Elecciones

Informe especial

Highlights The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) may consider a rate hike in 2019 if additional tightening of labor markets leads to higher wage inflation, which would help lift core inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band.  Reflation in China could also embolden the RBA to tighten monetary policy – though the odds of a more aggressive stimulus package will decline as long as China’s overall economy remains stable and the U.S. maintains its tariff ceasefire. The Labor Party is favored to win the federal election, which is most likely to occur in May. This is a low-conviction view, as polls are tight and economic improvement will help the ruling Liberal-National Coalition. Feature 2018 has been a challenging year for global financial markets, as investors have had to deal with greater economic uncertainty, less dovish central banks and more volatile asset prices. One country that has bucked the trend to some degree is Australia. The nation has famously avoided a recession since 1991 and last saw a tightening of monetary policy in 2010. While the recession streak is unlikely to be broken in 2019, there are growing risks that the era of interest rate tranquility will soon end. In this Special Report, jointly published with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we update our views on Australia for 2019 – a year when the investment backdrop has the potential to become far more interesting, and volatile, due to election year uncertainty and a potential shift to a more hawkish bias for monetary policy. The Bond Outlook: What To Watch To Turn Bearish BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy has maintained an overweight stance on Australian government bonds since the end of 2017. That high-conviction view stemmed from our expectation that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would keep policy rates on hold for longer due to sluggish economic growth and underwhelming inflation. This recommendation has performed well, with Australian government bonds returning 2.4% (currency-hedged into U.S. dollars) in 2018 year-to-date, beating the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index by 190bps. The benchmark 10-year Australian government is now yielding 36bps below the equivalent 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, the tightest spread since 1980 (Chart 1). Chart 1Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Looking ahead, we still have a positive opinion on Australian debt relative to its global peers over the next six months. The RBA is unlikely to make any adjustments to the Cash Rate - which remains at a highly-accommodative level of 1.5% - without seeing some signs of accelerating inflation in both the Q4 2018 and Q1 2019 CPI reports. This is especially true given the political uncertainty with another federal election due by May 18,1 which could change the outlook for fiscal policy (as we discuss later in this report) and impact the RBA’s economic projections. In our view, the RBA will only be able to seriously consider an interest rate hike, warranting a downgrade of our recommended overweight stance, if all three of the following conditions occur: Australia’s underemployment rate falls below 8% China’s economy shows convincing evidence of reacceleration, especially in commodity-intensive industries like construction Core CPI inflation rises back to at least the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band We will now discuss each of these in turn. Underemployment Australia is a fairly open economy with a large export sector, but consumer spending is still the largest share of GDP (60%) so it matters most for growth. On that front, real consumption has grown in a narrow and uninspiring range between 2-3% over the past five years. Anemic wages and disposable incomes have been the problem, with the growth of both (in nominal terms) struggling to grow faster than low realized inflation, which now sits below the RBA’s inflation target range of 2-3% (Chart 2). Households have been forced to deploy a greater share of that modest income growth just to maintain spending, with the savings rate plunging from 8% at the end of 2014 to 1% this year and consumer debt piling up. Chart 2An Income-Fueled Pickup In Consumer Spending The dynamics may be changing in a more positive direction, however. Growth rates of nominal wage (+2.3%) and disposable income (+3.1%) have accelerated this year to a pace faster than inflation. With real incomes perking up, the year-over-year growth rate of real consumer spending growth accelerated to 3% in Q3/2018, driving real GDP growth to similar levels. A sustained pickup in wage growth is necessary before the RBA would even contemplate a rate hike. For that to occur, there must be decisive evidence of a tightening Australian labor market and increased resource utilization. While the headline unemployment rate of 5.0% is below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU for Australia (5.3%), broader measures of labor market slack are still at elevated levels. Specifically, the “underemployment” rate, which includes workers who are working fewer hours than they would like or at jobs below their skill levels, is still at an elevated 8.3% (Chart 3). That is down from the peak of just below 9% seen in early 2017, but well above the 2012 trough near 7% (when wage growth was close to 4%).  Chart 3UNDERemployment Rate Matters More For Australian Wages Australian wage growth tends to correlate more with the underemployment rate than the traditional unemployment rate (middle panel). This suggests that the recent blip higher in wage growth could be the beginning of a new trend, given that it has occurred alongside the recent drop in underemployment. Already, underemployment is back below the levels that prevailed when the RBA did its last interest rate cut back in 2016 (bottom panel).  A further dip lower in the underemployment rate to below the 8% threshold would likely confirm that wage growth has more upside. That outcome would give the RBA greater confidence that consumer spending will gain more strength even with a low savings rate, and that CPI inflation will return back into the target range – both outcomes that would justify some removal of the RBA’s highly stimulative monetary accommodation. China Stimulus The main connection from China’s economy to Australia is through Chinese demand for Australian exports. There is also an indirect, but very important, link between Chinese demand boosting industrial commodity prices. The latter boosts Australian growth through positive terms-of-trade effects and increased capital spending in commodity-related sectors like mining. Iron ore is the most important of those commodities, representing 18% of total Australian goods exports, with 85% of those iron ore exports going to China. Australian export growth has decelerated during 2018 from the very robust 15% year-over-year pace to a still solid 10% rate. This has mirrored the trends seen in many other economies, where exports have slowed alongside diminished demand from China. If Chinese authorities change their current policy trajectory, and embrace more aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus, then they will reaccelerate the country’s flagging demand, which should benefit Australian exporters. If the increase in spending occurs in commodity-intensive parts of China’s economy, like construction, then Australia can also benefit from a terms-of-trade impact if commodity prices rise. However, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy remain skeptical that China will launch a major economic stimulus package along the lines of what occurred in 2015-16. That surge not only boosted Chinese GDP and import demand but also triggered a boost to global industrial commodity prices that benefitted many commodity exporters, including Australia. In recent months, there has been a pickup in overall Chinese import growth, as well as some acceleration of higher frequency growth indicators like the Li Keqiang index (Chart 4). Australian exports to China have not picked up though, and Chinese iron ore imports are contracting. Part of that is due to the elevated levels of Chinese iron ore inventories. More likely, there is little demand for additional iron ore given China’s reform agenda and the struggles of its construction sector (which accounts for roughly 35% of Chinese steel demand). Chart 4China Stimulus Not Helping Australia...Yet? Our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy2 have noted that both weakening sales and tighter funding sources for real estate developers point to declining growth in property starts and construction. This will be negative for construction-related commodity markets and construction-related machinery. This is coming at a time when the Chinese government is trying specifically to address over-indebted industries like construction. As for the U.S.-China trade truce, a permanent de-escalation of tensions – which has not yet occurred – could provide a boost to Australian export demand, as with other export-focused countries. But the negative impact of bilateral U.S.-China tariffs on the global economy is much smaller than that of China’s attempt to limit indebtedness. Moreover, a trade truce will remove China’s primary incentive to adopt more aggressive stimulus. Nevertheless, from the RBA’s perspective, any boost to China’s construction-related activity would have a big impact on Australia’s economy and would strengthen the case for a rate hike in 2019.  Core Inflation Australia’s headline CPI inflation has struggled to hit even the bottom end of the RBA’s 2-3% target band since 2015, reaching only 1.9% in Q3 of this year (Chart 5). The story is even worse for inflation excluding food and energy, with core CPI inflation now only at 1.2% after having drifted lower in two consecutive quarters. Both market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations are also hovering near 2%. Chart 5Australian Inflation Well Below RBA Target When breaking down the CPI into tradeables (i.e. more globally-focused) and non-tradeables (i.e. more domestically-focused), the two types of inflation have not been accelerating at the same time since the 2009-11 period. Since then, faster tradeables inflation has occurred alongside slowing non-tradeables inflation, and vice versa.  While volatility on the tradeables side should be expected given the correlation to swings in commodity prices and the Australian dollar, the weakness in non-tradeables is more directly related to the spare capacity in the domestic economy. Therefore, if wage growth continues to pick up as the labor market tightens, then non-tradeables inflation should follow suit and boost Australian CPI inflation back towards the RBA target range. The implication for the RBA is that a move in core CPI inflation back towards 2.5% (the midpoint of the RBA band), occurring after an acceleration in wage growth as described above, would give the central bank confidence that a higher Cash Rate is required. Bottom Line: The RBA has kept interest rates on hold for over two years, but may consider a rate hike in 2019 if additional tightening of labor markets leads to higher wage inflation, which would help lift core inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band. A more aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus package in China, while not our base case, would also embolden the RBA to tighten monetary policy. Risks From Australian Banks? Throughout 2018, the Australian financial industry has had to endure the slings and arrows of a government inquiry into its questionable business practices and misconduct. Revelations of bribery, fraud, the charging of fees for no service and from the accounts of deceased people, as well as board-level deception of regulators, have roiled Australia's financial sector since the explosive inquiry began in February. The final report of the Australian Financial Services Royal Commission will be published in February, but the impact is already being felt throughout the industry. Bank CEOs have been publically shamed, while other senior financial sector executives have been forced from their jobs. The chairman of National Australia Bank stated before the inquiry that customers’ trust in lenders had been “pretty well eroded to zero”, and that it could take as long as a decade to successfully overhaul the culture within the banks. The biggest impacts from the Commission will come through hits to banks’ earnings and funding costs, as well as the potential impact on lending standards for new loans. Australian banks will be less profitable because of fines, customer refunds, setting aside provisions for potential misconduct penalties and the government wanting increased competition. If banks also choose to be more conservative with the marking of loans, then higher loan-loss provisions could be an additional drag on bank earnings. Already, Australian bank stocks have severely underperformed the overall domestic market, and there has been some slowing of domestic credit growth (Chart 6). There are also signs of bank funding stresses from contracting bank deposit growth (second panel) and wider offshore funding costs like relatively elevated LIBOR-OIS spreads (bottom panel). Considering how heavily Australian banks rely on offshore funding, any squeeze in those markets could severely influence the availability of credit within the Australian economy. Chart 6Australian Banks Under Some Stress... Looking ahead, if banks do tighten up their lending standards in response to the criticism and findings of the Commission, that will be from a starting point of very accommodative levels. In other words, getting a loan will likely still be “easy”, rather than “incredibly easy”. The reason is that Australian bank balance sheets remain in excellent condition. Credit crunches begin when banks are undercapitalized and are forced to retrench new loan activity as losses on existing loans pile up. That is not the case in Australia, where the major banks have Tier 1 capital ratios in the 10-12% range and non-performing loans are a tiny share of total lending. In our view, a true credit crunch would likely only occur after the Australian housing bubble bursts and the economy enters a severe downturn. That outcome would most likely be triggered by monetary policy tightening via multiple RBA rate hikes. Importantly, some of the steam has already been taken out of Australian house prices thanks to changes in regulations on new lending (Chart 7), potentially reducing some of the immediate risks to growth from a sharp plunge in home values.  Chart 7...But No Credit Crunch Expected Bottom Line: In 2019, the Australian government and its key financial regulators will have to work together to enforce responsible lending without triggering a catastrophic property market unwind. RBA policymakers are less likely to hike rates given their desire to maintain financial stability in the aftermath of the Commission – or at least until the inflation story forces their hand, as outlined in this report. The Federal Election: Polling Slightly Favors Labor Scandals in the financial sector are of utmost importance to the other major factor that could make 2019 a year of significant change in Australia: the federal election that looms most likely in the spring. Parliament is balanced on a knife’s edge, with the Australian Liberal Party’s loss of former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s parliamentary seat in a Sydney by-election on October 20. The ruling Liberal-National Coalition no longer has a majority and must rely on independent MPs to survive any no-confidence vote. This precarious situation suggests that the election could come even sooner than May and that the slightest twist in the campaign could deliver at least a small majority to either of the top two parties. Indeed, at this early stage, a high-conviction view on the election outcome is not warranted. After all, the 2016 election was decided in the Coalition’s favor only after a shift in opinion in the final month! Chart 8Labor Party Narrowly Leads All-Party Opinion Polls Nevertheless, with all due caveats, our baseline case is for a Labor majority in 2019, however slim it may be.3 Labor is slightly ahead of the Coalition in the primary opinion polling, which includes all parties (Chart 8). In two-party preference polling, Labor has gradually widened its general lead since the July 2016 election and now holds a 10% advantage in the federal polls – albeit only a 6% lead when a moving average is taken (Chart 9). Labor is also winning or tied in every major state. Chart 9Labor Has Large Lead In Two-Party Preference Polls The dramatic shift in polling since August is significant because that is when the knives came out and the Coalition ousted Turnbull in favor of the current Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The purpose of this move was to give the party a facelift ahead of the election. It is true that public opinion views Morrison as the preferred prime minister to Labor’s Bill Shorten. Shorten has a negative net approval rating and has never been viewed as an inspiring politician, while Morrison is just barely net positive. This perception works against Labor’s lead in the party polling – which is very competitive anyway – and suggests the election will be close. Critically, the Liberal-National Coalition’s polling as a whole has not benefited from the change in leadership. And in fact the data does not support the two major Australian parties’ abiding belief that a leadership coup will boost their popularity: Australia has seen four of these coups since 2010, two from Labor and two from the Coalition, and the party in question lost an average of 8% of the popular vote and 14 seats in parliament in the succeeding election (Table 1). Table 1Intra-Party Coups Don’t Win Votes Turnbull’s ouster also calls attention to another detrimental factor for the Coalition: the challenge on the right flank from minor and anti-establishment parties. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has a relatively low support rate both historically and in today’s race, currently at 8%, but anti-establishment feeling may have forced the Coalition into an error. Judging by the party’s weak polling since August, the negative response to Turnbull’s ouster has been more detrimental than the nomination of Morrison, an immigration hardliner and social conservative, has been beneficial. Meanwhile, Labor’s momentum has been corroborated by a string of surprise victories in by-elections and a sweeping win in the Victoria state elections on November 24. In the latter case, the party not only defended its hold on government, as one might expect in this progressive state, but exceeded expectations to win 56 seats out of 88 in the lower House, while the Coalition lost nearly half of its seats, falling from 37 to 21. Still, Labor’s lead is by no means decisive. In the average of the various primary polls its edge over the Coalition is within the margin of error. Moreover, the Coalition holds more “safe” (uncompetitive) seats than Labor.4 The bottom line is that a small swing in either party’s favor can produce a thin majority. The Coalition’s best case is the economy. But as concerns about unemployment and job creation recede, voters will make other demands. The top issues in recent polling are the cost of living, health care, housing affordability, and wages. Some polls also emphasize social mobility and climate change and renewable energy. Will Shorten’s Labor Party be able to capture the median voter? It is highly significant that the party has taken a rightward turn on immigration and taxes even as it holds out a more left-wing agenda on health, education, regulation, and social benefits. Immigration has played a major role in Australian politics and Labor is currently positioned near the political center – in other words, if Morrison hardens his line to guard against populists, he risks over-hardening and moving away from the median voter (Chart 10). Shorten has proposed a large bipartisan task force to determine the proper limits to immigration and how to deal with congestion and infrastructure pressures. Shorten’s platform also calls attention to abuse of temporary visas by foreign workers. Chart 10Labor Is Not Too Soft On Immigration On taxes, Shorten has attempted to separate small and big companies, again in a bid for the political center. When Prime Minister Morrison sought to establish his anti-tax credentials (Chart 11), Shorten met him halfway and proposed relief for middle class families and small and medium-sized enterprises. Yet he doubled down on higher taxes for multinational corporations and high-income earners. Chart 11Liberal-National Coalition Cutting Corporate Tax Rates Critically, the latter redistributive stances are more in line with the median voter than the Liberal Party’s more conservative, supply-side, tax cut agenda. All of Australia’s parties, including the increasingly popular “minority parties,” have a more favorable attitude toward redistribution than the Coalition, which is the outlier (Chart 12). Indeed, the National Party is closer in line with the others than the Liberals, highlighting the divisions within the Coalition that have been jeopardizing votes. As for tax cuts on middle income earners and small businesses, Labor’s acceptance of them speaks to voter concerns about living costs, jobs, and wages. Chart 12The Coalition Is Out Of Synch On Taxes Labor is also closer to the median voter on the aforementioned financial sector scandals. The Coalition stands to suffer because it has developed a reputation for being too cozy with the banks (Chart 13). This is one of the biggest perceived differences between the two major parties – in addition to the negative perception of intra-Coalition betrayal – and it is possibly one of the most salient issues in the election. This presents a serious danger for the Coalition. Chart 13Banks: The Coalition’s Ball And Chain What would a Labor government bring? The market will be jittery about Shorten’s attempts to increase tax revenue, which threatens a non-negligible tightening of fiscal policy. Shorten wants to raise taxes on high income earners; remove or lower deductions and discounts (such as on capital gains); crack down on tax evasion; and tighten control over a range of tax practices specific to Australia (limiting “negative gearing” and cutting cash refunds for “franking credits”). He is also taking a tough position on banks and the energy sector. At the same time, it is clear from Labor’s proposals in 2016 (Chart 14) that there will be a hefty amount of new spending coming down the pike if a Labor government is formed – primarily on education, health, infrastructure and job training. The tax cuts that Shorten does support will go to those with a higher propensity to consume, as well as to SMEs that are responsible for job creation. Chart 14Labor’s Spending Plans Unlikely To Change Much Ultimately, Australia’s recent history, taken in consideration with the global business cycle, does not suggest that the Labor Party is all that much more fiscally profligate than the Coalition – but the current budget balance does suggest that there is substantial room to increase deficits, which is convenient for a government that is predisposed to give voters more services (Chart 15). Hence fiscal easing is the path of least resistance - one that could make the RBA even more comfortable in raising interest rates if the conditions laid out earlier in this report come to pass. Chart 15Australia's Next Government Will Have Room To Spend! Bottom Line: The Australian Labor Party is slightly favored to win the next Australian election. This is a low-conviction call given the tight competition in public opinion polling and other mixed indicators. Broadly speaking, Labor’s shift to the political center on immigration and some tax issues makes the party more electable relative to the Coalition; meanwhile its promise of more government services fits with voter demands. We do not accept the narrative that Shorten’s Labor Party will engage in substantial fiscal tightening. The path of least resistance is for tax cuts as well as revenue collection, and for greater government spending. On the other hand, if the Coalition capitalizes on the incumbent advantage and stays in power, larger tax cuts will be in store. Hence we expect Australia to see marginally larger-than-expected budget deficits and fiscal thrust as the one reliable takeaway of next year’s election. Fixed Income Investment Implications We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Australian government bonds in currency-hedged global bond portfolios. While we have laid out the conditions that would make us change that view in this report, it is still too soon to position for such a move. Our RBA Monitor, which measures the cyclical pressures on the central bank to change monetary policy settings, is modestly below the zero line (Chart 16). This indicates a need for easier policy, although the indicator is starting to rise driven by the inflation components in the Monitor (bottom panel). In terms of market pricing, there are only 15bps of rate hikes over the next year discounted in the Australian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve, so markets are exposed to any shift to a more hawkish bias by the RBA as 2019 progresses. Chart 16Our RBA Monitor Starting To Turn Less Dovish Looking purely at Australian government bond yields, the forward curves are priced for very little change in yields over the next year (Chart 17). This suggests that outright duration trades in Australia look uninteresting from a carry perspective of betting against the forwards. We continue to prefer Australian bonds on a relative basis to global developed market peers until there is more decisive evidence pointing to convergence of Australian growth and inflation to the other major economies (bottom panel). Chart 17Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds Over the past year, Global Fixed Income Strategy has recommended tactical trades in Australian money market futures to fade the pricing of RBA hikes that we did not expect to materialize. Specifically, we entered a long position in December 2018 Australian 90-Day Bank Bill futures on October 17, 2017, then switched to a long October 2019 90-Day Bank Bill futures position on May 29, 2017. The latter contract is now trading at implied interest rate levels just above the RBA’s 1.5% Cash Rate (Chart 18), suggesting that there is no more value in this trade.  Chart 18Taking Profits On Our Long Bank Bill Futures Trade We therefore take a profit of 21bps on the Bank Bill futures trade, while awaiting evidence from the “RBA Hike Checklist” introduced in this report before considering trades that will benefit from a more hawkish central bank.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Technically the House of Representatives election could occur as late as November 2, while the half Senate election is due May 18, but the norm is to hold the election simultaneously. The 2016 election was a “double dissolution” involving the election of the entire Senate and House of Representatives.  2      Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcareserach.com. 3      We would slightly favor Labor leading a slim majority in the Senate as well as in the House. In the Senate, the half of the seats that are up for grabs are evenly split and the polling at this early stage favors Labor over the Coalition. The poor performance of the Greens, in recent polling and in the Victoria state election, suggests a positive development for Labor on the margin, whereas One Nation, whose polls are improving, poses a threat to the Coalition. 4      Labor is fighting for 15 “marginal” (hotly contested) seats and 28 “fairly safe” seats, while the Coalition is only fighting for 12 marginal seats and 14 fairly safe seats.  

