Elections

Highlights Midterm election is yet another geopolitical headwind to the markets this summer; A "lame duck" Trump could seek relevance abroad, with aggressive foreign and trade policy; Investors would be right to fret about a hard turn to the left by the Democratic Party; Democrats have 60% probability of taking the House and 45% probability of taking the Senate; On a cyclical horizon, midterm election will not undermine pro-business policies of the Trump administration, but may signal a paradigm shift over a more structural time horizon. Feature Geopolitical winds have turned from tailwinds to headwinds. This is as we expected last April, when we correctly forecast that geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017 but understated for 2018.1 This January we focused on several key risks for 2018: trade protectionism, Iran-U.S. geopolitical tensions, and a potential black swan risk in Taiwan.2 In our 2018 Strategic Outlook, we also pointed out that if Donald Trump becomes an early "lame duck" president, he will seek relevance abroad.3 It is therefore time to turn to the question of the upcoming midterm election, set to take place on November 6. For most of our clients, the midterm election is another volatile political event to add to an already long list (Table 1). True, the midterm election could produce a gridlocked Congress - which we recently showed quantitatively is marginally negative for the markets - and a potential push to impeach President Trump.4 However, this is not the worst of it. As November approaches, through a tumultuous summer full of headline risks, President Trump may double-down on his doctrine of "maximum pressure" - which objectively succeeded in the case of North Korea. This could produce more aggressive rhetoric and policy in the ongoing trade skirmish with China, further sanctions against Iran, and tensions with Russia. Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? President Trump would not be the first U.S. president to seek relevance abroad, although he may be the earliest, and potentially the lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history.5 As such, the real risk is not the Democrats taking over the House, but rather how the Trump administration reacts to a sudden loss of legislative initiative. While a Democratic House would dramatically increase domestic political constraints on President Trump, there are few constitutional constraints on U.S. presidents when it comes to foreign policy. As such, the midterm election is market relevant, but not because Democratic Party control will be able to impact domestic policy. Investors should remember why markets cheered President Trump in the first place: Chart 1Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Chart 2Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Deregulation: Business confidence soared even before Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries melted away (Chart 1).6 The executive branch controls the regulatory process, which means that the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, or even the Senate, will have little impact. Tax cuts: Fears that the Democrats will be able to reverse the tax cuts are overstated. Without a veto-proof majority in both chambers of Congress - two-thirds of the seats - the Democrats cannot regain legislative initiative or reverse President Trump's accomplishments. Table 2ADXY Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Table 2BSPX Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Fiscal policy: Markets are currently pricing in a rare mix of tightening monetary policy and stimulative fiscal policy, a bullish combination (Chart 2) that tends to boost both equities and the dollar (Table 2). While there is no need for fiscal profligacy at the current point in the cycle (Chart 3), we would think that investors would recoil at any sign of fiscal conservativism. But looking for austerity within the current Democratic Party - whose official party platform calls for universal health coverage, for example - is a mistake. Chart 3An Odd Time For Fiscal Profligacy An Odd Time For Fiscal Profligacy An Odd Time For Fiscal Profligacy As such, the Democratic Party's control of the House - or even the Senate, given that a filibuster-proof majority is out of reach in 2018 - is unlikely to reverse the policy and regulatory backdrop that has been so beneficial for equities over the past 18 months. Instead, the risks are twofold. First, that President Trump reacts to the coming electoral bloodbath well ahead of November with aggressive foreign and trade policy that plays to his base. Second, that markets begin pricing in impeachment risk. Although we do not think that impeachment would have a major or direct impact on earnings and the real economy, it could add to volatility and could imply higher odds of a Democratic win in 2020 (think Gerald Ford). This would present a scenario in which the Democrats would be more likely to reverse Trump's policies in 2020, thus increasing uncertainty. As such impeachment could start being priced in well ahead of the November election. We would therefore expect midterm-related volatility to rise before the election. The election itself could likely be a time to buy risk assets, provided that fundamentals, the macro backdrop, and geopolitical risks all combine into a bullish signal, as long as President Trump makes an effort to move to the middle and work with either a split Congress, or even a potentially Democratic-led legislature. These are all sources of uncertainty and therefore provide plenty of reasons for the markets to fret ahead of the election. Who Will Win The Midterm Election? It is too early to have a high conviction view on the midterm election, which is still over six months away. Betting markets give Democrats roughly 70% probability of winning the House and just 40% of winning the Senate (Chart 4). We roughly agree with those odds, but would give the Democrats a lower chance of winning the House and a slightly higher chance of winning the Senate. There are broadly five reasons why the Democratic Party has a very good chance of winning the House of Representatives in November: Chart 4GOP Odds Have Fallen, But Stabilized GOP Odds Have Fallen, But Stabilized GOP Odds Have Fallen, But Stabilized Chart 5GOP Trails In Polls, But Still Close GOP Trails In Polls, But Still Close GOP Trails In Polls, But Still Close Polling: The generic congressional ballot (Chart 5) has the Democrats up 6.7% on the Republicans. The generic ballot has a decent predictive track record. Basically, the party that is up tends to perform well in the election. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating, despite its recent recovery in support, remains at the lower end of presidential approval ratings ahead of midterm elections, predicting a 35-seat loss for Republicans in the House (Chart 6). On the whole, the Democrats' polling advantage is modest-to-strong. True, it could unravel over the summer. But at current levels, it is still a respectable advantage. Chart 6Republican Presidents And Midterm Results Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Retirements: Republicans in the House and the Senate are retiring at an alarming pace, one never seen in the modern political context (Chart 7). We cannot overstate how important this is, especially given that there has been a 20% swing against non-incumbent Republicans in deeply conservative districts that have held special elections thus far (Table 3). Most worrying for the GOP is that, of the 42 Republicans who have announced retirement, 18 sit in seats that are not "solidly" held by the GOP.7 These are seats that only elected the Republican candidate by an average of at most 5% more than the overall Republican vote in the 2012 and 2016 election. Chart 7GOP Retirements Are Unprecedented Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Table 32017 Special Elections Are Ominous For The GOP Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? History: Of the 18 midterm elections since World War II, the sitting president's party only retained congressional control four times (Chart 8). The only president to win congressional control during the midterm election was Bush Jr., an election that was held a year after the September 11 terrorist attack (i.e., an exception). Americans like checks and balances and abhor hubris. Redistricting: Gerrymandering - politically motivated redrawing of district electoral maps - has mainly favored Republicans over the past decade.8 It has also significantly reduced the number of competitive districts available to electoral swings (Chart 9). Recently, however, the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court invoked the state constitution and struck down the congressional map that favored the GOP. The Supreme Court of the U.S. then refused an emergency request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block the new, non-partisan map drawn by the state court. This decision followed several decisions in 2016-17 that saw congressional maps in North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin, and Alabama either thrown out or questioned. The changes will help the Democrats at the margin, potentially making the difference between a majority and a minority position in the House. Chart 8Trump Is ##br##Fighting History Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Chart 9Gerrymandering Reduces##br## Competitive House Seats Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive House Seats Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive House Seats Momentum: Shouldn't a strong economy and sub-4% unemployment rate help the Republicans in November? The simple answer is not much. Just as a strong economy and a 4.7% unemployment rate did not help the incumbent party and its candidate Secretary Hillary Clinton fend off the inexperienced challenger, Donald Trump, in 2016. Simply put, economics is relative and partisan. While Republican voters suddenly became very happy about the economy after Trump's election - having been miserable merely days before- it is now the Democrats who believe that the economy is in a downward spiral (Chart 10). It is therefore difficult to see how the current economic performance makes enough of a difference to swing voters away from the trends we describe above. Further supporting this view is the fact that economic issues, broadly defined, are declining in terms of relevance in the upcoming election (Chart 11).9 Chart 10Politics Trumps Data! Politics Trumps Data! Politics Trumps Data! Chart 11It's Not Necessarily The Economy Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? The trend is clear: Republicans are in trouble when it comes to the House of Representatives (Chart 12). Democrats need to win only 25 seats in November and there are now 29 Republicans representing seats that The Cook Political Report, the expert political analysis shop when it comes to predicting individual House races, classifies as "toss-up or worse." Our call, at this point, is that the Democrats have a 60% probability of winning the House of Representatives. We hesitate to set our odds at the higher end, near where the betting markets are pricing it, as there is still a long time until the election. In addition, the Democrats' lead in the generic congressional ballot has halved from 13% since December. What about the Senate? We modeled the individual Senate races by combining the state and national economic and political variables with the latest available opinion polling.10 We only focused on the races that we believe are currently competitive and we may change the mix as new information becomes available. Our model is a work in progress and we will update our clients as it develops. The results of our "beta" model, expressed as a margin of victory by the GOP candidate (GOP total vote minus Democrat total vote), show that the Democrats have a surprisingly decent chance of picking up the Senate (Chart 13).11 This is astonishing given that the Democrats are defending nine seats in "red states," whereas Republicans are only defending one seat in a "blue state" (Nevada). Basically, our model predicts that Republicans would lose Nevada and Tennessee. Meanwhile, of the five Senate races that are ranked as "toss ups" and that are currently held by Democrats, our model predicts that Republicans will only win Indiana. Given that current polling is highly unreliable, we would take all predictions of our model with a healthy dose of skepticism. Nonetheless, the results are surprisingly bullish for the Democrats. Chart 12The Number Of "At-Risk" GOP Seats Has Doubled Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Chart 13BCA Senate Model Says: Election Is Too Close To Call Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Our call, at this point, is that the Democrats have a 45% probability of winning the Senate; essentially the election is too close to call. This is higher than where the betting markets are pricing the election and an astonishing turnaround from 12 months ago, when most forecasts ignored Democrat chances in the Senate given how unfavorable the math was for their odds of winning. What does it all mean for the markets? Chart 14Midterm Elections Are A Boon For The S&P 500... Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Chart 15...But Really, It's All About The Fed ...But Really, It's All About The Fed ...But Really, It's All About The Fed Generally speaking, the market has performed very well following midterm elections during a Republican presidency (Chart 14). At closer inspection, however, it appears that this may have been because monetary policy has almost always been easy during these periods (Chart 15). As fate would have it, Republican presidents have been generally blessed with easy monetary policy. As such, we do not think that investors should take anything from this data. Table 4Democratic Primaries To Watch Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Rather than rely on uncertain empirical results, we would simply point out that the run-up to the midterm election, this coming summer, looks packed with geopolitical risks and uncertainty. President Trump is facing a potential defeat in Congress and will want to ensure that his base turns out for the election. This could mean doubling down on those parts of his policy agenda where the constitutional constraints are the weakest: foreign and trade policy. This is a recipe for more volatility. The midterm election is therefore a catalyst, if not the source, of near-term volatility. Furthermore, investors should carefully observe the results of key Democratic primary races (Table 4). Any sign that the Democratic Party is fielding left-wing candidates, as opposed to centrists, would have two implications. On one hand, it would lower our odds of the Democrats winning the House and definitely the Senate. On the other hand, it would increase the odds that the U.S. will have a political paradigm shift over the next electoral cycle. If the Democrats swing hard to the left and win the midterm election, the implications for investors would be hard to overstate. As a point of reference, investors should remember that Republicans swung hard to the right in 2010-14, presaging the rise of Trump. Yet these Republican victories took place in the face of long-term demographic and social headwinds, whereas comparable Democratic victories today would take place in the face of long-term demographic and social tailwinds. American policy can shift harder to the left over the coming decade than it did to the right over the past eight years.12 As Charts 16 and 17 show, the U.S. is at "peak inequality." As the example of France illustrates, income inequality does not necessarily go up. In the early 1960s, France had a larger share of the national income apportioned to the wealthy than the U.S. does today. Since then, it has fallen. In other words, societal decisions on wealth redistribution vary over time. The concern for investors would be if any Democratic party move to the far left is rewarded at the polls in November. If this were to happen, it would be appropriate to begin pricing in a significant decline in the share of national income that goes to corporate profits, if not yet a decline in social unrest. As Chart 17 illustrates, a significant decline in wealth concentration in France occurred right around the late 1960s. The May 1968 revolution was one of the most paradigm-shifting moments in France's post-World War II history. If the markets begin pricing in anything close to this degree of change in the U.S., the S&P 500 could enter a bear market. Chart 16GOP Tax Cuts: Same Old Story GOP Tax Cuts: Same Old Story GOP Tax Cuts: Same Old Story Chart 17Beware May 1968 Beware May 1968 Beware May 1968 Bottom Line: Our odds of the Democrats winning the House are 60%, below market expectations. Our odds of the Democrats winning the Senate are 45%, above market expectations. While we do not think that Democratic control of Congress, or just the House, will be negative for earnings on a cyclical time horizon, we do understand why investors would price in higher volatility. First, President Trump may respond to a loss of congressional control by seeking relevance abroad through hawkish foreign and trade policy. Second, investors may sense a paradigm shift occurring in the U.S. if left-wing Democrats start winning primary races and then go on to win the House. Is Impeachment A Risk? In a report titled Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment, we argued that investors should fade impeachment-related volatility.13 Equity markets are driven by earnings. As such, there has to be a direct relationship between political volatility and company earnings. Impeachment has rarely produced such a link. Chart 18 looks at market performance during the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974), and President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999). Of the three, the Teapot Dome scandal did not result in impeachment proceedings, but only because President Harding died in office in 1923 - and neither his death nor the unfolding scandal prevented the stock market from "roaring" through the mid-1920s.14 Chart 18AVolatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals Volatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals Volatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 18BEquities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Equities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Equities Amid Three U.S. Scandals The market reaction to the Lewinsky Affair was also highly muted. Like the Teapot Dome incident, it occurred amidst one of the greatest bull markets in U.S. history. Of course, U.S. equities did fall 19% mid-way through the Clinton impeachment process, but this was more due to global risk factors than domestic politics. Watergate appears to have affected both equity markets and volatility. The S&P 500 fell 39% from February 7, 1973 - when the Senate established a select committee to investigate Watergate - until Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. That said, the scandal alone did not cause the correction; rather, it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, and a massive insurance fraud scandal. Writing in the summer of 1973, BCA remarked that while a speculative, "Watergate-inspired," attack on the dollar further contributed to some short-term capital outflow, but that the macro-fundamentals of the economy would ultimately persevere. Would today play out more like Teapot and Clinton, or Nixon? It will depend on the fundamentals. In the 1920s and the 1990s, fundamentals were solid and thus politics could not dent the ongoing bull market. In the early 1970s, macro fundamentals were terrible and thus politics accentuated the decline in the bear market. One thing that impeachment would not change, however, is policy. The U.S. is not Brazil. Impeachment will not lead to a 180 degree change in policy outcomes. Vice President Mike Pence is a Republican and is as pro-business as Trump. Given that the aggressive trade policy towards China has both public and establishment support, we would not expect any relief on the protectionism front. However, there would be a lot less tweeting, insults, and erratic foreign policy rhetoric aimed at both allies and rivals. The "maximum pressure" doctrine would likely be replaced by a more traditional policy of carrots and sticks. Most notably, we think this would minimize the risk of a proxy war with Iran in the Middle East. How likely is impeachment once Democrats take over the House? It depends. If President Trump fires Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Democrats in the House of Representatives may get enough votes to impeach President Trump even without a House takeover! The question is whether impeachment would matter. As we outlined in our special report, impeachment is a political, not a legal, process. As such, the House of Representatives has a low bar for impeachment. It can essentially impeach the U.S. president for anything, including a debatable claim that he obstructed justice. The real question is whether the Senate would convict. To do so, the Senate must hold a trial and vote on whether to remove the president from office by a two-thirds majority (67 votes). Even if Democrats win the Senate, they would need over 15 Republican Senators to join them in removing a sitting U.S. president from office, which has never been done in American history. This could happen, but it would require the American public, particularly Republicans, to lose faith in President Trump. In particular, we have been advising clients to focus on Republican voters' support for Trump. If it dips well below 70%, we suspect that Senators could start switching sides. We are currently nowhere near these levels (Chart 19). What could change these levels of support? The Mueller special investigation is a big risk to President Trump even if one thinks that the charge of collusion with Russia is unfounded. President Bill Clinton was similarly investigated by an independent special investigator, Kenneth Starr. Starr initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky, an issue completely unrelated to the original investigation. In other words, once independent investigators start digging, there is no telling what skeletons they will exhume. We do not intend to "prosecute" claims against President Trump in this or any future report. But we can also envision a scenario where the Mueller investigation reveals enough evidence of malfeasance to shake GOP voter confidence in President Trump, leading to a potential scenario where he is removed from power. Would the market care at this point? We think the answer is yes. While removal of a U.S. president has no impact on earnings, it could have an impact on social stability. Political polarization is at its highest levels in the U.S. (Chart 20), and roughly 40% of both Democrats and Republicans believe that their political competitors pose a "threat to the nation's well-being" (Chart 21). Chart 19Impeachment: Not A Risk (Yet) Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Chart 20Polarization, As Inequality, Remains At Record Highs Polarization, As Inequality, Remains At Record Highs Polarization, As Inequality, Remains At Record Highs Chart 21"A Threat To The Nation's Well-Being?" Really?! Will Trump Fail The Midterm? Will Trump Fail The Midterm? We would fade any risk of a widespread, Red State rebellion. Since a change in Republican opinion is required for Senators to convict Trump, most of Trump's supporters will have already lost faith in him by the time he is removed from office. As we outlined in our Strategic Outlook, we doubt that many Trump voters would risk social unrest to defend their champion.15 Many conservative voters simply wanted change and were willing to give an outsider a chance (much as their liberal counterparts did in 2008!). But convincing the markets may take time, and any sign of even minimal right-wing terrorism could create volatility and drawdowns. Bottom Line: Impeachment remains a headline risk to the markets. We continue to believe that impeachment will merely accentuate the impact of fundamentals on risk assets. However, fundamentals themselves are starting to look vulnerable, at least on a tactical horizon. As such, we are entering a six-month period where geopolitical, trade, and domestic political risks could pose headwinds to U.S. risk assets. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017; "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation at the time against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops into Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. Less dramatic, but still notable examples, are President George W. Bush ordering the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006, and President Barack Obama negotiating the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence the entire Congress) to the Republicans in 2014. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism!" dated November 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 We use The Cook Political Report methodology for reporting the characteristic of House seats. Seats are split into "toss-up or worse," "likely/lean," and "solid" based on their Partisan Voter Index (PVI) score. The Cook PVI measures how each district performs at the presidential level compared to the nation as a whole. A district with a D+2 PVI voted an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole in the last two presidential elections (2012 and 2016 for current PVI rating). The Cook Political Report defines a "swing seat" as one that falls between D+5 and R+5. A "solid Republican" seat would therefore be any seat with a PVI of R+5 or higher. A "solid Democrat" seat would therefore be any seat with a PVI of D+5 or greater. 8 This is not to say that Democrats have not redistricted for partisan reasons. California was famously redistricted in the 1980s. Most recently, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley admitted, during a court deposition, that he redrew the state's district borders specifically to increase the Democratic congressional majority in the state. Please see Amber Phillips, "Maryland's redistricting case reminds us: Both parties gerrymander. A lot." The Washington Post, dated March 28, 2018, available at washingtonpost.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets?" dated January 29, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 The state variables include the annual percent change in personal income, the annual change in the Philadelphia Fed Coincidence index, and incumbency. The national variables include presidential approval ratings, a variable indicating whether the last presidential election was close, and the annual percent change in real GDP, CPI, industrial production, and the DXY. We add to this mix of national and state data the latest opinion polling by state race and the generic congressional ballot. 11 The U.S. Vice President, Republican Mike Pence, would cast the deciding vote in case of a 50-50 tie and therefore the Democrats require a pickup of two seats. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 "Teapot Dome" was for decades the largest corruption scandal in U.S. history. It involved President Warren G. Harding, his Secretary of the Interior, other officials, and a number of oil companies that were given extremely favorable leases to drill oil in federal land in Wyoming. Investigations and prosecutions lasted through 1927. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights There is more downside risk ahead as the geopolitical calendar is packed in May; Protectionism remains in play, but markets could also fall on Iran-U.S. tensions, military intervention in Syria, and Russia-West confrontation; Investors should expect volatility to go up as we approach a turbulent summer; We were wrong on Russia-West tensions peaking and are closing all of our Russian trades for now, but may look for new entry points soon; Go long a basket of NAFTA currencies versus the Euro and expect reflation to remain the "only game in town" in Japan. Feature "I'm not saying there won't be a little pain, but the market has gone up 40 percent, 42 percent so we might lose a little bit of it. But we're going to have a much stronger country when we're finished. So we may take a hit and you know what, ultimately we're going to be much stronger for it." President Donald Trump, April 6, 2018 Chart 1Teflon Trump Teflon Trump Teflon Trump There are times when conventional wisdom is spectacularly wrong. Last week was such a moment. Since Donald Trump became president, the "smart money" has believed that he was obsessed with the stock market. Therefore, the view went, none of his policies would threaten the bull market. We have pushed back against this assumption because our view is that geopolitical risks - specifically the lack of constraints on the executive branch in foreign and trade policy - would become investment relevant.1 This view has been correct thus far: we called the volatility spike and trade protectionism in 2018. Not only have President Trump's tariff pronouncements produced stock market drawdowns, but his popularity appears to be unaffected. Astonishingly, President Trump's approval rating collapsed as the stock market went up in 2017 and recovered as the stock market went in reverse this year (Chart 1)! It is therefore empirically incorrect that President Trump is constrained by the stock market. His actions over the past month, as well as his approval ratings, suggest that he is quite comfortable with volatility. There are two broad reasons why we never bought into the media hype. First, there is no real correlation, or only a weak one, between equity declines of 10% and presidential approval ratings (Chart 2). Generally, presidential approval rating does decline amidst market drawdowns of 10% or greater, but the effect on the presidency is only permanent if the momentum of the approval rating was already heading lower, otherwise the effect is minimal and temporary. Second, the median American does not really own stocks (Table 1). President Trump considers blue collar white voters his base and they care more about unemployment and wages, not their equity portfolios. At some point, equity market drawdowns will affect hard data and the real economy. This is the point at which President Trump will care about the stock market. Given that the market is already down 10% from the peak, we are not far away from this pain threshold. But in this way, President Trump is no different from any other president. Chart 2AThe Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... The Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... The Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... Chart 2B...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. ...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. ...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. The pessimistic view on trade protectionism risk, that there is more downside to equities ahead, is therefore still in play. Investors should be careful not to overreact to positive developments, such as President Xi's speech at the Boao Forum where he largely reiterated previous Beijing promises to open up individual sectors to foreign investment. In fact, it is the investment community itself that is the target of President Trump's rhetoric. In order to convince Beijing that his threat of protectionism is credible, President Trump has to show that he is willing to incur pain at home, which explains the quote with which we began this report. Table 1Stock Ownership Is Concentrated Amongst The Wealthiest Households Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility This is not dissimilar to President Trump's doctrine of "maximum pressure" which, when applied to North Korea, produced a significant bond rally last summer. The 10-year Treasury yield topped 2.39% on July 7 and then collapsed to a low of 2.05% in September.2 The vast majority of the yield decline, at the time, came from falling real yields as investors flocked into safe-haven assets amidst North Korean tensions and not lower inflation expectations. It is therefore dangerous to rely on conventional wisdom when assessing the limits of volatility or equity drawdowns. Any buoyant market reaction may in fact elicit a more aggressive policy from Washington. As if on cue, President Trump shocked the markets on April 7 by suggesting that he would impose another round of tariffs on a further $100bn worth of Chinese imports, bringing the total under threat to $160 billion. The announcement came after the market closed 0.89% up on April 6. Perhaps President Trump was irked that the market was so dismissive of his trade threats and decided to jolt it back to reality. In addition to trade, there are several other reasons to be bearish on risk assets as we approach May: Chart 3Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Chart 4Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Inflation: Unemployment is low, with wage pressures starting to build (Chart 3). Meanwhile, teacher strikes in Red States like Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arizona are signalling that public service sector wage pressures are building in the most fiscally prudent states. Service sector wages cannot be suppressed through automation or outsourcing and are therefore likely to add to inflationary pressures (Chart 4). The Fed remains in tightening mode, despite the mounting geopolitical risks. "Stroke of pen risk:" Another sign that President Trump is comfortable with market drawdowns is his increasingly aggressive rhetoric on Amazon. There is a rising probability that the current administration decides to up the regulatory pressure on the technology and retail giant, as well as a possibility that other technology companies like Facebook and Google face "stroke of pen" risks. Iran: This year's premier geopolitical risk is the potential for renewed U.S.-Iran tensions.3 Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has staffed his cabinet with two hawks, new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Meanwhile, tensions in Syria are building with potential for U.S. and Iranian forces to be directly implicated in a skirmish. The U.S. is almost certain to militarily respond to the alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government forces against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Douma. Throughout it all, investors appear to remain unfazed by the rising probability that Iran's 2 million barrels of oil exports come under renewed sanction risk, mainly because the media is ignoring the risk (Chart 5). Chart 5The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk Russia: As we discuss below, tensions between the West and Russia appear to be building up anew. Particularly concerning is the aforementioned chemical attack in Syria, which Moscow considers a "false flag operation." The Russian government hinted in mid-March that precisely such an attack may occur and that the U.S. would use it as a pretext to attack Syrian government forces and structures.4 Our view that tensions have peaked, elucidated in a recent report, therefore appears to have been spectacularly wrong. Chinese reforms: Now that Xi Jinping has finished setting up his new government, his initiatives are starting to be implemented. While some slight tax cuts are on the docket, and interbank rates have eased significantly, there is no sign of broad policy easing or economic recovery (Chart 6). Rather, both Xi and his economic czar Liu He have continued to stress the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, pollution, and poverty - the first two requiring tighter policy. Xi has stated that deleveraging will focus on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments. SOEs will have debt caps and will not be allowed to lend to local governments. Instead, local governments will have to borrow through formal bond markets, giving the central government greater control. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Housing says property restrictions will remain in place. All in all, the risk of negative surprises in China this year remains significant, with a likely negative impact on global growth.5 There is also a fundamental reason for equity market weakness: the market is likely coming to grips with a calendar 2019 EPS growth of a more reasonable 10% annual rate compared with this year's near 20% peak growth rate. This transition, which our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy has highlighted in recent research, will be turbulent.6 In addition, Anastasios has pointed out that stocks are reacting to a more bearish mix of soft and hard data (Chart 7), suggesting that not all of the market volatility is due to headline risk. Chart 6China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 Chart 7Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market How should investors make sense of these budding risks? Going forward, we would fade any enthusiasm or narratives of "peak pessimism" on trade protectionism. It is in the interest of the Trump administration that investors take his threats seriously. President Trump literally needs stocks to go down in order to show Beijing that he is serious. The summer months could be volatile as market confusion grows amidst the upcoming event risk (Table 2). This may be a good time to be risk-averse, with the old adage "sell in May and go away" appropriate this year. Table 2Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility There are several reasons why protectionism is a much bigger deal than it was in the 1980s when investors last had to price a trade war between two major economies (Japan and the U.S. at the time): Chart 8This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... Chart 9...Globalization... ...Globalization... ...Globalization... Supply chains are a much bigger deal today than thirty years ago (Chart 8); The share of global exports as a percent of GDP is much higher today (Chart 9); Interest rates are much lower, leaving little room for policymakers to ease (Chart 10); Stock market valuations are higher, leaving stocks exposed to drawbacks (Chart 11); Unlike 1981-88, when Japan and the U.S. waged a nearly decade-long trade war while remaining allies in the Cold War, China and the U.S. are outright rivals. This increases the probability that Beijing's reprisal, given its constraints in retaliating against U.S. exports (Chart 12), could take a geopolitical turn. Chart 10...Policymaker Ammunition... ...Policymaker Ammunition... ...Policymaker Ammunition... Chart 11...And Valuations ...And Valuations ...And Valuations Chart 12China May Run Out Of U.S. Exports To Sanction Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Investors should therefore prepare for volatility of volatility. Amidst the confusion, there could be some not-so-positive news that the market overreacts to with optimism, and some not-so-negative news that the market reacts to with pessimism. In our six years of publishing geopolitically driven investment strategy, we have not seen a similar period where a confluence of risks and tensions are building up at the same time. May should therefore be a busy month. Mexico: A Silver Lining Amidst Mercantilism Risk? Mexico began the year with clouds over its head due to the Trump team's tough negotiating line on NAFTA. The third round of negotiations, in September 2017, ended on a bad note. The peso tumbled and headline and core inflation soared, portending both tighter monetary policy and weaker domestic demand.7 Today, however, the odds of renewing NAFTA have improved significantly. We have reduced our probability of Trump abrogating the trade deal from 50% to 20%. The administration appears to be focused on China and therefore looking to wrap up the NAFTA negotiations quickly over the summer. This would give time to send the new deal to the Mexican and U.S. congresses prior to the September changeover in Mexico's legislature and January changeover in the U.S. legislature. The U.S. has reportedly compromised on an earlier demand that NAFTA-traded automobiles have a U.S. domestic content of 50%.8 Meanwhile, inflation has peaked and the peso has firmed up (Chart 13), which will help buoy real incomes and boost purchasing power. Economic policy has been prudent, with central bank rate hikes restraining inflation and government spending cuts producing a primary budget surplus (and a much-reduced headline budget deficit of -1% of GDP) (Chart 14).9 Chart 13Mexico: Peso & Inflation Mexico: Peso & Inflation Mexico: Peso & Inflation Chart 14Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals In this more bullish context, the Mexican elections on July 1 are market-neutral. True, it is hard to present a strong pro-market outcome. The public is shifting to the left on the economic spectrum while the outgoing "pro-market" administration of Enrique Pena Nieto has lost credibility. The latest polling suggests that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) is polling in the lower 30-percentile (around 33%), above his next competitors, Ricardo Anaya (PAN) at 26% and Jose Antonio Meade (PRI) at 14% (Chart 15). However, the latest data point of the admittedly volatile polling gives AMLO a much less commanding lead of 6-7% over Anaya than he had before. AMLO is polling around his performance in the 2006 and 2012 elections (35% and 32%, respectively), has increased his lead over the other candidates, and his National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and "Together We'll Make History" coalition are also polling with double-digit leads (Chart 16). The general shift to the left is also apparent in the fact that Ricardo Anaya's PAN has been forced to combine with the left-wing PRD in order to garner votes. Chart 15AMLO's Lead Is Not Insurmountable Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 16Likely No Majority In Congress Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Nevertheless, political risk is overstated for the following reasons: AMLO is not Hugo Chavez:10 True, he is a leftist, a populist, and has a reputation for egotism. He is Mexico's fitting anti-Trump. Nevertheless, he is also a known quantity, having run for president and engaged with the major parties for over a decade. While he elevates headline political risk, we would fade the risk based on the fact that Mexico is a relatively right-wing country (Chart 17), and his movement will probably not garner a majority in Congress (see next bullet). Notably, AMLO's rhetoric on Trump and NAFTA has been restrained, and his personnel decisions have been competent and orthodox. He has not suggested he will revoke new private Mexican oil concessions, under the outgoing government's privatization scheme, but only halt the auctions. AMLO will be constrained by Congress: The trend in Mexico is towards "pluralization" or fragmentation in Congress (see Chart 18), meaning that ruling parties will have to share power. This is not a negative development. As we recently pointed out, political plurality engenders stability by drawing protest parties into centrist coalitions and by allowing establishment parties to coopt protest narratives without having to actually protest or revolt.11 At this point in time, it is difficult to see how AMLO's MORENA garners enough support to get a majority in Congress. AMLO's closest challenger is right-wing and pro-market: If AMLO loses the election, Ricardo Anaya of PAN will not be scorned by financial markets. In 2006, AMLO looked like he would win the election but then lost to Felipe Calderon (PAN). Of course, a victory by Anaya is not very market positive either, as PAN is in an unstable coalition with the left-wing PRD and would also be constrained in Congress. Still, there would be a lower probability of reversing the outgoing PRI administration's policies than under AMLO. AMLO is unlikely to repeal NAFTA: Mexico's exports to NAFTA partners comprise 30% of GDP, and it would be exceedingly dangerous for a Mexican leader to provoke Trump on the issue. A plurality of the Mexican public (44%) supports the ongoing NAFTA negotiations as they have been handled by the current government (Chart 19), as of late February polling by the Wilson Center. The same polling shows that Mexicans are generally aware of how important NAFTA is for their economy. This is despite the polls showing that a majority of Mexicans have a negative view of the U.S., due largely to Trump's rhetoric (though that majority has fallen considerably since last year to 56%). In other words, anti-American sentiment is not turning the Mexican public against compromising on a new NAFTA deal. Chart 17Mexicans Lean Right Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 18Mexico's Rising Political Plurality Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Finally, Mexico is more exposed to U.S. growth (which is charged with fiscal stimulus), and to BCA's robust outlook on oil prices (as opposed to our weaker metals outlook), while it is less exposed to weakening Chinese demand than other EMs (such as South Africa or Brazil).12 The peso looks particularly attractive relative to the latter two currencies (Chart 20). Chart 19Mexicans Want NAFTA To Survive Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 20A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? None of the above should suggest that the Mexican election will be a smooth affair. The rise of AMLO will create jitters in the marketplace, particularly as he faces off against Trump, who will continue to try to pressure Mexico over immigration and border security even once NAFTA negotiations are squared away. Nevertheless, the cyclical backdrop has improved while the major headwind of NAFTA abrogation seems to be abating. Bottom Line: Mexico's presidential campaign, election, and aftermath will give rise to plenty of occasion for volatility, particularly as President Trump and a likely President Obrador will not shy from a war of words. Nevertheless, Mexico's economic policy is stable and the NAFTA headwind is abating. We recommend going long Mexican local currency bonds relative to the EM benchmark. We also recommend that clients go long a NAFTA basket of currencies - the peso and the loonie - versus the euro. Our currency strategist - Mathieu Savary - has recently pointed out that the euro has moved ahead of long-term fundamentals and is ripe for a near-term correction.13 Japan: Abe Will Survive Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has come under rising public criticism in recent that is dragging down his approval ratings (Chart 21). Three separate scandals are weighing on his administration: one relating to the government's sale of land at knockdown prices to a nationalist school, Moritomo Gakuen, tied to Abe's wife; another relating to the discovery of "lost" journals of Japan Self-Defense Force activity during the Iraq war; another tied to the mishandling of statistics in promoting the government's new revisions to the labor law. Abe's popularity has tested lower lows in the past, but he is approaching the floor. And while Abe is still polling in line with the popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at this stage in his term (Chart 22), nevertheless he is approaching his 65th month in office when Koizumi stepped down. Chart 21Abe's Approval Testing The Floor Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 22Abe Holding At Koizumi's Levels Of Support Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility More importantly, the all-important September leadership election is approaching. The challenges arising today are at least partly motivated by factions within the LDP that want to challenge Abe's leadership. Koizumi stepped aside in September 2006 because he could not contend for the LDP's leadership due to party rules that limited the leader to two consecutive three-year terms. Abe is not constrained on this front. He has already revised those rules to three terms, giving him until September 2021 to remain eligible as party leader. He wants to run again and incumbents are heavily favored in party elections. Abe also secured his second two-thirds supermajority in the House of Representatives, in October 2017. This was a remarkable feat and one that will make it difficult for contenders to convince the rank and file in Japan's prefectures that they can lead the party more effectively. While Abe's 38% approval is now slightly below the psychologically important 40% level, and below the LDP's overall approval rating (Chart 23), there is no alternative to the LDP heading into July 2019 elections for the House of Councillors. This is manifest from the October election result. Chart 23Still No Alternative To LDP Still No Alternative To LDP Still No Alternative To LDP What happens if Abe's popularity sinks into the 20-percentile range? Financial markets will selloff in anticipation that he will be ousted. He could conceivably survive a scrape with the upper 20% approval range, but markets will assume the worst once he dips beneath 30% in the average polling on a sustainable basis. Markets will also assume that the remarkably reflationary period in Japanese economic policy is coming to an end. Even when Abe's successor forms a government, investors may believe that the best of the reflationary push is over. We think that the market would be wrong to doubt Japan's inflationary push. First, if Abe is ousted, the LDP will remain in power: it has until October 2021 before it faces another general election that could deprive it of government control. (A loss in the upper house election in 2019 can prevent it from passing constitutional changes but not from running the country.) This ensures that policy will be continuous in the transition and that any changes in trajectory will be a matter of degree, not kind. Second, the phenomenon of "Abenomics" is not only Abe's doing but the LDP's answer to its first shocking experience in the political wilderness, from 2009-12. This experience taught the LDP that it needed to adopt bolder policies. The result was dovish monetary policy under Haruhiko Kuroda, who just began his second five-year term on April 9 and whose faction has the majority on the monetary policy board. Looser fiscal policy was another consequence - and ultimately it came to pass.14 It will be hard for a new LDP leader to tighten policy. Factions that are criticizing Abe or Kuroda today will find it harder to phase out stimulus once they are in office. Abe's successor will, like him, have to try policies that boost corporate investment, wages, the fertility rate, immigration, social spending and military spending.15 Without such initiatives, Japan will sink back into a deflationary spiral. As for BoJ policy, over the next 18 months the biggest challenges are meeting the 2% inflation target while the yen is rising due to both China's slowdown and trade war risks.16 Tokyo is also ostensibly required to hike the consumption tax in October 2019. This is more than enough to convince Kuroda to stand pat for the time being.17 In the meantime, Abe's push to revise the constitution is a significant factor in encouraging persistently loose monetary and fiscal policy. The national referendum on the matter could be held along with the early 2019 local elections or the July 2019 upper house election. It will be hard to win 50%+ of the popular vote and nigh impossible if the economy is failing. What should investors look for to determine if Abe's downfall is imminent? In addition to Abe's approval rating we will watch to see if the ongoing scandal probes produce any direct link to Abe, or if top cabinet ministers are forced to resign (like Finance Minister Taro Aso or Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera). It will also be a telling sign if Abe's "work-style" reforms to liberalize the labor market, which have received cabinet approval, wither in the Diet due to lack of party discipline (not our baseline view).18 But even granting Abe's survival, we would expect that China's slowdown and the U.S.