France
Highlights So What? Key geopolitical risks remain unresolved and most of the improvements are transitory. Maintain a cautious tactical stance toward risk assets. Why? U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors and President Trump remains a wild card on trade. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. USMCA ratification is not a red herring for investors. We expect USMCA will pass by year’s end but our conviction level is low. Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA cannot be entirely ruled out. Remain long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities. Feature Chart 1U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative We maintain our cautious tactical stance toward risk assets despite improvements to the cyclical macro outlook. American and Chinese monetary and fiscal policy are growing more stimulative on the margin – an encouraging sign for the global economy and risk assets. We have frequently predicted this combination as a positive factor for the second half of the year and 2020. With the Federal Reserve likely to deliver a 25 basis point interest rate cut on July 31, the market is pricing in positive policy developments (Chart 1). Yet in the U.S., long-term fiscal and regulatory policies are increasingly uncertain as the Democratic Party primary and 2020 election heat up. And in China, the trade war continues to drag on the effectiveness of the government’s stimulus drive. President Trump remains a wild card on trade: the resumption of U.S.-China talks is precarious and will be accompanied by heightened uncertainty surrounding Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Europe in the near term. Even the USMCA’s ratification is not guaranteed, as we discuss below. Even more pressing are the dramatic events taking place in East Asia: Hong Kong, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, and the South and East China Seas. These events each entail near-term uncertainty amid the ongoing slowdown in trade and manufacturing. Our long-running theme of geopolitical risk rotation from the Middle East to East Asia has come to fruition, albeit at the moment geopolitical risk is rising in both regions due to the simultaneous showdown between Iran and the United States and United Kingdom. The market recognizes that geopolitical risks are unresolved, according to this month’s update of our currency- and equity-derived GeoRisk Indicators. This is in keeping with the above points. We regard most of the improvements as transitory – especially the drop in risk in the U.K., where Boris Johnson is now officially prime minister. We are therefore sticking with our cautious trade recommendations despite our agreement with the BCA House View that the cyclical outlook is improving and is positive for global risk assets on a 12-month horizon. What Is Happening To East Asian Stability? A raft of crises has struck East Asia, a region known for political stability and ease of doing business throughout the twenty-first century after its successful recovery from the financial crisis of 1997. The thawing of Asia’s frozen post-WWII conflicts is a paradigm shift with significant long-term consequences for investors. The fundamental drivers are as follows: China’s rise is not peaceful: President Xi Jinping has reasserted Communist Party control while pursuing mercantilist trade policy and aggressive foreign policy. The populations of Hong Kong and Taiwan have reacted negatively to Beijing’s tightening grip, exposing the difficulty of resolving serious political disagreements given unclear constitutional frameworks. Recent protests in Hong Kong are even larger than those in 2014 and 1989 (Table 1). Table 1Hong Kong: Recent Protests The Largest Ever America’s “pivot” is not peaceful: The United States is determined to respond to China’s rise, but political polarization has prevented a coherent strategy. The Democrats took a gradual, multilateral path emphasizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the Republicans have taken an abrupt, unilateral path emphasizing sweeping tariffs. Underlying trade policy is the increased use of “hard power” by both parties – freedom of navigation operations, weapons sales, and alliance-maintenance. America is threatening the strategic containment of China, which China will resist through alliances and relations with Russia and others. Japan’s resurgence is not peaceful: Japan’s “lost decades” culminated in the crises and disasters of 2008-11. Since then, Japan’s institutional ruling party – the Liberal Democrats – have embraced a more proactive vision of Japan in which the country casts off the shackles of its WWII settlement. They set about reflating the economy and “normalizing” the country’s strategic and military posture. The result is rising tension with China and the Koreas. Korean “reunion” is not peaceful: North Korea has seen a successful power transition to Kim Jong Un, who is attempting economic reforms to prolong the regime. South Korea has witnessed a collapse among political conservatives and a new push to make peace with the North and improve relations with China. The prospect of peace – or eventual reunification – increases political risk in both Korean regimes and provokes quarrels between erstwhile allies: the North and China, and the South and Japan. Southeast Asia’s rise is not peaceful: Southeast Asia is the prime beneficiary in a world where supply chains move out of China, due to China’s internal development and American trade policy. But it also suffers when China encroaches on its territory or reacts negatively to American overtures. Higher expectations from the U.S. will increase the political risk to Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This is the critical context for the mass protests in Hong Kong and the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea, and other regional risks. Which conflicts are market-relevant? How will they play out? The U.S.-China Conflict The most important dynamic is the strategic conflict between the U.S. and China. Its pace and intensity have ramifications for all the other states in the region. Because the Trump administration is seeking a trade agreement with China, it has held off from unduly antagonizing China over Hong Kong and Taiwan. President Trump has not fanned the flames of unrest in Hong Kong and has maintained only a gradual pace of improvements in the Taiwan relationship.1 But if the trade war escalates dramatically, Beijing will face greater economic pressure, growing more sensitive about dissent within Greater China, and Washington may take more provocative actions. Saber-rattling could ensue, as nearly occurred in October 2018. Currently events are moving in a more market-positive direction. Next week, the U.S. and China are expected to resume face-to-face trade negotiations between principal negotiators for the first time since May. China is reportedly preparing to purchase more farm goods – part of the Osaka G20 ceasefire – while the Trump administration has met with U.S. tech companies and is expected to allow Chinese telecoms firm Huawei to continue purchasing American components (at least those not clearly impacting national security). We are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40% from 32% in mid-June. With this resumption of talks, we are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40%, from 32% in mid-June (Diagram 1). Of this 40%, we still give only a 5% chance to a durable, long-term deal that resolves underlying technological and strategic disputes. The remaining 35% goes to a tenuous deal that enables President Trump to declare victory prior to the election and allows President Xi Jinping to staunch the bleeding in the manufacturing sector. Diagram 1U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019) Note that these odds still leave a 60% chance for an escalation of the trade war by November 2020. Our conviction level is low when it comes to the two moderate scenarios. Ultimately, Presidents Trump and Xi can agree to a trade agreement at the drop of a hat – no one can stop Xi from ordering large imports from the U.S. or Trump from rolling back tariffs. Our conviction level is much higher in assigning only a 5% chance of a grand compromise and a 36% chance of a cold war-style escalation of tensions. We doubt that China will offer any structural concessions deeper than what they have already offered (new foreign investment law, financial sector opening) prior to finding out who wins the U.S. election in 2020. Beijing is stabilizing the economy even though tariffs have gone up. As long as this remains the case, why would it implement additional painful reforms? This would set a precedent of caving to tariff coercion – and yet Trump could renege on a deal anytime, and the Democrats might take over in 2020 anyway. The one exception might be North Korea, where China could do more to bring about a diplomatic agreement favorable to President Trump as part of an overall deal before November 2020 – and this could excuse China from structural concessions affecting its internal economy. The takeaway is that U.S.-China trade issues are still far from resolved and have a high probability of failure – and this will be a source of strategic tension within the region over the next 16 months, particularly with regard to Taiwan, the Koreas, and the South China Sea. Hong Kong And Taiwan August can be a crucial time period for policy changes as Chinese leaders often meet at the seaside resort of Beidaihe to strategize. This year they need to focus on handling the unrest in Hong Kong, and the Taiwanese election in January, as well as the trade war with the United States. Protests in Hong Kong have continued, driven by underlying socio-economic factors as well as Beijing’s encroachment on traditional political liberties. Even the groups that are least sympathetic to the protesters – political moderates, the elderly, low-income groups, and the least educated – are more or less divided over the controversial extradition bill that prompted the unrest (Chart 2). This reveals that the political establishment is weak on this issue. Chief Executive Carrie Lam is clinging to power, as Beijing does not want to give the impression that popular dissent is a viable mechanism for removing leaders. But she has become closely associated with the extradition bill and will likely have to go in order to satiate the protesters and begin the process of healing. As long as Beijing refrains from rolling in the military and using outright force to crush the Hong Kong protests, the unrest should gradually die down, as the political establishment will draw support for its concessions while the general public will grow weary of the protests – especially as violence spreads. Hong Kong has no alternative to Beijing’s sovereignty. The scene of action will soon turn to Taiwan, where the January 2020 election has the potential to spark the next flashpoint in Xi Jinping’s struggle to consolidate power in Greater China. A large majority of Taiwanese people supports the Hong Kong protests – even most supporters of the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) (Chart 3). This dynamic is now affecting the Taiwanese election slated for January 2020. The relatively pro-mainland KMT has been polling neck-and-neck with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has struggled to gain traction throughout its term given diplomatic and economic headwinds stemming from the mainland. Similarly, while popular feeling is still largely in favor of eventual independence, pro-unification feeling has regained momentum in an apparent rebuke to the pro-independence ruling party (Chart 4). However, the events in Hong Kong have changed things by energizing the democratic and mainland-skeptic elements in Taiwan. President Tsai Ing-wen is now taking a slight lead in the presidential head-to-head opinion polls despite a long period of lackluster polling (Chart 5). A close election increases the risk that policymakers and activists in Taiwan, mainland China, the United States, and elsewhere will take actions attempting to influence the election outcome. Beijing will presumably heed the lesson of the 1996 election and avoid anything too aggressive so as not to drive voters into the arms of the DPP. However, with Hong Kong boiling, and with Beijing having already conducted intimidating military drills encircling Taiwan in recent years, there is a chance that past lessons will be forgotten. The United States could also play a disruptive role, especially if trade talks deteriorate. If the KMT wins, then anti-Beijing activists will eventually begin gearing up for protests themselves, which in subsequent years could overshadow the Sunflower Movement of 2013. If the DPP prevails, Beijing may resort to tougher tactics in the coming years due to its fear of the province’s political direction and the DPP’s policies. In sum, while the Hong Kong saga is far from over and has negative long-run implications for domestic and foreign investors, Taiwan is the greater risk because it has the potential not only to suffer individually but also to become the epicenter of a larger geopolitical confrontation between China and the U.S. and its allies. This would present a more systemic challenge to global