers and health care insurers, defense contractors, banks, oil and gas companies (especially frackers), and tech stocks. Infrastructure and home builder stocks would probably benefit at the margin. BOX 1 Elizabeth Warren’s Impact On U.S. Equity Sectors Negative Health care: Favors eliminating private health insurance; Backs price controls on pharmaceuticals; Advocates creating a government-owned pharmaceutical manufacturer to mass-produce generic drugs. Banks: Supports making it easier for individuals to file for bankruptcy; Would restore Glass-Steagall, effectively reversing some the mergers that took place during the financial crisis; Favors making private equity firms responsible for the debts of the companies they purchase as well as for some of their pension obligations. Defense: Has called for a smaller defense budget and promised to end “the stranglehold of … the so-called Big Five defense contractors.” Energy: Pledged to sign an executive order on her first day in office placing a complete moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for offshore drilling and on public lands; Favors banning fracking everywhere and supports the introduction of a cross-border carbon tax. Tech: Anti-trust efforts are likely to be increased under a Warren administration. She has singled out Amazon, Facebook, and Google as companies she believes should be broken up. She recently added Apple to the list, citing her belief that the Apple app store unfairly gives an edge to Apple products. Marginally Positive Infrastructure: Infrastructure stocks (except for nuclear) would probably benefit from a Warren victory due to increased public-sector investment spending. Home builders: Home builders could gain from stepped-up efforts to expand home ownership. Warren is also in favor of decriminalizing illegal immigration which, despite her ostensible efforts to help blue collar workers, could dampen wage pressures in the construction sector. Despite these clear downside risks, we would dissuade investors from turning bearish on stocks right now. There are a few reasons for this. Global Growth Should Rebound Chart 5Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth First and foremost, global growth is likely to stabilize over the coming months and rebound into yearend. Global financial conditions have loosened significantly, thanks in part to easier central bank policy (with the ECB’s rate cut and QE announcement this week being just the latest example). Looser financial conditions are positive for growth prospects (Chart 5). Manufacturing activity has been held back by weakness in the auto sector (Chart 6). Judging by the outperformance of auto stocks since mid-August (Chart 7), the auto recession may be coming to an end (we have been recommending global auto stocks since August 29). Chart 6Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Chart 7Global Auto Manufacturers: Better Times Ahead?     In the U.S., the economic surprise index has jumped firmly into positive territory (Chart 8). Real consumer spending is on track to rise by a sturdy 3.1% in Q3, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, following a blockbuster 4.7% reading in Q2. Given the decline in mortgage rates over the past few months, residential investment should also recover later this year (Chart 9).       Chart 8U.S. Data Has Begun To Surprise On The Upside Chart 9Lower Mortgage Rates Bode Well For Housing Trump, Warren, And Trade The trade war represents the biggest risk to our sanguine outlook on global growth. Now that Trump has proven his credentials as “Tariff Man,” he has to prove that he is the “Master Negotiator” he claimed to be on the campaign trail. This means getting a deal done with China. As we saw with the revised NAFTA agreement, the new deal does not need to be radically different from the status quo for Trump to sell it as a game changer, and a 'win' for the American people. Trump’s decision to delay the October 1st tariff hikes by two weeks, following China’s announcement that it will waive tariffs on some U.S. imports, certainly moves things in the right direction. As we go to press, conflicting media reports are circulating that Trump is considering an interim trade deal that would delay and possibly roll back some U.S. tariffs in exchange for commitments from China to purchase more U.S. agricultural goods and better enforce intellectual property rights.5 If such an agreement materializes, it would be very much consistent with our expectation of a de-escalation in the trade war as the election approaches. How Warren’s ascent could alter the trade war calculus is unclear. On the one hand, given her own protectionist leanings, Trump may be reluctant to cede any ground to her by further softening his stance towards China. On the other hand, the Chinese are more likely to cut a deal with Trump