Highlights So What? The Trump administration is focusing on re-election in 2020, which could push the recession call into 2021. Why? The midterms were investment-relevant, just not in the way most of our clients thought. We are downgrading our alarmism on Iran; Trump is aware of his constraints. But investor optimism regarding the trade war may be overdone. China has contained its capital outflows, which suggests Beijing will be comfortable with more CNY/USD downside. A new GPS mega-theme: Bifurcated Capitalism! Watch carefully for any upcoming trade action on semiconductors. Feature There is no better feeling than hearing from our clients that we got a call wrong because we misjudged the constraints of the Trump administration by focusing too much on its preferences. Why? Because it means that clients are keeping us honest by employing our most important method: constraints over preferences. This is one of the takeaways from a quarter filled with meetings with our clients in the Midwest, Toronto, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Frankfurt, Berlin, Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and sunny Marbella, Spain! In this report, we discuss several pieces of insight from our clients. Midterms Are Investment Relevant Generally speaking, few of our clients agreed with our assessment that the midterm elections were not investment-relevant. The further away from the U.S. we traveled, the greater the sense among investors that equity markets influence U.S. politics: both the upcoming takeover of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party and the odds of trade war intensification. We strongly disagree with this assessment. Both periods of equity market turbulence this year were preceded by a rising U.S. 10-year yield, not any particularly damning trade war chatter (Chart 1). In fact, the intensification of the trade war this summer occurred amidst a fairly buoyant S&P 500! Meanwhile, the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House were priced in well before the October equity decline began. Chart 1Yields, Not Trade, Matter For Stocks Generally speaking, even midterms that produce gridlock have led to a relief rally (Chart 2). This time could be the same, especially because the likely next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has signalled that the main policy goal for 2019 would be infrastructure spending. In her "victory" speech following the election, Pelosi mentioned infrastructure numerous times (impeachment, zero times). Chart 2Stocks Are Indifferent To Midterm Results Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio, likely head of the House of Representatives committee overseeing transportation, has already signalled that he will ask for "real money, real investment."1 DeFazio has previously proposed a $500bn infrastructure plan, backed by issuance of 30-year Treasuries and raising fuel taxes. He has rejected the February 2017 Trump proposal, which largely relied on raising private money for the job. Would President Trump go with such a plan? Maybe. In early 2018, he stunned lawmakers by saying that he supported hiking the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents a gallon (the federal 18.4 cent-a-gallon gasoline tax has not been hiked since 1993). He has since confirmed that "everything is on the table" to achieve an infrastructure deal. Several clients from around the world pointed out that both Democrats and President Trump have an incentive to make a deal. President Trump wants to avoid the deeply negative fiscal thrust awaiting him in 2020 (Chart 3). Given the House takeover by the Democrats, it is tough to imagine that new tax cuts are the means for Trump to avoid the "stimulus cliff." As such, another round of stimulative fiscal spending may be the only way for him to avoid a late-2020 recession (although the latter is currently the BCA House View). Chart 3Can Trump And Pelosi Reverse... Democrats, on the other hand, have an incentive to ditch "Resistance" and embrace policy-making. Yes, hastening the recession in 2020 would be the Machiavellian play, but President Trump would be able to blame Democrats for the downturn - since they will necessarily have had to participate in planning an infrastructure bill only to sink it. They also learned the lesson from the January 2018 government shutdown, which backfired at the polls and forced Senate Democrats to come to an agreement quickly on a two-year stimulative budget deal. What about the GOP fiscal conservatives? They don't necessarily need to come on board. The House is held by Democrats. And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given that infrastructure is popular, that the president will be pushing it, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget bill in January, we think that even more Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. Another big takeaway from the midterms is that the GOP suffered deep losses in the Midwest. President Trump's party lost ten out of twelve races in the region (Table 1). The two most representative contests were the loss of Republican Wisconsin Governor and one-time rising presidential star Scott Walker, and the victory of the left-wing and über-protectionist Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Senator Brown won his contest comfortably by 6.4% in a state that Trump carried by 8.13%. The appeal of Brown to the very blue-collar voters that Trump himself won is obvious. On trade, there is no daylight between the left-wing Brown and President Trump. Meanwhile, Walker, an establishment Republican who built his reputation on busting public-sector unions, could not replicate Trump's success in Wisconsin. Several of our clients suggested that the GOP performance in the Midwest was poor because of the aggressive trade rhetoric. But that makes little sense. Republicans did not run Trump-style populists in the Midwest, to their obvious detriment. Democrats have always claimed to be for "fair trade" rather than "free trade." And we know, empirically, that Trump saw a key swing of turnout in 2016 in these states, largely thanks to his protectionist rhetoric (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Owes The Midwest The Presidency President Trump cannot take Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin lightly. His performance in 2016 was extraordinary, but also tight. The Democrats will win these states if Trump does not grow voter turnout and support, according to demographic projections - and they lost them by less than a percentage point of white voters (Map 1). As such, we think that Democrats will talk tough on trade and try to reclaim their union and blue-collar voters, while President Trump has to double down on an aggressive trade posture towards China. Map 1Can 'White Hype' Work In 2020? Trump's Margins Are Small The midterms are investment relevant after all, but not in the way some might think. The Democratic takeover of the House, and the resultant gridlock, will potentially avert the "stimulus cliff" in 2020. This ought to support short-term inflation expectations and thus allow the Fed to stay-the-course. For markets, this could be unsettling given the correlation between yields and downturns in 2018. For the dollar, this should be supportive. The odds of an infrastructure deal are good, above 50%, with the key risk being a Democratic House focused on impeaching Trump. Such a bill would augur even higher levels of fiscal spending through 2020, possibly prolonging the business cycle, and setting up an even wider budget deficit when the next recession hits (Chart 5). Chart 5Pro-Cyclical Policy Has To Continue Meanwhile, the shellacking in the Midwest ought to embolden the president to go even harder against China on trade. Rather than the upcoming Xi-Trump meeting in Buenos Aires, the key bellwether of this thesis is whether Trump signals afterwards that he will implement the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 (and whether he announces a third round of tariffs). Bottom Line: Go long building products and construction material stocks. Stay short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. The 10-year yield may end the year even closer to 3.5% when the market realizes that the odds of an infrastructure deal are higher than previously thought. The political path of least resistance in the U.S. continues to point towards greater profligacy. Trump Is Aware Of His Constraints In The Middle East Throughout 2018, we have flagged U.S.-Iran tensions as the risk for 2019. In early October, we went long Brent / short S&P 500 as a hedge against this risk, a trade that we closed for a 6% gain last week. During our meetings with clients this quarter, however, several astute observers pointed out that in our own analyses we have stressed the geopolitical and political constraints to President Trump. First, we have argued that the original 2015 nuclear deal signed by President Obama had a deep geopolitical logic, allowing the U.S. to pivot to Asia and stare down China by geopolitically deleveraging the U.S. from the Middle East. If President Trump undermined the détente with Iran, he would be opening up a two-front conflict with both China and Iran, diluting his administration's focus and capabilities. Second, we noted that a rise in oil prices could precipitate an early recession and push up gasoline prices in 2019, a probable death knell for any president's re-election prospects. Our clients were right to ask: Why would President Trump face down these constraints, given the high cost that he would incur? We did not have a very good answer to this question. It is difficult to understand President Trump's preferences for raising tensions against Iran beyond the fact that he promised to do so in his campaign, appears to want to undermine all of President Obama's policies, and turned to Iran hawks to head his foreign policy. Are these preferences worth the risk of a recession in 2019? Or worth the risk of triggering yet another military conflict in the Middle East over a country that only 7% of Americans consider is the 'greatest enemy' (Chart 6)? Chart 6Americans Don't Perceive Iran As 'The Greatest Enemy' Given that the administration has offered exemptions to the oil embargo to eight key importers, it now appears that President Trump is well aware of his geopolitical and domestic constraints. The combined imports of Iranian oil by these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d. While we do not have the detail of the volumes that will be allowed under the waivers, it is likely that these Iranian sales will recover some of the ~1mm b/d of exports lost already (Chart 7). Chart 7Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days What does this mean for investors? On one hand, it means that the risk of oil prices spiking north of $100 per barrel have substantively decreased. On the other hand, however, it also means that the Trump administration agrees with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view that oil markets remain tight and that OPEC 2.0's spare capacity may be a constraint to future production increases. Bottom Line: The risks of an oil-price-shock-induced 2019 recession have fallen. However, oil prices may yet surge in 2019 to the $85-95 level (Brent) on the back of supply risks in Venezuela and Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia and Russia prove unable to expand production much beyond their current levels. Most of our clients in the Middle East shared the skepticism of our commodity strategists that Saudi Arabia would be able to increase production much higher than current levels in 2019. However, the view was not unanimous. Risks Of Saudi Arabia Going Rogue Have Declined Clients in the Middle East were convinced that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi would have no impact on Saudi oil production decisions. However, the insight from the region is that the incident has probably ended the "blank cheque" that the Trump administration initially gave Riyadh on foreign policy. For global investors, this may not have a major impact. But it may have been at least part of the administration's reasoning behind giving embargo exemptions to such a large number of economies. The incident has likely forced Saudi Arabia to adjust its calculus on three issues: Qatar: The Saudi-Qatari split never made much sense in the first place. It was initially endorsed by President Trump, who may not have understood the strategic value of Qatar to the United States. Defense Secretary James Mattis almost immediately responded by reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the Persian Gulf country which hosts one of the most strategic U.S. air bases in the world. Yemen: The U.S. has now openly called on Saudi Arabia to end its military operations in Yemen. We would expect Riyadh to acquiesce to the request. Iran: With the U.S. giving major importers of Iranian oil exemptions, the message is twofold. First, the U.S. cares about its domestic economic stability. Second, the U.S. does not care about Saudi domestic economic stability. Our commodity strategists believe that Saudi fiscal breakeven oil price is around $85. As such, the U.S. decision to slow-roll the sanctions against Iran will be received with chagrin in Riyadh, especially as the latter will now have to shoulder both lower oil prices and the American request for higher output. Could Saudi Arabia break with the U.S.? Not a chance. The U.S. is the Saudis' security guarantor. As such, it is up to Saudi Arabia to acquiesce to American foreign policy goals, not the other way around. While we think that President Trump ultimately succumbed to geopolitical and political constraints when he decided to take the "phoney war" approach to Iran, he may have been nudged in that direction by Khashoggi's tragic murder. Bottom Line: A major risk for investors in 2019 was that the Trump administration would treat Saudi preferences for a major confrontation with Iran as its own interests. Such a strategy would have destabilized the global oil markets and potentially have unwound the 2015 U.S.-Iran détente that has allowed the U.S. to focus on China. However, the death of Khashoggi has marginally hurt President Trump domestically - given that it makes him look soft on Saudi Arabia, an unpopular stance in the U.S. Moreover, the administration has come to grips with the risks of a dire oil shock should Iran retaliate. The shift in U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia will therefore refocus the Trump administration on its own priorities, not that of its ally in the Middle East. Trade War Is All About CNY/USD In The Short Term... Clients in Australia and New Zealand are the most sophisticated Western investors when it comes to China. The level of macro understanding of the Chinese economy and the markets in these two countries is unparalleled (outside of China itself, of course). We therefore always appreciate the insights we pick up from our clients Down Under. And they are convinced that the massive capital outflow from China has clearly ceased. The flow of Chinese capital into Auckland, Melbourne, and Sydney real estate has definitely slowed, and anecdotal evidence appears to be showing up in the price data (Chart 8). Separately, this intel has been confirmed by clients from British Columbia and California. Chart 8Pacific Rim Home Prices Rolling Over The reality is that China has successfully closed its capital account. How else can we explain that a 4.7% CNY/USD depreciation in 2015 precipitated a $483 billion outflow of forex reserves, whereas a 10.1% depreciation this year has not had a major impact (Chart 9)? Chart 9On Balance, China Is Experiencing Modest Outflows To be fair, forex reserves declined by $34bn in October, but that is still a far cry from the panic in 2015. Our other indicators suggest that the impact on capital seepage is muted this time around, largely due to the official crackdown on various forms of capital outflows: Quarterly data (Chart 10) reflecting the change in foreign exchange reserves minus the sum of the current account balance and FDI, indicate that while net inflows have remained negative, they are still a far cry from 2015 levels. Chart 10Far Cry From 2016 Crisis Import data (Chart 11) no longer show the massive deviation between Chinese national statistics and IMF figures. Imports from Hong Kong (Chart 12), specifically, are now down to normal levels, with the fake invoicing problem having quieted down for now. Chart 11No More Confusion Regarding Imports Chart 12Fake Invoicing Has Been Curbed Growth rate of foreign reserves (Chart 13) is not clearly contracting yet, and has been positive this year. Chart 13Severe FX Reserve Drawdown Has Ended Chinese foreign borrowing (Chart 14) is down from stratospheric levels, which limits the volume of potential outflows. Chart 14China's Foreign Lending Has Eased And the orgy of M&A and investment deals in the U.S. (Chart 15) has ended. Chart 15M&A Deals Have Eased Bottom Line: Anecdotal and official data suggest that capital outflows are in check despite their recent uptick. This could embolden Chinese leaders to continue using CNY/USD depreciation as their primary weapon against President Trump's tariffs, especially if the global backdrop is not collapsing. An increase of the 10% tariff rate to 25% on January 1 could, therefore, precipitate further weakness in the CNY/USD. The announcement of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of Chinese imports could do the same. This would be negative for global risk assets, particularly EM equities and currencies. ... In the Long Term, Bifurcated Capitalism Our annual pilgrimage to Oceania included our traditional meeting with The Smartest Man In Oceania The Bloke From Down Under.2 He shares our belief that the long-term result of the broader Sino-American geopolitical conflict will be a form of Bifurcated Capitalism. His exact words were that "countries may soon have to choose between being in the Amazon or Alibaba camp," a great real-world implication of our mega-theme. Australian and New Zealand clients are particularly sensitive to the idea that the world may soon be split into spheres of influence because both countries are so high-beta to China, while obviously retaining their membership card in the West. Our suspicion is that both will be fine as they export mainly a high-grade and diversified range of commodities to China. Short of war, it is unlikely that the U.S. will one day demand that New Zealand stop its dairy exports to China, or that Australia stop iron ore and LNG exports. Countries exporting semiconductors to China, on the other hand, could face a choice between enforcing a future embargo or incurring the wrath of their closest military ally. The Bloke From Down Under has pointed out that, given China's dependency on semiconductor technology, a U.S. embargo of this critical tech could be comparable to the U.S. oil embargo against Japan that precipitated the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Chart 16China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand The global semiconductor market reached $354 billion in 2016, with China accounting for 60% of total consumption (Chart 16). Despite the country's insatiable appetite for semiconductors, no Chinese firm is among the world's top 20 makers. This is why Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan has focused so much on semiconductor capability (Chart 17). The goal is for China to become self-sufficient in semiconductors, gaining 35% share of the global design market. Chart 17China's High-Tech Protectionism A key feature of Bifurcated Capitalism will be impairment of investment in high-tech that has dual-use applications in military. Semiconductors obviously make that list. Another key feature would be investment restrictions in such high-tech sectors, particularly the kind of investments and M&A deals that China has been looking for in the U.S. this decade. Further, clients in California are very concerned about the U.S.'s proposed export controls, which would cut off access to China and wreak havoc on the industry. The Trump administration has already signalled that it will restrict Chinese inbound investment. Congress passed, with a large bipartisan majority, an expanded review system, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The law has expanded the purview of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive interagency panel nominally under control of the Treasury Department that can block inbound investment on national security grounds. CFIUS, at its core, has always been an entity focused on China. While the Treasury Department initially signalled it would take as much as 18 months to adopt the new FIRRMA rules, Secretary Mnuchin has accelerated the process. The procedure now will expand review from only large-stake takeovers to joint ventures and smaller investments by foreigners, particularly in technology deemed critical for national security reasons. This oversight began on November 10 and will allow CFIUS to block foreigners from taking a stake in a business making sensitive technology even if it gives the foreign investors merely a board seat. Countries of "special concern" will inherently receive heightened scrutiny, and a country's history of compliance with U.S. law, as well as cybersecurity and American citizens' privacy, will be considerations. A new interagency process led by the Commerce Department will focus on refurbishing export controls so as to protect "emerging and foundational technologies." Such impediments to capital flows are likely to become endemic and expand beyond the U.S. We may be seeing the first steps in the Bifurcated Capitalism concept that one day comes to dominate the global economy. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for Chinese market participants. At the very least, companies whose revenue growth is currently slated to come from expansion in overseas markets may see those expectations falter. At its most pessimistic, however, Bifurcated Capitalism may precipitate geopolitical conflict if it denies China or the U.S. critical technology or commodities. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see David Shepardson, "Democrats to push for big infrastructure bill with 'real money' in 2019," Reuters, dated November 7, 2018, available at reuters.com. 2 At the time of publication, the said investor was unable to secure the permission of his wife for the "The Smartest Man" moniker. Geopolitical Calendar

Informe especial