-China trade war will keep the yen well bid. We are sticking with our tactical long JPY/EUR trade, which is up 2.6% thus far. Bottom Line: Shinzo Abe is likely to be re-elected as LDP leader in September and to lead his party in the charge toward the 2019 upper house election and constitutional referendum. Should he fall into the 20% of popular approval, the markets should sell off. His leadership and alliances have been remarkably reflationary and the policy tailwind could dwindle. We would fade this risk, but we still think the yen will remain buoyant due to China's internal dynamics and the U.S.-China trade war. We remain long yen/euro until we see signs that Washington and Beijing are able to defuse the immediate trade war. Russia: Tensions With The West Have Not Peaked Our view that tensions between Russia and the West would peak following President Putin's reelection has been spectacularly wrong.19 We still encourage clients to review the report, penned in early March, as it sets out the limits to Russia's aggressive foreign policy. The country is geopolitically a lot more constrained then investors think, and thus there are material limits to how far the Kremlin can take the rivalry with the West. What we did not account for is that such weakness is precisely the reason for the tensions. Specifically, the Trump administration - riding high following the success of its "maximum pressure" doctrine in the Korea imbroglio - smells blood. President Trump is betting that the view of Russian constraints is correct and therefore the time to pressure Putin - and prove his own anti-Kremlin credentials - is now. But has the market gotten ahead of itself? The expanded sanctions target specific individuals and companies - EN+ Group, GAZ Group, and Rusal - and yet the broad equity market in Russia has tumbled.20 Sberbank, which is nowhere mentioned in the sanctions, fell by an extraordinary 16% since the announcement. On one hand, there does appear to be a material step-up in sanctions. Despite being focused on specific companies, the new restrictions are designed to make the entire Russian secondary bond market "not clearable." The targeting of specific companies, therefore, was merely a shot-across-the-bow. The implication for the future - and the reason that Sberbank fell as much as it did - is that U.S. investors could be forbidden - or the compliance costs could rise by so much that they might as well be forbidden - from participating in Russian debt and equity markets in the future. On the other hand, our Russia geopolitical risk index has not priced in the renewed tensions (Chart 24). This means that either our currency-derived measure is wrong or the sell off in equity and debt markets is not translating into bearishness about the overall economy. Given our bullish oil outlook and our view of the limits of Russian aggression investors should expect, the index may actually be signaling that these tensions are an opportunity to buy Russian assets. Chart 24The Russia GPI Says No Risk The Russia GPI Says No Risk The Russia GPI Says No Risk That said, we have learned our lesson. There is no point in trying to catch a falling knife as the Kremlin and the White House square off over Syria and other geopolitical issues. As such, we are closing all of our Russia trades until we find a better entry point to capitalize on our structural view that there are material limits to geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia. The long Russia equities / short EM equities has been stopped out at 5% loss. Our buy South African / sell Russian 5-year CDS protection is down 20 bps and our long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds is up 1.07 bps. Investment Implications In April 2017, we penned a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!," turning the old "sell in May and go away" adage on its head.21 At the time, investors were similarly facing a number of geopolitical risks, from the second round of French elections to concerns about President Trump's domestic agenda. However, we had a very high conviction view that these risks were overstated. This time around, we fear that the markets are mispricing constraints on President Trump. Geopolitical risks ahead of us are largely in the realm of foreign policy, where the U.S. Constitution gives the president large leeway. This includes trade policy. As such, it is much more difficult to have a high conviction view on how the Trump administration will act towards China, Iran, and Russia. Furthermore, the success of the "maximum pressure" doctrine has emboldened President Trump to talk tough, worry about consequences later. Investors have to understand that we are the target of President Trump's rhetoric. There is no better way for the White House to show China, Iran, and Russia that it is serious - that its threats are credible - than if it strongly counters the view that it will do nothing to harm domestic equities. We therefore expect further volatility in the markets. We propose that clients hedge the risks this summer with our "geopolitical protector portfolio" - equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold - which is currently up 1.46%, although adding 10-Year U.S. Treasurys to the mix may make sense as well. We would also recommend that clients expect both a spike in the VIX and a rise in the volatility of the VIX (volatility of volatility). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com; and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Russia says U.S. plans to strike Damascus, pledges military response," Reuters, dated March 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "US drops contentious demand for auto content, clearing path in NAFTA talks," Globe and Mail, March 21, 2018, available at www.theglobeandmail.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Perched On An Icy Cliff," dated March 29, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Should Investors Fear Political Plurality?" dated November 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see "Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report; "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017; and "Japan: Abenomics Will Survive Abe," in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018; and "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see Cory Baird, "BOJ Chief Haruhiko Kuroda Begins New Term By Vowing To Continue Stimulus In Pursuit Of 2% Inflation," Japan Times, April 9, 2018, available at www.japantimes.co.jp. 18 Please see "Work style reform legislation gets Abe Cabinet approval," Jiji Press, April 6, 2018, available at www.the-japan-news.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Department of the Treasury, "Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations - 31 C.F.R. Part 589," dated April 7, 2018, available at treasury.gov. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights With North Korean diplomacy on track, Taiwan is the country most exposed to U.S.-China trade and strategic tensions. The Taiwanese public supports the status quo; however, a majority sees itself as exclusively Taiwanese, and the desire for independence may grow over time. Domestic political changes in mainland China and in the United States are also conducive to greater geopolitical tensions affecting Taiwan. Beijing will likely refrain from excessive pressure in the lead-up to Taiwan's November local elections ... but an independence-leaning outcome could change that. Stay overweight Taiwan within Emerging Market portfolios, but be prepared to downgrade if latent geopolitical risks begin to materialize. Feature The decision by the United States to toughen its enforcement of trade rules with China marks a shift that will have lasting ramifications.1 The U.S. is concerned not only about the trade imbalance but also the national security risk posed by China's economic might and increasing technological prowess. Hence President Donald Trump has imposed trade measures on China despite Chinese President Xi Jinping's cooperation on North Korea. Xi has enforced sanctions on the North and thus forced Kim Jong Un to the negotiating table, even getting him to consider denuclearization (Chart 1). Global financial markets may "climb the wall of worry" about the latest tariffs because the Trump administration has moderated its rhetoric in practice, notably by choosing to prosecute China in the World Trade Organization. However, the protectionist shift in U.S. policy is a lasting one. American power is declining relative to China, and the two countries no longer share the same economic interdependency that acted as a deterrent to conflict in the past (Chart 2).2 Chart 1China Gives Kim To Trump China Gives Kim To Trump China Gives Kim To Trump Chart 2Structural Increase In U.S.-China Tensions Structural Increase In U.S.-China Tensions Structural Increase In U.S.-China Tensions Taiwan is the country that is most exposed to both trade and strategic tensions between the U.S. and China (Chart 3). Indeed, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has held since January 2016 that Taiwan is a potential geopolitical black swan.3 Does this warrant shifting to an underweight stance in EM portfolios? Not yet. But it is a left tail risk that investors should have on their radar. Taiwan Is Filled With Dry Powder There are three reasons to suspect that Taiwan geopolitical risk is understated. First, Chinese President Xi Jinping has consolidated power and made himself into Chairman Mao Zedong's peer in the Communist Party's ideological hierarchy. He is in power indefinitely. Xi has also followed his predecessor Jiang Zemin, in the 1990s, in taking a tough approach to security and defense. Implicitly he wants to make sure that unification occurs by 2049, but some argue that he wants to achieve it within his lifetime, namely by 2035. The Taiwanese public is resolutely opposed to any timetable. The fundamental risk is that economic slowdown could disappoint the aspirations of a big and ambitious middle class, which could force Xi to pursue nationalism and foreign aggression as a way to maintain domestic control (Chart 4). Beijing is still unlikely to attack Taiwan other than as a last resort, due to the American alliance system protecting it: this remains a hard constraint for now. But aggressive economic sanctions and military posturing with the intention to coerce Taiwan are much more likely than investors realize today. Chart 3Taiwan's Economy As Well As Security On The Line Taiwan's Economy As Well As Security On The Line Taiwan's Economy As Well As Security On The Line Chart 4China's Stability Vulnerable To Growth Slowdown China's Stability Vulnerable To Growth Slowdown China's Stability Vulnerable To Growth Slowdown Second, Taiwan's independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has gained control of every level of government on the island - the presidency, the legislature, the municipalities - since the large-scale, anti-mainland "Sunflower" protests of 2014. President Tsai Ing-wen, who replaced the outspokenly pro-China President Ma Ying-jeou, is vocally uncomfortable with the status quo. She has refused to positively affirm the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two interpretations. Beijing sees this idea as the basis of smooth cross-strait relations. Tsai has not in practice tried to break the status quo, but she is clearly interested in enhancing Taiwan's autonomy. Moreover, a youthful "Third Force" has emerged in Taiwanese politics, with the backing of former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, arguing for independence and the right to hold popular referendums on the question of sovereignty. Any success of this movement will provoke a massive response from China. Third, U.S. President Trump has suggested in several poignant ways that his tougher approach to China will entail a more robust American guarantee of Taiwan's security. While he has promised Xi to uphold the "One China policy," he is actively upgrading diplomatic and possibly naval relations with Taiwan and considering more substantial arms sales to Taiwan.4 His negotiation style suggests that he is not afraid to touch this "third rail" in Sino-American relations. Moreover, in the wake of the 1995-96 Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, and again in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, a hugely important shift in Taiwanese national identity accelerated. Today the public mostly identifies solely as Taiwanese, as opposed to both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 5). This trend has abated somewhat since the DPP rose to full control in 2014-16, but a 55% majority still sees itself as exclusively Taiwanese. Among the youth, that number is 70%. This dynamic raises the possibility that a political independence movement could one day emerge. Beijing, at any rate, is watching with great concern. Of course, this shift in national identity does not imply that Taiwanese want to declare independence for the state of Taiwan anytime soon. Only about 22% want the country to move toward formal independence, and only 5% want to declare independence today. Whereas 69% are comfortable maintaining the status quo for a long time (Chart 6). The Taiwanese want to preserve their de facto independence and continue to prosper. But support for independence has grown faster than support for the status quo since the 1994 consensus. The status quo barely, if at all, holds majority support if one removes from its ranks those who eventually want to see the country declare independence. And younger cohorts have larger majorities than older cohorts in favor of independence. Chart 5Majority Of Taiwanese Are Exclusively Taiwanese ... Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Chart 6... Yet Majority Support Status Quo For Now Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan The point is that there is a lot of "dry powder" in Taiwanese public opinion that could be ignited against China in the event of a change of circumstances, i.e. another military crisis or economic shock. Essentially, China is worried that someday this national identity could be weaponized. Chart 7China Gains Leverage Over Time China Gains Leverage Over Time China Gains Leverage Over Time How will China respond to the situation? So far it has not overreacted. Xi Jinping has launched more intimidating military drills and has hardened his rhetoric - including in key reports at the 2017 party congress and this year's National People's Congress. His administration has also pursued policies to emphasize its dominance, such as setting up new air traffic routes over the strait that Taiwan claims violate its rights.5 Nevertheless, the cross-strait status quo has not yet changed in any fundamental way that would suggest relations are about to explode. And this is fitting because the status quo is beneficial to the mainland, having created a vast imbalance of economic influence over Taiwan (Chart 7). This imbalance gives China the ability to use economic coercion to dissuade Taiwan's leaders from trying anything too daring. This year, in particular, there is reason to think that Xi Jinping may want to limit any provocations. Taiwan will hold local elections on November 24, an opportunity for the pro-China Kuomintang (KMT) to at least begin to claw back the political stature it has lost (Chart 8). A good showing in 2018 is essential for the KMT if it is to rebuild momentum for the 2020 general election. Tsai's and the DPP's approval ratings have fallen precipitously since her inauguration (Chart 9). Xi may deem that saber-rattling would be counterproductive by giving Tsai and the DPP a foil, when in fact the tide is already working against them. If the KMT's performance is abysmal in the November elections, then Beijing faces a problem. Its strategy of gaining influence over Taiwan through economic integration has not prevented the emergence of an exclusively Taiwanese identity. So far Beijing has not given up on this strategy but that might become a concern if the Xi administration treads softly this year and yet the DPP broadens its control of local offices. Worse still for Beijing would be sweeping gains for outspoken, pro-independence candidates, since China cannot expel them from the legislature as easily as it did their peers in Hong Kong. Chart 8Kuomintang Needs A Win In 2018 Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Chart 9DPP Only Leads KMT By A Little Now Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Bottom Line: Political changes in China, Taiwan, and the United States are conducive to souring relations across the strait. Moreover, Taiwanese national identity is dry powder that Beijing fears could be exploited by independence-leaning politicians - potentially with American backing from an aggressive President Trump. This three-way dynamic means that Taiwanese geopolitical risk is understated, despite the fact that these powers are all familiar with the dynamics and Beijing may not want to overly provoke voters ahead of local elections, knowing that heavy-handedness in 1995-96 encouraged Taiwanese uniqueness. Macro Backdrop And Trade Tensions Undermine DPP The problem for President Tsai and the ruling DPP, as local elections approach, is that the Taiwanese economy faces headwinds as Chinese and Asian trade slows down and as the Trump administration converts its protectionist rhetoric into action. Since last year, China has tightened financial conditions and regulation and has cracked down on corruption in the financial sector. The result is a slump in broad money supply that is now pointing to a drop in EM and Taiwanese exports (Chart 10). Indeed, a cyclical slowdown is emerging in Taiwan: The short-term loans impulse is weakening which suggests that Taiwanese export growth will slow further (Chart 11, top panel). The basis for this relationship is that short-term loans are used by Taiwanese businesses to fund their working capital needs as well as purchase inputs to fill their export orders. Further, broad money is also weak (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chart 10China Slowdown Spells Trouble For Taiwan bca.gps_sr_2018_03_30_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_03_30_c10 Chart 11Taiwanese Money/Credit Growth Slowing Taiwanese Money/Credit Growth Slowing Taiwanese Money/Credit Growth Slowing The manufacturing sector is slowing, with the shipments-to-inventories ratio weak and manufacturing PMI dipping sharply (Chart 12). Worryingly, the new orders, export orders, and electronic-sector employment components of the manufacturing PMI are approaching a precarious level. Various prices of semiconductors are also starting to show signs of weakness globally which does not bode well for a market that relies heavily on this trade. The semiconductor shipment-to-inventory ratio has rolled over (Chart 13). Taiwanese exports to ASEAN are also slowing, which signifies that final demand for semiconductors is softening, as ASEAN economies lie at the final stage of the semiconductor supply chain process. Chart 12Manufacturing Indicators Rolling Over Manufacturing Indicators Rolling Over Manufacturing Indicators Rolling Over Chart 13Softness In Key Semiconductor Exports Softness In Key Semiconductor Exports Softness In Key Semiconductor Exports Further, global trade tensions have the potential to harm global growth and especially heavily trade-exposed economies like Taiwan. Taiwan is not guaranteed to benefit from the U.S.'s more aggressive posture toward China. Theoretically, if the U.S. imposes tariffs on goods from China that can be substituted by Taiwan, then Taiwan will benefit. But in practice, the U.S. is using tariffs as a threat to force China to open its market more to U.S. exports. One way that Beijing may respond is by purchasing American goods instead of goods that come from American allies like Taiwan. Beijing has already attempted this strategy by offering to increase imports of American semiconductors at the expense of Taiwan and South Korea. At the moment there are no details on how much of an increase China is proposing. In Table 1 we show several scenarios to assess the damage that could be inflicted on Taiwan if China substituted away from it. The impact on Taiwan's exports is not negligible. For instance, under the benign scenario, if U.S.'s share of semiconductor exports to China rise from 4%6 to 10%, then Taiwan's share of semiconductor exports to China would drop from 15% to 12%. That would amount to a $4 billion loss for Taiwan, approximately, which represents 1.4% share of its total exports and 4% of its overall semiconductor exports. This analysis assumes that the trade losses resulting from China's shift to its semiconductor import mix would harm Taiwan somewhat more than Korea. The latter holds a competitive advantage on Taiwan as Korea designs and manufactures unique semiconductors that are not as easily substitutable. At any rate, the damage to Taiwan's geopolitical and trade outlook would be more concerning than the loss of revenue. Table 1China's Trade Concessions To U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan It is unlikely that the Trump administration is willing to accept such a deal, which is flagrantly designed to appease the U.S. at the expense of its allies. But the exercise illustrates a broader dynamic in which U.S. negotiations with China threaten to disrupt trade relationships and supply chains that have benefited Taiwan in recent decades. The result will be greater uncertainty and a higher potential for negative shocks. Chart 14China Punishes Taiwan For 2016 Election China Punishes Taiwan For 2016 Election China Punishes Taiwan For 2016 Election Moreover, the Trump administration has not entirely exempted allies from trade pressure. For instance, Taiwan has appreciated the dollar a bit in response to the threat of punishment for currency manipulation from the U.S. Washington has also just secured assurances from South Korea that it will not competitively depreciate the won. If agreements like these stand, and yet China makes less robust or less permanent agreements regarding its own currency, South Korea and Taiwan could suffer marginal losses of competitiveness. Taiwan is also exposed to coercive economic measures from China. Since Tsai's election, Beijing has made a notable effort to reduce tourist travel to Taiwan, which is reflected in tourism and flight data (Chart 14). Given the context of political tensions, the risk of discrete sanctions will persist and could flare up at any time if an incident occurs that aggravates the distrust between the two governments. How will investors know if Taiwanese geopolitical risk is about to spike upwards? At the moment, geopolitical risk is subdued, according to a proxy based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 15). This indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It even jumped upon the heightened tensions around the 2016 election of Tsai, and her controversial phone call with Donald Trump after his election. At the moment it suggests that cross-strait tensions have subsided significantly, despite the cutoff in formal diplomatic communication. However, the low point of the measure, and the underlying political factors outlined in the previous section, suggest that it should rise going forward. Chart 15Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here In the short run, it will be important to watch the Trump administration's handling of diplomatic visits and arms sales to Taiwan. Trump's signing of the Taiwan Travel Act has elevated diplomatic exchanges in a way that is mostly symbolic but could still spark an episode of heightened tension with China that would result in economic sanctions. An unprecedented naval port call could turn into an incident. At the same time, the U.S. guarantees Taiwan's security and in token of that guarantee periodically provides Taiwan with weapons packages. Beijing, for its part, always protests these sales, more or less vigorously depending on the military capabilities in question. The currently slated one is not too big but there is a rumor that it will include F-35 stealth fighter jets; other surprises could occur. Traditionally, the biggest spikes in sales have fallen under Democratic, not Republican, administrations. However, Trump may change that. There is a consensus in Washington that policy toward China should get tougher. The Taiwan Travel Act, upgrading diplomatic ties, passed with unanimous consent in both the House and Senate. Taiwanese governments have a record of increasing military spending when Republican presidents sit in Washington. And the first DPP government, under Chen Shui-bian from 2000-08, marked a clear upturn in Taiwanese military spending growth (Chart 16). If the Trump administration decides to sell Taiwan weapon systems that make a qualitative difference in the military balance, it will raise tensions with Beijing and likely prompt economic sanctions against Taiwan. Chart 16Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant In the long run, there are three key negotiations taking place in the region that could increase Taiwanese geopolitical risk: U.S.