if Biden’s star continues to fade, thus making it easier for Trump to secure an agreement. From China’s perspective, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. On balance, we lean towards the latter theory, although much will depend on how the ongoing trade negotiations unfold. Trump Prefers Warren What does seem certain is that Trump’s re-election prospects are better if Warren gets the nomination than if Biden does. In head-to-head matchups against Trump, Biden outperforms Warren in the country as a whole, as well as in individual swing states (Chart 10). Chart 10Biden's Chances Of Beating Trump Are Better Than Warren’s Even if Warren did become the nominee and went on to beat Trump, her margin of victory would be slimmer than Biden’s. This implies that she would have a smaller chance of bringing over the Senate to the Democratic side. Without Democratic control of the senate, the Republicans will thwart much of her agenda and many of the pro-business policies they have enacted will remain on the books. Investment Conclusions When it comes to investing, there is no shortage of risks to worry about. One way of benchmarking the degree to which stocks are discounting these risks is by estimating the equity risk premium. Today, equity risk premia remain fairly elevated, especially outside the United States (Chart 11). Chart 11AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 11BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II)   One can see this point by calculating how much various stock market indices would need to fall over, say, the next ten years for stocks to underperform bonds. Even if one were to assume that nominal dividend payments per share do not rise at all over the next decade, U.S. equities would still need to decline by more than 18% in real terms for stocks to underperform bonds. Japanese stocks would need to fall by 28%. Euro area stocks would need to drop by 41%. U.K. stocks would need to tumble by almost 60%! (Chart 12). Chart 12AStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (I) Chart 12BStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (II)   To be sure, much of the relative attractiveness of stocks is a function of how low real yields are. In absolute terms, global equities are poised to deliver long-term real returns on par with their historic average. U.S. stocks should generate returns that are somewhat below their historic average given that they trade at premium to their global peers. Valuations are mainly useful for gauging the long-term outlook for assets. Over a horizon of around 12 months, cyclical factors are the dominant drivers of both stocks and bonds (Chart 13). The rebound in government bond yields since last Thursday has erased most of the extreme overbought conditions that prevailed in fixed-income markets. Nevertheless, as we highlighted in last week’s report entitled “Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom,” yields should move higher over the coming months as global growth picks up and inflation eventually rises.6 As a countercyclical currency, the dollar should also start to weaken later this year. The combination of stronger global growth and a weaker dollar will boost commodity prices, EM currencies and equities, and cyclical stocks. Industrials, materials, and energy stocks should all gain. Financials will also benefit from a modest resteepening of yield curves. Financials are overrepresented in value indices while tech is underrepresented. Indeed, a trade that is long the former while short the latter has tracked the value/growth split very closely (Chart 14). Value stocks are very cheap compared to growth stocks based on standard valuation measures such as price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and dividend yield. The outperformance of value stocks over the past few days versus both growth and momentum stocks is likely to continue. Chart 13Economic Growth Drives Stocks And Bonds Over 12-Month Horizons Chart 14Is Value Turning The Corner?   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “American Politics Warrants Near-Term Caution,” dated July 19, 2019. 2      Matthew Yglesias, “The Great Awokening,” Vox, April 1, 2019. 3      Please see Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, January 18, 2019. 4      Elizabeth Warren, “I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message,” Twitter, 10 September 2019, 2:39 pm. 5      Jenny Leonard and Shawn Donnan, “Trump Advisers Considering Interim China Deal to Delay Tariffs,” Bloomberg, September 12, 2019. 6      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom,” September 6, 2019.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Informe especial

