Estados Unidos

The Fed’s near-term capitulation on its rates-normalization policy highlighted by our fixed-income desks will provide a tailwind for EM oil demand this year by weakening the USD. This will reduce refined-products’ costs in local-currency terms ex-U.S., as it buoys EM growth prospects.1 If, as we expect, Chinese policymakers also deploy modest stimulus, global oil demand still will remain on track to grow 1.4mm b/d this year, per our forecast. We are mindful of potential upside surprises on the demand side, particularly, if, as we noted in our last balances update, the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021 provokes policymakers to deploy large-scale stimulus in 2H19 or 2020.2 The odds of this occurring before 2H19 are low, and we are not yet raising our demand estimates. A partial defusing of the Sino – U.S. trade war is possible, as the 90-day negotiating window agreed at the December G20 meeting starts to close next month. This could trigger a short-term rally in commodities, but, absent durable agreements on the technology front, this potential thawing will be transitory. Highlights Energy: Overweight. China’s crude oil imports surged 30% y/y in December 2018, which helped lift total 2018 imports by 10% vs. 2017 levels. This partly was the result of independent refiners scrambling to use up 2018 import quotas at year-end, so that they could retain those levels this year, according to S&P Global’s Platts.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s copper ore and concentrate imports were down 11.5% y/y in December – the largest y/y decline since May 2017 – in line with slowing growth there. Precious Metals: Neutral. We expect gold to continue to rally over the next 3 – 6 months on the back of a weaker USD in 1H19, as the Fed likely pauses on its rate-hiking schedule. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains likely will get a short-term price lift as the Fed dials back its rates-normalization policy. Feature For the moment, the Fed’s apparent capitulation on its rates-normalization policy reduces the risk the U.S. central bank will err on the side of being overly aggressive, which would have thrown a spanner into EM growth prospects this year. An easier Fed monetary policy will buoy EM GDP and weaken the USD over the short term, which will, support oil prices via stronger demand (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekEM GDP Growth On Track, Keeping Oil Demand Growth On Track On the supply side, we remain convinced OPEC 2.0 is resolved to drain the global inventory overhang as quickly as possible. This unintended inventory accumulation resulted from OPEC 2.0’s production surge and the granting of waivers on U.S. export sanctions against Iran by the Trump administration in November (Chart 2). This conviction was strengthened earlier this week, following the announcement of a proposed earlier-than-expected meeting of the coalition’s market monitoring committee in Baku, Azerbaijan, in mid-March to assess global supply and demand conditions. This could be followed by a full OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna in mid-April, following up on their December meeting in Vienna, according to S&P Global Platts.4 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Is Resolved To Drain Inventory Overhang Pieces Of The Price Puzzle Falling Into Place The Fed is signaling it has put its rates normalization policy on hold, given indications global economic growth is slowing in a manner similar to what occurred in 2014 – 15. Then, the U.S. central bank was attempting to escape the zero lower bound of its monetary policy, following the end of its QE program. In the event, the Fed only raised rates once in December 2015, as the slowdown in growth stayed its hand. Our colleagues at BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy note, “the downturn in cyclical growth indicators like manufacturing purchasing managers indices (PMI) and the global leading economic indicator (LEI) … reached levels last seen after that 2014/15 episode” as 2019 unfolded (Chart 3).5 The slowdown in global growth could stabilize, as the LEI diffusion index suggests, but the Fed, at least for now, appears to be comfortable waiting for clear evidence this is the case. Chart 3Global Growth Slowdown Provokes Fed Restraint In and of itself, the Fed’s near-term capitulation to the market will not be sufficient to reverse the “darkening prospects” foreseen by the World Bank in its most recent forecast, but it will be supportive of oil prices.6 On the back of our expectation the Fed will take a break from its rate-normalization, we are expecting a weaker USD over the short term, which will support oil demand and EM GDP growth. All else equal, this will create a tailwind for oil prices, given EM is the main driver of demand growth (Chart 4). Chart 4USD Near-Term Trajectory Will Support Oil Prices The Chart of the Week introduces a new model we developed to understand the effect of EM GDP growth on oil prices. The level of EM demand is mean reverting to a linear trend, and anchors other variables – oil prices and FX rates, for example – that oscillate randomly with the arrival of new information to the market. Our modeling indicates Brent and WTI prices can be expected to increase (decrease) 94bp and 73bp for every 1 percent increase (decrease) in EM GDP, assuming the broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) for the USD remains unchanged. A 1 percent decrease (increase) in the USD TWIB (holding EM GDP constant) translates into an increase (decrease) in Brent and WTI prices of ~ 4.0% and 3.6%, respectively. We have found EM GDP levels to be as useful an explanatory variable for Brent and WTI prices as non-OECD oil consumption, our proxy for EM demand. Indeed, it is perhaps even cleaner, since using it directly in our models does not require us to estimate an income elasticity of demand for EM economies, in order to forecast prices.7 We are not raising our expectation for demand growth on the back of the Fed’s apparent moderation in its rates policy. We are keeping our 2019 demand growth estimate at 1.4mm b/d, with 1.0mm b/d of that coming from EM and the remainder from DM. Should the Fed signal a further pause in its rates-normalization policy – extending perhaps deep into 2H19 – we would be inclined to raise our demand-growth estimates. Additional Stimulus Coming From China? China is not the be-all and end-all of EM growth. All the same, next to the U.S., it is the second-largest consumer in the world, accounting for ~ 14% of the 103.75mm b/d of global demand we expect this year. Next in line is India, which accounts for ~ 5% of global demand. The news coming out of China at the moment is confusing. While the Xi administration prosecutes its “Three Tough Battles” – i.e., deleveraging, pollution and poverty – it also is pulling policy levers to counter the economic damage inflicted by its trade war with the U.S.8 Government policymakers are signaling fiscal and monetary stimulus will be forthcoming via tax cuts and bond issuance this year, to counter these headwinds.9 However, we do not expect a massive deployment of stimulus. More than likely, the big stimulative measures arrive in 2H19 or next year. The key target dates for policymakers are further in the future, and are focused on the upcoming 100th Anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021. By 2020, the Xi administration is targeting a doubling of real GDP vs. 2010 levels, and a doubling of rural and urban incomes (Chart 5). Chart 5China Keeping Powder Dry For 2021 "Centenary Goal" So the real stimulus out of China likely comes later this year or next year. As our Geopolitical Strategy service notes: “If China launches a large-scale stimulus now, peak output will occur in 2020 and the economy will be decelerating into 2021. This would be bad timing for the centenary. It would make more sense for China to save some dry powder for 2019 or 2020 to ensure a positive economic backdrop in 2021.” There is, as we noted in our last balances update, a low-probability chance stimulus could surprise to the upside if growth – particularly employment – falls precipitously. For now, we are comfortable with our House view that the more extensive fiscal and monetary stimulus will be saved for later this year or next in the run-up to the Communist Party’s anniversary.10 Bottom Line: The Fed appears to have capitulated to markets in the short term, and likely will hold off on another rate hike in 1H19. All else equal, this will weaken the USD and buoy EM GDP over the short term. Together, these effects will keep oil demand on track to growth 1.4mm b/d, per our forecast. Markets are reacting to news of fiscal and monetary stimulus coming out of China. We have been expecting modest stimulus to be deployed this year, most likely in 2H19. We continue to expect a larger package of fiscal and monetary stimulus later in the year and next year in the run-up to the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see “Enough With the Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis,” published January 15, 2019, by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy. It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. See also “Buy Corporate Credit,” published by BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy January 15, 2019. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see “Oil Volatility Will Persist; 2019 Brent Forecast Lowered to $80/bbl,” published January 3, 2019, by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “China’s 2018 crude oil imports rise 10% to 9.28 mil b/d,” published by S&P Global Platts January 14, 2019, online. 4      OPEC 2.0 ministerial meetings usually are held in May/June and again November/December. Please see “OPEC eyes mid-March monitoring committee meeting, mid-April full ministerial,” published by S&P Platts Global January 14, 2019. The cartel also will meet in early February to put the finishing touches on a charter formalizing the coalition. We will be delving deeper into the supply side next week, when we update our balances. 5      Please see footnote 1 above. 6      The World Bank’s most recent forecast can be found in its Global Economic Prospects, published January 8, 2019. The lead article is entitled “Darkening Skies.” 7      We use forecasts of EM GDP and GDP growth published by the World Bank and IMF in our modeling. This is useful for us for a number of reasons, particularly since it is calculated externally by well-regarded global institutions tasked with this function. Like other estimates and projections – e.g., the EIA’s, IEA’s and OPEC’s supply/demand estimates – we can take a view on these data relative to our House view or our own Commodity & Energy Strategy view. NB: Because these are cointegrated systems, regressions in levels is appropriate. 8      This campaign is discussed in depth in “China Sticks To The ‘Three Battles’,” published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy October 24, 2018. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9      Please see “China signals more stimulus as economic slowdown deepens,” published by uk.reuters.com January 15, 2019. 10     Please see footnote 2 above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018

