Regulation
Highlights Geopolitical risk is trickling back into financial markets. China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse collapsed again. The Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is ticking back up after the sharp drop from 2020. All of our proprietary GeoRisk Indicators are elevated or rising. Geopolitical risk often rises during bull markets – the Geopolitical Risk Index can even spike without triggering a bear market or recession. Nevertheless a rise in geopolitical risk is positive for the US dollar, which happens to stand at a critical technical point. The macroeconomic backdrop for the dollar is becoming less bearish given China’s impending slowdown. President Biden’s trip to Europe and summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin will underscore a foreign policy of forming a democratic alliance to confront Russia and China, confirming the secular trend of rising geopolitical risk. Shift to a defensive tactical position. Feature Back in March 2017 we wrote a report, “Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was,” in which we reaffirmed our 2016 view that President Trump would succeed in steering the US in the direction of fiscal largesse and trade protectionism. Now it is time for us to do the same with President Biden. Our forecast for Biden rested on the same points: the US would pursue fiscal profligacy and mercantilist trade policy. The recognition of a consistent national policy despite extreme partisan divisions is a testament to the usefulness of macro analysis and the geopolitical method. Trump stole the Democrats’ thunder with his anti-austerity and anti-free trade message. Biden stole it back. It was the median voter in the Rust Belt who was calling the shots all along (after all, Biden would still have won the election without Arizona and Georgia). We did make some qualifications, of course. Biden would maintain a hawkish line on China and Russia but he would reject Trump’s aggressive foreign and trade policy when it came to US allies.1 Biden would restore President Obama’s policy on Iran and immigration but not Russia, where there would be no “diplomatic reset.” And Biden’s fiscal profligacy, unlike Trump’s, would come with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy … even though they would fall far short of offsetting the new spending. This is what brings us to this week’s report: New developments are confirming this view of the Biden administration. Geopolitical Risk And Bull Markets Chart 1Global Geopolitical Risk And The Dollar In recent weeks Biden has adopted a hawkish policy on China, lowered tensions with Europe, and sought to restore President Obama’s policy of détente with Iran. The jury is still out on relations with Russia – Biden will meet with Putin on June 16 – but we do not expect a 2009-style “reset” that increases engagement. Still, it is too soon to declare a “Biden doctrine” of foreign policy because Biden has not yet faced a major foreign crisis. A major test is coming soon. Biden’s decision to double down on hawkish policy toward China will bring ramifications. His possible deal with Iran faces a range of enemies, including within Iran. His reduction in tensions with Russia is not settled yet. While the specific source and timing of his first major foreign policy crisis is impossible predict, structural tensions are rebuilding. An aggregate of our 13 market-based GeoRisk indicators suggests that global political risk is skyrocketing once again. A sharp spike in the indicator, which is happening now, usually correlates with a dollar rally (Chart 1). This indicator is mean-reverting since it measures the deviation of emerging market currencies, or developed market equity markets, from underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. The implication is positive for the dollar, although the correlation is not always positive. Looking at both the DXY’s level and its rate of change shows periods when the global risk indicator fell yet the dollar stayed strong – and vice versa. The big increase in the indicator over the past week stems mostly from Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and Australia, though all 13 of the indicators are now either elevated or rising, including the China/Taiwan indicators. Some of the increase is due to base effects. As global exports recover, currencies and equities that we monitor are staying weaker than one would expect. This causes the relevant BCA GeoRisk indicator to rise. Base effects from the weak economy in June 2020 will fall out in coming weeks. But the aggregate shows that all of the indicators are either high or rising and, on a country by country level, they are now in established uptrends even aside from base effects. Chart 2Global Policy Uncertainty Revives Meanwhile the global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is recovering across the world after the drop in uncertainty following the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 2). Policy uncertainty is also linked to the dollar and this indicator shows that it is rising on a secular basis. The Geopolitical Risk Index, maintained by Matteo Iacoviello and a group of academics affiliated with the Policy Uncertainty Index, is also in a secular uptrend, although cyclically it has not recovered from the post-COVID drop-off. It is sensitive to traditional, war-linked geopolitical risk as reported in newspapers. By contrast our proprietary indicators are sensitive to market perceptions of any kind of risk, not just political, both domestic and international. A comparison of the Geopolitical Risk Index with the S&P 500 over the past century shows that a geopolitical crisis may occur at the beginning of a business cycle but it may not be linked with a recession or bear market. Risk can rise, even extravagantly, during economic expansions without causing major pullbacks. But a crisis event certainly can trigger a recession or bear market, particularly if it is tied to the global oil supply, as in the early 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Chart 3). Chart 3Secular Rise In Geopolitical Risk Soon To Reassert Itself While geopolitical risk is normally positive for the dollar, the macroeconomic backdrop is negative. The dollar’s attempt to recover earlier this year faltered. This underlying cyclical bearish dollar trend is due to global economic recovery – which will continue – and extravagant American monetary expansion and budget deficits. This is why we have preferred gold – it is a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation expectations. Tactically this year we have refrained from betting against the dollar except when building up some safe-haven positions like Japanese yen. Over the medium and long term we expect geopolitical risk to put a floor under the greenback. The bottom line is that the US dollar is at a critical technical crossroads where it could break out or break down. Macro factors suggest a breakdown but the recovery of global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk suggests the opposite. We remain neutral. A final quantitative indicator of the recovery of geopolitical risk is the performance of global aerospace and defense stocks (Chart 4). Defense shares are rising in absolute and relative terms. Chart 4Another Sign Of Geopolitical Risk: Defense Stocks Outperform As Virus Ebbs And Military Spending Surges Can The WWII Peace Be Prolonged? Qualitative assessments of geopolitical risk are necessary to explain why risk is on a secular upswing – why drops in the quantitative indicators are temporary and the troughs keep getting higher. Great nations are returning to aggressive competition after a period of relative peace and prosperity. Over the past two decades Russia and China took advantage of America’s preoccupations with the Middle East, the financial crisis, and domestic partisanship in order to build up their global influence. The result is a world in which authority is contested. The current crisis is not merely about the end of the post-Cold War international order. It is much scarier than that. It is about the decay of the post-WWII international order and the return of the centuries-long struggle for global supremacy among Great Powers. The US and European political establishments fear the collapse of the WWII settlement in the face of eroding legitimacy at home and rising challenges from abroad. The 1945 peace settlement gave rise to both a Cold War and a diplomatic system, including the United Nations Security Council, for resolving differences among the great powers. It also gave rise to European integration and various institutions of American “liberal hegemony.” It is this system of managing great power struggle, and not the post-Cold War system of American domination, that lies in danger of unraveling. This is evident from the following points: American preeminence only lasted fifteen years, or at best until the 2008 Georgia war and global financial crisis. The US has been an incoherent wild card for at least 13 years now, almost as long as it was said to be the global empire. Russian antagonism with the West never really ended. In retrospect the 1990s were a hiatus rather than a conclusion of this conflict. China’s geopolitical rise has thawed the frozen conflicts in Asia from the 1940s-50s – i.e. the Chinese civil war, the Hong Kong and Taiwan Strait predicaments, the Korean conflict, Japanese pacifism, and regional battles for political influence and territory. Europe’s inward focus and difficulty projecting power have been a constant, as has its tendency to act as a constraint on America. Only now is Europe getting closer to full independence (which helped trigger Brexit). Geopolitical pressures will remain historically elevated for the foreseeable future because the underlying problem is whether great power struggle can be contained and major wars can be prevented. Specifically the question is whether the US can accommodate China’s rise – and whether China can continue to channel its domestic ambitions into productive uses (i.e. not attempts to create a Greater Chinese and then East Asian empire). The Great Recession killed off the “East Asia miracle” phase of China’s growth. Potential GDP is declining, which undermines social stability and threatens the Communist Party’s legitimacy. The renminbi is on a downtrend that began with the Xi Jinping era. The sharp rally during the COVID crisis is over, as both domestic and international pressures are rising again (Chart 5). Chart 5Biden Administration Review Of China Policy: More China Bashing While the data for China’s domestic labor protests is limited in extent, we can use it as a proxy for domestic instability in lieu of official statistics that were tellingly discontinued back in 2005. The slowdown in credit growth and the cyclical sectors of the economy suggest that domestic political risk is underrated in the lead up to the 2022 leadership rotation (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Domestic Political Risk Will Rise Chart 7Steer Clear Of Taiwan Strait The increasing focus on China’s access to key industrial and technological inputs, the tensions over the Taiwan Strait, and the formation of a Russo-Chinese bloc that is excluded from the West all suggest that the risk to global stability is grave and historic. It is reminiscent of the global power struggles of the seventeenth through early twentieth centuries. The outperformance of Taiwanese equities from 2019-20 reflects strong global demand for advanced semiconductors but the global response to this geopolitical bottleneck is to boost production at home and replace Taiwan. Therefore Taiwan’s comparative advantage will erode even as geopolitical risk rises (Chart 7). The drop in geopolitical tensions during COVID-19 is over, as highlighted above. With the US, EU, and other countries launching probes into whether the virus emerged from a laboratory leak in China – contrary to what their publics were told last year – it is likely that a period of national recriminations has begun. There is a substantial risk of nationalism, xenophobia, and jingoism emerging along with new sources of instability. An Alliance Of Democracies The Biden administration’s attempt to restore liberal hegemony across the world requires a period of alliance refurbishment with the Europeans. That is the purpose of his current trip to the UK, Belgium, and Switzerland. But diplomacy only goes so far. The structural factor that has changed is the willingness of the West to utilize government in the economic sphere, i.e. fiscal proactivity. Infrastructure spending and industrial policy, at the service of national security as well as demand-side stimulus, are the order of the day. This revolution in economic policy – a return to Big Government in the West – poses a threat to the authoritarian powers, which have benefited in recent decades by using central strategic planning to take advantage of the West’s democratic and laissez-faire governance. If the West restores a degree of central government – and central coordination via NATO and other institutions – then Beijing and Moscow will face greater pressure on their economies and fewer strategic options. About 16 American allies fall short of the 2% of GDP target for annual defense spending – ranging from Italy to Canada to Germany to Japan. However, recent trends show that defense spending did indeed increase during the Trump administration (Chart 8). Chart 8NATO Boosts Defense Spending The European Union as a whole has added $50 billion to the annual total over the past five years. A discernible rise in defense spending is taking place even in Germany (Chart 9). The same point could be made for Japan, which is significantly boosting defense spending (as a share of output) after decades of saying it would do so without following through. A major reason for the American political establishment’s rejection of President Trump was the risk he posed to the trans-Atlantic alliance. A decline in NATO and US-EU ties would dramatically undermine European security and ultimately American security. Hence Biden is adopting the Trump administration’s hawkish approach to trade with China but winding down the trade war with Europe (Chart 10). Chart 9Europe Spending More On Guns Chart 10US Ends Trade War With Europe? A multilateral deal aimed at setting a floor in global corporate taxes rates is intended to prevent the US and Europe from undercutting each other – and to ensure governments have sufficient funding to maintain social spending and reduce income inequality (Chart 11). Inequality is seen as having vitiated sociopolitical stability and trust in government in the democracies. Chart 11‘Global’ Corporate Tax Deal Shows Return Of Big Government, Attempt To Reduce Inequality In The West Risks To Biden’s Diplomacy It is possible that Biden’s attempt to restore US alliances will go nowhere over the course of his four-year term in office. The Europeans may well remain risk averse despite their initial signals of willingness to work with Biden to tackle China’s and Russia’s challenges to the western system. The Germans flatly rejected both Biden and Trump on the Nord Stream II natural gas pipeline linkage with Russia, which is virtually complete and which strengthens the foundation of Russo-German engagement (more on this below). The US’s lack of international reliability – given the potential of another partisan reversal in four years – makes it very hard for countries to make any sacrifices on behalf of US initiatives. The US’s profound domestic divisions have only slightly abated since the crises of 2020 and could easily flare up again. A major outbreak of domestic instability could distract Biden from the foreign policy game.2 However, American incapacity is a risk, not our base case, over the coming years. We expect the US economic stimulus to stabilize the country enough that the internal political crisis will be contained and the US will continue to play a global role. The “Civil War Lite” has mostly concluded, excepting one or two aftershocks, and the US is entering into a “Reconstruction Lite” era. The implication is negative for China and Russia, as they will now have to confront an America that, if not wholly unified, is at least recovering. Congress’s impending passage of the Innovation and Competition Act – notably through regular legislative order and bipartisan compromise – is case in point. The Senate has already passed this approximately $250 billion smorgasbord of industrial policy, supply chain resilience, and alliance refurbishment. It will allot around $50 billion to the domestic semiconductor industry almost immediately as well as $17 billion to DARPA, $81 billion for federal research and development through the National Science Foundation, which includes $29 billion for education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and other initiatives (Table 1). Table 1Peak Polarization: US Congress Passes Bipartisan ‘Innovation And Competition Act’ To Counter China With the combination of foreign competition, the political establishment’s need to distract from domestic divisions, and the benefit of debt monetization courtesy of the Federal Reserve, the US is likely to achieve some notable successes in pushing back against China and Russia. On the diplomatic front, the US will meet with some success because the European and Asian allies do not wish to see the US embrace nationalism and isolationism. They have their own interests in deterring Russia and China. Lack Of Engagement With Russia Russian leadership has dealt with the country’s structural weaknesses by adopting aggressive foreign policy. At some point either the weaknesses or the foreign policy will create a crisis that will undermine the current regime – after all, Russia has greatly lagged the West in economic development and quality of life (Chart 12). But President Putin has been successful at improving the country’s wealth and status from its miserably low base in the 1990s and this has preserved sociopolitical stability so far. Chart 12Russia's Domestic Political Risk It is debatable whether US policy toward Russia ever really changed under President Trump, but there has certainly not been a change in strategy from Russia. Thus investors should expect US-Russia antagonism to continue after Biden’s summit with Putin even if there is an ostensible improvement. The fundamental purpose of Putin’s strategy has been to salvage the Russian empire after the Soviet collapse, ensure that all world powers recognize Russia’s veto power over major global policies and initiatives, and establish a strong strategic position for the coming decades as Russia’s demographic decline takes its toll. A key component of the strategy has been to increase economic self-sufficiency and reduce exposure to US sanctions. Since the invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Putin has rapidly increased Russia’s foreign exchange reserves so as to buffer against shocks (Chart 13). Chart 13Russia Fortified Against US Sanctions Putin has also reduced Russia’s reliance on the US dollar to about 22% (Chart 14), primarily by substituting the euro and gold. Russia will not be willing or able to purge US dollars from its system entirely but it has been able to limit America’s ability to hurt Russia by constricting access to dollars and the dollar-based global financial architecture. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov highlighted this process ahead of the Biden-Putin summit by declaring that the National Wealth Fund will divest of its remaining $40 billion of its US dollar holdings. Chart 14Russia Diversifies From USD In general this year, Russia is highlighting its various advantages: its resilience against US sanctions, its ability to re-invade Ukraine, its ability to escalate its military presence in Belarus and the Black Sea, and its ability to conduct or condone cyberattacks on vital American food and fuel supplies (Chart 15). Meanwhile the US is suffering from deep political divisions at home and strategic incoherence abroad and these are only starting to be mended by domestic economic stimulus and alliance refurbishment. Chart 15Cyber Security Stocks Recover Europe’s risk-aversion when it comes to strategic confrontation with Russia, and the lack of stability in US-Russia relations, means that investors should not chase Russian currency or financial assets amid the cyclical commodity rally. Investors should also expect risk premiums to remain high in developing European economies relative to their developed counterparts. This is true despite the fact that developed market Europe’s outperformance relative to emerging Europe recently peaked and rolled over. From a technical perspective this outperformance looks to subside but geopolitical tensions can easily escalate in the near term, particularly in advance of the Russian and German elections in September (Chart 16). Chart 16Developed Markets In Europe Will Outperform Emerging Europe Unless Russian Geopolitical Risk Abates Developed Europe trades in line with EUR-RUB and these pair trades all correspond closely to geopolitical tensions with Russia (Chart 17). A notable exception is the UK, whose stock market looks attractive relative to eastern Europe and is much more secure from any geopolitical crisis in this region (Chart 17, bottom panel). The pound is particularly attractive against the Czech koruna, as Russo-Czech tensions have heated up in advance of October’s legislative election there (Chart 18). Chart 17Long UK Versus Eastern Europe Chart 18Long GBP Versus CZK Meanwhile Russia and China have grown closer together out of strategic necessity. Germany’s Election And Stance Toward Russia Germany’s position on Russia is now critical. The decision to complete the Nord Stream II pipeline against American wishes either means that the Biden administration can be safely ignored – since it prizes multilateralism and alliances above all things and is therefore toothless when opposed – or it means that German will aim to compensate the Americans in some other area of strategic concern. Washington is clearly attempting to rally the Germans to its side with regard to putting pressure on China over its trade practices and human rights. This could be the avenue for the US and Germany to tighten their bond despite the new milestone in German-Russia relations. The US may call on Germany to stand up for eastern Europe against Russian aggression but on that front Berlin will continue to disappoint. It has no desire to be drawn into a new Cold War given that the last one resulted in the partition of Germany. The implication is negative for China on one hand and eastern Europe on the other. Germany’s federal election on September 26 will be important because it will determine who will succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel, both in Germany and on the European and global stage. The ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is hoping to ride Merkel’s coattails to another term in charge of the government. But they are likely to rule alongside the Greens, who have surged in opinion polls in recent years. The state election in Saxony-Anhalt over the weekend saw the CDU win 37% of the popular vote, better than any recent result, while Germany’s second major party, the Social Democrats, continued their decline (Table 2). The far-right Alternative for Germany won 21% of the vote, a downshift from 2016, while the Greens won 6% of the vote, a slight improvement from 2016. All parties underperformed opinion polling except the CDU (Chart 19). Table 2Saxony-Anhalt Election Results Chart 19Germany: Conservatives Outperform In Final State Election Before Federal Vote, But Face Challenges Chart 20Germany: Greens Will Outperform in 2021 Vote The implication is still not excellent for the CDU. Saxony-Anhalt is a middling German state, a CDU stronghold, and a state with a popular CDU leader. So it is not representative of the national campaign ahead of September. The latest nationwide opinion polling puts the CDU at around 25% support. They are neck-and-neck with the Greens. The country’s left- and right-leaning ideological blocs are also evenly balanced in opinion polls (Chart 20). A potential concern for the CDU is that the Free Democratic Party is ticking up in national polls, which gives them the potential to steal conservative votes. Betting markets are manifestly underrating the chance that Annalena Baerbock and the Greens take over the chancellorship (Charts 21A and 21B). We still give a subjective 35% chance that the Greens will lead the next German government without the CDU, a 30% that the Greens will lead with the CDU, and a 25% chance that the CDU retains power but forms a coalition with the Greens. A coalition government would moderate the Greens’ ambitious agenda of raising taxes on carbon emissions, wealth, the financial sector, and Big Tech. The CDU has already shifted in a pro-environmental, fiscally proactive direction. Chart 21AGerman Greens Will Recover Chart 21BGerman Greens Still Underrated No matter what the German election will support fiscal spending and European solidarity, which is positive for the euro and regional equities over the next 12 to 24 months. However, the Greens would pursue a more confrontational stance toward Russia, a petro-state whose special relations with the German establishment have impeded the transition to carbon neutrality. Latin America’s Troubles A final aspect of Biden’s agenda deserves some attention: immigration and the Mexican border. Obviously this one of the areas where Biden starkly differs from Trump, unlike on Europe and China, as mentioned above. Vice President Kamala Harris recently came back from a trip to Guatemala and Mexico that received negative media attention. Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, the surge in immigrant arrivals over 2020-21, both to give her some foreign policy experience and to manage the public outcry. Despite telling immigrants explicitly “Do not come,” Harris has no power to deter the influx at a time when the US economy is fired up on historic economic stimulus and the Democratic Party has cut back on all manner of border and immigration enforcement. From a macro perspective the real story is the collapse of political and geopolitical risk in Mexico. From 2016-20 Mexico faced a protectionist onslaught from the Trump administration and then a left-wing supermajority in Congress. But these structural risks have dissipated with the USMCA trade deal and the inability of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to follow through with anti-market reforms, as we highlighted in reports in October and April. The midterm election deprived the ruling MORENA party of its single-party majority in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the legislature (Chart 22). AMLO is now politically constrained – he will not be able to revive state control over the energy and power sectors. Chart 22Mexican Midterm Election Constrained Left-Wing Populism, Political Risk Chart 23Buy Mexico (And Canada) On US Stimulus American monetary and fiscal stimulus, and the supply-chain shift away from China, also provide tailwinds for Mexico. In short, the Mexican election adds the final piece to one of our key themes stemming from the Biden administration, US populism, and US-China tensions: favor Mexico and Canada (Chart 23). A further implication is that Mexico should outperform Brazil in the equity space. Brazil is closely linked to China’s credit cycle and metals prices, which are slated to turn down as a result of Chinese policy tightening. Mexico is linked to the US economy and oil prices (Chart 24). While our trade stopped out at -5% last week we still favor the underlying view. Brazilian political risk and unsustainable debt dynamics will continue to weigh on the currency and equities until political change is cemented in the 2022 election and the new government is then forced by financial market riots into undertaking structural reforms. Chart 24Brazil's Troubles Not Truly Over - Mexico Will Outperform Elsewhere in Latin America, the rise of a militant left-wing populist to the presidency in a contested election in Peru, and the ongoing social unrest in Colombia and Chile, are less significant than the abrupt slowdown in China’s credit growth (Charts 25A and 25B). According to our COVID-19 Social Stability Index, investors should favor Mexico. Turkey, the Philippines, South Africa, Colombia, and Brazil are the most likely to see substantial social instability according to this ranking system (Table 3). Chart 25AMexico To Outperform Latin America Chart 25BChina’s Slowdown Will Hit South America Table 3Post-COVID Emerging Market Social Unrest Only Just Beginning Investment Takeaways Close long emerging markets relative to developed markets for a loss of 6.8% – this is a strategic trade that we will revisit but it faces challenges in the near term due to China’s slowdown (Chart 26). Go long Mexican equities relative to emerging markets on a strategic time frame. Our long Mexico / short Brazil trade hit the stop loss at 5% but the technical profile and investment thesis are still sound over the short and medium term. Chart 26China Slowdown, Geopolitical Risk Will Weigh On Emerging Markets Chart 27Relative Uncertainty And Safe Havens China’s sharp fiscal-and-credit slowdown suggests that investors should reduce risk exposure, take a defensive tactical positioning, and wait for China’s policy tightening to be priced before buying risky assets. Our geopolitical method suggests the dollar will rise, while macro fundamentals are becoming less dollar-bearish due to China. We are neutral for now and will reassess for our third quarter forecast later this month. If US policy uncertainty falls relative to global uncertainty then the EUR-USD will also fall and safe-haven assets like Swiss bonds will gain a bid (Chart 27). Gold is an excellent haven amid medium-term geopolitical and inflation risks but we recommend closing our long silver trade for a gain of 4.5%. Disfavor emerging Europe relative to developed Europe, where heavy discounts can persist due to geopolitical risk premiums. We will reassess after the Russian Duma election in September. Go long GBP-CZK. Close the Euro “laggards” trade. Go long an equal-weighted basket of euros and US dollars relative to the Chinese renminbi. Short the TWD-USD on a strategic basis. Prefer South Korea to Taiwan – while the semiconductor splurge favors Taiwan, investors should diversify away from the island that lies at the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. Close long defense relative to cyber stocks for a gain of 9.8%. This was a geopolitical “back to work” trade but the cyber rebound is now significant enough to warrant closing this trade. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Trump’s policy toward Russia is an excellent example of geopolitical constraints. Despite any personal preferences in favor of closer ties with Russia, Trump and his administration ultimately reaffirmed Article 5 of NATO, authorized the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, and deployed US troops to Poland and the Czech Republic. 2 As just one example, given the controversial and contested US election of 2020, it is possible that a major terrorist attack could occur. Neither wing of America’s ideological fringes has a monopoly on fanaticism and violence. Meanwhile foreign powers stand to benefit from US civil strife. A truly disruptive sequence of events in the US in the coming years could lead to greater political instability in the US and a period in which global powers would be able to do what they want without having to deal with Biden’s attempt to regroup with Europe and restore some semblance of a global police force. The US would fall behind in foreign affairs, leaving power vacuums in various regions that would see new sources of political and geopolitical risk crop up. Then the US would struggle to catch up, with another set of destabilizing consequences.
Highlights Political and corporate climate activism will increase the cost of developing the resources required to produce and deliver energy going forward – e.g., oil and gas wells; pipelines; copper mines, and refineries. Over the short run, the fastest way for investor-owned companies (IOCs) to address accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions imposed by courts and boards is to walk away from the assets producing them, which could be disruptive over the medium term. Longer term, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources needed to produce and distribute energy. The real difficulty will come in the medium term. Capex for critical metals like copper languishes, just as the call on these metals steadily increases over the next 30 years (Chart of the Week). The evolution to a low-carbon future has not been thought through at the global policy level. A real strategy must address underinvestment in base metals and incentivize the development of technology via a carbon tax – not emissions trading schemes – so firms can innovate to avoid it. We remain long energy and metals exposures.1 Feature And you may ask yourself, "Well … how did I get here?" David Byrne, Once In A Lifetime Energy markets – broadly defined – are radically transforming from week to week. The latest iteration of these markets' evolution is catalyzed by climate activists, who are finding increasing success in court and on corporate boards – sometimes backed by major institutional investors – and forcing oil and gas producers to accelerate CO2 emission-reduction programs.2 Climate activists' arguments are finding increasing purchase because they have merit: Years of stiff-arming investors seeking clarity on the oil and gas producers' decarbonization agendas, coupled with a pronounced failure to provide returns in excess of their cost of capital, have given activists all of the ammo needed to argue their points. Chart of the WeekCall On Metals For Energy Will Increase This activism is not limited to the courts or boardrooms. Voters in democratic societies with contested elections also are seeking redress for failures of their governments to effectively channel mineral wealth back into society on an equitable basis, and to protect their environments and the habitats of indigenous populations. This voter activism is especially apparent in Chile and Peru, where elections and constitutional conventions likely will result in higher taxes and royalties on metals IOCs operating in these states, which will increase production costs and ultimately be passed on to consumers.3 These states account for ~ 40% of world copper output. IOCs Walk Away Earlier this week, Exxon walked away from an early-stage offshore oil development project in Ghana.4 This followed the unfavorable court rulings and boardroom setbacks experienced by Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon recently (referenced in fn. 2). While the company had no comment on its abrupt departure, its action shows how IOCs can exercise their option to put a project back to its host government, thus illustrating one of the most readily available alternatives for energy IOCs to meet court- or board-mandated CO2 emissions targets. If these investments qualify as write-offs, the burden will be borne by taxpayers. As climate activism increases, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources – particularly oil and gas – needed to produce and distribute energy going forward. This is not an unalloyed benefit, as the SOCs still face stranded-asset risks, if they invest in longer-lived assets that are obviated by a successful renewables + grid buildout globally. That is a cost that will have to be compensated, when the SOCs work up their capex allocations. Still, if legal and investor activism significantly accelerates IOCs' capex reductions in oil and gas projects, the SOCs – particularly those in OPEC 2.0 – will be able to expand their position as the dominant supplier in the global oil market, and could perhaps increase their influence on price levels and forward-curve dynamics (Chart 2).5 Chart 2OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases Higher Call On Metals At present, there is a lot of talk about the need to invest in renewable electricity generation and the grid structure supporting it, but very little in the way of planning for this transition. Other than repeated assertions of its necessity, little is being said regarding how exactly this strategy will be executed given the magnitude of the supply increase in metals required. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the refined copper market, which has been in a physical deficit – i.e., production minus consumption is negative – for the last 6 years (Chart 3). Physical copper markets in China, which consumes more than 50% of refined output, remain extremely tight, as can be seen in the ongoing weakness of treating charges and refining charges (TC/RC) for the past year (Chart 4). These charges are inversely correlated to prices – when TC/RCs are low, it means there is surplus refining capacity for copper – unrefined metal is scarce, which drives down demand for these services. Chart 3Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Chart 4Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains TightTheoretically, high prices will incentivize higher levels of production. However, after the last decade’s ill-timed investment in new mine discoveries and expansions, mining companies have become more wary with their investments, and are using earnings to pay dividends and reduce debt. This leads us to believe that mining companies will not invest in new mine discoveries but will use capital expenditure to expand brownfield projects to meet rising demand. In the last decade, as copper demand rose, capex for copper rose from 2010-2012, and fell from 2013-2016 (Chart 5). During this time, the copper ore grade was on a declining trend. This implies that the new copper brought online was being mined from lower-grade ore, due to the expansion of existing projects(Chart 6). Chart 5Copper Capex Growth Remains Weak Chart 6Copper Ore-Quality Declines Persist Through Capex Cycle Capex directed at keeping ore production above consumption will not be sufficient to avoid major depletions of ore supplies beginning in 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie. The consultancy foresees a cumulative deficit of ~ 16mm MT by 2040. Plugging this gap will require $325-$500 billion of investment in the copper mining sector.6 The Case For A Carbon Tax The low-carbon future remains something of a will-o'-the-wisp – seen off in the future but not really developed in the present. Most striking in discussions of the low-carbon transition is the assumption of resource availability – particularly bases metals –in, e.g., the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published last month. In the IEA's document, further investment in hydrocarbons is not required beyond 2025. The copper, aluminum, steel, etc., required to build the generation and supporting grid infrastructure will be available and callable as needed to build all the renewable generation the world requires. The document is agnostic between carbon trading and carbon taxes as a way to price carbon and incentivize the technology that would allow firms and households to avoid a direct cost on carbon. A real strategy must address the fact that most of the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades, as development goals are pursued. Underinvestment in base metals and its implications for the buildout of generation and grids has to be a priority if these assets are to be built. Given the 5-10-year lead times base metals mines require to come online, it is obvious that beyond the middle of this decade, the physical reality of demand exceeding supply will assert itself. A good start would be a global effort to impose and collect carbon taxes uniformly across states.7 This would need to be augmented with a carbon club, which restricts admission and trading privileges to those states adopting such a scheme. Harmonizing the multiple emissions trading schemes worldwide will be a decades-long effort that is unlikely to succeed. Such schemes also can be gamed by larger players, producing pricing distortions. A hard and fast tax that is enforced in all of the members of such a carbon club would immediately focus attention on the technology required to avoid paying it – mobilizing capital, innovation and entrepreneurial drive to make it a reality. This would support carbon-capture, use and storage technologies as well, thus extending the life of existing energy resources as the next generation of metals-based resources is built out. In addition, a carbon tax raises revenue for governments, which can be used for a variety of public policies, including reducing other taxes to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Lastly, a tax eliminates the potential for short-term price volatility in the pricing of carbon – as long as households and firms know what confronts them they can plan around it. Tax revenues also can be used to reduce the regressive nature of such levies. Investment Implications The lack of a coherent policy framework that addresses the very real constraints on the transition to a low-carbon economy makes the likelihood of a volatile, years-long evolution foreordained. We believe this will create numerous investment opportunities as underinvestment in hydrocarbons and base metals production predisposes oil, natural gas and base metals prices to move higher in the face of strong and rising demand. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), which is optimized to take advantage of the most backwardated commodity forward curves in the index. These positions were up 5.3% and 7.2% since inception on December 7, 2017 and March 12, 2021, respectively, at Tuesday's close. We also remain long the MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK), which is up 33.9% since it was put on December 10, 2020. Expecting continued volatility in metals – copper in particular – we will look for opportunities to re-establish positions in COMEX/CME Copper after being stopped out with gains. A trailing stop was elected on our long Dec21 copper position established September 10, 2020, which was closed out with a 48.2% gain on May 21, 2021. Our long calendar 2022 vs short calendar 2023 COMEX copper backwardation trade established April 22, 2021, was closed out on May 20, 2021, leaving us with a return of 305%. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 offered no surprises to markets this week, as it remained committed to returning just over 2mm b/d of production to the market over the May-July period, 70% of which comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), according to Platts. While Iran's return to the market is not a given in OPEC 2.0's geometry, we have given better than even odds it will return to the market beginning in 3Q21 and restore most of the 1.4mm b/d not being produced at present to the market over the course of the following year. OPEC itself expects demand to increase 6mm b/d this year, somewhat above our expectation of 5.3mm b/d. Stronger demand could raise Brent prices above our average $63/bbl forecast for this year (Chart 7). Brent was trading above $71/bbl as we went to press. Base Metals: Bullish BHP declared operations at its Escondida and Spence mines were running at normal rates despite a strike by some 200 operations specialists. BHP is employing so-called substitute workers to conduct operation, according to reuters.com, which also reported separate unions at both mines are considering strike actions in the near future. Precious Metals: Bullish The Fed’s reluctance to increase nominal interest rates despite indications of higher inflation will reduce real rates, which will support higher gold prices (Chart 8). We agree with our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy that the Fed is waiting for the US labor market to reach levels consistent with its assessment of maximum employment before it makes its initial rate hike in this interest-rate cycle. Subsequent rate changes, however, will be based on realized inflation and inflation expectations. In our opinion, the Fed is following this ultra-accommodative monetary policy approach to break the US liquidity trap, brought about by a rise in precautionary savings due to the pandemic. In addition, we continue to expect USD weakness, which also will support gold and precious metals prices. We remain long gold, expecting prices to clear $2,000/oz this year. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices fell more than 2% Wednesday, following the release of USDA estimates showing 95% of the corn crop was planted by 31 May 2021, well over the 87% five-year average. This was in line with expectations. However, the Department's assessment that 76% of the crop was in good-to-excellent condition exceeded market expectations. Chart 7 Chart 8 Footnotes 1 Please see Trade Tables below. 2 Please see OPEC, Russia seen gaining more power with Shell Dutch ruling and EXCLUSIVE BlackRock backs 3 dissidents to shake up Exxon board -sources published by reuters.com June 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. 3 Please see Chile's govt in shock loss as voters pick independents to draft constitution published by reuters.com May 17, 2021, and Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election published by ft.com June 1, 2021. Peru has seen significant capital flight on the back of these fears. See also Results from Chile’s May 2021 elections published by IHS Markit May 21, 2021 re a higher likelihood of tax increases for the mining sector. The risk of nationalization is de minimis, according to IHS. 4 Please see Exxon walks away from stake in deepwater Ghana block published by worldoil.com June 1, 2021. 5 Please see OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus, which we published on May 20, 2021, for a recap our how we model OPEC 2.0's strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry?, published by Wood Mackenzie on March 23, 2021. 7 Please see The Challenges and Prospects for Carbon Pricing in Europe published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies last month for a discussion of carbon taxes vs. emissions trading schemes. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Aspectos destacados
Las acciones globales son muy vulnerables a una corrección. Pero cíclicamente la Fed está comprometida con un exceso de inflación y la economía global se está recuperando.
El impulso fiscal y de crédito de China cayó bruscamente, lo que deja a las acciones cíclicas globales y a las materias primas expuestas a una retirada.
Más allá del corto plazo, la necesidad de China de estabilidad política debería evitar un endurecimiento excesivo de la política. El riesgo está concentrado en el corto plazo.
El censo de población de China subraya uno de nuestros megatemas: la política interna de China es inestable y puede traer sorpresas negativas.
Las elecciones estatales de India, celebradas en medio de una enorme ola de COVID-19, sugieren que el partido gobernante sigue siendo favorito en 2024. Esto implica continuidad en las políticas.
Mantener un sesgo cíclico alcista pero estar preparado para cambiar si China comete un error de política.
Artículo principal
Gráfico 1
La inflación asoma la cabeza
La inflación asoma la cabeza
La inflación asoma la cabeza
Los mercados globales se estremecieron esta semana ante un dato fuerte de inflación subyacente en EE. UU. así como por temores más amplios al resurgimiento de la inflación tras un largo letargo (Gráfico 1).
Cíclicamente todavía esperamos que los inversores roten fuera de las acciones de EE. UU. hacia acciones internacionales y que el dólar estadounidense caiga a medida que la economía global se recupere (Gráfico 2). Sin embargo, esta visión también implica que las acciones de mercados emergentes deberían comenzar a superar a sus pares de mercados desarrollados, lo cual no se ha materializado hasta ahora este año. Los mercados emergentes no solo son intensivos en tecnología y vulnerables a la subida de los rendimientos de los bonos estadounidenses, sino que además se ven ahora desafiados por el hecho de que el estímulo de China ha alcanzado su pico.
Gráfico 2
El mercado de acciones tiembla
El mercado bursátil tiembla
El mercado bursátil tiembla
Gráfico 3
La economía global y el sentimiento se recuperan
La economía global y el sentimiento se recuperan
La economía global y el sentimiento se recuperan
Gráfico 4
Cíclicos globales frente a defensivos vacilando
Cíclicos globales frente a defensivos vacilan
Cíclicos globales frente a defensivos vacilan
Lo único en lo que podemos confiar es que el despliegue de la vacuna contra el COVID-19 continuará permitiendo una recuperación del crecimiento global (Gráfico 3). El dólar estadounidense está señalando algo similar. El billete verde rebotó en el primer trimestre por el mejor desempeño relativo del crecimiento de EE. UU., pero desde entonces ha retrocedido. Un dólar en caída es positivo para las acciones cíclicas frente a las defensivas, aunque las cíclicas indican que la operación de reflación está sobreextendida en el corto plazo (Gráfico 4).
El crecimiento de China se convierte ahora en el punto focal crítico. Un error de política en China trastocaría la visión alcista cíclica. El endurecimiento de la política monetaria y fiscal en China es un riesgo político global importante que hemos señalado este año y que ahora se está materializando. No obstante, también hemos señalado las limitaciones al endurecimiento. En la actualidad China se encuentra justo en el umbral del sobreendurecimiento según nuestros puntos de referencia. Si China endurece más, adoptaremos una postura fundamentalmente más defensiva.
También en este informe revisaremos los resultados del censo de población de China y las implicaciones de las recientes elecciones estatales de India frente a la última gran oleada de infecciones por COVID-19. Por ahora no haremos cambios a nuestra visión alcista sobre India, pero la ponemos bajo vigilancia.
China: El riesgo de sobreendurecimiento
Los problemas de China provienen del cambio en curso de su modelo económico, que pasa de depender del comercio exterior a depender de la demanda interna. Esta fue una decisión estratégica que el Partido Comunista tomó antes del ascenso del presidente Xi Jinping. Xi también ha llegado a encarnar y reforzar esta visión estratégica y la confrontación con Estados Unidos.
El objetivo de Pekín era gestionar una transición suave y estable. La turbulencia financiera de 2015 y la guerra comercial de 2018-19 pusieron en peligro ese objetivo, pero los responsables de la política finalmente prevalecieron. Luego estalló el COVID-19 y causó la primera contracción económica real desde la década de 1970. Aunque China contuvo el virus y rebotó con otra ronda masiva de estímulo (13,8% del PIB desde el inicio de la guerra comercial hasta el pico de 2021), ahora enfrenta una transición aún más difícil.
Gráfico 5
Aumento de la propensión al ahorro en China
La creciente propensión de China a ahorrar
La creciente propensión de China a ahorrar
La necesidad de mejorar la calidad de vida es más urgente dado que el PIB potencial se ha desacelerado. La necesidad de contener el riesgo financiero sistémico es más urgente dado el gran nuevo aumento de la deuda. Y la necesidad de diversificar la economía es más urgente dado que EE. UU. está ahora formando una coalición de democracias para confrontar a China en una serie de políticas. El aumento en la “propensión marginal al ahorro” entre personas y empresas chinas —medida por la proporción de depósitos a plazo largo frente a depósitos a corto plazo— es una indicación de que el país está aquejado de problemas y que los ánimos empresariales están deprimidos (Gráfico 5).
El impulso fiscal y de crédito de China está girando a la baja tras la gran expansión de 2018-21. Los responsables de la política han señalado desde el año pasado que retirarían el estímulo de emergencia y ahora el impacto es aparente en los datos reales. El dinero, el crédito y los impulsos combinados de crédito y fiscal de China se correlacionan con el crecimiento económico tras un rezago de seis a nueve meses. Esto es cierto independientemente de qué indicadores se usen para los ciclos de dinero y crédito y la actividad económica de China (Gráficos 6A y 6B). El impulso económico de China está en su punto máximo y se convertirá en un viento en contra para la economía global más adelante este año y en 2022, aunque el resto del mundo disfruta de los vientos favorables de la vacunación y la reapertura económica.
Gráfico 6A
El impulso fiscal y de crédito de China cae bruscamente …
El impulso fiscal y crediticio de China cae bruscamente...
El impulso fiscal y crediticio de China cae bruscamente...
Gráfico 6B
… al igual que los impulsos de dinero y crédito
... Al igual que los impulsos de dinero y crédito
... Al igual que los impulsos de dinero y crédito
La desaceleración del impulso fiscal y de crédito presagia una caída de la demanda de materias primas, materiales y otros bienes que China importa, especialmente para el consumo interno. (Las importaciones chinas de piezas e insumos que forman parte de sus exportaciones manufacturadas al resto del mundo se ven más saludables a medida que el resto del mundo se recupera). Este cambio dificultará que los elevados precios de los metales y otras apuestas vinculadas a China, como las acciones suecas, sigan subiendo sin una corrección (Gráfico 7). La posición especulativa favorece en gran medida a las materias primas en este momento. La divergencia entre China y los mercados de metales que domina parece insostenible a corto plazo (Gráfico 8).
Gráfico 7
Las operaciones de reflación de China cerca de los picos
Operaciones de reflación en China cerca de máximos
Operaciones de reflación en China cerca de máximos
Gráfico 8
Choque entre el ciclo del dinero y los precios de las materias primas
El ciclo monetario y los precios de las materias primas chocan
El ciclo monetario y los precios de las materias primas chocan
La transición global hacia sistemas de energía verdes o renovables (es decir, la descarbonización) es alcista para los metales, especialmente el cobre, pero no podrá compensar la caída de la demanda china en el corto plazo, como ha mostrado nuestra Estrategia de Mercados Emergentes. Los usos internos del cobre en China para la construcción y la industria representan aproximadamente el 56,5% de la demanda mundial de cobre, mientras que la carrera por la energía verde —es decir, la producción de paneles solares, aerogeneradores, coches eléctricos— representa solo alrededor del 3,5% de la demanda mundial.
Este número subestima algo el programa verde ya que también se prevé el reacondicionamiento y la adaptación de sistemas y estructuras existentes, como las redes eléctricas. Pero el punto es que una caída en el consumo de cobre de China actuará en contra del gran aumento del consumo en Estados Unidos y Europa, sobre todo dado que el programa de infraestructura de EE. UU. no empezará hasta 2022 como muy pronto. Por lo tanto, la demanda mundial de cobre se ralentizará en los próximos 12 meses en respuesta a China, aunque la demanda del resto del mundo esté subiendo.
Los responsables de la política chinos aún no han señalado que estén preocupados por un sobreendurecimiento de la política o que vayan a aflojar la política de nuevo. La reunión del Politburó a finales de abril no contenía un cambio de política importante respecto a la Conferencia Central de Trabajo Económico en diciembre o al Informe de Trabajo del Gobierno en marzo (Tabla 1). Pero si hubo una diferencia significativa, residió en reducir aún más el sentido de emergencia del año pasado al tiempo que se proyectaba algún tipo de esquema para responsabilizar a los funcionarios locales por la deuda oculta. La implicación es la continuación de una política estricta, y por ende el riesgo de sobreendurecimiento sigue siendo sustancial.
Tabla 1
Declaraciones macroeconómicas recientes de la política de China: eliminando el estímulo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
Gráfico 9
Puntos de referencia para el endurecimiento de la política en China
Puntos de referencia para el endurecimiento de la política en China
Puntos de referencia para el endurecimiento de la política en China
Cierto es que las señales de la reunión de abril pueden leerse de varias maneras. La declaración de abril omitió frases sobre “mantener el apoyo de política necesario” en la orientación macroeconómica general, lo que implicaría menos apoyo para la economía. Pero también omitió el objetivo de mantener el crecimiento de la oferta monetaria (M2) y del crédito (financiación social total) en línea con el crecimiento del PIB nominal, lo que podría verse como permitir un repunte en el crecimiento del crédito. Sin embargo, el Banco Popular de China mantuvo este objetivo de crédito en su informe de política monetaria del primer trimestre, por lo que no se puede estar seguro. Observa que, según este criterio, China está justo en el umbral del “sobreendurecimiento” de la política que hemos utilizado para medir el riesgo (Gráfico 9).