-China trade negotiations: Taiwan has benefited from China's engagement with the U.S., and with the West more broadly, and stands to suffer if they disengage. That would herald rising strategic tensions that would put Taiwan's trade and security in jeopardy. Geopolitical risk would go up. North Korean diplomacy: Kim Jong Un has met with Xi Jinping and formally agreed to hold bilateral summits with Presidents Trump and Moon Jae-in of South Korea. He has also indicated that denuclearization is on the table. If the different parties enter onto a path towards a peace treaty and denuclearization, then Taiwan might worry that the U.S. will eventually remove troops from the peninsula - far-fetched but not out of the question. Taiwan would fear abandonment and could attempt to entangle the U.S. For its part, China could believe that cooperation on North Korea requires the U.S. to give China greater sway over Taiwan. Geopolitical risk would go up. The South China Sea: These sea lanes are vital to Taiwan as well as China, South Korea, and Japan. If the U.S. washes its hands of the matter, ceding China a maritime sphere of influence, Taiwan will face both greater supply risk and greater anxiety about American commitment to its security. Beijing might be emboldened to pressure Taiwan, or Taiwan might act out to try to secure American support. Geopolitical risk would go up. Bottom Line: Taiwan's economy is entering a cyclical slowdown on the back of China's slowdown and rollover in the semiconductor industry. At the same time, trade tensions emanating from the U.S.-China negotiations and political tensions emanating from the other side of the strait suggest that Taiwan's geopolitical risk premium will rise. Over the short term, Taiwan's local elections, the referendum movement, or U.S. diplomacy or arms sales could provide a catalyst for a cross-strait crisis. Over the long term, significant changes in U.S.-China relations, North Korea, or the South China Sea could put Taiwan in a more precarious position. Investment Conclusions While the absolute outlook for Taiwanese stock prices is negative, the potential downside in share prices in U.S. dollar terms is lower than for the EM benchmark. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy recommends that EM-dedicated investors remain overweight Taiwanese risk assets relative to the EM benchmark. First, the epicenter of China's slowdown is capital spending in general and construction in particular. Various Chinese industrial activity indicators have already begun decelerating. This is negative for industrial commodity prices and countries that produce them. Taiwan is less exposed to China's construction slump than many other EM economies. Second, China's spending on technology will not slow much. As a part of its ongoing reforms, Beijing will encourage more investment in technology as well as upgrading industries across the value-added curve. Hence, China's tech spending will outperform its expenditure on construction and infrastructure. Taiwan is poised to benefit from this relative shift in China's growth priorities. Third, there are no fresh credit excesses in Taiwan like in some other EMs. Taiwan's banking system worked out bad assets extensively following the credit excesses of the 1980s-90s. Hence it is less vulnerable than its peers in the developing world. Finally, Taiwan has an enormous current account surplus of 14% of GDP and, contrary to many other EMs, foreign investors hold few Taiwanese local bonds. When outflows from EM occur, the Taiwanese currency will fall under less pressure and its financial system under much less stress. This will allow Taiwanese stocks to act as a low-beta defensive play. Crucially, despite some appreciation to appease Trump, the Taiwanese dollar is among the cheapest currencies in EM (Chart 17). Chart 17Cheap Taiwanese Dollar Removes Risk Cheap Taiwanese Dollar Removes Risk Cheap Taiwanese Dollar Removes Risk As for heightened geopolitical risk, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy would note that while we view Taiwan as a potential "black swan," nevertheless tail risks are not the proper basis for an investment strategy. We will continue to monitor the situation so that we can alert clients when a major, market-relevant deterioration in cross-strait relations appears imminent, based largely on the factors highlighted above. If the DPP remains dominant after the local elections later this year, or if "Third Forces" make notable gains, we would suspect that the Xi administration will shift to using more sticks than carrots. This could include economic sanctions and military saber-rattling. The question then will be whether Beijing (or Washington or Taipei) attempts a material change to the status quo. Ultimately - from a bird's eye point of view - a war is more likely in the wake of Xi Jinping's elimination of term limits, consolidation of power, and the secular slowdown in China's economy and rise of Chinese nationalism. But we see no reason to fear such a catastrophic outcome in the near term. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 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. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, and "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Trump began, as president-elect, by holding an unprecedented telephone call with the Taiwanese president. His administration has since requested a new $1.4 billion arms package, opened legal space for port calls (including potentially naval port calls) in the 2018 Defense Authorization Act, and for higher-level diplomatic meetings via the Taiwan Travel Act, which became public law on March 16, 2018. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Military drills have involved symbolic shows, like sailing China's only operational aircraft carrier along the mid-line of the Taiwan Strait, as well as more poignant maneuvers, like drilling north and south of Taiwan simultaneously. As for rhetoric, Xi omitted from his 2017 party congress speech any reference to hopes that the Taiwanese "people" would bring about unification; in his speech after the March National People's Congress, he warned of the "punishment of history" for those who would promote secession. 6 Shown as the average of 2015 and 2017.

Highlights Malaysian elections are likely in April or May and we expect will return the ruling BN coalition to power; Malaysia's banking system is vulnerable and economy is highly exposed to a relapse in Chinese growth and/or commodity prices; Thailand's military junta has delayed elections until February 2019 and may delay again, but that is not cause for a selloff; Transitions from military to civilian rule are historically positive for Thai assets relative to emerging markets; Favor Thai currency, equities, and bonds within the EM space; go long Thai local bonds versus Malaysian, currency unhedged. Feature The word is out that Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak will call elections ahead of Ramadan in late April or early May. The timing makes sense, as Malaysia's economy has recovered from the turmoil of 2015 and Najib has survived the political scandals that threatened to topple him (Chart 1). We expect the long-ruling Barisan Nasional coalition to emerge victorious from the vote.1 Chart 1Call Elections While Growth Is Strong Call Elections While Growth Is Strong Call Elections While Growth Is Strong Meanwhile, to the north, Thailand's military junta has delayed elections for the third time, pushing them from November 2018 to February 2019. Having revised the constitution and guided the country through the royal succession,2 the military is running out of excuses to cling to power. It is likely to hand the reins partially back to civilian politicians within the next 24 months, if not next February. The first election since the 2014 coup is likely (though not guaranteed) to favor military-backed parties. In both countries, the political status quo is familiar, and likely to persist for some time. What does this mean for investors? First, it means a degree of certainty. Second, it means mixed prospects for pro-market policies. Both BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy favor Thai assets over Malaysian within the EM universe. Malaysia: Election Is Tactically Bullish At Best On the political front, there is a 45% subjective probability that the election impact will be genuinely market-positive and a 55% probability that it will be neutral or status quo. To understand this, investors need to understand how unlucky Malaysia's political opposition is. The twenty-first century was supposed to be the opposition's moment in the sun, when it would defeat the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition for the first time since the country's independence in 1957. A large and ambitious middle class was emerging on the back of export-led industrialization and a commodity bull market (Chart 2). The time seemed ripe for an unlikely coalition of middle-class progressive Malays, ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs, and rural Islamists to take power in the name of change. Unfortunately for the opposition, the 2008 election came before the global financial crisis struck and the 2013 election came before the oil price plunge of 2014 (Chart 3). The opposition made a valiant showing nonetheless. In the first case it deprived the BN of a supermajority for the first time since 1969; in the second case, it won the popular vote. But in neither case was the opposition able to win a majority of seats in parliament, as its victories were confined to a few small regions (Chart 4). Chart 2Middle Class Angst In Malaysia How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) Chart 3Opposition Timing Unlucky... Opposition Timing Unlucky... Opposition Timing Unlucky... Chart 4... Can It Keep Gaining Seats? How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) Today the opposition's bad luck continues. The Pakatan Harapan coalition, as it is now called, is headed into the yet-to-be-scheduled 2018 elections at a time when Malaysia's economy and exports have recovered along with global demand and commodity prices (Chart 5). Consumer sentiment and employment have improved, albeit from a low point. Chart 5Economy Recovers Ahead Of Vote Economy Recovers Ahead Of Vote Economy Recovers Ahead Of Vote Moreover, Prime Minister Najib, who became embroiled in scandals almost immediately after winning the 2013 election, has been cleared of wrongdoing by various authorities. What little opinion polling exists suggests that the majority of the populace still disapproves of him, but apathy is widespread.3 Needless to say it is Najib's advantage as prime minister that he gets to decide the timing of the elections. The opposition has also lost a critical partner, the Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS). Najib has lured PAS into joining BN, giving it a larger majority and putting the remaining opposition forces even farther from the 112 seats needed for a majority in the lower house (the Dewan Rakyat) (Chart 6). At the same time, Pakatan Harapan has no platform other than opposition to Najib's government. Malaysia's chief opposition leader and advocate of structural reform, Anwar Ibrahim, has entered into an unholy alliance with his former boss and arch-enemy, the long-ruling strongman Mahathir Mohamad, who will soon turn 93 years old. This alliance is manifestly self-interested and unstable. There is a scenario in which the opposition could take power - but it is the least probable. In Chart 7 we present three scenarios: the first is the best case for the opposition, the second is the best case for BN, and the third is the status quo. To these scenarios we assign subjective probabilities: Scenario 1: Opposition Takes Power (20% probability): For the opposition to win, it needs to retain all of its current 71 seats and stage a historic upset by winning all the seats in Kedah and Johor. It then needs to convince PAS to return to its fold through coalition-building. Winning every seat in Kedah and Johor is a stretch. And PAS has learned how to wield power without the opposition, so why would it rejoin? BN has granted it concessions on its Islamist agenda that the more secular opposition parties would be loath to adopt. Scenario 2: BN Wins Supermajority (25% probability): The real question is whether the BN coalition will retake the supermajority that it lost in 2008. This would require BN to win an additional 19 seats on top of retaining its current 129 seats. If BN retains its current seats and the alliance with PAS, and wins half or more of the 37 seats in Malay-dominant, or mixed-Malay, constituencies currently held by the opposition, then it will achieve this supermajority. In Chart 7 above we illustrate this scenario as an even bigger sweep in which the BN also picks up some seats that it lost in ethnic Chinese and other constituencies. Scenario 3: BN Preserves Status Quo (55% probability): In this scenario, both BN and PAS retain their seats and remain allied, but make zero gains. Najib and his government are relatively unpopular and tainted by scandal, Malaysian governance has worsened, and winning back non-Malay and mixed-Malay seats could be very difficult in practice. What would be the likely market responses to these outcomes? In Scenario 1, an opposition victory would be the most market-friendly outcome in light of Malaysia's poor governance, flagging productivity, and lackluster economy in recent years. It would demonstrate to the world that although Malaysia's demographic trajectory strongly favors the majority Malay population (Chart 8), that trajectory need not condemn the country to a future of ethnic nationalism and communal tensions. Chart 6Defection Helps Ruling Coalition How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) Chart 7Malaysia 2018 Election Scenarios How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) Chart 8Demographics Favor Malay Majority How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) True, the untested Pakatan Harapan coalition would bring a great deal of uncertainty. But the authority of Mahathir, the reformist bent of Anwar, the fact that the Islamist members of the coalition are progressive, and the increased political inclusion of the ethnic Chinese, would all be seen as positives. Moreover a vote against the long-ruling BN, and the BN's expected acceptance of the vote, would show that the country is flexible enough to handle real political change, unlike many EMs. Nevertheless, this is a low probability outcome. In Scenario 2, a BN supermajority would be cheered by markets (less enthusiastically than Scenario 1) for providing a clear sense of direction. It would reaffirm the United Malay National Organization's (UMNO's) status as the institutional ruling party (the core of the BN) after a decade of apparent decay. And it would remove the uncertainty of recent government scandals and mistakes. It would also give Najib enough political capital to press forward with structural reforms (Chart 9), which he has pursued under less ideal conditions. However, the downside of Scenario 2 is that, over the long run, Malaysia's governance would likely deteriorate (Chart 10). BN would regain the ability to pass constitutional amendments on its own and would use this power to reinforce Malay nationalism and authoritarianism, which would exacerbate tensions with the pro-business Chinese community. Chart 9Najib Has Done Some Reforms Najib Has Done Some Reforms Najib Has Done Some Reforms Chart 10Governance Could Fall Further How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) The third scenario - a status quo BN simple majority - is the most likely yet least market-friendly outcome. This electoral result would leave Najib only able to do piecemeal reforms and more dependent on his Islamist coalition partner, PAS. The risk is not that radical Islamism would spiral out of control - Malaysia is a moderate Muslim country - but rather that in this scenario both governance and economic orthodoxy could continue to suffer.4 Economic conditions would be better than just after the 2014 commodity bust, but would remain lackluster. The crux of the matter is whether the election enables the government to take a more proactive stance in grappling with Malaysia's latent financial risks and external vulnerabilities. The latter are significant. Indeed, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy is underweight Malaysian assets versus their EM peers, and argues that Malaysia needs to see the following developments for investors to upgrade this bourse: Progress in recognition of non-performing loans (NPLs) and increased bank provisions. NPLs are too low given the credit boom over the past nine years, and provisions are also extremely inadequate (Chart 11, panels 1 and 2). Further, Malaysian commercial banks have artificially boosted their earnings because they have lowered their provisions for bad loans. Given that global growth and Malaysian exports are likely at or near their peak, Malaysian commercial banks will soon face rising NPLs and will be forced to increase their provisions for bad loans, putting their profit growth at risk. In a scenario where banks raise provisions by 35%, banks' operating profits would fall from 11% to zero. This presents a major risk to bank share prices (Chart 12). Chart 11Bad Loans Are Under-Recognized Bad Loans Are Under-Recognized Bad Loans Are Under-Recognized Chart 12If Provisions Go Up, Profits Will Fall If Provisions Go Up, Profits Will Fall If Provisions Go Up, Profits Will Fall Crucially, commercial bank share prices are extremely important for Malaysia's stock market, as they account for 35% of the country's total MSCI market cap and 38% of the index's total earnings. Commercial banks also have been largely responsible for the recent rally in Malaysian stocks. An outlook of stable demand growth in China and stable-to-higher commodities prices, so that Malaysia's economy would be able to grow without too much reliance on credit and fiscal stimulus. Currently, exports to China comprise 9% of GDP and commodities exports make up 30% of exports and 20% of GDP. An outlook for stable-to-strong currency that would lower the external debt burden and lower debt-servicing costs, which are among the highest in the EM world. In turn, the exchange rate outlook is contingent on commodities prices and the EM carry trade. Importantly, these adjustments may only take place once Chinese growth has slowed and Malaysia's external vulnerabilities have become painfully apparent to investors and discounted in financial markets. Only an opposition victory or a BN supermajority would increase the probability that Malaysia will start trying to reduce these vulnerabilities preemptively, allowing investors to look beyond the valley and price in a better structural outlook. Given that the combined subjective probability of the two scenarios is 45%, we are neutral on Malaysian politics in the near term. Our conviction level on pro-market policies is low, given that the status quo outcome offers only piecemeal reforms, while a transition to opposition rule for the first time or a return to a traditional BN supermajority would be fraught with uncertainty. Bottom Line: The current rally in Malaysian assets can continue as long as the global bull market persists and China's slowdown remains benign. However, there is no guarantee that China will remain benign, and Malaysia is poorly positioned among EMs to deal with external shocks. Thus while there is space for a tactical play on the election, the prudent long-term position is to be underweight Malaysian stocks, local bonds, and currency relative to their EM counterparts. Thailand: Stay Bullish At Least Until Elections While Malaysia prepares to hold elections, Thailand's military junta has delayed them for at least the third time. They are expected by February 2019. While we would not be surprised to see another delay, this period of military rule is getting long in the tooth, by Thai standards, and we would expect the transition to civilian rule to occur within the next year or two.5 The election delay is mildly positive for Thai risk assets, as investors have broadly approved of the junta or at least grown accustomed to it. During previous periods of military rule, such as 1991-92 and 2006-07, Thai stocks have typically underperformed the EM benchmark, both in USD and local currency terms (Chart 13). But the 2014 coup proved to be different. The government of General Prayuth Chan-Ocha has provided three fundamentally stabilizing factors: Banishing the Shinawatras: The junta forced a conclusion (for the time being at least) to the domestic political struggle that has raged in the country since 2001. It did so by ousting Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and sending her to join her brother, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in exile, and by suppressing their rural, populist political coalition. Shepherding the royal succession: The junta's decision to throw a coup in 2014 was heavily influenced by the desire to ensure that a stable royal succession would occur upon the death of the widely revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Bhumibol had played a calming role in Thai politics since 1946 and was a major source of authority for the political elite. When the king's death actually occurred in October 2016, the junta was exercising strict control over the country and the succession did not occasion any significant instability. Managing the post-GFC economy: The junta brought relatively competent and stable economic management during the turbulent period in which emerging markets climbed down from the massive DM and EM stimulus policies enacted during the Great Recession. Thailand's uneventful politics differed markedly from those of Malaysia, South Korea, Turkey, Brazil and others that have seen severe considerable political upheaval since 2013. As a result, Thailand has enjoyed greater policy "certainty" over the past four years than would otherwise have been the case. Credit default swaps, for example, have collapsed from the levels witnessed during the Thai political unrest and natural disasters in 2006-13. No surprise, then, that over the past three years, financial markets have cheered any sign that the junta will stay in power for longer (Chart 14). Chart 13Thai Equities Underperform EM Peers And Long-Term Average During Military Rule Thai Equities Underperform EM Peers And Long-Term Average During Military Rule Thai Equities Underperform EM Peers And Long-Term Average During Military Rule Chart 14Market Content With Postponed Elections Market Content With Postponed Elections Market Content With Postponed Elections To be sure, the Thai economy faces immediate, cyclical challenges. Thailand's frequent military coups have always had a deflationary impact due to austere policies and dampened animal spirits (Chart 15). The latest coup specifically initiated a period of macroeconomic deleveraging (Chart 16), and all indications suggest that the deleveraging has farther to go. Banks are repairing their balance sheets and less ready to extend credit. Capital formation is weak and construction is subdued (Chart 17). Chart 15Thai Coups Are Deflationary Thai Coups Are Deflationary