HighlightsEuropean fiscal stimulus will not drive European equity outperformance – Europe needs China to open the stimulus taps.Our mega-theme of European integration continues – the continent is politically stable.The U.S.-China trade war is an opportunity for Europe. Any Sino-American trade deal is unlikely to resolve tech disputes. Go long European tech stocks versus American.The euro has room to grow as a global reserve currency given the dollar’s mounting structural flaws. Look for an opportunity to go long EUR/USD on a strategic basis within the near future.FeatureTalk of European fiscal stimulus is accelerating as investors look for reasons to take advantage of depressed European valuations (Chart 1) and traditional late-cycle outperformance relative to the U.S. (Chart 2). We are skeptical of the thesis. Chart 1European 'Cheapness' An Obvious Inducement  Chart 2Euro Stocks Outperform Late In The Cycle Europe is a price taker, not a price maker, when it comes to global growth. In order for investors to generate alpha from an overweight Europe position, the rest of the world needs to pick up the slack and reverse the current decline in economic fundamentals. That will require policy action on the behalf of the Fed, the Trump administration, and – most relevant to Europe – Chinese fiscal policy.That said, long-term investors should start thinking about increasing exposure to Europe. Not only is the continent well priced relative to the rest of the world, but it may have two more things going for it. First, political risks remain low. Second, Europe stands to gain in any prolonged China-U.S. confrontation. The flipside risk is that it stands to lose enormously in any temporary resolution as well.Europe Is A Derivative – Not A Source – Of Global Growth…Despite accounting for 16% of global GDP, the Euro Area generates an ever-shrinking proportion of the annual incremental change in global GDP (Chart 3). This is not surprising, given that the world has undergone significant transformation due to China’s industrialization and the growth of EM economies. Chart 3Europe’s Contribution To Global Growth Declining China’s imports today drive Euro Area manufacturing PMI broadly and Chinese retail sales drive German manufacturing orders specifically (Chart 4). As such, it is critically important to watch Chinese total social financing (TSF) impulse, which closely leads Europe’s exports to China by six months (Chart 5). Chart 4Europe And Germany Rely On China  Chart 5China's Credit Cycle Drives EU Exports  The problem is that the Chinese credit impulse has only tepidly recovered and implies more downside to European exports ahead. In addition, hopes of a rebound in Chinese retail sales have been dashed (Chart 6). The jump in auto sales in June was the result of heavy discounts offered by manufacturers and dealers to clear inventory before new emission standards came into effect on July 1. Due to the frontloading, car sales are now declining in what is traditionally an off-season for car purchases in China. While the worst may be over, weakness could linger for months. Chart 6China's Retail Sales Flashing Red The bottom line is that without an upturn in global growth, Europe will remain in the doldrums. The good news is that BCA’s Chief Strategist Peter Berezin expects precisely such a development in the second half of 2019.1 The bad news is that Chinese credit stimulus appears to be weighed down by a combination of impaired transmission mechanisms and policymaker unwillingness to launch an old-school credit orgy (Chart 7). This is creating a highly unusual – for this cycle – development where China is not playing its usual counter-cyclical role amidst the global manufacturing cycle (Chart 8). Chart 7China's Credit Stimulus Restrained Thus Far  Chart 8Beijing Goes On Strike As Global Spender Without more Chinese stimulus, European fiscal spending won’t be that meaningful.As such, it is difficult to get excited about European growth. As we discussed in last week’s missive, Europe is moving gingerly towards more fiscal spending. However, it has already done so this year, with fiscal thrust at 0.46% of GDP, the highest figure since 2009 (Chart 9). Did anyone notice? Not really. Chart 9Headwinds Overpower EU's Strong Fiscal Thrust Moreover Euro Area countries have to submit their 2020 budgets in early Q4 to the European Commission. It is unlikely that these proposals will be meaningful, given that there is not yet enough panic to spur massive stimulus.Bottom Line: Yes, Europe will provide more fiscal spending in 2020. But it will remain at the mercy of global growth given its high-beta nature.…But At Least It Is Not Falling Apart!   