Highlights So What? Donald Trump's reelection depends on the timing of the next recession. Why? The midterm elections will not determine Trump's reelection chances. Rather, the timing of the next recession will. BCA's House View expects it by 2020. Otherwise, President Trump is favored to win. Trump may be downgrading "maximum pressure" on Iran, reducing the risk of a 2019 recession. Trade war with China, gridlock, and budget deficits are the most investment-relevant outcomes of U.S. politics in 2018-20. Feature The preliminary results of the U.S. midterm elections are in, with the Democrats gaining the House and failing to gain the Senate, as expected. Our view remains that the implications for investors are minimal. The policy status quo is now locked in - a gridlocked government is unlikely to produce a major change in economic policy over the next two years. While the election is to some extent a rebuke to Trump, this report argues that he remains the favored candidate for the 2020 presidential election - unless a recession occurs. A Preliminary Look At The Midterms First, the preliminary takeaways from the midterms, as the results come in: The Democrats took the House of Representatives, with a preliminary net gain of 27 seats, resulting in a 51%-plus majority, and this is projected to rise to 34 seats as we go to press Wednesday morning. This is above the average for midterm election gains by the opposition party, especially given that Republicans have held the advantage in electoral districting. Performance in the Midwest, other swing states, and suburban areas poses a threat to Trump and Republicans in 2020. Republicans held the Senate, with a net gain of at least two seats, for a 51%-plus majority. Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump won in 2016. While Democrats did well in the Midwest, these candidates had the advantage of incumbency. On the state level, the Democrats gained a net seven governorships, two of them in key Midwestern states. The gubernatorial races were partly cyclical, as the Republicans had hit a historic high-water mark in governors' seats and were bound to fall back a bit. However, the Democratic victory in Michigan and Wisconsin, key Midwestern Trump states, is a very positive sign for the Democrats, since they were not incumbents in either state and had to unseat incumbent Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. (Their victory in Maine could also help them in the electoral college in 2020.) The governors' races also suggest that moderate Democrats are more appealing to voters than activist Democrats. Candidate Andrew Gillum's loss in Florida is a disappointment for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.1 With the House alone, Democrats will not be able to push major legislation through. In the current partisan environment it will be nigh-impossible to reach the 60 votes needed to end debate in the Senate ("cloture"), and even then House Democrats will face a presidential veto. They will not be able to repeal Trump's tax cuts, re-regulate the economy, abandon the trade wars, resurrect Obamacare, or revive the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Like the Republicans after 2010, they will be trapped in the position of controlling only one half of one of the three constitutional branches. The most they can do is hold hearings and bring forth witnesses in an attempt to tarnish Trump's 2020 reelection chances. They may eventually bring impeachment articles against him, but without two-thirds of the Senate they cannot remove him from office (unless the GOP grassroots abandons him, giving senators permission to do so). U.S. equities generally move upward after midterm elections - including midterms that produce gridlock (Chart 1A & Chart 1B). However, the October selloff could drag into November. More worryingly, as Chart 1B shows, the post-election rally tends to peter out only six months after a gridlock midterm, unlike midterms that reinforce the ruling party. Chart 1AMidterm U.S. Elections Tend To Be Bullish... Chart 1B... But Markets Lose Steam Six Months Post-Gridlock However, the 2018 midterms could be mildly positive for the markets, as they do not portend any major new policies or uncertainty. Trump's proposed additional tax cuts would have threatened higher inflation and more Fed rate hikes, whereas House Democrats will not be able to raise taxes or cut spending alone. Bipartisan entitlement reform seems unlikely in 2018-20 given the acrimony of the two parties and structural factors such as inequality and populism. An outstanding question is health care, which Republicans left unresolved after failing to repeal Obamacare, and which exit polls show was a driving factor behind Democratic victories. Separately, as an additional marginal positive for risk assets, the Trump administration has reportedly granted eight waivers to countries that import Iranian oil. We have signaled that Trump's "maximum pressure" doctrine poses a key risk for markets due to the danger of an Iran-induced oil price shock. A shift toward more lax enforcement reduces the tail-risk of a recession in 2019 (Chart 2). Of course, the waivers will expire in 180 days and may be a mere ploy to ensure smooth markets ahead of the midterm election, so the jury is still out on this issue. Chart 2Rapid Increases In Oil Prices Tend To Precede Recessions This brings us to the main focus of this report: what do the midterms suggest about the 2020 election? Bottom Line: The midterm elections have produced a gridlocked Congress. Trump can continue with his foreign policy, most of his trade policy, his deregulatory decrees, and his appointment of court judges with limited interference from House Democrats. The only thing the Democrats can prevent him from doing is cutting taxes further. He tends to agree with Democrats on the need for more spending! While the U.S. market could rally on the back of this result, we do not see U.S. politics being a critical catalyst for markets going forward. On balance, a gridlocked result brings less uncertainty than would otherwise be the case, which is positive for markets in the short term. The Midterms And The 2020 Election There is a weak relationship at best between an opposition party's gains in the midterms and its performance in the presidential election two years later. Given that the president's party almost always loses the midterms - and yet that incumbent presidents tend to be reelected - the midterm has little diagnostic value for the presidential vote, as can be seen in recent elections (Chart 3A & Chart 3B). Chart 3AMidterm Has Little Predictive Power For Presidential Popular Vote ... Chart 3B... Nor For Presidential Electoral College Vote Nevertheless, historian Allan Lichtman has shown that since 1860, a midterm loss is marginally negative for a president's reelection chances.2 And for Republicans in recent years, losses in midterm elections are very weakly correlated with Republican losses of seats in the electoral college two years later (Chart 4). Chart 4Republican Midterm Loss Could Foreshadow Electoral College Losses Still, this midterm election does not give any reason to believe that Trump's reelection chances have been damaged any more than Ronald Reagan's were after 1982, or Bill Clinton's after 1994, or Barack Obama's after 2010. All three of these presidents went on to a second term. A midterm loss simply does not stack the odds against reelection. Why are midterm elections of limited consequence for the president? They are fundamentally different from presidential elections. For instance, "the buck stops here" applies to the president alone, whereas in the midterms voters often seek to keep the president in check by voting against his party in Congress.3 Despite the consensus media narrative, the president is not that unpopular. Trump's approval rating today is about the same as that of Clinton and Obama at this stage in their first term (Chart 5). This week's midterm was not a wave of "resistance" to Trump so much as a run-of-the-mill midterm in which the president's party lost seats. Its outcome should not be overstated. Bottom Line: There is not much correlation between midterms and presidential elections. The best historians view it as a marginal negative for the incumbent. This result is not a mortal wound for Trump. Chart 5President Trump Is Hardly Losing The Popularity Contest 2020: The Recession Call Is The Election Call The incumbent party has lost the White House every single time that a recession occurred during the campaign proper (Chart 6).4 The incumbent party has lost 50%-60% of the time if recession occurred in the calendar year before the election or in the first half of the election year. Chart 6A 2020 Recession Is Trump's Biggest Threat This is a problem for President Trump because the current economic expansion is long in the tooth. In July 2019, it will become the longest running economic expansion in U.S. history, following the 1991-2001 expansion. The 2020 election will occur sixteen months after the record is broken, which means that averting a recession over this entire period will be remarkable. BCA's House View holds that 2020 is the most likely year for a recession to occur. The economy is at full employment, inflation is trending upwards, and the Fed's interest rate hikes will become restrictive sometime in 2019. The yield curve could invert in the second half of 2019 - and inversion tends to precede recession by anywhere from 5-to-16 months (Table 1). No wonder Trump has called the Fed his "biggest threat."5 Table 1Inverted Yield Curve Is An Ominous Sign The risks to this 2020 recession call are probably skewed toward 2021 instead of 2019. The still-positive U.S. fiscal thrust in 2019 and possibly 2020 and the Trump administration's newly flexible approach to Iran sanctions, if maintained, reduce the tail-risk of a recession in 2019. If there is not a recession by 2020, Trump is the favored candidate to win. First, incumbents win 69% of all U.S. presidential elections. Second, incumbents win 80% of the time when the economy is not in recession, and 76% of the time when real annual per capita GDP growth over the course of the term exceeds the average of the previous two terms, which will likely be the case in 2020 unless there is a recession (Chart 7). Chart 7Relative Economic Performance Could Give Trump Firepower The above probabilities are drawn from the aforementioned Professor Allan Lichtman, at American University in Washington D.C., who has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1984 (except the disputed 2000 election). Lichtman views presidential elections as a referendum on the party that controls the White House. He presents "13 Keys to the Presidency," which are true or false statements based on historically derived indicators of presidential performance. If six or more of the 13 keys are false, the incumbent will lose. On our own reading of Lichtman's keys, Trump is currently lined up to lose a maximum of four keys - two shy of the six needed to unseat him (Table 2). This is a generous reading for the Democrats: Trump's party has lost seats in the midterm election relative to 2014; his term has seen sustained social unrest; he is tainted by major scandal; and he is lacking in charisma. Yet on a stricter reading Trump only has one key against him (the midterm). Table 2Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* What would it take to push Trump over the edge? Aside from a recession (which would trigger one or both of the economic keys against him), he would need to see two-to-four of the following factors take shape: a serious foreign policy or military failure, a charismatic Democratic opponent in 2020, a significant challenge to his nomination within the Republican Party, or a robust third party candidacy emerge. In our view, none of these developments are on the horizon yet, though they are probable enough. For instance, it is easy to see Trump's audacious foreign policy on China, Iran, and North Korea leading to a failure that counts against him. Thus, as things currently stand, Trump is the candidate to beat as long as the economy holds up. What about impeachment and removal from office prior to 2020? As long as Trump remains popular among Republican voters he will prevent the Senate from turning against him (Chart 8). What could cause public opinion to change? Clear, irrefutable, accessible, "smoking gun" evidence of personal wrongdoing that affected Trump's campaigns or duties in office. Nixon was not brought down until the Watergate tapes became public - and that required a Supreme Court order. Only then did Republican opinion turn against him and expose him to impeachment and removal - prompting him to resign. Chart 8Trump Cannot Be Removed From Office All that being said, Trump tends to trail his likeliest 2020 adversaries in one-on-one opinion polling. Given our recession call, we would not dispute online betting markets giving Trump a less-than-50% chance of reelection at present (Chart 9). The Democratic selection process has hardly begun: e.g. Joe Biden could have health problems, and Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, or other surprise candidates could decide to run. The world will be a different place in 2020. Bottom Line: The recession call is the election call. If BCA is right about a recession by 2020, then Trump will lose. If we are wrong, then Trump is favored to win. Chart 9A Strong Opponent Has Yet To Emerge Is It Even Possible For Trump To Win Again? Election Scenarios Is it demographically possible for Trump to win? Yes. In 2016 BCA dubbed Trump's electoral strategy "White Hype," based on his apparent attempt to increase the support and turnout of white voters, primarily in "Rust Belt" battleground states. While Republican policy wonks might have envisioned a "big tent" Republican Party for the future, demographic trends in 2016 suggested that this strategy was premature. Indeed, drawing from a major demographic study by the Center for American Progress and other Washington think tanks,6 we found that a big increase in white turnout and support was the only 2016 election scenario in which a victory in both the popular vote and electoral college vote was possible. In other words, while "Minority Outreach" have worked as a GOP strategy in the future, Donald Trump's team was mathematically correct in realizing that only White Hype would work in the actual election at hand. This strategy did not win Trump the popular vote, but it did secure him the requisite electoral college seats, notably from the formerly blue of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Comparing the 2016 results with our pre-election projections confirms this point: Trump won the very swing states where he increased white GOP support and lost the swing states where he did not. Pennsylvania is the notable exception, but he won there by increasing white turnout instead of white GOP support.7 Can Trump do this again? Yes, but not easily. Map 1 depicts the 2016 election results with red and blue states, plus the percentage swing in white party support that would have been necessary to turn the state to the opposite party (white support for the GOP is the independent variable). In Michigan, a 0.3% shift in the white vote away from Republicans would have deprived Trump of victory; in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a 0.8% shift would have done the same; in Florida, a 1.5% change would have done so. Map 1The 'White Hype' Strategy Narrowly Worked In 2016 Critically, the country's demographics have changed significantly since 2016 - to Trump's detriment. The white eligible voting population in swing states will have fallen sharply from 81% of the population to 76% of the population by 2020 (Chart 10). Chart 10Demographic Shift Does Not Favor Trump Thus, to determine whether Trump still has a pathway to victory, we looked at eight scenarios, drawing on the updated Center for American Progress study. The assumptions behind the scenarios in Table 3 are as follows: Status Quo - This replicates the 2016 result and projects it forward with 2020 demographics. 2016 Sans Third Party - Replicates the 2016 result but normalizes the third party vote, which was elevated that year. Minority Revolt - In this scenario, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities turn out in large numbers to support Democrats, even with white non-college educated voters supporting Republicans at a decent rate. The Kanye West Strategy - Trump performs a miracle and generates a swing of minority voters in favor of Republicans. Blue Collar Democrats - White non-college-educated support returns to 2012 norms, meaning back to Democrats. Romney's Ghost - White college-educated support returns to 2012 levels. White Hype - White non-college-educated support swings to Republicans. Obama versus Trump - White college-educated voters ally with minorities in opposition to a surge in white non-college-educated voters for Republicans. Table 3Assumptions For Key Electoral Scenarios In 2020 The results show that Trump's best chance at remaining in the White House is still White Hype, as it is still the only scenario in which Trump can statistically win a victory in the popular vote (Chart 11). Another pathway to victory is the "2016 Sans Third Party" scenario. But this scenario still calls for White Hype, since a third party challenger is out of his hands (Chart 12).8 Chart 11'White Hype' May Be Only Way To Secure Both Popular And Electoral College Vote...   Chart 12... Although Moving To The Center Could Still Yield Electoral College Vote However, the data show that Trump cannot win merely by replicating his white turnout and support from 2016, due to demographic changes wiping away the thin margins in key swing states. He needs some additional increases in support. These increases will ultimately have to be culled from his record in office - which reinforces the all-important question of the timing of recession, but also raises the question of whether Trump will move to the center to woo the median voter. In the "Kanye West" and "Romney's Ghost" scenarios, Trump wins the electoral college by broadening his appeal to minorities and college-educated white voters. This may sound far-fetched, but President Clinton reinvented himself after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 by compromising with Republicans in Congress. The slim margins in the Midwest suggest that the probability of Trump shifting to the middle is not as low as one might think. Especially if there is no recession. Independents remain the largest voting block - and they have not lost much steam, if any, since 2016. Moreover, the number of independents who lean Republican is in an uptrend (Chart 13). Without a recession, or a failure on Lichtman's keys, Trump will likely broaden his base. Chart 13Trump Shows Promise Among Independents Bottom Line: Trump needs to increase white turnout and GOP support beyond 2016 levels in order to win 2020. Demographics will not allow a simple repeat of his 2016 performance. However, he may be able to generate the requisite turnout and support by moving to the center, courting college-educated whites and even minorities. His success will depend on his record in office. Investment Implications What are the implications of the above findings for 2018-20 and beyond? The Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will become pseudo-apocalyptic battlegrounds in 2020. The Democrats must aim to take back all three to win the White House, as they cannot win with just two alone.9 They are likely to focus on these states because they are erstwhile blue states and the vote margin is so slim that the slightest factors could shift the balance - meaning that Democrats could win here without a general pro-Democratic shift in opinion that hurts Trump in other key swing states such as Florida, North Carolina, or Arizona. The "Blue Collar Democrat" scenario, for instance, merely requires that white non-college-educated voters return to their 2012 level of support for Democrats. Joe Biden is the logical candidate, health permitting, as he is from Pennsylvania and was literally on the ballot in 2012! Moreover, these states are the easiest to flip to the Democratic side via the woman vote. In Michigan, a 0.5% swing of women to the Democrats would have turned the state blue again; in Pennsylvania that number is 1.6% and in Wisconsin it is 1.7% (Table 4). These are the lowest of any state. Women from the Midwest or with a base in the Midwest - such as Michelle Obama or Oprah Winfrey - would also be logical candidates. Table 4Women Voters May Hold The Balance The Democrats could also pursue a separate or complementary strategy by courting African American turnout and support, especially in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. But it is more difficult to flip these states than the Midwestern ones. With the Rust Belt as the fulcrum of his electoral strategy and reelection, Trump has a major incentive to maintain economic nationalism over the coming two years. Trump may be more pragmatic in the use of tariffs, and will certainly engage in talks with China and others, but he ultimately must remain "tough" on trade. He has fewer constraints in pursuing trade war with China than with Europe. For the same Rust Belt reason, the Democrats, if they get into the Oval Office, will not be overly kind to the "butchers of Beijing," as President Clinton called the Chinese leadership in the 1992 presidential campaign (after the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident). Hence we are structurally bearish U.S.-China relations and related assets. Interestingly, if Trump moves to the middle, and tones down "white nationalism" in pursuit of college-educated whites and minorities, then he would have an incentive to dampen the flames of social division ahead of 2020. The key is that in an environment without recession, Trump has the option of courting voters on the basis of his economic and policy performance alone. Whereas if he is seen fanning social divisions, it could backfire, as Democrats could benefit from a sense of national crisis and instability in a presidential election. Either way, culture wars, controversial rhetoric, identity politics, unrest, and violence will continue in the United States as the fringes of the political spectrum use identity politics and wedge issues to rile up voters.The question is how the leading parties and their candidates handle it. What about after 2020? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn regardless of which party controls the White House? The two biggest policy certainties are that fiscal spending will go up and that generational conflict will rise. On fiscal spending, Trump was a game changer by removing fiscal hawkishness from the Republican agenda. Democrats are not proposing fiscal responsibility either. The most likely areas of bipartisan legislation in 2018-20 are health care and infrastructure - returning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned infrastructure several times in her election-night speech - which would add to the deficit. The deficit is already set to widen sharply, judging by the fact that it has been widening at a time when unemployment is falling. This aberration has only occurred during the economic boom of the 1950s and the inflation and subsequent stagflation beginning in the late 1960s (Chart 14). The current outlook implies a return of the stagflationary scenario. In the late 1960s, the World War I generation was retiring, lifting the dependent-to-worker ratio and increasing consumption relative to savings. Today, as Peter Berezin of BCA's Global Investment Strategy has shown, the Baby Boomers are retiring with a similar impact. Chart 14The Deficit Is Blowing Out Even Without A Recession Trump made an appeal to elderly voters in the midterms by warning that unfettered immigration and Democratic entitlement expansions would take away from existing senior benefits. By contrast, Democrats will argue that Republicans want to cut benefits for all to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and will try to activate Millennial voters on a range of progressive issues that antagonize older voters. The result is that policy debates will focus more on generational differences. Mammoth budget deficits - not to mention trade war - will be good for inflation, good for gold, and a headwind for U.S. government bonds and the USD as long as the environment is not recessionary. The greatest policy uncertainties are health care and immigration. These are the two major outstanding policy issues that Republicans and Democrats will vie over in 2018 and beyond. While President Trump could achieve something with the Democrats on either of these issues with some painful compromises, it is too soon to have a high conviction on the outcome. But assuming that over the coming years some immigration restrictions come into play and that some kind of public health care option becomes more widely available, there are two more reasons to expect inflation to trend upward on a secular basis. Also on a secular basis, defense stocks stand to benefit from geopolitical multipolarity, especially U.S.-China antagonism. Tech stocks stand to suffer due to the trade war and an increasingly bipartisan consensus that this sector needs to be regulated.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   1 Furthermore, victories on the state level, if built upon in the 2020 election, could give the Democrats an advantage in gerrymandering, i.e. electoral redistricting, which is an important political process in the United States. 2 Please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next President: The Keys To The White House 2016 (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 3 Please see Joseph Bafumi, Robert S. Erikson, and Christopher Wlezien, "Balancing, Generic Polls and Midterm Congressional Elections," The Journal of Politics 72:3 (2010), pp. 705-19. 4 Please see footnote 2 above. 5 Please see Sylvan Lane, “Trump says Fed is his ‘biggest threat,’ blasting own appointees,” The Hill, October 16, 2018, available at thehill.com. 6 Please see Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and William H. Frey, "America's Electoral Future: Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition," Center for American Progress, dated April 14, 2018, available at www.americanprogress.org. 7 In several cases, he did not have to lift white support by as much as we projected because minority support for the Democrats dropped off after Obama left the stage. 8 Interestingly, however, this scenario would result in an electoral college tie! Since the House would then vote on a state delegation basis, it would likely hand Trump the victory (and Pence would also win the Senate). 9 However, if they win Pennsylvania plus one electoral vote in Maine, they can win the electoral college with either Michigan or Wisconsin.