investors. Japan And “Peak Abe” Japan’s House of Councillors election on July 21 confirmed our view that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reached the peak of his influence. Abe is still popular and is likely to remain so through the Tokyo summer Olympics next year (Chart 6). But make no mistake, the loss of his two-thirds supermajority in the upper house shows that he has moved beyond the high tide of his influence. Having retained a majority in the upper house, and a supermajority in the much more powerful lower house (House of Representatives), Abe’s government still has the ability to pass regular legislation (Chart 7). If he needs to drive through a bill delaying the consumption tax hike on October 1 due to a deterioration in the global economic and political environment, he can still do so with relative ease. While the Hong Kong saga is far from over ... Taiwan is the greater risk. Clearly, the election loss will not impact Abe’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, which we expect to happen quickly – even before a China deal – albeit with some risk of tariffs on autos in the interim. The problem is that Abe’s final and greatest aim is to revise Japan’s American-written, pacifist constitution for the first time. This requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and a majority vote in a popular referendum. While Abe can still probably cobble together enough votes in the upper house, the election result makes it less certain – and the dent in popular support implies that the national referendum is less likely to pass. Constitutional revision was always going to be a close vote anyway (Chart 8). If Abe falls short of a majority in that referendum, then he will become a lame duck and markets will have to price in greater policy uncertainty. Even if he succeeds – which is still our low-conviction baseline view – then he will have reached the pinnacle of his career and there will be nowhere to go but down. His tenure as party leader expires in September 2021 and the race to succeed him is already under way. Hence, some degree of uncertainty should begin creeping in immediately. Abe’s departure will leave the Liberal Democrats in charge – and hence Japanese policy continuity will be largely preserved. But the entire arc of events, from now through the constitutional revision process to Abe’s succession, will raise fundamental questions about whether Abe’s post-2012 reflation drive can be sustained. We have a high conviction view that it will be, but Japanese assets will challenge that view. What of the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea? On July 4, Japan imposed export restrictions on goods critical to South Korea’s semiconductor industry in retaliation for a South Korean court ruling that would set a precedent requiring Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel to pay reparations for the use of forced Korean labor during Japanese rule from 1910-45. Chart 9Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan has the stronger hand in this dispute from an economic point of view (Chart 9). While the unusually heavy-handed Japanese trade measures partly reveal the influence of President Trump, who has given a license for U.S. allies to weaponize trade, it also reflects Japan’s growing assertiveness. Abe’s government may have believed that a surge of nationalism would help in the upper house election. And the constitutional referendum will be another reason to stir nationalism and a recurring source of tension with both Koreas (as well as with China). Therefore, Japanese-Korean tensions and punitive economic measures could persist well into 2020. Bottom Line: U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors, especially if the Taiwan election becomes a lightning rod. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. We are playing these risks by remaining long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities, as Thailand is more insulated than other East Asian economies to trade and China risks. Keep An Eye On The USMCA Last week we highlighted U.S. budget negotiations and argued that the result would be greater fiscal accommodation. The results of the just-announced budget deal are depicted in Chart 10. One side effect is an increased likelihood of eventual tariffs on Mexico if the latter fails to staunch the influx of immigrants across the U.S. southern border, since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Meanwhile, the administration’s legislative and trade focus will turn toward ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). There is an increased likelihood of eventual U.S. tariffs on Mexico ... since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Ratification is not a red herring for investors, since Trump could give notice of withdrawal from NAFTA in order to hasten USMCA approval, which would induce volatility. Moreover, successful ratification could embolden him to take a strong hand in his other trade disputes, while failure could urge him to concede to a quick deal with China. Chart 11Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Further, trade policy uncertainty in the Trump era has correlated with a rising trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11), so there is a direct channel for trade tensions (or the lack thereof) to influence the global economy at a time when it badly needs a softer dollar – in addition to the negative effects of trade wars on sentiment. The signing of the USMCA trade agreement by American, Mexican, and Canadian leaders last November effectively shifted negotiations from the international stage to the domestic stage. Last month Mexico became the first to ratify the deal. The delay in the U.S. and Canada reflects their more challenging domestic political environments ahead of elections, especially in the United States. Ratification in the U.S. has been stalled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is locked in stalemate with the Trump administration. She is holding off on giving the green light to present the agreement to Congress until Democrats’ concerns are addressed (Diagram 2). Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to withdraw from NAFTA – a declaration that cannot be entirely ruled out, even though we highly doubt he would actually withdraw at the end of the six-month waiting period. Diagram 2Pelosi Is Stalling USMCA Ratification Process Republicans are looking to secure the USMCA’s passage before the 2020 campaign goes into full force in order to claim victory on one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises. The administration’s May 30 submission of the draft Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to Congress initiated a 30-day waiting period that must pass before the administration can submit the text to Congress. But the administration is unlikely to put the final bill to Congress before ensuring that House Democrats are ready to cooperate.2 House democrats are in a position of maximum leverage and are using the process to their political advantage. House Democrats are in a position of maximum leverage – since they do not need the deal to become law – and are using the process to their political advantage. If the bill is to be ratified through the “fast action” Trade Protection Authority (TPA), which forbids amendments and limits debate in Congress, then now is their only chance to make amendments to the text, which was written without their input. Even in the Democrat-controlled House, there is probably enough support for the USMCA to secure its passage. There are 51 House Democrats who were elected in districts that Trump won or that Republicans held in 2018, and are inclined to pass the deal. Moreover 21 House Democrats have been identified from districts that rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico (Chart 12).3 If these Democrats vote along with all 197 Republicans in favor of the bill, it will pass the House. This is a rough calculation, but it shows that passage is achievable. What is more, there is a case to be made for bipartisan support for USMCA. Trump’s trade agenda has some latent sympathy among moderate Democrats, and Democrats within Trump districts, unlike his border wall. Democrats will appear obstructionist if they oppose the bill. Unlike trade with China, American voters are not skeptical of trade with Canada – and the group that thinks Mexico is unfair on trade falls short of a majority (Chart 13). Since enough Democrats have a compelling self-interest in securing the deal, and since Trump and the GOP obviously want it to pass, we expect it to pass eventually. The question is whether it can be done by year’s end. Once the bill is presented to Congress and passes through the TPA process, it will become law within 90 days. Assuming that the bill is presented to the House in early September, when Congress reconvenes after its summer recess, the bill could be ratified before year-end. Otherwise, without the expedited TPA process, the bill will no longer be protected against amendment and filibuster, leaving the timeline of ratification vulnerable to extensive delay. The above timeline may be too late for Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who faces general elections on October 21. The ratification process has already been initiated, as Trudeau would benefit from wrapping up the entire affair prior to the national vote.4 However, the process most recently has been stalled in order to move in tandem with the U.S., so that parliament does not ratify an agreement that the U.S. fails to pass. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has indicated that parliament is not likely to be recalled for a vote unless there is progress down south. This leaves the Canadian ratification process at the mercy of progress in the U.S. – and ultimately Speaker Pelosi’s decision. The current government faces few hurdles in getting the bill passed (Chart 14). The next step is a final reading in the House where the bill will either be adopted or rejected. If it is approved, the bill will then proceed to the Senate where it will undergo a similar process. If the bill is passed in the same form in the House and Senate, it will become law. Chart 15...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk Failure to ratify the deal before the election means it will be set aside and reintroduced in the next parliament. The Liberal Party is by no means guaranteed to win a majority in the election – our base case has Trudeau forming the next government, but the race is close (Chart 15). A Conservative-led parliament would be likely to pass the bill, but it would likely be delayed to 2021 at that point due to American politics. We suspect that Trudeau will eventually stop delaying and push for Canadian ratification. This would pressure Pelosi and the Democrats to go ahead and ratify, when they are otherwise inclined to reopen negotiations or otherwise delay until after November 2020. If this gambit succeeded, Trudeau would have forced total ratification prior to October 21, which would give him a badly needed boost in the election. He can always go through the frustration of re-ratifying the deal in his second term if the Democrats insist on changes, but not if he does not survive for a second term – so it is worth going forward at home and trying to pressure Pelosi into ratification in September or early October. Bottom Line: In light of Canada’s October election and the U.S. 2020 election cycle, USMCA faces a tight schedule. A delay into next year risks undermining the ratification effort, as we enter a period of hyper-partisan politics amid the 2020 presidential campaigns. This makes the third quarter a sweet spot for USMCA ratification. While we ultimately expect that it will make it through, each passing day raises the odds against it. GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 All ten GeoRisk indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. Below are the most noteworthy developments this month. U.K.: As expected, Boris Johnson sealed the Conservative party leadership contest. This was largely priced in by the markets and as such did not result in a big shift in our risk indicator. Johnson has stated that he is willing to exit the EU without a deal and it is undeniable that the odds of a no-deal Brexit have increased. Nevertheless, the odds of an election are also rising as Johnson may galvanize Brexit support under the Conservative Party even as Bremain forces are divided between the rising Liberal Democrats and a Labour Party hobbled by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The odds that Johnson is willing to risk his newly cemented position on a snap election – having seen what happened in June 2017 – seem overstated to us, but we place the odds at about 21%. As for a no-deal exit, opinion polling still suggests that the median British voter prefers a soft exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on Johnson, as he may ultimately be forced to try to push through a plan similar to Theresa May’s, but rebranded with minimal EU concessions to make it more acceptable – or risk a no-confidence vote and potential loss of control. We maintain that GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. France: Our French indicator points