Oriente Medio

Feature One of BCA Research’s key geopolitical views since May 2019, outlined recently in our 2020 Outlook, is rapidly materializing: a dramatic escalation in the US-Iran conflict. On January 3 the United States successfully conducted a drone strike against a convoy carrying two high-level targets near the Baghdad International Airport. These were Iranian General Qassim Soleimani and his key Iraqi associate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. The former, Soleimani, was Iran’s most influential military and intelligence leader, and one of its most powerful leaders overall. He was the head of the formidable Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the staunchest military wing of the regime at home and abroad. The latter target, al-Muhandes, was the head of Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah militia and the broader coalition of pro-Iran Shiite militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This coalition was partly responsible for defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Since then it has sought to consolidate Iranian influence in Iraq, pushing back against Iraqi Sunnis and Shia nationalists, and their allies in the US and Persian Gulf. Chart 1Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions The US assassinations follow a significant increase in Iranian and Iran-backed militant attacks against US allies in the Middle East this year. These stem from a breakdown in the US-Iran diplomatic detente that was enshrined in the 2015 nuclear agreement. President Donald Trump revoked this agreement in 2018 and in May 2019 imposed crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and economy — initiating a “bull market” in US-Iran strategic tensions (Chart 1). Recent events show a clear path of strategic escalation — even in the wake of a summer of “fire and fury” and the extraordinary Iran-backed attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery in September. Widespread popular unrest has dissolved the Iraqi government, creating intense competition between Iraqi nationalists, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iran’s proxies, led by al-Muhandes and the PMF. This unrest marked a significant challenge to Iran’s sphere of influence and necessitated an Iranian backlash. For instance, al-Sadr’s enemies attacked his headquarters with a drone in early December. Meanwhile Kataib Hezbollah launched a spate of rocket strikes against US and Iraqi bases that culminated in the death of an American contractor near Kirkuk on December 28 — crossing an American red line. The US retaliated with damaging air strikes against Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria on December 29, prompting a PMF blockade of the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. While this was a limited blockade, the US has now retaliated by assassinating Soleimani and al-Muhandes, taking the conflict to a new level. There is every reason to expect tensions to escalate further in the new year. First, the Iranian regime is under severe economic stress due to the US sanctions and broader global slowdown (Charts 2A&B). Domestic protests have erupted in recent years, while the regime struggles with economic isolation, a restless youth population, and a looming succession when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei eventually steps down. This is an existential struggle for the regime, while President Trump may only be in office for 12 months. Public opinion polls show that the Iranian populace blames the government for economic mismanagement, and yet that the renewed conflict with the US under the Trump administration is shifting the blame to US sanctions (Chart 3). Hence the regime will continue to distract the populace by resisting Trump’s pressure tactics. Chart 2ARegime Survival ... Chart 2B... An Existential Challenge     Chart 3US Conflict Distracts From Domestic Woes This tendency will be reinforced by the death of Soleimani, which heightens the regime’s vulnerability while rallying domestic support due to Soleimani’s popularity as a leader (Chart 4). The regime is looking to its survival over the long run. It would be a remarkable shift in policy for Tehran to enter negotiations with Trump, since it would then risk vindicating his “maximum pressure” doctrine, possibly helping him secure a second term in office. Chart 4Hard-Line Soleimani Was Popular (Reformist President Rouhani Is Not) Meanwhile President Trump’s circumstances are apparently urging him to double down on his aggressive foreign policy against Iran. First, while he will not be removed from office by a Republican Senate, his impeachment trial threatens to mar his re-election chances. This is a prime motivation to pursue foreign policy objectives to distract the public and seek policy wins. Chart 5Falling Oil Import Dependency Emboldens US Second, the Trump administration may feel emboldened by the rise of US shale oil production and decline in US oil import dependency (Chart 5). Simulations we published in our December 6 Strategic Outlook show that Iran would have to sustain an oil supply cutoff as large as the Abqaiq attack for four months in order to drive gasoline prices high enough to harm the US economy as a whole. This buffer may have convinced Trump he has plenty of room for maneuver in confronting Iran. Third, Trump undoubtedly feels the need to maintain the credibility of his threats against Iran, North Korea, and other nations given his impeachment, widely known electoral and economic vulnerability, and his recent capitulation to China in the trade war. The clear threat by Iran to create a humiliating US embassy crisis in Baghdad likely struck a nerve in the White House, reviving memories of Saigon under Gerald Ford, Tehran under Jimmy Carter, and Benghazi under Barack Obama. By taking the offensive, President Trump has reinforced the red line against the death of American citizens or attacks on US assets. Nevertheless he now runs the risk of driving Iran into further escalation rather than negotiation. Iran is not yet likely to court a full-scale American attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. It is more likely to retaliate via regional proxy attacks, including cutting off oil production, pipelines, and shipping — at a time of its choosing. If Trump’s pressure tactics succeed, it will advance its nuclear program rather than staging large-scale attacks. Investment Conclusions Iraqi instability will worsen as a result of the past month’s events, bringing 3.5 million barrels of daily oil production under a higher probability of disruption than when we first flagged this risk. Supply disruptions there or elsewhere in the region would hasten the drawdown in global inventories and backwardation of prices occurring due to the revival in global demand on China stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. Continued oil volatility, as in 2018-19, should be expected, but the risk for now lies to the upside as Middle East tensions could cause an overshoot. We remain long Brent crude and overweight energy sector equities. Second, the US election — and hence US domestic and foreign policy over the next five years — could hang in the balance if the Iran conflict escalates to broader and more open hostilities as we expect. President Trump is favored for re-election. Yet we have contended since 2018 that the revocation of the Iran nuclear deal was a grave geopolitical decision that could jeopardize Trump’s economy and hence re-election — and that remains the case. Chart 6Trump 'Maximum Pressure' A Gamble In 2020 Trump was elected in part because he is viewed as strong on terrorism, and the confrontation with Iran and its proxies will reinforce that reputation in the short run. Iranian attacks will also boost Trump’s approval rating, other things being equal. However, much can change by November. Jimmy Carter’s election troubles with Iran point to a serious risk to Trump, as the initial surge in patriotic support could turn sour over time if unemployment rises as a result of any oil shocks (Chart 6). Even George Bush Jr saw a dramatic fall in approval, from a much higher base than Trump, despite foreign policy conditions that were more transparently favorable to him in 2004 than any conflict with Iran will be to Trump in 2020. Trump has campaigned against Middle Eastern wars to a war-weary public, so the rally around the flag effect will not necessarily play to his favor in the final count. It is too soon to speculate about these matters — our view remains unchanged — but the Iran conflict is now much more likely to be a major factor in the US election and Iran is certainly capable of frustrating US presidents. This reinforces our base case that Trump is only slightly favored to win. Moreover his foreign policy conflicts — in Asia as well as the Middle East — ensure that global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated despite dropping off from the highs reached last year amid the trade war. We remain long pure play global defense stocks on a cyclical and secular basis. We see gold as the appropriate hedge given our expectation that the trade ceasefire and China stimulus will reinforce a global growth recovery despite Middle Eastern turmoil. Higher oil prices push up inflation expectations and limit any benefit to government bonds.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Lebanon and Iraq – the two countries most entrenched in Iran’s sphere of influence – are experiencing mass unrest. Protesters in both states are calling for the dismantling of sectarian based political systems, economic reforms, and reduced foreign interference. The unrest in Iraq is of greater consequence due to its role as a major global oil supplier. The widening rift between the rival Iraqi Shia blocs implies that any détente will be temporary.  We remain tactically long spot crude oil on the back of the geopolitical risks to supply amid an expected revival in global demand. Feature A wave of popular uprisings has swept over Lebanon and Iraq. While the riots are to a large extent a product of long-standing economic and governance failures, the timing is consequential. The Middle East is experiencing a paradigm shift. With the US reducing its strategic commitment to the region, most recently evidenced by the withdrawal of its troops from northeast Syria, a power vacuum has emerged. This opens up the necessity for foreign actors – Russia – as well as regional powers – Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey – to fill the void. The evolution of power could be unsettling given that it will likely generate greater instability in a region that is fertile ground for unrest. Iran has so far emerged a winner in this dynamic. It has expanded its influence in Iraq since the US pullout, it has played a critical role in saving the Assad regime, and it has seen Saudi initiatives fail in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Qatar. It is making progress toward building its ‘land bridge’ to the Mediterranean (Map 1).1 Map 1Iran’s Aspirational ‘Land Bridge’ To The Mediterranean The tensions brought about by the US withdrawal from the JCPOA further illustrate Iran’s growing regional sway. It has hardened its stance. Meanwhile the US and its allies have been vacillating. The Saudi coalition – mired in a war in Yemen and confronting domestic risks – is reluctant to engage in a full-scale confrontation.  Even though Iran has a higher pain threshold, it stands on shaky ground. Just last year it was rocked by domestic protests demanding less foreign adventurism. Lebanon and Iraq are the two countries most entrenched in Iran’s sphere of influence. Protesters in both countries are calling for greater national unity – demanding an overhaul of the political system, and arguing that the sectarian set-up has failed to meet their most basic needs. What occurs in Beirut and Baghdad will be of great consequence for Tehran. Deadlock In Iraq “Out, out, Iran! Baghdad will stay free!” - Chants by Iraqi protesters While both the grievances and demands of the protesters in Lebanon and Iraq are similar, the unrest in Iraq is of much greater consequence from a global investor’s perspective. The trigger was the removal of the highly revered Lieutenant General Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi from his position in the Iraqi army by Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi.2 The popular general was unceremoniously transferred to an administrative role in the Ministry of Defense. The sacking of al-Saadi – considered a neutral figure – was interpreted as evidence of Iranian influence and the greater sway of the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella organization of various paramilitary groups. Iraqis all over the country responded by attacking the Iranian consulate in Karbala and offices linked to Iranian-backed militias. Chart 1AFertile Ground For Unrest In Iraq The protesters are also united in their economic grievances, frustrated at a political and economic system that is unwilling to translate economic gains to improved livelihoods for its people. The May 2018 parliamentary elections, which ushered in Prime Minster Abdul-Mahdi, failed to generate much improvement. The country continues to be plagued by high unemployment, corruption, and an utter lack of basic services (Charts 1A & 1B). This has ultimately resulted in a lack of confidence in Iraqi leadership who are being increasingly perceived as benefiting from the status quo at the expense of the populace. Chart 1BFertile Ground For Unrest In Iraq Most importantly, the ruling elite has failed to respond to key trends that emerged in last year’s parliamentary elections. The extremely low voter turnout reveals that Iraqis are disenchanted with the government's ability to meet their needs. Meanwhile the success of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Sairoon coalition – running on a platform stressing non-sectarianism and national unity – in securing the largest number of seats highlights the desire for a reduction of foreign interference (both Iranian as well as US/Saudi) in domestic politics. Where the election results failed to translate into real change for Iraq is in the appointment of the Prime Minister. Abdul-Mahdi – a technocrat – was a compromise candidate that surfaced as a result of a five-month long political standstill between the two rival Shia blocs, each claiming to have gained a majority of seats in parliament. On one end is the Iran-backed bloc led by Hadi al-Amiri head of both the Fatah Alliance and the PMF, and Nouri al-Maliki leader of the State of Law Coalition. On the other end is al-Sadr’s Sairoon coalition, which joined forces with Ammar al-Hakim of the Wisdom Movement, and champions greater unity and less foreign interference. The result has been a weak prime minister who is perceived to be incapable of pushing back against Iraq’s ruling elites and ushering in structural reforms. Instead the Prime Minister is seen as benefiting from a corrupt system. The rift between Iraq’s rival Shia blocks is deepening. Thus, the ongoing protests are to a great extent the result of the new government’s failure to heed the