Informe especial

Highlights So What? Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to step down as party chairperson is positive for European political evolution and thus not a risk to the market. Why? The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is unlikely to turn Euroskeptic, the median German voter is not. Europhile Green Party is surging, throwing shade at the narrative that Germans are souring on Europe. New elections are unlikely in the next 12 months, neither main centrist party would benefit. Chancellor Merkel's stabilizing role in the Euro Area crisis is overstated. Infusion of new blood is precisely what Germany, and Europe, needs. Also... 2019 will be a big year for Europe with multiple decisions to be taken on governance reforms. New leadership in Berlin is exactly what the doctor ordered. Feature German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a deep loss in the Hesse election on October 28. Germany's main centrist parties - the center-right CDU and center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) - suffered deep losses in Hesse, mirroring the results in Bavaria from October 14 (Chart 1). The results have prompted Angela Merkel to confirm that she will not stand for re-election as chair of the CDU at the Hamburg party convention and that she will not seek any political posts after her current term as chancellor ends in 2021. Chart 1Winners And Losers In Bavaria And Hesse In this Client Note, we examine what Chancellor Merkel's decision means for Germany and Europe. Are Euroskeptics Taking Over Germany? The most important question for global investors is whether Merkel's fall from grace is related to a growing trend of populism in Europe. In part, yes. However, Merkel's problem is deeper. Merkel-fatigue in Germany has deeper roots than her decision on immigration in 2015. Polling suggests that Merkel recovered from that crisis and reached a 70% approval rating in mid-2017, only to see a precipitous decline since (Chart 2). Chart 2Merkel's Political Capital Is Spent That said, German Euroskeptic sentiment is not on the rise (Chart 3). In fact, Germans support the currency union at one of the highest clips in Europe. Furthermore, Germans continue to "feel" European (Chart 4). Chart 3Germans Are Europhile... Chart 4...And Feel Quite European In the last two Lander elections in Bavaria and Hesse, the right-wing, Euroskeptic party Alternative for Germany (AfD) underperformed its national polling. Its support in opinion polls, at 16%, appears to be limited by the number of Germans who identify as Euroskeptic, similarly around 14%. In fact, it was the Green Party that surprised in both Bavaria and Hesse, gaining 8.9% and 8.7% respectively. Bottom Line: The short answer is no, Germany is not being taken over by Euroskeptics. True, the 2015 migration crisis has given the AfD a tailwind, allowing it to become entrenched in the political system. Yet just as impressive is the rise of the Europhile Green party (Chart 5). Chart 5Grand Coalition Parties Would Be Crazy To Call A New Election OK, But Will The CDU Move To The Right? The previous question was purposely hyperbolic. The more nuanced question is whether the CDU will swing to the right in the face of AfD's rise? The answer depends on the issue. The two key issues are immigration and EU integration. On immigration, it is simply good politics for Germany's center-right party to steal from the AfD platform. The only downside of adopting a right-leaning immigrant policy is that it will make forming coalitions with the surging Green Party more difficult. It was immigration policy that ultimately prevented the so-called Jamaica Coalition - the CDU, the Green Party, and the pro-business and mildly Euroskeptic Free Democratic Party (FDP) - from becoming a fully-fledged ruling coalition in November 2017. This forced Merkel to re-establish the uninspiring Grand Coalition with the SPD.1 On European integration, it is possible that the CDU will adopt more Euroskeptic rhetoric, but such a move could backfire. First, data suggests that Germans continue to support the euro at a high clip. Second, AfD has already captured the "hard Euroskeptic" voters, whereas FDP has captured "soft Euroskeptics." It is unclear if the CDU has any chance of getting any of those voters back by crowding the "Euroskeptic corner." In fact, data from Bavaria and Hesse indicate that the CDU has been losing voters equally to the Green Party and the AfD. From the perspective of the Median Voter Theory, the CDU has a clear path forward. By remaining Europhile and pro-EU, it can ensure that it does not abandon the 83% of Germans who continue to support the currency union. The German median voter clearly does not want to abandon European institutions. But by ditching Merkel's liberal, pro-immigrant policy, the CDU can ensure that it withstands the AfD's attack on its right flank. Bottom Line: Germany's main center-right party has the luxury of picking its battles with the right-wing AfD. We suspect that the CDU will adopt some of the AfD's anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy, but retain its centrism on other issues. Who Will Replace Merkel As The Head Of The CDU? After months of speculation, Chancellor Merkel has confirmed that she will not pursue the CDU chairmanship at the upcoming December 7-8 party conference in Hamburg. Instead, Germany's ruling party will select a new chairperson, one who will be groomed as Merkel's successor for the 2021 election. The process for selecting the CDU chairperson is largely closed and dominated by party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU - which is made up of the chairperson and 39 other members - sits down with the CDU parliamentary faction to approve the candidates, ensuring that a rogue candidate cannot stage a surprise in the delegate vote. It is highly likely that Merkel will be able to hand-pick a successor. Table 1 is our attempt to collate the likeliest candidates to replace Merkel as the head of the CDU. The list includes only one Euroskeptic candidate - former party whip Friedrich Merz who has not sat in the Bundestag since 2009 - and quite a few outright Europhiles. Merkel's preferred candidate is Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer - often referred to by German media by her acronym AKK - a centrist who is to the left of Merkel on economic policy, EU matters, and social issues. Table 1Potential Merkel Successors Given the short period of time between now and the Hamburg conference, it is highly unlikely that a surprise candidate - such as the Euroskeptic Merz - will emerge victorious. Merkel, for instance, spent months grooming the party rank-and-file prior to her nomination. Bottom Line: Merkel's successor is likely to be hand-picked. Will Merkel Survive Until 2021? Merkel's chances of staying in power until the end of the current government's term will increase if her favored successor - Kramp-Karrenbauer - emerges victorious in December. A win for an outsider, or someone highly critical of Merkel (such as Jens Spahn, who has disagreed with Merkel on immigration), might hasten Merkel's demise. How would such an outcome play out? If Merkel resigns, the Bundestag would have to elect a new chancellor with a simple majority. Given that the CDU currently governs in a coalition with the SPD, the latter party would have to support the election of a new chancellor. Kramp-Karrenbauer would be acceptable to the SPD, but one of the more contentious candidates may not. A new election would require the chancellor - Merkel or her successor - to lose a confidence vote that he or she has called. However, this is a controversial matter constitutionally as the government must claim that it has reached a legislative impasse on a particular issue. (Chancellor Gerhard Schroder argued in 2005 that his economic agenda was stalled.) The other question is why would either of the ruling parties want new elections at this point? Both centrist parties are tanking in the polls, as both Bavarian and Hesse elections signal and as overall polling indicates (see Chart 5). As such, we suspect that a new election will not take place over the next 12 months, at the very least. Bottom Line: Early elections are not easy to arrange and neither of the two ruling parties want one at the moment. Merkel has at least one more year in power. Investment Implications: Does Any Of This Matter? Chancellor Merkel has lost all of her political capital: that much is clear. As such, her decision to begin the process of finding a successor is a positive development, one that political leaders rarely take willingly. Given the election of a Europhile Emanuel Macron in France in 2017, Berlin needs to find a comparable partner that can carry on reforms. Otherwise, Germany risks wasting the window of opportunity afforded by the Macron presidency to make critical changes to Euro Area governance. On the agenda over the next year or two are several important issues. First, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is supposed to be granted new powers, evolving it into a kind of European replacement for the IMF. Some argue - including the ESM's leadership - that this expanded role will necessitate a greater injection of capital, for which obviously Berlin must be on board. Second, the stalled Banking Union project requires Berlin's intimate involvement. A deposit insurance union would go a long way toward stabilizing the Euro Area amid future financial crises. Under Merkel, Berlin has been reticent to greenlight such developments. Third, Berlin must agree with EU peers on several important positions after the European Parliament elections in May 2019. These will include staffing the European Commission. According to press reports this summer, Merkel was focused on ensuring that the next president of the European Commission would be a German. To get her way, Chancellor Merkel supposedly indicated that she would not fight to get a German to replace Mario Draghi, whose term at the ECB is set to expire in October 2019. A change at the top in Berlin, particularly if a Euroskeptic takes over the CDU, may signal a reversal of this strategy. That said, what Berlin wants is not necessarily what Berlin will get, no matter who is in charge. Finally, there is the philosophical question of whether Merkel has been a factor of stability for Europe over the past decade. We believe the answer is no. Not for any normative reason but rather because she has been an intently domestic chancellor. Investors have been overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of Euro Area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent Euro Area fiscal backstop mechanism due to the upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. Such delays and hesitations have cost Europe considerable momentum throughout the crisis and since. As such, we believe that Chancellor Merkel's decision presents considerable upside for European politics and limited downside. Infusion of new blood in Berlin is the only way for Europe to restart the stalled governance reforms. However, much will depend on whether the CDU takes a significant turn towards a "softer Euroskeptic" position or maintains its traditional pro-European outlook. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The name references the colors of the three parties (black for CDU, green for the Green Party, and yellow for the FDP).