toward a significant increase in political risk over the last month. President Macron’s government has recently unveiled the pension system overhaul that he promised during the 2017 campaign. The reform, which is due to take effect in 2025, encourages citizens to work longer, as their full pension will come at the age of 64 – two years later than under current regulations. French reform efforts have historically prompted significant social unrest. Both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms were scrapped as a result of unrest, and the 2010 pension reform strikes forced the government to cut the most controversial parts of the bill. Labor unions have already called for strikes against the current bill in September. However, no pain, no gain. Unrest is a sign that ambitious reforms are being enacted, and Macron’s showdown with protesters thus far is no more dramatic than the unrest faced by the most significant European reform efforts. The 1984-85 U.K. miners’ strike led to over 10,000 arrested and significant violence, but resulted in the closures of most collieries, weakening of trade union power, and allowed the Thatcher government to consolidate its liberal economic program. German labor reforms in the early 2000s led to strikes, but marked a turning point in unemployment and GDP trends (Chart 16), and succeeded in increasing wages and pushing people back into the labor force (Chart 17). And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, but ultimately helped kick-start Spain’s recovery. Investors should therefore not fear unrest, and we expect any related uncertainty to abate in the medium term. Chart 16Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Chart 17...But Were Ultimately Favorable Note that Macron is doubling down on reforms after the experience of the Yellow Vest protests, just as his favorability has rebounded to pre-protest levels. While Macron’s approval is nearly the lowest compared to other French presidents at this point in their terms (Chart 18), he does not face an election until 2022, so he has the ability to trudge on in hopes that his reform efforts will bear fruit by that time. Spain: Our Spanish indicator is showing signs of increasing tensions as Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attempts to form a government. After ousting Mariano Rajoy in a vote of no confidence in June 2018, Sanchez struggled to govern with an 84-seat minority in Congress. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party’s (PSOE) proposed budget plan was voted down in Congress in February, forcing Sanchez to call a snap election for April 28 in which PSOE secured 123 seats. The PSOE leader failed the first investiture vote on July 23 – and the rerun on July 25 – with less votes in his favor than his predecessor Mariano Rajoy received during the 2015-2016 government formation crisis (Chart 19). In the first investiture vote, Sanchez secured 124 votes out of the 176 he needed to be sworn in as prime minister. This led to a second round of voting in which Sanchez needed a simple majority, which he failed to do with 124 affirmative, 155 opposing votes, and 67 abstentions. Going forward, Sanchez has two months to obtain the confidence of Congress, otherwise the King may dissolve the government, leading to a snap election. The Spanish government is more fragmented today than at any point during the last 30 years (Chart 20). Even if Pedro Sanchez’s PSOE were to successfully negotiate a deal with Podemos and its partner parties, the coalition would still require support from nationalist parties such as Republican Left of Catalonia or Basque Nationalist Party to govern. These will likely require major concessions relating to the handling of Catalonian independence, which, if rejected by PSOE, will result in yet another gridlocked government. The next two months will see a significant increase in political risk, and we assign a non-negligible chance to another election in November, the fourth in four years. Turkey: Investors should avoid becoming complacent on the back of the stream of encouraging news following the Turkey-Russia missile defense system deal. Our indicator is signaling that the market is pricing a decrease in tensions, and President Trump has stated that sanctions will not be immediate. Nevertheless, we would be wary. Congress is taking a much tougher stance on the issue than President Trump: The U.S. administration already excluded Turkey from the F-35 stealth fighter jet program; Senators Scott (R) and Young (R) introduced a resolution calling for sanctions; Senator Menendez (D) stated that merely removing Turkey from the F-35 program would not be enough; The new Defense Secretary nominee Mark Esper said that he was disappointed with Turkey’s “drift from the West”; And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed confidence that President Trump would impose sanctions. Under CAATSA, a law that targets companies doing business with Russia, the U.S. must impose sanctions on Turkey over the missile deal, but does not have a timeline to do so. The sanctions required are formidable, and the U.S. has already imposed sanctions on China for a similar violation. If President Trump is not going forward with sanctions now, he still could proceed later if Turkey does not improve U.S. relations in some other way. From Turkey’s side, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu threatened retaliation if the U.S. were to impose sanctions. Turkey is also facing increasing tensions domestically. Erdogan suffered a stinging rebuke in the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election. This defeat has left Erdogan even more insecure and unpredictable than before. On July 6, he fired central bank governor Murat Cetinkaya using a presidential decree, which calls the central bank’s independence into question. He may reshuffle his cabinet, which could make matters worse if the appointments are not market-friendly. As domestic tensions continue to escalate, and when the U.S. announces sanctions, we expect the lira to take yet another hit and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Diagram 3Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline Chart 21Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil: Brazilian risks are likely to remain elevated as the country faces crunch-time over the controversial pension reform on which its fiscal sustainability depends. Although the Lower House voted overwhelmingly in support of the reform on July 11, the bill needs to make it through another Lower House vote slated for August 6. The bill will then proceed to at least two more rounds of voting in the Senate (by end-September at the earliest), with a three-fifths majority required in each round before being enshrined in Brazil’s constitution (Diagram 3). The whole process will likely be delayed by amendments and negotiations. The estimated savings of the bill in its current form are about 0.9 trillion reals, down from the 1.236 trillion reals originally targeted, which risks undermining the effort to close the fiscal deficit. Our colleagues at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy still forecast a primary fiscal deficit in four years’ time (Chart 21).5 Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For instance, the U.S.’s latest $2.2 billion arms package does not include F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, and F-35s have entirely been ruled out. The Trump administration sent Paul Ryan, rather than a high-level cabinet member, to inaugurate the new office building of the American Institute in Taiwan for the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. At the same time, the Trump administration is threatening a more substantial upgrade of relations through more frequent arms sales, the Taiwan Travel Act (2018), and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (2018). 2 The risk is that history repeats itself. In 2007, then President George W. Bush sent the free-trade agreement with Colombia to Congress prior to securing Pelosi’s approval. She halted the fast-track timeline and the standoff lasted nearly five years. 3 Please see Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “USMCA Needs Democratic Votes: Will They Come Around?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, May 15, 2019, available at piie.com. 4 Bill C-100, as it is known, has already received its second reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights So what? Quantifying geopolitical risk just got easier. Why? In this report we introduce 10 proprietary, market-based indicators of country-level political and geopolitical risk. Featured countries include France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Brazil. Other countries, and refinements to these beta-version indicators, will come in due time. We remain committed to qualitative, constraint-based analysis. Our GeoRisk Indicators will help us determine how the market is pricing key risks, so we can decide whether they are understated or overstated. Feature For the past three months we have been tracking a “Witches’ Brew” of political risks that threaten the late-cycle bull market. Some of these risks have abated for the time being: the Fed is on pause, China’s stimulus has surprised to the upside, and Brexit has been delayed. Other risks we have flagged, however, are heating up: Iran And Oil Market Volatility: Surprisingly the Trump administration has chosen not to extend oil sanction waivers on Iran from May 2, putting 1.3 million barrels per day of oil on schedule to be removed from international markets by an unspecified time. It remains to be seen how rapidly and resolutely the administration will enforce the sanctions on specific allies and partners (Japan, India, Turkey) as well as rivals (China, others). Because the decision coincides with rising production risks from renewed fighting in Libya and regime failure in Venezuela, we expect President Trump to phase in the new enforcement over a period of months, particularly on China and India. But official rhetoric is draconian. Hence the potential for full and immediate enforcement is greater than we thought. In the short term, individual political leaders, and very powerful nations like the United States, can ignore material economic and political constraints. Since the Trump administration’s decision exemplifies this point, geopolitical tail risks will get fatter this year and next. Global oil price volatility and equity market volatility will increase with sanction enforcement actions and retaliation. We would think that Trump’s odds of reelection will marginally suffer, though for now still above 50%, as any full-fledged confrontation with Iran will raise the chances of an oil price-induced recession. U.S.-EU Trade War: Neither the Trump administration nor the U.S. has a compelling interest in imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of autos and auto parts. Nevertheless the risk of some tariffs remains high – we put it at 35% – because President Trump is legally unconstrained. The decision is technically due by May 18 but Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has said Trump may adjust the deadline and decide later. Later would make sense given the economic and financial risks of the administration’s decision to ramp up the pressure on Iran.1 But the risk that tariffs will pile onto a weak German and European economy will hang over investors’ heads. U.S.-China Talks Not A Game Changer: The ostensible demand that China cease Iranian oil imports immediately and the stalling of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea are not conducive to concluding a trade deal in May. We have highlighted many times that strategic tensions will persist even if Beijing and Washington quarantine these issues to agree to a short-term trade truce. The June 28-29 G20 meeting in Japan remains the likeliest date for a summit between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping, but even this timeframe could be too optimistic. Continued uncertainty or a weak deal will fail to satisfy financial markets expecting a very positive outcome. With a 70% chance that U.S. tariffs on China will not increase this year and, contingent on a U.S.