Basándonos en la formulación de políticas china durante las últimas dos décadas, esperaríamos que cualquier punto de inflexión importante se anuncie en la reunión del Politburó de julio, no en la de abril. No consideramos que abril suponga un cambio importante respecto a las reuniones previas – ni lo considera nuestra Estrategia de Inversión en China. Por lo tanto, el endurecimiento excesivo de la política sigue siendo un riesgo real para la economía china y global durante los próximos 12 meses. Nuestra lista de verificación para el endurecimiento excesivo subraya este punto (Tabla 2).
Tabla 2
Lista de verificación para el endurecimiento de la política china
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
El descenso del impulso fiscal y de crédito de China está ocurriendo antes del vigésimo congreso nacional del partido, que tendrá lugar a lo largo de 2022 y culminará con la rotación del liderazgo superior (el Comité Permanente del Politburó) en otoño. La economía está suficientemente estimulada para el centenario del Partido Comunista el 1 de julio de este año, por lo que los responsables de la política están centrados en prevenir excesos. La prevención del riesgo financiero, la regulación antimonopolio y la contención de la burbuja inmobiliaria son las órdenes del día. El aumento de los impagos y quiebras de bonos corporativos y gubernamentales subraya la disposición del liderazgo a avanzar con la reestructuración económica y la reforma, lo cual está bien documentado en los últimos años (Gráfico 10).
Gráfico 10
Destrucción creativa en China
China al borde del endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde del endurecimiento excesivo
Los inversores no pueden asumir que el congreso del partido en 2022 sea una razón para que el liderazgo afloje la política. Ocurrió lo contrario en la antesala del congreso de 2017. Sin embargo, los inversores tampoco pueden asumir que China se sobreendurezca y hunda su propia economía antes de un evento tan importante. La estabilidad será el objetivo, como ocurrió en 2017 y en congresos anteriores, y esto significa que en algún momento habrá un alivio de la política si la ronda actual de endurecimiento se vuelve demasiado dolorosa financiera y económicamente. Los activos vinculados a China son vulnerables en el corto plazo hasta que los responsables de la política alcancen su punto de inflexión.
De paso, la aproximación del vigésimo congreso nacional del partido será un imán para la intriga política y eventos impactantes. El líder máximo normalmente destituye a un rival prominente antes de un congreso como muestra de fuerza en el proceso de promoción de su facción. El gobierno también endurece el control de los medios y reprime a los disidentes, que pueden alzar la voz o protestar en torno al evento. Pero en 2022 las apuestas son más altas.
Originalmente se esperaba que el presidente Xi dimitiera en 2022, pero ahora no lo hará, lo que suscitará al menos cierta oposición. Además, bajo Xi, China ha emprendido tres revoluciones políticas históricas: está adoptando un modelo de liderazgo autoritario, en detrimento del modelo de liderazgo colectivo bajo los dos presidentes anteriores; está enfatizando la autosuficiencia económica, en detrimento de la liberalización y la apertura; y está enfatizando el estatus de gran potencia, en detrimento de la cooperación con Estados Unidos y sus aliados.
Conclusión: Las acciones globales, las materias primas y las “apuestas vinculadas a China” están en riesgo de una corrección sustancial como resultado del endurecimiento de la política en China. Nuestro caso base es que China evitará el sobreendurecimiento, pero los últimos números de dinero y crédito rozan nuestro umbral para cambiar esa visión. Otra caída pronunciada en estos indicadores exigirá un cambio.
Fuerza laboral desaparecida de China
En última instancia, una de las limitaciones al sobreendurecimiento de la política es la caída del crecimiento potencial del PIB de China como resultado de su población en edad laboral en disminución. El séptimo censo de población de China se publicó esta semana y subrayó los profundos cambios estructurales que afectan al país y su economía.
El crecimiento de la población en los últimos diez años se desaceleró hasta el 5,4%, la tasa más baja desde el primer censo en 1953. La tasa de fecundidad cayó a 1,3 en 2020, por debajo de la tasa de reemplazo de 2,1 y del objetivo de 1,8 establecido cuando las autoridades chinas relajaron la política del hijo único en 2016. La tasa de fecundidad también es más baja que las estimaciones del Banco Mundial (1,7 en 2019) e incluso que la de Japón. La tasa de natalidad (nacimientos por 1.000 personas) también cayó, con el número de recién nacidos en 2020 en el punto más bajo desde 1961, el año de la Gran Hambruna. La tasa de natalidad se ha convergido con la de los países de ingresos altos, lo que implica que el desarrollo económico está teniendo el mismo efecto de desalentar la procreación en China, aunque China está menos desarrollada que esos países.
Gráfico 11
La población en edad laboral de China cae más rápido que la de Japón en los años 90
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
La cohorte más joven aumentó del 16,6% al 17,95% de la población, la cohorte más anciana aumentó del 8,9% en 2010 al 13,5% hoy, mientras que la cohorte en edad laboral cayó del 75,3% al 68,6%. La población en edad laboral alcanzó su pico en 2010 y cayó 6,79 puntos porcentuales en los últimos diez años. En contraste, la población en edad laboral de Japón alcanzó su pico en 1992 y cayó 2,18 puntos porcentuales en la década posterior (Gráfico 11).
En otras palabras, China está experimentando la transición demográfica que afectó a Japón a principios de los años 90, pero la población en edad laboral de China podría caer incluso más rápido. El país está experimentando este cambio tectónico socioeconómico en un nivel de riqueza per cápita más bajo del que Japón había alcanzado.
El desafío demográfico presionará el sistema socioeconómico y político de China. El milagro chino, como otros milagros asiáticos, se basó en el uso de la manufactura orientada a la exportación para generar grandes cantidades de ahorro que podían reorientarse para el desarrollo nacional. La caída de la población en edad laboral de China coincide con el desarrollo económico y una probable disminución de la tasa de ahorro a largo plazo. Esto se muestra en el Gráfico 12, que presenta dos imágenes diferentes de la población trabajadora de China junto con la tasa de ahorro nacional bruta. A medida que aumenta la ratio de dependencia, la tasa de ahorro caerá y habrá menos fondos disponibles para repropositar. El costo del capital aumentará y la reestructuración económica se acelerará.
En el caso de Japón, el cambio demográfico coincidió con la crisis financiera de 1990 y luego con un cambio nacional en el comportamiento económico. La tasa de ahorro cayó a medida que la economía evolucionó, pero los ahorros generados aún superaron la inversión debido a la falta de demanda privada y a la presión de grandes cargas de deuda. Las empresas se centraron en pagar la deuda en lugar de expandir la inversión y la producción (Gráfico 13). Todo esto ocurrió cuando el entorno externo era benigno, mientras que China enfrenta un desafío demográfico similar en el contexto de una creciente presión económica debido a tensiones geopolíticas.
Gráfico 12
Los trabajadores chinos son cada vez más escasos
Trabajadores chinos cada vez más escasos
Trabajadores chinos cada vez más escasos
Gráfico 13
Altos niveles de ahorro permiten derroches de deuda hasta que la deuda abruma
Los altos ahorros permiten un derroche de deuda hasta que esta se vuelve abrumadora.
Los altos ahorros permiten un derroche de deuda hasta que esta se vuelve abrumadora.
China hasta ahora ha evitado una crisis financiera debilitante y un colapso de los precios de la vivienda que condenaría al país a una trampa de liquidez traumática. Las autoridades chinas son dolorosamente conscientes del peligro de la burbuja inmobiliaria y por ello están ansiosas por prevenir excesos financieros y frenar la actividad con rasgos de burbuja. Esto es lo que hace que el riesgo de sobreendurecimiento sea significativo. Pero un error en cualquiera de las dos direcciones puede conducir a una caída hacia la deflación. La administración de Xi ha estimulado la economía cada vez que la actividad se ralentizaba excesivamente o la inestabilidad financiera amenazaba con salirse de control, como se ha señalado arriba, pero este es un acto de equilibrio difícil, razón por la cual vigilamos tan de cerca el riesgo de endurecimiento excesivo.
Algunos otros puntos notables del censo de población de China incluyen:
La política de dos hijos no está teniendo éxito hasta ahora.
COVID-19 podría haber tenido un efecto negativo en la fecundidad, pero no podría haber afectado mucho a los nacimientos debido al momento. Así que las tendencias no pueden estar demasiado distorsionadas por la pandemia.
La urbanización rápida continúa, con la tasa alcanzando el 64% de la población, 14 puntos porcentuales más que en 2010.
Las discusiones de política enfatizan elevar la edad de jubilación; ofrecer incentivos financieros para tener hijos; una serie de controles de precios para hacer más asequible tener hijos, destacando la supresión de la burbuja inmobiliaria; y medidas para asegurar que los precios de la vivienda no caigan demasiado rápido en las ciudades más pequeñas a medida que continúa la migración desde el campo.
La población de minorías étnicas de China, que constituye el 9% de la población total, creció mucho más rápido (tasa del 10%) durante la última década que la mayoría Han, que representa el 91% de la población (creciendo al 5%). Las minorías están exentas de la política del hijo único (y de la de dos hijos). Sin embargo, han surgido tensiones étnicas, particularmente en regiones autónomas como Xinjiang, lo que ha provocado un mayor escrutinio internacional de las políticas de China hacia las minorías.
El desafío demográfico de China es ampliamente conocido, pero el último censo refuerza la magnitud del reto. El crecimiento potencial de China está disminuyendo mientras que la ratio de dependencia creciente subraya cambios sociales que exigirán más al gobierno. Mayores necesidades de gasto fiscal y social requerirán difíciles compensaciones económicas y decisiones políticas impopulares. El cambio económico y el movimiento de personas también profundizarán las disparidades regionales y de riqueza.
Todos estos puntos subrayan uno de nuestros megatemas constantes de Estrategia Geopolítica: los riesgos políticos internos de China están subestimados.
Conclusión: El censo de 2020 de China refuerza el declive demográfico que está en la raíz de los crecientes desafíos socioeconómicos y políticos de China. Aunque China tiene un gobierno central fuerte con el poder consolidado bajo un solo partido gobernante y un historial de gestión exitosa de sus distintos desafíos en las últimas décadas, la magnitud de los cambios que están ocurriendo es abrumadora y traerá sorpresas económicas y políticas negativas.
India: las elecciones estatales no representan un punto de inflexión contra Modi
En el apogeo de la segunda ola de COVID-19 en India, se celebraron elecciones en cinco estados indios. Los resultados para el estado de Bengala Occidental fueron los más importantes. Bengala Occidental es un estado grande, que representa casi una décima parte de los legisladores en la asamblea nacional de India, y el gobernante Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) del primer ministro Narendra Modi había declarado que ganaría cerca del 70% de los 294 escaños allí.
Al final, Bengala Occidental entregó una victoria aplastante al All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC), un partido regional. A pesar de que el AITMC enfrentaba una anti-incumbencia de dos mandatos, el recuento de escaños del AITMC alcanzó un máximo histórico. Pocos lo habían previsto, como lo demuestra el hecho de que el desempeño del AITMC superó las previsiones hechas por la mayoría de encuestadores.
¿Qué deben hacer los inversores con la pérdida del BJP en este estado clave? ¿Fue una reacción contra la gestión de la pandemia por parte de Modi? ¿Presagia un cambio de gobierno y de política nacional en las elecciones generales de 2024? No realmente. Aquí destacamos tres conclusiones clave:
Conclusión n.º 1: El desempeño del BJP fue notable
Gráfico 14
India: el BJP consigue penetrar en Bengala Occidental
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
Si bien el BJP no alcanzó sus objetivos en Bengala Occidental, el estado no es un bastión del BJP. Se sabe que el BJP tiene tracción natural en las regiones de habla hindi de India y Bengala Occidental es un estado de habla no hindi donde tradicionalmente se veía al BJP como un forastero. Además, este estado es conocido por ser inusualmente renuente al cambio. Por ejemplo, antes del AITMC, la Izquierda estuvo en el poder durante un récord de 34 años en este estado. En ese contexto, el desempeño del BJP en 2021 en Bengala Occidental es notable: el partido aumentó su número de escaños a 77, en comparación con solo 3 escaños en 2016 (Gráfico 14).
Este desempeño catapulta ahora al BJP a convertirse en el principal partido de oposición en Bengala Occidental. También indica que el BJP puede tardar, pero tiene lo necesario para construir tracción en estados que no son bastiones tradicionales. Dado que logró esta hazaña en un estado donde tiene poca fuerza histórica, su actuación es significativa como señal de que el BJP sigue siendo una fuerza a tener en cuenta.
Conclusión n.º 2: La popularidad del BJP se resintió pero aún se le considera favorito para mantener el poder en 2024
Aunque el descontento contra el BJP está aumentando por su mala gestión del COVID-19 y la consiguiente angustia económica, no existe una alternativa viable al BJP a nivel nacional.
Las recientes elecciones estatales, no solo en Bengala Occidental, confirman que la oposición, el Indian National Congress (INC), aún no ha organizado su actuación. El partido del Congreso se hundió de 44 escaños en Bengala a 0 escaños. Más importante aún, el Congreso aún no ha resuelto dos cuestiones críticas, es decir, la necesidad de designar o elegir a un líder interno con atractivo masivo y la necesidad de desarrollar una agenda política identificable.
La debilidad del Congreso significa que, aunque el número de escaños del BJP podría disminuir respecto a su rendimiento máximo de 2019, nuestro escenario base para 2024 sigue siendo el de un gobierno liderado por el BJP que mantiene el poder en India. La continuidad de las políticas y la posibilidad de alguna reforma estructural siguen siendo el caso base.
Conclusión n.º 3: El auge constante de los partidos regionales de India
El ascenso del BJP en la última década ha coincidido con pérdidas de escaños tanto por parte del Congreso como de los partidos regionales de India. Sin embargo, la ronda más reciente de elecciones estatales indica que el BJP no puede comprimir drásticamente la cuota de escaños de los partidos regionales. Por ejemplo, en Bengala Occidental consiguió 77 escaños por sí solo, pero esto no fue a expensas del AITMC, que es el actor dominante en este estado. En otro estado grande donde se celebraron elecciones a principios de este mes, es decir, Tamil Nadu, el control continúa fluctuando entre dos partidos regionales bien afianzados.