Thai Coups Are Deflationary Chart 16Junta Imposed Deleveraging... Junta Imposed Deleveraging... Junta Imposed Deleveraging... This is not even to mention more structural challenges: A shrinking labor force (Chart 18, top panel; High household debt levels (Chart 18, bottom panel); Chart 17...So Economy Is Subdued ...So Economy Is Subdued ...So Economy Is Subdued Chart 18Structural Headwinds Structural Headwinds Structural Headwinds A stark deterioration in governance due to frequent coups and mass protests that are violently suppressed (see Chart 10 above). Furthermore, the impending transition to civilian rule will initiate a new round of political instability. Whenever "free and fair" elections are held in Thailand (i.e. elections not stage-managed by the military), the populace almost always returns the provincial, "democratic" parties to power (the so-called "Red Shirts"), as opposed to urban, royalist parties (the "Yellow Shirts"). This was the case in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2011, and 2014. The military has adjusted the constitution and electoral system to prevent this outcome, and it may succeed in arranging the first post-coup civilian government to come to power in 2019 or 2020. But these periodic constitutional and electoral rewrites have repeatedly failed to prevent the majority of the population from winning elections and forming governments. Even if the military succeeds in rigging the first post-junta election, the return to the democratic process itself will empower the rural populists and trigger a new cycle of conflict with the royalist establishment. After all, the military junta has not resolved the fundamental grievances of the Thai population, particularly in the restive north and northeast regions, where about 51% of the population lives. While poverty has declined rapidly, a hallmark of economic development, this trend has supported the ambitions of the countryside. Meanwhile the share of the population making over $20 per day has only slightly risen (Chart 19). The mean-to-median household wealth ratio is rising sharply, as wealthy households are lifting the national average while the median family's wealth has been virtually flat in absolute terms (Chart 20). Chart 19Lower Middle Class Is Large... How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) Chart 20...And Inequality Is Rising ...And Inequality Is Rising ...And Inequality Is Rising The stark disparity between Bangkok, the home of the civil bureaucracy, and the rest of the country is apparent in the fact that public sector wages are almost twice as high as private sector wages. And since the coup, the wages of bureaucrats and soldiers have risen faster than the wages of farmers (Chart 21). It is the latter who in great part fuel the rural opposition movement. All of this suggests that a new cycle of instability will begin in Thailand once civilian government resumes. The good news for investors is that this instability will creep in only gradually. The military will try to orchestrate the initial elections and civilian government (February 2019 at earliest), which means that policy will remain continuous at first. Chart 22 shows what happens to the THB/USD exchange rate, and Thai equity returns (both in absolute and relative to EM), in the months following three key phases in the Thai political cycle: (1) coups and military rule (2) military-arranged governments and initial post-coup elections (3) free and fair elections. Chart 21Stark Economic Disparities Stark Economic Disparities Stark Economic Disparities Chart 22Return To Civilian Rule Good For Stocks How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof) The first and third phases bring mixed results: coups are bad for the baht and good for equities in the short term, while free elections are good for the baht and mixed for equities. The second phase - the transition to civilian government - is the only one that produces all positive returns. Of course, the external environment will be an overwhelming factor. The THB/USD and equity performances after the 2007 post-coup election and the 2008 military-arranged government were all distorted by the global financial crisis and the V-shaped recovery in 2009. We cannot predict the external environment after Thailand's upcoming transition to civilian rule other than to say that it will likely be worse than today's (as globally synchronized growth is very strong today). What we can say is that Thai equities outperformed EM equities in all three cases of pseudo-civilian government that we observed (1992, 2007, 2008). While history may not repeat itself, the key point is that Thailand's junta has overseen relatively orthodox economic management that makes Thailand relatively well positioned to deal with external volatility and shocks - quite unlike Malaysia. The country runs a massive current account surplus of 10% of GDP. Public debt and external debt are low, as is the share of bonds owned by foreigners who could sell in a fit of volatility. The junta has also capitalized on the strong external backdrop to rebuild Thailand's foreign exchange reserves (Chart 23). And the deflationary and deleveraging tendencies of the junta period mean that Thailand does not face a significant inflation constraint, allowing the Bank of Thailand to cut interest rates if it should need to (Chart 24). Chart 23Junta Knows How To Hoard Junta Knows How To Hoard Junta Knows How To Hoard Chart 24Room To Cut Rates Room To Cut Rates Room To Cut Rates Thus when China's slowdown hits emerging markets, Thailand is relatively well positioned to outperform. Certainly it is better fortified against any trade or commodity shock than its neighbor to the south, Malaysia. Bottom Line: The Thai junta is getting closer to relinquishing power to a civilian government. This will initiate a new cycle of political instability in Thailand, as low- and middle-class angst and regional disparities remain. Nevertheless the junta will be in power for another 12-24 months, and the initial transition is likely to maintain policy continuity at least at the beginning. Investors can benefit from Thailand's relative stability in this regard. Investment Conclusions BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy have different tactical approaches to Malaysia, with the political analysts more constructive in the short term due to the fact that the upcoming election will at least enable Najib to continue with piecemeal reforms. However, both strategy services agree that Malaysia remains highly vulnerable to the ongoing slowdown in China and any relapse in commodity prices. On Thailand, by contrast, both teams are clearly positive on this bourse, currency, and local bonds relative to their respective EM benchmarks. The macro context is stable if uninspiring. Politically, Thai politics are a liability in the long run, but not particularly so in the next 24 months. There will be a new bout of instability in two-to-five years, when the rural, populist movement elects a government that is at odds with the military and the Thai political establishment in Bangkok. Until that time, however, the junta's tight grip provides a continuation of the status quo, which has been positive for investors. Thailand stands on much more solid ground than Malaysia and many other EMs when it comes to external debt and foreign funding. It will be able to withstand considerable global/EM turmoil. Therefore Emerging Markets Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy recommend that investors go long Thai / short Malaysian local currency bonds currency unhedged: The Malaysian ringgit will depreciate versus the Thai baht in the next 12 months. The current account surplus is 10% of GDP in Thailand and 2.9% in Malaysia and will move in favor of Thailand as commodity prices slump. The outlook for foreign capital flows favors Thailand over Malaysia. Foreigners own 26% of domestic bonds in Malaysia but only 16% in Thailand. The ringgit depreciation will lead to some selling pressure in local bond markets. Thai local bonds are more immune to this risk. Thailand's public debt position is also smaller than in Malaysia especially when off-balance sheet liabilities are taken into account. That puts Malaysia's true public debt closer to 69% of GDP versus only 33% in Thailand. The Malaysian fiscal deficit is also wide (2.7% of GDP) and the government will face difficulties cutting spending and raising taxes at a time when global growth is slowing. One final word on geopolitics. In an increasingly multipolar world, certain states will be able to parlay their strategic relevance to get advantageous commercial, financial, and military deals from great powers. Both Malaysia and Thailand are well positioned to extract benefits from the U.S. and China in their great power competition. However, Thailand is unlikely to suffer from concentrated U.S. or Chinese antagonism anytime soon, whereas Malaysia faces a more complicated relationship with China due to its geographically strategic location, maritime sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, tensions between the ethnic Malay and Chinese communities, and lack of mutual defense treaty with the United States.6 Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Hafiz Noor Shams, "Malaysia Power Shift Unlikely Despite Mahathir Factor," Financial Times, January 29, 2018, available at www.ft.com. 4 Please see footnote 1 above. 5 Thailand's current Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha has been in power since he launched the coup of May 2014. If elections are held in February 2019, this five-year period will be the third longest period of military rule since 1932. Prayuth himself is already ranked fourth out of thirteen military prime ministers in terms of his time in office. If he steps down in 2019-20 then his term would rival that of Prem Tinsulanonda in the 1980s and Plaek Phibunsongkhram in the 1950s. If he is elected and stays on as prime minister, he could rival Thanom Kittikachorn who ruled for ten years. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, and Weekly Report "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Stay long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The Italian election result is not an investment game changer... ...but stay underweight the Italian equity market (MIB) on a 6-9 month horizon. Our sector stance to underweight banks necessarily implies underweighting the bank-heavy MIB. Feature "Even yet we may draw back, but once cross yon little bridge, and the whole issue is with the sword." - Julius Caesar, contemplating whether to cross the Rubicon River in 49 BC World GDP amounts to $80 trillion. But the combined value of equities and correlated risk assets such as high yield and EM debt is worth double that, around $160 trillion. Real estate is worth $220 trillion. Hence, global risk assets are worth around five times world GDP. With the value of risk assets dwarfing the world economy by a factor of five, it perplexes us that many commentators insist that causality must always run from the economy to financial markets. In fact, in major downturns, the causality usually runs the other way. Rather than economic downturns causing financial instabilities, it is more common for financial instabilities to cause economic downturns. Specifically, the last three economic downturns had their geneses in the financial markets. The bursting of the dot com bubble triggered the downturn of 2001; the large-scale mispricing of U.S. mortgages caused the Great Recession of 2008; and the explosive widening of euro area sovereign credit spreads resulted in the euro area recession of 2011. This raises a crucial question: is there a major vulnerability in financial markets right now? Risk Assets Are As Expensive As In 2000... For at least five decades, the ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP (effectively, the price to sales ratio) has proved to be an excellent predictor of subsequent 10-year global equity returns (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekWorld Equities As Highly-Valued As In 2000 On Price To Sales World Equities As Highly-Valued As In 2000 On Price To Sales World Equities As Highly-Valued As In 2000 On Price To Sales Chart I-2Price To Sales Has Been An Excellent Predictor Of World Equity Returns Price To Sales Has Been An Excellent Predictor Of World Equity Returns Price To Sales Has Been An Excellent Predictor Of World Equity Returns Today's extreme ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP has been seen only once before in modern history - at the peak of the dot com boom in 2000. In the subsequent decade global equities went on to return a paltry 2% a year. Using the particularly tight predictive relationship in recent decades, we can infer that global equities are now priced to generate 2% a year in the coming decade too (Chart of the Week). Still, equities are not as extremely valued relative to government bonds as they were in 2000. Today, the global 10-year bond yield stands near 2%, implying a broadly equal prospective 10-year return from equities and bonds. In 2000, the global 10-year bond yield stood at 5%, implying that equities would return 3% less than bonds, which they duly did (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Relative To Government Bonds, Equities Were More Expensive In 2000 Relative To Government Bonds, Equities Were More Expensive In 2000 Relative To Government Bonds, Equities Were More Expensive In 2000 On the other hand, high yield credit is more extremely valued relative to government bonds than it was in 2000. Today, the global high yield credit spread stands at a very tight 4%: in 2000, it stood at 8% (Chart I-4). So taking the combination of equities and high yield credit, we can say that risk assets are as highly valued today as they were in 2000. Chart I-4Relative To Government Bonds, High Yield Credit Was Less Expensive In 2000 Relative To Government Bonds, High Yield Credit Was Less Expensive In 2000 Relative To Government Bonds, High Yield Credit Was Less Expensive In 2000 ...But Risk Assets Should Be Very Expensive When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The record high valuation of risk assets is fully justified when government bond yields are ultra-low. This is because bond returns take on the same unattractive asymmetry - known as 'negative skew' - that equity and high yield credit returns possess. For a detailed explanation, please revisit our report Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities? 1 But in a nutshell, as bond risk becomes 'equity-like' it diminishes the requirement for a superior return on equities and other risk-assets, lifting their valuations exponentially. Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let's say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Below A 2% Yield, 10-Year Bonds Are Riskier Than Equities Markets Approach The Rubicon Markets Approach The Rubicon At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years, meaning its price must rise by 22%.2 But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%.3 All well and good, except if bond yields go back up to 4%. In which case, bond and equity prices must fall again - in proportion to their preceding rise. Hence, risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. However, a setback to $380 trillion of global risk assets means that yields can't march much higher without at least a temporary reversal. Unfortunately, the exact point at which the precarious equilibrium becomes threatened is hard to define. Still, we might define crossing the Rubicon as follows. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield - now standing at 1.8% - breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Italy: Banks More Important Than Politics On Sunday, Italy's electorate punished the establishment centre-left and centre-right parties - the Democratic Party and Forza Italia - whose combined vote share collapsed to just 33%. Italians gravitated to parties offering populist, anti-establishment and anti-migration bromides. Sound familiar? This is just a continuation of the pattern seen in recent elections in France, Germany and Austria - as well as the victories for Brexit and President Trump. Begging the question, does the Italian election result change anything for investors? Political change disrupts markets if it dislocates the long-term expectations embedded in economic agents and financial prices. The vote for Brexit changed expectations about the U.K.'s long-term trading relationships; the election of Trump changed expectations about fiscal stimulus, the tax structure, and protectionism; and the election of Macron exorcised the potential chaos of a Le Pen presidency. On this basis, the Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if M5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low. Many people - including some of the more populist Italian politicians - claim that Italy's long-standing economic underperformance is because it is shackled to the euro. But membership of the single currency cannot be the main cause of Italy's underperformance. After all, through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head performed more or less in line with the U.S., Canada and France, even without a private sector credit boom. Italy's underperformance really started after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-6). And the most plausible explanation is that its dysfunctional banking system has been left broken for close to a decade (Chart I-7). Italy procrastinated because its government is more indebted than other sovereigns and its banking problems did not cause an outright crisis. Chart I-6Italy Has Underperformed##br## Since The Great Recession... Italy Has Underperformed Since The Great Recession... Italy Has Underperformed Since The Great Recession... Chart I-7...Because The Banks ##br##Were Left Unfixed ...Because The Banks Were Left Unfixed ...Because The Banks Were Left Unfixed But now the banking system is finally recuperating. In the past year, banks have raised almost €50 billion in much needed equity capital, the share of non-performing loans (NPLs) is down sharply having peaked at the same level as in Spain in 2013 (Chart I-8), and bank solvency is much healthier (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Italy's NPLs Are Finally Declining... Italy"s NPLs Are Finally Declining... Italy"s NPLs Are Finally Declining... Chart I-9...And Bank Solvency Is Getting Better ...And Bank Solvency Is Getting Better ...And Bank Solvency Is Getting Better In effect, Italy is where Spain was in 2014. So could Italy in 2018-21 repeat Spain's turnaround in 2014-17? Italy has more work to do, but on balance we remain cautiously optimistic, and express this optimism through a relative trade in bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The connection with the Italian equity market (MIB) is more tenuous. The market's outsize exposure to banks means that sustained outperformance of the MIB requires sustained outperformance of banks. On a 6-9 month horizon, our sector stance is to underweight banks. Necessarily, this means our country stance must be to underweight Italy. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities?" published on January 25, 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 1.02^10 3 1.06^10 Fractal Trading Model* The rally in the Chilean peso appears technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to short the Chilean peso versus the U.S. dollar setting a profit target of 2.7% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 10 LONG USD/CLP LONG USD/CLP The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The political path of least resistance leads to fiscal profligacy - in the U.S. and beyond. The response to populism is underway. The U.S. midterm election is market-relevant. Gridlock between the White House and Congress does, in fact, weigh on equity returns, after controlling for macro variables. The Democratic Party's chances of taking over Congress have fallen, but remain 50% in the House of Representatives. A divided House and Senate is the worst combination for equities, but macro factors matter most. China is clearly rebooting its "reform" agenda as Xi Jinping becomes an irresistible force. We remain long H-shares relative to EM, for now. Emerging markets - including an improved South Africa - will suffer as politics become a tailwind for U.S. growth and a headwind for Chinese growth. Feature The bond market has been shocked into action this month by the twin realizations that the Republican-held Congress is not as incompetent as believed and that the Republican Party is not as fiscally conservative as professed. When combined with steady U.S. wage growth and rising inflation expectations (Chart 1), our core 2018 theme - that U.S. politics would act as an accelerant to growth - has been priced in by the bond market with impressive urgency.1 The tax cuts alone were not enough to wake the bond market. First, the realization that a tax cut would pass Congress struck markets in late October, when it became increasingly clear that the $1.5 trillion Tax Cuts And Jobs Act would indeed pass the Senate. Second, the bill's passage along strict party lines - including the slimmest of margins in the Senate thanks to reconciliation rules - convinced investors that there would be no further compromises down the pipeline. The real game changer was the realization that the political path of least resistance leads towards profligacy. This happened with the signing into law of the February 9 two-year budget compromise (the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) that will see fiscal spending raised by around $380 billion.2 The deal failed to gain the support of a majority of Republicans in the House, despite House Speaker Paul Ryan's support, but 73 Democrats crossed the aisle to ensure its passage. They did so despite a lack of formal assurances that the House would consider an immigration bill. The three-day shutdown in late January has forced Democrats, who largely took the blame, to assess whether they care more about preserving their liberal credentials on fiscal policy or immigration policy. The two-year budget agreement is a testament to their concern for the former. The deal will see the budget deficit most likely rise to about 5.5% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Chart 2Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Adding to the newly authorized fiscal spending could be a congressional rule-change that reintroduces earmarks - leading to a potential $20 billion additional spending per year. There is also a 10-year infrastructure plan that could see spending increase by another ~$200 billion over the next decade. The new budget compromise, combined with last year's tax cuts, will massively increase U.S. fiscal thrust beyond the IMF's baseline (Chart 3). The IMF's forecast, done before the tax cuts were passed, suggested that fiscal thrust would contract by about 0.5% of GDP this year, and would only slightly expand in 2019. Now we estimate that fiscal thrust will be a positive 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. These figures are tentative because it is not clear exactly how much of the spending will take place this year versus 2019 and 2020. Our colleague Mark McClellan, author of BCA's flagship The Bank Credit Analyst, has stressed that the impact on GDP growth will be less than these figures suggest because the economic multipliers related to tax cuts are less than those for spending.3 Our theme that the political path of least resistance will lead to profligacy is not exclusive to the U.S. After all, populism is not exclusive to the U.S, with non-centrist parties consistently capturing around 16% of the electoral vote in Europe (Chart 4). Chart 3The Budget Deal And Tax Cuts##br## Will Expand U.S. Fiscal Thrust Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Chart 4Populism Will Fuel Fiscal##br##Spending Beyond The U.S. Populism Will Fuel Fiscal Spending Beyond The U.S. Populism Will Fuel Fiscal Spending Beyond The U.S. Policymakers are not price-setters in the political marketplace, but price-takers. The price-setter is the median voter, who we believe has swung to the left when it comes to economic policy in developed markets after a multi-year, low-growth, economic recovery.4 Broadly speaking, investors should prepare for higher fiscal spending globally on the back of this dynamic. Aside from the U.S., the populist dynamic is evident in the world's third (Japan), fourth (Germany), and sixth (the U.K.) largest economies. Japan may have started it all, as a political paradigm shift in 2011-12 spurred a historic reflationary effort.5 Geopolitical pressure from China and domestic political pressures on the back of an extraordinary rise in income inequality, and natural and national disasters, combined to create the political context that made Abenomics possible. While the fiscal arrow has somewhat disappointed - particularly when PM Shinzo Abe authorized the 2014 increase in the consumption tax - Japan has still surprised to the upside on fiscal thrust (Chart 5). On average, the IMF has underestimated Japan's fiscal impulse by 0.84% since the beginning of 2012. Investors often understate the ability of centrist, establishment policymakers to rebrand anti-establishment policies - whether on fiscal spending or immigration - as their own. In January 2015, we asked whether "Abenomics Is The Future?"6 We concluded that rising populism in Europe would require a policy response not unlike the policy mix favored by Tokyo. Today, the details of the latest German coalition deal between the formally fiscally conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) means that even Germany has now succumbed to the political pressure to reflate. The CDU has agreed to fork over the influential ministry of finance to the profligate SPD and apparently spend an additional 46 billion euros, over the duration of the Grand Coalition, on public investment and tax cuts. Finally, in the U.K., the end of austerity came quickly on the heels of the Brexit referendum, the ultimate populist shot-across-the-bow. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, announced a shift away from austerity almost immediately, scrapping targets for balancing the budget by the end of the decade. The change in rhetoric has carried over to the new government, especially after the Labour Party pummeled the Tories on austerity in the lead up to the June 2017 election. The bond market action over the past several weeks suggests that investors have not fully appreciated the political shifts underway over the past several years. Bond yields had to "catch up" to the political reality essentially over the course of February. However, the structural upward trajectory is now in place. The end of stimulative monetary policy will accelerate the rise in bond yields. Quantitative easing programs have soaked up more than the net government issuance of the major economies. Chart 6 shows that the flow of the major economies' government bonds available for the private sector to purchase was negative from 2015-2017. This flow will now swing to the positive side as fiscal spending necessitates greater issuance and as central banks withdraw demand. Real interest rates may therefore be higher to the extent that government bonds will have to compete with private-sector issuance for available savings. Chart 5Japan's Abenomics Leads The Way To More Spending Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Chart 6Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Bottom Line: The U.S. electorate chose the populist, anti-establishment Donald Trump as president with unemployment at a multi-decade low of 4.6%. The message from the U.S. election, and the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, is that the electorate is restless, even with the post-Great Financial Crisis recovery now in its ninth year. Policymakers have heard the message, loud and clear, and are adjusting fiscal policy accordingly. Over the course of the next quarter, BCA's Global Investment Strategy expects the rapid rise in bond yields to peter out, but investors should use any bond rallies as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. BCA's House View calls for the 10-year Treasury yield to finish the year at about 3.25%.7 Our U.S. bond strategists expect the end-of-cycle level of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield to be between 3.3% and 3.5%.8 Does The U.S. Midterm Election Matter? The three-day government shutdown that ended on January 22 has hurt the chances of the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm election. The Democrats' lead in the generic congressional ballot has gone from a high of 13% at the end of 2017 to just 9% today (Chart 7). As Chart 8 illustrates, this generic ballot has some predictive quality. However, it also suggests that for Democrats, the lead needs to be considerably larger than for Republicans to generate the type of seat-swing needed to win a majority in the House of Representatives in 2018. Chart 7Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Chart 8Democrats Need Big Polling Lead To Win Majority Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China There are three reasons for this built-in advantage for the Republican Party in recent midterm elections. First, the Republicans dominate the rural vote, which tends to be overrepresented in any electoral system that draws electoral districts geographically. Second, redistricting - or gerrymandering - has tended to favor the Republican Party in the past several elections. While the Supreme Court has recently struck down some of the most egregiously drawn electoral districts, the overall impact of gerrymandering since 2010 overwhelmingly favors the GOP. Third, midterm elections tend to have a lot lower voter turnout than general elections, which hurts the Democrats who rely on the youth and minority vote. Both constituencies tend to shy away from participation in the midterm election. Does the market care who wins the House and Senate? On the margin, yes. If the current GOP control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate were to be broken, markets might react negatively. It is often stated that gridlock has a positive effect on stock prices, as it reduces the probability of harmful government involvement in the economy and financial markets. However, research by our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, which we have recently updated, suggests otherwise. After controlling for the macro environment, gridlock between the White House and Congress is actually associated with modestly lower equity market returns.9 This conclusion is based on the past century of data. For most of that period, polarization has steadily risen to today's record-setting levels (Chart 9). As such, the negative impact of gridlock could be higher today. Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of executive/legislative disunity and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.10 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 9U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years Table 1Divided Government Is, In Fact, Bad For Stocks Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of timeframe. The takeaway for equity investors is that, contrary to popular belief, political gridlock is not positive for stock prices after controlling for important macro factors. Absolute results are similarly negative, with the average monthly S&P 500 returns considerably larger during periods of unified executive and legislative branches (Chart 10). Intriguingly, the less negative constellation of forces is when the president faces a unified Congress ruled by the opposing party. We would reason that such periods force the president to compromise with the legislature, which constitutionally has a lot of authority over domestic policy. The worst outcome for equity markets, by far, is when the president faces a split legislature. In these cases, we suspect that uncertainty rises as neither party has to take responsibility for negative policy outcomes, making them more likely. Chart 10A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China In the current context, gridlock could lead to greater political volatility. For example, a Democratic House of Representatives would begin several investigations into the Trump White House and could potentially initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. But as we pointed out last year, impeachment alone is no reason to sell stocks.11 The Democrats would not have the ability to alter President Trump's deregulatory trajectory - which remains under the purview of the executive - nor would they be likely to gain enough seats to repeal the tax cut legislation. Yet given President Trump's populist bias, center-left Democrats could find much in common with the president on spending. This would only reinforce our adage that the political path of least resistance will tend towards profligacy. The only thing that President Trump and the Democrats in Congress will find in common, in other words, will be to blow out the U.S. budget deficit. Bottom Line: The chances of a Democratic takeover following the midterm elections have fallen, but remain at 50% for the House of Representatives. A gridlocked Congress is mildly negative for equity markets, taking into consideration that macro variables still dominate. Nonetheless, investors should ignore the likely higher political volatility and focus on the fact that President Trump and the Democrats are not that far apart when it comes to spending. China: The Reform Reboot Is Here And It Is Still Winter He told us not to believe the people who say it's spring in China again. It's still winter. - Anonymous Chinese government official referring to Liu He, the top economic adviser.12 The one risk to the BCA House View of a structural bond bear market - at least in the near term - is a peaking of global growth and a slowdown in emerging markets. The EM economies, which normally magnify booms in advanced economies, particularly in latter stages of the economic cycle, are currently experiencing a relative contraction in their PMIs (Chart 11). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "carry canary" indicator - which shows that EM/JPY carry trades tend to lead global industrial activity - is similarly flashing warning signs (Chart 12).13 Chart 11EM Economies Underperforming EM Economies Underperforming EM Economies Underperforming Chart 12Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress At the heart of the divergence in growth between EM and DM is China. Beijing has been tightening monetary conditions as part of overall structural reform efforts, causing a sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (Chart 13). In addition, the orders-to-inventories ratio has begun to contract, import volumes are weak, and export price growth is slowing sharply (Chart 14). Chart 13Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Chart 14China's Economy Weakens... China's Economy Weakens... China's Economy Weakens... The Chinese slowdown is fundamentally driven by politics. Last April we introduced a checklist for determining whether Chinese President Xi Jinping would "reboot" his reform agenda during his second term in office. We define "reform" as policies that accelerate the transition of China's growth model away from investment-driven, resource-intensive growth. Since then, political and economic events have supported our thesis. Most recently, interbank lending rates have spiked due to China's new macro-prudential regulations and monetary policy (Chart 15), and January's total credit growth clocked in at an uninspiring 11.2% (Chart 16). Tight credit control in the first calendar month typically implies that credit expansion will be limited for the rest of the year (Chart 17). A strong grip on money and credit growth is entirely in keeping with the three-year "battle" that Xi Jinping has declared against systemic financial risk.14 Chart 15...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates ...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates ...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates Chart 16January Credit Growth Disappoints... January Credit Growth Disappoints... January Credit Growth Disappoints... Chart 17... And January Credit Is The Biggest Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China In short, we have just crossed the 50% threshold on our checklist, confirming that China is indeed rebooting its reform agenda (Table 2). Going forward, what matters is the intensity and duration of the reform push. Three events at the start of the Chinese New Year suggest that the market will be surprised by both. Table 2How Do We Know China Is Reforming? Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China First, the National People's Congress (NPC), which convenes March 5, is reportedly planning to remove term limits for the president and vice-president, thus enabling Xi Jinping to remain as president well beyond March 2023. Xi was already set up to be the most powerful man in China's politics through the 2020s,15 so we do not consider this a material change in circumstances: the material change occurred last October when "Xi Thought" received the status of "Mao Zedong Thought" in the Communist Party's constitution and reshaped the Politburo to his liking. The point is that Xi's position is irresistible which means that his policies will have greater, not lesser, effectiveness as party and state bureaucrats scramble to enact them faithfully.16 Chart 18Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Second, the Communist Party is reportedly convening its "Third Plenum" half a year early this year - that is, in late February and early March, just before the annual legislative meeting that begins March 5. This is a symbolic move. The third plenum is known as the "reform plenum," and this year is the fortieth anniversary of the 1978 third plenum that launched China's market reform and opening up to the global economy under Deng Xiaoping. However, the last time China convened a third plenum - in 2013 when Xi first announced his agenda - the excitement fizzled as implementation proved to be slow.17 As we have repeatedly warned clients, China's political environment has changed dramatically since 2013: the constraints to painful structural reforms have fallen.18 If the third plenum is indeed held early, some key decisions on reform initiatives will be made as we go to press, and any that require legislative approval will receive it instantly when the National People's Congress convenes on March 5.19 This will be a "double punch" that will supercharge the reform agenda this year. It is precisely the kind of ambition that we have been expecting. Third, one of the most important administrative vehicles of this new reform push, the Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), has just made its first serious move.20 On February 23, China's top insurance regulator announced that it is taking control of Anbang Insurance Group for one year, possibly two, in order to restructure it amid insolvency and systemic risks. Anbang's troubles are idiosyncratic and have received ample media attention since June 2017.21 Nevertheless, China's government has just seized a company with assets over $300bn. Clearly the crackdown on the shadow financial sector has teeth (Chart 18). Anbang's case will reverberate beyond the handful of private companies involved in shadow banking and highly leveraged foreign acquisitions abroad. Beijing's focus is systemic risk, not merely innovative insurance products. The central government is scrutinizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments as well as a range of financial companies and products. We provide a list of reform initiatives in Table 3. Table 3China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China What is the cumulative effect of these three developments? Basically, they raise the stakes for Xi's policies dramatically this year. If Xi makes himself president for life, and yet this year's third plenum is as over-hyped and under-delivered as in 2013, then we would expect China's economic future to darken rapidly. China will lose any pretext of reform just as the United States goes on the offensive against Beijing's mercantilism. It would be time to short China on a long-term time line. However, it would also spell doom for our positive U.S. dollar outlook and bearish EM view. If, on the other hand, Xi Jinping couples his power grab with renewed efforts to restructure China's economy and improve market access for foreigners, then he has a chance of deleveraging, improving China's productivity, and managing tensions with the U.S. This is the best outcome for investors, although it would still be negative for Chinese growth and imports, and hence EM assets, this year. The next political indicator to watch is the March 5 NPC session. This legislative meeting will be critical in determining what precise reforms the Xi administration will prioritize this year. The NPC occurs annually but is more important this year than usual because it installs a new government for the 2018-23 period and will kick off the new agenda. In terms of personnel, there is much speculation (Table 4).22 Investors should stay focused on the big picture: four months ago, the news media focused on Xi Jinping's Maoist thirst for power and declared that all reform efforts were dead in the water. Now the press is filled with speculation about which key reformer will get which key economic/financial position. The big picture is that Xi is using his Mao-like authority in the Communist Party to rein in the country's economic and financial imbalances. His new economic team will have to establish their credibility this year by remaining firm when the market and vested interests push back, which means more policy-induced volatility should be expected. Table 4China's New Government Takes Shape At National People's Congress Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China The risk is that Beijing overcorrects, not that reforms languish like they did in 2015-16. Our subjective probability of a policy mistake remains at 30%, but we expect that the market will start to price in this higher probability of risk as the March political events unfold. As Liu He declared at Davos, China's reforms this year will "exceed the international community's expectations."23 The anti-corruption campaign is another important factor to monitor. In addition to any major economic legislation, the most important law that the NPC may pass is one that would create a new nationwide National Supervisory Commission, which will expand the Communist Party's anti-corruption campaign into every level of the state bureaucracy. In other words, an anti-corruption component is sharpening the policy effectiveness of the economic and financial agenda. In the aforementioned Anbang case, for instance, corporate chief Wu Xiaohui was stung by a corruption probe in June 2017 and is being tried for "economic crimes" - now his company and its counterparty risks are being restructured. The combination of anti-corruption campaign and regulatory crackdown has the potential to cause significant risk aversion among financial institutions, SOEs, and local governments. Add in the ongoing pollution curbs, and any significant SOE restructuring, and Chinese policy becomes a clear source of volatility and economic policy uncertainty this year that the market is not, as yet, pricing (Chart 19). On cue, perhaps in anticipation of rising domestic volatility, China has stopped updating its home-grown version of the VIX (Chart 20). Chart 19Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Chart 20Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? We would not expect anything more than a whiff, at best, of policy easing at the NPC this March. For instance, poverty alleviation efforts will require some fiscal spending. But even then, the point of fiscal spending will be to offset credit tightness, not to stimulate the economy in any remarkable way. Monetary policy may not get much tighter from here, as inflation is rolling over amid the slowdown (Chart 21),24 but anything suggesting a substantial shift back to easy policy would be contrary to our view. More accommodative policy at this point in time would suggest that Xi has no real intention of fighting systemic risk and - further - that global growth faces no significant impediment from China this year. In such a scenario, the dollar could fall further and EM would outperform. We expect the contrary. We are long DXY and short EUR/JPY. We remain overweight Chinese H-shares within emerging markets, but we will close this trade if we suspect either that reform is a fig leaf or that authorities have moved into overcorrection territory. Otherwise, reform is a good thing for Chinese firms relative to EM counterparts that have come to rely on China's longstanding commodity- and capital-intensive growth model (Chart 22). Chart 21Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Chart 22Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has rebooted China's economic reforms. The new government being assembled is likely to intensify the crackdown on systemic financial risk. Reforms will surprise to the upside, which means that Chinese growth is likely to surprise to the downside amidst the current slowdown, thus weighing on global growth at a time when populism provides a tailwind to U.S. growth. What It All Means For South Africa And Emerging Markets We spent a full week in South Africa last June and came back with these thoughts about the country's economy and the markets:25 The main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 23). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist, economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled have supported the ongoing EM carry trade. The actual emerging market growth fundamentals and politics are therefore unimportant. Chart 23Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Chart 24Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma In the near term, South African politics obviously do matter. Markets have cheered the election of Cyril Ramaphosa to the presidency of the African National Congress (ANC), a stark contrast to the market reaction following his predecessor's ascendancy to the same position (Chart 24). However, the now President Ramaphosa's defeat of ex-President Jacob Zuma's former cabinet minister and ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was narrow and has split the ANC down the middle. On one side is Ramaphosa's pragmatic wing, on the other is Dlamini-Zuma's side, focused on racial inequality and social justice. Chart 25Chronic Youth Unemployment Chronic Youth Unemployment Chronic Youth Unemployment Chart 26Few Gains In Middle Class Population Few Gains In Middle Class Population Few Gains In Middle Class Population For now, the ANC bureaucracy has served as an important circuit-breaker that will limit electoral choices in the 2019 election to the pro-market Ramaphosa, centrist Democratic Alliance, and radical Economic Freedom Fighters. From investors' perspective, this is a good thing. After all, it is clear that if the South African median voter had her way, she would probably not vote for Ramaphosa, given that the country is facing chronic unemployment (Chart 25), endemic corruption, poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. South Africa stands alone amongst its EM peers when it comes to its tepid rise in the middle class as a percent of the population (Chart 26) and persistently high income inequality (Chart 27). We see no evidence that the electorate will welcome pro-market structural reforms. Chart 27Inequality Remains Very High Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Nonetheless, Ramaphosa's presidency is a positive given the recent deterioration of South Africa's governance, which should improve as the new regime focuses on fighting corruption and restructuring SOEs. Whether Ramaphosa will similarly have the maneuvering room to correct the country's endemically low productivity (Chart 28) and still large twin deficits (Chart 29) is another question altogether. Chart 28A Distant Laggard In Productivity A Distant Laggard In Productivity A Distant Laggard In Productivity Chart 29Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Will investors have time to find out the answer to those latter questions? Not if our core thesis for this year - that politics is a tailwind to U.S. growth and a headwind to Chinese growth - is right. In an environment where the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is rising, DXY stabilizes, and Chinese economy slows down, commodities and thus South African assets will come under pressure. As our colleague Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's chief EM strategist, recently put it: positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. Bottom Line: Markets are cheering Ramaphosa's ascendancy to the South African presidency. We agree that the development is, all other things being equal, bullish for South Africa's economy and assets. However, the structural challenges are vast and we do not see enough political unity in the ANC to resolve them. Furthermore, we are not sure that the global macro environment will remain sanguine for long enough to give policymakers the time for preemptive structural reforms. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our recommendation to bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa, which has been flat since initiation on June 28, 2017. However, we will maintain our recommendation to buy South African 5-year CDS protection and sell Russian, even though it has returned a loss of 17.08 bps thus far. We expect that Russia will prove to be a low-beta EM play in the next downturn, whereas South Africa will not be so lucky. On a different note, we are booking gains of 2525bps on our short Venezeulan vs. EM 10-yr sovereign bonds, as our commodity team upgrades its oil-price forecast for this year. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Congressional Budget Office, "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018," February 8, 2018, available at www.cbo.gov. 3 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "March 2018," dated February 22, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan's Political Paradigm Shift: Investment Implications," dated December 21, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Is Abenomics The Future?" dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Tom Mitchell, "Xi's China: The Rise Of Party Politics," Financial Times, July 25, 2016, available at ft.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Carry Canary" indicator tracks the performance of EM/JPY carry trades. These trades short the Japanese Yen and long an emerging market currency with a high interest rate (Brazilian real, Russian ruble, or South African rand), and as such they are highly geared to a positive global growth back-drop. Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues ... For Now," dated February 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 The other two battles are against pollution and poverty. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Consider that the standard political calendar would have called for Xi to make personnel adjustments at the second plenum (which was held in January), then to formalize those personnel changes at the legislature in March, and then to announce reform initiatives at the third plenum in the fall, leaving implementation until late in the year or even March 2019. Instead, all of this will be done by March of this year, leaving the rest of the year for implementation. 20 The Financial Stability and Development Commission was created last July at an important financial gathering that occurs once every five years. We dubbed it a "Preemptive Dodd Frank" at the time because of China's avowed intention to use it to tackle systemic financial risk. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. The FSDC's purpose is to coordinate the People's Bank of China with the chief financial regulators - the banking, insurance, and securities regulatory commissions (CBRC, CIRC, and CSRC) and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). There is even a possibility under discussion (we think very low probability of happening) that the FSDC will preside above the central bank - though the precise organizational structure will remain unclear until it is formalized, probably during the March legislative session. 21 Anbang is part of a group of companies, including Foresea, Fosun, HNA, Ping An, and Dalian Wanda, that have been targeted over the past year for shady financial doings, corruption, excessive debt, and capital flight. In particular, Anbang was integral to the development of universal life products, which have been highly restricted since last year. These were not standard insurance products but risky short-term, high-yield shadow investment products. Investors could redeem them easily so there was a risk that purchasers could swamp insurance companies with demands for paybacks if investment returns fell short. This would leave insurance companies squeezed for cash, which in turn could shake other financial institutions. The systemic risk not only threatened legitimate insurance customers but also threatened to leave insurance companies unable to make debt payments on huge leveraged buyouts that they had done abroad. Anbang and others had used these and other shadow products to lever up and then go on a global acquisition spree, buying assets like insurance subsidiaries, hotels, and media/entertainment companies. The targeted firms are also in trouble with the central government for trying to divest themselves of China's currency at the height of the RMB depreciation and capital flight of 2015. They were using China's shadow leverage to springboard into Western assets that would be safe from RMB devaluation and Chinese political risk. The government wants outward investment to go into China's strategic goals (such as the Belt and Road Initiative) instead of into high-profile, marquee Western assets and brands. 22 Particularly over whether Xi Jinping's right-hand man, Liu He, will be appointed as the new central bank governor, to replace long-serving Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, and/or whether he will replace Vice Premier Ma Kai as chairman of the FSDC. It is important whether Liu He takes the place of central banker or chief reformer because those roles are so different. Making him PBoC chief would keep a reformer at the helm of a key institution at an important point in its evolution, but will raise questions about who, if anyone, will take charge of structural reform. Giving him the broader and more ad hoc role of Reformer-in-Chief would be reminiscent of Zhu Rongji at the historic NPC session in March 1998, i.e. very optimistic for reforms. Of course, Liu He is not the only person to watch. It is also important to see what role former anti-corruption czar Wang Qishan gets (for instance, leading U.S. negotiations) and whether rising stars like bank regulator Guo Shuqing are given more authority (he is a hawkish reformer). 23 Please see Xie Yu and Frank Tang, "Xi picks team of problem solvers to head China's economic portfolios," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Economy: The Italian economy is enjoying a solid, if unspectacular, cyclical upturn led by exports, but inflation pressures remain subdued. Banks: The health of Italian banks has improved drastically over the last year, with liquidity, solvency, and systemic risks fading for the time being. Politics: Euroskepticism will not be the major issue in the election given an expanding economy, but none of the likely outcomes will lead to a prudent fiscal policy. ECB: The inevitable tapering of ECB asset purchases later in 2018 will not have a meaningful impact on Italian government bond valuations - as long as the ECB does not begin to raise rates soon after. Upgrade Italian government bonds to neutral until signs of an economic slowdown in Italy emerge. Feature Italy's financial markets have been on quite a roll over the past year. Italian equities are up 13% since the beginning of 2017 in local currency terms, well above the 8% increase in overall Euro Area stocks (Chart 1). Italian government bonds returned 1.8% over that same period (also in local currency terms), massively outperforming core European equivalents that have suffered significant losses as global bond yields have risen substantially. Investors have been focusing on the upbeat news of a cyclical economic expansion and the improving health of Italian banks, which has helped reduce the risk premia on Italian financial assets (Chart 2). At the same time, markets are not pricing in any political risk in the run-up to next month's Italian parliamentary elections that could end up with, at best, yet another unstable coalition government. Chart 1Italy Has Been##BR##A Star Performer Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Chart 2Investors Are Focusing On Italian Growth,##BR##Not Politics Investors Are Focusing On Italian Growth, Not Politics Investors Are Focusing On Italian Growth, Not Politics Most importantly, the growing pressure on the European Central Bank (ECB) to begin shifting away from the era of extreme monetary policy accommodation threatens to remove a major buyer of Italian debt. This is a large problem down the road, as the easy money policies of the ECB have helped paper over a lot of structural cracks that still exist in Italy. In this Special Report, jointly prepared by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy teams, we examine the outlook for Italian financial assets, both in the short run heading into the March 4th election and also over a medium-term perspective. Specifically, we look at the ultimate measure of Italian risk - the Italy-Germany government bond yield spread. Our conclusion is that Italy's economy and financial markets may be better placed to survive the more volatile global investment backdrop in 2018 than is commonly believed. Beyond this time horizon, however, Italian politics remains a risk. The Economy: Looking Better, But Highly Levered To Global Growth Italy's economy is enjoying a relatively strong economic expansion, judged by its own modest standards. Real GDP grew 1.5% last year, delivering the fourth consecutive year of growth following the recession in 2012-13. That was slower than the 2.5% pace witnessed across the entire Euro Area. The cyclical trend in Italy, however, remains highly correlated to that of its common currency neighbors, as all have benefitted from the easy financial conditions created by ECB policy (Chart 3). Consumer spending has been a modest contributor to the current economic upturn. Consumer confidence is steadily climbing and approaching its 2015 highs, yet retail sales volumes are only growing at a 1% pace. Sluggish incomes are the reason. Real wage growth has struggled to stay positive in the years since the last recession and now sits at a mere 0.25% (Chart 4). Against this backdrop, Italian consumers have been reluctant to significantly run down savings or ramp up debt to support a faster pace of consumption. The household debt/GDP ratio is only 42%, well below the Euro Area median. The decline in Italian interest rates, however, has helped free up income available for spending; the household debt service ratio is now sitting at 4.5%, one full percentage point below the 2012 peak (bottom panel). Chart 3Italian Growth Is Out Of The Doldrums Italian Growth Is Out Of The Doldrums Italian Growth Is Out Of The Doldrums Chart 4A Modest Pick-Up In Consumer Spending A Modest Pick-Up In Consumer Spending A Modest Pick-Up In Consumer Spending A bigger boost to Italian growth has come from the corporate sector. Business confidence has been steadily improving in response to the cyclical upturn in global economic growth. Exports, which now represent about one-third of Italian GDP, are growing just over 5% in real terms. This has helped boost industrial production and capacity utilization, with the latter reaching the highest level since 2007 (Chart 5). Companies have responded by ramping up capital spending, which grew 4.6% (year-over-year) in Q3 2017. Structurally, problems of poor labor productivity continues to plague Italian companies, however, and it remains to be seen if the rise in the euro over the past year will begin to have an impact on sales and profits. For now, the cyclical industrial upturn will likely continue as long as global growth, and specifically export demand, remain buoyant. Another underappreciated driver of the current Italian expansion has been mildly stimulative fiscal policy. Italy benefited from four consecutive years of positive "fiscal thrust", i.e., the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance (Chart 6). This was a welcome relief given the austerity that was imposed on Italy after the European Debt Crisis, which drained 3% from the Italian economy from 2011 to 2013. The IMF is projecting that Italian fiscal policy will turn restrictive this year and in 2019 but, as we discuss later in this report, the upcoming Italian election is likely to deliver a government that will go for more fiscal stimulus, not less. Chart 5An Expansion##BR##Fueled By Exports An Expansion Fueled By Exports An Expansion Fueled By Exports Chart 6Fiscal Tightening Will Not Happen,##BR##Post-Election Fiscal Tightening Will Not Happen, Post-Election Fiscal Tightening Will Not Happen, Post-Election The labor market recovery from the 2012 recession has been slow. Italy's unemployment rate is 10.8%, down from a peak level of 13% in 2014 but still well above the OECD's estimate of full employment (NAIRU). For Italy, the youth unemployment rate remains a major problem - at 33%, it is easily the highest among European countries and continues to fuel support for the anti-establishment Five Star Movement. More generally, Italy's relatively high unemployment rate is not necessarily a sign of underlying economic malaise. Italy's labor force participation rate has risen from a low of 60.4% in August 2010 to 64.5% at the end of 2017 (Chart 7). The steadily improving economy is drawing discouraged workers back into the labor force, as we predicted it would in 2012,1 with the extra labor supply ensuring that Italian wage growth will stay sluggish for some time. On a related note, Italy's inflation remains well below the ECB's 2% target rate. Headline HICP and core HICP inflation are 1% and 0.6%, respectively. These levels are also well below the Euro Area aggregate levels, which are 1.35% and 1.2% for headline and core HICP, respectively. Although consumer spending has improved in Italy, it has not been strong enough to put upward pressure on consumer prices, and weaker wage growth will not force businesses to raise prices to protect profitability. In addition, the IMF projects that Italy's output gap will not close until 2022, or three years after the overall Euro Area gap will be eliminated (Chart 8). Chart 7Plenty Of Labor Market Slack In Italy Plenty Of Labor Market Slack In Italy Plenty Of Labor Market Slack In Italy Chart 8No Sign Of Inflation Pressures No Sign Of Inflation Pressures No Sign Of Inflation Pressures Bottom Line: The Italian economy is enjoying a solid, if unspectacular, cyclical upturn. This is being led by exports and flowing through into domestic production and investment. Inflation pressures remain subdued, however, given ample slack in labor markets. The Banks: Drastic Improvement, But Risks Remain The Italian banking system has a well-earned reputation of being dysfunctional, undercapitalized and plagued by non-performing loans (NPLs). However, last summer, the ECB declared that two Italian banks were "failing or likely to fail," prompting state intervention. The Italian government followed that with a E5.4 billion bailout for Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Italy's fourth largest bank. Given the tight correlation between Italy's relative financial asset performance and its banking sector, these actions were met with loud cheers from investors as both Italian equities and bonds rallied. Standard & Poor's credit rating agency then raised Italy's sovereign debt rating to BBB, citing "subsiding risks" in the banking sector. As a result, investors' fears have eased, as evidenced by recent successful capital raisings and the collapse in bank credit default spreads (CDS) for the major banks, which have now fallen to nearly the same levels as their European counterparts (Chart 9). The health of the Italian banking system has improved drastically over the past year given the improving economy. Italy still sits on a large absolute amount of non-performing loans at E274 billion, but this is a risk has receded quickly from its peak of E328 billion in Q1 2017. The continued economic recovery and sales of bad loans have pushed the NPL ratio down to approximately 15%, well below its peak of over 19% (Chart 10). The Bank of Italy's recent Financial Stability Review projects that the one-year forward default probability from a sample of nearly 300,000 indebted companies has fallen to 1% in mid-2017 from 2.5% in 2013. Fewer new loans are becoming impaired, which is encouraging given the ongoing pressures on the banks from the ECB and the Italian government to improve asset quality. Chart 9Italian Bank Risk##BR##Has Declined Italian Bank Risk Has Declined Italian Bank Risk Has Declined Chart 10Banks Better Capitalized,##BR##But NPLs Remain A Problem Banks Better Capitalized, But NPLs Remain A Problem Banks Better Capitalized, But NPLs Remain A Problem The rise in capital ratios over the last year is also a very positive development. For the major banks, liquidity coverage ratios are nearly 200%, the ratio of tangible equity to tangible assets has skyrocketed to nearly 7%, and the Tier 1 capital ratio has increased to 14.8%. Even with the introduction of the IFRS 9 accounting rules in January, which is estimated to reduce the Tier 1 ratio by 38bps, capital levels are high and will allow for banks to operate more normally. Bank earnings rebounded in Q4 2017 on the back of aggressive cost cutting, falling loan impairments and solid net interest income. Margins remain stubbornly weak, even though the yield curve has been steepening since early 2015. Going forward, earnings expectations do not seem overly optimistic, particularly in relation to long-term averages. The continued acceleration in economic growth will provide a considerable tailwind. Lending volumes should rise, albeit at a relatively slow pace, due to improving business confidence. Asset quality is set to strengthen as NPLs decline further, reducing the cost of capital and loss provisions. Bank expenses will also decline due to additional layoffs and a reduction in branch locations. However, despite the substantial improvement in their balance sheets, the Italian banking system is far from invulnerable. Apart from the obvious downturn in economic growth, banks are heavily exposed to Italian government bonds. Holdings of government debt securities as a percentage of total assets have declined considerably to 9% from nearly 11% a year ago, but still remain much higher than levels seen during the euro debt crisis (Chart 11). This suggests that fears of the so-called "doom loop" - where the credit quality of the government and the banks are intertwined through bond holdings – may arise once again in the future if Italy suffers another sovereign debt crisis. Another potential source of risk to the banking sector is the housing market. Unlike its EU counterparts, where house prices have been in an uptrend since 2013, house prices in Italy have been collapsing in both nominal and real terms since 2008, falling -20% and -28% respectively (Chart 12). The Italian real estate market is facing multiple headwinds: poor demographics, a lack of property investors dampening transaction volumes, banks aggressively selling repossessed homes at large discounts, and a large stock of unsold properties. Further declines could damage asset quality and impair bank balance sheets. Nevertheless, prices in nominal terms appear to be stabilizing. As real GDP growth continues to recover, the real estate market should eventually start to catch up. Chart 11Can The 'Doom Loop' Be Broken? Can The 'Doom Loop' Be Broken? Can The 'Doom Loop' Be Broken? Chart 12No Recovery In Italian House Prices No Recovery In Italian House Prices No Recovery In Italian House Prices Bottom Line: The health of Italian banks has improved drastically over the last year. Cost cutting has been aggressive, capital levels have risen, and non-performing loans are slowly declining in a growing economy. Recently added macro-prudential measures will provide additional buffers. As such, liquidity, solvency and systemic risks have faded for the time being. The Political Outlook: Acute Pain Is Gone, But Chronic Risks Linger Italian equity and bond markets have priced out political risk in the country's asset markets over the past 12 months, and for good reasons: New election rules: The October 2017 electoral rule changes have made it highly likely that the next government in Italy will be a coalition government, reducing the probability of a runaway electoral performance by an anti-establishment party.2 Anti-establishment becomes the establishment: Italy's populists have dulled their edge by moving to the middle on the key question of Euro Area membership. The anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) announced in early January that "it is no longer the right moment for Italy to leave the euro." The party's leader, Luigi Di Maio, pledged to remain "comfortably below the antiquated and stupid three percent level" EU deficit limit. The party followed this announcement by slaughtering its final sacred cow and renouncing its promise never to form a coalition with traditional, centrist parties. Migration crisis has ended: While continental Europe has gotten relief from the migration wave since early 2016, Italy continued to be impacted throughout 2017. Nonetheless, the EU's intervention in Libyan security and politics has successfully, and dramatically, altered the trajectory of migrants arriving in Italy and Europe as a whole (Chart 13). Current polls show that no single party is close to the 40% threshold needed to win the election outright, although the ostensibly center-right coalition of Forza Italia, Lega Nord, and Fratelli d'Italia is the closest (Chart 14). Predicting the outcome of the election is therefore impossible, other than to guarantee that the next Italian government will be a coalition. Chart 13Italians (And Europeans) Reject Immigration Italians (And Europeans) Reject Immigration Italians (And Europeans) Reject Immigration Chart 14Italy: No Party Will Rule Alone Italy: No Party Will Rule Alone Italy: No Party Will Rule Alone New electoral rules - which favor coalition building - and poor turnout in a recent regional election will encourage parties to make extravagant promises, particularly on the spending side of the ledger. Italian politicians understand that, in a coalition government, the partner can always be blamed for why election promises fell by the wayside. This has produced a deluge of unrealistic promises.3 What should investors know about the upcoming election? First, the center-right is not the center-right. When investors hear that the "center right is likely to win," they are likely to bid up assets in expectation of structural reforms and prudent fiscal policy. If the recent polling performance of Forza Italia and Lega Nord has in any way contributed to the appreciation of Italian assets, we would caution investors to fade the rally. Former PM Silvio Berlusconi, leader of Forza Italia, has promised to reverse crucial (and bitterly fought) employment law reforms. Meanwhile, his coalition partner Matteo Salvini, leader of Lega Nord, has promised to scrap pension cuts altogether. The proper characterization for the Forza-Lega alliance is therefore "conservative populism," not pro-market center-right. In fact, the two parties are the most vociferously anti-EU and anti-euro of the four major parties, with Lega still pushing for the abolishment of the euro and even for an EU exit. For a summary of the most market-relevant electoral promises, please refer to Box 1. Box 1: Italian Electoral Promises Of Major Parties Presented in the order of current polling Five Star Movement (M5S) Italy's anti-establishment party wants to abolish 400 laws, including a web of regulation that makes it difficult for businesses to invest. The promise is unusually "supply-side" oriented for an anti-establishment party, but Italy's establishment has made the business environment difficult. In addition, the party wants to invest in technology and clean energy. What is truly anti-establishment is that M5S has promised to provide a monthly universal income of E780, but also to introduce means-testing for public services so that the well-off pensioners do not receive them. It also seeks broad justice system reforms, including a crackdown on corruption and the mafia, building new prisons, and hiring more police. Its immigration plans are centrist, if not right-leaning, with plans to repatriate migrants back to their original countries. Democratic Party (PD) Led by former PM Matteo Renzi, the Democratic Party (PD) is contesting elections on the basis of its past achievements, which includes passing the 2015 "Jobs Act," mitigating the country's banking crisis, and keeping up the pulse of the otherwise sclerotic economy. Current caretaker PM Paolo Gentiloni remains popular, in part because of his no-nonsense, humble approach to governance. Other than minor proposals - scrapping the TV license fee that finances the national Rai network and raising the minimum wage - the party is largely standing pat in terms of promises. The PD-led government has clashed with the EU, including over its 2018 budget proposal, which the Commission criticized as a "significant deviation" from the bloc's fiscal target. However, aside from its disagreements with the Commission over fiscal policy, PD is broadly pro-Europe and pro-euro. Forza Italia Populist Forza is proposing a flat tax of 23%, which would abolish the current staggered income tax rate. It would also abolish taxes on real estate, inheritance, and transportation, and expand reprieves to tax payers with financial problems. The party would double minimum pension payments and scrap the 2015 "Jobs Act." That said, leader Silvio Berlusconi has said that his proposals would respect the EU's 3% of GDP budget deficit target - in fact that his government would eliminate the deficit completely by 2023 - and that it would rein in the debt-to-GDP ratio to 100%. However, it is unclear how the math would actually work. At the same time, a collision course with the EU is likely as the party wants not only to end budget austerity but also to revise EU treaties, including the fiscal compact, and to pay less into the EU's annual budget. Lega Nord The other populist party looks to out-do the more establishment Forza by proposing an even lower flat tax rate of 15%. The revenue shortfall would be made up by aggressive enforcement against tax cheats. The