Highlights So What? The odds of the Democrats taking the Senate have fallen. Meanwhile China's policy easing will benefit China itself, or consumer goods exporters, more so than other EMs. Why? China is the fulcrum of global macro at the moment - only a sharp spike in credit growth will signal a total capitulation by President Xi Jinping. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House from 70% to 65%, while in the Senate the odds fall from 50% to 40%. Generational warfare is one of our new long-run investment themes - it will help define the 2020 election. Feature Amidst the market correction last week, it was easy for investors to take their eyes off the ball: Chinese policy. Chart 1U.S. Is In Rude Health... The ongoing macro environment is one of policy divergence, with the U.S. economy in "rude health," (Chart 1) - to quote BCA's Chief U.S. Strategist Doug Peta - while Chinese growth disappointed under the pressure of macroprudential structural reforms (Chart 2). The dueling policies have converged to produce epic tailwinds for the U.S. dollar (Chart 3) and correspondingly headwinds for global risk assets. Chart 2...But China Still Struggling Chart 3Epic Tailwinds For The Dollar Amidst this backdrop, investors have finally come to terms with the first portion of our thesis: the Fed will respond to robust U.S. growth. Merely weeks ago, markets doubted that the Fed had the temerity to raise interest rates beyond a single hike in 2019. Today, despite President Trump's rhetoric, there is no doubt which way the Fed will guide interest rates next year (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Will Keep Hiking A surge in expectations for hawkish Fed policy beyond 2018 should be detrimental for global risk assets. A determined Fed, racing to meet the rising U.S. neutral rate, may tighten global monetary policy too much given that the global neutral rate is likely lower. That view would support remaining overweight U.S. assets and underweight EM well into 2019. Chart 5Signs That China Is Stimulating China is the fulcrum upon which this view will balance. Beijing continues to signal policy easing. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "China Play Index" has perked up, suggesting that global assets are sniffing out the bottoming of restrictive policy (Chart 5). Our own checklist, which would falsify our thesis that Chinese policymakers will avoid a stimulus "overshoot," is starting to see some movement (Table 1). Table 1Will China's Policy Easing Produce A Stimulus Overshoot? If China ramps up stimulus to keep pace with U.S. growth - itself a product of pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus - global risk assets may rally significantly. Our recommendation that investors buy the China Play Index as a portfolio hedge to our bearish view of global risk assets has only returned 0.7% since August 8. China: Credit Data Holds The Key Is it time to ditch the safety of U.S. stocks and embrace ROW? Chart 6What Will September Credit Data Bring? No, at least not yet. It is true that China is clearly shifting towards stimulus. As we go to press, the credit data for September has not yet appeared, but a sharp reversal in credit growth will be necessary to convince global markets that Xi Jinping has fully abandoned his efforts to impose more discipline on China's banks, shadow banks, local governments, and local government financing vehicles (Chart 6). It will be crucial to watch for a reversal in non-bank credit growth, which would suggest that Xi is capitulating on shadow banking, which would then imply a larger reflationary push overall (Chart 7). Chart 7Shadow Bank Crackdown To Lighten Up? The monetary policy setting is currently as easy as in 2016, although there has been no substantive change since July and People's Bank of China chief Yi Gang has signaled that while more can be done, his policy remains "prudent and neutral" (Chart 8). So far this year there have been four cuts to banks' required reserve ratios - it will take additional cuts to signify policy easing beyond expectations as of July (Chart 9). Easier monetary policy implies additional currency depreciation, which could have a reflationary effect. Chart 8Lending Rates Will Decline Substantially If Repo Rates Don't Rise Chart 9RRR Cuts Can Continue Local government brand new bond issuance is catching up to the previous two years', despite a late start. We expect this indicator to be abnormally strong in the closing months of the year, making for an overall increase year-on-year (Chart 10). Local governments are responding to the central government's encouragement to borrow and spend more. Chart 10Local Governments Borrowing More Further, global trade war concerns may abate in the coming months. There is still no guarantee that U.S. President Donald Trump will meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at the G20 leaders' summit in Argentina at the end of November. Both sides are expected to bring negotiating teams to this meeting if it goes forward. While no formal talks have taken place since August 23, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did meet with China's central bank Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank Annual Meeting in Bali, Indonesia. They discussed China's foreign exchange policy and the potential meeting between Trump and Xi. Our structural view is that the Sino-American tensions are hurtling towards a modern version of a Cold War. However, that structural view can have cyclical deviations. A pause in U.S.-China acrimony - though not a reversion to status quo ante - could manifest by the end of the year. Chart 11U.S. Is Winning The Trade War... Trade policy uncertainty has greatly favored U.S. assets relative to global, both in terms of equities (Chart 11) and the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Even a temporary truce, if combined with further Chinese stimulus, could reverse the trend. Chart 12...And So Is The U.S. Dollar As such, we can see a temporary pullback in our central thesis of policy divergence, one that benefits global risk assets in the immediate term. However, we caution investors from believing that a structural shift is in place that favors EM and high-beta assets. Put simply, we doubt that China will stimulate as aggressively as it did in 2016, 2012, or 2009 (Chart 13). There is just too much political capital already sunk into macroprudential reforms. Beijing policymakers are therefore sending mixed signals, both looking to stabilize growth rates and contain leverage. Chart 13Expect A Weaker Jolt This Time Several clients have pointed out that the pace and intensity of stimulus is not important. Even a modest turn in Chinese policy will be a strong catalyst for global risk assets at the moment given that the context of 2018-2019 is much more favorable than 2015-2016. In other words, the world is not facing a global manufacturing recession precipitated by a historic decline in commodity prices as it was in 2015. Today, the world needs a lot less from China to spark a cyclical recovery. We are not so sure. First, the big difference between 2015-2016 and today is not the health of the global economy but the health of the U.S. economy and the fact that the Fed is much further along in its tightening cycle. In 2016, the Fed took a 12-month vacation after hiking rates in December 2015, as the amount of slack in the U.S. economy was much larger (Chart 14). Today, the market has begun to price in expectations of further rate hikes in 2019. Chart 14Output Gap Is Closed Second, China's foreign exchange policy could still prove globally deflationary. China faces an exogenous risk today - the trade war - that it did not face in 2015-16. At that time the currency fell amidst financial turmoil, capital outflows, and policy devaluation. But it bottomed in late 2016 after the PBoC defended it robustly, the government imposed strict capital controls, and stimulus stabilized growth. Today the CNY has come under downward pressure again from slower growth, easing monetary policy, and manipulation to retaliate against U.S. tariffs. Despite capital controls, the one year swap-rate differential between China and the U.S. appears to be leading CNY/USD further downward (Chart 15). Given that China's current policy easing is heavily reliant on monetary easing, CNY/USD has more downside. Chart 15Interest Rate Differentials And CNY-USD: A Tight Link Chinese currency trajectory is therefore an important gauge for global investors. Downside beyond the psychological barrier of 6.9-7.0 CNY/USD will at some point have a deflationary rather than reflationary global impact. The PBoC may hold the line and prevent further depreciation, in which case any additional stimulus measures will reinforce this line. But if China adopts more aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus and yet the currency still depreciates due to the U.S. conflict, then China's import demand will not rise by as much as the stimulus would imply. Domestic sentiment will worsen, causing capital outflow pressure to rise, and EM currencies and global growth expectations will suffer. As such, we prefer to play Chinese stimulus through exposure to Chinese equities (ex-tech) relative to other EM equities. Chinese stimulus, we argue, will stay in China, rather than rescue global risk assets. Within EM ex-China, we generally prefer equity indices that are exposed to the Chinese consumer over those exposed to resource-oriented "old China." A key point about China's current policy easing is the use of tax cuts more so than credit-fueled infrastructure construction: the goal of the reform agenda is to boost the consumption share of the economy. As such, we have been recommending that clients overweight South Korea and Malaysia relative to EM benchmarks. Bottom Line: Chinese policy is the fulcrum upon which global policy divergence will turn. If Chinese stimulus overshoots, investors should expand beyond the safety of U.S. assets and spring for global risk assets. At the moment, our view is that Chinese stimulus will not cause global economies to re-converge. Instead, it will benefit Chinese equities relative to other EM plays, and EM markets that export consumer goods to China. Overall, however, we remain cautious on global risk assets. Midterm Update: Did Trump Declare A Generational War? Chart 16GOP Improves In Key Senate Races The Democratic Party's midterm election strategy of opposing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination has failed to work in key Senate races, where President Trump has rallied his base in reaction to the contentious nomination hearings. Polls now indicate that several Republican Senate candidates are in the lead, including the three that we are watching most closely: Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada (Chart 16). Our own Senate model, which has been generous to Democrats, now sees Arizona, Tennessee, and Missouri as likely going to the Republican Party (Chart 17). Nevada is still projected to flip to the Democratic Party, but the GOP retains the current 51-49 Senate makeup. Chart 17Our Model Suggests Senate Race Will Be A Wash Political betting markets have sniffed out the shift in Senate polls, with the probability of the GOP maintaining control of the Senate now soaring to above 80%. However, the odds of retaining the House have actually reversed after initial gains in October (Chart 18). Why? Chart 18Republican Odds Surge For Senate First, because President Trump remains unpopular despite the surge of support for GOP Senate candidates in some states (Chart 19). Second, the generic ballot continues to give Democrats a robust lead of 7.3% (Chart 20). The lead has narrowed from a high of 9.5% in early September, but does not suggest that Republicans will benefit in the House as much as in the Senate. Chart 19Trump Still Has Popularity Deficit Chart 20Democrats' Robust Lead In Generic Polls Third, Justice Kavanaugh is now sitting on the Supreme Court! Had his nomination been stalled or outright rejected, the anger of the GOP base would have been more sustainable and broad-based going into the voting booth. The paradox for President Trump is that by winning the Supreme Court battle, the shot of adrenaline to the GOP base has been expended. Nonetheless, the fight itself shows yet again that anger works as an election strategy. After all, as counterintuitive as it may seem, there is no evidence that economic performance helps win midterm elections. Our research actually suggests that there is a mildly negative correlation between economic performance and congressional election performance (Chart 21). Voters only vote with their stomachs when they are hungry. Chart 21Strong Economy Won't Save The GOP In The House Of Representatives Midterm voters tend to be motivated by non-economic issues. With the Supreme Court settled in favor of the GOP base, the question arises: Is Trump out of ways to motivate his base with anger? Maybe not (there is still a Wall to be built!), but it may be too late to rally the GOP base sufficiently by November 6. The House appears to be lost, especially if GOP polling momentum stalls at its current level. However, the two parties have given us a glimpse into their strategies for 2020 - outrage versus outrage. President Trump, in an op-ed for USA Today, blasted the Democratic Party as a party of "open border socialism" that seeks to "model America's economy after Venezuela."1 Specifically, he cited plans by the Democratic Party to reform healthcare in such a way as to transfer the benefits that seniors currently enjoy under Medicare to the rest of the population, ending Medicare benefits in the process. The veracity of President Trump's claims is beyond the scope of this report - and has been covered extensively by the media. What is important is that President Trump may have revealed his strategy for 2020: Generational Warfare. Chart 22Here Comes Generational Warfare Investors caught glimpses of this strategy in 2016, when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appealed directly to Millennial voters in his surprisingly robust battle against Secretary Hillary Clinton. For Democrats, appealing to Millennials is a no brainer. First, they are the largest voting bloc in the country (Chart 22). Their numbers relative to Baby Boomers will necessarily grow. Chart 23Beware The Crisis Of Expectations Second, the share of 30-year-olds earning more than their parents at a similar age has fallen by nearly half (Chart 23). Despite the poor economic situation of today's youth, government spending continues to accrue mainly to the elderly (Chart 24). Chart 24Get Grandma! The problem for Democrats is that the more they appeal to the youth, the more likely that President Trump's charges of socialism will ring true. After all, the 18-29 age cohort has more favorable views of socialism than capitalism (Chart 25). Yes, even in America! Chart 25Uh-Oh... Where does this leave investors? First, American politics is no longer merely ideologically polarized. In 2020, we expect generational polarization to emerge as a major theme. Second, the kind of Generational Warfare practised by President Trump leaves no room for cuts to public services. Trump is not opposing Democratic "open border socialism" with traditional, centrist, Republican calls for entitlement reform. Instead, he is casting himself as a champion and defender of Baby Boomer entitlements, which, as Chart 24 clearly illustrates, leave spending on the youth in the dust. The point is that President Trump is not preaching fiscal conservativism. There is no room for entitlement reform in the new GOP. Generational Warfare will simply seek to prevent Democrats from shifting more benefits to the non-Baby Boomer share of the population by preserving the already unsustainable Baby Boomer entitlements. BCA Research's House View sees 2020 as the likeliest date for the next U.S. recession. At the end of 2020, The Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. budget deficit will be around 5% (Chart 26). Given that the last four recessions raised the U.S. budget deficit by an average of 5% of GDP, it is safe to say that the U.S. budget deficit may rise to 2010 levels after the next downturn. Chart 26U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Given President Trump's and the Democratic Party's focus on Generational Warfare, it is unlikely that entitlement reform will occur proactively either before or after the next recession. This suggests that bond yields could rise significantly after the next downturn. Bottom Line: Our baseline odds for the midterm recession are due for an adjustment. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic House takeover to 65% (from 70%) and of a Senate takeover to 40% (from 50%). President Trump's USA Today op-ed signals a turn towards Generational Warfare. Neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party are interested in entitlement reform. The former, under Trump, seeks to preserve the already unsustainable Baby Boomer benefits, while the latter seeks to expand them to the rest of the population. The 2020 election may be fought along the lines of who is more profligate toward their base. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Donald Trump: Democrats Medicare for All plan will demolish promises to seniors," published by USA Today, dated October 12, 2018.

Jair Bolsonaro, an ex-army captain and a right-leaning, law-and-order candidate has won a surprising victory in the first round of the Brazilian presidential election (Chart I-1). Bolsonaro came within striking distance of 50%, but did not cross that threshold, which means that the second round will go ahead on October 28. Given that he only needs another 4% to gain a majority of votes, his victory in the second round is now the most likely outcome by far. Importantly, the results of the congressional election similarly saw a swing to the right in both legislative houses. Chart I-1Bolsonaro Outperformed In The First Round What are the prospects for pro-market structural reforms amid this apparent regime shift in Brazilian politics? How should investors be positioned over the coming months? In the short term, a Bolsonaro presidency will boost business and market sentiment. This is mainly due to the right-leaning balance of parties in Congress and hence Bolsonaro's ability to form a majority coalition. This should lead to an outperformance of Brazilian assets relative to EM on expectations of reforms being passed and implemented. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service recommends upgrading Brazil to an overweight within EM equity, credit, and local fixed-income portfolios. However, in the longer term, we expect that Bolsonaro's presidency will still be constrained on social security reforms. It is still not clear if Brazil's median voter is demanding the kind of policies touted by Bolsonaro's economic advisors. Given Bolsonaro's populism, he may not be willing to expend his political capital on painful and unpopular reforms. In light of this, investors with a 2-5 year horizon should be wary of increasing their absolute exposure to Brazilian assets. Private investors looking for long-term exposure to Brazil should be especially concerned about Bolsonaro's anti-democratic, pro-military inclinations. A New Political Regime... Bolsonaro outperformed expectations in the first round by winning 46% of the popular vote, soundly beating his main rival Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Worker's Party. Polls over the past few weeks had seen him pegged at around 30%. Yet, Sunday night's results showed Bolsonaro beating all pollsters' expectations and nearly gaining the victory in the first round. Table I-1First Round Turnout Was Low In Contrast To Pass Elections Notably, and in contrast to previous elections, overall turnout for the first round was low, standing at just 79% (Table I-1). This played into Bolsonaro's hands. Even though there will be strategic voting in the second round - and our expectation is that most left-leaning voters will switch to Haddad, the remaining left-wing candidate - Haddad's chances look slim. He needs a mass wave of Lula supporters to turn out for the vote. The fact that they did not in the first round bodes ill for him. Thus, Bolsonaro stands at strong odds of becoming Brazil's next president. Attention will turn to the mandate that Bolsonaro will receive over the next four years. In our view, the factors below will be key: Short-term constraints have fallen off: The surprising surge in right-leaning parties at the congressional level suggests that President Bolsonaro will have no immediate legislative constraints to his agenda. He will be free to pursue his policy preferences relatively unimpeded. Chart I-2Chamber Of Deputies Results This is due to both legislative houses shifting towards the right, giving Bolsonaro a mandate to form a majority right-wing government for the first time since 1998 (Chart I-2). So far, 63% of seats in the lower house have gone to center-right and right-wing parties (according to our back-of-the-envelope calculation). If all of these parties joined into a coalition it would represent a historically strong mandate. Markets will surely interpret this as a positive development. However, not all of these parties will necessarily join Bolsonaro. Moreover, reforms requiring a constitutional amendment, such as the all-important reform of Brazil's unsustainable pension system, would require a supermajority of 308 out of 513 seats (60%) in the lower house. Historically, this has proven difficult, and it will be especially tricky for a president with no executive experience, little legislative record, and who denounces the use of pork-barrel spending.1 Otherwise, Congress can ultimately be cajoled into following Bolsonaro. As such, for the first time since Lula's first election (2002 to 2006), the Brazilian president is well-positioned to pursue his agenda. Bolsonaro will likely initiate some easy supply-side policies like cutting corporate taxes and red tape for businesses. Besides, business sentiment could surge due to the emergence of a business-friendly government. Hence, Bolsonaro has some short-term, easy "boosters" before the long-term challenges resurface. Long-term constraints uncertain: Despite the above, the pace of reforms will be slow given that Bolsonaro is, in the end, a populist who will want to maintain power above all. We continue to doubt Bolsonaro's willingness and ability to pursue social security reforms. We suspect that the vast majority of his voters chose to cast their ballot due to his law-and-order agenda that included a focus on battling crime and corruption. His economic advisor, Paulo Guedes, spent more time touting his reformist credentials in foreign financial publications than on the campaign trail. As such, it is difficult to conclude that Bolsonaro actually has a strong mandate for painful pension reforms. Polls ahead of the election suggest that only 4% of the public wants pension reforms (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Chart I-4The J-Curve Of Structural Reform That said, we are open-minded and willing to be proved wrong. If Bolsonaro supports very dramatic reforms in his first 12 months in office, when his political capital is strongest, he could pull through despite the likely opposition from the median voter. As our J-Curve Of Structural Reform suggests, Bolsonaro can survive the "danger zone" if he pushes ahead with painful reforms right away (Chart I-4). He will start with sufficient political capital to do so. For long-term investors, the chief question is this: Is Bolsonaro a Brazilian Ronald Reagan or merely a Brazilian Rodrigo Duterte? Judging from everything he himself - not his advisors - has said in the past and on the campaign trail, we would bet on the latter. ...But The Same Economic Problems Brazil is getting a new government, but the macro economic challenges remain the same. Namely, ballooning public debt, still high interest rates and an unsustainable pension system (Chart I-5). As discussed above, it is not evident that Bolsonaro will strive to enact major cuts in the social security system that would be very unpopular. Apart from pensions and privatization, other choices to tackle the unsustainable public debt dynamics include reducing interest rates and boosting nominal growth (Chart I-6). Bolsonaro's economic team has repeatedly discussed the need to reduce high interest rates. Chart I-5Much Needed Pension Reform! Chart I-6Brazil's Macro Distortions   Chart I-7The Real Is Still At Risk Of Depreciation Rapid and large interest rate cuts by the central bank will help to service the public debt given that 96% of public debt is in local currency. Yet, lower interest rates could put pressure on the currency to depreciate - the interest rate differential between Brazil and the U.S. is at all-time lows (Chart I-7). Meanwhile, a weaker currency is needed to increase nominal growth. Notably, extremely low inflation and weak nominal growth have worsened the nation's public debt dynamics in recent years. Overall, lower policy rates and currency devaluation are required to reflate Brazil out of a public debt trap. If the exchange rate stabilizes in the short run as foreign investors come back to Brazil, the central bank will reduce interest rates considerably. Lower borrowing costs in combination with a sharp rise in business confidence and existing pent-up investment demand will propel capital spending, employment and overall growth. In short, these are necessary conditions for Brazilian markets to outperform their EM peers, i.e., for relative outperformance. As to absolute performance, it also depends on the outlook for global markets. In a complete global risk-off mode (the odds of which are considerable at the moment) - in which EM currencies and risk assets continue rioting and U.S. share prices drop - it will be difficult for Brazilian risk assets to rally meaningfully. That said, they will still outperform their EM peers. In the long run, pursuing policies of lower-than-needed interest rates and, hence, of chronic currency depreciation appears to be more palatable to Bolsonaro's populist credentials than difficult structural reforms. Therefore, investors who look to commit long-term capital to Brazil should mind the exchange rate. Populist policies favoring nominal growth in the long run lead to chronic currency depreciation. Bottom Line: Bolsonaro's election and his initial policies will be cheered by markets and will help Brazilian markets to outperform their EM peers for now. However, Bolsonaro is a populist and in the long term will choose economic policies that favor high nominal growth and, thereby, warrant chronic currency depreciation. Investment Recommendations Chart I-8Overweight Brazilian Assets Relative To EM In terms of market recommendations, we have the following: For EM dedicated portfolios, we recommend upgrading Brazil to overweight within the equity, credit, and local currency bonds universes (Chart I-8). BCA's Emerging Market Strategy service is taking a 14% profit on its structural short BRL versus USD position. Also, we are closing the short BRLMXN and short BRLARS trades with a 12% gain and a 5.7% loss, respectively. We also recommend closing the short Brazilian bank stocks trade initiated on May 16, 2018, as its return is now flat due to the recent rebound over the past few days. Absolute performance of Brazilian risk assets is contingent on global financial markets sentiment and at the moment odds of global risk off are considerable. This could cap the rally in Brazilian risk assets for now. Long-term investors should realize that timing Brazilian markets in general, and the exchange rate in particular, will be critical to protect gains. We believe that the path of least resistance for Bolsonaro and his team will be to depreciate the currency and engender nominal GDP growth in order to inflate away the country's public debt. This is a smart strategy for which they have a political mandate. But it will be a death-knell for foreign investors with major positions in the country.   Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In late 1998, for instance, even President Cardoso's own PSDB party deprived him of the votes needed to seal a painstakingly negotiated deal with the IMF, which led to a loss of confidence among creditors and a sharp devaluation of the real in January 1999.  