warnings brought about by the 2018 election and protests. They have served to deepen the rift between the rival Shia blocs. Last week Abdul–Mahdi responded to calls by al-Sadr and former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to resign by arguing that it is up to the main political leaders to agree to put forward a vote of no confidence in the Iraqi parliament. He agreed to resign, on condition that political parties jointly approve of a replacement. For now, that appears improbable. In a move that has been interpreted as a display of Iranian interference, al-Amiri changed heart after a reported meeting with Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Suleimani last week in Baghdad. He backed down on his agreement to support al-Sadr to bring down Abdul-Mahdi, and has instead stated Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation will only bring about more chaos. This interference on the part of Iran was likely induced by fears that a crisis-stricken Iraq would weaken its hegemony over the region. Iraq is in a state of deadlock. A vote of no confidence would require a majority of 165 in parliament and would require the support of various Sunni and Kurdish parties (Chart 2). Al-Sadr is likely calculating that a new election is in his best interest. He would be able to capitalize on the movement given that he has aligned himself with the protesters, and will gain seats in parliament. Chart 2A Shia Schism In Iraq’s Parliament This would allow the nationalist bloc to gain a majority and appoint a government that is acceptable to the protesters. However, this scenario would also entail greater meddling from Iran, as it is unlikely to stand by idly as its influence wanes. As a result, we are likely to witness greater unrest as the rift between the two Shia blocs intensifies. Neither the US nor Saudi Arabia have an appetite to step in and provide the support necessary to counteract Iran. Moreover, Iran and its proxies in Iraq will not back down easily. At the same time, the geographical spread of the protest movement demonstrates that Iraqis are fed up with the current system.3 Despite the death of over 260 Iraqis, the protesters have yet to be deterred by the violence. This points to greater instability in Iraq as no side is backing down and the only foreign power willing and able to interfere is Iran. The impasse could be resolved if the main actors – the rival Shia blocs – agree to compromise. However, that is precisely what transpired last year and resulted in Abdul-Mahdi’s appointment. It ultimately led to only a temporary resolution of the unrest: a one-year deferral. If a similar compromise is reached in the current environment, it too will result in only a temporary détente. The grievances afflicting Iraqis cannot be resolved easily or swiftly. Iraq is in for an extended period of instability. Bottom Line: Iraqi protesters and authorities are in stalemate. The rift in the Shia bloc is deepening. There does not appear to be a clear path to bridge the demands and desires of the protesters and the leadership. Any détente will be temporary. Even if under a new election the protests translate to greater seats for the nationalist bloc, it will not translate to a de-escalation of domestic tensions. It may resolve the protests, but Iran-backed groups will retaliate. Iraq is in for an extended period of instability. Deadlock In Lebanon “All of them means all of them” “No to Iran – No to Saudi” - Chants by Lebanese protesters Just as Iraqi protesters are expressing national unity in calling for an end to sectarian politics and foreign interference, Lebanon’s protests stand out for crossing religious and regional divides. They have swept across the country, and include the Shia-dominated southern region where anger is even being directed at Hezbollah. Among the protesters’ demands is the removal of all three heads of the pillars of government – the Maronite Christian President Michel Aoun, the Sunni Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and the Shia Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. Rather than being a source of division, the unrest is a demonstration of unity among Lebanese of all ideologies against the entire political system. Since Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s resignation on October 29, the movement rages on. Protesters are claiming that they are unwilling to back down until all their demands are met, including a complete overhaul of the sectarian power-sharing system, which has defined the country’s politics since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war.4 Chart 3Economic Deterioration In Lebanon The movement and the protesters’ complaints are not surprising. The government has failed to prevent the economy from moving toward collapse. It has long been in decline, with Lebanese feeling the pinch of corruption, economic stagnation, high unemployment, and the effects of the massive influx of Syrian refugees (Chart 3).The trigger of the uprising, a tax on WhatsApp calls amid clear signs of a domestic liquidity shortage, is a delayed response to what citizens have already known and felt for some time: a deteriorating economic situation. While the protests were caused by these economic grievances, they persist due to a crisis of confidence between the political class and the masses. Neither concessions on the part of the government in the form of a list of reforms nor the prime minister’s resignation convinced protesters to halt the movement. The uprising appears set to remain steadfast so long as the current politicians remain in power. The challenge for Lebanon’s protesters – and political elite all the same – is that while the protesters are united in their demands, they have so far been headless. The protesters have refused to present a list of acceptable replacement leaders, insisting that it is the government’s role to propose potential alternatives to the people. This has led to deadlock and will be a hurdle for the government in negotiating with demonstrators. On the other side of the conflict, the current political class, including Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, has expressed warnings about the chaos that would ensue with a government resignation. According to the Lebanese constitution, following Hariri’s resignation President Aoun is now tasked with consulting Lebanon’s fractured parliament to determine the next prime minister – a role reserved for a Sunni Muslim. However, if history is any guide, this process could take months and protesters are not that patient. Given that Hariri has sidelined himself and – unlike Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri or Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil – he is not the core target of protesters’ ire, there is a possibility that he may once again be appointed to the post of prime minister. While the outgoing government will take on a caretaker role until a new one is formed, demonstrators are standing their ground. ​​This has generated a political standoff causing Lebanese assets to bear the brunt (Chart 4). The emergence of competing rallies – in the form of support for President Michel Aoun – only complicates and possibly prolongs the situation. For now, the army is staying on the sidelines, allowing the protests to be – for the most part – a peaceful one. However, with Hezbollah also subject to the protesters’ wrath, odds of greater regional tensions have increased. Hezbollah may attempt to regain lost support by provoking Israel. The instability could also prompt Hezbollah to reassert its willingness to use force against domestic enemies, namely any new government that attempts to disarm it. In the meantime, Lebanon’s economy and financial markets will remain under pressure. The economy depends on capital inflows from citizens living abroad to finance the large twin deficit and maintain the dollar peg. Thus, the decline in sentiment will weigh on the economy (Chart 5). While the government has not implemented official capital controls, banks have independently tightened restrictions and raised transaction fees to reduce capital outflow. Chart 4Further Unrest Ahead Chart 5Weak Sentiment Weighs On Lebanon's Economy Bottom Line: Lebanese protesters and the political class are in deadlock. The prime minister’s resignation has done little to ease the tension, and demonstrators are refusing to back down until a new non-sectarian, technocratic government is formed. The domestic economy will remain frail. Earlier this week the central bank asked local lenders to boost their liquidity by raising their capital by 20% or $4 billion in 2020 in anticipation of potential downgrades. A stabilization of the political situation is a necessary precondition to boost confidence and once again shore up capital inflows. Nevertheless, with the protest movement being largely headless, the path toward compromise with the government will be challenging, raising the odds of prolonged tensions. What Of Iran’s Sphere Of Influence? “Not Gaza, Not Lebanon, I Give My Life For Iran” - Chants by Iranian protesters, January 2018 Iran has a strong incentive to preserve the established systems in both Lebanon and Iraq. The protesters’ demands risk weakening its grip on power in the region. In both movements, pro-Iranian forces have taken a stance against the protests with Hezbollah in Lebanon advising against the resignation of Prime Minister Hariri while the Iran-backed bloc in Iraq voiced concern over the chaos that will ensue with the prime minister’s resignation. Meanwhile, Tehran’s position is hardening. Iran is taking further steps away from the nuclear deal, injecting uranium gas into centrifuges at its underground Fordow nuclear complex, making the facility an active nuclear site rather than a permitted research plant. Chart 6Popular Support For Iran’s Hardening Stance Chart 7US-Iran Détente Unlikely This reflects the loss of public support for the JCPOA and the loss of confidence that other countries will honor their obligations toward the nuclear agreement (Chart 6). In a speech on November 3 marking the fortieth anniversary of the 1979 US Embassy takeover, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei renewed his ban on negotiations with the US. His stance mirrors public opinion, which is moving toward an increasingly unfavorable view of the US (Chart 7). However, this does not mean that President Hassan Rouhani’s administration is immune to popular discontent. Rather, with Iranians living through a continued economic deterioration and assigning the most blame to domestic mismanagement and corruption, there could be cracks forming in Iran as well (Chart 8). Chart 8A Case For Unrest In Iran? Bottom Line: The ongoing US withdrawal from the Middle East opens opportunities for Iran to increase its regional influence. It has been capitalizing on such opportunities by lending support to its proxies in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. However, the escalation of unrest in Lebanon and Iraq pose a risk to Iran’s grip on power in the region. On the one hand, if the movements there result in new governments, Iran will witness its wings clipped. This could incentivize retaliation and violence in Iraq, and provocations by Hezbollah along Lebanon’s southern border in an attempt to regain lost support. On the other hand, a prolonged standstill between protesters and the governments could result in greater Iranian influence over the long term. Other foreign powers are unwilling to wholeheartedly intervene to fill an emergent power vacuum. Investment Implications The risk of a decline in Iran’s control over its sphere of influence and the still unstable state of Iraqi domestic politics suggest that the geopolitical risk premium in oil prices should remain elevated. For now, President Trump is still enforcing sanctions and Iran’s oil exports have largely collapsed (Chart 9). The White House is continuing to add pressure by warning Chinese shipping companies – the largest remaining buyer of Iranian oil – against turning off their ships’ transponders. Chart 9The US Maintains Pressure On Iran News reports indicate that oil workers in Iraq’s southern region have started to join the government demonstrations. Moreover, reports on Wednesday indicate that the 30k b/d of production from the Qayarah oil field has been shut down due to road blockades in Basra that are preventing trucks from transporting crude to the Khor al-Zubair port. The geopolitical risk premium in oil prices should remain elevated. While the impact on the country’s oil production and exports have so far been minimal, a prolonged standoff between protesters and the government could result in supply outages. Today’s environment is notably different than that of the ISIS invasion of Iraq in 2014. Tensions then did not create a geopolitical risk premium in oil as they occurred amid an oil market share war, which kept supply abundant. Similarly, the September attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities did not result in a lasting price spike as it occurred at a time of weak global demand. Moreover, Saudi Arabia possesses the technology and spare capacity that permitted it to swiftly restore output and maintain export commitments. The same cannot be said today about Iraq. A disruption there would be of greater consequence to oil markets, as illustrated by the 2008 Battle of Basra. Especially given Saudi Arabia's need to maintain high prices and amid the Aramco IPO and the tailwind created by a rebound in global growth. The fall in global economic policy uncertainty as the US and China move toward a trade ceasefire will weaken the dollar and support global demand for oil, which is overall bullish for oil prices. Moreover, US-Iran tensions remain unresolved which pose risks to production and shipping infrastructure in the region. We remain tactically long spot crude oil on the back of the geopolitical risks to supply as well as an expected revival in global demand. We are booking a 4.6% gain on our GBP-USD trade but remain long sterling versus the yen. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    The ‘land bridge’ is an aspirational route by which Iran would create a strategic corridor to the Mediterranean, stretching through friendly territory. 2   Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi was recognized and respected among Iraqis for fighting terrorism and his role in ridding the country of the Islamic State. The Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces were uneasy with Saadi’s close relationship with the US military. His abrupt removal was likely a result of the Iraqi government’s growing concern over al-Saadi’s popularity and rumors of a potential military coup. 3   Protests are occurring in all regions in Iraq. They are supported by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. This is a significant development from the 2018 protests which were mainly concentrated in Iraq’s southern region. 4   Under the current system, Lebanon’s president has to be a Maronite Christian, the parliament speaker a Shiite Muslim and the prime minister a Sunni. Cabinet and parliament seats are equally split between the two Muslims groups and Christians.