-China deal, only a 35% chance that the U.S. slaps tariffs on German cars, we sound optimistic to some clients. But the Trump administration’s decision on Iran is highly market-relevant and portends greater volatility. We expect to see a geopolitical risk premium creep higher into oil markets as well as a greater risk of “Black Swan” events in strategically critical or oil-producing parts of the Middle East. There is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. We are late in the business cycle and President Trump has emphatically decided to increase rather than decrease geopolitical risk. Quantifying Geopolitical Risk Geopolitical analysis has taken a bigger role in investors’ decision-making over the last decade. Surveys show that geopolitical risks rank among global investors’ top concerns overall. In the oft-cited Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, geopolitical and related issues have dominated the “top tail risk” responses for the past half-decade (Chart 1). In other surveys, the most worrisome short-term risks are mostly political or geopolitical in nature, ranking above socio-economic and environmental risks (Chart 2). Despite this high level of concern, there is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. Isolating and measuring the range of risks under this umbrella term remains a challenge. As such, for many investors, geopolitics remains an ad hoc, exogenous factor that is often mentioned but rarely incorporated into portfolio construction. For the past four decades the predominant ways of measuring political or geopolitical risk have been qualitative or semi-qualitative. The Delphi technique, developed on the basis of low-quality data sets in social sciences, relies on pooled expert opinions.2 Independently selected experts are asked to provide risk assessments and their responses are then interpreted by analysts to create a measure of risk. Another semi-qualitative method of measuring geopolitical risk ranks countries according to a set of political and socio-economic variables. These variables – such as governance, political and social stability, corruption, law and order, or formal and informal policies – are extremely important but inherently difficult to quantify.3 These results are useful but suffer from dependency on expert opinion, data quality, and institutional biases. More importantly, these methods are slow to react to breaking events in a rapidly changing world. The same goes for bottom-up assessments using political intelligence. The weakness of these methods is that it is highly unlikely that they will produce statistically significant estimates of risk. The odds of getting a “silver bullet” insight from a “key insider” are decent for simple political systems, but not in the complex jurisdictions that host the vast majority of global, liquid investments. Quantitative approaches to measuring geopolitical risk have since become more widespread. The most prominent method is based on quantifying the occurrence of words related to political and geopolitical tensions that appear in international newspapers. These word-counts typically include terms like “terrorism,” “crisis,” “war,” “military action,” etc. As a result, the indices reflect incidents of physical violence or other “Black Swan” events that may not have direct relevance to financial markets. Moreover, while news-based indices accurately capture dramatic one-time peaks at the time of a crisis, they are largely flat aside from these, as they rely on popular topics rather than underlying structural trends (Chart 3). They fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with electoral cycles, protest movements, paradigm shifts in economic policy, or other policy changes.4 Notice, for instance, that the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and the resulting chaos in Russia and many other parts of the emerging world hardly register in Chart 3. Chart 3News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments Introducing BCA’s GeoRisk Indicators The past 70 years have taught BCA Research to listen and respect the market. Why would we suddenly follow the media instead? Most quantitative geopolitical indicators begin with the premise that journalists and the news-reading public have accurately emphasized the most relevant risks and uncertainties. They proceed to quantify the terms of these assessments with increasingly sophisticated methods. This approach solves only part of the puzzle. News-based indices ... fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with underlying policy changes. At BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we aim to generate geopolitical alpha.5 This means identifying where financial media and markets overstate or understate geopolitical risks. We do not primarily aim to predict events or crises. As such, traditional news-based indicators that capture only major events, even those ex post facto, are of little relevance to our analysis. What is needed is a better way to quantify how the market is calculating risks. We start with a simple premise: the market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd. Furthermore, it puts its money where its predictions are, unlike other methods of geopolitical risk quantification which have no “value at risk.” Chart 4USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... To this end, we have introduced market-based indicators over the years that rely on currency movements, which are often the simplest and most immediate means of capturing the process of pricing risk. In 2015, for instance, we introduced an indicator that measures Russia’s geopolitical risk premium (Chart 4). It is constructed using the de-trended residual from a regression of USD/RUB against USD/NOK and Russian CPI relative to U.S. CPI. We can show empirically that it captures geopolitical risk priced into the ruble, as the indicator increases following critical incidents. These include the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014; the warnings that Russia aimed to stage a “spring offensive” in Ukraine in 2015; Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War later that year; and the poisoning of former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in the U.K. in 2018 and subsequent tensions. Using similar methods, we created a proxy to capture geopolitical risk in Taiwan, based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 5). The indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It jumped upon Taiwan’s election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence government in January 2016 – and this was well before any tensions actually flared. It even registered a small increase upon her controversial phone call congratulating Donald Trump upon winning the U.S. election. Chart 5...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan This year we have expanded on this work, constructing a set of ten standardized GeoRisk Indicators for five developed economies and five emerging economies: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. Indicators for the U.S., China, and others will be rolled out in a future report. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into the various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. In each case, we look at whether the relevant assets are decreasing in value at a faster rate than implied by key explanatory variables. The explanatory variables consist of (1) an asset that moves together with the dependent variable while not responding to domestic geopolitical risks, and (2) a variable to capture the state of the economy. This set of indicators differs from our earlier indicators in the following ways: We aim to create a simple methodology that we can apply consistently to all countries, both in the DM and EM universes. We therefore omitted using regression models that can prove to be quite whimsical. Instead, we simply looked at the deviation of the dependent variable from the explanatory variables, all in expanding standardized terms, to create the GeoRisk proxy. We wanted an indicator that would immediately respond to priced-in risks, so we opted for a daily frequency rather than the weekly frequency we used in our initial work. To get as accurate of a signal as possible, we use point-in-time data. Since economic data tends to be released with a one-to-two-month lag, we lagged the economic independent variable to correspond to its release date. All ten indicators are shown in the Appendix. Across all countries, they track well with both short-term events and long-term trends in geopolitical risk. In the case of France, for example, the indicator steadily climbs during the period of domestic tensions and protests in the early 2000s; as the European debt crisis flares up; again during the rise of the anti-establishment Front National and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine; and finally during the U.S. trade tariffs and Yellow Vest protests (Chart 6). Our GeoRisk indicators isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more so than others. Similarly, in Germany, there is a general increase in perceived risk as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder implements structural reforms in the early 2000s; another increase leading up to the leadership change as Angela Merkel is elected Chancellor; another during the global and European financial crises; another during the Ukraine invasion and refugee influx; and finally another with the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 7). Chart 6Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Chart 7Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War We have annotated each country’s GeoRisk indicator heavily in the appendix so that readers can see for themselves the correspondence with political events. The indicators are affected by international developments – like the Great Recession – but we have done our best to isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more than other countries. (As a consequence, the Great Recession is muted in some cases.) What are the indicators telling us now? Most obviously, they highlight the extreme risk we have witnessed in the U.K. over the now-delayed March 29 Brexit deadline. We would bet against this risk as the political reality has demonstrated that a “hard Brexit” is very low probability: the U.K. has the ability to back off unilaterally while the EU is willing to extend for the sake of regional stability. In this sense the pound is a tactical buy, which our foreign exchange strategist Chester Ntonifor has highlighted.6 Our U.K. risk indicator has been fairly well correlated with the GBP/USD since the global financial crisis and it suggests that the pound has more room to rally (Chart 8). Chart 8Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Meanwhile, Spanish risks are overstated while Italy’s are understated. As for the emerging world, Turkish risks should be expected to spike yet again, as divisions emerge within the ruling coalition in the wake of critical losses in local elections and a failure to reassure investors over monetary policy and the currency. Brazilian risks will probably not match the crisis points of the impeachment and the 2018 election, at least not until controversial pension reforms reach a period of peak uncertainty over legislative passage. Both our new Russian indicator and its prototype are collapsing (see Chart 4 above). This captures the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in Russian affairs, where President Putin is attempting to shift focus to domestic stability even as the U.S. and the West maintain pressure on the economy to deter Russia from its aggressive foreign policy. Given that both Putin’s and the government’s approval ratings are low amid rising oil prices, the stage is set for Russia to take a provocative foreign policy action meant to distract the populace from its poor living conditions. Venezuela is the obvious candidate, but there are others. Moscow will want to test Ukraine’s newly elected, inexperienced president; it may also make a show of support for Iran. With Russia equities having rallied on a relative basis over the past year and a half, and with the Iranian waiver decision already boosting oil prices as we go to press, the window of opportunity to buy Russian stocks is starting to close. (We remain overweight relative to EM on a tactical horizon; our Emerging Markets Strategy is also overweight.) Going forward, we will update these risk indicators regularly as needed and publish the full appendix at the end of every month along with our long-running Geopolitical Calendar. We will also fine-tune the indicators as new information comes to light. In other words, here we present only the beta version. We hope that these indicators will help inform investors as to the direction, and even magnitude, of political risks as the market prices them. Our GeoRisk indicators are not predictive, as establishing a trend is not a prediction. The main purpose of this exercise is to answer the critical question, “What is already priced in?” How is the market currently calculating geopolitical risk for a country? After that, it is the geopolitical strategist’s job to unpack this question through qualitative, constraint-based analysis. It is when our qualitative assessments disagree with what is priced in that we can generate geopolitical alpha. Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Sean Higgins, “Auto tariffs decision could be delayed, Kudlow says,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com. 2 Norman C. Dalkey and Olaf Helmer-Hirschberg, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, Vol. 9, Issue: 3 (April 1963) pp. 458- 467. 3 Darryl S. L. Jarvis, “Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Measuring Political Risk: The Evolution of Theory and Method,” Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP08-004 (July 2008). William D. Coplin and Michael K. O'Leary, "Political Forecast For International Business," Planning Review, Vol. 11 Issue: 3 (1983) pp.14-23. The PRS Group, “Political Risk Services”™ (PRS) or the “Coplin-O’Leary Country Risk Rating System”™ Methodology. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 (September 2010). 4 Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, November 2016 (July 2016) pp.1593–1636. Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello, “Measuring Geopolitical Risk,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, Working Paper (January 2018). 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting,” dated July 9, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Not Out Of The Woods Yet,” April 5, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix France Appendix U.K. Appendix Germany Appendix Italy Appendix Spain Appendix Russia Appendix Korea Appendix Taiwan Appendix Turkey Appendix Brazil What’s On The Geopolitical Radar? Geopolitical Calendar