Both autos and automotive components stocks have been underperforming, the former since 2013 and the latter quite dramatically since the beginning of 2018 (top panel). This in spite of light vehicle sales stuck at persistently elevated levels that have driven auto components new orders to all-time highs (second panel). However, with light vehicle sales seemingly unable to breach the levels of the past three years, the chorus that the peak of the automotive cycle has passed is impossible to ignore. We think the reason for the stalling of the automotive growth engine is the lack of available credit. For the better part of the past two years, lenders have been tightening standards for auto loans (third panel). With both financing rates and loan delinquencies on the rise (bottom panel), both the demand for and supply of credit for auto lending seems likely to worsen. Accordingly, we are squarely in the bearish camp for light vehicle sales, hence light vehicle production, hence auto component manufacturers. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P auto components index are: BLBG: S5AUTC - APTV, BWA, GT.    

In a recent Insight Report ,1 we highlighted the collapse in valuations that were making us grow more constructive on the S&P internet retail index. In fact, sky high valuations were what kept us on the sidelines in the first place in our early-2018 initiation of coverage on the sector.2 That trend has continued into 2019 (second and third panels) and we are compelled to add an upgrade alert to the sector. The timing of such a move may be surprising as for a brief time last week, Amazon (representing roughly 85% of the index) overtook Microsoft as the most valuable public company in the world. However, that title was largely due to Apple’s fall, rather than an Amazon rally; importantly, Amazon’s stock is off roughly 20% from when it breached the $1 trillion market cap mark in September, 2018. However, as we have noted in the past, the dominance of one stock in this index introduces a greater degree of specific risk and hence volatility in our valuation measures, which we view as less reliable than usual. Accordingly, we would wait until valuations deliver a more convincing narrative before catalyzing our upgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks this index are: BLBG: S5INRE - AMZN, BKNG, EBAY, EXPE.         1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Amazonification Of Internet Retail,” dated October 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, “ Internet Retail: Dialed Up” dated February 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Informe especial

Highlights So What? Our “Black Swan” risks for the year reveal several potential wars. Why? While we think it is premature to expect armed conflict over Taiwan, an outbreak of serious tensions is possible. Russia and Ukraine may have a shared incentive to go renew hostilities this year. Saudi Arabia has received a “blank cheque” from Donald Trump, so it may continue to be provocative. Everyone has forgotten about the Balkans … but tensions are building. A “Lame Duck” Trump could stage a military intervention in Venezuela. Feature Over the past three years, we have compiled a list of five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s list of “Ten Surprises for 2018,” we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.”1 Instead, we believe that the market is seriously underpricing these risks by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Furthermore, some of our events below are obscure enough that it is unclear how exactly to price them. But before we get to our list of the five things that keep us up at night,2 a quick note on the question for financial markets in 2019: Will the economic policy divergence between the U.S. and China continue? At the moment, momentum is building behind the narrative that both the U.S. and China have decided to reflate. In anticipation of this narrative switch, we closed our long DM / short EM equity trade on December 3, 2018 for a 15.70% return (originally opened on March 6, 2018). How sustainable is the EM outperformance relative to DM? Will the rest of the world “catch up” to U.S. growth momentum, thus hurting the U.S. dollar in the process? The global central bank – the Fed – is already expected to “back off,” even though members of the FOMC have simply pointed out that they remain data-dependent. Granting our BCA House View that the U.S. economy remains in decent health, U.S. economic data will continue to come in strong through the course of the year. This means that there is scope for a hawkish Fed surprise for the markets, given that the interest rate market already has dovish expectations, anticipating 4.33 basis points and 16.74 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months respectively (Chart 1). Meanwhile, the global demand engine – China – may disappoint in its reflationary efforts. We refer to China as the “global demand engine” because the combined imports and capex of China and other emerging markets dwarf that of the U.S. and EU (Chart 2 and Chart 3).3 Chinese imports alone make up $1.6 trillion, constituting 23% of the $7 trillion total of EM imports and about half of EM investment expenditures. Given that large swaths of EM are high-beta to the Chinese economy, the EM-plus-China slice of the global demand pie is leveraged to Beijing’s reflationary policies. Chart 2EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chart 3EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chinese