Domestic Politics
Highlights The bill is bullish for growth and therefore for the equity markets and the U.S. dollar; The bill consists mostly of tax cuts, not reforms, that favor corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers; The bill is bullish for growth in the short term, but also inflationary and hence a risk to growth in the medium term; A non-populist White House is a relief to the markets, particularly on trade policy, but may mean a more hawkish foreign policy. Feature Chart 1Trump: A Boon For##BR##Main Street And Wall Street Since the November 2016 election, and particularly since President Donald Trump's inauguration, financial markets have celebrated. This is ironic given that on the campaign trail, Trump often adopted populist rhetoric indistinguishable from that of Bernie Sanders, the bête noire of the business community. Trump's cabinet, however, quickly took on a pro-business outlook following the inauguration. Despite appointing several notable trade hawks, the administration sported half a dozen former Goldman Sachs employees. Business confidence soared, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries hanging over CEO's melted away (Chart 1). Both Wall Street and Main Street took one look at President Trump's cabinet at the end of January and decided that there was not an iota of genuine populism in the White House. This view was reinforced by three early decisions by the Trump administration: China: President Trump reneged on his promise to designate China a currency manipulator formally on day one of his administration.1 Instead, he hosted President Xi Jinping at the Mar-A-Lago Summit in April and agreed to engage in trade talks over the rest of the year. (He again declined to accuse China of currency manipulation in October.) Budget: President Trump's "skinny budget" proposal in May oozed with Republican Party orthodoxy, bolstering spending on defense and border security, while calling for drastic cuts to domestic programs. The implication was that future tax cuts would ultimately be "paid for" via draconian fiscal austerity in the distant future. "Breitbart clique" ousted: Steve Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and self-described economic nationalist, was fired in mid-August, with several prominent allies ousted in the wake of his departure. Bannon's departure left Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Enter Tax Cuts The coup-de-grâce of Republican orthodoxy is the just-proposed tax cut plan. The proposal by the House Ways and Means Committee is heavily stacked in favor of corporations and the top-income brackets. As Table 1 clearly illustrates, the household component of the plan is nearly balanced - and therefore deserving of the moniker "reform" - whereas the corporate side of the ledger is closer to a pure and simple cut. Table 12017-2018 Republican Tax Cut Proposal - House Ways And Means Committee (Oct. 2017) Some of the more prominent measures proposed by the House and Ways Committee are: Household Income The highest tax rate remains 39.6%, but would now only kick in at $1 million in taxable income;2 The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be repealed, which hurts the upper middle class and wealthy by limiting tax benefits from a variety of deductions; The estate tax will be fully eliminated by 2024; The standard deduction will be doubled from $12,700 to $24,000, one of the few direct benefits to lower-income families; The plan would repeal the state and local income and sales tax deductions, while capping the state and local property tax deduction to $10,000; Almost all itemized deductions will be eliminated - such as medical expenses, property losses, casualty losses, etc.; The mortgage interest rate deduction for future home purchases will be capped, with only homes up to $500,000 covered. Corporate Income The corporate tax rate will be cut from 35% to 20%; Companies will be able to deduct the full amount of business investments in the year that they are made, although the provision would expire at the end of 2022; The tax rate on income from pass-through businesses would fall to 25%, considerably below the top household income tax rate; Several deductions would be eliminated, including the deduction of interest on debt; The "worldwide" tax system would be overhauled and foreign earnings repatriated: U.S. multinational corporations would pay a 12% tax rate on past profits that they repatriate, while future overseas earnings would be taxed at the new 20% corporate rate. We would caution clients from parsing too carefully through the proposal, lest they waste their time. The Senate is likely to pass a completely different set of proposals. The GOP plan is to get to a "conference committee" as fast as possible, where a new draft legislation can be hammered out from the two disparate proposals. We suspect that this entire process will miss the self-imposed target of "before Christmas," and probably last until the end of the first quarter.3 Nonetheless, we can discern the priorities of the House Republicans by gauging the winners and losers of their proposal. Our immediate take is that the tax cuts greatly benefit upper-income filers (households making over $423,000), moderately hurt upper-middle-class / lower-upper-class filers (those making between $260,000 and $423,000), and are largely neutral for the rest of households. First, the highest income groups are the clear beneficiaries: households making between roughly $450,000 and $1,000,000 will see their income tax rates fall by nearly 5%, by far the largest decrease planned. And, obviously, it is upper-income households that benefit from repealing the estate tax. Meanwhile, the upper middle class takes on the brunt of the burden of "reform": households making between $260,000 and $423,000 will see far fewer benefits under the proposed legislation. First, they are the only income bracket that will see a tax increase, from 33% to 35%. Second, they will not necessarily have the wherewithal to reclassify their income as pass-through business income. Third, many of the itemized deductions that will be eliminated will make a real difference in their filings. Fourth, they were the most likely to purchase homes between $500,000 and $1,000,000, which will no longer be eligible for interest-rate deduction. Fifth, the repeal of the estate tax will make less of a difference for this income group. Sixth, if they are domiciled in high-tax rate states and municipalities, these households will now be limited to how much they can deduct from federal taxes.4 Overall, the proposed tax cut plan fits general Republican orthodoxy.5 It tries to stimulate growth by favoring corporations and the wealthy. For economic growth, the plan is bullish in the short term. Particularly bullish is the ability of corporations to fully deduct the amount of business investment for the next five years. This provision could significantly increase investment in the short term, especially given the implicit threat that the opportunity will expire in 2022.6 Will the plan fail? It could, if enough Republican voters turn against it. The latest polling from Pew research - albeit from April of this year - shows that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 2). On the other hand, Republican and Republican-leaning voters do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 3), and the proposed plan simplifies taxes for some middle-income households by doubling the standard deduction and repealing the AMT. The White House has already begun stressing this feature given that it polls well with voters. Chart 2American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Chart 3...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex Polling suggests that President Trump remains relatively popular with Republican voters despite his dismal polling with the general public (Chart 4). He is polling only slightly below the average of previous Republican presidents at this point in his term in office. As long as Trump remains more popular with Republican voters than his Republican peers in Congress, we think that he will be able to force the tax plan through both the Senate and the House. In fact, we could even see some Democrats in the Senate supporting these tax cuts. Table 2 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin) are especially vulnerable. That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, potentially enough "slack" for the Republicans in the Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Chart 4Trump Remains Popular With GOP Voters Table 22018 Senate Races To Watch Is it even worthwhile to contemplate a scenario in which Republicans pass the tax cuts with Democrat support in the Senate? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska) all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states. Bottom Line: The proposed tax cuts will benefit corporations and the upper-income Americans. The Senate may make some symbolic changes to the proposal to make it more palatable to the median American - given that senators have to capture the median voter in their state to win reelection. For example, the estate tax repeal may be scrapped and rules on deducting state and local taxes may be modified. Regardless of how the horse-trading goes, we believe that the U.S. economy will receive a modest stimulus in the form of a roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut (over ten years). Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment and firing on all cylinders, the proposed tax cuts should be marginally bullish for growth and inflation (Chart 5). Chart 5Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped What Do The Tax Cuts Tell Us About President Trump? We are big believers in the theory of "revealed preferences." While this concept was formally applied by economist Paul Samuelson to consumer behavior, we like to apply it to policymakers. The idea is to ignore the rhetoric and focus on what patterns of behavior reveal about genuine preferences. Politicians talk a lot, particularly during an election campaign. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump was a clear populist candidate. He only revealed his tax reform plan in late September 2015 and then rarely mentioned it on the campaign trail. While his tax cut proposal languished on the campaign website, Trump focused on rallying voters around a combination of populist promises. These were, in no particular order, to build the border wall (and make Mexico pay for it), to rebuild American infrastructure, to repeal Obamacare, to destroy the Islamic State terrorist movement while disengaging the U.S. from global affairs, and to punish the unfair practices of trade partners like China and Mexico. Fast forward 12 months and we are now half-way to the 2018 mid-term election, with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, and yet the only electoral promise that President Trump is even close to achieving is the just-announced tax cut.7 The revealed preference of the Trump administration, at least at this point, is Republican orthodoxy. Trump is a pro-growth, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-spending, red-blooded Republican. He has eschewed trade conflict with China, ignored infrastructure proposals, largely toed-the-line of foreign policy orthodoxy, and left hedge fund managers - a punching bag on the campaign trail - alone.8 To put it bluntly, Trump's behavior thus far suggests that he is a pluto-populist. A pluto-populist is someone who rules on the behalf of a plutocracy - an oligarchy controlled by the wealthiest citizens - but whose main tactic is to rally the plebeians (the common people) through populist policies. The House's draft tax plan provides sweeping gains for the wealthiest. It also preserves or expands some benefits for the poorest groups, so as to make it politically achievable. The upper middle class - the professional class - stands to suffer the most under the new tax scheme. If this analysis is correct, what does it reveal about President Trump's strategy going forward? Anti-globalization rhetoric is just talk: The fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations ended with a bang: the U.S. delivered four new demands, two of which both Ottawa and Mexico City have identified as non-starters.9 However, in the pluto-populist scenario, even if NAFTA is ultimately abrogated, the Trump administration will ensure that the critical components are preserved in bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico. While those agreements are negotiated, the Trump Administration will not raise tariffs to the maximum, "bounded," level as allowed by the WTO. Meanwhile, trade relations with China may still sour in 2018, but they will not produce a trade war. Social unrest could increase: As we argued in a recent Special Report, the American structural context is ripe for more social