That said, not all is disappointing on the Old Continent. For one, the aforementioned fiscal thrust at least prevented a deeper slowdown this year – and the drop-off in thrust next year will be less dramatic as budgets turn more accommodative.Meanwhile political risk is falling. Anti-establishment parties are either cleaning up their act, putting on a tie, and becoming part of the establishment, or they are losing power. Our long-held thesis that European integration would persist into the next decade remains well-supplied with empirical evidence.2On the Euroskepticism front, much of the hype today surrounds the collapse of the Five Star Movement (M5S) coalition with the League in Italy. The formerly Euroskeptic M5S has shed its critique of European integration and has decided to partner with the center-left and pro-establishment Democratic Party (PD).This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Several key developments throughout 2019 have signaled to investors that the Euroskeptic moment has passed. For a plethora of data and polling to support this view, please refer to our May report on the European Parliament (EP) election. Here we merely survey the latest developments:European Parliament Election: As expected in our EP election forecast, the May contest was a non-event. Support for the euro and the EU is trending higher (Chart 10 and 11), and 73% of Euroskeptic seats are held by Eastern European or U.K. MEPs (Chart 12), both irrelevant for EU policy.3  Chart 10Even Italy Swings In Favor Of Euro  Chart 11Public Opinion Supports The Union  Chart 12Euroskepticism Overstated Random Elections: We rarely cover politics in Denmark or Finland, but the two Nordic countries have been at the forefront of the anti-establishment, right-wing, evolution in Europe. As such, the elections in Denmark (in June) and Finland (in April) were relevant. The Danish People’s Party (DPP) – one of the original “People’s Parties,” founded in 1995 – was massacred, losing 21 seats in the 179-seat legislature.In Finland, the moderately Euroskeptic Finns similarly saw a disappointing – if not as disastrous – performance.Finally, Austrian election on September 29 will likely see the other Europe’s prominent right-wing, Euroskeptic, party – the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) – decline below 20% for the first time since 2008. Chart 13Macron Recovering In Polls France: Our high conviction view in February that the Yellow Vest protest would ultimately dissipate proved correct. President Emmanuel Macron has also seen a recovery in polling. Although tepid, at least he appears to be diverging from the trajectory of his disastrously unpopular predecessor François Hollande (Chart 13).The good news for Macron is that he continues to lead Marine Le Pen by double digits in the theoretical 2022 second round. While this represents a considerable improvement for Le Pen from her 2017 performance, the fact is that she has had to adjust her policies and rebrand the National Front in order to close the gap with Macron. The party is now called the National Rally and has publicly revised its stance towards both the EU and the euro.4The events in France, Denmark, Finland, and Austria have largely gone unnoticed amidst the China-U.S. trade war, attacks against Federal Reserve independence, and general breakdown in global institutions and paradigms. But they reveal that Euroskepticism in Europe is evolving from a definitive one – in or out – to a much more nuanced position.For students of history, this is not a surprise. European integration has always been a push-pull process. Charles de Gaulle famously caused a total breakdown in integration during the 1965 “Empty Chair Crisis” when France recalled its representative in Brussels and refused to take its seat on the Council.De Gaulle was a Euroskeptic in so far as he believed that European integration was a national, not a supra-national process.5 It could proceed apace, but only if controlled by national capitals. As such, he warred with the Commission all the time. However, de Gaulle did not want to eliminate European integration as he understood its geopolitical and economic imperative. He simply wanted to shape the process to fit French interests.Absolutist Euroskepticism – the idea that all European institutions ought to be replaced by national ones – is an alien idea to the post-World War Two continent, one imported from the nineteenth century. The irony of Brexit, therefore, is that the most vociferous supporters of an absolute end to the EU integrationist project are now abandoning their fellow absolutists on the continent.Geopolitical and structural factors are also pushing European Euroskeptics to evolve from absolutists to modern-era Gaullists. We have identified most of these factors before, but they are worth repeating:Europe has a geopolitical imperative to integrate. In a multipolar world dominated by global powers like the U.S. and China – and with Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and Turkey playing an increasingly independent role – European states are not large enough on their own to defend their economic and geopolitical