Dear Client, I am travelling this week so this report is a joint effort juxtaposing two contrasting observations about France. The ‘opulence’ part highlights France as the world’s dominant producer of luxury goods, and makes the case that some of the French luxury goods companies should form a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. The ‘rebellion’ part borrows from a recent Special Report on French politics penned by my colleague Jeremie Peloso. It analyses the recent yellow vest protests in France, and assesses whether they are a cause for concern. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Feature Opulence Made In France Global luxury goods sales amount to a quarter of a trillion dollars, and Europe dominates in the production of these luxury goods. Measured by the number of companies, the leading luxury goods country is Italy. But on the more important metric of share of total global sales, the undisputed world leader is France. In fact, just four French companies produce a quarter of the world’s luxury goods sales. The four are: LVMH, Kering, L’Oreal, and Hermes1 (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Table I-1). France’s luxury goods sector is an excellent diversifier for investors. This is because, compared to other goods and services, luxuries follow very different laws of economics: The demand for luxuries has a positive elasticity to price. Put more simply, the desirability of a luxury increases as its price goes up. This is opposite to the demand for non-luxuries which has a negative elasticity to price: for non-luxury items, the demand declines as the price goes up. By definition, you cannot compete with a luxury item by undercutting its price. Given that a luxury implies fine-craftsmanship rather than mass production, the sector is highly resilient to the existential threats confronting other European industries that emanate from out-sourcing to lower cost economies and from automation. Luxury demand is also relatively insensitive to exchange rate movements. The barrier to entry into the luxuries sector is extremely high. It takes years, or even decades, for a luxury item to acquire its premium status based on consistent high quality in materials and craftsmanship. This high barrier to entry makes it much harder for other economies to challenge the European and French dominance in providing these luxury products. Despite these attractive characteristics the sector does still require a source of structural demand. Our premise, expounded in our Special Report “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, is that the feminisation of consumer spending, particularly in Europe, is providing a strong structural tailwind to the demand for ‘soft’ luxury goods. A recent industry study by Deloitte corroborates this thesis, pointing out that the strongest growth in the luxury sector is to be found in cosmetics, fragrances, bags and accessories. On this premise, the four leading French companies are big beneficiaries.2,3 Are market valuations already aware of, and fully discounting, the thesis of feminisation of consumer spending? We think not, as most investors are surprised by the thesis and unaware of the on-going dynamics behind it. On this basis, three of the four French luxury companies, trading on forward PE multiples in the 20s or below, still appear reasonably valued for their growth prospects (Table I-2). The exception is Hermes which, on a multiple of 40, does seem richly priced. The bottom line is that the three other leading French luxury goods companies – LVMH, Kering, and L’Oreal – do deserve to be a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. Rebellion Made In France The yellow vest protest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. What started on the social media as a protest against the fuel tax in rural areas has evolved into a movement against President Macron. This transition occurred in part because a large segment of the population believes that Macron’s reforms have mainly benefited the wealthy. 77 percent of respondents in a recent poll view him as the “president of the rich.” The modification of the ‘wealth tax’ – which mostly shifts the focus toward real estate assets instead of financial assets – was highly criticized for favouring the wealthiest households. It resonated strongly with the perception that past governments helped the wealthiest households to accumulate more wealth on the back of the middle class. But it is not clear how intense or durable this popular sentiment will be, given that this type of inequality is not extreme in France and has not been rising (Chart I-3). Chart I-3What Income Inequality? Public support for the protests has hovered consistently around 70 percent since they started in November 2018 (Chart I-4). However, there are now more respondents who think that the protests should stop as that they should continue (Chart I-5). As a sign of things to come, a demonstration against the yellow vests and in support of Macron and his government – held by the “red scarves” – managed to gather more people on the streets of Paris than the regionally based yellow vests have done in the capital city.4 Who are the yellow vests? They are mostly rural, mostly hold a high school degree (or less), and overwhelmingly support anti-establishment political leaders Marine Le Pen (right-wing leader of the National Rally) or Jean-Luc Mélenchon (left-wing leader of La France Insoumise). This suggests that the movement has failed to cross the ideological aisle and win converts from the centre (Diagram I-1). How many French people are actually protesting? Although there was a slight pickup in protests at the beginning of January, the numbers countrywide are not high. In fact, they are far from what they were back in November and therefore would have to get much larger for markets to become concerned anew (Chart I-6). If we are to compare these protests to those in 1995 or 2010, the numbers pale in comparison (Table I-3). For instance, the protest of December 1995 brought a million people onto the streets while the demonstrations against the Woerth pension reform in 2010 lasted for seven months and gathered close to nine million protesters across eight different events (Chart I-7). We would compare the yellow vest protests to the 15-month long Spanish Indignados in 2011, which gathered between six and eight million protesters overall, and the U.S. Occupy Wall Street protests that same year. The two movements were similarly disorganized and combined disparate and often contradictory demands. In both cases, the governments largely ignored the protesters. Thus the yellow vests should not have a major impact on Macron’s reform agenda. As expected, Macron has not mentioned changing course on his most business-friendly reforms, which we see as a signal to investors that, despite the recent chaos, the plan remains the same. There is no strategic reason why Macron would reverse course. His popularity is already in the doldrums. His only chance at another term is to plough ahead and campaign in 2022 on his accomplishments. Nevertheless, to ensure that he does not plough into a rock, Macron will adjust course to calm the protesters. For example, the recent increase in the minimum wage that the government announced in response to the demonstrations was not supposed to be implemented until later in the presidential term. In a similar vein, pension reforms will likely be postponed given the ongoing protests. Macron hoped to introduce a universal, unified pension system by the middle of 2019 to replace an overly complex and fragmented system in which 42 different types of pension coexist, each one having its own rules of calculation. Though protests (both yellow vest and otherwise) have been unimpressive by historical standards, it might be too risky for the government to push the pension reform so close to these events. Such adjustments to the reform agenda should help reduce the protest movement’s fervour or otherwise its support. The bottom line is that the yellow vest protests were to be expected – they are the natural consequence of Emmanuel Macron’s push to reform the French economy and state. However, when compared to previous efforts to derail government reforms, the numbers simply do not stack up. Their disunited and broad objectives are likely to limit the effectiveness of the movement going forward.5 Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the case of L’Oreal this refers to the L’Oreal Luxe division. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, dated December 6, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Deloitte: Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2018, Shaping the future of the luxury industry 4 According to the government, 10,500 “red scarves” marched in Paris on January 27, 2018. 5 For the full report, please see the Geopolitical Strategy Special Report “France: La March A Suivre?”, dated February 27, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Cutting the size of the state might be what Macron needs to get out of that zone over the course of his term. Unlike the last two presidents, Macron’s term has begun with a whirlwind. If he stops now, it is highly unlikely that his support level will recover.…
The yellow vest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. The demands of the group are many: lower taxes, better services, less of the current reforms (specifically in education), and more of other reforms. Despite this lack of clarity, the…
The European economic slowdown shows no sign of ending. This morning, both the German Ifo and the Belgian business confidence decelerated further, with the former falling to 98.5 from 99.3, and the latter weakening from -1.5 to -1.7. Interestingly, as the…
Highlights The global economic mini-cycle is set to weaken while the euro is set to grind higher. Upgrade Telecoms to overweight. Also overweight Healthcare and Airlines. Underweight Banks, Basic Materials and Energy. Overweight France, Ireland, U.K., Switzerland and Denmark. Underweight Italy, Spain, Sweden and Norway. The Eurostoxx50 will struggle to outperform the S&P500. Feature We are strong believers in Investment Reductionism, a philosophy synthesized from the Pareto Principle and Occam's Razor.1 Investment reductionism offers a liberating thesis - the incessant barrage of investment research, newsfeeds and ten thousand word commentaries is largely superfluous to the investment process. What seems like a complexity of investment choice usually reduces to getting a few over-arching decisions right. Chart of the WeekIn Quadrant 4, Overweight Domestic Defensives And Underweight International Cyclicals For equity sector and country allocation, two over-arching decisions dominate: Whether the global economic mini-cycle is set to strengthen or weaken (Chart I-2). Whether the domestic currency is set to strengthen or weaken. Chart I-2The Empirical Evidence For Credit And Economic Mini-Cycles Is Irrefutable The four permutations of these two decisions create the four quadrants of cyclical investing (Chart of the Week). Right now, European investors find themselves in quadrant four: the global economic mini-cycle is set to weaken while the euro is set to grind higher. This favours an overweight stance to defensives, especially domestic-focused defensives. Therefore today, we are upgrading Telecoms to overweight. We also recommend an underweight stance to the most cyclical sectors, especially international-focused cyclicals such as Basic Materials and Energy. Country allocation then just drops out of this sector allocation. The Global Economic Mini-Cycle Is Set To Weaken We can predict the changes of the seasons and the tides of the sea with utmost precision. How? Not because we have an ingenious leading indicator for the seasons and tides, but because we recognise that these phenomena follow perfectly regular cycles. Regular cycles create predictability. Significantly, global bank credit flows also exhibit remarkably regular cycles with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months. Recognizing these mini-cycles is immensely powerful because, just as for the seasons and the tides, it creates predictability. Furthermore, if most investors are unaware of these cycles, the next turn will not be discounted in today's price - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the predictability. The empirical evidence for credit mini-cycles is irrefutable. The theoretical foundation is also rock solid, based on an economic model called the Cobweb Theory.2 This states that in any market where supply lags demand, both the quantity supplied and the price must oscillate. Given that credit supply clearly lags credit demand, the quantity of