unrest due to "elite overproduction."10 Trump's policies are likely to feed this condition. Meanwhile, his rhetoric and symbolic gestures will fuel the flames of division in order to play to his base, and force Democrats to argue about how to respond. This would be the populist part of pluto-populism. Hawkish foreign policy: With most of his domestic policies stymied, President Trump will pivot to the foreign theatre. We would particularly watch the growing tensions in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which could soon involve Lebanon.11 President Trump has also decertified the Iran nuclear deal, setting the stage for Congress to decide whether it will impose new sanctions and thus abrogate the deal. Plus, there is always North Korea. Bottom Line: Essentially, President Trump's strategy will be to pass pro-business, pro-market economic policies while distracting his largely anti-business, anti-market voters through ancillary issues. Investment Implications On the one hand, this analysis implies a very bullish policy mix as the Trump administration will not do anything domestically that hurts the ongoing bull market. On the other hand, some of those "ancillary" issues could flare up and impact the market, particularly if they involve a ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and North Korea. Chart 6No Debate: There Is No##BR##Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts The one risk that we remain concerned about is protectionism. We expected Trump to be more disruptive this year, and the above analysis suggests that protectionism, too, is merely hot air. However, Trump has only been in office for ten months. The absence of trade tensions with China may be a function of ongoing negotiations with North Korea: the U.S. needs China's cooperation in order to force North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un to the table. Ironically, then, a resolution of North Korean tensions could increase America's maneuvering vis-à-vis China, allowing Trump to become a lot more protectionist in 2018.12 Moreover, investors may be overemphasizing headline trade negotiations such as NAFTA or the China talks. The Trump administration may pursue protectionist aims through selective tariffs, such as countervailing and anti-dumping duties, in selective fashion. In other words, investors should pay attention to individual tariff decisions rather than overall negotiations.13 As for his electoral base, as long as President Trump can continue to ensure that they are focused on social disputes at home and hawkish rhetoric abroad, they may not notice the lack of movement on domestic promises. In particular, we have a high-conviction view that the just-proposed tax cuts will do nothing to curb income inequality in the U.S., and will likely deepen it, as previous such GOP-efforts did (Chart 6). Will this hurt President Trump in his 2020 reelection bid? We doubt it. But it does portend still greater socio-economic tensions and political populism in the long run. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The promise was made in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that then-candidate Trump penned on November 9, 2015. Please see Donald J. Trump, "Ending China's Currency Manipulation," dated November 9, 2015, available at wsj.com. 2 The top marginal tax rate of 39.6% is currently applied to single individuals making more than $418,401, a head of household making more than $444,501, and married couples, filing jointly, making more than $470,701. Technically, according to the current draft bill, the top tax rate in the House plan is supposedly about 45.6% between $1-$1.2 million, after which it falls back to 39.6%. A quirk in the proposal holds that once a filer hits $1 million of income, the IRS starts clawing back the $12,000 that the filer saved from having a 12% tax rate on his first $90,000 of income instead of a 25% tax rate. That clawback comes in the form of 6% surtax on income above $1 million. The $12,000 is completely reclaimed once the filer hits $1.2 million. By extension, everyone who makes over $1.2 million has had to pay that extra $12,000 in taxes. 3 For more on how the reconciliation process works, and how it will affect the timeline, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 From a political perspective, the GOP may have simply made a bet that high-tax-rate, blue-state households making $260,000-to-$430,000 do not vote Republican. 5 The congressional budget resolution that sets out the reconciliation instructions for these tax cuts also includes draconian spending cuts, which would presumably help balance the books. Although none of those cuts will pass Congress, they reveal the traditional preference of the Republican party: cut taxes, pay for the cuts by means of a smaller government delivering fewer services. 6 And perhaps this investment boost will come just in time to help re-elect Trump in 2020! 7 Although he deserves some credit for bringing to conclusion the pre-existing fight against the Islamic State. 8 In fact, the House tax bill leaves the "carried interest" tax break in the code. 9 For more on NAFTA, please see our upcoming Special Report with BCA's Global Investment Strategy, to be published on November 10. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Saad Harriri recently resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia, claiming that he feared for his life due to Iranian influence in Lebanon; Saudi Arabia itself is engaged in deep political struggle. 12 Indeed, in our original forecast of Trump's trade policy, we surmised that 2017 would largely be a year of negotiations, while 2018 would see the real fireworks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 An important such decision looms by January 12, 2018, which is the deadline by which President Trump must decide whether to impose "safeguard" tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines.
Highlights China's ascendancy will increase U.S.-China tensions in the medium and long term; "Xi Jinping Thought" is China's rejection of Soviet-style collapse; Xi's new policies face very few domestic political constraints; Xi is playing down GDP targets and playing up centralization; Tax cuts are still coming to the U.S. Feature Global risk assets continue to rally despite an apparent loss of faith in world leaders. In Spain, the showdown between Catalonia and Madrid is escalating as Spanish lawmakers vote to withdraw aspects of self-rule from the wealthy northeastern province. In the U.K., the Brexit negotiations are floundering, causing the Labour Party to raise the alarm against a "no deal" exit from the European Union. In Brazil, the interim president is under legislative scrutiny for corruption; in South Africa, the ruling party is grasping at government employees' pension funds to keep a struggling state airliner afloat. However, policymakers are not always as incompetent as investors (and the financial media) like to think. In China, President Xi Jinping has turned himself into the highest authority since Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. And the country has sprung back from the 2015-16 deflationary spiral so well that financial authorities are tightening financial controls and contemplating interest rate hikes (Chart 1). In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has won a two-thirds supermajority in the House of Representatives for the second time, giving him a mandate to continue his "Abenomics" agenda (Chart 2). With unemployment already exceedingly low at 2.8%, Abe could make history. He could rouse the country out of both its deflationary and pacifist slumber in the face of the historic challenges posed by a rising China and multipolar world. Less grandiose, but still highly market-relevant, the U.S. Congress has drawn closer to approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that would pave the way for tax legislation to hit President Donald Trump's desk by the end of the first quarter of next year. This development is in marked contrast to informal surveys of investors around the world, including at BCA's annual New York Conference last month. The market has hardly reacted to the positive news (Chart 3). Chart 1Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart 2Shinzo Abe Does It Again Chart 3Market Still Doubts Trump In this report, we focus on China and the United States. Our recent assessments of Spain and Japan are on track - the former is an overstated risk, the latter an opportunity now largely priced in.1 It is the "G2" that poses the biggest risk of negative surprises over the next 12 months. First Take On The Party Congress China's nineteenth National Party Congress will conclude just as we go to press. Our assessment of the line-up of the new Politburo and specific changes to the Communist Party's constitution will have to wait for a Special Report next week. We can still draw some preliminary conclusions, however.2 First, Xi Jinping's induction into the Communist Party's constitution, under the slogan "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era," makes him second only to Chairman Mao as a philosophical guide in the party. This says as much about the spirit of the age as about Xi's (formidable) power. It is an era of "charismatic authority," in which populations are restless and political elites either adopt populist tactics (like Xi), or are populists themselves.3 The Communist Party wanted a new Mao and Xi obliged them. Why is this the case in China? The Communist Party has based its legitimacy on economic growth since Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978. But economic growth is slowing as a result of irreversible, secular trends. The party needs a new source of legitimacy, and Xi has offered a "synthesis" of Mao and Deng: he promises to preserve the Communist regime above all, yet also to continue Deng's pragmatic use of the market to strengthen the fundamentally socialist economy. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Xi's focus remains on power, namely reinforcing China's ruling institutions and asserting its international influence.4 We will take the latter first, as it is the biggest source of change in the world and a key driver of market-relevant geopolitical risk. Multipolarity Chart 4U.S. Decline Vis-à-Vis China The most important takeaway from the party congress is that it perfectly captures our long-term investment theme of global multipolarity. This describes a world run by multiple independent powers as American power declines in relative terms.5 The erosion of U.S. global dominance is most striking in relativity to China (Chart 4).6 Xi has declared that it is time for China to take "center stage" in world affairs. He also modified an earlier goal to say that China will become a "leading global power" by 2050. China is unified under a single leader and a single party, its economy has been robust, and it is therefore feeling confident in its ability to take action in the global arena. The implications are disruptive over the long run: Assertive foreign policy will continue: China will continue with the bolder foreign policy it has demonstrated over the past ten years. China's military expenditures, which are widely believed to be larger than official statistics reveal, will continue to drive regional security dynamics (Chart 5).7 Maritime tensions still matter: China's "core interests" in separatist-prone regions like Tibet and Xinjiang have become more secure, whereas its interests in Taiwan and the South China Sea are less secure because of increasing pushback from the U.S. and its allies. The South China Sea is still a potential flashpoint as it governs the vital supply lines of China's major regional rivals and $4 trillion in trade (Diagram 1).8 Diagram 1The South China Sea: Still A Risk Economic statecraft is the new norm: China is using its economic heft to fill spaces left void by the United States. The U.S. is perceived across the region as relying increasingly on "hard power," ceding ground to China to create "soft power" relationships through trade and investment. Beijing is launching its own system of multilateral trade and finance that could someday operate as a sphere of influence in Asia outside of U.S.-led international norms - such as Xi's "Belt and Road Initiative," which was also enshrined in the Communist Party constitution (Chart 6). Moreover, Beijing is using its growing economic leverage to achieve political goals, having imposed informal sanctions on Japan, both Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan and others in recent years.9 Chart 5China Raises Asian Security Fears Chart 6China's Belt And Road Club These trends were all reaffirmed at the party congress, confirming our view that U.S.