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

Aspectos destacados Hay una disminución tentativa del riesgo geopolítico: un Brexit ordenado o la ausencia de Brexit es el resultado final más probable y las conversaciones entre EE. UU. y China se están acercando. Los riesgos geopolíticos pendientes todavía justifican cautela sobre las acciones globales en el corto plazo. La inestabilidad interna y externa en Arabia Saudita, cualquier persistencia estadounidense con sanciones de máxima presión sobre Irán y la inestabilidad doméstica en Irak representan un riesgo para el suministro mundial de petróleo. Tomar posiciones largas en crudo al contado y en GBP/JPY. Análisis Gráfico 1 Un descenso tentativo del riesgo geopolítico Un descenso tentativo del riesgo geopolítico Un descenso tentativo del riesgo geopolítico Nuestras opiniones sobre Brexit y las conversaciones comerciales entre EE. UU. y China se están alineando, lo que resulta en una disminución tentativa del riesgo geopolítico (Gráfico 1). El parlamento británico aún debe ratificar el acuerdo de salida de Boris Johnson, negociado laboriosamente con la UE en una cumbre sorpresa esta semana. Es posible que no tenga los votos. Si fracasa, entonces tendrá una base para solicitar una extensión del plazo del Brexit hasta el 31 de octubre. Pero está claro que la UE está dispuesta a permitir compromisos para evitar que una salida sin acuerdo agrave la desaceleración de la economía europea. Un Brexit ordenado es el resultado final (o la ausencia de Brexit si unas elecciones y un nuevo referéndum así lo decidieran). Estamos eliminando el objetivo de $1.30 en nuestra apuesta larga sobre GBP/USD a la luz de estos acontecimientos y tomando posiciones largas en GBP/JPY. De manera similar, aunque persiste la incertidumbre sobre las relaciones EE. UU.-China, está claro que el presidente Trump es sensible al impacto de la recesión manufacturera y al riesgo de una recesión general sobre sus perspectivas de reelección. Por lo tanto, busca una tregua y está retrasando aranceles. China está recíprocamente respondiendo mínimamente para evitar un colapso en las relaciones. El aumento de aranceles del 15 de diciembre será aplazado y, si una tregua no mejora las perspectivas económicas, esperamos que Trump lleve a cabo algún retroceso de aranceles con el pretexto de que las conversaciones “están mostrando avances”. Sin embargo, no esperamos un acuerdo comercial bilateral ni una eliminación total de los aranceles. Y otros factores (como riesgos políticos en la Gran China) aún podrían descarrilar el proceso. Los riesgos geopolíticos pendientes todavía justifican cautela sobre las acciones globales en el corto plazo. Estos riesgos incluyen un colapso en las conversaciones EE. UU.-China (por ejemplo, debido a Hong Kong, Taiwán o la carrera tecnológica) y el ascenso de Elizabeth Warren como favorita en las primeras primarias del Partido Demócrata. También existe el riesgo de otro shock en el precio del petróleo originado en Oriente Medio, que discutimos en este informe. Las secuelas de Abqaiq Ha sido un verano geopolíticamente agitado en Oriente Medio (Diagrama 1). Aunque hubo muchas advertencias, los ataques con drones y misiles del 14 de septiembre contra la infraestructura de Saudi Aramco fueron la gran explosión: eliminaron 5.7 mm b/d de suministros de crudo de la noche a la mañana (Gráfico 2). Los ataques fueron significativos no solo por su impacto en los mercados petroleros globales, sino también porque expusieron la renuencia de EE. UU. y Arabia Saudita a entablar una confrontación militar a gran escala con Irán. Es demasiado pronto para declarar que se han alcanzado las tensiones máximas en el Golfo Pérsico. Diagrama 1 Cronología: Fuegos artificiales veraniegos en el Golfo Pérsico Por todo el Medio Oriente Por todo el Medio Oriente Gráfico 2 Cerrar el estrecho de Ormuz sería el mayor shock petrolero de la historia Por todo Oriente Medio Por todo Oriente Medio Es demasiado pronto para declarar que se han alcanzado las tensiones máximas en el Golfo Pérsico. El ataque del 11 de octubre contra un petrolero iraní en el Mar Rojo y los informados ciberataques estadounidenses contra medios iraníes bien podrían marcar la “venganza limitada” que esperábamos. No obstante, los eventos del mes pasado descubrieron vulnerabilidades que sugieren que, incluso si EE. UU. y sus aliados del Golfo retroceden, el riesgo geopolítico permanecerá elevado. Gráfico 3 Los saudíes son derrochadores en gasto en defensa Alrededor del Oriente Medio Alrededor del Oriente Medio El resultado más obvio del ataque del 14 de septiembre es la constatación de cuán vulnerable es Arabia Saudita frente a ataques de sus enemigos regionales. A pesar de ser el tercer país que más gasta en defensa en el mundo —y el primero en relación con el PIB (Gráfico 3)—, Arabia Saudita fue incapaz de proteger su infraestructura crítica. Por ello, el príncipe heredero Mohamed bin Salman (MBS) seguramente enfrentará presión interna. Tras cinco años, Arabia Saudita tiene poco que mostrar de su guerra en Yemen, aparte de una crisis humanitaria que ha dañado su posición internacional. En cambio, la operación ha sido una carga para las finanzas del reino y una molestia para la seguridad en las provincias del suroeste de Najrán, Jizán y Asir, donde los hutíes aliados de Irán han llevado a cabo ataques regulares contra infraestructuras petroleras y aeropuertos. Parte del descontento interno se aliviará si la guerra en Yemen se rebaja de categoría o se resuelve. Arabia Saudita aceptó recientemente la rama de olivo extendida por los hutíes y, según se informa, está en conversaciones para desescalar. Pero esto no eliminará por completo la incertidumbre interna. Después de todo, otras iniciativas de MBS —en Siria, en Irak y en sus gestiones ante EE. UU.— también están en peligro. La teoría de la conspiración en torno al asesinato del 29 de septiembre del general Abdulaziz al-Faghem, el antiguo guardaespaldas personal del rey Salman, es un ejemplo. Se rumorea que el rey se enfureció al enterarse de la captura por parte del movimiento hutí, el 28 de septiembre, de tres brigadas militares saudíes, y decidió revocar el título del príncipe heredero, nombrando en su lugar al hermano sudairi más joven, el príncipe Ahmed bin Abdulaziz.1 El plan habría sido supuestamente descubierto, lo que resultó en el asesinato del general al-Faghem.2 Todo esto es pura especulación y consideramos altamente dudosa la idea de la remoción de MBS. La aparición conjunta del rey y del príncipe heredero durante la visita del presidente Vladimir Putin al reino a principios de esta semana debería disipar la especulación sobre un golpe palaciego en preparación. No obstante, el asesinato en sí es extremadamente preocupante y refuerza motivos independientes de inquietud sobre la estabilidad interna. Gráfico 4 La diversificación impaciente amenaza la estabilidad interna La diversificación apresurada amenaza la estabilidad interna La diversificación apresurada amenaza la estabilidad interna La búsqueda de la agenda de reformas saudí, “Visión 2030,” se basa, ante todo, en la consolidación del poder en manos de MBS y su facción. El nombramiento del hijo del rey Salman, el príncipe Abdulaziz, como ministro de Energía fue motivado por el deseo de acelerar la oferta pública inicial de la gigante estatal petrolera Saudi Aramco, que podría comenzar tan pronto como en noviembre. Esto fue precedido por el nombramiento de Yasir Al-Rumayyan, jefe del fondo soberano y cercano a MBS, como presidente de Aramco. Además, se informa que saudíes adinerados —algunos de los cuales fueron detenidos en el Ritz Carlton en noviembre de 2017— están siendo presionados para comprar participaciones en la OPI pendiente. Aunque desvincular la economía saudí del crudo es la mejor medida para la estabilidad a largo plazo (Gráfico 4), la transición amenazará la estabilidad interna. Mientras tanto, el conflicto con Irán está lejos de resolverse. Conclusión: Los ataques con drones del 14 de septiembre contra infraestructuras petroleras clave saudíes revelaron tanto la renuencia de Arabia Saudita como la de EE. UU. a emprender acciones militares y una confrontación total con Irán. Esto aumentará las dudas sobre la capacidad del reino para defenderse. Además, Arabia Saudita sigue siendo vulnerable a presiones internas mientras MBS se esfuerza por mantener la consolidación de su poder en los últimos años y persigue Visión 2030. La inestabilidad interna o externa en Arabia Saudita representa un riesgo para el suministro mundial de petróleo. La economía de resistencia de Irán puede soportar la máxima presión de Trump Gráfico 5 La economía de Irán está sintiendo el impacto La economía de Irán siente el golpe La economía de Irán siente el golpe En el otro lado del Golfo Pérsico, los iraníes muestran una mayor tolerancia al dolor que sus enemigos. La economía está sufriendo bajo las sanciones paralizantes de EE. UU., con exportaciones en su nivel más bajo desde 2003 (Gráfico 5). El FMI espera que la economía iraní se contraiga un 9.5% este año, con una inflación anual prevista del 35.7%. Las exportaciones de petróleo, la savia de su economía, han caído un 89% interanual. No obstante, Irán domina el juego de la gallina, muestra metódicamente su capacidad para crear caos en toda la región y no ha vacilado en su postura de que el presidente Trump debe aliviar las sanciones y reincorporarse al acuerdo nuclear de 2015 si quiere entablar conversaciones bilaterales. Mientras tanto, Irán continúa reduciendo sus compromisos nucleares. El 5 de septiembre, Rohani indicó planes para abandonar completamente los compromisos de investigación y desarrollo bajo el Plan de Acción Integral Conjunto (PAIC) y comenzar a trabajar en centrifugadoras de enriquecimiento de uranio más avanzadas, que estaban limitadas al 3.7% bajo el PAIC (Tabla 1). También esperamos que Irán concrete su amenaza de retirarse del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (TNP) si Trump mantiene las sanciones. Tabla 1 Irán se está alejando del acuerdo nuclear de 2015 Por todo el Medio Oriente Por todo el Medio Oriente La misma firmeza no puede demostrarse por parte de Estados Unidos o Arabia Saudita. Gráfico 6 Los estadounidenses no apoyan una guerra con Irán Por el Medio Oriente Por el Medio Oriente El presidente Trump está limitado por el riesgo de un shock petrolero inducido por Irán antes de las elecciones de 2020. Por ello, está ansioso por desescalar las tensiones con Irán. Está abandonando el campo en Siria (sobre lo cual más abajo), optando por añadir simbólicamente 1.800 tropas a Arabia Saudita con fines disuasorios. Esta postura defensiva se adopta en el contexto de la opinión pública estadounidense, que se opone a la guerra con Irán o a nuevas aventuras militares en Oriente Medio (Gráfico 6). Esto significa el desapalancamiento estratégico de EE. UU. desde Oriente Medio para desplazar su enfoque al Pacífico Asiático, donde Estados Unidos tiene una mayor prioridad en gestionar el ascenso de China. Al mismo tiempo, las negociaciones entre los saudíes y los hutíes yemeníes sugieren la falta de apetito saudí por un conflicto total con Irán, allanando el camino para una solución diplomática. Como declaró Rohani, “poner fin a la guerra en Yemen abrirá el camino para la desescalada en la región”, específicamente entre Arabia Saudita e Irán. Los saudíes han señalado abundantemente, a raíz del ataque a Abqaiq, que desean evitar una confrontación directa, particularmente dado que la administración Trump aparentemente no está dispuesta (por limitaciones electorales) a seguir proporcionando un “cheque en blanco” a MBS para llevar a cabo una política exterior agresiva. Ya los Emiratos Árabes Unidos —un actor clave en la coalición liderada por Arabia Saudita contra Yemen— se han distanciado de Riad y han buscado reducir tensiones con Irán. Recientemente redujo su compromiso con la guerra en Yemen y sostuvo reuniones de alto nivel con Irán. El asesor de seguridad nacional de los EAU, Tahnoun bin Zayed, visitó Teherán en una misión secreta, la más reciente en una serie de esfuerzos a puerta cerrada para mediar entre Arabia Saudita e Irán. Otros esfuerzos diplomáticos informados incluyen visitas de funcionarios iraquíes y paquistaníes. La incertidumbre restante es si Trump aliviará discretamente las sanciones sobre Irán, y si Irán se retirará mientras está en ventaja. Si Trump mantiene la presión máxima, Irán podría necesitar llevar a cabo nuevos ataques y alteraciones en el petróleo para amenazar la economía de Trump y fomentar el alivio de sanciones. De lo contrario, Irán, percibiendo el miedo americano y saudí, podría excederse y cometer una provocación que requiera una respuesta estadounidense mayor, reescalando así las tensiones. Aunque las limitaciones económicas y electorales de Trump sugieren que él aflojará las sanciones de forma encubierta, el apetito por el riesgo de Irán es aparentemente muy alto: Abqaiq podría haber salido terriblemente mal. También tiene la oportunidad de mostrar músculo y demostrar la inconstancia estadounidense ante la región. Esto podría llevar a un error de cálculo y a un shock petrolero más significativo del que ya se ha visto. Conclusión: Irán se ha mantenido firme en su posición mientras Estados Unidos, Arabia Saudita y sus aliados parecen estar capitulando. Tienen más que perder que ganar de un conflicto total. Pero la toma de decisiones de Irán es opaca y cualquier persistencia estadounidense con sanciones de máxima presión motivará provocaciones adicionales, escalada y interrupciones en el suministro de petróleo. ¿Haciendo a Rusia grande otra vez? Los eventos recientes en Turquía y Siria no son una sorpresa. Hemos destacado durante mucho tiempo una intervención turca más profunda en Siria como un evento regional “cisne negro”. En agosto advertimos a los clientes que la relación personal Trump-Erdogan no salvaría a Turquía de las sanciones estadounidenses inminentes. En septiembre advertimos que la prima de riesgo geopolítico turca había colapsado, según nuestro indicador GeoRisk basado en el mercado, y que este colapso seguramente se revertiría de manera importante, enviando a la lira a la baja. Al cierre de este informe, los turcos han declarado una tregua