credit supplied and its price (the bond yield) must experience mini-cycles (Chart I-3). And as the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, economic activity will also experience the same regular oscillations. Today, the global 6-month credit impulse is turning from mini-upswing to mini-downswing, with all three subcomponents - the euro area, the U.S. and China - now in decline (Chart I-4). This is exactly in line with prediction. Mini half-cycles average eight months, and the latest mini-upswing started eight months ago. Chart I-3The Global Economic Mini-Cycle##br## Is Set To Weaken Chart I-4All Three Subcomponents Of The Global 6-Month ##br##Credit Impulse Are Now Declining More importantly, as we enter a mini-downswing, we can also predict that global growth is likely to experience at least a modest deceleration through the coming two to three quarters. The Euro Is Set To Grind Higher, Except Versus The Yen Chart I-5Lost In Translation Nowadays, mainstream stock markets tend to be eclectic collections of multinational companies which happen to be quoted on bourses in Frankfurt, Paris, New York, and so on. For example, BASF is not really a German chemical company, it is a global chemical company headquartered in Germany. For operational hedging, multinational companies like BASF will intentionally diversify their sales and profits across multiple major currencies, say euros and dollars. But of course, the primary stock market quotation will be in the currency of its home bourse, euros. Therefore, when the euro strengthens, the company's multi-currency profits, translated back into a stronger euro, will necessarily weaken (Chart I-5). Clearly, more domestic-focused companies like telecoms will not experience such a strong currency-translation headwind. We expect the main euro crosses to continue strengthening over the next 8 months, with the exception being the cross versus the Japanese yen. Our central thesis is that the payoff profile for a foreign exchange rate just tracks the bond yield spread. This means that when a central bank has already taken bond yields close to their lower bound, its currency possesses a highly attractive asymmetry called positive skew. In essence, as the ECB is at the realistic limit of ultra-loose policy, long-term expectations for the ECB policy rate possess an asymmetry: they cannot go significantly lower, but they could go significantly higher. Exactly the same applies to long-term expectations for the BoJ policy rate. In contrast, long-term expectations for the Fed policy rate possess full symmetry: they could go either way, lower or higher. This stark asymmetry of central bank 'degrees of freedom' favours the euro and the yen over the dollar. Which Sectors And Countries To Own And Which To Avoid? Pulling together the preceding two sections, the global economic mini-cycle is set to weaken while the euro is set to grind higher. This puts Europe in quadrant four of our four quadrant framework for cyclical investing. Unsurprisingly, the relative performance of the most cyclical sectors - Banks, Basic Materials and Energy - very closely tracks the regular mini-cycles in the global 6-month credit impulse. In a mini-downswing these cyclical sectors always underperform (Chart I-6, Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Accordingly, underweight these three sectors on a two to three quarter horizon. Chart I-6In A Mini-Downswing, ##br##Banks Always Underperform Chart I-7In A Mini-Downswing,##br## Basic Materials Always Underperform Chart I-8In A Mini-Downswing,##br## Energy Always Underperforms Conversely, overweight the relatively defensive Healthcare sector. Also overweight the Airlines sector. Airlines' performance is a mirror-image of the oil price cycle, given that aviation fuel comprises the sector's main variable cost. Furthermore, as aviation fuel is priced in dollars, it also insulates European Airlines against a strengthening euro. Today, we are also upgrading the Telecoms sector to overweight given its relative non-cyclicality (Chart I-9), its domestic-focus, and the excessively negative groupthink towards it (Chart I-10). Chart I-9In A Mini-Downswing, ##br##Telecoms Always Outperform Chart I-10Telecoms Are Due ##br##A Trend Reversal In summary: Overweight: Healthcare, Telecoms, and Airlines Underweight: Banks, Basic Materials and Energy Then to arrive at a country allocation, just combine the cyclical view on the major sectors with the country sector skews in Box 1. The result is the following unchanged European equity market allocation. Overweight: France, Ireland, U.K., Switzerland and Denmark Neutral: Germany and Netherlands Underweight: Italy, Spain, Sweden and Norway Lastly, what is the prognosis for the Eurostoxx50 relative to the S&P500? Essentially, this reduces to a battle between the multinational cyclicals - especially banks - that dominate euro area bourses and the multinational technology giants that dominate the U.S. stock market. With the global economic mini-cycle set to weaken and the euro set to grind higher, the Eurostoxx50 will struggle to outperform the S&P500. Box 1: The Vital Few Sector Skews That Drive Country Relative Performance For major equity indexes in the euro area, the dominant sector skews that drive relative performance are as follows: Germany (DAX) is overweight Chemicals, underweight Banks. France (CAC) is underweight Banks and Basic Materials. Italy (MIB) is overweight Banks. Spain (IBEX) is overweight Banks. Netherlands (AEX) is overweight Technology, underweight Banks. Ireland (ISEQ) is overweight Airlines (Ryanair) which is, in effect, underweight Energy. And for major equity indexes outside the euro area: The U.K. (FTSE100) is effectively underweight the pound. Switzerland (SMI) is overweight Healthcare, underweight Energy. Sweden (OMX) is overweight Industrials. Denmark (OMX20) is overweight Healthcare and Industrials. Norway (OBX) is overweight Energy. The U.S. (S&P500) is overweight Technology, underweight Banks. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The Pareto Principle, often known as the 80-20 rule, says that 80% of effects come from just 20% of causes. Occam's Razor says that when there are many competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11, 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade is to short the Helsinki OMX versus the Eurostoxx600. Apply a profit target of 3% with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that short Japanese Energy versus the market achieved its 8% profit target at which it was closed. This leaves four open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights French labor reforms stack up well against German and Spanish predecessors; We remain bullish on French industrials versus German industrials; Populism is overrated in Germany - European integration may not accelerate, but it will continue; The U.K.'s position remains weak in Brexit talks ... don't expect much from sterling. Feature On recent travels across Asia Pacific, the U.K., and the U.S., Europe has rarely featured in our conversations with clients. We proclaimed European politics a "trophy red herring" in our annual Strategic Outlook.1 Following the defeat of populists in Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, and particularly France, the market now agrees with us (Chart 1). Chart 1European Political Risk Was Overstated In this report, we ask whether there is anything left to say about Europe. First, we provide an update on French structural reforms, which we predicted with enthusiasm in February.2 Second, we give a post-mortem of the German election. Third, we dissect U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May's speech in Florence. We remain positive on near-term and mid-term prospects for European assets. We have recently closed our unhedged long Euro Area equities trade for a 7.88% gain (open from January 25 to September 6). We have reopened the position on September 6 with a currency hedge given our view that there is some downside risk for the euro in the near term. We also remain long French industrials / short German industrials, with gains of 9.30% since February 3. The French Revolution Continues President Emmanuel Macron has ignored tepid union protests and signed five decrees overhauling French labor rules on September 22. While there is more to be done, Macron's swift action just five months after assuming office justifies our optimism about France earlier this year. As we posited in February, investors are surprised every decade by a developed market that defies all stereotypes and catches the markets off guard with ambitious, pro-market and pro-business structural reforms. Margaret Thatcher's laissez-faire reforms pulled Britain out of the ghastly 1970s. Sweden surprised the world in the 1990s. At the turn of the century, Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) defied its own "socialist" label and moved the country to the right of the economic spectrum. Finally, the past decade's reform surprise came from Spain, which undertook painful labor and pension reforms that have underpinned its impressive recovery. How do French labor reforms stack up against the German and Spanish efforts? Table 1 surveys the measures and classifies them into three categories. On unemployment benefits, Macron's effort falls short of the considerable cuts implemented as part of the Hartz reforms in Germany. However, while benefits will still be generous, France's unemployed will now be cut off if they refuse job offers that pay within 25% of the salary they previously held. On increasing labor market flexibility, we give France high marks. Reforms will simplify the termination process for economic reasons and cap damages that can be awarded to employees, in line with the Spanish experience. Macron has also managed to neuter the power of national unions by allowing firm-level collective bargaining to take precedence. France's labor bargaining reform is also a carbon copy of the Spanish effort and both are attempts to create a more German-like management-employee context. Table 1Measuring French Reforms Against German And Spanish Reforms What should investors expect as a result? Spain is instructive. While its unemployment rate remains 5.8% above the Italian rate and 7.3% above the French rate, it still fell from a high of 26.3% in 2013 to 17.1% today. Meanwhile, Italian and French unemployment rates remain stubbornly high (Chart 2). In addition, Spain's export competitiveness has had one of the sharpest recoveries in Europe since 2008, whereas Italy and France continue to languish (Chart 3). Spain accomplished this feat via a considerable reduction in labor costs relative to peers (Chart 4). Chart 2Italy, France: Unemployment Still High Chart 3Spain Regained Competitiveness Chart 4Spain Cut Labor Costs The key pillar of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's reforms was to create a more flexible labor market so as to restore competitiveness to the economy by aligning labor costs with productivity. Reforms, passed in February 2012, removed stringent collective bargaining agreements and replaced them with firm-level agreements. This has made it easier for firms to negotiate their own labor conditions, including reducing wages as an alternative to termination of employment. France is now on the path to do the same. True, it is difficult to establish a clear causal connection between Rajoy's structural reforms and Spain's economic performance since 2008. Nevertheless, reforms also work as a signaling mechanism, encouraging investment and unleashing animal spirits by affirming the government's commitment to a pro-business agenda. Under Rajoy's leadership, Spain has moved from 62nd in the World Bank "Ease of Doing Business" survey in 2009 to 32nd in 2017, 18 spots above Italy. Given the speed and commitment of the Macron administration, we would expect an even stronger signaling effect in France. German Hartz reforms are easier to assess because more time has passed since 2005 (when the final stage, Hartz IV, was implemented). Prior to the reforms, Germany's GDP growth rate was falling and unemployment was rising (Chart 5). At least on these two broad measures, it appears that reforms were positive. Chart 5Hartz Reforms Marked Turning Point In Germany Chart 6German Long-Term Unemployment Benefits Were Cut Down To OECD Average Germany's problem prior to the Hartz reforms was that generous unemployment benefits discouraged unemployed workers from finding employment. Long-term benefits could be as high as 53% of the terminated salary and eligible for indefinite renewal! The Hartz IV reforms specifically targeted these benefits, with the intention of forcing the unemployed to get back to work. Germany brought these benefits into line with the OECD average (Chart 6). The long-term impact of the Hartz reforms was a dramatic decline in the unemployment rate from a bottom of 9.2% in 2001 to the still falling 3.7% of today! Reforms have also seen a steady increase in wage growth, despite the conventional view saying the opposite. Wages have been steadily rising since implementation in 2005, only slowing down during the global financial crisis and the subsequent European debt crisis (Chart 7). This does not mean that labor reforms failed. The intention of the Hartz reforms