policymakers have gestured toward greater support for the economy. The communiqué published following the Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) in December called for a broad stabilization of aggregate demand as a focus of macro policy over the course of 2019. The language was still not very expansionary, but Beijing has launched stimulus despite relatively muted communiqués in the past. The massive stimulus of early 2016, for instance, followed a mixed CEWC communiqué in December 2015. So everything depends on the forthcoming data. Broad money and credit growth improved marginally in December, while the State Council announced that local government bond issuance could begin at the start of the year rather than waiting until spring. Meanwhile, a coordinated announcement by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Development and Reform Commission declares that a larger tax cut is forthcoming – that is, in addition to the roughly 1% of GDP household tax cuts that went into effect starting late last year. Monetary policy remains very lax with liquidity injections and additional RRR cuts. Before investors become overly bullish, however, we would note that Chinese policymakers are focusing their reflationary efforts on fiscal spending and supply-side reforms like tax cuts. The problem with the latter is that household tax cuts will not add much to global demand, given that consumer goods make up just 15% of China’s imports (Table 1). The vast majority of Chinese imports stem from the country’s capital spending. Table 1China’s Consumer-Oriented Stimulus Will Boost Different Imports Than Past Stimulus Fiscal spending, meanwhile, is as large as the overall credit origination in the Chinese economy (Chart 4). But without a revival in credit growth, more spending will mainly serve to stabilize the economy, not light it on fire. It is likely that part of the fiscal pump-priming will be greater issuance of local government bonds. However, even the recently announced 1.39 trillion RMB quota for new bonds this year is not impressive. And even a 2 trillion RMB increase would only be equivalent to a single month of large credit expansion (Chart 5). Chart 4China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending   As such, tactically nimble investors could profit from a reflationary narrative that sees both the global central bank – the Fed – and the global fiscal engine – China – turning more dovish and supportive of growth. However, we agree with BCA’s Emerging Markets Chief Strategist Arthur Budaghyan, who is on record saying that “Going Tactically Long EM Is Akin To Collecting Pennies In Front Of A Steamroller.” The bottom line for investors is that 2019 is the first year in a decade where the collective intention of policymakers – across the world – is to prepare for the next recession, rather than to prevent a deflationary relapse. This cognitive shift may be slight, but it is important. The Fed and Beijing are engaged in a macroeconomic game of chicken. Each camp is trying to avoid having to over-reflate at the end of the cycle. For the Fed, the goal is to have room to cut rates sufficiently when the recession finally hits. For China, the goal is to ensure that its leverage does not get out of hand. Into this uncertain macroeconomic context we now insert the five Black Swans for 2019. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months; Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk; Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of BCA’s geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events – such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe – do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: China Goes To War With Taiwan One could argue that a military conflict between China and Taiwan in 2019 should not technically qualify for our list, as there has been chatter in the media about such an outcome. Indeed, our recent travels across Asia revealed that clients are taking a much greater interest in our longstanding view – since January 2016 – that Taiwan is the premier geopolitical Black Swan. We established this view well before President Trump won the election and received a congratulatory call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, breaking diplomatic practice since 1979. Now, at the beginning of 2019, the exchange of barbs between the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents has raised tensions anew (Chart 6).4 Chart 6Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Nonetheless, Taiwan makes the cut here because we doubt that most of our global clients take the issue seriously. Furthermore, we are concerned that – with fair odds of a U.S.-China trade truce lasting through 2019 – cross-strait tensions could fall out of sight. The basis of our view is that there is a unique confluence of political developments in Beijing, Washington, and Taipei that is conducive toward a diplomatic or military incident that could escalate tensions: Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in addition to taking the presidency in 2016, won control of the legislature for the first time ever (Chart 7). This means that domestic political constraints on President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration are lower than usual. Tsai has angered Beijing by seeking stronger relations with the U.S. and refusing to endorse the 1992 Consensus, which holds that there is only “One China” albeit two interpretations. China’s General Secretary Xi Jinping has removed term limits and placed greater emphasis on the reunification of Taiwan. Xi has consolidated power domestically and has pursued a more aggressive foreign policy throughout his term, including in the South China Sea, where greater naval control would enable China to threaten Taiwan’s supply security. Xi’s blueprint for his “New Era” includes the reunification of China, and some have argued that there is a fixed timetable for reunification with Taiwan by 2050 or even 2035.5 Some recent military drills can be seen as warnings to Taiwan. U.S. President Trump called the One China Policy into question at the outset of his term in office (only later reaffirming it), and has presided over an increase in U.S. strategic pressure against China, such as the trade war and freedom of navigation operations, including in the Taiwan Strait. Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and Assistant Defense Secretary Randall Schriver are seen as Taiwan hawks, while the just-concluded Republican Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA), which imply an upgrade to the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s democracy and security.6 These three factors suggest that, cyclically, there is larger room than usual for incidents to occur that initiate a vicious cycle of tensions. The odds of a full-fledged war are still very low – the U.S. has reaffirmed the One China Policy in its recent negotiations with Beijing, which seem to be progressing, while China has not changed its official position on Taiwan. Beijing’s reunification timetable still has a comfortable 30 years to go. The Chinese economy has not collapsed, so there is no immediate need for Beijing to dive headlong into a nationalist foreign policy adventure that could bring on World War III. However, the odds of diplomatic incidents, or military saber rattling, that then trigger a dangerous escalation and a multi-month period of extremely elevated tensions are much higher than the market recognizes. This is because the U.S. and China may still see strategic tensions flare even if they make progress on a trade deal, while a failure on the trade front could spark a spillover into strategic areas. Any cross-strait incident would be relevant to global investors – and not just Taiwanese assets, which would suffer the brunt of economic sanctions – because the slightest increase in the odds of a full-scale war would be extremely negative for global risk appetite. Over the next 12 months, we would mostly expect Beijing to eschew high-profile provocations. The reason is that President Tsai is unpopular and the recent local elections in Taiwan saw her DPP lose seats to the more China-friendly Kuomintang (Chart 8). An aggressive posture could revive the DPP ahead of the January 2020 presidential election, the opposite of what Beijing wants.7 On the other hand, Beijing could decide to ignore the 1996 precedent and choose outright military intimidation. Or it could attempt to meddle in Taiwan’s domestic politics, as it has been accused of doing in the recent local elections.8 Meanwhile, the U.S. and Taiwan are the more likely instigators of an incident over these 12 months, knowingly or not. Washington and Taipei have a window of opportunity to achieve a few concrete objectives while Presidents Tsai and Trump are still in office – which cannot be guaranteed after 2020. A similar window of opportunity caused a market-relevant spike in China-South Korea tensions back in 2015-17, when the United States, seeing that the right-wing Park Geun-hye administration was falling out of power, attempted to rush through the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea. As a result, China imposed economic sanctions on its neighbor (Chart 9). Chart 9China Hits South Korea Over THAAD Something similar could transpire over the next year if the U.S. sends a high-level official – say, Bolton, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or even Vice President Mike Pence – to hold talks in Taiwan. Or if the U.S. stages a major show of force in the Taiwan Strait, as it threatened in October, or U.S. naval vessels call on Taiwanese ports. The U.S. could also announce bigger or better arms packages (Chart 10), such as submarine systems, which have been cleared by the Department of State. Given the elevated U.S.-China and China-Taiwan tensions overall, such an incident could cause a bigger escalation than the different participants expect – and even more so than the market currently expects. Chart 10U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing Bottom Line: Cyclically, the period between now and the inauguration of the next Taiwanese president in May 2020 brings heightened risk of a geopolitical incident. Depending on what happens in 2020, tensions could rise or fall for a time. Yet structurally, as Sino-American strategic distrust continues to build, Taiwan will continually find itself at the center of the storm. Black Swan 2: Russia And Ukraine Agree To Go To War Tensions are mounting between Russia and Ukraine in the run-up to the March 31 Ukrainian presidential election. Incumbent President, Petro Poroshenko, has been trailing in the polls for a year. His rival is the populist Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been leading both first-round and second-round polling. Both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko have, at various points in their careers, been accused of being pro-Russian. Poroshenko’s business interests, as with most successful Ukrainian businesspeople, include considerable holdings in Russia. Tymoshenko, on the other hand, was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014 for negotiating