para evitar sanciones, pero nada es seguro. Putin ha aprovechado la oportunidad para capitalizar el retroceso de EE. UU. Si Turquía es la perdedora, ¿quién es la ganadora? Primero, Trump, que se beneficia de cumplir una promesa de campaña de reducir la implicación estadounidense en guerras extranjeras, una postura que finalmente será recompensada (o al menos no castigada) por un público cansado de guerras. Segundo, Irán y Rusia, los principales aliados de Siria, que han invertido mucho en mantener el régimen de Bashar al-Assad durante la guerra civil y ahora enfrentan la retirada estadounidense y tensiones elevadas con los aliados y socios de la región como resultado. Irán se beneficia al poder ampliar su arco estratégico, el llamado “Creciente Chiíta”, hasta el mar Mediterráneo. Rusia se beneficia al solidificar su estatus recuperado como actor principal en Oriente Medio —una indicación de la multipolaridad global. El presidente Vladimir Putin ha aprovechado la oportunidad para capitalizar el retroceso de EE. UU. con visitas oficiales tanto a Arabia Saudita como a los EAU esta semana. Prometió tanto lazos económicos más fuertes como la capacidad de mediar en el poder regional. En el frente económico, el Fondo Ruso de Inversión Directa (RDIF) eligió Arabia Saudita como sede de su primera oficina extranjera, señalando su interés en la región. Ya aprobó 25 proyectos conjuntos con inversiones valoradas en más de $2,5 mil millones. También se hablan de proyectos RDIF-Aramco en el sector de servicios petroleros por más de $1.000 millones y proyectos de conversión de petróleo y gas por más de $2.000 millones. Además, RDIF firmó múltiples acuerdos por $1,4 mil millones con socios emiratíes. Gráfico 7 Rusia ha estado cumpliendo con los recortes de OPEP 2.0 Rusia Ha Estado Cumpliendo Con Los Recortes De La OPEP 2.0 Rusia Ha Estado Cumpliendo Con Los Recortes De La OPEP 2.0 Lo más importante es que saudíes y rusos comparten el mismo objetivo de apoyar los precios globales del petróleo y han estado gestionando conjuntamente la oferta de OPEP 2.0 desde 2017 (Gráfico 7). El enfoque de Rusia en la región se centra en aumentar su influencia estratégica en todos los frentes. Gráfico 8 Erdogan está jugando con las preocupaciones turcas sobre los refugiados sirios Alrededor de Oriente Medio Alrededor de Oriente Medio Aunque los aliados de Rusia incluyen a Irán y Siria —rivales de Arabia Saudita—, se ha presentado como un socio pragmático para otras potencias, incluidas Turquía e incluso los saudíes y los estados del Golfo. Como tal, el Kremlin tiene influencia en ambos lados de la división regional, dándole el potencial de fungir como mediador de poder. Sin embargo, cualquier compra saudí del sistema de defensa ruso S-400, largamente negociada, inquietaría a Estados Unidos. Turquía corre el riesgo de sufrir sanciones estadounidenses por la compra del mismo sistema.3 EE. UU. podría estar dispuesto a tolerar cierta influencia rusa incrementada en Oriente Medio, pero un acuerdo de defensa podría ser su línea roja. La administración Trump aún empuña el garrote de las sanciones económicas. La creciente influencia rusa se extiende más allá de los estados del Golfo. La retirada estadounidense del noreste de Siria la semana pasada y la invasión turca son un regalo para los rusos. Ahora son la única gran potencia externa involucrada en Siria. Han abrazado esta posición, colocándose como mediadores entre el régimen sirio, con el que están aliados, y Turquía, así como con el archienemigo turco, los kurdos, que ahora carecen de apoyo estadounidense y deben recurrir a Siria y Rusia para algún tipo de arreglo que los proteja. Rusia, por tanto, ha consolidado su regreso como jugador estratégico en la región, tras su intervención inicial en Siria en 2015. La incursión de Turquía en Siria es un intento del presidente Erdogan de enfrentarse a los kurdos sirios curtidos en batalla y evitar una frontera continua controlada por kurdos con Siria, además de distraer de su debilitada posición doméstica. Está esforzándose por ganar apoyo apelando a preocupaciones turcas más amplias sobre los refugiados sirios en Turquía (Gráfico 8). La intervención buscará crear un espacio para que los refugiados sean ubicados en el lado sirio de la frontera. Sin embargo, dado que hay poco apoyo popular interno para una intervención militar, corre el riesgo de alienar aún más a los votantes, que ya están perdiendo la paciencia con su partido gobernante, el Partido de la Justicia y el Desarrollo (AKP). Hasta ahora, la incursión cuenta con el apoyo oficial de todos los partidos políticos de Turquía excepto del Partido Democrático de los Pueblos kurdo (HDP). Sin embargo, esto cambiará a medida que la intervención conlleve sanciones económicas occidentales, un conflicto militar prolongado y beneficios concretos limitados aparte de la retirada de refugiados. Gráfico 9 La ya vulnerable economía de Turquía sufrirá un golpe La economía de Turquía, ya vulnerable, sufrirá un golpe. La economía de Turquía, ya vulnerable, sufrirá un golpe. La economía, ya vulnerable, probablemente sufrirá un golpe (Gráfico 9). Los mercados han reaccionado a las sanciones impuestas por EE. UU. hasta ahora con un suspiro de alivio, ya que no han sido tan dañinas como podrían haber sido —por ejemplo, los bancos turcos fueron perdonados.4 Sin embargo, este es solo el primer salvo y más sanciones están en camino: el Congreso se está moviendo para imponer sanciones por su cuenta, las cuales Trump probablemente no vete. Además, la Unión Europea está siguiendo el ejemplo e imponiendo sus propias sanciones, incluidas las relativas a material militar. Volkswagen ya anunció que pospone la decisión final sobre si construir una planta de $1.100 millones en Turquía. Esto ocurre en un momento de sensibilidades ya existentes con la UE por las actividades de perforación de petróleo y gas de Turquía en aguas cercanas a Chipre. Los ministros de Asuntos Exteriores de la UE están respondiendo elaborando una lista de sanciones económicas. Estos riesgos económicos probablemente frenarán el ciclo de recorte de tasas del banco central, ya que la lira y los activos financieros sufrirán un golpe. Conclusión: El giro de EE. UU. lejos de Oriente Medio es un beneficio para Moscú, que busca mayor cooperación en el Golfo y gana influencia en Siria. Rusia se promociona como un jugador estratégico y un mediador eficaz. La incursión de Erdogan en Siria, aunque motivada por la debilidad doméstica, perjudicará a la economía turca. Mantener una postura cautelosa sobre la moneda turca y los activos de riesgo. Irak es el fulcro La posición geográfica de Irak, encajada entre Arabia Saudita e Irán, lo convierte en el epicentro de la lucha por el poder regional. A raíz de la campaña de máxima presión de la administración Trump sobre Irán, hemos destacado con frecuencia que un medio dramático de represalia iraní, sin llegar a cerrar el tránsito en el Estrecho de Ormuz, es fomentar disturbios en un Irak ya inestable. Esto sería una amenaza tanto para la estrategia estadounidense como para los suministros petroleros mundiales. Irak es el epicentro de la lucha por el poder regional. En este contexto, la visita del reverenciado clérigo chiíta iraquí Muqtada al-Sadr a Irán el 10 de septiembre, apenas cuatro días antes del ataque a Saudi Aramco en septiembre, suscita interrogantes. Sadr es el actor clave en Irak hoy y, en los últimos dos años, había adoptado una posición de independencia nacional para Irak, evitando la dependencia excesiva de Irán. Un acercamiento entre Sadr e Irán es un desarrollo doméstico negativo para Irak, que recientemente ha avanzado en reducir el control político y militar de Irán. Esto socavaría la estabilidad iraquí al aumentar las divisiones por ideología, secta, patrocinio económico y seguridad nacional. Se especula que el viaje de Sadr tenía la intención de discutir al primer ministro Adel Abdul Mahdi, percibido como débil e incapaz de manejar los diversos poderes en la escena política iraquí. Las protestas violentas que sacuden Irak desde principios de septiembre respaldan esta evaluación. Los manifestantes están motivados por el descontento con el desempleo, los servicios deficientes y la corrupción gubernamental, que se percibe que han empeorado sobre todo desde el inicio del mandato de Abdul Mahdi (Gráfico 10). Aunque Abdul Mahdi ha anunciado algunas reformas en respuesta al descontento popular, incluidas una reestructuración del gabinete y promesas de ayudas para los pobres, han hecho poco para calmar las protestas. Las demandas populares son solo una de las amenazas existenciales que enfrenta el gobierno. El segundo y potencialmente más serio riesgo es la amenaza de seguridad. Irak ha fracasado en sus intentos de integrar formalmente a las Unidades de Movilización Popular (PMU), grupos paramilitares respaldados por Irán que fueron fundamentales en la derrota del ISIS, en las fuerzas de seguridad nacionales. Esto es esencial para evitar que Irán mantenga el control directo de las fuerzas de seguridad dentro de Irak. Una mayoría del público está de acuerdo en que las PMU no deberían desempeñar un papel en la política (Gráfico 11), reflejando la tendencia subyacente que demanda autonomía iraquí frente a Irán. Gráfico 10 Aumento del descontento en Irak Alrededor del Medio Oriente Alrededor del Medio Oriente Gráfico 11 Poco apoyo a un papel político para las PMU Por todo el Medio Oriente Por todo el Medio Oriente Dado que las PMU son, en efecto, un término paraguas para ~50 grupos paramilitares predominantemente chiítas, existen divisiones internas dentro de las fuerzas que compiten por poder, legitimidad y recursos. Recientemente, han estado depurando a líderes de grupo percibidos como una amenaza para las fuerzas generales y el liderazgo superior que mantiene fuertes vínculos con Irán. Gráfico 12 Irak está dividido por afiliación política Alrededor del Medio Oriente Alrededor del Medio Oriente Esta lucha interna también refleja la lucha intra-chiíta por el poder entre los principales partidos políticos de Irak. Por un lado está el bloque conservador pro-Khamenei liderado por el ex primer ministro Nouri al-Maliki y el comandante de las PMU Hadi al-Ameri, y por otro está el líder reformista y nacionalista Muqtada al-Sadr, unido a Ammar al-Hakim. Dado que la mayoría de los iraquíes consideran que su país está dividido por afiliación política, esto representa un riesgo para la estabilidad interna (Gráfico 12). Así, incluso si el riesgo más amplio de tensiones regionales disminuye y reduce la amenaza de sabotaje a la infraestructura y el transporte petrolero, la situación doméstica actual en Irak sigue siendo inquietante. Pero dado que no vemos aún una disminución de las tensiones regionales —ya sea por la máxima presión estadounidense o por la arrogancia iraní— esta dinámica se traduce en una amenaza activa para los suministros de petróleo, con 3.4 mm b/d de exportaciones concentradas en la ciudad sureña de Basora. Conclusión: La mayor inestabilidad doméstica en Irak supone una amenaza no desdeñable para los suministros petroleros. Este riesgo se ve agravado por la ubicación de Irak como amortiguador geográfico entre los rivales regionales Irán y Arabia Saudita, y por el interés de Irán en fomentar disturbios para presionar a EE. UU. a relajar las sanciones. Conclusiones de inversión El hilo común en Oriente Medio es una amenaza persistente para el suministro mundial de petróleo tras el extraordinario ataque a Abqaiq. Primero, no se puede afirmar con confianza que Irán se abstendrá de causar nuevas interrupciones petroleras, ya que está convencido de que el apetito de conflicto del presidente Trump es pequeño (y Trump está, de hecho, limitado por el temor a un shock petrolero). Al presidente Rohani le interesa desalojar a Trump del poder, algo que un shock petrolero podría lograr, y el Líder Supremo podría incluso estar dispuesto a arriesgar un conflicto con Estados Unidos como medio para aumentar el apoyo al régimen e infundir a una nueva generación un espíritu revolucionario. Irán pierde en una guerra total, pero Teherán está convencido de que EE. UU. no tiene la voluntad de emprender una guerra total. Segundo, el interés de Rusia en la región no es generar una paz duradera sino llenar el vacío dejado por Estados Unidos y convertirse en mediador. Cualquier inestabilidad simplemente aumenta los precios del petróleo, lo cual es positivo para Rusia. Tercero, la inestabilidad de Irak está impulsada tanto por factores domésticos como internacionales. Es casi imposible diferenciar entre ambos. La arrogancia iraní podría manifestarse en sabotajes en Irak. O Irak podría desestabilizarse bajo las presiones regionales con mínima incitación iraní. De una u otra manera, la escasa capacidad de producción de reserva mundial actual podría verse afectada antes de lo esperado si se producen escaseces. Tomar posiciones largas en crudo al contado. En cuanto a las acciones, con una tregua EE. UU.-China en marcha y poca probabilidad de un Brexit sin acuerdo, vemos reforzada nuestra perspectiva cíclicamente positiva, aunque mantenemos cautela a corto plazo debido a la política interna estadounidense. En términos de enfoque de acciones, tenemos sobrepeso en acciones europeas en mercados desarrollados y en acciones del sudeste asiático en mercados emergentes.   Roukaya Ibrahim, Editora/Estratega Estrategia geopolítica RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1 La rama sudairi de la familia al-Saud está compuesta por los siete hijos del difunto rey Abdulaziz y Hussa al-Sudairi de la poderosa tribu de Najd. 2 Véase TRT World “Killing of Saudi King’s Personal Bodyguard Triggers Speculation,” 2 de octubre de 2019, disponible en https://www.trtworld.com. 3 A raíz del ataque a las instalaciones petroleras de Saudi Aramco, el presidente Putin se burló de EE. UU. recomendando que Arabia Saudita siguiera los pasos de Irán y Turquía en la compra de los sistemas de defensa aérea rusos S-300 o S-400. 4 Las penalizaciones de EE. UU. incluyen sanciones contra funcionarios actuales y anteriores del gobierno turco, un aumento de aranceles sobre las importaciones de acero turco hasta el 50 por ciento y la suspensión de las negociaciones sobre un acuerdo comercial de $100.000 millones.