interests. Chart 14Geopolitical Forces Behind Integration The purpose of integration is to aggregate the geopolitical power of Europe’s individual states amidst rising global multipolarity. Chart 14 is a stylized visualization of what European integration is attempting. It illustrates that the average BCA Geopolitical Power Index (GPI) score of an EMU-5 country is well below that of a BRIC state.6 By aggregating their geopolitical power, European states retain some semblance of relevance in the world.Obviously this is merely a thought experiment as European integration is not aggregation and never will be. Not only is aggregation politically unfeasible, but there is also a lot of double counting in simply adding GPI scores of European states. Nonetheless, the point is that European countries are asymptotically moving from the average to the aggregate score. Chart 15No Basis For Fascism In Great Recession No, the Nazis are not coming. Europe has managed to recover from a generational financial crisis. Pessimists point to the depth of the crisis to explain why Europe is unsustainable, with angst matching the severity of the downturn. However, analogizing to the 1930s is folly. First, Europe’s shared memories of the ravages of populism act as antibodies preventing precisely the same infection from breaking out on the continent.7 Second, the European financial crisis was simply nowhere close to the depth of the Great Depression that rocked Germany as it descended into National Socialism (Chart 15). As for the argument that the European Central Bank fed populism through unorthodox policy easing, the tide of populism would have been much more formidable if Europe had been allowed to sink into deeper recession and deflation.Europeans are just not that desperate. Europe scores much better than the U.S. (or the U.K.) when it comes to the balance between the median income and middle-income share of total population. Chart 16 shows that most Euro Area economies have around 70% of their population in the middle-income bracket. Those that fall short nonetheless hug the line of best fit closely (Italy, Spain, Greece, and the Baltic States). The U.S., on the other hand, has one of the highest median income levels, but with barely 50% of the population considered in the middle-income. Meaning that a lot of the people below the median line are far below it. This is a recipe for actual populist political outcomes (President Trump), as opposed to artificial ones (Italy). Chart 16U.S. At Greater Risk Of Populism Than EU European populism is artificial, U.S. populism is actual.What of the risks in Europe? For example, investors are concerned about mounting Target2 imbalances. Here we agree with our colleague Dhaval Joshi, who has pointed out that growing imbalances in Europe’s monetary system will only further constrain centrifugal forces among the nations.Target2 has seen a steady outflow of Italian cash to German banks as the ECB’s QE saw respective central banks purchase domestic bonds (Chart 17). This means that the Bank of Italy holds assets – BTPs – denominated in Italian euros, while the Bundesbank has a new liability to German banks denominated in German euros. EMU dissolution would be too painful due to this mismatch. Target2 is therefore not a threat to the EMU, but rather a Gordian Knot that can only be unraveled with immense pain and violence.That said, there may be an upcoming headline risk in Europe: the end of Chancellor Merkel’s reign. In our view, Merkel’s role in stabilizing Europe is greatly overstated. Her dithering and lack of conviction caused several crises to descend into chaos amidst the sovereign debt imbroglio. As such, an infusion of new blood will be positive for Europe. The populist threat is also overstated, with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) performing relatively tepidly in the polls. In fact, the liberal, Europhile, Greens are starting to gain votes (Chart 18). As such, an early election in Germany would create volatility and uncertainty but would not undermine our secular thesis on Europe. Chart 17Gordian Knot Supports Integration  Chart 18Germany Not Falling To Populism Bottom Line: There is an ever-strengthening case for the sustainability of the Euro Area and European integration well into the next decade.From Geopolitical Gambit To A Geopolitical Safe-Haven?At this point, we have built a strong case for why Europe will remain a high-beta play on global growth that is unlikely to collapse. As such, investors should plow into Europe when the rest of the world is doing well with confidence that the continent will not descend into chaos.The U.S.