a gas imports contract with Russia that allegedly hurt Ukrainian interests. With the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine either cleaved off (Crimea) or in a state of lawlessness (Donetsk and Luhansk), the median voter in the country has become considerably more nationalist and anti-Russian. It therefore serves no purpose for any politician to campaign on a platform of normalizing relations with Moscow. In this context, the decision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople – the first-among-equals of the Christian Orthodox churches – to grant autocephaly (sovereignty) to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in January is part of the ongoing evolution of Ukraine into an independent entity from Russia. This process could create tensions, particularly as parts of the country continue to be engaged in military conflict (Map 1). From Moscow’s perspective, the autocephaly grants Ukraine religious – and therefore some semblance of cultural – independence from Russia. This solidifies the loss of a 43-million person crown jewel from the Russian sphere of influence. Moscow is also not averse to stoking tensions. Although President Putin’s mandate will last until 2024, his popularity is nearly at the lowest level this decade. Orthodox monetary and fiscal policy, along with pension reforms, have sapped his political capital at home. In 2014, tensions over Ukraine spurred nationalist sentiment in Russia, rapidly increased popular support for both Putin and his government (Chart 11). Putin may calculate that another such recapitalization may be needed. Chart 11Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression The danger is therefore that domestic politics in both Ukraine and Russia may create a window of opportunity for a skirmish this quarter. Perhaps something akin to the naval tensions around the Kerch Strait that ultimately cost President Putin a summit with President Trump at the G20 meeting in December. While these incidents may benefit both sides domestically, and may even appear carefully orchestrated, they could also get out of hand in unpredictable ways. Bottom Line: While both Kiev and Russia may see a short-termed conflict as domestically beneficial, such an outcome could have unforeseen consequences. At the very least, it could sap already poor business confidence in neighboring Europe, as it did in 2014-2015. Black Swan 3: Saudi Arabia With A Blank Cheque One of the greatest geopolitical blunders of the twentieth century was Berlin’s decision to give its ally Austro-Hungary a “blank cheque.” Austro-Hungary was an anachronism at the turn of the century – a multiethnic empire held together by allegiance to a royal family. As such, the ideology of nationalism represented an existential threat, particularly given that 60% of the empire’s population was neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Following the assassination of its crown prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a pan-Slavist terrorist in Sarajevo, Vienna decided that a total destruction of Serbia was necessary for geopolitical and domestic political reasons. Today, Saudi Arabia is in many ways an anachronism itself. It is the world’s last feudal monarchy. Its leaders understand the risks and have begun an ambitious and multifaceted reform effort. Unlike Austro-Hungary, Saudi Arabia has learned to embrace nationalism. Riyadh is using the war in Yemen, as well as targeted actions against its own royal family and the religious establishment, to build a modern nation-state. The problem is that, much as nationalism was an ideological kryptonite for Vienna, democratic Islamism is an existential problem for Riyadh and its peers among the Gulf monarchies. Neighboring Qatar, a tiny peninsular kingdom enjoying an oversized geopolitical influence due to its natural gas wealth, has supported various groups across the Middle East that believe that democracy and conservative Islam are compatible. Turkey and Qatar have often cooperated in this effort, as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey has served as a model for many such Islamist parties in the region. Why Qatar hitched its geopolitical wagon to democratic Islamism is not clear. Perhaps its leaders felt that it was the only option unclaimed by an energy-rich sponsor. Regardless, Qatar’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other such groups has clearly irked Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, enough for them to kick Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In 2017, with the pro-Saudi Trump administration ascendant in the White House, Riyadh felt emboldened enough to break off all diplomatic relations with Qatar and impose an economic blockade. Since 2014, another dynamic has emerged in the region that raises further concerns: a scramble for material resources brought on by the end of +$100 per barrel oil prices. Saudi public expenditures have been steadily rising since 2008, both due to population growth, social welfare spending in the wake of Arab Spring rebellions, and astronomical defense spending to counter the rising influence of Iran. And yet, 2014 saw oil prices plunge to decade lows in a matter of months. Saudi Arabia’s fiscal breakeven oil price has doubled, in a decade, from under $40 per barrel to $83 per barrel in 2018 (Chart 12). Meanwhile, Qatar’s GDP is a quarter of that of Saudi Arabia, even though its population is less than 2% of Saudi Arabia’s. Chart 12Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Rumors that the U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis prevented a Saudi invasion of Qatar in 2018 have largely been dismissed by the mainstream media. But should they be? If allegedly “rogue elements” of the Saudi intelligence establishment can dismember a journalist in a consulate, why couldn’t “rogue elements” of its military stage a coup – or an outright invasion – in neighboring Qatar? Such an outcome would truly be extraordinary, but so was the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Meanwhile, President Trump offered an extraordinary level of support for Riyadh by issuing what we can only refer to as a “blank cheque” following Khashoggi’s murder. In the November 20 statement, President Trump essentially created a new policy doctrine of standing with Saudi Arabia “no matter what.”9 Two weeks later, Riyadh “thanked” the U.S. President by slashing the OPEC oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day. From this dynamic, it appears that Washington has made a similar strategic blunder in 2018 that Berlin did in 1914. A weakened, stressed, and threatened ally has been given a “blank cheque” by its stronger ally. Such a sweeping offer of support may lead to unintended consequences as the weaker ally feels that its material and geopolitical constraints can be overcome. In Saudi Arabia’s case, that could mean a more aggressive policy towards Qatar, or perhaps Iran. Particularly now that the White House has seen several realist members of the Trump cabinet – such as Mattis and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – replaced by Iran hawks and Trump loyalists. Bottom Line: A combination of less independent-minded cabinet members in the White House and a clear “blank cheque” from President Trump to Saudi Arabia could cause geopolitical risk to re-emerge in the Middle East. In the near term, this could increase the geopolitical risk premium on oil prices – as measured by the residual in Chart 13. Black Swan 4: The Balkans Become A Powder Keg … Again Bismarck famously said in 1888 – 26 years before the outbreak of the Great War, that “one day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” The Balkans are far less geopolitically relevant today than in the early twentieth century. They are also exhausted following a decade-long Yugoslav rigor mortis in the 1990s which yielded at least three regional wars and now six (or seven, depending who is counting) independent states. The problem is that tensions have not disappeared. Two frozen conflicts remain. First, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sovereign country made up of two political entities, with the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska agitating for independence and aligning with Russia. Second, tensions between Serbia and Kosovo took a turn for the worse late last year as Kosovo imposed an economic embargo on trade with Serbia and called for the creation of a military. Has anything really changed over the course of the decade? We think there are three causes for alarm: Tensions between Russia and the West have become serious, with both camps looking to score tactical and strategic wins across the globe. With the Syrian Civil War all but over, a new battleground may emerge. While Republika Srpska is essentially an outright ally of Russia, Serbia continues to try to straddle the fine line between an EU enlargement candidate and geopolitical neutrality. However, this high-wire act is becoming untenable as… Enlargement fatigue sets in the EU. There is no doubt that the EU enlargement process froze Balkan conflicts. Countries like Serbia and Kosovo have an incentive to be on their best behavior so long as the prospect of eventual EU membership remains. But in the current environment of introspection, the EU may not have enough of a coherent geopolitical vision to deal with the Balkans without a crisis. The global economic cycle may be ending, leading to a global recession in the next 12-to-24 months. While our BCA House View remains that the next recession will be a mild one in the U.S., we think that EM and, by extension, frontier markets could be the eye of the storm in the next downturn. As investors abandon their “search for yield” in riskier geographies, they could exacerbate poor governance, political tensions, and geopolitical cleavages that have been frozen in place by the last economic cycle. Finally, U.S. policy towards the Balkans is unclear. In the past, the U.S. asked all countries in the region to accept the status quo and prepare for EU integration. But with the U.S. now adopting an antagonistic view towards the EU bloc, it is unclear what Washington’s message to the Balkans will be. After all, Trump has personally encouraged all other world leaders to don their own version of the “America First” slogan. The only problem in a place like the Balkans is that “Serbia first” – or Croatia and Kosovo first – is unlikely to go down smoothly in the neighborhood, given the last twenty – or even hundred – years. Bottom Line: The powder keg that is the Balkans has not been dried for decades. However, several tailwinds of stability are gone, replaced with macro headwinds. A renewed conflict on Europe’s doorstep could be the next great geopolitical crisis. If this were to occur, we would bank on greater European integration, especially in terms of military and foreign policy. However, it could also mark the first break in U.S.