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

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

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

Informe especial

Highlights So What? Maintain a cautious stance on Turkish currency and risk assets. Why? Following the AKP’s defeat in Istanbul, Erdogan has doubled down on unorthodox economic policies. Improvements in the current account balance are temporary. Unless investor sentiment is meaningfully repaired, the lira will resume its decline in 2020. In the meantime, tensions with the West – especially the U.S. – will remain elevated. The imposition of secondary sanctions from the U.S. is likely. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump is wavering in the trade war, which is ostensibly positive news for global risk assets that are selling off dramatically amid very gloomy expectations about the near future. The question is whether the delay is too little, too late to halt the slide in financial markets in the near term. The reason to be optimistic is that interest rates have fallen and the global monetary policy “put” is fully in effect. Moreover, it is irrefutable now that President Trump is sensitive to the negative financial effects of the trade war. He is delaying new tariffs on some of the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not simply because consumer price inflation has ticked up but more fundamentally because the tightening of financial conditions increases the risk of a recession. A president can survive a small increase in inflation but not a big increase in unemployment. The reason to be pessimistic is that global economic expectations are threatening the crisis levels of 2008 (Chart 1) and Trump’s tariff delay offers cold comfort. His administration has not delayed all the tariffs, and the delay lasts only three months. Rather than renew the license for U.S. companies to do business with Chinese telecom giant Huawei, his Commerce Department has deferred any decision – leaving uncertainty to fester in the all-important tech sector. Chart 1Global Economic Expectations Near Crisis Levels Chart 2More China Stimulus Needed To Prevent EM Breakdown Beneath the surface is the fact that China’s money-and-credit growth faltered in July, suggesting that negative sentiment is still suppressing credit demand and preventing policy stimulus from having as big of a bang as in 2015-16. The late-July Politburo meeting signaled a more accommodative turn in policy, as we have expected, and BCA’s China strategist Jing Sima expects more fiscal stimulus to be announced after the October 1 National Day celebration. But high-beta economies and assets will suffer in the meantime – especially emerging market assets (Chart 2). Emerging markets are also seeing geopolitical risks rise across the board – and with the exception of China and Brazil, these risks are underrated by markets: Greater China: Beijing is getting closer to intervening in Hong Kong with police or military force. Such a crackdown will increase the odds of a confrontation with Taiwan and a backlash across the region and world, meaning that East Asian currencies in particular have more room to break down. India: The escalation in Kashmir is not a “red herring.” A single terrorist attack in India blamed on Pakistan could trigger a dangerous military standoff that hurts rather than helps Indian equities, unlike the heavily dramatized standoff ahead of the election earlier this year. Russia: Large-scale protests, overshadowed by Hong Kong, highlight domestic instability amid falling oil prices. These developments bode ill for Russian currency and equities. We will return to these risks in the coming weeks. This week we offer a special report on Turkey, where political risk is becoming extremely underrated as the lira rallies despite a further deterioration in governance (Chart 3). Chart 3Political Risks Are Underrated In Turkey Too Early To Write Off Erdogan “Whoever wins Istanbul, wins Turkey … Whoever loses Istanbul, loses Turkey.” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has had a tough year. The March 31 local elections – especially the rerun election for mayor of Istanbul – dealt the party its biggest electoral losses since it emerged as the country’s dominant political force in 2002 (Chart 4). The elections came to be seen as a referendum on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and thus raise the question of whether the party’s strongman leader is in decline – and what that might mean for emerging market investors. Erdogan’s grip on power has long been overrated – it is his vulnerability that has driven him to such extremes of policy over the past decade. The Gezi Park protests of 2013 and the attempted military coup of 2016 revealed significant strains of internal opposition in the aftermath of the Great Recession. With each case of dissent, the AKP responded by stimulating the economy and tightening state control over society (Chart 5). But this strategy faltered last year when monetary policy finally became overextended, the currency collapsed, and the country slid into recession. The opposition finally had its moment. The AKP is less a source of unity. As a consequence, the AKP is less a source of unity among Turkish voters. Both its share of seats in parliament and the overall level of party concentration in the Turkish parliament have declined since 2002 (Chart 6). Were it not for its coalition partner, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the AKP would not have gained a majority in the 2018 parliamentary election. The AKP’s popular base consists of conservative, rural, and religious voters. This bloc is losing influence in parliament relative to centrist and left-wing parties (Chart 7). Moreover, the share of Turks identifying with political Islam, while still the largest grouping, is declining. Those who identify with more secular Turkish nationalism are on the rise (Chart 8). Does this shift entail a major turn in national policy? Will a new party emerge to challenge the AKP at last? Chart 8Secular Nationalism Is On The Rise There has long been speculation that former AKP leaders such as former Turkish president Abdullah Gul, former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, and former deputy prime minister Ali Babacan might form a political alternative. The latter resigned from the AKP on July 8, reviving speculation that a rival party could emerge that is capable of combining disillusioned AKP voters with the broader opposition movement at a time when Erdogan’s vulnerability has been made plain. However, the opposition is likely getting ahead of itself. The ruling party still has many tools at its disposal. Its share of seats in parliament is more than double that of the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). It is also viewed favorably in rural areas, and support for Erdogan there will not shift easily. Moreover, despite the negative electoral trend, the AKP has a lot of enthusiasm among its supporters – it is the party with the highest favorability among its own voters (Chart 9). The March election served as a wakeup call for the AKP – a warning not to take its power for granted. Erdogan can still salvage his position. The next election is not due until June 2023, leaving the party with four years to recuperate. While polls for the 2023 parliamentary election paint an ominous sign (Chart 10), they are very early, and the key will be whether Erdogan can divide the opposition and reconnect with his voter base. Above all, this will depend on what changes he makes to economic policy. Chart 10Erdogan Needs To Reconnect With Voter Base Bottom Line: Erdogan’s and the AKP’s popularity is waning, but it is too soon to write them off. The key question is how Erdogan will handle economic policy now that there are chinks in his armor. Doubling Down On Erdoganomics The fluctuation in the lira “is a U.S.-led operation by the West to corner Turkey … The inflation rate will drop as we lower interest rates.” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Erdogan needs to see the economy back to recovery in order to secure his success in the next election. A survey conducted early this year reveals that Turks view unemployment, the high cost of living, and the depreciation of the lira as the most significant problems facing Turkey, with 27% of respondents indicating that unemployment is the most important problem facing the country (Chart 11). More importantly, Turks do not have much confidence in the government’s ability to manage this pain – only one-third of respondents viewed economic policies as successful, a 14pp decline from the previous year. This highlights the need for Erdogan to revive confidence in Turkey’s policymaking institutions and to deliver on the economic front.     The key is how Erdogan will handle economic policy. However, it is still too early to call for a sustainable improvement in the Turkish economy as many of the same fundamental imbalances continue to pose risks. While the current account has improved significantly – even registering a surplus in May – the improvement will not endure (Chart 12). On the one hand, the weaker lira has made exports more attractive relative to global competition. However, the improvement in the external balance is in large part due to weaker imports which are now more expensive for Turkey’s residents and have fallen by 19% y/y in 1H2019. Shrinking imports also reflect weak domestic demand which has been weighed down by tight monetary conditions (Chart 13). Chart 12Current Account Improvement Will Not Endure Chart 13Tight Monetary Conditions Weighed On Domestic Demand What is more, portfolio inflows which in the past were necessary to offset the large current account deficit, have collapsed (Chart 14). Were it not for the improvement in the trade balance, the central bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) would have experienced a pronounced decline in its foreign reserves, and currency pressures would have been significant. A meaningful improvement in investor sentiment – which will remain cautious on the back of economic and geopolitical risks – is a necessary precondition for the return of these inflows. Nevertheless, the current account deficit will likely remain narrow in the second half of the year as the trade balance improves on the back of a weak lira and imports remain depressed due to soft domestic demand. This will keep the lira supported over this period. Although risks from a wide current account deficit have been temporarily put off, years of foreign debt accumulation are a hazard to a sustainable improvement in the lira. Foreign debt obligations (FDO) due over the coming 12 months are extremely elevated at $167 billion (Chart 15). It is not clear that they can be paid off. While the FDO figure is overly pessimistic as some of these debts will be rolled over, net central bank foreign exchange reserves can cover only 2.7% of these obligations. This poses downside risks on the lira at a time when inflows have not yet recovered.1 Moreover, unorthodox economic policies will eventually reverse any improvement in the currency. Chart 14Financial Account Does Not Lend Support Chart 15FDO Pose A Risk To The Currency While the 4 years between now and the next election could be an opportunity to embark on unpopular structural reforms that will improve the outlook by the time voting season rolls in, Erdogan has instead doubled down on his current strategy. Less than two weeks after the results of the Istanbul election rerun, CBRT governor Murat Cetinkaya was removed by presidential decree. A month later, key CBRT staff were dismissed.2 At his first monetary policy committee meeting as governor on July 25, Murat Uysal slashed the one-week repo rate by 425bps. Given Erdogan’s outspoken distaste for high interest rates, the president’s consolidation of power over economic decision making implies that the outlook for easier monetary policy is now guaranteed. However, the ramifications of this dovish shift will be concerning for voters. The depreciating lira was singled out as the most important economic problem facing Turkey by the largest number of survey respondents (Chart 16). Erdogan’s pursuit of dovish policies despite popular opinion shows that he is doubling down on unorthodox policy despite popular opinion. Monetary easing threatens to unwind the current account improvement and ultimately de-stabilize the lira. Assuming that the banking sector does not hold back the supply of credit to the private sector, lower rates will generate a pickup in demand which will raise imports and widen the current account deficit. Unless there is a marked improvement in investor sentiment – which will remain tainted by the erosion of central bank independence and increased tensions with the West – a return in portfolio inflows to pre-2018 levels is unlikely. As a consequence the lira will begin to soften anew in 2020. The lira will soften anew in 2020. While inflation will subside as the lira stabilizes this year, it will likely remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels – in the 10% to 15% range. Contrary to Erdoganomics, traditional economic theory postulates that interest rate cuts pose upside pressure on prices. The resurgence in domestic demand will occur against a backdrop of rising wages (Chart 17). Chart 17Price Pressures Will Persist With foreign currency reserves running low, the CBRT recently adopted several measures to discourage locals from exchanging their liras for foreign currency. These efforts reflect attempts to mitigate the negative impact of monetary easing on the lira, and to ensure FX reserves are supported: A 1-percentage point increase in the reserve requirement ratio for foreign currency deposits and participation funds. A 1-percentage point reduction in the interest rate on dollar-denominated required reserves, reserve options and free reserves held at the bank. An increase in the tax on some foreign exchange sales to 0.1% from zero. These measures make it more expensive for banks to hold foreign currency, incentivizing lira holdings instead. They also raise the CBRT’s foreign reserves highlighting the downside risks on these holdings and the lira. However, given that these measures boost CBRT reserves only superficially – rather than mirroring an improvement in the underlying economic conditions – they highlight that need for policy tightening to defend the lira, even as the CBRT officially pursues an accommodative path. Bottom Line: The Turkish economy will be extremely relevant to Erdogan’s fate in 2023. However with large foreign debt obligations, a rate cutting cycle underway, and foreign investors who remain uneasy, the case for Turkey’s economic recovery – especially amid turbulent global conditions – is weak. In the meantime, Erdogan will continue to blame external factors for the nation’s malaise. Don’t Bet On Trump-Erdogan Friendship “Being Asian and in Asia is as important as being European and in Europe for us.” Turkish Foreign Minister Melvut Cavusoglu For several years Erdogan has attempted to distract the populace from the country’s economic slide by adopting an aggressive foreign policy, particularly toward the West. The immediate cause is Syria, where Turkey has fundamental security interests that clash with those of the U.S. and Europe. But tensions also stem from Erdogan’s economic and political instability. This aggressive foreign policy has not changed in the wake of the AKP’s electoral loss. Erdogan is continuing to test the U.S.’s and EU’s limits and the result is likely to be surprise events, such as U.S.-imposed sanctions, that hurt Turkey’s economy and financial assets. Erdogan clashes with the West both because of substantive regional disagreements and because it plays well domestically. Turks increasingly see the U.S. and other formal NATO allies as a threat, while looking more favorably upon American rivals like Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela (Chart 18). The U.S., meanwhile, is expanding the use of “secondary sanctions” to impose costs on states that make undesirable deals with its rivals, and Turkey is now in its sights. The reason is Erdogan’s decision to purchase the S400 missile defense system from Russia. This decision exemplifies the breakdown in the U.S.-Turkish alliance and Turkey’s search for alternative partners and allies. The arms sale is likely – eventually – to trigger secondary sanctions under the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act and especially the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Washington has already imposed sanctions on China for buying the same weapons from Russia. Erdogan recently accepted the first delivery of components for the S400s, which are supposed to go live by April 2020. He stuck with this decision in disregard of Washington’s warnings. He has a solid base of popular support across political parties for this act of foreign policy and military independence from the U.S. (Chart 19). But the full consequences have not yet been felt. President Trump’s response is muted thus far. He banned Turkish pilots from the U.S. F-35 program and training but has not yet imposed sanctions due to his special relationship with Erdogan and ongoing negotiations over Syria. Syria is the root of the breakdown in Turkish-American relations since 2014. Washington and Ankara have clashed repeatedly over their preferred means of intervening into the Syrian civil war and fighting the Islamic State. The U.S. relies on the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK is based in Turkey and both the U.S. and Turkey designate it as a “terrorist organization” due to its militant activities in its long-running struggle for autonomy from Turkey. Turkey has intervened in Syria west of the Euphrates River and has repeatedly threatened to conduct deeper strikes against the Kurds. The latter would put U.S. troops in harm’s way and could result in lost leverage for Western forces seeking to maintain their YPG allies and force an acceptable settlement to the Syrian conflict. There is a basis for a deal between Presidents Trump and Erdogan that could keep sanctions from happening. Trump is attempting to wash its hands of Syria to fulfill a promise of limiting U.S. costs in wars abroad. Meanwhile an aggressive intervention in Syria is not a popular option in Turkey, which is why Erdogan has not acted on threats to seize a larger swath of territory (Chart 20). As a result, the U.S. and Turkey recently formed a joint operation center to coordinate and manage “safe zones” for Syrian refugees. If they can manage the gray area on the Turkish-Syrian border, the Trump administration can continue to prepare for withdrawal while preventing Erdogan from taking too much Kurdish territory. The tradeoff is clear, but similar agreements have fallen apart. First, the U.S. Congress is ready to impose sanctions over the S400s and Trump is under pressure to punish Turkey for undermining NATO and dealing with the Russians. Second, the Trump administration has not found an acceptable solution to the Syrian imbroglio that makes full withdrawal possible. If Trump becomes convinced that the risks of a total and rapid withdrawal from Syria are greater than the rewards (as many of his GOP allies staunchly believe), then he has less incentive to protect Erdogan. Meanwhile Erdogan could still decide he needs to plunge deeper into Syria to counteract the YPG. Or he could retaliate against any sanctions over the S400s and provoke a broader tit-for-tat exchange. He has threatened to cancel orders for Boeing aircraft worth $10 billion. Clearly U.S. sanctions will cause the lira to fall and send Turkey into another bout of financial turmoil. In the meantime Turkey’s relations with Europe also pose risks. While the refugee crisis has abated, in great part due to Turkish cooperation, other disagreements are still problematic: The EU is not upgrading Turkey’s customs union and both sides know that Turkey is not eligible for EU membership anytime soon. In response to what the EU has deemed as illegal drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Cyprus, the EU called off high-level political meetings with Turkey and suspended EUR 145.8 million in pre-accession aid. EU foreign ministers have also put off talks on the Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement between the two parties which would have led to an increase in passengers using Turkish airports as a transit hub. In addition, EU ministers asked the European Investment Bank to review its lending activities in Turkey, which amounted to EUR 358.8 million last year. Erdogan is taking a bolder approach to Cyprus. He has decided to send a fourth ship to drill for natural gas in Cyprus’s Exclusive Economic Zone in the Eastern Mediterranean. The purpose is to rally support for his government by calling on the public’s strong allegiance to Turkish Cypriots (Chart 21). The problem is that a confrontation sought as a domestic distraction could provoke negative policy reactions from the EU (or the U.S., which is reconsidering its arms embargo on the Greek Cypriot side). Relations with the West would get worse. Chart 22... But Turkey Cannot Afford To Flout The EU Turkey cannot afford to flout the U.S. and EU. Its economy is dependent on Europe (Chart 22). And the U.S. still underwrites Turkey’s NATO membership and access to the global financial system. The problem is that Erdogan is an ambitious and unorthodox leader and he has clearly wagered that he can rally domestic support through various confrontations with Western policies. This means that for the immediate future the country is more likely to clash with Western nations than it is to recognize its own limits. Political risks are frontloaded and investors should be cautious before trying to snap up the depressed lira or Turkish government bonds. Bottom Line: Tensions with the West – especially the U.S. – will likely lead to economic sanctions. While there is a basis for Presidents Trump and Erdogan to avoid a falling out, it is not reliable enough to underpin a constructive investment position – especially given Erdogan has not changed course in the wake of this year’s significant electoral loss. Investment Conclusions Chart 23Optimism On Lira Amid Unresolved Risks The lira has rallied by 3.6% since the Istanbul election. It has risen 0.3% since the replacement of CBRT Governor Murat Cetinkaya and rallied further despite the sacking of the central bank’s chief economist and other high-level staff (Chart 23). Given that the market knows that the central bank reshuffle entails interest rate cuts, is this a clear signal that the lira has hit a firm bottom and cannot fall further? Turkey is more likely to clash with Western nations.  We doubt it. First, Erdogan’s doubling down on unorthodox policy threatens the recovery in the currency and risk assets and his aggressive foreign policy raises the risk of sanctions and further economic pain. Second, although Turkey is not overly exposed to China, it is heavily exposed to Europe, which is on the brink of a full-fledged recession and depends heavily on the Chinese credit cycle – which had another disappointment in July. German manufacturing PMI has been sinking further below the 50 boom-bust mark since the beginning of the year, and the economy contracted in 2Q2019 (Chart 24). Chart 24Global Backdrop Not Yet Supportive Chart 25Improvement In Spread Will Be Fleeting Given these domestic and global economic risks and geopolitical tensions, we expect any improvement in the sovereign spread to be fleeting (Chart 25). While the lira may experience temporary improvement, pressures will re-emerge in 2020 as the lagged impact of Erdogan’s pursuit of growth at all costs re-emerge. Stay on the sidelines as any improvement in the near term is fraught with risk.     Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Indonesia, Turkey, And The UAE” May 2, 2019, ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Among those removed are the central bank’s chief economist Hakan Kara as well as the research and monetary policy general manager, markets general manager, and banking and financial institutions general manager.