Gráfico 15
India: el BJP alcanzó su pico en 2019 pero sigue siendo favorito para 2024
China, al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
China, al borde de un endurecimiento excesivo
Las elecciones generales de 2019 vieron que la cuota de los partidos regionales (definidos como todos los partidos excluyendo al BJP y al Congreso) cayó al 35% desde casi el 40% observado en las elecciones generales de 2014 (Gráfico 15). Las elecciones de 2024 podrían de hecho ver aumentar un punto la cuota de escaños de los partidos regionales, ya que el conteo máximo de escaños del BJP podría disminuir respecto a los máximos de 2019.
El próximo auge de los partidos regionales de India es una tendencia arraigada en una dinámica simple. Con el BJP como incumbente de dos mandatos en las elecciones de 2024, los votantes podrían optar por gratificar a los partidos regionales en el margen, en ausencia de cualquier alternativa al BJP a nivel nacional.
El BJP sigue en condiciones de ser el partido más grande de India en 2024 con un número de escaños superior a la marca de la mitad. ¿Podría surgir una situación en la que el partido gobernante incorpore a un partido regional para mantenerse por delante de la marca de la mitad con un amplio colchón? Absolutamente. Pero, por supuesto, 2024 aún está lejos. Gestionar el COVID-19 y sus secuelas económicas hará más difícil de lo habitual para el BJP superar su rendimiento de 2019. La siguiente tanda de elecciones estatales clave en India está prevista para febrero de 2022 y el estado más grande de India, Uttar Pradesh, celebrará elecciones. Con el BJP actualmente en el poder en este estado de habla hindi, las elecciones de febrero de 2022 arrojarán más luz sobre la capacidad del BJP para mitigar el efecto de anti-incumbencia de la pandemia y el shock económico.
Conclusión: La popularidad del BJP en India se ha sacudido pero no de forma dramática. El BJP sigue firmemente en una posición para ser el partido más grande en India con un número de escaños que debería superar la marca de la mitad en 2024. Así que la estabilidad gubernamental no es una preocupación en este mercado emergente por ahora.
A la luz de los riesgos políticos internos de China y de la continuidad política en India, mantendremos nuestras apuestas en India por el momento (Gráficos 16A y 16B). Sin embargo, estamos llevando a cabo una revisión de India en su conjunto y actualizaremos a los clientes con nuestras conclusiones en un próximo informe especial.
Gráfico 16A
Mantener posiciones largas en bonos indios frente a mercados emergentes
Mantener posiciones largas en bonos indios frente a los mercados emergentes (EM)
Mantener posiciones largas en bonos indios frente a los mercados emergentes (EM)
Gráfico 16B
Mantener largo en India / corto en China
Manténgase largo en India / corto en China
Manténgase largo en India / corto en China
Conclusiones de inversión
Mantener operaciones refugio a corto plazo. Cerrar posiciones largas en futuros de gas natural con una ganancia del 19.8%.
Mantener una posición alcista cíclica (12 meses) con preferencia por las acciones de valor sobre las de crecimiento. Mantener posiciones largas en materias primas, incluidos los metales de tierras raras, y en mercados emergentes. Pero estar preparado para recortar estas operaciones si China sobreendurece la política según nuestros puntos de referencia.
Por ahora, continuar sobreponderando bonos indios en moneda local respecto a pares de mercados emergentes y acciones indias respecto a acciones chinas. Pero estamos revisando nuestra postura alcista sobre India.
Gráfico 17
Las acciones de ciberseguridad se animan en medio de la caída tecnológica
Las acciones de ciberseguridad repuntan en medio del desplome del sector tecnológico
Las acciones de ciberseguridad repuntan en medio del desplome del sector tecnológico
Mantener posiciones largas en acciones de ciberseguridad, aunque seguir prefiriendo aeroespacial y defensa sobre ciberseguridad como una apuesta geopolítica de “vuelta al trabajo”. Las acciones de ciberseguridad se animaron respecto al sector tecnológico durante la venta general de tecnología en la última semana. El ataque masivo de ransomware a Colonial Pipeline en EE. UU. cerró temporalmente una red importante que suministra alrededor del 45% del combustible de la Costa Este (Gráfico 17). No obstante, el ataque a la infraestructura crítica destaca que la ciberseguridad es un tema secular y los inversores deberían mantener exposición. Las acciones de ciberseguridad han superado al sector tecnológico en general desde el descubrimiento de la vacuna (Gráfico 18).
Gráfico 18
La ciberseguridad es un tema secular
La Ciberseguridad Es Un Tema Secular
La Ciberseguridad Es Un Tema Secular
Matt Gertken Vicepresidente Estrategia Geopolítica mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Asociada de investigación yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editora/Estratega Ritika.Mankar@bcaresearch.com
Dear Client, In addition to our regular report, this week we are sending a Special Report written by my colleague Lucas Laskey from BCA Research’s Equity Analyzer service titled “Is The Reopening Trade Closed?”. The report discusses the state of the reopening trade through the lens of Equity Analyzer's factor model. I hope you find the report insightful. Additionally, please join us next week on Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10am EDT as I moderate a debate between my colleagues Arthur Budaghyan, BCA Research’s Chief Emerging Market Strategist, and Robert Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist. Titled “A Debate On Commodities,” Arthur and Bob will discuss the outlook for commodities, touching on the trajectory both DM and China/EM growth will follow, the path for the US dollar, and other cyclical and structural forces currently shaping commodity markets. During the webcast, Arthur and Bob will highlight the areas they disagree on and the reasons behind their differing views. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG. ESG interests will win out. Widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies, if it were to happen, would erode the purchasing power of traditional money, while robbing governments of billions of dollars in seigniorage revenue. Governments have already begun to take steps to thwart such an outcome. Restrictions on the use of cryptocurrencies will only increase over the coming years. The rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) represents an existential threat not only to cryptos, but potentially to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Shorting cryptocurrencies, meme stocks, or any other high-flying asset is risky business. Fortunately, there is a way to flip the usual risk-reward from going short on its head. Rather than facing unlimited losses and a maximum gain of only 100% of the initial position, we outline a shorting strategy that caps the loss at 100% but allows for unlimited gains. Bitcoin’s Questionable ESG Record Crypto critics have often blamed cryptocurrencies for facilitating illicit transactions and enlarging the world’s carbon footprint. There is some truth to both claims. Motivated to avoid detection, online scammers, smugglers, and terrorists have been drawn to cryptocurrencies. Cryptos have also been used to evade capital controls and conceal wealth from the tax authorities. On the environmental side, Bitcoin mining now consumes more energy than entire countries such as Sweden, Argentina, and Pakistan (Chart 1). Moreover, about 70% of Bitcoin mining currently takes place in China, mainly using electricity generated by burning coal. A lot of the remaining mining occurs in countries such as Russia and Iran with questionable governance records. Chart 1How Dare You, Bitcoin Cryptos And Inequality One criticism of Bitcoin that is less frequently mentioned is its role in exacerbating wealth inequality. We are not just talking about the small number of “whales” who amassed huge fortunes by buying or mining Bitcoin shortly after it was created. If these whales sell their coins at today’s prices and the price of Bitcoin eventually crashes, those early investors will have ended up profiting at the expense of smaller investors who bought at the top. While such a transfer of income may be unsavory, it is not much different from what happens when someone sells a high-flying stock to the proverbial bagholder just as the stock is peaking. The more interesting question is what happens if Bitcoin prices do not crash. It might be tempting to think that in such a scenario, no one would be worse off. But that is incorrect. There would still be losers, and importantly, these losers would consist of people who never bought or sold Bitcoin in their lives. To see why, ask yourself who suffers from counterfeit currency. One possibility is shopkeepers who inadvertently accept counterfeit cash and find themselves stuck with worthless money. But even if the counterfeit money is never detected, there would still be losers: Fake money dilutes the value of genuine money, making everyone who holds the genuine money worse off. Crypto evangelists like to argue that cryptocurrencies offer protection against the “debasement of fiat money.” Ironically, the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies could produce a self-fulfilling cycle that leads to just such an inflationary outcome. If enough people decide to swap fiat currencies for cryptos, the dollar and other fiat monies could become “hot potatoes.” The price of cryptos would rise in relation to dollars. Feeling more wealthy, crypto holders would spend some of their wealth on goods and services. As long as the economy is operating below potential, this would not be such a bad thing since increased spending would generate more output and employment. However, once the output gap disappears, more spending would result in higher inflation. The purchasing power of fiat currencies would decline. The Empire Strikes Back Will governments allow such a massive transfer of wealth from holders of fiat currencies to holders of crypto currencies to occur? It seems highly unlikely. In order to entice people to hold on to their fiat currency bank deposits, central banks would have to raise interest rates. Debt-strapped governments would not like that. Governments also generate significant revenue from their ability to print currency and then exchange it for goods and services. For the US, this “seigniorage revenue” is around $100 billion per year (Chart 2). No government will want to part with this revenue. A financial system where loans and deposits are denominated in cryptocurrencies would be highly unstable. Even if the supply of each individual cryptocurrency were capped, the rise and fall of competing cryptocurrencies could still result in large shifts in the aggregate cryptocurrency money supply. Moreover, wild swings in cryptocurrency prices, both versus fiat currencies and one another, could destroy any semblance of price stability. The value of bank loans made in Bitcoin or other cryptos would experience great fluctuations. Powerless to issue cryptocurrencies themselves, central banks would not be able to provide unlimited liquidity support to commercial banks as they do now. The situation would resemble the US in the late 19th century when myriad currencies competed with one another and the financial system veered from one crisis to another (Chart 3). Chart 2Governments Will Not Part With Seigniorage Revenue Chart 3An Inelastic Money Supply Historically Led To More Banking Crises What Is It Good For? One might argue that the ultimate aim of cryptocurrencies is not to displace fiat money. Okay, but if Bitcoin can never truly function as a medium of exchange or a unit of account, what exactly underpins its utility as a store of value? At least with gold, you get an extremely rare metal, forged in the collision of neutron stars billions of years ago, that has great aesthetic value. With cryptos, you get fairy dust. In past reports, we referred to Bitcoin as a “solution in search of a problem.” In retrospect, that characterization was much too charitable. Bitcoin is a problem in search of a problem. Whereas the Visa network can process over 20,000 transactions per second, the Bitcoin network can barely process five (Chart 4). Bitcoin transactions take 10 minutes-to-an hour to complete compared to just a few seconds for most debit or credit card transactions. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is around $30. This fee has been rising, not falling, over the past few years (Chart 5). Chart 4Bitcoin: The Speed Of Transactions, Or Lack Of It Chart 5Bitcoin: The Cost Per Transaction Is Rising Look Out Below Table 1A Growing List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Cryptos are heading for a world of pain. ESG concerns will force companies to step back from their newfound infatuation with these magic beans. Meanwhile, governments will tighten the screws on cryptocurrencies while rolling out their own digital monies. As my colleague Chester Ntonifor pointed out last week, a growing list of countries have already moved to ban Bitcoin transactions (Table 1). In addition, most G10 central banks have outlined their own digital currency plans (Map 1). Not only will Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) squeeze out decentralised cryptocurrencies, they will also pose an existential risk to credit card companies and online payment processors such as PayPal, Square, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and Alipay. Map 1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency The Risk Of Shorting Bitcoin These days, there is no shortage of ways to short Bitcoin. Many cryptocurrency platforms permit short selling. In addition, one can bet against Bitcoin through the futures market. To the extent that the fortunes of companies such as Coinbase are tied to the crypto market, one can also express a short view on cryptos through listed equities. Yet, shorting cryptos is a risky strategy. Cryptocurrencies do not have any intrinsic value. What you think a Bitcoin is worth depends on what others think it is worth and vice versa. At present, the value of all Bitcoins that have ever been issued is about $1 trillion. Eighteen cryptocurrencies have valuations exceeding $10 billion (Table 2). The market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies in circulation stands at $2 trillion. In contrast, the value of all the gold that has ever been mined is around $10 trillion (Chart 6). It is certainly possible that euphoric investors will push up the value of cryptocurrencies to the point that they are collectively worth more than all the gold in the world. Table 2Close To 20 Cryptos Have A Market Cap In Excess Of US$10bn Chart 6Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies To guard against this risk, one needs a prudent strategy for shorting not just high-flying cryptocurrencies, but any security whose price can rise significantly. Luckily, such a strategy exists. How To Short Without Losing Your Shorts Clients sometimes ask me what I invest my money in. The answer is that most of my liquid wealth is held in publicly traded US small cap stocks. I have been investing in this space for over two decades (prior to joining Goldman, I even wrote a blog about it). I used my knowledge of stock picking to develop an early version of BCA’s Equity Analyzer. David Boucher and his team have since transformed it into a powerful, state-of-the-art stock selection service. Table 3Don’t Be Like Melvin Shorting small cap stocks is risky business. To limit the risk, I have employed a strategy that flips the usual risk-reward from shorting on its head. Normally, when you short a stock, your gain is capped at 100% of the initial position whereas your potential loss is unlimited. With my shorting technique, your potential loss is capped at 100% while your potential gain is unlimited. To illustrate how the strategy works, let us consider shorting one particular overpriced “meme” stock that has been in the news a lot this year. I won’t single out the name of the company, other than to note that it begins with “G” and ends with “stop.” At the time of writing, this mystery stock was trading at $180 per share. Suppose you shorted 1,000 shares at that price. The basic idea is to then short 2% more shares if the price falls by 1% and cover 2% of your shares if the price rises by 1%. So, in this case, you would increase your short position to 1020 shares if the price were to fall to around $178 but cover 20 shares (leaving you with 980 shares short) if the price were to rise to $182. Table 3 shows the number of shares you would need to be short for any given price between $5 and $360. If the price of the shares were to fall to $10 (double what it was last August), the strategy would generate roughly $3,060,000 in profits.1 In contrast, if the price were to rise to $360 per share, the strategy would incur a loss of $90,000. Even if the price went to infinity, the most you would lose is $180,000. There are a number of challenges to implementing this strategy: 1) It requires frequent trading; 2) gap downs and gap ups in the price could meaningfully hurt the results; 3) it is not always possible to short a stock and even when it is, the borrowing costs could be high, etc. Nevertheless, as a “rule of thumb,” I have found this strategy to be extremely effective in mitigating risk. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Notice that the profit of $3,060,000 from going short 1,000 shares in the case where the price of the stock falls from $180 to $10 is equal to 17 times the initial short position of $180,000 (i.e., $3,060,000 divided by 180,000 is 17). This is exactly the same return that one would earn if one went long the stock and the price rose from $10 to $180. In this case, the profit would also be equal to 17 times the initial investment (i.e., $1,800,000-$100,000 divided by $100,000 is 17). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Aspectos destacados
Si se implementa por completo, el Plan fiscal Made in America del presidente Biden reduciría las ganancias del S&P 500 en aproximadamente un 8%. Esperamos que algunas de las medidas fiscales propuestas se suavicen, lo que resultará en una disminución del 5% en las ganancias.
Es probable que los inversores resten importancia al impacto a corto plazo de impuestos más altos, dado el fuerte crecimiento económico y el apoyo continuo de una política monetaria acomodaticia.