- China trade war offers an intriguing opportunity for Europe.This is largely underwhelming as an investment thesis. Could there be something more exciting to the story given a slew of well-known headwinds to European growth from demographics, low productivity, and regulatory malaise?The trade war between the U.S. and China does offer an intriguing opportunity for Europe.There appears to be an interesting development where European equities outperform those of the U.S. during periods of trade war turbulence (Chart 19). The outperformance is not major, but it is highly counterintuitive. Chart 19Europe Outperforms Amid Trade War Shocks As is understood, Europe is a high-beta play on global growth. Presumably, investors should abandon high-growth derivative plays when trade war accelerates. It is one of the reasons that EM equities and EM FX suffer whenever trade war accelerates.So why is Europe different? Because European exporters generally compete with their American counterparts (and Japanese and South Korean) for Chinese market share. And if China retaliates against U.S. companies, European companies stand to benefit, potentially massively.Take Boeing and Airbus. Boeing expects China to demand 7,700 new airplanes over the next two decades, an order valued at $1.2 trillion. It would be disastrous to the U.S. airline industry if the entirety of that order went to Airbus and its subsidiaries.8 According to the latest news reports, China has slowed down its airplane procurement to a crawl as it awaits the outcome of the dispute with the U.S.9 It is predictably using the procurement decision as leverage in the negotiations. Chart 20Europe To Lose If China Strikes U.S. Deal Yet this “substitution effect” thesis is a double-edged sword for Europe. A resolution of the trade war between the U.S. and China would likely include a massive purchase of U.S. agricultural, commodity, and manufacturing goods: the so-called “Beef and Boeings” deal. China bears often point out that such a massive purchase will negatively impact China’s current account, which is barely in surplus thanks to China’s trade surplus with the U.S. (Chart 20). This is false. Chinese policymakers are not suicidal. The last thing China needs is a balance of payments crisis due to a trade deal with the U.S.China would simply rob Peter to pay Paul, pulling its orders of soy from Brazil and Airbus from Europe in order to make a deal with the U.S. As such, it is highly likely that European capital goods exporters would suffer in any trade war resolution between China and the U.S.That said, a substantive trade deal that resolves all U.S.-China tensions is extremely unlikely. The U.S. and China are not just commercial rivals, they are also geopolitical rivals. As such, the tech conflict between the U.S. and China will continue well beyond any resolution of the trade war. This could create an opportunity for Europe’s traditionally beleaguered tech stocks to finally outperform their American counterparts (Chart 21). Chart 21Go Long EU Tech Versus U.S. Tech Bottom Line: A deterioration of the U.S.-China trade relationship would be a boon for European exporters. Short of a total breakdown of U.S.-China trade, however, European tech stocks may finally begin outperforming their U.S. counterparts thanks to the open distrust between U.S. and China.In addition, U.S. technology firms are likely going to face a slew of regulatory challenges over the next decade. While not necessarily negative, these challenges will nonetheless create new headwinds for the sector.10 We are therefore initiating a structural theme of being long European tech relative to U.S.Investment ImplicationsAre there any broader themes to be extracted from the combined geopolitical forecasts presented in this report? Europe will not collapse, and it may benefit from the souring of U.S.-China geopolitical and economic relations.Long euro is an obvious theme. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi has recently pointed out, the chasm between monetary policies of the Fed and the ECB has become a major geopolitical risk. This is because it has depressed the euro versus the dollar by at least 10 percent – based on the ECB’s own competitiveness indicators. The exchange rate distortion stemming from polarized monetary policies is the culprit for the euro area’s huge trade surplus with the United States (Chart 22).In the short term, EUR/USD may have reached its practical (and geopolitically acceptable) lows. Yes, the ECB is readying another round of monetary stimulus on September 12, but the fiscal policy counterpart is likely to be tepid and thus fail to (yet again) take advantage of historically depressed borrowing costs on the continent. The September 12 ECB meeting may therefore be a “sell the rumor, buy the news” event for EUR/USD. Chart 22Monetary Policy Accounts For Bilateral Surplus  Chart 23U.S. Rivals Buying Gold, Ditching Dollar On the more cyclical and secular horizon, we see an opportunity for the euro to reestablish some of its lost reserve currency status