Highlights So What? Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat to take the U.K. out of the EU without a withdrawal deal in place is a substantial 21% risk. Why? The odds of a no-deal exit could range from today’s 21% to around 30%, depending on whether Johnson manages to obtain some concessions from the EU in forthcoming negotiations. It is far too early to go bottom-feeding for the pound sterling, as Brexit risks are asymmetrical. We maintain our tactically cautious positioning, despite some cyclical improvements, due to elevated geopolitical risks in the United States, East Asia, and the Middle East. Feature Thank you Mr. Speaker, and of course I should welcome the prime minister to his place … the last prime minister of the United Kingdom. – Ian Blackford, head of the Scottish National Party in Westminster, July 25, 2019 Chart 1No-Deal Brexit Would Come At A Very Bad Time The Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the first time since the global financial crisis in 2008 on July 31. The Fed suggested that the door is open for future cuts, though Chairman Jerome Powell signaled that the cut should not be seen as the launch of a “lengthy rate cutting cycle” but rather as a “mid-cycle adjustment” comparable to cuts in 1995 and 1998. President Donald Trump responded by declaring a new 10% tariff on $300 billion worth of imports from China! He resumed criticizing Powell for insufficient dovishness – and Trump could in fact fire Powell, though the decision would be contested at the Supreme Court. The Fed’s move shows that Trump’s direct handle on interest rates comes from his ability to control trade policy and hence affect the “the external sector.” The trade war with China has exacerbated a global manufacturing slowdown that is keeping global growth and U.S. inflation weak enough to justify additional rate cuts with each future deterioration (Chart 1). Improvements in global monetary and fiscal policy suggest that the U.S. and global economic expansion will be extended to 2021 or beyond, which is positive for equities relative to government bonds or cash, but we remain defensively positioned in the near-term due to a range of geopolitical risks, highlighted by the new tariffs. The unconvincing U.S.-China tariff ceasefire agreed at the Osaka G20 has fallen apart as we expected; the period of “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran continues; and the U.S. is entering what we expect to be a period of socio-political instability in the lead up to the momentous 2020 presidential election. Moreover the risk of a “no deal” Brexit, in which the U.K. exits the European Union and reverts to basic World Trade Organization tariff levels, is rising and will create acute uncertainty over the next three months despite the world’s easy monetary policy settings (Charts 2A & 2B). In June we upgraded our odds of a no-deal Brexit to 21%, up from 7% this spring. While not our base case, the probability is too high for comfort and the critical timing for the rest of Europe warns against taking on additional risk. The risk of a “no deal” Brexit ... is rising and will create acute uncertainty. Chart 2AUncertainty And Sentiment Getting Worse ... Chart 2B... Despite Easy Monetary Policy BoJo’s Gambit Boris Johnson – aka “BoJo” – former mayor of London and foreign secretary, cemented his position as the U.K.’s 77th prime minister on July 24. He immediately launched a gambit to renegotiate the U.K.’s withdrawal. He is threatening not to pay the “divorce bill” (the U.K.’s outstanding budget contributions for the 2014-20 budget period and other liabilities in subsequent decades) of 39 billion pounds. He insists that the Irish backstop (which would keep Northern Ireland or the U.K. in the EU customs union to prevent a hard border between the two Irelands) must be abandoned. He has stacked his cabinet with pro-Brexit hardliners who share his “do or die” stance that Brexit must occur on October 31 regardless of whether an agreement for an orderly exit is in place. These developments were anticipated – hence the decline in our GeoRisk indicator – but the pound sterling is falling now that the confrontation is truly getting under way (Chart 3). Parliament is adjourned in August, so Johnson’s hardline negotiating tactics will get full play in the media cycle until early September, when the real showdown begins. Crunch time will likely run up to the eleventh hour, with Halloween marking an ominous deadline. There is plenty of room for the pound to fall further throughout this period, according to our European Investment Strategy’s handy measure (Chart 4), because the success of Boris’s gambit depends entirely upon creating a credible threat of crashing out of the EU in order to wring concessions that could conceivably pass through the British parliament. Chart 3Our Market-Based Indicator Suggests Still Some Complacency On Brexit Risks Chart 4GBP-EUR Still Has Room To Fall Under BoJo's Gambit Geopolitically, the United Kingdom is not prohibited from exiting the EU without a deal. Though the empire is a thing of the past, the U.K. remains a major world power. It has Europe’s second-largest economy, nuclear weapons, a blue-water navy, a leading voice in global political institutions, and is a close ally of the United States. It mints its own coin. It is a sovereign entity that can survive on its own just as Japan can survive on its own. This geopolitical foundation always supported our view that there was a 50% chance of the referendum passing in 2016, and today it supports the view that fears over a no-deal Brexit are not misplaced. Investors should therefore not confuse Johnson’s bluster with that of Alexis Tsipras in 2015. A British government dead-set on delivering this outcome – given the popular mandate from the 2016 referendum and the government’s constitutional handling of foreign affairs as opposed to parliament – can probably achieve it. However, the probability of a no-deal Brexit may become overstated in the next two-to-three months. Economically and politically, a no-deal exit is extremely difficult to follow through on – hence our 21% probability. Estimates of the negative economic impact range from a 2% reduction in GDP growth to an 11% reduction (Table 1). The 8% drop cited by Scottish National Party leader Ian Blackford in his denunciation of Prime Minister Johnson’s strategy is probably exaggerated. The U.K.’s recorded twentieth-century recessions range from 2%-7% (Chart 5). These offer as good of a benchmark as any. While a no-deal exit is probably not going to create a shock the same size as the Great Depression or the Great Recession, the recessions of 1979 and 1990 would be bad enough for any prime minister or ruling party. Table 1Wide Range Of Estimates For Impact Of No-Deal Brexit A small recession could also spiral out of control – it could create a vicious spiral with the European continent, which is already on the verge of recession. And it could damage consumer confidence more than anticipated – as it would be accompanied by immediate social and political unrest due to the half of the population that opposes Brexit in all forms. Politicians have to pay attention to the opinion polls as well as the referendum result, since opinion polls impact the next election. These show a plurality in favor of remaining in the EU and a strong trend against Brexit since 2017 – a factor that the currency markets are ignoring at the moment (Chart 6). While the evidence does not prove that a second referendum would result in Bremain, it is highly likely that a majority opposes a no-deal exit, given that at least a handful of pro-Brexit voters do not want to leave without a deal. The results of the European parliamentary elections in May (Chart 7) and the public’s preferences for different political parties (Chart 8) both support this conclusion. Chart 6Plurality Of Voters Still Favors Bremain Over Brexit Chart 8Voters Favor Bremain-Leaning Political Parties Parliament is also opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Though the Cooper-Letwin bill that forbad a no-deal exit initially passed by one vote in April (Chart 9A), the final amended version passed with a majority of 309 votes. Further, in July, with the rise of Boris Johnson, parliament passed a measure by 41 votes that requires parliament to sit this fall (Chart 9B), thus attempting to prevent Boris from proroguing parliament and forcing a no-deal Brexit that way. Technically Queen Elizabeth II could still prorogue parliament, but we highly doubt she would intervene in a way that would divide the nation. Johnson himself will have to face the reality of parliament and public opinion. Parliament has one crystal clear means of halting a no-deal exit: a vote of no confidence in Johnson’s government.1 Theresa May only survived her vote of no confidence by 19 seats. Yet Johnson is entering 10 Downing Street at a time when parliament is essentially hung. The Conservative Party’s coalition with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Union Party has been reduced to a majority of two, which is likely to fall to a single solitary seat after the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, which is taking place as we go to press. Johnson has purged several Tories from his cabinet, and there are a handful of Conservatives who are firmly opposed to a no-deal Brexit. It would be an extremely tight vote as to whether these Tory rebels would be willing and able to bring down one of their own governments – a careful assessment suggests that there are about half a dozen swing voters on each side of the House of Commons.2 But 47 Conservatives contrived to block prorogation (see Chart 9B). The magnitude of the crisis members of parliament would face – an unpopular, self-inflicted no-deal exit and recession – is essential context that would motivate rebellious voting behavior. Parliament’s actions so far, the reality of the economic impact, and the popular polling suggest that MPs are likely to halt the Johnson government from forcing a no-deal exit if he makes a mad dash for it. More likely is that Johnson himself pushes to hold an election after securing some technical concessions from Brussels. He is galvanizing the Conservative vote and swallowing up the single-issue Brexit vote (UKIP and the Brexit Party), while the opposition remains divided between the Labour Party under the vacillating Jeremy Corbyn and the resurgent Liberal Democrats (Chart 10). In a first-past-the-post electoral system, this provides a window of opportunity for the Conservatives to improve their parliamentary majority – assuming that Johnson has renegotiated a deal with the EU and has something to show for it. Chart 10BoJo Could Call Election With Deal In Hand Chart 11Ireland Can Compromise For Stability's Sake This would require the EU to delay the deadline yet again (September 3 is the last date for a non-confidence vote to force a pre-Brexit October 24 election). The European Union has a self-interest in preventing a no-deal Brexit, as it needs to maintain economic stability. It ultimately would prefer to keep the U.K. in the bloc, which means that delays can ultimately be granted, especially to accommodate a new election. As to what kind of compromises are available, the Irish backstop can suffer technical changes to its provisions, time frames, or application. In the end, the Irish Sea is already a different kind of border than the other borders in the U.K. and therefore it is possible to enact additional checks that nevertheless have a claim to retaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Democratic Unionists could find themselves outnumbered on this issue. Certainly the Republic of Ireland has an interest in preventing a no-deal Brexit as long as a hard border with Northern Ireland is avoided, and Boris Johnson maintains that it will be (Chart 11). The risk of a no-deal Brexit is around 21% Our updated Brexit Decision Tree in Diagram 1 provides the outcomes. Former Prime Minister Theresa May failed three times to pass her Brexit deal. We allot a 30% chance, higher than consensus, that Boris Johnson can do it through galvanizing the Conservative vote – given that he is operating with a hung parliament and is at odds with the median voter on Brexit. We give 21% odds to a no-deal Brexit based on the difficulty of parliament outright halting Johnson if his government is absolutely determined to follow through with it. This is clearly a large risk but not our base case. We would upgrade these odds to around 30% in the event that negotiations with the EU completely fail to produce tangible outcomes. It is far more likely that a delay occurs and leads to new elections (49%) – and these odds rise to 70% if Johnson fails to extract concessions from the EU that enable him to pass a deal through parliament. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Updated As Of June 21 For Boris Johnson) A final constraint on Johnson comes from Scotland, as highlighted in the epigraph at the top of the report: the demand for a new Scottish independence referendum is reviving as a result of opposition to Brexit in general and specifically to Prime Minister Johnson’s hardline approach (Charts 12A & 12B). The SNP is also improving its favorability among Scottish voters relative to other parties (Chart 13). We have highlighted this risk in the past: support for Scottish independence does not have a clear ceiling amid the antagonism over Brexit, especially if an economic and political shock hits the union as a result of a forced no-deal exit. Chart 13Scottish Nationals Resurgent Bottom Line: The risk of a no-deal Brexit is around 21%, though a complete failure of negotiations with the EU could push it up to 30%. If it occurs it will induce a recession and eventually could result in the breakup of the union with Scotland. China And Investment Recommendations What can investors be certain of regardless of the different Brexit outcomes? The United Kingdom will reverse the fiscal austerity of recent years (Chart 14). Fiscal stimulus will be necessary either to offset the shock of a no-deal exit in the worst-case scenario, or to address the ongoing economic challenges and public grievances in a soft Brexit or no Brexit scenario. These grievances stem from the negative impact on the middle class of globalization, post-financial crisis deleveraging, low real wage growth, and the decline in productivity. Potential GDP growth is set to fall if immigration is curtailed and restrictions on trade with the EU go up. The government will have to offset this trend with spending to boost the social safety net and encourage investment. Chart 14Fiscal Austerity To Go Into Reverse The pound is clearly weak on a long-term and structural basis (Chart 15). Based on our assessment of the British median voter – opposed to a no-deal Brexit – and the fact that parliament is also opposed to a no-deal Brexit Chart 15Deep Value In Sterling and is the supreme lawgiving body in the British constitution, we expect that an enormous buying opportunity will emerge when Prime Minister Johnson’s gambit has reached its apex and he is either forced to accept what concessions the EU will give. But if forced out of office, election uncertainty due to a potential Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn will prolong the pound’s weakness. Brexit is not the only risk affecting Europe this summer – a critical factor is Europe’s own economic status, which in great part hinges on our China view (Chart 16). The Chinese Communist Party’s mid-year Politburo meeting struck a more accommodative tone relative to the April meeting that sounded less dovish in the aftermath of the Q1 credit splurge. The emphasis of the remarks shifted back to the need to take additional measures to stabilize the economy, as in the October 2018 statement. This fits with our view since February that Chinese stimulus will surprise to the upside this year. Chart 16Chinese Reflation Positive For Europe Policymakers’ efforts are working thus far, with signs of stabilization occurring in the all-important labor market (Chart 17). There is some evidence that Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign is moderating, which also supports the view that policy settings in the broadest sense are becoming more supportive of growth (Chart 18). Chart 17China Will Reflate More Chart 18Relaxing Anti-Corruption Campaign Another Form Of Easing Chart 19Hong Kong Equities Have Farther To Fall We still are long European equities versus Chinese equities and are short the CNY-USD. From a geopolitical point of view, the U.S.