Informe especial

Highlights So What? Go long Brent / short S&P 500. The risk of a recession in 2019 is underappreciated. Why? The likelihood is increasing of a geopolitically-induced supply-side shock that pushes crude prices above $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months. Oil supply disruptions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela represent the primary source of risk. Historically, the combination of Fed rates hike and an oil price spike has preceded 8 out of the last 9 recessions. Also... A recession in 2019, ahead of the 2020 election, would set the stage for a confrontation between Trump and the Fed, adding fuel to market volatility. Feature Geopolitical tensions are brewing from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. As we go to press, news is breaking that a Chinese naval vessel almost collided with the USS Decatur as the latter conducted "freedom of navigation" operations within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson reefs in the Spratly Islands. Given the trade tensions between China and the U.S., this alleged maneuver by the Chinese vessel suggests that Beijing is not backing off from a confrontation. Our view remains that Sino-American trade tensions can get a lot worse before they get better. The latest incident, which builds on a series of negative gestures recently in the South China Sea, suggests that both sides are combining longstanding geopolitical tensions with the trade war. This will likely encourage brinkmanship and further degrade U.S.-China relations. Yet China-U.S. tensions are not the only concern for investors in 2019. Another crisis is brewing in the Middle East, with the potential to significantly increase oil prices over the next 12 months. U.S. households may have to deal with a double-whammy next year: higher costs of imported goods as the U.S.-China trade war rages on and a significant increase in gasoline prices. In this report, we discuss this dire outlook. The Folly Of Recession Forecasting In mid-2017, BCA Research published two reports, one titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession" and another titled "The Timing Of The Next Recession."1 Both argued that if the Federal Reserve kept raising rates in line with the FOMC dots, then monetary policy would move into restrictive territory by early 2019 and increase the likelihood of recession thereafter. We subsequently adjusted the timing of our recession forecast to 2020 or beyond, based on a more positive assessment of the U.S. economy. In this report, we explore a risk to the BCA House View on the timing of the next recession. As BCA's long-time Chief Economist Martin Barnes has said, predicting recessions is a mug's game. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (excluding the brief 1980-81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast all of them (Table 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes The Atlanta Fed produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of recession based on trends in recent GDP data. At the moment, the indicator is at a historically sanguine 2.4%. Unfortunately, low readings are not a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82, and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the Atlanta Fed's recession indicator had a low reading of 10%, 1.6%, and 7.7%, respectively - just as the recession was about to begin (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The 1974-75 recession is instructive, given the numerous parallels with the current environment: Energy Geopolitics: The 1973 oil crisis caused a massive spike in crude prices. This point is especially pertinent since the 1973 oil embargo is widely viewed as an important contributor to the 1974-75 recession. Real short rates had risen and the yield curve had inverted long before oil prices spiked, so recession was almost inevitable even without the oil price move. But the oil spike made the recession much deeper than otherwise. Protectionism: President Nixon imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports into the U.S. in 1971 to try to force trade partners to devalue the U.S. dollar. Dislocation: Competition from newly industrialized countries - Japan and the East Asian tigers in particular - laid waste to the steel industry in the developed world. Polarization: President Nixon polarized the nation with both his policies and behavior, leading to his resignation in 1974. Given the exogenous and geopolitical nature of oil supply shocks, today's recession indicators are missing a critical potential headwind to the economy. A geopolitically induced oil-price shock could create more pain than the economy is able to handle. Why An Oil Price Shock? America's renewed foray into the politics of the Middle East will unravel the tenuous equilibrium that was just recently established between Iran and its regional rivals. The U.S.-Iran détente that produced the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) created conditions for a precarious balance of power between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and its allies on the other side. This equilibrium led to a meaningful change in Tehran's behavior, particularly on the following fronts: The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran ceased to rhetorically threaten the Strait as soon as negotiations began with the U.S. (Chart 2). Since then, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities remain unchanged.2 Iraq: Iran directly participated in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Tehran changed tack after 2013 and cooperated closely with the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State. In 2014, Iran acquiesced to the removal of the deeply sectarian, and pro-Iranian, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahrain and the Saudi Eastern Province: Iran's material and rhetorical support was instrumental in the Shia uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011 (Map 1). Saudi Arabia had to resort to military force to quell both. Since the détente with the U.S. in 2015, Iranian support for Shia uprisings in these critical areas of the Persian Gulf has stopped. Chart 2Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Put simply, the 2015 nuclear deal traded American acquiescence toward Iranian nuclear development in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. By unraveling that détente, President Trump is upending the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing the probability that Iran retaliates. Since penning our latest net assessment of the U.S.-Iran tensions in May, Iran has already retaliated.3 Our checklist for "kinetic" conflict has now risen from zero to at least 15%, if not higher (Table 2). We expect the probability to rise once the U.S. starts implementing the oil embargo in November. This will dovetail our Iran-U.S. decision tree, which sets the subjective probability of kinetic action by the U.S. against Iran at a baseline of 20% (Diagram 1). Table 2Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Bottom Line: The premier geopolitical risk to investors in 2019 is that President Trump's maximum pressure tactic on Iran spills over into Iraq, causing a loss of supply from the world's fifth-largest crude producer.4 We expect the U.S. oil embargo against Iran to remove between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the market. In addition, the loss of Iraqi production due to sabotage could be anywhere between 500,000 and 3.5 million barrels per day. Added to this total is the potential loss of Venezuelan exports due to the deteriorating situation there. When our commodity team combines all of these factors, they generate a worst-case scenario where the price of crude rises to $110 per barrel in 2019 or higher (Chart 3). And this scenario assumes that EMs do not reinstitute energy subsidies (and therefore their consumption falls faster than if they do reinstitute them). Chart 3Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward 0/Barrel The Ayatollah Recession We believe that the midterm election is a dud from an investment perspective, no matter the outcome. However, the election does matter as a hurdle that, once cleared, will allow President Trump to renew his "maximum pressure" tactic against China, Iran, and perhaps domestic tech corporations.5 Iran is a critical risk in this strategy. If President Trump applies maximum pressure on Iran, then a reduction in crude exports from Iran, Iranian retaliation in Iraq, and the simultaneous loss of Venezuelan supplies could combine to increase the likelihood of U.S. recession in 2019. Readers might recall that no sitting president has gotten re-elected during a recession. Why would Trump pursue a policy that risks his re-election chances in 2020? Surely he would deviate from his maximum pressure tactic if faced with the prospect of a recession. However, it is folly to assume that policymakers are perfectly rational, or fully informed. American presidents are some of the most unconstrained policymakers in the world, given both the hard power of the United States and the constitutional lack of constraints on the president when it comes to national security. Trump may believe, for instance, that the 660 million barrels of crude in America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve can offset the impact of sanctions against Iran.6 Or he may believe that he can force OPEC to supply enough oil to offset the Iranian losses. The problem for President Trump is that Iran is not led by idiots. Iranian policymakers understand that the best way to reduce American pressure is to induce an oil price spike in the summer of 2019 that hurts President Trump's re-election chances, forcing him to back off. As such, sabotaging Iraqi oil exports, which mainly transit through the port of Basra - a city highly vulnerable to Shia-on-Shia violence that is already a risk to the country's stability - would be an obvious target. An oil price spike would serve as a negotiating tool against the U.S., and the additional revenue would help replace what Iran loses due to the embargo. Tehran and Washington will therefore play a game of chicken throughout 2019, and there is a fair probability that neither side will swerve. President Trump may be making the same mistake as many predecessors have made, assuming that the Iranian regime is teetering at a precipice and that a mere nudge will force the leadership to negotiate. Oil price shocks and recessions have a historical connection. In a recent report, our commodity strategists highlighted that a spike in oil prices preceded 10 out of the past 11 recessions in the U.S. since 1945 (Table 3). Admittedly, not all spikes were followed by recession. The combination of an oil price spike and Fed rate hikes has produced a recession 8 out of 9 times.7 If oil prices rose to $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months, there will be several negative macro consequences. In particular, gasoline prices will rise back toward $4 per gallon (Chart 4). Retail gasoline prices have already increased by more than 50% since they bottomed in February 2016. So how much more upside can the U.S. private sector take? Table 3History Of Oil Supply Shocks Chart 4A Source Of Pressure For Consumers The Household Sector Consumer confidence is currently near all-time highs, which tends to signal that the path of least resistance is flat or down (Chart 5). Household gasoline consumption has already declined in response to higher oil prices since the middle of 2017. Given that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic, consumers may already be near their minimum consumption level. Chart 5Nearing All-Time Highs Instead, households will experience a decline in their disposable income. This will come on the back of both higher gasoline prices and an increase in the prices of other goods and services, as the oil spike spills across sectors. U.S. households - and most likely those in other markets - are stretched to the limit already. A recent Fed survey found that 40% of U.S. households do not have the funds needed to meet an unexpected $400 cost in any given month.8 Such an unexpected expense would require them to either sell possessions, borrow, or cut back on other purchases. Chart 6Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Left with few other options, households would react to their lower disposable income by reducing demand for other goods and services. This dent in consumer spending would bring down aggregate demand, leading to slower employment growth and even less income and spending. Households could save less to maintain their current purchasing levels, given the recent rise in the savings rate (Chart 6). But this is unlikely. Although the household savings rate has increased in recent years, we have previously argued that a material part of the increase was driven by small business-owner profits. These owners have much higher levels of income than the median consumer. For Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, it would be difficult to reduce a savings rate that is already close to, or below, zero. Higher oil prices will also hurt growth in Europe and Japan, economies that are already struggling to gain economic momentum after grappling with a weaker growth impulse from China. In addition, EM economies that took the opportunity to reform their oil subsidies amid lower oil prices post-2014 will have to grapple with a much larger shock to consumers than usual. The Corporate Sector In theory, what consumers lose from rising oil prices, producers of crude can gain in stronger revenue. This is especially important in the U.S. as domestic energy production has increased significantly over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for just 1.1% of GDP and 0.1% of total employment. The marginal propensity to spend out of every dollar of income is lower for producers than consumers. Moreover, if consumer confidence fell and consumer spending weakened, non-energy capex would decline as businesses reassessed household demand and held off from making investment decisions. Small business confidence is at record highs, and as with consumer confidence, vulnerable to downward revisions (Chart 7). Chart 7Dizzying Heights Chart 8Only One Way To Go (Down) Profit margins remain at a highly elevated level and also have only one way to go (Chart 8). If high oil prices should combine with rising borrowing costs and upward pressure on wages (which could develop in this macro environment) the result would be a triple hit to margins (Chart 9). Of course, rising wages would give consumers some offset to higher oil prices, so the question will be the net effect of all variables. And if the dollar bull market continues, as our FX team believes it will, the combination of higher oil prices and a strong USD would hurt U.S. companies with international exposure. The debt load held by the U.S. corporate sector would turn this bad dream into a nightmare. Many American companies have spent the past 10 years increasing leverage to buy back equity (Chart 10). Companies with high debt would need to revise down their profit expectations, with potentially devastating consequences. Elevated debt levels also increase the likelihood of financial market stress if bond investors get worried and spreads begin to widen significantly. Chart 9Rising Pressures On Earnings? Chart 10Large Corporate Debts According to all measures, U.S. stocks are at or near their all-time valuation peaks. Investors have also priced in a significant amount of optimism for profit growth (Chart 11). These expectations would be subject to quick revision if our oil shock scenario plays out. In other words, investor expectations for profit margins are not sufficiently factoring the triple hit of higher oil prices, higher interest rates, and higher wages. Chart 11The Market Has High Hopes An additional geopolitical risk on the horizon for 2019 is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. This is unrelated to an oil price spike (other than that it would be an effect of U.S. policy) but could nonetheless combine with rising energy prices to sour investors' mood.9 Bottom Line: An oil price spike above $100 would produce negative consequences for the U.S. household and corporate sectors. Given the supply-side nature of the price shock, it would not be accompanied by the usual decline in USD, and could therefore hurt the foreign profits of U.S. corporations as well. If investors must also deal with mounting regulatory pressures on FAANG stocks, they could face a perfect storm. Given the high probability of such an oil price shock, why isn't a 2019 recession BCA's House View, rather than merely a risk to it? Because it is difficult to say how high oil prices need to rise to cause a recession. For example, 1973 both marked a permanent move up in oil prices and saw oil prices triple. In 2019 terms, that would mean an oil price above $200, a far less probable scenario than $100-$110. Nevertheless, the combination of elevated oil prices and the price impact on consumer goods of the U.S.-China trade war could combine to create a nightmare scenario for consumers. But it is impossible to gauge the level of both required to push the U.S. into a recession. Second, there are many ways in which today's macro environment is different from that in 1974. In the 1970s the inventory cycle was a key factor in the business cycle, with excesses building up ahead of recessions, forcing output cutbacks as demand weakened. That is no longer the case in today's world of just-in-time inventory management. Also, inflation was a much bigger problem back then, requiring tougher Fed action. On the other hand, debt burdens were much lower. Investment Implications To be clear, none of the usual recession indicators that BCA Research uses are flashing red at this time. The point of this analysis is to illustrate a credible, exogenous scenario that cannot be revealed through the usual data-driven recession forecasting methods. What happens if a recession does occur ahead of the 2020 election? How would President Trump react to a recession induced by his foreign policy adventurism in the Middle East? By doing what every other president would do: finding someone else to blame. In this case, we would put high odds on the Federal Reserve becoming the target of President Trump's fury. Ahead of 2020, the Fed and its independence may very well become an election issue.10 This could spell serious trouble for the Fed, which is at a massive disadvantage when it comes to explaining to voters why central bank independence is so important. The Fed had great difficulty managing public opinion regarding its extraordinary measures to combat the Great Recession - its attempts at public outreach largely failed. Compare the number of Trump's Twitter followers to that of the Fed's (Chart 12). Chart 12The Fed's PR Abilities Are Limited Though most of our clients and colleagues will probably disagree, we do not see central bank independence as a static quality. It was bestowed upon central banks by politicians following widespread inflation fears throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although in the U.S. the current tradition goes back to the 1951 Treasury Accord that restored the independence of the Fed. Our colleague Martin Barnes penned a report on the politicization of monetary policy in 2013.11 His conclusion is that political meddling in monetary affairs is less pernicious than economic performance. The Fed will incur Trump's ire, in other words, but it will be its failure to generate economic growth that causes a break in independence. We are not so sure. The next recession is likely to be a mild one for Main Street given the lack of real economic bubbles. But given the slow recovery in real wages over the past decade and the general angst of the populace towards governing elites, even a mild recession that merely reminds voters of 2008-2009 could produce deep anxiety and significant public reactions. Further, the idea of "independent," non-politically accountable institutions is going out of style. President Trump - and other policymakers in the developed world - have specifically targeted the "so-called experts" and "institutions." President Trump has attacked America's foreign policy architecture, NATO, the WTO, and a slew of supposedly outdated norms and practices for being "out of touch" with the electorate. This policy has served him well thus far. If our nightmare scenario of an oil price-induced recession plays out, the immediate implication for investors will be a sharp downturn in risk assets. As such, we are recommending that investors hedge their portfolios with a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade. Alternatively we would recommend going long U.S. energy / short technology stocks. A longer-term, and perhaps even more pernicious implication, would be the end of the era of central bank independence and a full politicization of the economy. Laissez-faire capitalist system would give way to dirigisme. In the process, the U.S. dollar and Treasuries would be doomed. Jim Mylonas, Global Strategist Daily Insights & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018 and "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently covers 100 days of net crude imports, or 200 days of net petroleum imports, and can be tapped for reasons of political timing as well as international emergencies. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," dated September 13, 2018, available at bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017," May 2018, available at federalreserve.gov. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "Politics And Monetary Policy," dated August 22, 2018, and "The Battle Of The Press Conferences: Trump Versus Powell," dated September 27, 2018, available at dailyinsights.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?" dated April 15, 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Informe especial