-EU foreign policy if the two decide to pick opposing sides in the region. Black Swan 5: Lame Duck Trump For our final Black Swan, we are sticking with one of our 2018 choices: a “Lame duck” presidency. “Lame duck” presidents – leaders whose popularity late in their terms have sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy – are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.10 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents can seek relevance abroad. President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains strong (Chart 14), his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 15). Now there is also a Democrat-led House of Representatives to stymie his domestic policy and launch independent investigations into both his administration’s conduct and his personal finances and dealings. We would also add the Senate to the list of problems for President Trump. The electoral math was friendly towards the Republicans in 2018, with Democrats defending 10 Senate seats in states that President Trump won in 2016. In 2020, however, two-thirds of the races will be for Republican-held seats. As such, many Republican senators may begin campaigning early by moving away from President Trump. What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2019? Last year, we identified “China-U.S. trade war,” “Iran jingoism,” and “North Korea” as potentials. In many ways, 2018 was the year when all three mattered. Going forward, however, we think that trade war and the Middle East might take a backseat. First, the bear market in equities has raised the odds of a recession. As such, the potential cost of pursuing the trade war further has been increased. So has an aggressive policy towards Iran that dramatically boosts oil prices. Furthermore, President Trump has signaled that he is willing to withdraw from the Middle East, calling for a full withdrawal from Syria and telegraphing one from Afghanistan. Instead, we see President Trump potentially following in the footsteps of previous U.S. administrations and finding relevance in Latin America. A military intervention in Venezuela, to ostensibly support a coup against the current regime, would find little opposition domestically. First, there is no doubt that Venezuela has become a genuine humanitarian disaster. Second, its oil output is on a downward spiral already, with only 1 million b/d of production at risk due to a potential military conflict (Chart 16). Third, the new Bolsonaro administration in Brazil may even support an intervention, as well as neighboring Colombia. This is a change from the last twenty years, in which Latin American countries largely stuck together, despite ideological differences, in opposition to U.S. interference in the continent’s domestic affairs. Chart 16On A Downward Spiral Finally, even the anti-Trump U.S. foreign policy establishment may support an intervention. Not only is there the issue of human suffering, but Russia and China have used Venezuela as an anchor to build out influence in America’s sphere of influence. Furthermore, the potential promise of Venezuela’s eventual energy production is another reason to consider an American intervention (Chart 17). Bottom Line: American presidents rarely decide to go softly into that good night. It is very difficult to see President Trump become irrelevant. With tensions with China carrying a high economic cost and military interventions in the Middle East remaining politically toxic in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, perhaps President Trump will decide to go “retro,” in the sense of a throwback Latin America intervention.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see, Blackstone, “Byron Wien Announces Ten Surprises For 2018,” dated January 2, 2018, available at blackstone.com. 2 A shoutout to another doyen of the financial industry, Alastair Newton! 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Deciphering Global Trade Linkages,” dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Highlights of Xi’s speech at Taiwan message anniversary event,” China Daily, January 2, 2019, available at www.chinadaily.com.cn; and “President Tsai Issues Statement On China’s President Xi’s ‘Message To Compatriots In Taiwan,’” Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan), January 2, 2019, available at english.president.gov.tw. 5 Please see Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” section 3.12, October 18, 2017, available at www.xinhuanet.com; and Deng Yuwen, “Is China Planning To Take Taiwan By Force In 2020?” South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018, available at beta.scmp.com. 6 Please see United States, H.R. 535, Taiwan Travel Act, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov and S. 2736, Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov. 7 This is precisely what occurred when China chose missile tests in 1995-96 and drove voters toward the very candidate, Lee Teng-hui, that Beijing least desired. The popular Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je may run for president in 2020, and Beijing may see him as preferable to President Tsai. He has spoken of China and Taiwan as being part of the same family and he has held city-to-city talks between Shanghai and Taipei despite the shutdown in direct talks between Beijing and Taipei. 8 Please see Andrew Sharp, “Beijing likely meddled in Taiwan elections, US cybersecurity firm says,” Nikkei Asian Review, November 28, 2018, available at asia.nikkei.com. 9 Please see “Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia,” The White House, dated November 20, 2018, available at whitehouse.org. 10 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him, while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the “surge” of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014.   Geopolitical Calendar