-China conflict is intensifying with President Trump’s threat to raise an additional 10% tariff on $300 billion of Chinese imports despite the resumption of talks. In addition, the Hong Kong protests are intensifying, with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) warning that it may have to intervene. There is high potential for violence to erupt, leading to a more heavy-handed approach by Hong Kong security forces and even eventual PLA deployment. This suggests there is downside in the Hang Seng index (Chart 19) – and PLA intervention could lead to broader investor concerns about China’s internal stability and another reason for tensions with the United States and its allies. The U.S.-China conflict is intensifying. Our alarmist view on Taiwan in advance of the January 2020 election is finally taking shape. Not only has the Hong Kong unrest prompted a notable uptick in Taiwanese people’s view of themselves as exclusively Taiwanese (Chart 20), but Beijing has also announced additional restrictions on travel and tourism to Taiwan – an economic sanction that will harm the economy (Chart 21). These actions and escalation in Hong Kong raise the odds that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party will remain in power in Taiwan after January and hence that cross-strait relations (and by extension Sino-American relations) will remain strained and will require a higher risk premium to be built in. The latest trade war escalation could easily spill into strategic saber-rattling, as the U.S. blames China for North Korea’s return to bad behavior and China blames the U.S. for dissent in Hong Kong and likely Taiwan. Chart 21Beijing To Sanction Taiwan Tourism Again The U.S.-China trade negotiations are falling apart at the moment. We had argued that China’s stimulus and stabilization would create a negative reaction from President Trump, who would regret the Osaka ceasefire when he saw that China’s bargaining leverage had improved. This has come to pass, vindicating our 60% odds of an escalation post-G20. The U.S. Commerce Department could still conceivably renew the Temporary General License for U.S. companies to deal with Chinese tech firm Huawei on August 19, in order to create an environment conducive to progress for the next round of trade talks in September, but with the latest round of tariffs we think it is more likely that we will get a major escalation of strategic tensions and even saber-rattling. China’s new announcements regarding reforms to make local officials more accountable and to make it easier for companies to go bankrupt, including unprofitable “zombie” state-owned enterprises, could be a thinly veiled structural concession to the United States, but it remains to be seen whether these will be implemented and reinforced. Beijing rebooted structural reforms at the nineteenth national party congress but we expect stimulus to overwhelm reform amid trade war. We are converting our long non-Chinese rare earth producers recommendation to a strategic trade, after it hit our 5% stop-loss, as it is supported by our major theme of Sino-American strategic rivalry. The secular nature of this rivalry has been greatly confirmed by the fact that President Trump is now responding to American election dynamics. The U.S. Democratic Party’s primary debates have revealed that the candidates most likely to take on President Trump (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) are adopting his hawkish foreign policy and trade policy stance toward China. The frontrunner former Vice President Joe Biden is the exception, as he is maintaining President Obama’s more dovish and multilateral approach. Trump’s clear response is to ensure that he still owns the trade and manufacturing narrative, to call Biden weak on trade, and to prevent the left-wing populists from outflanking him. Short the Hang Seng index as a tactical trade and close long Q1 2020 Brent futures versus Q1 2021 at the market bell tonight.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Maddy Thimont Jack, “A New Prime Minister Intent On No Deal Brexit Can’t Be Stopped By MPs,” May 22, 2019, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk. 2 See Dominic Walsh, “Would MPs really back a no confidence motion to stop no-deal?” The New Statesman, July 15, 2019, www.newstatesman.com.

Highlights So What? U.S. policy uncertainty adds to a slew of geopolitical reasons to remain tactically cautious on risk assets. Why? U.S. fiscal policy should ultimately bring market-positive developments – though the budget negotiation process could induce volatility in the near-term. We expect spending to go up and do not expect a default due to the debt ceiling or another prolonged government shutdown. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020. But left-wing progressive candidates are gaining on him and their success will trouble financial markets. With Persian Gulf tensions still elevated, go long Q1 2020 Brent crude relative to Q1 2021. Feature Chart 1U.S. Politics Poses Risks Through Next November Economic policy uncertainty is rising in the United States even as it falls around the world (Chart 1). Ongoing budget negotiations and the Democratic primary election give equity investors another reason to remain cautious in the near term. We expect more volatility. There also remain several persistent global threats to markets posed by unresolved geopolitical risks – rising Brexit risks with Boris Johnson likely to take the helm in the United Kingdom; oil supply threats amid Iran’s latest rejection of U.S. offers to negotiate its missile program; and a major confirmation of our theme of geopolitical risk rotation to East Asia, with Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the South China Sea all heating up at once. In sum, political and geopolitical risks are showing investors a yellow light, even though the macroeconomic outlook still supports BCA’s cyclical (12-month) equity overweight. U.S. Fiscal Policy Will Remain Accommodative While U.S. monetary policy has taken a dovish turn – supported by other central banks – fiscal spending is now coming into focus for investors. We expect the budget battle to be market-relevant this year, injecting greater economic policy uncertainty, but the end-game should be market-positive. Brinkmanship will not get as bad as during the debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013, though market jitters will be frontloaded if Pelosi and the White House fail to conclude a deal immediately. Chart 2The 'Stimulus Cliff' Awaits President Trump The U.S. budget process is always rocky and is usually concluded well into the fiscal year under discussion. This year the fight will be more important than over the past few years because, as the two-year bipartisan agreement of 2018 lapses, the so-called “stimulus cliff” looms over the U.S. economy and will get caught up in the epic battle over the 2020 election. The stimulus cliff is the automatic imposition of fiscal spending cuts (“sequestration”) in FY2020 that would take effect as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Standard estimates of the U.S. budget deficit expect that the deficit will shrink in 2020 if the spending caps are not raised, resulting in a negative fiscal thrust (Chart 2). The result would be to decrease aggregate demand at a time when the risk of recession is relatively high (Chart 3). Chart 3Recession Odds Still High Over Next 12 Months This is clearly not in President Trump’s interest, since a recession would devastate his reelection odds. Hence, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and other White House officials are pushing for a budget deal before the House of Representatives goes on recess on July 26 and the Senate on August 2. Ideally, an agreement would raise the spending caps, appropriate funds for the rest of the budget, and lift the “debt ceiling,” the statutory limit on U.S. debt. But it would be surprising if a deal came together as early as next week. A failure to agree on a budget deal before Congress goes on recess will make the market increasingly jittery. Congress can cancel the August recess, or wait until September 9 when they reconvene, but a failure to agree on something between now and then will make the market increasingly jittery. The U.S. has already surpassed the current debt limit and the latest estimates suggest that the Treasury Department’s “extraordinary measures” to meet U.S. debt payments could be exhausted by early-to-mid September.1 This would give Congress only a week in September to raise the debt limit. There are three main reasons to expect that the debt ceiling fight will not get out of hand: Chart 4Americans Stopped Worrying And Love Debt First, a technical default on U.S. debt could result in a failure to meet politically explosive obligations, such as sending social security checks to seniors. No one in Washington would benefit from such a failure and President Trump would suffer the most. Second, the public is not as worried about national deficits and debt today as it was in the aftermath of the financial crisis (Chart 4). Democrats, as the pro-government party, do not have an incentive to stage a showdown over the debt like Tea Party Republicans did under the previous administration. To be fair, they did do so in January 2018, but backed off after merely two days due to high political costs. Third, the one budget conflict that could create a catastrophic impasse – funding for Trump’s border wall – can be assuaged by Trump’s use of executive action, as he demonstrated by declaring a national emergency and appropriating military funds for fencing. Trump is fighting a general election in 2020 and is unlikely to use the debt ceiling as leverage to the point that the U.S. defaults on its obligations. The risk to investors, however, is that he goes back to threatening a 25% tariff on Mexico if it fails to staunch the flow of immigrants from Central America. What if the Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on the budget and spending caps? Democrats say they will not raise the debt limit unless they get non-defense spending increases. House Democrats need to reward their constituents for voting for them in 2018 and want to increase non-defense spending at “parity” with increases to defense spending. They also want to reduce the defense increases that Republicans seek in order to pay for non-defense increases. President Trump and the Republicans have a higher defense target and a lower non-defense target. The truth is that the Republicans and Democrats have agreed three times to increase spending caps beyond the levels required under the 2011 law – and they have done so most emphatically under President Trump with the FY2018-19 agreement (Chart 5). This year the two parties stand about $17 billion apart on defense and $30 billion apart on non-defense spending.2 We would expect both sides to splurge on spending and get what they want, but they could also split the difference: the amounts are small but the acrimony between the two parties could extend the talks. Congress may have to pass one or more “continuing resolutions” (stopgap measures keeping spending levels constant) to negotiate further. A continuing resolution could at least raise the debt ceiling and leave the rest of the budget negotiation until later, removing the majority of the political risk under discussion. Is another government shutdown possible? Yes, but not to the extent of early 2019. Trump saw a sharp drop in his approval ratings during the longest-ever government shutdown last year (Chart 6). Brinkmanship could lead to another shutdown, but he is likely to capitulate before it becomes prolonged. In early 2020, he wants to be lobbing grenades into the Democratic primary election rather than giving all of the Democrats an easy chance to criticize him for dysfunction in Washington. Ultimately, Trump can simply refrain from vetoing whatever the House and Senate agree – it is not in his interest to shrink the budget deficit in an election year. The Democrats’ spending increases would boost aggregate demand and are thus in President Trump’s personal interest. Trump is the self-professed “king of debt” – he is not afraid to agree to a deal that will be criticized by fiscal hawks. The latter have far less influence in Congress anyway since the 2018 midterm election. Why should House Democrats extend the economic expansion knowing that it would likely improve President Trump’s reelection chances? Because Trump will capitulate to most of their spending demands; voters would punish them if they are seen deliberately engineering “austerity”; and they need to show voters that they can govern. As for the 2020 race, they will focus on other issues: they will attack Trump on trade and immigration and focus on social policy: health care, the minimum wage, taxes and inequality, climate change, and student debt. What will be the fiscal and economic impact of a budget deal? The budget deal under negotiation ($750 billion in defense discretionary spending, $639 billion in non-defense discretionary spending) would raise the spending cap by about $145 billion – this is slightly above the $112 billion negative fiscal thrust expected in 2020.3 The result is that the U.S. fiscal drag expected in 2020 will at least be eliminated (if not turned into a fiscal boost), helping to prolong the cycle. The removal of fiscal drag will coincide with monetary easing, which is positive for markets since inflation is subdued. The Federal Reserve abandoned rate hikes this year (after four last year) because of the asymmetric risk of deflation relative to inflation (Chart 7). The FOMC believes that they can always jack up interest rates to combat an inflation overshoot, as their predecessors did in the 1980s, but that they are constrained by the zero lower-bound in interest rates. They may never recover from a loss of credibility and collapse of inflation expectations, so an insurance policy is necessary. The result is likely to be one or two rate cuts this year, which has already improved financial conditions. Chart 7The Fed Fears The Asymmetric Threat Of Deflation Bottom Line: Budget brinkmanship could become a near-term source of volatility but it is ultimately likely to be resolved with the pro-market outcome of less fiscal drag in 2020. The debt ceiling debate is unlikely to result in a U.S. default and any government shutdown is likely to resemble the short one of 2018 more than the long one of 2019. We expect U.S. equities to grind higher over the 12-month cyclical horizon, but we remain exceedingly cautious on a three-month tactical horizon. The price of Trump’s capitulation on border funding could be a renewed threat of tariffs against Mexico. The Budget Deal, Geopolitics, And The Dollar Chart 8China Shifts From Reform To Stimulus What does this fiscal outlook imply for the U.S. dollar? Near-term moves will probably be negative, since the fiscal boost outlined above will not be comparable to 2018-19, and meanwhile our view on China’s stimulus is bearing out reasonably well (Chart 8). Improvements in global growth, Fed cuts, and rising oil prices will weigh on the greenback even though later we expect the dollar to recover on the back of renewed U.S.