was to push people back into the labor force, not necessarily suppress their wages. Chart 8 shows the effect on the hours worked in the economy, with a clear uptrend after the reform was enacted. Chart 7German Wages Recovered... Chart 8...While Working Hours Increased In line with the previous labor reform efforts in Europe, we think that investors should expect three broad developments from French labor reforms: Competitiveness: As Chart 3 suggests, Spain and Germany have had the best export performance in Europe. By allowing companies some flexibility in setting costs, these economies were able to regain export competitiveness. As a play on this theme, we are long French industrials relative to German peers. Unemployment: Forcing the unemployed back to the labor market by ending their unemployment benefits if they refuse a job offer within 25% of the previous income level should encourage workers to get back to the labor force. Confidence: Macron's labor reforms are only the beginning of a packed agenda that also includes reducing the size of the public sector, reducing the wealth tax on productive assets, and cutting corporate taxes significantly. What of the opposition to the reform effort? What if the French leadership backs down in the face of protest? First, we must ask, what protest? The labor union response has been underwhelming. In part, this is because Macron's reforms are packed with pro-union clauses. The intention is to empower union activity at the firm level in order to neuter its activity at the national level. Second, Macron's electoral victory was overwhelming, both the presidential and legislative. Yes, turnout was low. And yes, many voted for Macron just so that Marine Le Pen would not become president. But the fact remains that 85% of the seats in the National Assembly are held by pro-reform parties, including the pro-business, right-wing Les Républicains, who want even stricter reforms. Bottom Line: Our clients, colleagues, friends, and family all tell us that France will not reform. But we have seen this film before, with Germany in the 2000s and Spain in the 2010s. One day, investors will wake up and France will be more competitive. Fin. A German Election Post-Mortem The media narrative before and after the German election tells of the rise of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a far-right party that campaigned on an anti-EU and anti-immigration platform. Indeed, the performance of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and center-left Social-Democratic Party (SPD), which have dominated German politics since the Second World War, was historically poor (Chart 9). Chart 9Germany's Dominant Parties Underperformed... Despite the media hysterics, there were no surprises this year. The AfD performed in line with its polls, only outperforming their long-term polling average by around 2%. Meanwhile, the historic underperformance of the CDU and SPD was also due to the solid performance of the other two establishment parties, the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the center-left Greens (Chart 10). The FDP stormed back into the Bundestag by more than doubling their performance from 2013, while the Greens maintained their roughly 9% performance. Die Linke, a left-wing party whose Euroskeptic tendencies have dissipated, also gained around 9% of the vote. From a historical perspective, the combined CDU and SPD performance was bad, but roughly in line with their 2009 election result. Chart 10... While Minor Parties Outperformed That said, there was no once-in-a-lifetime global recession this time around to excuse the poor performance of the two establishment parties. German GDP growth is set to be 2.1% in 2017 and the unemployment rate is at a historic 3.7%. Meanwhile, support for the euro is at 81% (Chart 11), which begs the question of why 12.6% voters decided to entrust AfD with their votes. Chart 11Germans Love The Euro The simple answer is immigration and the 2015 asylum crisis. The more complex answer is that AfD's performance was particularly strong in East Germany, where the party is now the second largest after the CDU. The same forces that fueled the Brexit referendum and the election of President Donald Trump are at work in Germany. Voters who feel left behind by the transition to a globalized, service-oriented economy have rebelled against a system that favors the educated and mobile voters. In Germany, the angst is particularly notable in the East, where economic progress has lagged that of the rest of the country. On the other hand, it is ludicrous to compare AfD to Brexit and Trump. After all, AfD received only 12% of the vote. This is in line with, or slightly trails, the performance of other right-wing parties in Europe (Chart 12). Yes, it is disturbing to see a far-right party back in the Bundestag, but it was also naïve to believe that Germany could remain a European outlier forever. In fact, like other right-wing parties in Europe, the party is beset with internal rivalries. Party chairwoman Frauke Petry, who represents the moderate wing of the party, decided to quit one day after the election.3 We would suspect that the party will struggle going forward, particularly now that the influx of asylum seekers has trickled down to insignificance (Chart 13). Chart 12German Far Right Performed In Line With Other European Anti-Establishment Parties Chart 13Refugee Crisis Is Over In Germany And Europe Going forward, Chancellor Angela Merkel will retain her hold on power. However, she will likely have to do so via a "Jamaica coalition" with the FDP and the Greens.4 Forming such a challenging coalition could take until the New Year. Particularly problematic are the positions of the FDP and the Greens on Europe. The former are mildly Euroskeptic, the latter are rabidly Europhile. Merkel's 2009-13 coalition with the FDP was similarly challenging. The FDP moved towards soft Euroskepticism after the Great Financial Crisis. It combined with CDU's Bavarian sister party - the Christian Social Union (CSU)5 - to vote against a number of European rescue efforts and institutional changes (Chart 14). Merkel had to rely on the opposition SPD, which is staunchly Europhile, to push several European reforms through the Bundestag. More broadly, both the FDP and the CSU were a brake on Merkel during this period, leading to Berlin's halting response to the Euro Area crisis. Chart 14The FDP Hampered German Rescue Efforts Amid Euro Crisis Going forward, a Jamaica coalition is investment-relevant for three reasons: First, it would likely pour cold water on recent enthusiasm about accelerated European integration spurred by the election of President Emmanuel Macron in France. But investors should not read too much into it. As Chart 11 clearly illustrates, Germans are not Euroskeptic. The Euro Area works for Germany. If there is a future crisis, Germany will react to it in an integrationist fashion, shoving aside any coalition agreements to the contrary. And if Merkel has to rely on opposition SPD votes to push through the evolving European agenda, she will do so, regardless of what is said between now and December. Second, Merkel will have to respond to the poor performance of her party. She has to give in to the right wing on illegal immigration. Investors should expect to see tighter border enforcement on Europe's external borders. More relevant to the markets, we expect mildly Euroskeptics critics in her own party, as well as in the FDP and CSU, to be satisfied by officially pushing for Jens Weidmann's presidency at the ECB. Weidmann has recently toned down his criticism of ECB policies - publically defending low interest rates - which is likely a strategy to make himself palatable as the next president. Third, it is widely being discussed that the FDP will demand the finance ministry from Merkel, replacing Wolfgang Schäuble. This would definitely complicate any future efforts to deal with Euro Area sovereign debt crises, were they to emerge. However, the FDP is making a mistake. If they take the finance portfolio, they will be signing off on bailouts in the future. That is a guarantee. Europe is full of moderately Euroskepic finance ministers who have done the same (see: Austria, Finland, and the Netherlands in particular). Finally, the election was a clear failure by Merkel to defend her brand. While she has not signaled a willingness to resign, it is highly likely that she will try to groom her successor over the next four years. The 63 year-old has been in power since 2005. At the moment, the list of potential names for CDU leadership is long, but devoid of star power (Box 1). The one quality of all the potential candidates, however, is that they are pro-Europe. Bottom Line: In the short term, markets have read German elections overly negatively. The euro reacted on the news as if the currency bloc breakup risk premium had risen. It hasn't. In fact, the election could prove to be a long-term bullish euro outcome, given that Merkel will likely have to acquiesce to Jens Weidmann's candidacy for the ECB presidency. The German Bundestag remains overwhelmingly pro-Europe. The now-in-opposition SPD is pro-integration, as are the likely new coalition members, the Greens. Die Linke has evolved from anti-capitalist, soft Euroskeptics to left-of-SPD Europhiles. While FDP remains committed to a mildly Euroskeptic line (pro-Europe, but opposed to further integration), its members will likely have to sacrifice this position in order to be in government in the long term. They won't say that they are doing that, but trust us, they are. The performance of Germany's populist right wing is largely in line with that of other European countries. As such, it signals that Germany is a "normal country," not that there is something particularly disturbing going on. Box 1 Likely Successors To German Chancellor Angela Merkel If Merkel decides to retire, who are her potential successors? Ursula von der Leyen (CDU): Leyen, who has served most recently as defense minister, is often cited as a likely replacement for Merkel. However, she is not seen favorably by most of the population: she has not won first place in her district in any of the past three general elections. She is a strong advocate of further European integration and has supported the creation of a "United States of Europe." Leyen has argued that the European refugee crisis and debt crisis are similar in that they will ultimately force Europe to integrate further. As a defense minister, she has promoted the creation of a robust EU army. She has also been a hardliner on Brexit, saying that the U.K. will not re-enter the EU in her lifetime. The markets and pro-EU elites in Europe would love Leyen, who handled U.S. President Trump's statements on Germany, Europe, Russia and NATO with notable tact. Thomas De Maizière (CDU): Maizière, who has served as minister of interior and minister of defense, is a close confidant of Chancellor Merkel. He was her chief of staff from 2005 to 2009. Like Schäuble, he is somewhat of a hawk on euro area issues (he drove a hard bargain during negotiations to set up a fiscal backstop, the European Financial Stability Fund, in 2010) and as such could become a compromise candidate between the Europhiles and Eurohawks within CDU ranks. Though he has been implicated in scandals as defense minister, he has remained popular by drawing a relatively hard line on immigration policy and internal security. Julia Klöckner (CDU): A CDU deputy chairwoman from Rhineland-Palatinate, Klöckner is a socially conservative protégé of Merkel and a hence a likely candidate to replace her. While remaining loyal to Merkel, she has taken a more right-wing stance on the immigration crisis. She is a staunch Europhile who has portrayed the Euroskeptic AfD as "dangerous, sometimes racist," though she has insisted that AfD voters are not all "Nazis" but are mostly in the middle of the political spectrum and need to be won back by the CDU. We think that she would be a very pro-market choice as she combines a popular, market-irrelevant wariness about immigration with a market-relevant centrism that favors further European integration. Hermann Gröhe (CDU): Gröhe last served as minister of health and is a former CDU secretary general. He is very close to Merkel. He is a staunch supporter of the euro and European integration. Markets would have no problem with Gröhe, although they may take some time to get to know who he is! Volker Bouffier (CDU): As Minister President of Hesse, home of Germany's financial center Frankfurt, Bouffier is in a position to capitalize on Brexit. He is a heavyweight within the CDU's leadership and a staunch Europhile. He has already declared he will run for the top state office again in 2018, though he will be 67 years old by then. The U.K.: Fall In Florence Prime Minister Theresa May tried to reset Brexit negotiations with the EU recently by giving a speech in Florence. We were told by clients and colleagues that it would be an important event, so we tuned in and listened. The speech was largely a dud. It confirmed to us the constraints on London's negotiating position as well as the challenges that Brexit poses to the British economy. May's team is struggling to navigate both. There are three things that investors should take from the speech - most