-China frictions are a serious geopolitical risk. Fortunately, neither Xi nor China is a loose cannon. Most of these trends are developing over the long run. With Xi Jinping overseeing an extensive overhaul of the People's Liberation Army, there is less reason to suppose that the PLA will act aggressively independent of civilian leadership (as was a concern under the previous administration). One would also think that a transition across the armed forces is an inopportune time to instigate conflicts. Notably, the Xi administration has also tactically adopted a milder diplomatic approach since President Trump's coming to power with an arsenal of threats aimed at China. This approach is evident with Japan, India, and Southeast Asian neighbors. Trump's perceived belligerence gives China the ability to play a mediating role and promote trade and investment with other powers looking to hedge against the U.S. Finally, Beijing appears to have domestic unrest in check, at least for now. Public security disturbances have been elevated in the wake of the global financial crisis, but have declined since 2011 (Chart 7). This is a positive sign for markets because China will have greater ability to push domestic reforms - and less reason to be aggressive abroad - if unrest is subdued. Official statistics suggest that China spends about as much on public security as national defense, revealing a key vulnerability to the state (Chart 8). Chart 7Domestic Unrest Down, Though Not Out Chart 8Domestic Unrest A Risk To The State Bottom Line: The party congress has highlighted China's rising global influence. This ultimately creates higher geopolitical risk, especially in U.S.-China relations. China also has greater control over domestic factors that could instigate conflicts, at least for the time being. Thus the U.S.'s next moves will be critical. Reform And Opening Up The second major takeaway is that the Xi administration is still officially committed to the reform agenda laid out in the 2012 party congress, the 2013 Third Plenum, and the supply-side structural reforms announced in 2015. Xi's work report calling for "sustained and sound" growth is a nod to the need to reduce capital intensity and systemic risks. He also said that supply-side structural reform would be the "main task" for economic policy for the foreseeable future. His economic reform slogans also made it into the party's constitution. Significantly, there are no more GDP targets beyond 2020. Broadly, we have defined Xi's reform agenda as a combination of centralizing control, improving governance, and streamlining the economy.10 Centralization is not necessarily market-positive, but under the Xi administration it has coincided with efforts to improve governance (fighting corruption, reining in provincial freewheeling, and reducing pollution). This is a sign of growing policy responsiveness to public demands and as such is marginally positive. The clear takeaway from the congress is that the anti-corruption campaign will be institutionalized across the country through new "supervisory commissions." This campaign should improve the legitimacy of the party-state and the implementation of central government policies. We have always been skeptical of progress on structural economic reforms, but the party congress marks a new phase in the political cycle: Xi is in a better position than any Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping to launch significant reforms. He has increased his political capital massively over the past few years, as illustrated by the dotted line in our "J-Curve of Structural Reform" (Diagram 2). Cyclically, the next opportunity for China to undertake bold reforms may not occur until 2027. Hence it is either now or never for reform. The policy focus is supposed to push along China's economic transition from investment- to consumption-led growth (Chart 9). Importantly, Xi declared that the "principle contradiction" in Chinese society has changed since the 1980s. The principle contradiction used to be that of a poor, economically and technologically "backward" country trying to meet the basic material needs of the population. Now the contradiction is that of an "imbalanced" and under-developed economy trying to provide people with "better lives." These goals can be put into perspective by comparison with South Korea, which reveals both how far China has come and how far it has to go (Chart 10). Xi's statement points to an overall shift in policy toward addressing imbalances and improving quality of life. Diagram 2The J-curve Of Structural Reform Chart 9Changing The Economic Model Chart 10From Basic Needs To 'Better Lives' To put a time frame on many of these reforms, Xi created a new long-term deadline of 2035 to become a fully "modernized" economy, which is smack in the middle of the country's previously declared two "centenary goals" of 2020 (middle income status) and 2050 (global prominence). The interim deadline includes a target for narrowing regional and income disparities. Wealth inequality in China has become extreme and ultimately poses a threat to the regime (Chart 11). Such a goal will require serious redistributionist policies as well as ongoing efforts to build a better social safety net. As expected, Xi reaffirmed China's embrace of globalization, claiming that the door of trade "will only open wider." The financial sector is likely to be at the forefront of any new opening measures - top financial officials claim that a package of reforms is forthcoming. The developed world has begun to doubt China's commitment to financial reform given the closing of the capital account last year and other negative trends, like the persistently low (and falling) share of foreign banks in domestic lending. Only recently have foreign banks begun lending again after withdrawing funds in preceding years (Chart 12). Foreign ownership of domestic equities, which is tightly controlled, has also fallen in importance (Chart 13). Chart 11Inequality: A Liability For The Party Chart 12Banks Shying Away From China Chart 13Foreign Investors Limited In China The centralization of power should speed up policy implementation, but it also raises risks. The important thing is whether we see hard evidence that Xi's "absolute power" is corrupting absolutely. This would present a new structural risk to the Chinese system, even if markets initially cheered. Why? Because an administrative (as opposed to propagandistic) turn in China in favor of a "cult of personality" as opposed to "collective leadership" would increase the odds of policy mistakes, set off factional struggle in the Communist Party, increase policy uncertainty for the foreseeable future, and jeopardize the smooth transition of power in 2022 ... or whenever "Chairman Xi" outwears his welcome. Therefore, the implementation of policy, the grooming of "heirs apparent," the position of the opposing faction in the party, and the upkeep of rules and norms will be important to monitor - not just after the party congress, but over the next five years. Bottom Line: Xi has reaffirmed formal structural economic goals like consumer-led growth and a commitment to globalization and has signaled that more reforms are in the works. Policy implementation will improve. Stay overweight H-shares within EM equities. However, excessive concentration of power in Xi himself is a serious political risk. It is only a positive in the long term if Xi uses his authority to build institutions rather than personalize them. Principal Contradictions China's declared goals are, of course, riddled with contradictions. As expected, Xi has tried to be everything to everyone. This leaves investors with a number of missing pieces to try to fit together. For example, the slogan indicating Xi's governing philosophy is a revision of Deng Xiaoping's market-oriented slogan, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (Table 1). Xi is announcing that China has entered a "New Era" that will redefine Deng's formulation. Thus, by quoting Deng, he is reaffirming China's need to continue reforming and opening up. But by simultaneously qualifying Deng, he is reasserting the primacy of the state.11 Table 1Xi Jinping Thought What matters are the concrete policies China actually enacts. Nowhere are the contradictions clearer than in the party's constant assurances that it will both intensify reforms and keep the economy stable. Beijing continues to stress that it will deleverage the financial sector, restructure industry, eliminate overcapacity, and fight smog, all without any negative impact to growth. Given the sharp deceleration in the growth of China's monetary aggregates, we expect a significant slowdown in the coming year.12 "Reform" will in large part consist of demonstrating a higher-than-usual tolerance for slower growth so as to impose market discipline. Authorities will, as always, inject further stimulus if necessary to avoid a hard landing. A key risk to global markets, as discussed last week, is that fiscal spending may not offset a crunch in credit growth next year, should one occur. This is increasingly the case because the composition of fiscal spending in China is shifting as the country focuses more heavily on social stability and economic transition. Education, social security, worker training and relocation, and other public services are simply not as capital intensive as building railroads, urban infrastructure, and houses (Chart 14). Moreover, a critical test of the reform-stimulus trade-off will be Beijing's tolerance for failing companies. Bankruptcies have risen over the past year in China, which suggests that market forces are being given wider scope and that the central government is laying down the legal framework to make bankruptcy more acceptable (Chart 15), a notable reform. This is a clear sign of "short-term pain, long-term gain," but it remains to be seen how far it will go. Chart 14China's Fiscal Spending Is Becoming Less Capital Intensive Chart 15Creative Destruction At Long Last? It is also unclear whether failures will be allowed among state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which are the least profitable and most indebted Chinese companies. The future of SOE reform is no clearer than before the congress: Xi promised both to restructure the sector and to enlarge and strengthen it. The principle is in alignment with the Jiang Zemin administration's maxim, "grasp the large, let go of the small," and does not mean that reform is doomed. More than a fourth of SOEs are under water and the government is already committed to cutting the number of centrally administered SOEs in half. There are now several pilot projects for allowing partial privatization, or creating state holding companies, that can be rolled out nationally. And there are a range of perfectly un-strategic sectors (retail, chemicals, real estate, electronics, et al) that have substantial state ownership that could be liquidated. Judging by listed Chinese firms, those that are deemed to be strategic will not likely see their state share diluted much beneath 80% of ownership; yet those that are designated for partial privatization and mixed ownership could see the state share dwindle to less than 10% of ownership (Table 2). This implies that sweeping changes could occur if the government prioritized SOE reform. (This is true despite the fact that the state's hand would still be obtrusive overall.) Table 2Plenty Of Room For Privatization Bottom Line: Deleveraging and bankruptcies are a key aspect of reform but pose headwinds to growth. The profile of China's fiscal spending is changing to become less capital intensive, which will mean less stimulus for China's aging industries if reforms are pursued. This underscores a real risk to Chinese growth, capex, and imports, and hence to EM. There is no clarity on SOE reform, but it would have far-reaching consequences if prioritized in Xi's second term, given his soaring political capital. Tax Blues In The USA: Are Tax Cuts Really Coming? On the other side of the Pacific, investors remain highly skeptical that tax reform is on the legislative menu (Chart 16). This is after both houses of Congress passed their version of the budget resolution, containing reconciliation instructions for tax reform. Once the House of Representatives passes the Senate version of the budget resolution - which we assume will be swift - the reconciliation process will kick off.13 The Senate version of the budget resolution instructs the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Ways and Means Committee to limit the increase in the budget deficit to no more than $1.5 trillion through 2027.14 The resolution also instructed the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to consider "to the greatest extent practicable... the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such major legislation." In plain English, this refers to "dynamic scoring," macroeconomic modeling that takes into account the revenue-raising potential of major tax cuts. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has harped on "dynamic scoring" since last November. The tool is a favorite of Republican legislators when passing tax legislation. It allows them to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. Democrats banned this practice when they took back the Senate in the Obama years, but the GOP promptly re-authorized it in January 2015. Fast forward a year later and two core conclusions of our November 2016 forecast on tax policy are now coming true.15 First, the tax bill will not be revenue neutral, except in the imagination of macroeconomic modeling pursued by Republican economists. The bill will be mildly stimulative, to the tune of $100-150 billion per year over the next decade. The numbers are modest, but given that the U.S. is close to full employment and wage pressures are certain to build up (Chart 17), any additional tax relief is bound to be stimulative for the economy. Chart 16High-Tax Firms Not Outperforming (Yet) Chart 17Inflation Coming Even Without Tax Cuts Second, Republican legislators are not fiscally conservative. The House budget resolution authorizing a $1.5 billion hole in the budget was passed with 18 Republicans dissenting, but 11 of them were from highly-taxed "blue states." Their contention with the bill was not that it would be profligate, but that it would do away with state and local tax deductions in order to pay for the likely $5-$6 trillion price tag. As such, they voted not to make tax cuts less, but rather more, profligate. Going forward, the real threat to the proposed tax bill is in the Senate, where Republicans hold only a slim 52-48 majority. This threat is a surprise, as 12 months ago the question was how a profligate bill would pass the supposedly conservative House. Three risks lurk in the Senate: Alabama: Judge Roy Moore, a highly conservative candidate for the December 12 special election, is holding onto a relatively slim lead against Democrat Doug Jones. A recent Fox News poll shows the two tied in public opinion. Even if the poll is unreliable, other polls suggest that Jones has narrowed the gap to single digits. This is remarkable because Alabama Republicans have defeated their Democrat opponents by an average of 36% in Senate races over the past decade.16 If Moore were to lose, the Republican majority in the Senate would fall to 51. This would leave room for only one defection in passing legislation. The Corker-Flake-McCain Axis: Senators Bob Corker (R - Tennessee), Jeff Flake (R - Arizona), and John McCain (R - Arizona) have all voted in favor of the Senate budget resolution authorizing reconciliation instructions for tax legislation. On that basis, there should be no problem. However, Corker and Flake have announced their retirement, in our view because they plan to challenge President Trump in the 2020 Republican primary. Furthermore, Corker has said in the past that he would not vote for a tax bill that is not revenue neutral. We think that Corker and Flake will ultimately vote for tax cuts, if only because their chances of successfully challenging Trump in 2020 will be higher if they stick to Republican orthodoxy. However, these three Senators are risks to our view as they have the freedom not to care about the 2018 midterms. God: The death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy on August 25, 2009 greatly changed the fortunes of President Barack Obama, who at the time was enjoying a 60-seat majority in the Senate.17 Democrats failed to move quickly on the Affordable Care Act, assuming that a Democrat would win the special election in staunchly liberal Massachusetts. (If the parallels with Alabama today seem eerie, it is because they are.) But the January 2010 election cost Democrats the 60th seat in a shocking upset. These things can happen again, especially given that the average age of a senator is 103.18 Any one of these factors could reduce the Republican majority in the Senate to 51, forcing President Trump to rely on vociferous critics McCain and Corker. The latter, by the way, is also a likely 2020 primary challenger against Trump. Could a Democrat come to the president's aid? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska), all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states, while Zell Miller of Georgia effectively ceased to be a Democrat and endorsed President George W. Bush reelection at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Ominously for today's efforts, John McCain voted against both versions. Given that he is unlikely to campaign again due to terminal cancer, and given his vociferous opposition to President Trump, we have to assume that he will vote against the tax bill as well. Which Democrats could potentially cross the aisle with this year's reconciliation bill? Table 3 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Particularly vulnerable are Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin). That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, plenty of "slack" for the Republicans in Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Table 32018 Senate Races To Watch As far as the timing of the bill is concerned, we are sticking with our updated view that the end of Q1 2018 is far more likely for passage of tax legislation than the end of 2017. There are simply too many things on the legislative agenda between now and the end of the year, including a potential government shutdown and an immigration fight. Bottom Line: The market remains unconvinced that Republicans can pass tax legislation through Congress. However, the tax process has played out thus far almost exactly as we expected last year (aside from starting later). Republicans have proposed a profligate tax bill and are using dynamic scoring to get it through Congress. Going forward, we think that GOP can afford to lose one or two votes, as it did in 2003 with the highly controversial Bush tax cuts. This is because there are up to seven Democratic Senators who can pick up the slack. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Xi is also overhauling the armed forces to imitate modern American joint operations and combatant commands (as opposed to the army-centric Soviet system). 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 See note 4 above. 11 Whether Xi is mentioned specifically, and described as the founder of a school of "Thought," or a lesser "Theory," or something else, will be a notable watchword. 12 Please see note 2 above, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," and BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Deflation Or Inflation?" October 4, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see S.Con.Res.25, available at congress.gov. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcareserach.com. 16 Current U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose retirement from the Senate has prompted the current special election, ran unopposed in 2014 and garnered 97.25% of the vote! 17 Democrats picked up eight seats in the Senate in the watershed 2008 election, boosting their majority to 57, with two Independents caucusing with the Democrats. Shortly after the election, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Spector changed parties, giving Democrats the 60-seat, filibuster-proof, majority. 18 It is actually 62, but we wanted to make sure you were still reading. Geopolitical Calendar
Dear Client, This week, in addition to this regular Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, we decided to send you a collaborative report we penned with BCA's Energy Sector Strategy. My colleague Matt Conlan runs the service, which blends BCA's macroeconomic framework with his bottom-up expertise in the energy sector. Matt's service is one of the few that our firm publishes with specific company recommendations. In the report titled "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," Matt argues that the emerging détente between Russia and Saudi Arabia will strengthen OPEC 2.0 and provide a structural tailwind for BCA's bullish view on energy. I highly recommend that you check out the research Matt and his team produce at nrg.bcaresearch.com. All the very best, Marko Papic Senior Vice President, Geopolitical Strategy Highlights Easier fiscal policy and tighter monetary policy is bullish for U.S. equities; The Dec. 12 Alabama Senate race could be a game changer in U.S. politics; Trump's anti-immigration policies could boost inflation; Our Catalan view is bearing out. Go long Spain's IBEX 35 / short Eurostoxx 50. Separately, book profits on our China volatility trade and our long China big bank trade. Feature "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" has been our mantra throughout the summer. Despite the doom and gloom in the media surrounding the Mueller investigation, North Korea, Trump's legislative agenda, the French elections, Brexit, and so on, the S&P 500 is up 16% and global equities are up 10.8%. Our April 23 Weekly Report bearing the same cheery title focused on three overstated risks:1 European politics - massively overstated; U.S. politics - all noise, no signal; Brexit - irrelevant for global investors. We have also cautioned investors throughout the year to worry, but not to obsess, about North Korea. Yes, it is a risk.2 Yes, it will continue to buoy safe haven assets on occasion.3 But it is extremely unlikely to produce total war and therefore has lost some market relevance as assets have adjusted to the higher geopolitical volatility on the Korean Peninsula under the Trump regime.4 We are not reiterating these calls just to pat ourselves on the back. Rather, our point is to emphasize that there is nothing supernatural about the ongoing bull market. It has not "ignored" geopolitical risks. Rather, geopolitical risks on hand have not developed in a market-relevant way. The bottom line here is that geopolitics is not voodoo. It is not an "error term," a disturbance in an elegant model that can go awry at any moment because "one cannot forecast politics." Investors can systematically analyze geopolitics just as they do the economy or the markets. When geopolitical risks are overstated, as they have been since the beginning of the year, recognizing the mispricing can generate significant alpha. Going forward, however, geopolitics will likely play a headwind for the market. We are particularly concerned with three dynamics: The upcoming party congress in China may signal a shift towards more growth-stalling reforms, as we have been writing all year. The Trump administration could make a hard turn towards a more populist agenda, particularly on trade, if it fails to enact any legislative successes this year. A plethora of political risks in emerging markets (EM) - with the usual suspects of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey on top of our list - could re-surface in 2018 if China is not firing on all cylinders. We will be focusing on these three risks to markets until the end of 2017 and beyond. This week, however, we focus on upcoming tax legislation in the U.S. First, a reason to be optimistic ("easier fiscal policy, tighter monetary policy" is a winning policy combination). Then, a reason to be pessimistic (Alabama). Finally, a few words about inflation from a political perspective and a quick word on Catalonia. Easy Fiscal, Tighter Monetary Policy Mix - What Does It Mean? If our base case view on tax legislation is correct, U.S. equities should gain double-digit returns from current levels. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy, believes that the passage of stimulative tax legislation would serve as a catalyst to further fuel the blow-off phase in equities. In his latest Weekly Report, Anastasios presents empirical evidence suggesting that easy fiscal policy outweighs the drag from Fed interest rate tightening.5 Filtering the post-World War Two era for periods of easing fiscal and tightening monetary policies during economic expansions is revealing. Anastasios defines easy fiscal policy as periods with a positive fiscal thrust and tight monetary policy as a rising fed funds rate. Fiscal thrust is the year-over-year change in the cyclically-adjusted fiscal balance as a percentage of potential GDP (shown inverted on the bottom panel of Chart 1). While such a policy mix is a rare occurrence, it has happened seven times since the mid-1950s (shaded areas, Chart 1).6 All iterations resulted in positive returns, with the SPX rising on average by over 16%. Table 1 details all seven periods that have an average duration of 16 months. For sectoral implications of such an "easier fiscal, tighter monetary" policy mix, we encourage our clients to peruse the work of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy. On the other hand, the demand for fiscal stimulus usually rises during times of high volatility, unlike today (Chart 2). Investors have become acutely aware of the political difficulties of stimulating the economy late in the economic cycle. We now turn to some emerging risks to our sanguine view on tax policy. Chart 1Easy Fiscal + Tight Money##br## = Buy SPX Table 1SPX Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Chart 2Fiscal Stimulus Usually##br## Comes With High Volatility Bottom Line: If our base case view holds, and Republicans pass mildly stimulative tax legislation, the blow-off phase in equities should continue. "Alabama, You Got The Weight On Your Shoulders" The market continues to doubt that the Trump administration can pass significant tax legislation over the next six-to-nine months. The gap in the probabilities assigned to such an outcome by the market and ourselves has narrowed over the past two weeks, generating alpha on several of our "Trump Reflation" trades (Chart 3). But skepticism abounds. Chart 3Signs Of Life For 'Trump Reflation' Trades We have spent the entire year pushing against the skepticism, but there is now an actual reason to worry. The December 12 Alabama Senate special election - being held to elect a replacement for former Senator Jeff Sessions, now the U.S. Attorney General - has become a premier league event. Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore won the Republican primary against a candidate backed by the Republican establishment and President Trump. The reason the Alabama special election is of global significance is because the Republicans are already down to essentially 50 votes in the Senate. The rhetorical war between President Donald Trump and Senator Bob Corker (R - Tennessee) has reached epic proportions, with the latter insinuating via twitter that the president was an adult baby. Corker has announced his retirement from the Senate, which increases the probability that he will go out by refusing to support the president's agenda across all fronts.7 This now makes two GOP senators that want nothing to do with President Trump's agenda. John McCain (R - Arizona) has harbored ill will since the presidential campaign and has twice played the spoiler in the effort to repeal Obamacare. Further complicating matters is the role of former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who strongly backed Moore when nobody in the Republican establishment would. If Moore should remain loyal to Bannon beyond the election, it would mean that Trump's former campaign strategist would become the kingmaker on tax legislation. Bannon's departure from the White House was cheered by the markets, as it signaled victory for the "Goldman Sachs clique" and the trio of generals managing President Trump's foreign policy over Bannon's populist "Breitbart clique." We do not think that Bannon is opposed to stimulative tax policy. Yes, he has branded his ideology "economic nationalism," but his media empire, Breitbart, has so far stayed away from attacking the Republican tax plan. Instead, Bannon and Moore could hold out on supporting tax policy until they see movement on other pillars of the populist agenda, namely on immigration policy. As such, Moore's Alabama victory would complicate the horse-trading surrounding tax legislation, and elevate Bannon's standing on Capitol Hill, but it would not be a death knell for stimulus. The actual death knell for tax reform would be if Moore actually lost the December 12 Alabama special election. Moore's views are generally considered to be staunchly conservative, even for Alabama, and therefore a shock defeat cannot be ignored.8 Polls are limited, but most show Moore leading the Democratic candidate Doug Jones by only 5%-8%. This in a state where Republican Senate candidates have defeated their Democrat counterparts by an astounding average of 36% in the last decade! If Jones were to win, Republicans would be down to 51 Senators. Given the staunch opposition to Trump by Corker and McCain, this would effectively end the tax legislation push. Not all is negative for the tax push in Washington. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution that includes steep spending cuts as well as reconciliation instructions for tax legislation. This now sets in motion the reconciliation process by which Republicans can pass tax legislation with merely 51 votes in the Senate. Of the 18 GOP representatives who voted against the budget resolution, only three were from the 31-member Freedom Caucus, which is rhetorically committed to fiscal conservativism. This is very bullish for tax cuts as it means that the Freedom Caucus is toeing the line of its Chair Mark Meadows (R - North Carolina) who has been hinting since the spring that he would have no problem with budget-busting tax cuts. The majority of Republicans who voted against the budget resolution were from highly-taxed "Blue States," suggesting that the real point of contention for Republicans in the House was the proposal to end the state and local tax deduction. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has already signaled that the White House is willing to compromise on this particular revenue offset. Bottom Line: The December 12 Alabama special election now has global market relevance. A defeat for GOP candidate Roy Moore would be a massive game changer. It would reduce the Republican majority in the Senate to 51 votes, putting in danger President Trump's tax agenda given the staunch opposition from Senators Corker and McCain. What Can Politics Do To Inflation? The greatest surprise to the markets this year has been lackluster inflation data in the U.S. Both headline and core data have been disappointing (Chart 4). This is particularly puzzling as the U.S. has closed its output gap and unemployment has fallen below the low reached in 2007 (Chart 5). Chart 4U.S. Inflation Has Disappointed... Chart 5...Which Is Puzzling At Full Employment One possible explanation is that the U.S. has been importing deflation from abroad. The U.S. imports around 12.5% of GDP worth of goods and 2.8% of GDP worth of services (Chart 6). However, the import price deflator has been growing at 2.7% so far this year and yet inflation has been nonexistent (Chart 6, bottom panel). Export prices have grown by 5% in 2017, from the lows of -15% amidst the commodity bust in 2015 (Chart 7). Chart 6The U.S. Is Not Importing Deflation Chart 7Global Export Prices Are Rising Another explanation is that structural changes in the labor market - globalization and the fall in the unionization rate - have eroded the bargaining power of workers (Chart 8). When combined with the shock of the 2008 Great Recession, workers may simply be happy to have a job and are therefore delaying asking of a raise or switching to a higher-paying, but higher-risk, job. As a result, the economy may have closed its output gap, but with no inflationary effects coming from the low unemployment figures. Chart 8Globalization Suppressed U.S. Wages Further restricting wage gains may be the high number of migrants - legal or illegal (Chart 9). The foreign born population in the U.S. is at an all-time high of 43.2 million, although unauthorized migration has come down from around 12 million prior to the GFC to 11.3 million in 2016. The conventional wisdom is that most immigrants are uneducated, competing with blue collar laborers and suppressing wages at the lower income levels. However, this is a stereotype stuck in the 1980s. Today's migrants are as educated as Americans: 29.7% have a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared with just over 30% Americans in general (Chart 10). Chart 9Immigration Helps Explain Weak Wage Growth Chart 10Immigrants Not Stealing Low-Skill Jobs The point is that immigration has evolved along with the U.S. economy. With 78% of the U.S. economy based in services, the modern migrant has had to keep up with the educational requirements of the American job market. The Trump administration could be a game-changer for the skilled, legal immigration into the U.S. First, President Trump ordered a full review of the high-skilled, H-1B immigration visa in April. Second, President Trump asked Congress in August to curb legal migration by sharply curtailing family reunification while keeping immigration based on job skills roughly the same. Third, anti-immigrant rhetoric - as well as restrictions to family reunification down the line - could influence highly-skilled migrants to choose job opportunities in countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, instead of in the U.S. Bottom Line: Investors often think of fiscal policy as the main vehicle through which politicians can influence inflation. However, the U.S. economy has been enjoying, since the 1980s, the combined effect of rapidly expanding immigration and a parallel increase in the educational attainment of incoming migrants. In a way, the influx of skilled migrants has been an important supply side reform for the U.S. economy. The Trump administration could influence immigration either directly, through policies to curb it, or indirectly, through creating a general atmosphere that redirects some of the flows to other developed economies. Spain: Fade Catalan Risks As we have expected since 2014, the prospects for Catalan independence remain slim.9 As we go to press, Catalan President Carles Puigdemont has backed away from his earlier hints toward a unilateral declaration of independence. Instead, he has succumbed to domestic and international pressure and told the regional parliament that he has "suspended" any declaration in order to begin negotiations with Madrid. Puigdemont's decision to suspend something that has not happened is not only illogical but also ineffectual. The Catalan pro-independence government is trying to force Madrid to be the "bad guy" and refuse negotiations; Spain has refused any discussion of independence. But slight narrative shifts and "gotcha" politics will not work in this case. While Puigdemont is playing checkers with Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, the rest of Europe is playing chess. International recognition of Catalan independence is not forthcoming. And without it, Catalonia will not become independent. As we have extensively written, we strongly believe that investors should fade secessionism risk in Spain. First, the independence process in Catalonia falls far short of the democratic ideals established in similar referendums in the developed world, particularly in Scotland (2014), Montenegro (2006), and Quebec (1980 and 1995) (Table 2). The pro-independence government has been unable to significantly boost turnout figures from 2014, no doubt due to interference by the federal authorities. However, even if the pro-independence Catalans were to receive mediation from the EU, the outcome would likely be to strengthen Madrid's hand. For example, when the EU negotiated the 2006 divorce between Serbia and Montenegro, it required a supermajority of 55% in order to recognize the result of the Montenegro independence referendum. As an integrationist project, the EU has an anti-secession bias. Table 2Catalan Independence Demand Exaggerated By Low Voter Turnout Second, the French government has come out forcefully against Catalan independence, as we suspected it would. This is particularly important for Catalonia as it is nestled between Spain and France.10 It is quite likely that, were Catalans somehow to enforce their independence, both European powers would close their borders to Catalan travel and trade. In addition, French European Affairs Minister Nathalie Louiseau has repeated Madrid's assertion that by choosing independence Catalonia would automatically be kicked out of the EU. Third, Madrid is unlikely to make another mistake as the disastrous attempt to disrupt the independence referendum. Images of civilians being dragged through the streets of an advanced European economy while attempting to vote - even if the referendum was constitutionally illegal - shocked the world. Spanish officials have already offered rather tepid apologies for the police action, suggesting that a re-run of the heavy-handed actions is not to be expected. For investors who disagree with us, we suggest an empirical way to test our thesis. Chart 11 shows that only 34.7% of Catalans support independence. These are not pro-Madrid polls. They are the product of the Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, which is affiliated with the Catalan (currently staunchly pro-independence) government and has been conducting polls on the issue of independence since 2005. Even if the level of support for independence is off in this data, the direction gives us valuable insight into the support for secession. The data clearly suggests that (A) the majority of Catalans have never supported independence and that (B) support for independence peaked in 2013, at the height of Spain's economic crisis, and has been in steady decline since then. That said, Chart 11 also shows that the other 57.5% of Catalans are not necessarily "pro-Spain." In fact, 30.5% support Catalonia remaining in its current form of an autonomous region, with considerable sovereignty devolved to the province. Another 21.7% favor a federal state, which would be a step in the direction of even greater sovereignty. Investors should watch the polls to see whether voters who previously favored federal or autonomous status have begun to shift towards independence, especially in light of the crackdown against the referendum by Madrid. Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió normally releases its third series of polls in October, which would mean that investors will have an update from the official polling agency soon. That said, we are willing to put our geopolitical views on the line. An unwarranted selloff in Spanish equities on the back of increased Catalonia-related geopolitical risk has created an opportunity for a market neutral trade: long Spanish IBEX 35/short Eurostoxx 50. This is a market neutral way to express our view that Catalonia does not pose a grand geopolitical risk as it will remain an integral part of Spain and thus the EU. Importantly, adding a hedge to this pair trade would also make sense for certain investors. Chart 12 shows that EUR/USD and relative Spanish equity performance are joined at the hip. Currently an uncharacteristically wide gap has opened. Thus, putting on this equity pair trade and simultaneously going short EUR/USD on the expectation of a convergence, should generate alpha, as the geopolitical dust settles. Chart 11The Silent Majority Fears Independence Chart 12Expect A Convergence Bottom Line: Fade geopolitical risks in Spain. For those with risk appetite, buy Spanish equities at any sign of geopolitical risk premium. Housekeeping With the Communist Party convening for the nineteenth National Party Congress over the next week, we think the time is opportune to book profits on two trades: our long China ETF volatility index, for a gain of 17.72%, and our long Chinese Big Five state-owned banks versus small and medium-sized banks, for a gain of 11.63%. We will revisit these trades in an upcoming report. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy?" dated October 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 Omitted from the sample are brief periods in the early-1960s, early-1970s, and twice in the early-1980s as they were very close to the end of recessions. 7 We suspect that Senator Corker is planning a centrist challenge to President Trump in the 2020 GOP presidential primaries. 8 "Staunchly conservative" does not do justice to Moore's ideological orientation. He was removed from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court twice for failing to follow federal law. In both cases, Moore chose to inform his actions as the Chief Justice through Biblical scripture, rather than the U.S. Constitution. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Yes, we are aware that Catalonia also borders Andorra. However, given that French President Emmanuel Macro is the co-prince of Andorra, and that Andorra is a microstate, this fact is largely irrelevant and would in no way aid Catalan independence. However, you have now learned that the French President is automatically a co-prince of another country. And that there is such a thing as a "co-prince." Therefore, this footnote has not been a complete waste of your time.
Highlights Catalonia is a red herring - stay focused on U.S. tax cuts; Tax cuts are on track and will swell the budget deficit; The dollar is poised for a comeback; Believe the Phillips Curve, not the "Amazon effect"; Shinzo Abe's gamble is bullish; go long USD/JPY. Feature Global investors woke up on Monday to shocking news of a mass shooting in Las Vegas and police brutality in Catalonia, where Spain's federal law enforcement attempted to break up the October 1 independence referendum. According to final figures, nearly 92% of those who voted chose to separate from Spain, setting the stage for a unilateral declaration of independence. Our views on the Catalan independence "struggle" are well known to our clients.1 We will only briefly recap them here. Instead, we focus this Weekly Report on the prospects for the U.S. dollar and on Japan's snap election. Catalan Independence: Indignation Is Not A Strategy Why are we so dismissive of the imbroglio in Catalonia? Five reasons: Police "brutality" is overstated: Catalan officials reported that 844 people had been hurt in clashes, but the BBC noted that the "majority had minor injuries or had suffered from anxiety attacks."2 Not the first referendum: The turnout was only 42.34%, as many voters refused to participate. Given that the latest polls show that only 34.7% of Catalans actually want independence, the result was unsurprising (Chart 1).3 Those who oppose independence from Spain stayed home, as they did in 2014. In fact, Table 1 shows that there were about 100,000 less "yes" voters in 2017 than three years ago. Catalonia is not Catalan: According to the latest data from the Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish. This is a product of decades of migration from within Spain which has diluted Catalonia's homogeneity. For the most part, the non-Catalans belong to the working class and do not get involved in independence protests or in breathlessly tweeting about the return of dictatorship to Madrid. But if they sense that independence is being imposed on them by an elitist minority, they could let their voice be heard. A declaration of independence means nothing: A unilateral declaration without international support, or the ability to enforce it with arms, is vacuous. U.S. President Donald Trump lent his support to Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy ahead of the vote, while French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated his support for Madrid following the referendum violence. The EU has made it clear that an independent Catalonia would have to go through the accession process in order to enter the EU, which means it would not have access to the Common Market post-independence. Catalans will not resort to force en masse: Our expectation is that Catalans will not resort to force in order to breakaway from Spain. German sociologist Max Weber famously defined sovereignty as a "monopoly over the use of legitimate force" in a defined geographical territory. If a Catalan minority is unwilling to wrestle control of borders from Spain, its declarations will be irrelevant. Chart 1Catalonia: A Revolt By The Minority Table 1What Has Changed Since 2014? There is more to the referendum than the government in Catalonia is letting on. The Junts pel Sí (Together for Yes) coalition of four parties is unified only by its stance on independence. But the main two nationalist parties that make up the government are on the opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. Without the independence push, the regional government would lose its raison d'être and fall. From the market perspective, the situation in Catalonia would become relevant if the Catalan government, or militant groups in the region, decided to step up tensions by employing force. This could derail Spain's economic recovery, especially since so much of it was centered on manufacturing in the region. We do not see this as likely. First, there are no "militant groups" in Catalonia. Second, throughout the half-century long Basque conflict - which saw over thousand people killed between 1959 and 2011 - Catalonia never experienced violent unrest. Catalan extremists never got inspired by the militant Basque group ETA on any significant scale. Why? Because the independence movement in Catalonia is mainly a bourgeois, middle and upper class, "struggle" for independence that is unlikely to descend into violence. Yes, there are some farmers and blue-collar supporters of independence. But the majority of Catalonia's working class are actually not Catalan. They are either recent migrants from the rest of Europe or migrants from poorer regions of Spain. Not only are they opposed to independence, but they are openly hostile to a bourgeois minority lording their Catalan ethnic superiority over the recently arrived migrants. With Catalan tensions, the ongoing North Korean saga, and the recent tragedy in Las Vegas, there is plenty to distract investors from the most investment-relevant political issue: U.S. tax policy. Bottom Line: As we noted in February, European assets will continue to "climb the wall of worry," which includes Catalan tensions.4 Investors should fade any market reaction to the crisis in Catalonia, which is sure to dominate the news flow for at least the entirety of Q4 2017. Do Republican Voters Want Tax Cuts? The market was shocked at the end of September by President Donald Trump's tax reform plan. After months of doubting whether Republican policymakers can accomplish anything, the market reacted positively to the announcement (Chart 2). And yet a lot of skepticism remains. Primarily, the fear is that fiscally conservative Republicans in the House and Senate will stand in opposition to the plan. After all, Republicans have just failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Why should tax policy be any different? Chart 2Sign Of Life For 'Trump Reflation' We have argued since November that Republicans in Congress are actually not fiscally responsible.5 Not now and not ever. As if on cue, this spring, the leader of the Tea Party-linked Freedom Caucus, Mark Meadows (R, NC) said that the upcoming tax reform effort did not have to be "revenue-neutral," a claim he repeated on NBC's Meet The Press this weekend. If the leader of the single-most fiscally conservative grouping in Congress is okay with profligacy, who is left to oppose it?!6 Republican voters might have something to say about deficit-busting tax legislation. But GOP legislators are not the only ones willing to compromise on their austerity rhetoric. Republican voters are just as comfortable with profligacy. Chart 3 speaks volumes. It shows that Americans become a lot more comfortable with a bigger government providing more services when Republican presidents are in power. Given Democrats' stable preference for more spending, the movement in the poll is mainly due to Republican and independent voters. There are two ways to interpret the data: Republican voters do not mind a profligate government, as long as the spending is aligned with their priorities. Republican voters do not actually disagree with Democrats on spending priorities, but merely doubt that Democratic policymakers can deliver on those priorities in a fiscally sustainable manner. Whatever the explanation, Chart 3 is clear evidence that the American public grows more comfortable with profligacy when Republicans are in charge. But do voters want tax cuts? The latest polls show that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 4). Republican and Republican-leaning voters do not have a problem with how much they pay in taxes, but they do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 5). Chart 4American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Chart 5...