-China conflict and global recession in 2021 or thereafter. Beyond the recession, two of our major political and geopolitical themes continue to point to large downside risk to the dollar: populist politics and multipolarity, or geopolitical competition among the world’s great powers. Beyond the recession, two of our major political and geopolitical themes continue to point to large downside risk to the dollar: populist politics and multipolarity. Populism and the Fed: Domestically, the United States is seeing a rise in populism that is continuing across administrations and political parties. This is conducive to easier monetary policy. Left-wing firebrand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) recent exchange with Fed Chairman Jay Powell highlights the trend. AOC asked one of the most frequent questions that BCA’s clients ask: Does the Phillips Curve still work? Powell answered that in recent years it has not. President Trump’s Economic Director Larry Kudlow applauded AOC, saying “she kind of nailed that” (obviously the administration is pushing for lower rates). If inflation is not a risk, monetary policy need not guard against it. This interchange should be taken in the context of President Trump’s attempts to jawbone Powell into rate cuts and the notable monetary promiscuousness of his ostensibly “hard money” Federal Reserve nominees. The extremely different ideological and institutional profiles of these various policymakers suggests that a new consensus is forming that is conducive to more dovish monetary policy than otherwise expected over the long run. Populists of any stripe, from Trump to AOC, would like to see lower interest rates, higher nominal GDP growth, and a lower real debt burden on households. We are reminded of an oft-overlooked point about the stagflation of the 1970s. Fed Chair Arthur Burns is usually depicted as a lackey of President Richard Nixon who succumbed to political influence and failed to raise interest rates adequately to fight inflation. But this is only part of the story. Leaving aside that the Fed only had a single mandate of minimizing unemployment at that time, Burns was conflicted. He saw the need to fight inflation, but he had more than Nixon’s wrath to fear. He also dreaded the impact on the Fed’s credibility and popular support as an institution if he hiked rates too aggressively and stoked unemployment (Chart 9).4 Chart 9Rate Hikes Are Hard To Defend Amid High Unemployment In other words, populism can constrain the Fed from the bottom up as well as from the top down in a context of rising unemployment.5 Multipolarity and Currency War: Since President Trump’s election we have highlighted that dollar depreciation is likely to be the administration’s ultimate aim if President Trump’s overall economic strategy is truly to stimulate growth, reduce the trade deficit, and repatriate manufacturing. Jacking up growth rates relative to the rest of the world while disrupting global trade via tariffs is a recipe for a strong dollar that undermines the attempt to bring jobs back from overseas. We have always argued that China would not grant the U.S. “shock therapy” liberalization and market opening – and that neither China, nor Europe, nor Japan would or could engage in currency appreciation along the lines of a new Smithsonian or Plaza Accord. The U.S. does not have as much geopolitical clout as it had in the 1970s-80s when it forced major currency deals on its allies and partners. The remaining option is for the U.S. to attempt unilateral depreciation. The combination of profligate spending, easy monetary policy, and populism may do the trick. But it is also possible that President Trump will attempt to engineer depreciation through Treasury Department intervention. If a slide toward recession threatens his reelection – or he is reelected and hence gets rid of the first-term reelection constraint – his unorthodox policies pose a significant risk to the dollar. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar faces near-term risks as growth rebalances towards rest of the world, but will probably resume its rise in the impending recessionary environment and expected re-escalation of tensions with China. Over the long run, it faces severe risks due to fiscal mismanagement, domestic populism, and geopolitical struggle. A Progressive Overshoot Will Hurt Democrats … And Equities Chart 10A Democratic Win Will Weigh On Animal Spirits The Democratic Party’s primary election is also a risk to the equity rally. We see a 45% risk that President Trump will be unseated in November 2020 and hence that the U.S. will once again experience a dramatic policy reversal (as in 2000, 2008, and 2016). The risks are to the downside because the market is at all-time highs and Democratic proposals include raising taxes on corporations and re-regulating the economy (Chart 10). Whether you accept our 55% odds of Trump reelection, the race will be a continual source of uncertainty for investors going forward. How extreme is the uncertainty? Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner in the race, though he has lost his initial bump in opinion polls (Chart 11). Biden’s success is market-positive relative to the other Democratic candidates since he is an establishment politician and a known quantity. Given his age, a Biden presidency would likely last for one term and focus on repudiating Trumpism and consolidating the Obama administration’s signature achievements (the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, environmental regulation, etc). Greater predictability in the health care sector and a return to lower-level tensions with Iran would be market-positive. The financial sector would be consoled by the fact that nothing worse than Dodd-Frank would be in the offing. A Biden victory would be more likely to yield Democratic control of the senate than a progressive candidate’s victory.6 This means that the risk of Democrats taking full control of government and passing more than one major piece of legislation after 2020 increases with Biden. Yet any candidate capable of defeating Trump is likely to take the senate in our view; and Biden’s legislative initiatives are likely to be more centrist.7 So as long as Biden remains in the lead in primary polling, he increases his chances of winning the nomination, maximizes the 45% chance of Democrats winning the White House, and decreases the intensity of the relative policy uncertainty facing markets. The risk to the Democrats is … a left-wing or progressive overshoot that knocks out Biden in the primary, replacing him with a progressive candidate who may not be as electable in the general election.  The risk to the Democrats is that the leftward policy shift within the party (Chart 12) may lead to a left-wing or progressive overshoot that knocks out Biden in the primary, replacing him with a progressive candidate who may not be as electable in the general election. This would give President Trump the ability to capitalize on his advantage as the incumbent by inveighing against socialism. Most of the major progressive candidates are electable – they have a popular and electoral path to the White House – as revealed by their successful head-to-head polling against Trump in battleground state opinion polling (Chart 13). But these pathways are narrower than Biden’s. Biden is the only candidate whose name has been on the ballot in two presidential elections carrying the critical Rust Belt swing states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (not to mention Ohio and Florida). He is from Pennsylvania. And he is more competitive than most of his rivals in the American south and southwest, giving him the potential to pick up Florida or Arizona in the general election. But none of this matters if Biden cannot win the Democratic nomination first. The risk of a progressive overshoot is growing at present. Biden is losing his lead in the primary polling, as mentioned. Progressive candidates taken together are polling better than centrists, contrary to previous Democratic primaries (Chart 14). This is true even if we define centrists broadly, for instance to include Buttigieg (Chart 15). Biden is in a weaker position than Hillary Clinton in 2007 – and the more progressive candidate Obama ultimately defeated her (Chart 16). Biden has now slipped to second place in one national poll and some state polls. The second round of Democratic debates on July 30-31 will be a critical testing period for whether Biden can maintain frontrunner status. The first round fulfilled our expectation of boosting the progressives at his expense, especially Elizabeth Warren. It surprised us in dealing a blow to the campaign of Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont who initiated the progressive left’s surge with his hard-fought race against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Sanders is more competitive than the other progressives in the Rust Belt, and in the general election, based on his head-to-head polling against Trump. Yet he has fallen behind in recent Democratic primary polling, ceding ground to Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg, who are all his followers in some sense. The second debate is a critical opportunity for him to arrest the loss of momentum. Otherwise he is likely to be fatally wounded: a collapse in polling beneath his floor of about 15%, and relative to other progressives, despite extensive name recognition, will make it very difficult for him to recover in the third round of debates in September. His votes will go toward other progressives, particularly Buttigieg – the other white male progressive-leaning candidate who is competitive in the Midwest.8 Our 55% base case that Trump is reelected rests on the high historical reelection rate for incumbents, particularly in the event of no recession during the first term – yet discounted due to Trump’s relatively low nationwide popularity, as it is reminiscent of a president in a recessionary environment (Chart 17). Trump has his ideological base more fired up than Obama did (Chart 18), which helps drive voter turnout, although as a result he risks losing support from the rest of the population. Still, Trump’s approval rating is in line with Obama’s at this stage in his first term. As long as the economy holds up and Trump does not suffer a foreign policy humiliation, he should be seen as a slight favorite. A Trump victory is not positive for risk assets, aside from a relief rally on policy continuity. This is because in a second term he cannot reproduce the same magnitude of pro-market effects (huge tax cuts and deregulation) yet, freed from the need for reelection, he has fewer political constraints in producing higher magnitude anti-market effects (tariffs and/or sanctions on China, Iran, Russia, and possibly the EU and Mexico). This view dovetails with the BCA House View which remains overweight equities relative to bonds and cash over a cyclical (12 month) horizon but underweight over the longer run with the expectation that a recession will loom. Bottom Line: The Democratic Primary election should start having an impact on markets – the general election is likely to be too close for market participants to have a high conviction, driving up uncertainty. Uncertainty will be especially pronounced if, and as, leftwing or progressive candidates outperform in the primary races and poll well against Trump in the general election. This dynamic is negative for business sentiment and the profit outlook, especially if Biden’s polling falls further in the wake of the second debate. Investment Conclusions We recommend staying long JPY-USD, long gold, and short CNY-USD. We remain overweight Thai equities within emerging markets, a defensive play. And we would not close our tactical overweight in health care sector and health care equipment sub-sector relative to the S&P 500. The rally in Chinese equities – despite China’s Q2 GDP growth rate of 6.2%, the worst in 27 years – brings full circle the view we initiated in April 2017 that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power would result in a major deleveraging drive that would drag on the global economy. Since February we have argued that the U.S. trade war has pushed Chinese policymakers to favor stimulus over reform – but we have also maintained that the effectiveness of stimulus is declining, especially as a result of the trade war hit to sentiment. Nevertheless, as a result of this turn in Chinese policy – along with the turn in U.S. monetary and fiscal policy – we see the global macroeconomic outlook improving. Combining this view with ongoing tensions in the Persian Gulf and the expectation that oil markets will tighten, we recommend our Commodity & Energy Strategy’s trade of going long Brent crude Q1 2020 versus Q1 2021.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See U.S. Department of Treasury, “Secretary Mnuchin Sends Debt Limit Letter to Congress,” July 12, 2019, home.treasury.gov. Jordan LaPier, “New Projection: Debt Limit “X Date” Could Arrive in September,” July 8, 2019, bipartisanpolicy.org. 2 See Jordain Carney and Niv Elis, White House, Congress inch toward debt, budget deal,” July 17, 2019, thehill.com. 3 See the Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2019 to 2029,” January 2019; “Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2019,” February 2019; and Theresa Gullo, “Discretionary Appropriations Under the Budget Control Act,” Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, February 27, 2019, www.cbo.gov. 4 See James L. Pierce, “The Political Economy of Arthur Burns,” The Journal of Finance 34: 2 (1979), pp. 485-96, esp p. 489 regarding a congressional testimony: “Interestingly, no questions were raised or innuendo offered that monetary expansion would be excessive to support Richard Nixon’s reelection efforts. Instead, Burns was urged by the Democrats to follow an expansionary monetary policy in order to reduce the level of unemployment.” See also Athanasios Orphanides and John C. Williams, “Monetary Policy Mistakes and the Evolution of Inflation Expectations,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2010-12 (2011), www.frbsf.org. 5 An analogy might be drawn with the Supreme Court, whose independence as one of three constitutional branches is much more firmly grounded in U.S. law than the Fed’s, but nevertheless cannot make decisions in an ivory tower. It must consider the effects of its judgments on popular opinion, since universally deplored decisions would reduce the court’s credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public over time and ultimately the other government branches’ adherence to those decisions. 6 This is both because Biden is more electable (thus more likely to bring a vice president who can break a tie vote in the senate) and because his candidacy can help Democrats in all of the senate swing races – for example, Arizona as well as Colorado and Maine. Harris is not as helpful in Maine while Warren and Sanders are not as helpful in Arizona. 7 Biden would return to the 39.6% top marginal individual tax rate and double the capital gains tax on those earning incomes of more than $1 million. See Biden For President, “Health Care,” joebiden.com. 8 Conversely, if Biden somehow collapses, Buttigieg unlike Sanders has the option of moving toward the political center to absorb Biden’s large reservoir of support.