which we have been emphasizing for over a year: The EU exit bill: The U.K. will pay. The one concrete point that Prime Minister May agreed with, for the first time ever, is that London will continue to pay into the current EU seven-year budget period (2014-2020). This should never have been in doubt. Britain's refusing to pay would be the equivalent of a tenant giving notice that he is ending his lease in 24 months, then refusing to pay in the interim. What May did not say is whether the U.K. would pay anything beyond its share of contribution to the EU budget. At the moment, the answer appears to be no, but we don't expect that to be the final word. Services really (really) matter: The U.K. has a competitive advantage in services. This is why May has tried to signal that she wants the broadest trade deal possible, since regular free trade agreements (FTAs) do not provide for deep integration in services. What will the U.K. give in return? May appears to want a Norway-type EU trade agreement with Canada-type liabilities. This won't fly in Brussels. The transition deal will last two years at minimum: This was never in doubt. But due to domestic political pressures, May was afraid of voicing it in public until today. Below we provide excerpts of the most relevant (or irrelevant, but comical) parts of May's speech.6 Our running commentary is in brackets. Theresa May's Florence Speech On Brexit, September 2017: A Reinterpretation By GPS It's good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began - a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European. [GPS: Strong opening by May. Odd location for the speech, however. Unless she was looking to ingratiate herself with Matteo Renzi, former mayor of Florence, former prime minister of Italy, and current leader of the ruling Democratic Party]. * * * The British people have decided to leave the EU; and to be a global, free-trading nation, able to chart our own way in the world. For many, this is an exciting time, full of promise; for others it is a worrying one. I look ahead with optimism, believing that if we use this moment to change not just our relationship with Europe, but also the way we do things at home, this will be a defining moment in the history of our nation. [GPS: This is a crucial argument by proponents of Brexit, that leaving the EU is not just about leaving the bloc's oversight, but also about domestic renewal. At the heart of this view is the belief that the EU has shackled the U.K.'s potential economic output with its regulatory oversight and protectionist trade policies. For this to be true, the U.K. has to replace significance labor force growth - from the EU Labor Market - with even greater productivity growth. If the U.K. fails to do this, its potential GDP growth rate will be substantively lower in the future. We do not buy the optimism. For one, the EU has not been a drag on the U.K.'s World Bank Ease Of Doing Businness rankings, where the country ranks seventh. Second, several other EU member states are in the top 20, including Sweden, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Ireland and Austria. Third, developed economies have been dealing with sub-standard productivity growth for over a decade, both EU members and non-members. As such, we are pretty certain that the U.K.'s potential GDP growth rate will be lower over the next decade, not higher.] And it is an exciting time for many in Europe too. The European Union is beginning a new chapter in the story of its development. Just last week, President Juncker set out his ambitions for the future of the European Union. [GPS: A nod to the reality that without the U.K. stalling its integration, Europe is now better able to build its "ever closer union." May is essentially conceding here to Charles de Gaulle's argument, articulated in the 1960s, that letting Britain into the club would ultimately be a mistake.]7 There is a vibrant debate going on about the shape of the EU's institutions and the direction of the Union in the years ahead. We don't want to stand in the way of that. [GPS: Reality check: it has literally been the foreign policy of the U.K. to "stand in the way of" of a united Europe for at least six hundred years ...] * * * Our decision to leave the European Union is in no way a repudiation of this longstanding commitment. We may be leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. Our resolve to draw on the full weight of our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development resources to lead international action, with our partners, on the issues that affect the security and prosperity of our peoples is unchanged. Our commitment to the defence - and indeed the advance - of our shared values is undimmed. Our determination to defend the stability, security and prosperity of our European neighbours and friends remains steadfast. [GPS: As we have argued repeatedly, the U.K. and EU share crucial geopolitical and economic links. As such, it is difficult to see negotiations devolving into the sort of acrimony that many have expected. May understands this and is reminding Europe of how important the U.K. role is, and will continue to be, geopolitically for Europe.] * * * The strength of feeling that the British people have about this need for control and the direct accountability of their politicians is one reason why, throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union. [GPS: A not-so-slight dig at Europe. Basically, May is saying that U.K. voters live in a democracy. EU voters live in something else.] And perhaps because of our history and geography, the European Union never felt to us like an integral part of our national story in the way it does to so many elsewhere in Europe. [GPS: This is true and can be empirically measured (Chart 15).] Chart 15Brits Have A Strong Sense Of National Identity * * * For while the UK's departure from the EU is inevitably a difficult process, it is in all of our interests for our negotiations to succeed. If we were to fail, or be divided, the only beneficiaries would be those who reject our values and oppose our interests. [GPS: This is all true and very well put. But it also appears to be a line of argument designed to tug at Europe's emotional strings. Like a husband asking his wife to take it easy on him in a divorce "for the sake of the children."] So I believe we share a profound sense of responsibility to make this change work smoothly and sensibly, not just for people today but for the next generation who will inherit the world we leave them. [GPS: Literally the line about the kids followed immediately!] * * * But I know there are concerns that over time the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens overseas will diverge. I want to incorporate our agreement fully into UK law and make sure the UK courts can refer directly to it. Where there is uncertainty around underlying EU law, I want the UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation. On this basis, I hope our teams can reach firm agreement quickly. [GPS: An important concession - the first in the speech so far, and we are more than halfway through: London will apparently take into account ECJ rulings when dealing with EU citizens living in the U.K. That is a huge concession to Europe and an arrangement unlike anywhere else in the world.] * * * The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. We will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. For we understand that the single market's four freedoms are indivisible for our European friends. We recognise that the single market is built on a balance of rights and obligations. And we do not pretend that you can have all the benefits of membership of the single market without its obligations. [GPS: As we have said in the past, May's decision to concede this point in January was a major concession to the EU and is the reason that the negotiations are not and will not be acrimonious. If the U.K. demanded access to the Common Market without accepting the "four freedoms," it would have received an acrimonious response, given that its request would have been construed as "special treatment."] So our task is to find a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership but holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance. But as we work out together how to do so, we do not start with a blank sheet of paper, like other external partners negotiating a free trade deal from scratch have done. In fact, we start from an unprecedented position. For we have the same rules and regulations as the EU - and our EU Withdrawal Bill will ensure they are carried over into our domestic law at the moment we leave the EU. [GPS: May is correct. The EU-U.K. trade negotiations should be relatively smooth given that the U.K. is not starting from scratch in negotiating the relationship. The Canada-EU FTA took seven years because they were starting from scratch.] So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes. One way of approaching this question is to put forward a stark and unimaginative choice between two models: either something based on European Economic Area membership; or a traditional Free Trade Agreement, such as that the EU has recently negotiated with Canada. I don't believe either of these options would be best for the UK or best for the European Union. European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home - automatically and in their entirety - new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote. [GPS: We pointed out why such an arrangement would be illogical in March 2016. Essentially, the U.K. would leave the EU due to its onerous regulation and infringement on sovereignty only to accept the onerous regulation as a fait accompli with no room for British sovereignty (Diagram 1)!] Diagram 1The Central Paradox Of Brexit Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people. I fear it would inevitably lead to friction and then a damaging re-opening of the nature of our relationship in the near future: the very last thing that anyone on either side of the Channel wants. As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognise that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU. But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies. [GPS: This is, by far, the most critical part of May's speech. She is essentially saying that a Canadian FTA deal would benefit the EU more than it benefits the U.K., a point we have made for nearly two years now. This is true. The U.K. needs access to the EU services market, where British exporters have a comparative advantage. Were they to secure an FTA deal with the EU instead, they would be giving Europe a massive advantage, given the bloc's comparative advantage in tradable goods (Chart 16). However, this takes us back to Diagram 1. What kind of a relationship does May expect to get from the EU when she is unwilling to accept any of the liabilities inherent in such a deep trade deal? That is precisely what the Common Market is for.] Chart 16Brexit Hinders U.K.'s Comparative Advantage Bottom Line: Prime Minister May's Florence speech has shown the limits of the U.K.'s negotiating position. May set a friendly tone with Europe, but she has nothing to bargain with. Much of the speech reiterated British commitment to Europe's security and its capacity to defend the continent from external threats. In exchange, May argues, the U.K. ought to receive the deepest and most expansive access to the EU Common Market without any of the liabilities that go with it. In particular, she wants access to the EU's services market, where U.K. exporters have a comparative advantage. The problem with the tradeoff between U.K. geopolitical benefits and EU economic benefits is that it suggests that London has an alternative to being a geopolitical ally to Europe! As if it could suddenly shift its geopolitical, military, and diplomatic focus elsewhere. Berlin, Brussels, and Paris will call London's bluff. The U.K. is not in North America, it is in Europe. As such, Europe's problems are the U.K.'s problems, and the U.K. must defend against them even if it receives little in return. We expect the U.K. to succumb to the reality that the EU holds most of the cards in the negotiations. The U.K. will have a lower potential GDP growth rate after Brexit. But before Brexit is solidified, we expect considerable domestic political upheaval. In the short term, there is some upside for the pound. In the long term, it is a sell. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Although she has herself played a role in kicking out the original, even more moderate, founders of the party. 4 The CDU, FDP, and Greens coalition is dubbed the "Jamaica coalition" because of their traditional colors - black, yellow, and green - which combine to make the colors of the Jamaican flag. 5 The CSU does not directly compete against the CDU on the federal level. It only fields candidates in Bavaria, where the CDU does not compete. 6 For the full transcript, please see "Theresa May's Florence speech on Brexit, full text," The Spectator, September 22, 2017, available at blogs.spectator.co.uk. 7 In turn, this will allow the EU to build up its power, develop a navy, and finally conquer the British Isles with a new armada somewhere around 2066! Geopolitical Calendar