Mirando más adelante, sin embargo, vemos cuatro razones por las que es probable que las tasas impositivas en EE. UU. sigan aumentando, hasta alcanzar niveles que perjudiquen los precios de las acciones: primero, la tasa efectiva del impuesto corporativo en EE. UU. sigue siendo muy baja; segundo, el hecho de que los recortes fiscales del presidente Trump no hayan impulsado la inversión facilitará eventualmente su reversión completa; tercero, el aumento de los rendimientos de los bonos hará que sea más conveniente financiar el gasto con impuestos más altos en lugar de endeudamiento creciente; y cuarto, y lo más importante, los vientos políticos están cambiando a favor de impuestos más altos a las corporaciones y a los ricos.
Los demócratas se han ido desplazando hacia la izquierda en temas económicos desde hace algún tiempo. Por su parte, los republicanos conservadores están empezando a preguntarse por qué deberían apoyar recortes fiscales para una lista cada vez mayor de empresas “woke” que aparentemente los odian.
El sector corporativo de EE. UU. corre el riesgo de quedarse sin un partido que defienda sus intereses. Así, aunque las perspectivas a corto plazo para las acciones siguen siendo positivas, las perspectivas a largo plazo se vuelven cada vez más sombrías.
El plan fiscal de Biden
El 31 de marzo, el presidente Biden dio a conocer el Plan de Empleos Americanos. El plan propone 2,25 billones de dólares en nuevo gasto federal, distribuidos a lo largo de ocho años, en infraestructura pública y otras áreas. Tal como se describe en el Plan fiscal Made In America, la administración Biden buscará recaudar 2 billones de dólares en ingresos fiscales durante los próximos 15 años para financiar el nuevo paquete de gasto.
Las tres disposiciones más importantes en el plan fiscal son:
Aumentar la tasa del impuesto sobre la renta corporativa doméstica del 21% al 28%. Esto devolvería la tasa impositiva a la mitad del camino hacia donde estaba antes de los recortes fiscales de Trump (35%). Teniendo en cuenta la distribución global de las ganancias corporativas y otros factores, tal subida impositiva reduciría las ganancias del S&P 500 en aproximadamente un 4%.
Incrementar el impuesto mínimo sobre las ganancias en el extranjero de las empresas estadounidenses. La administración Biden propone duplicar la tasa mínima del impuesto sobre la Renta Intangible Global de Baja Tributación (GILTI) del 10,5% al 21%. También planea eliminar la deducción por ingresos intangibles derivados del extranjero (FDII). Estas dos medidas reducirían las ganancias del S&P 500 en aproximadamente otro 3,5%.
Un impuesto mínimo del 15% sobre la “renta contable” (es decir, las ganancias que las empresas informan a los accionistas). El impuesto se aplica a las corporaciones con beneficios anuales superiores a 2.000 millones de dólares. El Departamento del Tesoro estima que 45 empresas serán responsables de este impuesto. Cortaría las ganancias del S&P 500 en un 0,5% adicional.
En conjunto, estas disposiciones reducirían las ganancias del S&P 500 en alrededor del 8%. En la práctica, creemos que el impacto estará más cerca del 5%. El plan de Biden incluye una variedad de créditos fiscales, centrados en áreas como la energía limpia y I+D, que deberían compensar algunos de los aumentos fiscales. La tasa impositiva corporativa final también probablemente estará por debajo del 28%. El senador de West Virginia Joe Manchin, el votante clave oscilante, ya dijo que preferiría limitarla al 25%.
¿Qué se ha descontado ya?
Gráfico 1
Las empresas que más perderían con impuestos más altos lo han hecho bien
Las empresas que más perderían con impuestos más altos han salido bien paradas.
Las empresas que más perderían con impuestos más altos han salido bien paradas.
Nuestra lectura de los datos sugiere que muy poco del impacto de impuestos más altos se ha incorporado ni en las estimaciones de ganancias de los analistas ni en las expectativas del mercado.
Gráfico 1 muestra el desempeño de las canastas de acciones de Goldman “Antes Altamente Gravadas” y “Antes Poco Gravadas”. Las empresas que antes estaban altamente gravadas fueron las que más ganaron con los recortes fiscales de Trump y presumiblemente serían las que más perderían si se revirtieran los recortes. Sin embargo, han superado a sus pares poco gravados desde la elección de desempate de Georgia, que entregó el Senado a los demócratas.
Del mismo modo, las estimaciones de ganancias no han reaccionado ante la perspectiva de impuestos más altos. Esto no es sorprendente. Gráfico 2 muestra que los analistas no ajustaron sus estimaciones de beneficios hasta poco después de que el presidente Trump promulgara la Tax Cuts and Jobs Act el 22 de diciembre de 2017. Similar a lo que ocurrió entonces, los analistas parecen estar esperando los detalles del paquete fiscal final antes de cambiar sus estimaciones.
Gráfico 2
Los analistas no han ajustado sus estimaciones de ganancias para reflejar la probabilidad de impuestos más altos
Los Analistas No Han Ajustado Sus Estimaciones De Ganancias Para Reflejar La Probabilidad De Impuestos Más Altos
Los Analistas No Han Ajustado Sus Estimaciones De Ganancias Para Reflejar La Probabilidad De Impuestos Más Altos
Por ahora, la dinámica del ciclo económico es más importante que los impuestos
Aunque la falta de incorporación de impuestos más altos por parte de la comunidad inversora representa un obstáculo para las acciones, lo caracterizaríamos como un obstáculo modesto. Las estimaciones de IBES aún apuntan a un crecimiento de las ganancias del 15% para las empresas del S&P 500 en 2022. Habría que sufrir un golpe fiscal irrealistamente grande para evitar que los beneficios corporativos aumenten el próximo año.
Las últimas proyecciones económicas del FMI, publicadas hace unas semanas, prevén que el PIB real de EE. UU. crecerá un 3,5% en 2022, un punto porcentual completo más rápido de lo que el Fondo esperaba en enero (Tabla 1). Dada la fuerte correlación entre los rendimientos de las acciones y el crecimiento económico, es probable que el mercado alcista de renta variable sobreviva a un aumento de impuestos (Gráfico 3).
Tabla 1
El crecimiento sigue siendo robusto
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Gráfico 3
Las acciones suelen superar a los bonos cuando el crecimiento económico es fuerte
Las acciones suelen superar a los bonos cuando el crecimiento económico es fuerte
Las acciones suelen superar a los bonos cuando el crecimiento económico es fuerte
Por supuesto, algunas acciones aún podrían resentirse por impuestos más altos. El sector tecnológico es especialmente vulnerable, dado que actualmente disfruta de una de las tasas efectivas de impuesto más bajas en el S&P 500 (Gráfico 4). Las empresas tecnológicas también han sido muy hábiles en trasladar ingresos de activos intangibles, como patentes, a paraísos fiscales en el extranjero, lo que probablemente las pondrá en la mira del IRS pronto reforzado.1
Actualmente preferimos el valor frente a las acciones de crecimiento. La probabilidad de que los impuestos más altos tengan un efecto desproporcionadamente negativo en sectores de crecimiento como la tecnología solo refuerza esta opinión.
Gráfico 4
La tecnología es vulnerable a impuestos más altos
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
¿Impuestos más altos: inicio de una tendencia a largo plazo?
Aunque no nos preocupan en exceso los efectos a corto plazo de impuestos más altos sobre los precios de las acciones, sí nos inquietan más las consecuencias a largo plazo. Como discutimos a continuación, no solo es probable que Biden aumente los impuestos sobre la renta personal y las ganancias de capital para financiar futuras iniciativas de gasto como el próximo American Families Plan, sino que la presión para seguir aumentando los impuestos a las empresas persistirá mucho más allá de su administración. Hay cuatro razones para ello:
Razón nº 1: La tasa efectiva del impuesto corporativo en EE. UU. sigue siendo muy baja
Gráfico 5
Los ingresos por impuestos corporativos son bajos
Los ingresos por impuestos corporativos son bajos
Los ingresos por impuestos corporativos son bajos
En abril de 2018, cuatro meses después de que entrara en vigor la Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, la Congressional Budget Office proyectó que las corporaciones estadounidenses pagarían 276.000 millones de dólares en impuestos corporativos en 2019. Al final, pagaron solo 230.000 millones de dólares.2
Los ingresos por impuestos sobre la renta corporativa en EE. UU. representaron solo el 1% del PIB en 2018-19, la mitad de lo que representaban en 2013-17 (Gráfico 5). Durante el segundo mandato de Ronald Reagan, las corporaciones estadounidenses enfrentaban una tasa efectiva de impuesto de alrededor del 30%. Hoy en día es inferior al 15% (Gráfico 6). En términos de porcentaje del PIB, el gobierno de EE. UU. recauda menos ingresos por impuestos corporativos que casi todas las demás economías de la OCDE (Gráfico 7).
Gráfico 6
La tasa efectiva de impuesto corporativo a nivel económico ha estado disminuyendo durante más de tres décadas
La tasa efectiva de impuestos corporativos en toda la economía se ha ido reduciendo desde hace más de tres décadas.
La tasa efectiva de impuestos corporativos en toda la economía se ha ido reduciendo desde hace más de tres décadas.
Gráfico 7
La tributación corporativa en EE. UU. no es alta
Gravar el capital Woke
Gravar el capital Woke
Gráfico 8
A Trump le tocó ser señalado por el IRS
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Además, el gobierno de EE. UU. a menudo ni siquiera se molesta en recaudar el dinero que se le debe. Las auditorías a corporaciones con más de 20.000 millones de dólares en activos han disminuido un 50% desde 2011. Las auditorías a individuos con ingresos anuales superiores a 1 millón de dólares han bajado un 80% (Gráfico 8). En su testimonio ante el Senado de EE. UU. esta semana, Chuck Rettig, comisionado del IRS, estimó que la evasión fiscal le cuesta al gobierno 1 billón de dólares al año.
Razón nº 2: El fracaso de los recortes fiscales de Trump para impulsar el gasto en inversión facilitará su reversión total
Si los recortes fiscales de Trump hubieran aumentado el gasto en inversión, sería más fácil pasar por alto el efecto negativo que tuvieron en el déficit presupuestario. La evidencia, sin embargo, sugiere que los impuestos corporativos más bajos hicieron muy poco para estimular la inversión en capital fijo.
Gráfico 9 muestra que el gasto de capital apenas aumentó como proporción del PIB en los dos años posteriores a la aprobación de la Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Según el International Monetary Fund, solo una quinta parte de los recortes fiscales se utilizaron para financiar inversión de capital y gasto en I+D.3 En la misma línea, Hanlon, Hoopes y Slemrod encontraron que menos de una cuarta parte de las empresas del S&P 500 discutieron planes para aumentar el capex en respuesta a impuestos más bajos durante sus llamadas de conferencia.4
Gráfico 9
Los recortes de impuestos de Trump hicieron poco para impulsar la inversión
Los recortes fiscales de Trump hicieron poco para impulsar la inversión
Los recortes fiscales de Trump hicieron poco para impulsar la inversión
Gráfico 10
El equipo empresarial y la propiedad intelectual no duran mucho
El equipo empresarial y la propiedad intelectual no duran mucho
El equipo empresarial y la propiedad intelectual no duran mucho
¿Por qué la inversión corporativa no aumentó mucho? Una respuesta es que un impuesto sobre las ganancias no es lo mismo que un impuesto sobre la inversión de capital. Como explica el Apéndice 1, los impuestos corporativos más bajos probablemente no tengan mucho efecto sobre la inversión financiada con deuda cuando los costos por intereses son deducibles de impuestos.
A diferencia de los activos de larga duración como las viviendas, la mayor parte del stock de capital corporativo es bastante de corta duración (Gráfico 10). La demanda de equipo empresarial y software depende más de las perspectivas de la demanda agregada que del costo del capital.
Finalmente, como explicamos en un informe titulado La desigualdad llevó a la QE, no al revés, la mayoría de las ganancias corporativas hoy en día pueden atribuirse al poder monopólico de una u otra forma. La teoría económica estándar sugiere que gravar las rentas monopólicas no reducirá la producción ni la inversión.
Razón nº 3: El aumento de los rendimientos de los bonos hará que sea más conveniente financiar el gasto con impuestos más altos que con un mayor endeudamiento
Con las tasas de interés todavía en niveles excepcionalmente bajos, no hay una necesidad inmediata de aumentar los impuestos para financiar un mayor gasto gubernamental. Esto es especialmente cierto para el gasto en infraestructura, que razonablemente se espera que impulse el crecimiento económico (y por tanto los ingresos fiscales) a largo plazo.
Gráfico 11
Los pagos de intereses de EE. UU. se dispararán bajo el statu quo
Los pagos de intereses de Estados Unidos se dispararán si se mantiene el statu quo
Los pagos de intereses de Estados Unidos se dispararán si se mantiene el statu quo
Si las tasas de interés aumentaran, sin embargo, los gobiernos probablemente encontrarían ventajoso aumentar los impuestos en lugar de enfrentarse a costos de servicio de la deuda en espiral. Los niveles de deuda pública son muy altos en EE. UU. y en la mayoría de las demás economías, por lo que cualquier aumento de las tasas de interés desviarían fondos de los programas sociales hacia los tenedores de bonos. Esto no sería popular entre los votantes.
La Congressional Budget Office estima que los pagos de intereses del gobierno federal se inflarán rápidamente en las próximas décadas si no se toman medidas para frenar los déficits presupuestarios (Gráfico 11). Como discutimos a continuación, es probable que estas medidas adopten la forma de impuestos más altos en lugar de recortes del gasto.
Razón nº 4: Los vientos políticos se están inclinando a favor de impuestos más altos a las corporaciones y a los ricos
Los demócratas se han trasladado hacia la izquierda desde hace algún tiempo. En 2001, el 50% de los demócratas dijo que “el gobierno debería hacer más para resolver los problemas de nuestro país”. Hoy, ese número es del 83% (Gráfico 12).
Gráfico 12
Los demócratas quieren más gobierno
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Gráfico 13
El gasto importante en asuntos sociales y de salud seguirá aumentando
Los grandes gastos sociales y sanitarios seguirán aumentando
Los grandes gastos sociales y sanitarios seguirán aumentando
Aunque los republicanos siguen mostrando preferencia por un gobierno pequeño, esto podría no durar. Medicare y la Seguridad Social consumen más del 40% de todo el gasto federal no relacionado con intereses. Los desembolsos en ambos programas (en particular Medicare) están destinados a crecer rápidamente en los próximos años (Gráfico 13). En la medida en que las preferencias políticas de los estadounidenses mayores tiendan hacia los republicanos, esto podría hacer que el GOP sea más proclive a apoyar impuestos más altos para sostener los beneficios de los ancianos.