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex The charge that the Trump tax legislation will be a massive tax cut for the wealthy and corporations could stick with some voters, we think primarily with Democrats. Pew research polling consistently shows that Democrats, across the income brackets, agree by 70%-80% that corporations and wealthy people pay too little tax. Republican voters could be susceptible to the same argument, given that around 35%-45% of them agree with Democrats on this issue. To preempt the debate, the Trump administration is focusing heavily on tax complexity. In addition, Trump left the proposed surcharge on the wealthy - a fourth income bracket in the new plan - as yet undefined. This is on purpose. It allows the White House and Congressional GOP legislators to respond to the criticism as it develops. What could be the stumbling blocks going forward? A "Breitbart clique" revolt: A populist revolt against tax cuts for the rich could turn skittish Republicans in Congress against the legislation. The recent electoral defeat for the political establishment in the Alabama Senate primary has shown off the power of the "Breitbart clique" in itself, independent of Trump. However, a quick survey of Breitbart.com shows that the former White House Chief Strategist and Rabble-Rouser-in-Chief Steve Bannon has not unleashed his media machine against the tax plan. In fact, the only prominent Breitbart piece on the tax plan thus far has excoriated the mainstream media for misinterpreting the comments of Gary Cohn, the White House's chief economic adviser, on middle class tax cuts.7 It may be the first time that the website has ever written anything positive about Cohn. Blue State Republicans: There are 29 Republican representatives facing tough reelection campaigns next year who are based in states that voted for Secretary Hillary Clinton in 2016. These Republican representatives will staunchly oppose any proposal to end the state and local tax deduction, given that their voters will be subjected to higher rates of state and local taxes.8 These "Blue State Republicans" could scuttle the current tax blueprint in the House. Anticipating the problem, Gary Cohn has said that the removal of the deduction is not a "red line" for the administration. Senators: Republicans have only a slim margin for error in the Senate. Senators Bob Corker (R, TN) and John McCain (R, AZ) could be the two staunchest opponents to the tax reform effort. The former is a deficit hawk and critic of the president, the latter is a maverick and firmly opposed to the president. On the other hand, the usual thorn in the side of the GOP establishment, Rand Paul (R, KY), could be brought around to support the proposal. Moderates like Susan Collins (R, ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) should be watched carefully. Investors should expect more Republicans to come out in opposition to certain provisions of the proposed tax legislation. However, the path of least resistance is not for the entire effort to fail, but rather for it to become more profligate. For example, the White House has already gestured towards a compromise with Blue State Republicans on the state and local tax deduction that would increase the deficit. Furthermore, we continue to stress that the failure of the Obamacare repeal and replace bill is not a good guide for what will happen with tax legislation. Taking away an entitlement program is politically challenging. Tax cuts, on the other hand, are generally not. Bottom Line: President Donald Trump is an economic populist. Our research into international comparisons shows that populists tend to get what they want, which is primarily higher nominal GDP growth (Chart 6). We therefore continue to expect the roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut effort - which may or may not deserve the title of tax reform - to pass. Is King Dollar Primed For A Rally? Investors should consider the proposed tax legislation a form of modest stimulus. If we assume that the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts will be offset with a combination of revenue-raising policies to the tune of 50%, it still leaves roughly $750 billion in new deficit spending (stimulus) over the next ten years. A more reasonable figure for total revenue offsets is around $400 billion, which would put the cost of stimulus at roughly $1.1 billion.9 This is not extraordinary large, but even a modest effort this far into the economic cycle could have a significant effect. BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, believes that inflation is around the corner.10 So why the delay in the data? Peter points out that while the Phillips Curve has gotten a lot flatter over the past four decades (Chart 7), it remains a curve. Once the economy reaches full employment - as it has done in the U.S. (Chart 8) - the curve steepens much faster. As Peter puts it: Chart 6Populists Deliver (Nominal) GDP Growth Chart 7The Phillips Curve Has Gotten Flatter Chart 8U.S. Economy At Full Employment The idea that the Phillips curve steepens at low levels of unemployment is very intuitive: If excess capacity is high to begin with, a modest decline in slack will still leave many workers idle. In such a setting, inflation is unlikely to rise. However, once the output gap is fully closed, any further decline in slack will cause bottlenecks to emerge, pushing wages and prices higher. The empirical evidence supports this conclusion. Chart 9 shows that U.S. wage growth has tended to accelerate once the unemployment rate falls into the range of 4%-5%. Chart 9Watch Out For The 'Kink' In The Phillips Curve When we present Peter's argument to clients, many retort that "this time is different," namely because of phenomena like the "Amazon effect." To put that argument to rest, our colleague Mark McClellan has penned a Special Report titled, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?"11 Mark shows that while e-commerce is undoubtedly increasing its share of retail sales (Chart 10), its contribution to annual headline CPI is modest. For example, Chart 11 shows that online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s. However, e-commerce only contributed about -0.15 percentage points to annual CPI in June 2017, and has never contributed more than -0.3 percentage points. Chart 10E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 11Online Price Index To further test the impact of e-commerce on inflation, Mark focused on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to it. If online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. He therefore combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure (Chart 12). Again, the contribution of e-commerce-heavy sectors to annual CPI is minimal. Chart 12Electronic Shopping Price Index Chart 13BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart 14BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Mark finally recalculated the e-commerce proxy using only the sectors displaying the most relative price declines - clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel, and other goods - and assumed that all other sectors actually deflated at the average pace of the entire index. The adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI by about 0.1-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart 13 & Chart 14). We find Mark's work intuitive. The "Amazon effect" is a great example of fitting a broad theory to a particular set of data, a common error in the investment community. The weak inflation print - which is a "Summer of 2017" phenomenon - is being extrapolated into a decade-long theme. But the data is clear: the deceleration of inflation since the Great Financial Crisis has been in areas unaffected by online sales, chiefly energy, food, and shelter costs. High corporate profit margins in the retail sector also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. In fact, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to "big box" stores in the 1990s. Putting it all together, the three above views provide a fairly clear signal in terms of asset implications: Geopolitical Strategy Tax Policy View: Tax legislation is a form of modest stimulus enacted by a populist White House in search of higher nominal GDP growth, and it will pass; Global Investment Strategy Phillips Curve View: The Phillips Curve is not dead, just dormant, and will steepen as the U.S. unemployment rate declines further below the equilibrium level; The Bank Credit Analyst "Amazon Effect" View: There is no "Amazon Effect." Pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus in the U.S. should be bullish for the U.S. dollar, bullish for U.S. small caps relative to large caps, and bearish for U.S. 10-year Treasuries. We are already long USD against EUR by recommending that our clients go long Euro Area equities relative to the S&P 500 with a currency hedge.12 We think there may be more upside for the USD against the yen, especially given our view of the upcoming general election in Japan below. What are the risks to a bullish USD view? Continued strong global growth is the main risk (Chart 15). Global data is improving to the point that even moribund Italy is now on fire (Chart 16). However, the positive data may be peaking. European data, in particular, looks like it is reaching its absolute highs (Chart 17). Chart 15Can Global Growth Get Any Higher? Chart 16Italy Is On Fire... Chart 17...As Is Europe Overall Particularly concerning from the global perspective is the ongoing slowdown in the pace of expansion of Chinese money and credit, which we have been arguing for almost a year is policy induced.13 Our colleague Arthur Budaghyan, Chief Strategist of BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has flagged that the official M2, as well as BCA's own custom version of broad money M3, are slowing down to new lows (Chart 18). From the broad money M3, Arthur and his team construct the M3 impulse, which leads both the Chinese leading economic indicator and the well-known "Li Keqiang index" (a growth proxy) by six months (Chart 19).14 Most importantly from the global perspective, the slowdown in Chinese money and credit growth ought to negatively impact demand for imports from China-exposed export sectors in Asia and Europe (Chart 20). Chart 18But Credit Growth In China Is Slowing Chart 19Chinese Credit Leads The Domestic Economy... Chart 20...As Well As Exports To China The policy-induced crackdown against money and credit growth in China should be particularly pertinent in Europe. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has noted how the close trading relationship between China and Europe influences the growth delta between Europe and the U.S.15 Given the potential slowdown in China, and subsequent impact on EM economies, bullishness on Europe could be peaking. Bottom Line: Our view that a modest fiscal stimulus may be afoot is only a small part of a wider BCA bullish-USD narrative. We think it is once again time to turn bullish towards the greenback. We are opening a long USD/JPY recommendation. Our colleague Mathieu Savary, Chief Strategist of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has been long since USD/JPY hit 109 on August 11. Japan: Abenomics Will Survive Abe Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's snap election on October 22 took us by surprise. Not because of the timing, which was telegraphed by rumors in the press, but because, for Abe and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the upside risk is limited while the downside is unlimited. Since May 24 we have argued that Abe's political capital has peaked, based on the empirically grounded expectation that his pursuit of constitutional changes to legitimize Japan's defense forces would erode his popular support.16 This view received confirmation in early July, when Yuriko Koike, a former LDP politician, led an insurgency against the LDP in the Tokyo metropolitan elections and dealt them a historic blow in that region. At that time, we argued that Abe would not lose power anytime soon: he maintained his two-thirds supermajority in the lower house (and virtual supermajority in the upper house), did not face an election until December 2018, and could thus double down on reflationary economic policies in order to rebuild popular support.17 Chart 21An Upstart Party Challenges The LDP Now, Abe has made a risky decision to move the general election forward 14 months. He wants to capitalize on Japan's recent strong economic performance, the peaking of North Korean tensions (which are likely to decline by late next year), and an uptick in approval ratings. Last but not least, he wants to take the fight to the political opposition at a time when the rival Democratic Party is in total collapse and Governor Koike, his chief antagonist, is unready to wage a national campaign. The timing was shrewd but comes at a cost. Koike announced a new political party, the Party of Hope, just hours before Abe called the early election. In the first set of opinion polls it has sprung up to 15% approval, only nine points shy of the LDP. True, this is still 14 points short of the ruling coalition (Chart 21). But crucially, the collapse of the Democratic Party prompted its leader, Seiji Maehara, to declare that his party would not contest the new elections. This leaves its members free to join Koike's party; it also partly obviates the problem of the Democratic Party and Party of Hope stealing each other's votes.18 Throughout Abe's term we have compared his approval ratings to those of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, the LDP's last heavyweight leader, to test whether he retains political capital (Chart 22). According to this measure, he does. Yet, given Abe's long tenure and gradually declining support, this comparison only works as long as there is no viable alternative. That is because Abe's net approval rating, as well as his ability to bring star-power to the LDP, has been fading in recent years (Chart 23). Now he has called an election at the very moment that a possible alternative has emerged!19 Chart 22Abe Losing Favor Over Time Chart 23Abe Becoming A Liability However, we say a possible alternative for a reason: Koike herself, as yet, is refusing to run for the prime minister's slot. She is in a "dilemma of irresponsibility" in which, having just become governor of Tokyo on the pledge to put "Tokyo First," she will be criticized for flagrant ambition and flip-flopping if she abandons that post to run against Abe directly.20 As long as Koike remains on the sidelines, Abe will retain his absolute majority. It would be very difficult for a new party that is struggling to field candidates across the whole country, lacks a clear prime minister candidate, and faces competition with other opposition parties to deprive an incumbent coalition of 85 seats. (Depriving the LDP of its 50-seat party majority alone would be momentous, though conceivable.) The LDP has fallen out of power on only two previous occasions since 1955: once, briefly, in 1993, in the wake of the collapse of Japan's Heisei bubble, and once in 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis (Chart 24). And the LDP has never lost more than 22 seats in an election year, like this year, in which economic growth is faster than the preceding year. That size of loss would leave Abe wounded but still in control.21 Chart 24The LDP Seldom Loses Elections In Japan On the other hand, if Koike changes her mind and throws herself headlong into competition with Abe, it is possible, albeit still highly unlikely, that she could pull off a historic upset.22 Currently the number of undecided voters is high at about 43%. In recent years, these voters have tended to correlate negatively with LDP support (Chart 25), meaning that LDP voters grew dissatisfied and "undecided" but then came crawling back when the party wooed them. However, Koike could change this dynamic - not only because she apparently has momentum, but also because her background and platform are substantially similar to Abe's, yet with a fresh face.23 Chart 25Undecided Voters Often Return To LDP Koike must make her decision by October 10. It is unlikely that she will join or that her party will field enough competitive candidates - in this respect, Abe gambled correctly in calling the election now. Barring her entrance, what is at stake is Abe's 6-seat "supermajority" in the lower house. Abe is likely to lose this advantage simply based on the Party of Hope's strength in Greater Tokyo and the Kanto Plain, augmented as it is by collaboration with the Democratic Party. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that Koike could easily deprive Abe of this supermajority. Assuming that the Party of Hope performs in line with Koike's performance in the Tokyo/Kanto region in July, gaining 39% of the seats (34% of the popular vote), implies that the Party of Hope could steal as many as 47 seats from the ruling coalition on October 22 (Table 2). This is a generous estimate in giving Koike's party strong support, but a conservative estimate in assuming that it will not win a single seat outside the Tokyo/Kanto region.24 Losing this supermajority would be a big loss of momentum for Abe and the LDP that would carry over into the legislative process (where Abe would struggle to control the LDP factions and fend off corruption allegations) and future elections (where the LDP would be more vulnerable). It would sow the seeds for a leadership challenge against Abe in the LDP next September. But it keeps the LDP in power for the next four years. And its direct impact on passing bills is limited. A lower house majority would still be under the LDP leader's control, and the LDP would still have a near-supermajority in the upper house, removing any risk that it would delay bills. The only initiative likely to suffer would be Abe's treasured constitutional revisions, and yet even those would still have a fighting chance of passing the Diet. The important thing for investors to realize is that a setback or defeat for Abe will not be the death of Abenomics.25 Reflation will continue and Japanese risk assets will continue to outperform on a currency-hedged basis. Why? Table 2The Party Of Hope Threatens The LDP Supermajority From Its Base In The Tokyo/Kanto Region Abenomics is already bearing fruit: Inflation remains weak, but Japan's output gap is closing and unemployment gap is gone (Chart 26). It is only a matter of time before supply constraints put more upward pressure on prices, lowering real rates and easing financial conditions for the economy as a whole. Koike, who styles herself as a pro-business Thatcherite, will not stand in the way of growth. Monetary policy will remain dovish: The dovish shift in the Bank of Japan in 2013 was a regime change within the institution itself. Governor Haruhiko Kuroda was the leader of the change, but since then the entire policy board has been staffed with doves. In fact, in the board's recent minutes, the only dissenting voice argued for more stimulus.26 Kuroda can legally be reappointed for governor for another five years. If not, his replacement will likely perpetuate his legacy, as neither Abe nor Koike have given any hint at wanting more hawkish monetary policy. The market is right to expect barely any rate hikes over the next year and for the BoJ to continue suppressing yields even as other DM central banks become more hawkish (Chart 27). Chart 26Tight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation Chart 27Monetary Policy Will Remain Easy Fiscal policy will ease further: We have shown Chart 28 again and again to clients: the main failure of Abenomics so far has been Abe's own fiscal responsibility. Upon calling the election, he yet again pitched himself to voters on the basis of fiscal irresponsibility. He offered a new 2 trillion yen stimulus package and suspended his pledge to balance the budget by 2020. And while he pledged to pay for education and elderly care by raising the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as scheduled in October 2019, few doubt that he will delay a tax hike (as in 2015) if it threatens to upset his economic recovery. Meanwhile, Koike is running on a platform of easier fiscal policy: she has outright opposed the consumer tax hike, saying that to do so would be to "throw cold water on the still-intangible economic recovery." She wants more earthquake-resistant infrastructure and more social spending (e.g. childcare). She wants measures to boost the female participation rate further (Chart 29).She is hardly likely to boost consumption without continuing Abe's quest to lift wages overall (Chart 30). And in her most significant difference from Abe, she hopes to do away with nuclear power and turn Japan into a renewable energy powerhouse (inevitably requiring large-scale government subsidies and investment). Foreign policy will remain hawkish: Koike is a conservative who is in favor of constitutional revisions to normalize Japan's military. Her Party of Hope could even vote with the LDP on this issue, for a price. While it may be somewhat more China-friendly than Abe (possibly a boon for exports), it would not be willing or able to break Japan's recent trend of rising defense spending and economic diplomacy. Chart 28Fiscal Policy Will Get Easier Chart 29Abe And Koike Want Women Workers Chart 30Abe And Koike Want Higher Wages Moreover, given that Japan has a much higher ratio of public investment to private investment than other comparable countries, and that fiscal spending is limited by a massive debt load, Koike would be committed to boosting private investment just like Abe (Chart 31). Indeed, judging solely by key policy planks, the Party of Hope could almost become an LDP coalition partner. It cannot win a majority without Koike as frontrunner, and even if it did, it would lead to a fractious parliament where it would be forced to cooperate with the LDP in order to pass bills through the LDP-dominated upper house. Koike's sudden emergence does not represent a shift in national trends but rather a confirmation of the post-2011 Japanese political consensus in favor of a dovish central bank, dovish fiscal policy, and hawkish foreign policy. Chart 31Abe And Koike Want Private Investment Chart 32Not Abandoning Nuclear Power Anytime Soon Bottom Line: As things stand, Abe will probably lose his supermajority yet retain his majority in the lower house. This will cause some volatility and policy uncertainty in Japan. Nevertheless, the outlook is still highly reflationary. Koike reveals that the median voter favors pushing Abenomics even further. Should Koike make a dash for the prime minister's slot, she does have a small chance of coming to power. It is hard to put a probability on it until more polling data is available. The biggest policy consequence of a Party of Hope-led government would be her energy agenda of weaning Japan off of nuclear power, which would in the first instance shrink the current account surplus, as during the nuclear shutdown following the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 (Chart 32). However, a Koike majority is unlikely to materialize as things stand, and the LDP in the upper house would be a check on such policies. Go long USD/JPY in expectation of more reflation. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BBC, "Catalan referendum: Catalonia has 'won right to statehood,'" dated October 2, 2017, available at bbc.com. 3 We are referencing poll numbers collected by the Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, which is run by the pro-independence government of Catalonia. In other words, if biased, the polls should be biased towards independence. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Apparently, the Democrats! Democratic leaders in Congress oppose tax reform policy that is not revenue-neutral. However, the GOP can ignore them as they plan to use the reconciliation procedure to pass tax policy. 7 Please see John Carney, "Mainstream Media Distort Every Single Thing Gary Cohn Says About GOP Tax Plan," dated September 30, 2017, available at breitbart.com. 8 The announced tax reform plan does not include such a proposal - nor does it provide any detail on how tax cuts would be paid for - but it has been floated as a possibility. This is because it could save the government nearly $370 billion by 2020, according to a report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. 9 For revenue offsets that are likely to pass, we combine the repatriation of foreign earnings ($138 billion over the next decade), the repeal of certain corporate tax breaks ($138 billion), and the repeal of certain individual tax expenditures ($385 billion). We roughly estimate that the offset would total $400 billion, as horse-trading in Congress is likely to reduce the eventual size of overall revenue-offsets. The path of least resistance in Congress is towards more deficit spending, not less. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated August 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 12 We recently closed our recommendation of being long Euro Area equities relative to the U.S. in an unhedged position for a 7.88% gain. 13 Please see "China: Xi Is A 'Core' Leader ... So What?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016; "China: How Far Will Deleveraging Go?" in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017; and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "Copper Versus Money/Credit In China - Which One Is Right?" dated September 6, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?" dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 The problem still partially exists, as the opposition remains divided by various parties, and left-wing members of the Democratic Party have formed a new Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan that will contest the election and compete with the Party of Hope as well as the ruling LDP. 19 Incidentally, she is one of Koizumi's disciples who can count on his support. 20 According to Shinjiro Koizumi, "If she runs it's irresponsible, if she doesn't run it's irresponsible ... she's in a 'dilemma of irresponsibility.'" Quoted in Robin Harding, "Yuriko Koike hits trouble in Japan election campaign," Financial Times, October 2, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 21 The 22-seat loss referred to above occurred under the leadership of Takeo Miki in 1976. 22 There have been only two occasions in which a multi-term prime minister like Abe lost power due to holding a general election - 1960 and 1972. In the latter, comparable case, Eisaku Sato, who had been in power for eight years, lost power despite the fact that economic growth had recovered from a slight slowdown in 1971. In other words, the lack of enthusiasm for Abe amid a recovering economy is an important warning sign, which we discussed in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - Asia," dated August 30, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 It will also be important to see if leading politicians continue to defect from other parties and flock to her ranks. Especially politicians from the LDP, and especially those who are not worried, like Mineyuki Fukuda, about losing their seats anyway. 24 It also neglects recent reforms to the electoral system that will eliminate ten seats, only one of which is likely to go to the Party of Hope. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see Bank of Japan, "Summary Of Opinions At The Monetary Policy Meeting," September 20-21, 2017, p. 5, available at www.boj.or.jp/en.