Highlights The presidential race between Haddad and Bolsorano will be very tight. At present, we put slightly higher odds on Haddad winning by a small margin in the second round. A Haddad victory would lead to a continuation of stress in financial markets. The prospects of Lula's release and populist policies will lead to further downside in Brazilian assets Bolsorano's victory in the second round will likely lead to a tradeable rally in Brazil's financial markets. For now continue underweighting Brazilian equities and credit and continue shorting the BRL. We will consider whether to upgrade Brazil after the outcome of the elections becomes clearer. Feature Chart 1Potential Roadmaps For Equities Relative Performance Brazil's upcoming general elections will be among the closest in recent history. Current polls show a tight race between right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro and left-wing candidate Fernando Haddad. A victory by Bolsonaro may spark a short-term rally in Brazilian assets on the expectation of structural reforms. On the other hand, a Haddad victory and return of the Worker's Party to power would be quite negative for financial markets. The upside of this election, regardless of outcome, is that a new government with a new mandate will be formed, restoring a semblance of legitimacy for the first time since the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016. The downside is that this mandate will be weak, the odds of a "pro-market" government are uncertain, and Congress will be fragmented. Much-needed yet painful social security reforms will face an uphill battle, with potentially another market riot needed to motivate policymakers and legislators to enact social security reforms. On the macroeconomic front, Brazil does not have a lot of room and time for maneuver. Without drastic measures to cut the budget deficit or boost nominal GDP, public debt will most likely spiral out of control. Due to the current state of polarization, we cannot have a high conviction view on the election outcome until after the congressional elections on October 7. That said, the macro forces remain negative for EM overall and Brazil in particular. Barring Bolsorano's victory in the second round, there is little reason for Brazilian risk assets to rally (Chart 1). An Anti-Establishment Victory? Media attention has centered on Bolsonaro of the Social Liberal Party. He is the frontrunner in the first round of the race, despite his controversial rhetoric and overt sympathies with Brazil's military dictatorship of the past. In polling for the second round, his considerable lead has shrunk, as he is now neck and neck with the other contenders (Chart 2). Bolsonaro is a serious candidate not because of any overarching, international "Trumpian" narrative, but because Brazil itself is ripe for an anti-establishment electoral outcome: With Lula out of the race, the combined "right-wing" and "left-wing" vote is close in the first round (Chart 3). Chart 2Second-Round Polls Very Tight Chart 3A Tight Race The country is still in the throes of a political crisis and a historic recession (Chart 4). The major political parties have been discredited. Years of slow economic growth have resulted in extremely low levels of public trust in government (Chart 5). Chart 4Brazil In The Wake Of A Historic Recession Chart 5Low Growth Countries Suffer From Lack Of Trust In Their Government This is prompting voters to seek a "change in direction" and/or a "protest vote," from which Bolsonaro is apparently benefiting. There is even a sizable audience for Bolsonaro's authoritarianism and nostalgia for military rule. Brazilians are disillusioned with democracy - with 67% of respondents in a Pew Research poll saying they are "not satisfied" with democracy, compared to a global median of 52%.1 Almost a third of educated Brazilians favor military rule, and that number is as high as 45% among the uneducated (Chart 6).2 Bolsonaro's net approval is less negative than other candidates. In fact, only former Presidents Lula and Rousseff have higher net approval (Chart 7). This is a serious risk to Bolsonaro's likeliest rivals, Fernando Haddad of the Worker's Party and Ciro Gomes of the Democratic Labor Party. Bolsonaro's stabbing at a rally on September 6 has not taken him out of the race. His social media support has become an important tool to reach out to his fan base. Chart 6Brazilian Voters Harbor Some Authoritarian Tendencies Chart 7Net Approvals Advantage Bolsonaro However, there are two key reasons why Bolsonaro is not the favorite to win the election: First, Brazil's two-round electoral system works against Bolsonaro because it enables left-leaning voters to vote strategically in favor of the "least bad option," i.e. the available left-of-center candidate, in the second round. Thus while polling shows Bolsonaro very close to each of his potential opponents in the second round, his final opponent will receive a boost that will not be fully accounted for until after the first round eliminates other left-wing contenders. Recent polls suggest that Haddad stands to benefit much more than Bolsonaro from the "migration" of votes after the first round, as left-wing supporters team up against Bolsonaro in the second round (Table 1). Second, with Lula disqualified from the race, Lula supporters are now in the process of switching to support Haddad. Lula has carried a high approval rating of around 35%-40% for over a year, well above all other candidates. In our "poll of polls" (average of various polls) Haddad has risen rapidly in the one month since Lula's disqualification became clear, so that he is now at equal odds with Bolsonaro (see Chart 2 above). A few polls even suggest Haddad is ahead of Bolsonaro in the second round (Chart 8).3 Table 1Second Round Migration##br## Polls Advantage Haddad Chart 8Haddad Is Ahead##br## In These Polls To elaborate on this last point: First, about 59% of Lula's supporters say they will shift to Haddad (Chart 9), which should be enough to position him as one of the top two contenders in the first round of voting. Only 4% of Lula supporters will shift to right-of-center candidate Alckmin- a share that is overpowered by the 71% of the Lula vote that will go to left-leaning candidates. Second, the number of undecided and "blank" Lula voters is high at 18%. These voters - if they vote - will mostly go to Haddad, and then Gomes. From the above we can conclude that Haddad will face Bolsonaro in the second round runoff. Because of strategic voting, Haddad will be favored to win the Presidency. A major risk to the left-wing candidate in the second round is that as many as 18% of Lula voters may stay home and not vote. This would mean that Haddad could lose the final vote due to low turnout.4 Overall voter turnout has been falling slightly since 2006 (from 83.3% to 80.7% in 2014) and the disillusionment of voters could result in still lower turnout in 2018. This would favor Bolsonaro, whose supporters are the most likely to vote, whereas Haddad's are the least likely, according to surveys. The profile of the most likely voters favors Bolsonaro (Table 2).5 Chart 9Lula's Migration Vote Table 2Voter Profile Of Each Candidate As a consequence, we give Bolsonaro 40%-50% odds of winning the presidency, with the possibility of downgrading his probability to a flat 40% if the rise in Haddad's polling continues at the current pace. Strategic voting imposes a handicap on Bolsonaro, making it hard for him to increase his odds above 50%. The lower net approval for Haddad and Gomes, and the risk that Lula voters will fail to transfer in full force to Haddad, suggests that Bolsonaro has a fair chance of winning the second round. Elections are a Bayesian process and we will update our probabilities as more information comes in. In particular, it is important to see if Haddad exceeds expectations in the October 7 first round. Bottom Line: Given strategic voting in the second round and the momentum behind Haddad, the odds of a left-wing victory in the Brazilian election are 50%-60%. However, this is a low-conviction view. Bolsonaro's odds of winning are closer to 40%-50%, particularly if Lula voters stay home. The New Government's Mandate Will Be Weak No matter who wins, there will be at least one positive takeaway for Brazilian risk assets: a new government will be elected with a fresh mandate to lead the country. The Brazilian state has suffered from a crisis of legitimacy over the past few years. A countrywide anti-corruption campaign and economic depression has led to a general loss of confidence. The latter was further exacerbated by the impeachment of President Rousseff and paralysis of the interim government of Michel Temer. Hence this election will clear the air and give a new government the chance to tackle the country's economic and political problems. However, this clearly positive factor will be overwhelmed by negative factors as the election unfolds and in the aftermath: No first round winner: As outlined above, none of the candidates are likely to win a simple majority of the vote in the first round on October 7. This has been the norm in recent elections, but it precludes the possibility that the current crisis will be matched by a leader with a strong personal mandate, like Cardoso in the 1990s. A close election may lead to contested results: The current second-round polling suggests the outcome will be close. The losing side may challenge the results, a controversy that could cause significant political uncertainty for weeks or months. Bolsonaro has already suggested that he can only lose if the Worker's Party rigs the election. Congress will be fractured: Brazil's Congress is always fractious; with numerous parties and coalitions cobbled together by presidents whose own party has a relatively small share of seats (Chart 10). The upcoming president may even have a weaker congressional base than usual. The erstwhile dominant parties, the PDMB and the PSDB, are less popular than they once were and have put forward lackluster presidential candidates, suggesting they will not win large numbers of seats. The Worker's Party, with a large support base in recent decades, was at the epicenter of the impeachment crisis and suffered huge losses in the municipal elections of 2016, also suggesting it will not win as many seats.6 Meanwhile Bolsonaro's Social Liberal Party is starting from a low base (it currently has only eight out of 513 seats in the lower house and none in the senate). Hence, no party is in a position to sweep Congress, or even come close to a majority, ensuring high diffusion of power, horse-trading, and unstable, ad hoc coalitions. Such coalitions have been a hallmark of Brazilian politics and may even be more unstable this time around. Chart 10ABrazil's Parliament Is Fractious Chart 10BBrazil's Parliament Is Fractious No more pork: Given the focus on fiscal austerity and corruption, the next president of Brazil will struggle to command as much "pork-barrel spending" - politically-motivated fiscal handouts to individual congress members - to grease the wheels of politics. President Lula and President Cardoso both relied on pork to ensure passage of key legislation in the 1990s and early 2000s. Polarization: Polarization will remain high as a result of the economic crisis. If Haddad wins, we expect that he will pardon President Lula, despite his assertions to the contrary, and create ill-will among the roughly 52% of the population that views Lula as corrupt. If Bolsonaro manages a victory, he will face intense opposition and resistance from civil society and possibly a left-of-center Congress. Historically, a governing coalition with a majority of seats eventually emerges from Brazil's fragmented Congress. However, periods of political crisis - and transitions from one leading party to the next - often require more time to form such coalitions. It took Lula two years, from 2002-04, to form a majority coalition during his first term in office, according to research by Taeko Hiroi of the University of Texas at El Paso (Chart 11). Chart 11Historical Profile Of Governing Coalitions Bottom Line: The formation of a new government with a new mandate is positive but it will not bestow as much political capital as the market expects: in all likelihood the new president's mandate will be weak and Congress will, at least initially, be divided. Will Reforms Be Reactive Or Proactive? What are the likely market reactions from the different election scenarios? And will policymakers be proactive or reactive in their pursuit of any structural reforms? While we cannot rule out a knee-jerk rally if Bolsonaro wins, the length and breadth of the market reaction will depend on the government's political capital (e.g. popular margin of victory and strength in Congress) and willingness to be proactive about structural reforms. On the left, both Haddad and Gomes are "populist," left-leaning, candidates whose victory would exacerbate the selloff. Haddad's vice-presidential candidate and coalition partner is Manuela D'Avila, from the Brazilian Communist Party (PCdoB). Their platform states that the solution to low economic growth is expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, such as a removal of the cap on government spending and a reduction in interest rates. Meanwhile the Gomes campaign has denied that Brazil has a pension deficit.7 Neither Haddad nor Gomes faces the IMF-imposed constraints that Lula faced when he took power in 2002. The market pressure surrounding his election in 2002 and the IMF proposals at that time essentially forced Lula to continue his predecessor Cardoso's reforms. Compared to 2002-03, today's profile of Brazilian share prices suggests that more downside is warranted (see Chart 1, page 1). Hence, we believe more market turmoil would be necessary to force Haddad or Gomes to adopt any difficult and unpopular fiscal reforms. We believe that both could be capable of executing reforms if pressed by the market, but a market riot is needed first. On the other hand, a Bolsonaro victory would likely trigger a meaningful rally on the expectation of pro-market reforms. Bolsonaro's economic advisor Paulo Guedes, a University of Chicago economics PhD holder, is a supply-side reformer who has proposed to privatize state-owned assets, enact tax and pension reforms, and scale back the bureaucracy. Crucially, Bolsonaro's camp wants to use the proceeds from privatization to repurchase public debt and buy time before reforming the pension system. Hence, in the eyes of many investors, Bolsonaro represents a market-friendly candidate despite his tough talk and anti-establishment tendencies. The problem is that Guedes has spent far more time giving interviews to the financial press than campaigning on draconian structural reforms. As such, it is not clear that Bolsonaro's economic team's promises jive with the desires of the median voter in the country. Bolsonaro, meanwhile, will likely be limited in forming a coalition in the Chamber of Deputies.8 The ability to form and maintain alliances in the Chamber of Deputies is a key constraint for any Brazilian president, especially from a smaller party. Obstructionism is common.9 Even large parties with strong alliances have fallen into gridlock, most obviously in attempting structural reforms. In late 1998, for instance, President Cardoso's own PSDB party deprived him of the votes needed to seal a painstakingly negotiated deal with the IMF, which led to a loss of confidence among creditors and a sharp devaluation of the real in January 1999. In short, it will be difficult for the new president to implement reforms at the beginning of his term even though, as noted above, Brazilian presidents tend to cobble together a coalition over time. It should be noted that Bolsonaro's authoritarian tendencies and desire to rewrite the 1988 constitution - a partisan Pandora's Box - could result in a further deterioration of Brazilian governance (Chart 12). This would push up the risk premium on assets over the long run, though in the short run Bolsonaro may be positively received by financial markets. Bottom Line: Bolsonaro would likely want to be a proactive structural reformer, but he would also be constrained at first due to his small party base in Congress and need to form a coalition. In addition, the days of liberally soothing partisan battles with pork-barrel spending are over. Brazil is both fiscally constrained and increasingly sensitive to corruption. Moreover, fiscal austerity would come with a negative hit to growth in the short term. It is not clear whether Bolsonaro will be able to form a Congressional coalition that can push through the painful part of the "J-Curve" of structural reform (Diagram 1). Chart 12Brazilian Governance Set To Fall Further Diagram 1The J-Curve Of Structural Reform On the other hand, neither Haddad's nor Gomes's platforms are market-friendly. Neither is likely to attempt structural reforms proactively. The market would have to sell off further, as in 2002, to pressure them into such policies. At that point, however, they might ultimately have a better ability to push legislation through Congress than Bolsonaro due to their ability to form larger coalitions amongst leftist parties. Either way Brazilian risk assets have further downside from where they stand today. A market riot is likely necessary to galvanize the population's support for painful structural reforms. That support currently does not exist. What Is At Stake? Chart 13The Achilles Heel Of The Brazilian Economy Brazil's public debt is out of control. Weak nominal GDP growth and high borrowing costs are increasing the public debt burden. This debt stems in large part from a sizable social security deficit that will continue expanding without the above-mentioned reforms (Chart 13). Thus, the next president will face a dilemma: implement austerity to satisfy creditors or increase spending to satisfy voters. A close look at voter preferences suggests that top priorities are improving health services and raising the minimum wage, while pension reform is at the bottom of the list (Chart 14). This reinforces our view that the left-of-center candidates are likely to be the closest to the median voter, and that fiscal austerity is not forthcoming. However, voters are also demanding that inflation be controlled, taxes be cut, and jobs be created - all of which could result in support for right-of-center candidates. Two possibilities to stabilize or reduce the debt load are: (1) restoring a primary budget surplus by enacting social security cuts and/or (2) privatizing state assets to raise fiscal revenues. In Europe throughout the early 2000s, peripheral countries with large public debt imbalances ran large primary budget deficits, just as Brazil has been running (Chart 15, top panel). Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain stabilized their debt-to-GDP ratios by cutting social spending and capping fiscal expenditures (Chart 15, bottom panel). This will prove challenging as Brazil's pension system is one of the most generous in the world, with retirement ages of 54 and 52 for men and women, respectively, and a much lower contribution period relative to other countries. Furthermore, replacement rates for both men and women are 61%, or 10 percentage points above the OECD average and over 15 percentage points above other countries' reformed pension systems.10 Finally, the dependency ratio will continue to increase, as rising life expectancy and a declining working-age population remain structural headwinds for years to come.11 In our conversations with clients, the reality of Brazil's aging demographics usually comes as a complete surprise. Chart 14Brazil's Population Is ##br##Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Chart 15Eurozone Debt Crisis Resulted ##br##In Lower Spending And Stable Debt Therefore, social security reforms require outright cuts in spending, rather than soft caps on the budget balance. The present soft cap on government expenditures is not adequate to stabilize or reduce government debt levels. Could privatization help stabilize public debt dynamics? The privatization program during the 1990s under the Collor, Franco, and Cardoso governments led to the sale of $91 billion (around R$ 100 billion or 9% of GDP) worth of assets from 107 state-owned enterprises over the course of a decade. Presently, in order to re-balance the primary deficits of R$93 and R$79 billion for 2018 and 2019 respectively, the government would be required to frontload the sale of large state-owned entities, such as Petrobras or Banco do Brasil. This will prove challenging, since the sale of state-owned enterprises requires legislative approval. In fact, over the past two years, under interim President Temer, the government has struggled to sell its assets such as Electrobras. Even assuming that a Brazilian government under Bolsonaro conducts large-scale asset sales, previous privatization programs have failed to yield targeted sums and have required a longer time to implement than originally expected. Overall, privatization is not a feasible option to reduce high debt levels in Brazil in the short run. Bottom Line: Stabilizing or reducing the public debt as a share of GDP will be challenging under the current set of preferences set by voters. Moreover, demographic headwinds and structural constraints embodied in Brazil's two-tier legislative system will slow down the process of privatization and pension reform. The market is forward-looking and will cheer attempts to enact supply-side reforms in the short run, should they emerge, despite long-term uncertainties. The key questions are (1) whether the election produces a proactive Bolsonaro regime or a reactive left-wing regime (2) whether coalition formation - in Bolsonaro's case - or exogenous market pressure - in Haddad's case - are sufficient to initiate reforms in a timely manner in 2019. Amidst a broad EM selloff driven by external factors as well as Brazil's and other EM's internal fundamentals, we expect the markets to be largely disappointed in 2019. The evolution of the political context throughout the year will then determine when and if a buying opportunity emerges. Investment Implications In the late 1990s, faced with high foreign debt levels, a large current account deficit, and weak nominal growth, the Brazilian central bank devalued the real by 66% in January 1999 (Chart 16). This led to a rebound in nominal growth which helped the country relieve itself from built up excesses. In today's context, a weaker currency and lower interest rates are required to boost nominal GDP and contain Brazil's public debt as a share of GDP. There are already signs that the central bank is easing liquidity amid currency depreciation - which stands in contrast of the recent past (Chart 17). More liquidity provisioning by the central bank will cause the real to depreciate further. In light of this, we recommend that investors continue shorting the currency versus the U.S. dollar. Furthermore, due to our expectation of further deceleration in global growth stemming from China and a strong dollar, investors should expect more downside in broader EM and Brazilian share prices in U.S. dollar terms. With respect to the outcome of the elections, investors should continue underweighting Brazilian equities and credit in their respective portfolios for now (Chart 18). Chart 16Brazil Needs A Weaker Currency To##br## Boost Nominal Growth Chart 17A New##br## Paradigm Shift? Chart 18Sovereign Credit Spreads Will##br## Continue Widening We will consider whether an upgrade of Brazil is warranted after electoral outcomes become known. Particularly, the balance of the parties in Congress and the new president's coalition formation options will dictate the relative performance of Brazilian equities and credit over the next 6-12 months. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see, Wike, R. et al., "Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy", October 16th, 2017, available at http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/many-unhappy-with-current-political-system/ 2 In addition to the Pew Research data cited in Chart 5, please see Dora Saclarides, "Do Brazilians Believe In Democracy?" InoVozes, The Wilson Center, November 21, 2017, available at www.wilsoncenter.org. 3 Please see "Brazil: Vox Populi Poll Gives Haddad Lead In Presidential Race," Telesur, September 13, 2018, available at www.telesurtv.net, & Data Poder 360 poll from September 21st, available at: https://www.poder360.com.br/datapoder360/datapoder360-bolsonaro-tem-26-e-haddad-22-os-2-empatam-no-2o-turno/ 4 Please see, BTG Pactual September 15-16 poll, page 18. The Polls states that 57% of Lula voters would "not vote at all" while 41% would vote for Haddad. While turnout will improve for the second round, this is a risk to Haddad. 5 A poll by Empiricus Research and Parana Pesquisas p56 shows that 89.5% intend to vote (which is unrealistic), and that 95.7% of Bolsonaro voters intend to vote while 91.6% of Haddad voters intend to vote. 6 "The PT lost four of the five state capitals it had run, including Sao Paulo, the country's economic powerhouse where the leftist party was born. The PT lost two-thirds of the municipalities it won in 2012, dropping to 10th place from third in the number of mayors controlled by each party." Please see Anthony Broadle, "Brazil parties linked to corruption punished in local elections," Reuters, October 2, 2016, available at www.reuters.com. 7 Gomes has, however, admitted the need for some adjustments to the retirement age and public sector worker privileges, which suggests that he could be brought to pursue structural reforms under the right circumstances. https://todoscomciro.com/en_us/pnd/ciro-gomes-previdencia-social/ 8 Bolsonaro's legislative experience is also surprisingly thin. As a congressional representative for 27 years, he has only passed two laws, after presenting a total of 171 bills and one amendment to the constitution. Only three of these bills presented were of economic nature. It is unclear whether he has what it takes to galvanize the legislature in pursuit of tricky reforms. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated September 10, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 A replacement rate is the percentage of a worker's pre-retirement income that is paid out by a pension program upon retirement. 11 Ratio measuring number of dependent zero to 14 and over the age of 65 to total working age population

Highlights So What? President Trump is treating the midterm election as a hurdle. Once cleared, he will restart "Maximum Pressure" policy towards China and Iran that will induce market volatility. The outcome of the election, however, has only a marginal investment relevance. Why? A Democrat-held Congress will not have the votes to overturn President Trump's signature economic policies: tax cuts, deregulation, and stimulus. Removal from power requires 67 votes in the Senate, out of the reach for Democrats. President Trump will pursue aggressive foreign and trade policies, regardless of the midterm outcome. As such, the midterm outcome is a non-diagnostic variable. Also... Rising stroke-of-pen risk, combined with President Trump's unorthodox foreign and trade policies, will likely intensify following the midterm election. Therefore, it is difficult to "buy on (midterm-related) dips," despite our call that the election does not matter. Feature Should investors care about the upcoming midterm election? The answer is yes, but marginally. A gridlocked Congress, our most likely outcome, is historically less positive for equities than an electoral outcome that results in a unified executive and legislature (Chart 1). The reality, however, is that economic and monetary variables are overwhelmingly more important for investors than politics.1 Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of gridlock and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.2 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 1A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks Table 1A Divided Government Is Marginally Negative For Stocks As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of the timeframe, but only just. Could 2018 be different? Given the extraordinary level of polarization - captured in Chart 2 by the difference in presidential approval by party identification - this time could, indeed, be different. But, we do not think it will be. As we discussed last week,3 Democrats in Congress would not be able to impact the three crucial pillars of the Trump Reflation Trade: De-regulatory agenda: The executive branch is in charge of the deregulatory agenda, which investors should note kindled corporate animal spirits on day 1 of the Trump presidency (Chart 3). Chart 2Presidential Approval Variance Signals Peak Polarization Chart 3Trump's Mere Election Stoked Animal Spirits Tax cuts: Without 67 votes in the Senate, the Democrats cannot overturn a presidential veto that is certain to be used on any tax-hikes as long as President Trump is in power. They won't even get to the 60 votes necessarily to invoke cloture and thus avoid a Republican filibuster on tax, immigration, or other policy reforms. Fiscal policy: We see no chance of the Democratic Party becoming the party of fiscal discipline ahead of the 2020 election. Voters are not demanding budget discipline, despite the obvious rise in budget deficits (Chart 4), so why would the Democratic Party nail itself to the fiscal conservative cross over the next two years? What of the impeachment risk? There is no empirical evidence that impeachment proceedings have any impact on U.S. equity markets.4 And we would fade any concerns that an impeachment push would cause President Trump to seek relevancy abroad with aggressive foreign and trade policies because we expect him to do so regardless of the midterm outcome! Nonetheless, we do think that investors are in for a mild surprise this November (Chart 5). First, the data suggests that Democrats will have a wave election. In fact, we are raising our probability of a Democratic House victory to 70%, largely in line with current expectations. Second, we are also raising our call on the Senate to a "too-close-to-call." Essentially, we think that the Democratic Party may be able to pick up a Senate seat, which would be an extraordinary outcome given that they are defending 26 seats out of the 35 in contention.5 While such an electoral surprise may not have immediate investment implications in 2018 and 2019, it could have implications beyond 2020. The Senate electoral math significantly changes in 2020, with Republicans currently set to defend 21 seats out of 33 in contention (a number that could grow due to retirements). A Democratic sweep of U.S. institutions in 2020 could significantly alter the long-term earnings outlook in the U.S., especially if America's center-left party swings further to the left by then. Such an outcome would put an end to the two-decade long divergence in profits and wages as share of the total economy (Chart 6). But more on that at a later point. In this report, we focus on the upcoming election itself. Chart 4Voter Fiscal Preferences Are Not Fixed Chart 5Our Senate Call Is Out Of Consensus Chart 6What Is Not Sustainable Will Stop Midterm Election: The Twenty Charts To Watch History is stacked against the Republican Party. Chart 7 shows that the president's party has lost, on average, 24 seats since the 1950 midterm election. Only Clinton in 1998 - at the top of an epic bull market and with an approval rating of 66% (!) - and Bush Jr. in 2002 - following a once-in-a-generation terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland - managed to eke out positive gains. Even in those Goldilocks conditions, Clinton's Democrats only picked up a paltry five seats in the House (none in the Senate), while Bush's GOP gained two Senate and eight House seats. Chart 7Midterm Elections Normally Spell Doom For The President's Party Polls suggest that this time will not be different. Both the congressional generic ballot (Chart 8) and President Trump's popularity - at just 39% - (Chart 9) are signaling a wave election for the Democrats. Chart 8Polling Gives Dems The Advantage Chart 9President Trump Is A Drag On The GOP... But what about the roaring economy? Astonishingly, economic performance has a negative correlation with electoral outcomes in congressional elections (Chart 10)! This data point is so counterintuitive that it must be wrong. At the very least, history suggests that there is no clear relationship between the economy and congressional returns. Chart 10...Whereas The Economy Is Unlikely To Provide A Tailwind The economy only matters when things are going wrong. Current polls, in other words, are already pricing in a solid economic context, with the Democratic lead over the Republicans having narrowed from double-digits since the economy began roaring in January (Chart 11). At this point, however, it is highly unlikely that two more months of solid economic performance will have much of an effect on voter preferences. In fact, the importance of the economy, jobs, and budget deficits to voters has been declining since 2014 (Chart 12). Chart 11The Economy Is Already Baked In The (Polling) Cake Chart 12Voters Care Less About Economic Issues In addition, investors should remember that voter experience of the economic recovery is highly polarized. During Obama's presidency, Republican voter consumer sentiment and expectations were at recession levels. Magically, on November 8, 2016, both Republicans and Democrats changed their sentiment (Chart 13). Independent voters are, unsurprisingly, somewhere in the middle. Chart 13Voters Cannot Agree On Economic Performance Anyway Primary election turnouts are confirming that the economy is not the primary driver of voter enthusiasm. Democrats have seen 8.9 million more voters vote in the 2018 primaries, compared to the 2014 midterm election. Meanwhile, GOP voters - who are presumably more enthused about the economy - have only seen a pickup of 3.8 million new primary voters. The pattern of primary voting is similar to the one in 2010, when the Tea Party revolt energized the Republican base in opposition to President Obama. In 2010, Republicans increased primary turnout in 186 congressional districts compared to the 2006 election. Satisfied with President Obama's win in 2008, Democrats only increased the primary turnout in 35 districts. As a result, the GOP picked up 63 House seats and gained control of the lower chamber of Congress. This time around, the numbers foreshadow a similar wave, but in favor of the left. Democrats have seen their turnout increase in 123 electoral districts, compared to the 2014 election. This includes 20 of the most competitive races this year. Republicans, meanwhile, have seen an increase in enthusiasm in only 19 congressional districts this year. The death knell for Republicans in the House of Representatives, in our view, will be the abnormally large number of retirements (Chart 14). Incumbency has a powerful effect in congressional races. On average, incumbents easily win over 90% of their races for the House (Chart 15). Chart 14Double More GOP Retirements This Year Chart 15Incumbents Normally Carry The Day The average margin of victory for the Republican representatives not running for re-election in the 42 electoral districts in 2016 was 28.3%6 (Table 2). This sounds like too high of a hurdle for Democrats to leap over. However, that is precisely what Democratic candidates have done in the House and Senate special elections in 2017 and 2018. The average GOP lead in those races is down from 29.2% in 2016 to just 8.5% today, a 20.7% swing (Table 3). This math explains why the Cook Political Report, the premier U.S. election forecasting consultancy, sees the number of competitive Republican-held seats more than doubling in 2018 (Chart 16), whereas the number of competitive Democratic-held seats has collapsed. Table 2Republicans Not Seeking Re-Election In 2018 Table 3Non-Incumbent Republicans Lost 20% Advantage In Special Elections Our Senate model is similarly flashing red for the Republican Party. Despite an overwhelming structural advantage in the 2018 cohort - having to only defend nine seats - our model is predicting that the Democrats will hold all their Senate seats and pick up one (in Nevada) (Chart 17). Chart 16Number Of GOP Seats At Risk Has More Than Doubled! Chart 17Our Senate Model Is Generous To The Democrats We modeled the individual Senate races by combining the state and national economic and political variables with the latest available opinion polling.7 We only focused on the races that we believe are currently competitive and we may change the mix as new information becomes available. The results of our "beta" model, expressed as a margin of victory by the Republican candidate (GOP total vote minus Democrat total vote), show that the Democrats have a surprisingly decent chance of picking up the Senate. Highly concerning for President Trump and the GOP is that the Democratic Senate candidates have a healthy lead in three out of the four contested Midwest races (Chart 18), suggesting that Trump's crossover appeal to blue-collar voters is not working when he is not the candidate (or perhaps, even more alarming for the GOP, when Hillary Clinton is not his opponent). The only tight Midwest election is in Indiana, where Democratic incumbent Joe Donnelly's lead is within the margin of error. Another concern for the Republicans is that the Democrats have largely fielded centrist candidates in the House and Senate races. For example, former Tennessee Governor (2003-2011), Phil Bredesen, is a conservative Democrat currently leading in the polls against his Republican opponent. Democratic candidates for election in Republican-held Arizona and Nevada are similarly centrists and thus competitive (Chart 19). Furthermore, in the 42 seats where Republicans are fielding non-incumbents, our research suggests that Democrats only fielded 14 left-wing/progressive candidates.8 Despite the media's focus on left-wing/progressive candidates - such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Bronx or Ayanna Pressley in Boston - the vast majority of Democratic candidates in the non-coastal U.S. have been centrists. This means that GOP candidates will have very few "lay-ups" in November. Putting it all together, we would give Democrats a 70% chance of picking up the necessary 23 seats to take over the House. In the Senate, the next two months will determine the outlook for GOP candidates. Investors should fade the message from the current polling - and thus our model - as voters have paid very little attention to local races before Labor Day. However, if the current trajectory in the congressional generic poll and Trump's popularity holds until November, the likelihood of a GOP hold in the Senate will fall. For President Trump, a result where he loses the House and the Senate would be a political disaster. Should investors prepare for the volatility of impeachment in that case? The midterm election is a non-diagnostic variable. The Senate requires 67 votes to convict the president and thus remove him from power. A 50 +1 majority will not help Democrats get to that level any more than a 50 -1 minority would. They will need Republican Senators to join them in the impeachment endeavor. For that to happen, Republican voters will have to lose confidence in President Trump in droves, as they once did in President Nixon. As Chart 20 clearly illustrates, we are nowhere near that point today. Chart 18The Midwest: Is The Trump Magic Gone? Chart 19The Sun-Belt: No Place To Hide For The GOP? Chart 20Trump Is Not Nixon (Yet) Investment Implications: Much Ado About Nothing Putting it all together, this year's midterm election has a good chance of dominating the news flow by producing a shocking electoral surprise. In the immediacy of an outcome that hands the control of the entire Congress to the fired-up Democrats, it would be smart to bet on a brief risk asset pullback. However, the Democrats will not be able to unravel any of President Trump's main economic policies. In fact, investors may be presented with higher odds of an infrastructure plan and even of an immigration deal, if President Trump faces reality and comes to the middle ground on some of his demands (as President Clinton did after his disastrous 1994 midterm election). As for impeachment and the risk of President Trump "seeking relevancy abroad," our high conviction view is that he will continue pursuing unorthodox foreign and trade policies regardless of the midterm outcome. The just-announced 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports confirms our alarmist view on trade tensions. In fact, President Trump has explicitly threatened an increase of the tariff rate to 25% by the end of the year in order to put more pressure on Beijing. The increase in the tariff rate would be a significant escalation in the trade war, one that we do not expect Chinese policymakers to simply roll over and accept. Meanwhile, the U.S. embargo on Iranian oil exports will officially begin on November 4, just two days before the midterm election date. This is not a coincidence, but a product of White House design. We expect President Trump to turn the screws on Iranian exports in ways that President Obama did not.9 Given the potential impact on domestic gasoline prices, the White House has decided to coincide the pressure on Tehran with the end of the election season. The midterm election, therefore, is important only in terms of timing. Once it is out of the way, President Trump will refocus on his "maximum pressure" tactic, which he believes (and we agree) led to a breakthrough in North Korea policy. Unfortunately for the markets, we do not expect that the maximum pressure tactic will work as smoothly with Iran and China.10 The final risk to markets is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. Joseph Simons, the Trump appointed new chair of the Federal Trade Commission, recently said that "the broad antitrust consensus that has existed... for about 25 years is being challenged... the U.S. economy has grown more concentrated and less competitive."11 His comments have dovetailed the threat to FAANG stocks that exists from a shift in U.S. anti-trust enforcement, one that would take the anti-trust practice away from the consumer-friendly approach of the "Chicago School."12 Chart 21FAANG Stocks + Microsoft Have Dramatically Outperformed... Table 4...Generating 50% Of The 2018 S&P 500 Return! This is a big risk for the ongoing bull market as the reason why the S&P 500 has performed well is due to the performance of a few (enormous) technology stocks that have seen both earnings and valuation multiples expand amid one of the longest economic growth phases in history (Chart 21 and Table 4). And yet the one thing that a plurality of Democrats and Republicans seem to agree with is that major tech companies should be regulated (Chart 22). Privacy advocates - who tend to lean left or libertarian - and conservatives, who feel that their commentators are being silenced by Silicon Valley, could form a classic "bootleggers and abolitionists" coalition against the FAANGs post midterm election. In fact, it is the one thing that Trump, and his supporters may (Chart 23), have in common with a potentially left-leaning Congress. Chart 22Majority Of Americans Want Tech Regulated Chart 23Conservatives Distrust Tech Companies How should investors play the midterm election? It is tough to say. We do not think the Democrats' takeover of Congress will be a catalyst for the markets. However, there are a slew of concerning geopolitical developments that will accelerate post-election, some specifically because President Trump will become more aggressive following the electoral hurdle. As such, we would be cautious. While it may serve investors well to "buy on dips" related to the fear of a "Socialist" takeover of Congress, it will be difficult to disassociate such hysteria from genuinely bearish narratives emanating from the Middle East, with trade policy, or stroke of pen risks looming over FAANG stocks. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Associate ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 We are counting Senators Angus King (Maine) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont) as "Democrats" in this tally as they both caucus with the Democratic Party and generally vote very much in line with their left-leaning peers. 6 Excludes Pennsylvania due to redistricting in early 2018, and OK-01, as the candidate ran unopposed. 7 The state variables include the annual percent change in personal income, the annual change in the Philadelphia Fed Coincident index, and incumbency. The national variables include presidential approval ratings, a variable indicating whether the last presidential election was close, and the annual percent change in real GDP, CPI, industrial production, and the DXY. We add to this mix of national and state data the latest opinion polling by state race and the generic congressional ballot. 8 This number is largely our judgement call based on the statements from the Democratic primary winners. However, the fact that there is no unified progressive movement - akin to the 2010 Tea Party revolution - confirms our view. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'," dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Diane Bartz, "Trump's antitrust enforcer considers shifting up a gear," dated September 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.