due to the geopolitical conflict between China and the U.S. Washington’s willingness to use trade and financial sanctions for geopolitical benefit has given pause to central bank authorities around the world in using dollars as a reserve currency. Purchases of gold for FX reserve have surged, particularly among America’s geopolitical rivals (Chart 23), as our colleague Chester Ntonifor has recently pointed out.As we argued in a report entitled “Is King Dollar Facing Regicide?” the euro has some catch-up potential. In 1990, the combined currencies of the countries that today comprise the Euro Area accounted for 35% of total composition of global currency reserves. Today, the figure is merely 20% (Chart 24). Chart 24Euro Has Plenty Of Room To Grow As Reserve Currency Could Europe supply the world with enough euros to replace USD as a reserve currency? This is highly unlikely. However, at the margin, an expansion of European liquidity is possible, particularly if Germany finally learns to love fiscal expansion and if European policymakers capitulate on the issuance of Eurobonds. However, such a lack of euro liquidity is not negative for the euro. The world could soon experience a situation where the demand for non-USD liquid assets dramatically increases due to the politicization of America’s reserve currency status while the supply of USD-alternatives remains relatively low. This should be positive for the only true alternative to the USD as a global reserve currency: the euro.As such, we will be looking to initiate a strategic long EUR/USD position, potentially sometime this fall as the ECB and FOMC meetings take place and the risk of a no-deal Brexit is averted. We do not expect the massive monetary policy divergence between Europe and the U.S. to continue, while the Euro Area’s political stability, and the broader geopolitical demand for a non-USD reserve currency, create more long-term tailwinds for the euro.Marko PapicConsulting Editor, BCA Research              Chief Strategist, Clocktower GroupHousekeepingOur high-conviction view that no-deal Brexit odds were overrated has been confirmed by the recent events in the U.K. parliament. We are going long GBP-USD with a tight stop-loss of 3%. Since we expect further volatility – with an election likely and the Conservative Party performing well in the polls and monopolizing the Brexit vote in a first-past-the-post system – we will sell at the $1.30 mark.Footnotes1 Please see Global Investment Strategy, “Trade War: The Storm Before The Calm,” dated August 9, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration,” dated November 3, 2011, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.3 The reason we extracted the U.K. Euroskeptics from the calculation is because with Brexit nigh, the U.K. members of European Parliament are no longer policy relevant. As for Central European Euroskeptics, we extracted them because they are irrelevant for EU policy as they hail from member states that – in truth – nobody seriously thinks would ever leave the EU.4 Ahead of the May EP election, National Rally electoral platform focused on “local, ecological, and socially responsible production." The party advocates combining environmentalism with protectionism, creating an ecological custom barrier at the EU’s doorstep which would defend the European market from products manufactured or produced with less environmentally friendly processes. On the matters of EU membership, the party now advocates a more traditionally Euroskeptic line, a purely Gaullist form of Euroskepticism that seeks to curb – or, at best, abolish – the EU Commission and replace its legislative prerogative by giving the Council of the EU all legislative powers. 5  Please see Julian Jackson, De Gaulle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2018).6 We chose to use EMU-5 in the chart because it focuses on the top-five economies in the Euro Area: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands. If we focused on the overall average EMU score, even one we weighed by population, the results would be even more stark in terms of loss of importance.7 And, worryingly, the U.S. lacks precisely the same shared memory of how wild pendulum swings of polarization can descend into extreme nationalism or left-wing extremism.8 Airbus would not have the capacity to fulfill that entire order today. However, demand creates its own supply, giving Airbus a reason to surge capex and reap the profits.9 Please see Reuters, “Exclusive: Boeing CEO eyes major aircraft order under any U.S.-China trade deal.”10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy, “Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?,” dated August 1, 2018 and “Surviving A Breakup: The Investor’s Guide To Monopoly-Busting In America,” dated March 20, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.