El hecho de que las corporaciones y los ricos favorezcan cada vez más políticas socialmente liberales está llevando a los republicanos conservadores a preguntarse por qué deberían seguir apoyando recortes fiscales para personas y empresas que aparentemente los odian. Mientras que Joe Biden ganó los condados más ricos de EE. UU. por 20 puntos porcentuales en noviembre pasado, Trump vio aumentar su apoyo en los condados más pobres (Gráfico 14). Reflejando esta tendencia, la proporción de republicanos que expresó “casi ninguna confianza en las grandes corporaciones” aumentó del 19% en febrero de 2018 al 30% en marzo de 2021 (Gráfico 15).
Gráfico 14
Los demócratas han avanzado seriamente entre los más acomodados
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Gráfico 15
Los republicanos son cada vez más escépticos respecto a los CEO corporativos
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Más del doble de republicanos ahora favorecen aumentar los impuestos corporativos que reducirlos (Gráfico 16). A nivel nacional, el 73% de los estadounidenses están insatisfechos con la influencia que las corporaciones tienen sobre la nación, un aumento de 25 puntos desde 2001 (Gráfico 17).
Gráfico 16
Más estadounidenses quieren gravar a los ricos
Gravar el capital 'woke
Gravar el capital 'woke
Gráfico 17
Actitudes cada vez más negativas hacia las grandes corporaciones
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Dado el cambio en la opinión pública, no es sorprendente que la respuesta republicana al plan fiscal de Biden fuera decididamente de “poca energía”. Tras una condena superficial del plan, los líderes republicanos pasaron rápidamente a atacar a las corporaciones “woke”.
Al abordar la reacción corporativa a la nueva ley electoral de Georgia, el líder republicano del Senado, Mitch McConnell, declaró: “Estamos presenciando una campaña coordinada por personas poderosas y ricas para engañar e intimidar al pueblo estadounidense.” Añadió: “Desde la ley electoral hasta el ambientalismo, pasando por agendas sociales radicales y la Segunda Enmienda, partes del sector privado siguen comportándose como un gobierno paralelo woke. Las corporaciones afrontarán serias consecuencias si se convierten en un vehículo para que turbas de extrema izquierda secuestren nuestro país desde fuera del orden constitucional.”
Si las tendencias actuales continúan, como sospechamos que sucederá, el sector corporativo de EE. UU. quedará sin un partido que defienda sus intereses. Así, aunque las perspectivas a corto plazo para las acciones siguen siendo positivas, las perspectivas a largo plazo se vuelven cada vez más sombrías.
Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com
Apéndice 1: ¿Cuándo reducen la inversión los impuestos más altos sobre las ganancias corporativas?
Supongamos que una empresa está considerando si comprar una máquina por 1000 dólares. Supongamos que la empresa se enfrenta a una tasa de rendimiento externa, r, del 8%. Es decir, puede pedir prestado y prestar al 8%.
La tabla adjunta ilustra cómo variarán las ganancias de la empresa dependiendo de su tasa interna de rendimiento (el rendimiento de la inversión que generará la máquina).
Comencemos con el caso en que la empresa financia la compra de la máquina emitiendo nueva deuda. Por ahora, supongamos que la tasa interna de rendimiento es del 10% y que la máquina puede usarse indefinidamente (es decir, que nunca se deprecia). En este caso, la máquina generará 100 dólares de ingreso operativo por año. Después de restar los 80 dólares en gastos por intereses, la empresa tendrá 20 dólares en ingresos antes de impuestos (Ejemplo A).
Supongamos que la empresa enfrenta un impuesto sobre la renta del 20% y que los intereses son totalmente deducibles de impuestos. Entonces, la empresa pagará un impuesto de 20*0.2=4 dólares, quedándose con 16 dólares en ganancias después de impuestos (Ejemplo B).
Nótese que, aunque el impuesto redujo las ganancias después de impuestos de la empresa, no extinguió el incentivo para comprar la máquina en primer lugar. Después de todo, aunque 20 es mejor que 16, 16 sigue siendo mejor que cero.
Así, en este ejemplo simple, vemos que cuando la compra de equipo de capital se financia mediante deuda y los pagos de intereses son totalmente deducibles de impuestos, la imposición de un impuesto sobre las ganancias no afectará la decisión final de invertir o no.
Las cosas cambian cuando los intereses no son deducibles de impuestos. En ese caso, la tasa interna de rendimiento debe aumentar a r/(1-t) para que la empresa sea indiferente entre comprar la máquina o no. En el ejemplo anterior, esto significa que la tasa interna de rendimiento debe aumentar a 8%/(1-0.2)=10%. Entonces, la empresa obtendrá un beneficio operativo de 100, pagará 20 en impuestos sobre ese beneficio y, después de pagar 80 en intereses, terminará en empate (Ejemplo C).
El cálculo para decidir si invertir en nuevo equipo de capital es similar para la financiación mediante fondos propios que para la financiación mediante deuda cuando los pagos de intereses no son deducibles de impuestos. La mejor forma de pensar sobre la financiación con capital es preguntarse cuál será el precio de mercado de la máquina después de que la empresa la compre. Si no hay impuesto y la tasa interna de rendimiento es del 10%, el precio de mercado será 100/0.08=1250 (Ejemplo D). Dado que la empresa puede comprar la máquina por 1000, tiene sentido comprarla.
Si el propietario de la máquina tiene que pagar un impuesto sobre las ganancias del 20% sobre la corriente de ingresos que genera, su valor de mercado será solo 80/0.08=1000 (Ejemplo E). En ese punto, la empresa es indiferente respecto a comprar la máquina o no.
¿Cómo cambian las cosas cuando abandonamos la suposición de que la máquina dura para siempre? La principal diferencia es que la decisión de comprar la máquina se vuelve menos sensible a los cambios en el costo del capital. Por ejemplo, supongamos que la máquina solo dura un año. Para que valga la pena para la empresa comprar esa máquina, los ingresos que genera en ese año deben aumentar de forma drástica (Ejemplo F). Esto hace que la decisión de comprar la máquina dependa mucho menos de la tasa de interés y mucho más de las consideraciones del ciclo económico, especialmente de las perspectivas de la demanda agregada.
Tabla del Apéndice 1
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Notas al pie
1 Jed Graham, “El plan fiscal de Biden: qué significa para Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft,” Investor’s Business Daily (8 de abril de 2021).
2 “La exactitud de las estimaciones base de la CBO para el año fiscal 2019,” Congressional Budget Office (diciembre de 2019).
3 Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula y Suchanan Tambunlertchai, “La inversión en EE. UU. desde la Tax Cuts and Jobs Act de 2017,” IMF Working Paper (31 de mayo de 2019).
4 Michelle Hanlon, Jeffrey L. Hoopes y Joel Slemrod, “¡La reforma fiscal me hizo hacerlo!” NBER Working Paper 25283 (noviembre de 2018).
Matriz de la visión de la Estrategia de Inversión Global
Gravar el capital woke
Gravar el capital woke
Recomendaciones comerciales especiales
Gravar el capital 'woke
Gravar el capital 'woke
Puntuaciones actuales del modelo MacroQuant
Gravar el capital 'woke
Gravar el capital 'woke
Highlights The Biden administration is combining Trumpian nationalism with a renewed push for US innovation in a major infrastructure bill that is highly likely to become law. Populism and Great Power struggle with China and Russia are structural forces that give enormous momentum to this effort. Don’t bet against it. President Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure and green energy plan has a subjective 80% chance of passing into law by the end of the year, as infrastructure is popular and Democrats control Congress. The net deficit increase will range from $700 billion to $1.3 trillion depending on the size of corporate tax hikes in the final bill. The second part of Biden’s plan, the roughly $2 trillion American Families Plan, has a much lower chance of passage – at best 50/50 – as the 2022 midterm elections will loom and fiscal fatigue will set in. While the US infrastructure package is a positive cyclical catalyst, it was largely expected, and the Biden administration still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea. Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk. In emerging markets, stay short Russian and Brazilian currency and assets – and continue favoring Indian stocks over Chinese. Feature The “arsenal of democracy” is a phrase that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to describe the full might of US government, industry, and labor in assisting the western allies in World War II. The US is reviving this combination of productive forces today, with President Joe Biden’s $4 trillion-plus American Jobs and Families Plan unveiled in Pittsburgh on March 31. The context is once again a global struggle among the Great Powers, albeit not world war (at least not yet … more on that below). The US is reviving its post-WWII pursuit of global liberal hegemony – symbolized by its role, growing once again, as the world’s chief consumer and chief warrior (Chart 1). Biden promoted his plan to build up the US’s infrastructure and social safety net explicitly as a historic and strategic investment – “in 50 years, people are going to look back and say this was the moment that American won the future.”1 It is critical for investors to realize that they are not witnessing another round of COVID-19 fiscal relief. That task is already completed with the Republican spending of 2020 and Biden’s own $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which together with the vaccine rollout are delivering a jolt to growth (Chart 2). Chart 1America Pursues Hegemony Anew Chart 2Consensus Expects 6.5% US GDP Growth After American Rescue Plan Our own back-of-the-envelope estimates of growth suggest that there is considerable upside risk even under current law (Chart 3). The output gap is also guesstimated here, and it will tighten faster than expected, especially as the service sector revives on economic reopening. Chart 3Back-Of-Envelope: US GDP And Output Gap Show Upside Risk After American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) A growth overshoot is even more likely considering that the first part of Biden’s proposal, the $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan consisting mostly of infrastructure and green energy, is highly likely to pass Congress (by July at earliest and December at latest, most likely late fall). Our revised estimates for the US budget deficit show that this bill will add considerably to the deficit in the coming years, peaking in three or four years, thus averting the “fiscal cliff” in 2022-23 and adding to aggregate demand in the years after the short-term COVID-era cash handouts dry up (Chart 4). The net deficit increase will be $700 billion if Biden gets all of his tax hikes and $1.3 trillion if he only gets half of them, according to our sister US Political Strategy. Chart 4US Budget Deficit Will Remain Fat In Coming Years We give Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan an 80% chance of passing through Congress by the end of the year. Infrastructure is broadly popular – as President Trump’s own $2 trillion infrastructure campaign proposal revealed – and Democrats have just enough votes to push it through the Senate via budget reconciliation, which requires zero votes from Republicans. Biden’s political capital is still strong given that his approval rating will stay above 50% as long as Trump is the obvious alternative and the Republicans are deeply divided over their own future (Chart 5).2 The second part of his plan, the $1.95 trillion American Families Plan, is much less likely to pass before the 2022 midterm elections – we would say 50/50 odds at best, if the infrastructure deal passes quickly. Chart 5Biden’s Political Capital Is Sufficient To Pass Another Major Law Of course there are very important differences between Biden’s $2.4 trillion infrastructure plan and the similarly sized proposal that Trump would have unveiled this month had he been re-elected: Biden’s proposal is probably heavier on innovation and research and development, and certainly heavier on unionization and labor regulation, than Trump’s would have been. Biden’s plan integrates infrastructure with sustainability, renewable energy, and climate change initiatives that will help the US catch up with Europe and China on the green front. The plan will consist of direct government spending – rather than government seed money to promote private investment. It will be partially offset by repealing the corporate tax cuts in Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Most importantly – from a geopolitical point of view – Biden is making a bid for the US to resume its post-WWII quest for global liberal hegemony. He argued that the US stands at the crossroads of a global choice between “democracies and autocracies” and that rebuilding US infrastructure is ultimately about proving that democracies can create consensus and “deliver for their people.” Autocratic regimes, fairly or not, routinely call attention to the divisiveness of modern party politics in the West and the resulting policy gridlock which produces bad outcomes for many citizens, resulting in greater domestic dysfunction and “chaos.” It is important to note that this bid for hegemony will be more, not less, destabilizing for global politics as it will make the US economy more self-sufficient and insulated from the world. It will intensify the US-China and US-Russia strategic competition while making it more difficult for Biden to conduct bilateral diplomacy with these states given their differences in moral values and frequent human rights violations. What is happening now is the culmination of political shifts that pre-date the pandemic, but were galvanized by the pandemic, and it is of global, geopolitical significance for the coming decade and beyond.3 Biden and the establishment Democrats – embattled by populism on their right and left flanks – are shamelessly coopting President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” nationalism with a larger-than-life, infrastructure-and-manufacturing initiative that emphasizes productivity as well as “Buy American” protectionism. Biden explicitly argued that Americans need to boost innovation to “put us in a position to win the global competition with China in the upcoming years.” At Biden’s first press conference on March 25, he made a similar point about China: So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.4 The US trade deficit is set to widen a lot further under this massive domestic buildout. It aims to be the largest government investment program since Dwight Eisenhower’s building of the highways or the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon space race. But it explicitly aims to diminish China’s role as a supplier of US goods and materials and the US trade deficit already shows evidence of economic divorce (Chart 6). The US is bound to have a larger trade deficit due to its own savings-and-investment imbalances but it has a powerful interest in redistributing this trade deficit to its allies and reducing over-dependency on China, which is itself pursuing strategic self-sufficiency and military modernization in anticipation of an ongoing rivalry this century. Chart 6Biden's Coopts Trump's Trade And Manufacturing Agenda Bottom Line: Biden’s $2.4 trillion American Jobs Plan has an 80% chance of passing Congress later this year with a net increase to the fiscal thrust of between $700 billion and $1.3 trillion, depending on how many and how high the corporate tax hikes. The other $2 trillion social spending part of Biden’s plan has only a 50/50 chance of passage. The infrastructure and green energy rebuild should be understood as a return of Big Government motivated by populism and Great Power competition – it is a geopolitical theme with enormous momentum. The result will be faster US growth and higher inflation expectations, with the upside risk of a productivity boom (or boomlet) from the combination of public and private sector innovation. Investors should not bet against the cyclical bull market even though any increase in long-term potential GDP is speculative. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis And The Cuban Missile Crisis Biden’s American Jobs Plan reserves $50 billion for US semiconductor manufacturing, a vast sum, larger than expectations and far larger than the relatively small public investments that helped revolutionize the US chip industry in the 1980s. But it will take a long time for these investments to pay off in the form of secure and redundant supply chains, while a semiconductor shortage is raging today that is already entangled with the US-China rivalry and tensions over the Taiwan Strait. The risk of a diplomatic or military incident is urgent because the chip shortage exacerbates China’s vulnerabilities at a time when the Biden administration is about to make critical decisions regarding the tightness of new export controls that cut off China’s access to US semiconductor chips, equipment, and parts. If the Biden administration appears to pursue a full-fledged tech blockade, as the Trump administration seemed bent on doing, then China will retaliate economically or militarily. Before going further we should point out that there are still areas of potential US-China cooperation under the Biden administration that could reduce tensions this year (though not over the long run). Biden and Xi Jinping might meet virtually as early as this month to discuss carbon emission reduction targets. Meanwhile China is positioning itself to serve as power-broker on two major foreign policy challenges – Iran and North Korea. Biden expressly seeks Chinese and Russian assistance based on the mutual interest in nuclear non-proliferation. Notably, Beijing’s renewed strategic dealings with Iran over the past month highlight its confidence that Biden does not have the appetite to stick with Trump’s “maximum pressure” but rather will seek to reduce sanctions and restore the 2015 nuclear deal. Hence China will seek to parlay influence over Tehran in exchange for reduced US pressure on its trade and economy (Chart 7). Beijing is making a similar offer on North Korea. Chart 7China Holds The Key To Iran, As With North Korea? Ironically both Iranian and North Korean geopolitical tensions should skyrocket in the short term since high-stakes negotiations are beginning, even though they are ultimately more manageable risks than the mega-risk of US-China conflict over Taiwan. China cannot gain the advanced technology it needs to achieve a strategic breakthrough if the US should impose a total tech blockade, e.g. draconian export controls enforced on US allies. Yet it is highly unlikely to gain the tech by seizing Taiwan, since war would likely destroy the computer chip fabrication plants and provoke global sanctions that would crush its economy. The result is that China is launching a massive campaign of domestic production and indigenous innovation while circumventing US restrictions through cyber and other means. Still, a dangerous strategic asymmetry is looming because the US will retain access to the most advanced computer chips via its alliances and on-shoring, whereas China will remain vulnerable to a tech blockade via Taiwan. This brings us to our chief global geopolitical risk: a US-China showdown in the Taiwan Strait. Highlighting the urgency of the risk, Admiral John Aquilino, the nominee for Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that China might not wait six years to attack Taiwan: “My opinion is that this problem is much closer to us than most think and we have to take this on.”5 To illustrate the calculus of such a showdown – and our reasons for maintaining an alarmist tone and building up market hedges and safe-haven investments – we turn to game theory. Game theory is not a substitute for empirical analysis but a tool to formalize complex international systems with multiple decision-makers. An obvious yet fair analogy to a US-China-Taiwan crisis is the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.6 The standard construction of the Cuban missile crisis in game theory goes as follows: if the US maintains a blockade and the Soviets withdraw their missiles a compromise is achieved and war is averted; if the US conducts air strikes and the Soviets maintain or use their missiles then war ensues. The payouts to each player are shown in the matrix in Diagram 1. Diagram 1Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 One concern about this construction is that the payouts may underestimate the costs of war since nuclear arms could be used. We insert a comment into the diagram highlighting that the payouts could be altered to account for nuclear war. Note that this alteration does not change the final outcome: the equilibrium scenario is still US blockade and Soviet withdrawal, which is what happened in reality. If we model a US-China-Taiwan conflict along similar lines, the US takes the role of the Soviet Union while China stands where the US stood in 1962 (Diagram 2). This is a theoretical scenario in which the US offers Taiwan a decisive improvement in its security or offensive military capabilities. However, because of the unique circumstances of the Chinese civil war, in which the victors established the People’s Republic of China in Beijing in 1949 and the defeated forces retreated to Taiwan, China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in any showdown over Taiwan. If Beijing suffered a defeat that secured Taiwan’s independence while degrading Beijing’s regime legitimacy and security, the Chinese regime might not survive the domestic blowback.7 Diagram 2Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis – What Happens If The US Offers Game-Changing Military Support To Taiwan? Thus we reduce the Chinese payout in the case of American victory. In the top right cell of Diagram 2, the row player’s payout falls from two points (2ppt) in the first diagram to one point (1ppt) in this diagram. This seemingly slight change entirely alters the outcome of the game. Beijing now faces equally bad outcomes in the event of defeat, whereas victory remains preferable to a tie. Therefore as long as China believes that the US will not resort to nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan (a reasonable assessment) then it may make the mistake of opting for military force to ensure victory. Fortunately for global investors the US is not providing Taiwan with game-changing military capabilities, although it is ultimately up to China to decide what threatens its security and the US is in the process of upgrading Taiwan’s defense in an effort to deter Beijing from forceful reunification. Thus the exercise demonstrates why we do not expect immediate war – no game-changer yet – but at the same time it shows why war is much likelier than the consensus holds if the military or political status quo changes in a way that China deems strategically unacceptable. A lower-degree Taiwan crisis should be expected – i.e. one in which the US maintains tech restrictions, offers arms sales or military training that do not upend the military balance, or signs free trade agreements or other significant upgrades to the US-Taiwan relationship.8 We would give a 60% probability to some kind of crisis over the next 12-24 months. The global equity market could at least suffer a 10% correction in a standard geopolitical crisis and it could easily fall 20% if US-China war appears more likely. What would trigger a full-fledged Taiwan war? We would grow even more alarmed if we saw one of three major developments: Chinese internal instability giving rise to a still more aggressive regime; the US providing Taiwan with offensive military capabilities; or Taiwan seeking formal political independence. The first is fairly likely, the second lends itself to miscalculation, and the third is unlikely. But it would only take one or two of these to increase the war risk dramatically. Bottom Line: The Taiwan Strait is still the critical geopolitical risk and Biden’s policy on China is still unclear. Iranian and North Korean tensions will escalate in the short run but the fundamental crisis lies in Taiwan. Since some kind of showdown is likely and war cannot be ruled out we advise clients to accumulate safe-haven assets like the Japanese yen and otherwise not to bet headlong against the US dollar until it loses momentum. Emerging Markets Round-Up In this section we will briefly update some important emerging market themes and views: Chart 8Favor USMCA Over Putin's Russia Russia: US-Russia tensions are escalating in the face of Biden’s reassertion of the US bid for liberal hegemony, which poses a direct threat to Russia’s influence in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is expected to see a renewed conflict this spring. The top US and Russian military commanders spoke on the phone for the second time this year after Ukrainian military reports indicated that Russia is amassing forces on the border. We also assign a 50/50 chance that the US will use sanctions to prevent the completion of the NordStream II pipeline from Russia to Germany, an event that would shake up the German election as well as provoke a Russian backlash. The Russian ruble has suffered a long slide since Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 and the country’s currency and equities have not staged much of a comeback amid the global cyclical upswing and commodity price rally post-COVID. We recommend investors favor the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso as oil plays in the context of American stimulus and persistent Russian geopolitical risk (Chart 8). We also favor developed market European stocks over emerging Europe, which will suffer from renewed US-Russia tensions. Brazil: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s domestic political troubles are metastasizing as expected – the rally-around-the-flag effect in the face of COVID-19 has faded and his popular approval rating now looks dangerously like President Trump’s did, relative to previous presidents, which is an ominous warning for the “Trump of the South,” who faces an election in October 2022 (Chart 9). The COVID-19 deaths are skyrocketing, with intensive care units reaching critical levels across the country. The president has reshuffling his cabinet, including all three heads of the military in an unprecedented disruption that compounds fears about his willingness to politicize the military.9 Meanwhile the judicial system looks likely (but not certain) to clear former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to run against Bolsonaro for the presidency, a potent threat (Chart 10). Bolsonaro’s three pillars of political viability have cracked under the pandemic: the country remains disorderly, the systemic corruption and the “Car Wash” scandal under the former ruling party are no longer at the center of public focus, and fiscal stimulus has replaced structural reform. Chart 9Brazil: Will ‘Trump Of The South’ Face Trump’s Fate? Our Brazilian GeoRisk Indicator has reached a peak with Bolsonaro’s crisis – and likely breaking of the fiscal spending growth cap put in place at the height of the political crisis in 2016 – while Brazilian equities relative to emerging markets have hit a triple bottom (Chart 11). It is too soon for investors to buy into Brazil given that the political upheaval can get worse before it gets better and a Lula administration is no cure for Brazil’s public debt crisis, though a short-term technical rally is at hand. Chart 10Brazil’s Lula Looks To Be A Contender In 2022? Chart 11Brazil: Policy Risk Peaks, Equities Hit Triple-Bottom Versus EM India: A lot has happened since we last updated our views on India, South Asia, and the broader Indian Ocean basin. Farmer protests broke out in India, forcing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to temporarily suspend his much-needed structural reforms to the agricultural sector, while China-backed military coup broke out in Myanmar, and the US election set up a return to negotiations with Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire, despite boiling tensions over India’s decision to make Jammu and Kashmir a federal union territory. The ceasefire is temporary but it does highlight a changing geopolitical dynamic in the region. India and Pakistan ceased fire along the Line of Control where they have fought many times. The ceasefire does not resolve core problems – Pakistan will not stop supporting militant proxies and India will not grant Kashmir autonomy – but it does show their continued ability to manage the intensity of disputes while dealing with the global pandemic. An earlier sign of coordination occurred after the exchange of air strikes in early 2019, which preceded the Indian election and suggested that India and Pakistan had the ability to control their military encounters. India’s move to revoke the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, along with various militant operations, created the basis for another major conflict this year. After all, the Kargil war in 1999 followed nuclear weaponization, while the 2008 conflict followed the Mumbai attack. But instead India and Pakistan have agreed to a temporary truce. A major India-Pakistan conflict would be a “black swan” as nobody is expecting it at this point. Not coincidentally, India and China also reduced tensions after the flare-up in their Himalayan territorial disputes in 2020. China may be reducing tensions now that it no longer has to distract its population from Trump and the US election. China is shifting its focus to the Myanmar coup, another area where it hopes to parlay its influence with a Biden administration preoccupied with democracy and human rights. Sino-Indian tensions will resume later, especially as China continues its infrastructure construction at the farthest reaches of its territory for the sake of economic stimulus, internal control, and military logistics. The Biden administration is adopting the Trump administration’s efforts to draw India into a democratic alliance. But more urgently it is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan and cut a deal with Iran, which means it will need Indian and Pakistani cooperation and will want India to play a supportive role. Typically India eschews alliances and it will disapprove of Biden’s paternalism. For both China and Pakistan, making a temporary truce with India discourages it from synching up relations with the US immediately. Still, we expect India to cooperate more closely with the US over time, both on economic and security matters. This includes a beefed up “Quad” (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) with Japan and Australia, which already have strong economic ties with India. Biden’s attempt to frame US foreign policy as a global restoration of democracy and liberalism will not go very far if he alienates the largest democracy in the world and in Asia. Nor will his attempt to diversify the US economy away from China or counter China’s regional assertiveness. Therefore Biden will have to take a supportive role on US-India ties. We are sticking with our contrarian long India / short China equity trade (Chart 12). India cannot achieve its geopolitical goals without reforming its economy and for that very reason it will redouble its structural reform drive, which is supported by changing voting patterns in favor of accelerating nationwide economic development. India will also receive a tailwind from the US and its allies as they seek to diversify production sources and reduce supply chain dependency on China, at least for health, defense, and tech. Meanwhile China’s government is pursing import substitution, deleveraging, and conflict with its neighbors and the United States. While Chinese equities are much cheaper than Indian equities on a P/E basis, they are not as pricey on a P/B and P/S basis (Chart 13) – and valuation trends can continue under the current macro and geopolitical backdrop. Indian equities are more volatile but from a long-term and geopolitical point of view, India’s moment has arrived. Chart 12Contrarian Trade: Stick To Long India / Short China Bottom Line: Stay long Indian equities relative to Chinese and stay short Russian and Brazilian currencies and assets. These views are based on political and geopolitical themes that will remain relevant over the long run but are also seeing short-term confirmation. Chart 13Indian Stocks Not As Over-Priced On Price-To-Book, Price-To-Sales Investment Takeaways To conclude we want to highlight two investment takeaways. First, while the market has rallied in expectation of the US stimulus package, Biden must now get the package passed. This roller coaster process, combined with the inevitable European recovery once the vaccine rollout gets on its feet (Chart 14), will power an additional rally in cyclicals, value stocks, and commodities. This is true as long as China does not tighten monetary and fiscal policy too abruptly, a risk we have highlighted in previous reports. Chart 14Europe's Vaccination Problem While the US is pursuing “Buy American” provisions within its stimulus package, its growing trade deficit shows that it will be forced to import goods and services to meet its surging demand. This is beneficial for its nearest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, and Europe – as well as China substitutes further afield in some cases. Our European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary has pointed out the opportunities lurking in Europe at a time when vaccine troubles and lockdowns are clouding the medium-term economic view, which is brightening. He recommends going long the “laggard” sectors and sub-sectors that have not benefited much relative to “leaders” that rallied sharply in the wake of last year’s stimulus, vaccine discovery, and defeat of President Trump (Chart 15). The laggard sectors are primed to outperform on rising US interest rates and decelerating Chinese economy as well (Chart 16). Therefore we recommend going long his basket of Euro Area laggards and short the leaders. Chart 15Europe’s Laggards And Leaders Chart 16Macro Forces Favor The Laggards over the Leaders Chart 17Will OPEC 2.0 Maintain Production Discipline To Keep Oil Supplies Tight? Commodities – especially base metals – will continue to benefit from the global and European reopening as well as the US infrastructure buildout, assuming that China does not shoot its economy in the foot. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy highlights that global oil prices should remain in a $60-$80 per barrel range over the coming years on the back of tight supply/demand balances and ongoing OPEC 2.0 production management (Chart 17). We continue to see upside oil price risks in the first half of the year but downside risks in the second half. The US pursuit of a deal with Iran may trigger sparks initially – i.e. unplanned supply outages – but this will be followed by increased supply from Iran and/or OPEC 2.0 as a deal becomes evident. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 White House, "Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan," Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 2 A bipartisan bill is conceivably, barely, since Republicans face pressure to join with such a popular bill, but they cannot accept the corporate tax hikes, unionization, or green boondoggles that will inevitably occur. 3 The pandemic and President Trump’s hands-off attitude toward it helped galvanize this revival of Big Government, but the revival was already well on its way prior to the pandemic. 4 White House, "Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference," March 25, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 5 Again, "the most dangerous concern is that of a military force against Taiwan," though he implied that Beijing would wait until after the February 2022 Winter Olympics before taking action. He requested that the US urgently increase regional military defense. See Senate Armed Services Committee, "Nomination – Aquilino," March 23, 2021, armed-services.senate.gov. 6 At that time the Soviet Union stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba that threatened the US homeland directly and sent a convoy to make the missile installation permanent. The US imposed a blockade. A showdown ensued, at great risk of war, until the Soviets withdrew and the Americans made some compromises regarding missiles in Turkey. 7 Note that this was not the case for the US in 1962: Cuba did not have special significance for the legitimacy of the American republic and the American regime would have survived a defeat in the showdown, although its security would have been greatly compromised. 8 Taiwan is proposing to buy a missile segment enhancement for its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile defense system for delivery in 2025, though this is not yet confirmed by the Biden administration. See for example Yimou Lee, "Taiwan To Buy New U.S. Air Defence Missiles To Guard Against China," Reuters, March 31, 2021, reuters.com. 9 See Monica Gugliano, "I Will Intervene! The Day Bolsonaro Decided To Send Troops To The Supreme Court," Folha de São Paulo, August 2020, piaui.folha.uol.com.br.