party is the most Euroskeptic of the major Italian parties, arguing that a Euro-exit is in the country's national interest and should be contemplated unless fiscal rules set out by the Maastricht Treaty are scrapped. Leader Matteo Salvini recently suggested that he had changed his position on the euro, but the chief economist of the party - Claudio Borghi - has since reversed that position, stating that "one second after the League is in government it will begin all possible preparations to arrive at our monetary sovereignty." This last statement is more in keeping with the Lega's recent history of euroskepticism. Second, the electoral platforms of all four major parties are profligate. The flat tax proposal by Forza and Lega is likely the most egregious. Generally speaking, Berlusconi's previous governments can be associated with a rise in expenditure, deficits, and debt levels, with no real track record of fiscal prudence. Even during the boom years (2001-2006), Berlusconi failed to reduce the budget deficit. By contrast, the center-left has been marginally more fiscally prudent (Chart 15), with a considerable improvement in the country's budget balance under each Democratic Party-led government (Chart 16). Chart 15Italy's Debt Dynamics Are Contained Italy's Debt Dynamics Are Contained Italy's Debt Dynamics Are Contained Chart 16Democratic Party Is Relatively Prudent Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Given the mildly Euroskeptic positioning of the conservative populist coalition and their likely bias toward profligacy, we would rank the currently most likely electoral coalition as the least pro-market. Below are the three potential outcomes and their likely impact on the markets: Scenario 1 - Populist Coalition Probability of winning: 35% - Polls currently put the Forza-Lega coalition in a clear lead and only several percentage points away from the likely 40% threshold needed to secure a majority. Fiscal impact: We would assign a 100% probability that the Forza-Lega coalition would negatively impact the country's budget balance, with debt levels most likely rising. Reform impact: There is a 0% probability of pro-growth, structural reforms being passed by the conservative populist coalition. As such, investors should stop referring to the Forza-Lega alliance as a center-right alliance. European integration: We would assign a high probability, around 50%, that a Forza-Lega government would threaten to exit the Euro Area at some point during its mandate. This is based on a two-fold assumption that there will be a recession at some point during its reign and that its electoral platform reveals the potential for a serious Euroskeptic turn not only by Lega Nord but also by the formerly staunchly pro-EU Forza Italia. Scenario 2 - Grand Coalition Probability of winning: 35% - If the Forza-Lega coalition fails to win enough votes, the second-most likely outcome would be a grand coalition between Forza Italia and the center-right Democratic Party (PD), perhaps with both M5S and Lega joining in. Fiscal impact: Given that all four major parties are essentially looking to spend more money and collect less revenue, we would expect that the country's budget balance would be negatively impacted in this scenario. However, both PD and M5S have less profligate electoral platforms. As such, the impact would likely be a lot less dramatic than if Forza-Lega coalition won. Reform impact: With Forza-Lega potentially in a grand coalition, we would expect the probability of pro-growth reforms to be just 25%. European integration: We would assign a very low probability, essentially 0%, that a grand coalition contemplates Euro-exit during its mandate. However, a global recession that impacts Italy would almost certainly force such a government to fall as Euroskeptic parties withdrew their support, thus shortening the electoral mandate. This means that a grand coalition is the least viable and least stable outcome. It would allow the Euroskeptic Forza-Lega to campaign from a populist, Euroskeptic, position. Scenario 3 - Center-Left Coalition Probability of winning: 30% - A PD-M5S coalition is less likely despite being mathematically the most likely. This is because M5S has not said that it would ever join a coalition with the PD; only that it would join a grand coalition with all parties. Nonetheless, such a coalition makes the most sense ideologically now that M5S has abandoned its Euroskepticism. Fiscal impact: Both parties are looking to expand the minimum wage, with M5S arguing for a universal basic income. It is very likely that the impact on the budget balance would be negative, although we would not expect extreme profligacy. Reform impact: Given the electoral platform of M5S and the reform record of PD, we assign a healthy 75% probability for pro-growth structural reforms. Despite the view that M5S is an anti-establishment party, it is actually quite pro-reform, with several of its proposals in the past being characterized as impacting the supply-side. Investors should remember that being anti-establishment does not mean being anti-reform, especially in Italy where the establishment has an atrocious record of being pro-reform! European integration: We do not think that the M5S move to the middle on European integration is false. Forcing it to be in government, particularly once a recession hits over the course of its mandate, will only lock in its establishment position on European integration. As we have expected for some time, the M5S has followed the path of other Mediterranean, left-leaning, anti-establishment parties on the euro, with both Podemos (Spain) and SYRIZA (Greece) now being fully pro-Europe. As such, the probability that a PD-M5S government considers Euro-exit during its mandate is 0%. Counterintuitively, a PD-M5S coalition is therefore the most pro-market option for Italy. It would be relatively fiscally prudent and would surprise to the upside on structural reforms. In addition, it would give Italy a five-year window during which no challenge to its membership in European institutions is possible (provided that the coalition does not rely on small parties whose exit threatens the stability of government). This outcome could extend the current rally in Italian assets, although that rally is already long-in-the-tooth. On the other hand, a Forza-Lega coalition is the least stable. First, we believe that such a coalition has a 50% probability of challenging Italy's membership in European institutions at the first sign of a domestic recession. Lega is outwardly Euroskeptic, even at the top of the global economic cycle and with a healthy Italian recovery underway. Meanwhile, Silvio Berlusconi has consciously evolved his Forza Italia towards a more Euroskeptic position. In addition, we believe that this populist alliance would be fiscally profligate and would not attempt any structural reforms. This political outcome is therefore an occasion to underweight Italian sovereign bonds. Finally, a grand coalition would have a neutral market impact. However, due to structural political risks, we would expect such a government to collapse at the first sign of economic hardship.4 This would open up the risk of a Euroskeptic electoral challenge and a potential market riot as the likelihood of brinkmanship with Brussels and Berlin rises.5 We encourage our clients to revisit our "Divine Comedy" series on Italy, where we have set out the argument for why Euroskepticism continues to have appeal in Italy. We would briefly remind our readers that: Italians remain Euroskeptic despite a European-wide recovery in support for the common currency (Chart 17); Italians are increasingly confident in a future outside of Europe (Chart 18), whereas such a trend is not identifiable in wider Europe (Chart 19); Chart 17Italy Lags In Support For Euro Italy Lags In Support For Euro Italy Lags In Support For Euro Chart 18Italians Optimists About Future Outside EU Italians Optimists About Future Outside EU Italians Optimists About Future Outside EU While Europeans are increasingly comfortable with dual-identities (national and continental), Italians are increasingly identifying as strictly Italian (Chart 20); Chart 19Europeans Pessimists About Future Outside EU Europeans Pessimists About Future Outside EU Europeans Pessimists About Future Outside EU Chart 20We Are Italian (Not European)! We Are Italian (Not European)! We Are Italian (Not European)! Italians do not see the EU as a geopolitical project, leaving them more likely to focus on the transactional and economic nature of their relationship with Europe (Chart 21); Chart 21Italians View The EU In Transactional Terms Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now On net, Italians are the most anti-immigrant people in core Europe (Chart 22), which suggests that the migration crisis hit them quite hard. Any restart of that crisis could push the country towards anti-EU politicians; Chart 22Italians Are Staunchly Anti-Immigration Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Finally, we would remind investors that many Italians continue to see FX devaluation as a panacea that can save the economy. Our view is that Italy has, by far, the highest baseline level of Euroskepticism among Euro Area members. The March 4 election is important because the next government will likely have to face a recession and a global downturn during its mandate. A grand coalition or a populist coalition would both leave Italy more vulnerable to Euroskeptic alternatives. This is because a grand coalition would most likely collapse at the first sign of a recession whereas a populist government would itself turn to Euroskepticism. If the election produces either of these outcomes, we would assign a very high probability - near 50% - that Italy produces a global risk off event sometime within the next five years. Bottom Line: The upcoming Italian parliamentary election is difficult to call, but one thing seems certain - the winning coalition will seek to ease fiscal policy. Euroskepticism will not be the major issue in the election given the expanding economy; yet, in two of the scenarios discussed above, it will come back with a vengeance after the next Italian recession. The ECB: Don't Fear The QE Unwind If there is one consensus view on Italy among investors (at least among the BCA clients that ask questions on Italy!), it is that Italian government bonds will suffer significant losses when the ECB begins to unwind its easy money policies. For many people, 10-year bonds trading with less than a 2% yield, with a government debt/GDP ratio near 130%, in a country with a structural low growth problem and perpetually unstable politics, just screams "bubble" - one that will end badly when the ECB is eventually forced to stop buying government bonds. With the broader Euro Area economy now operating at full employment, an announcement of a tapering of asset purchases by the ECB is inevitable. Our base case remains that the ECB will announce during the summer that the bond buying program will be wound down by year-end. After that, maturing bonds will be reinvested, with the first interest rate hike not taking place until the latter half of 2019. How the ECB communicates that message to the markets will be critical in avoiding a "Taper Tantrum 2.0." Already, the ECB is sending a bit of a mixed message with its current asset purchases. Officially, the central bank has been aiming to distribute its monthly pace of asset purchases along the lines of the ECB's Capital Key, which is roughly correlated to the size of each Euro Area country. This rule was put in place by the ECB to avoid any accusations that the central bank would politically favor the more indebted countries when executing its bond buying. Yet a look at the ECB's actual data on its monthly purchases shows that the Capital Key limits have often been breached, and for what appears to be reasons rooted in politics (Chart 23). The ECB exceeded the Capital Key limit on French bonds in the run-up to last year's French presidential election. The limit on Italian bonds was also consistently breached for much of last year, as investors were beginning to grow more concerned about potential ECB tapering and anti-euro factions winning the next election in Italy. We shared those concerns, which led us to downgrade Italian government bonds to underweight in Global Fixed Income Strategy in late 2016, both in absolute terms and versus Spanish debt. That call has obviously not worked out as we hoped. In fact, a counterintuitive result occurred where Italian bonds outperformed German debt in 2017, even as the ECB was already beginning to slow the pace of its bond buying. That can be seen in Chart 24, which shows the annual growth rate of the ECB's monetary base (which proxies the flow of bonds purchased by the ECB) versus both the Italy-Germany 10-year government bond spread (top panel) and the annual excess return of Italian government bonds relative to German debt (bottom panel).6 There has been no reliable correlation between the pace of ECB buying and the Italy-Germany spread, but there has been a very strong correlation with relative returns. When the ECB was buying more bonds in 2015 and 2016, Germany was outperforming Italy. The opposite occurred last year when the ECB started to dial back the pace of its purchases. Why? Most likely, it was because the Italian economy was starting to gain momentum, which helps alleviate (but not eliminate) the debt sustainability fears about Italy's massive debt stock. The ECB's other extraordinary policy tool, low interest rates, has been an even bigger support for Italian debt sustainability. The government of Italy has been able to consistently issue bonds with coupons below 1% in the years after the ECB went to its zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) in 2014, according to the Bank of Italy (Chart 25). This has lowered the average interest rate on all outstanding Italian government bonds from 4% to 3% over that same period. This also reduced the ratio of Italian government interest payments to GDP by nearly one full percentage point over the past three years (bottom panel). Chart 23The Capital Key Is Only##BR##A 'Guideline' For ECB QE The Capital Key Is Only A 'Guideline' For ECB QE The Capital Key Is Only A 'Guideline' For ECB QE Chart 24Less ECB Bond Buying =##BR##Italian Bond Outperformance! Less ECB Bond Buying = Italian Bond Outperformance! Less ECB Bond Buying = Italian Bond Outperformance! Chart 25ZIRP/NIRP More Helpful##BR##For Italy Than QE ZIRP/NIRP More Helpful For Italy Than QE ZIRP/NIRP More Helpful For Italy Than QE Italy still has a significant long-run fiscal problem, however. The gross government debt/GDP ratio of 126% is only dwarfed by Japan and Greece within the developed markets (Chart 26). Even when looked at on a net basis (i.e. excluding the debt owned by Italian government entities like state pension funds) and, more importantly, after removing the bonds owned by the ECB, Italy still has a stock of debt equal to 100% of GDP (Chart 27). This is the highest in the Euro Area for countries eligible for the ECB's asset purchase program. Chart 26Italy's Debt Problems Have Not Gone Away Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Chart 27Still A Big Stock Of Italian Debt, Net Of ECB Purchases Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Importantly for market perceptions of Italy's debt sustainability, the ECB absorbing 15% of the stock of Italian government bonds has provided some wiggle room for an expansion of fiscal deficits without materially affecting long-term interest rates. That is no small matter, given how it is highly likely that the winner of the March 4th Italian election will step on the fiscal accelerator. Bottom Line: The inevitable tapering of ECB asset purchases later in 2018 will not have a meaningful impact on Italian government bond valuations - as long as the ECB is not planning on quickly raising interest rates soon after tapering. Upgrade Italian government bonds to neutral until signs of an economic slowdown in Italy emerge. Investment Conclusions After assessing the four main drivers of Italian bond risk premia - economic growth, the health of the banks, domestic politics and ECB monetary policy - it is clear that the state of the economy is the most important factor. If Italian growth is strong enough, investors will feel more comfortable about chasing the higher yields on Italy's government bonds and be a lot more relaxed about its Euroskeptic leanings. Given Italy's heavy reliance on exports as the driver of the current cyclical upturn, this means Italian financial assets are a levered play on global growth. The next most important factor is the ECB's monetary policy, but specifically, its interest rate policy and not its asset purchase program. Chart 28Upgrade Italian Debt To##BR##Neutral Until Growth Rolls Over Upgrade Italian Debt To Neutral Until Growth Rolls Over Upgrade Italian Debt To Neutral Until Growth Rolls Over This week, we are upgrading our recommended allocation to Italian government bonds to neutral from underweight in Global Fixed Income Strategy. At current yield levels and spreads to core European debt, a move all the way to an overweight recommendation is not ideal. Yet the case for Italian bond underperformance on the back of political uncertainty and eventual ECB tapering is even less ideal. Moving to neutral is a sensible compromise between a positive cyclical backdrop with poor valuation. Going forward through 2018, we will monitor the Italy Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) as a signal for when to consider downgrading Italian debt. If the LEI begins to hook down, that would be a bearish sign for the relative performance of both Italian government bonds and Italian equities (Chart 28). In addition, any indication that the ECB is considering not only tapering its bond buying, but also raising interest rates, could pose a problem for Italian assets. Although given the low starting point for any shift higher in policy rates, it would likely take several interest rate increases before Italian economic growth would start to be negatively impacted. Over a longer-term time horizon, investment implications are difficult to gauge. Structurally, both from an economic and political perspective, Italy is the least stable pillar of European economy. As such, it still has a potential to be a source of global risk-off if an economic downturn negatively impacts the current political stability. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Demographics And Geopolitics, Part I: A Silver Lining?", dated October 10, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The new Italian Electoral law - also known as Rosatellum - is particularly negative for Five Start Movement (M5S). First, it assigns over a third (37%) of the seats using a first-past-the-post system. This will hurt M5S, which lacks a geographical base where it can guarantee easy electoral district wins. Second, the vote eliminates a seat bonus for the party that wins a plurality of votes, forcing the winning coalition to gain at least around 40% of the vote to govern. Eliminating the bonus hurts M5S as it has led other parties in the polls. That said, a coalition government almost guarantees that fiscal spending will increase over the course of the next administration, given that budget outlays will be used to grease-the-wheels of any coalition deal. 3 The Italian public, known for its knack for satire, has parodied the electoral platforms with a Twitter hashtag #AboliamoQualcosa ("let's abolish something"). Twitter and Facebook have suggested that everything from French carbonara to vegan Bolognese should be abolished (BCA's Geopolitical Strategy heartily agrees with both suggestions!). 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 It is important to note that the relative returns shown in the bottom panel Chart 24 are calculated using the Bloomberg Barclays benchmark Treasury indices for Italy and Germany. These indices include debt across all maturities for both countries, not just the benchmark 10-year Italy-Germany spread shown in the top panel.

Highlights The "Pocketbook Voter Theory" says that voters will reward politicians who deliver economic success; Nevertheless, congressional Republicans face significant headwinds in the mid-term elections in November; The popularity of the GOP tax cuts, especially among independent voters, bears constant monitoring this year; Beyond 2018, voters will face persistent inequality and demand policies that provide sustainable income gains; Trade protectionism and redistribution will be on the bill in the 2020 elections. Feature There is little debate in the investment community that politics matters more today than it did in the past. But most investors are still unsure about how to assess political risk - both to the upside and downside. The Geopolitical Strategy team has been providing a framework for analysis and applying political science concepts since its inception in May 2012. This report introduces an important idea that has been guiding our analysis over the years: the Pocketbook Voter (PBV) theory. The PBV theory rests on the important observation that in politics, voters are price makers and policymakers are price takers. This makes understanding voter preferences fundamental for forecasting policy outcomes. This is particularly important today because the combination of declining potential growth rates and elevated debt levels is a recipe for continued heightened policy uncertainty (Chart 1). Over the coming years, voters will continue to demand legislation that attempts to overcome the absence of sustainable and satisfactory gains in household income. More consequentially, the slow growth of the income pie may push voters toward redistributionist policies. Chart 1Income Down + Debt Up = Higher Policy Uncertainty Income Down + Debt Up = Higher Policy Uncertainty Income Down + Debt Up = Higher Policy Uncertainty Investors should prepare for considerable change to both domestic and international economic arrangements. As this publication has been arguing for the past several years, many of the investor-friendly policies that underpinned the glorious bull market in risk assets since the early 1980s will be reversed.1 Voters will ultimately determine how far the pendulum will swing. Pocketbook Voter Theory The PBV theory states that voters reward political leaders who deliver positive economic outcomes.2 A strong economy increases the likelihood of re-election, whereas a weak economy decreases it. The link between economic conditions and voting patterns tends to be strongest in the United States.3 Most of the academic literature on the PBV theory has emphasized retrospective assessments of the economy. The pre-election performance of important economic variables, such as the unemployment rate, GDP growth, and consumer confidence, is shown to predict electoral outcomes. According to these metrics, Republicans (GOP) in Congress should be confident heading into this November's mid-term elections. The unemployment rate is near 50-year lows, consumer confidence is at a 20-year high, and GDP growth has gained some momentum in recent quarters - with BCA's economists expecting further strength in 2018 (Chart 2). The recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will also put more money in voters' pocketbooks courtesy of Republican policymakers. However, both history and polling data are weighing on the GOP's chances in November. Currently, the U.S. government is unified, with Republicans controlling both the executive and legislative branches. Voters have rejected the incumbent party the last three times a mid-term election was held under unified government. Democrats were badly beaten in 1994, when Republicans won a stunning 54 seats in the House of Representatives; in 2006, voters rewarded Democrats with control of the House and de facto control of the Senate; and in 2010, Republicans thumped the Democrats in the House by the largest margin of victory in a mid-term election since 1938. The approval rating of Congressional Republicans and the president also present a problem for the GOP in November. As of December 11, 78% of voters disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job. That is slightly higher than the 77% congressional disapproval rating before the 2010 election loss for Democrats, and visibly higher than the 67% and 70% disapproval ratings before the 2006 and 1994 mid-term elections, respectively. Democrats also continue to hold on to a growing lead in the "generic ballot," which has some predictive power (Chart 3). Chart 2Cyclical Conditions Are Solid Cyclical Conditions Are Solid Cyclical Conditions Are Solid Chart 3Democrats Ahead In The Polls Democrats Ahead In The Polls Democrats Ahead In The Polls As we have highlighted in previous reports, President Trump's low approval rating of 39% also reduces the likelihood that Republicans will keep the 22 seats needed to remain the majority party in Congress (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump's Low Approval Ratings Is Bad For GOP In 2018 The American Pocketbook Voter The American Pocketbook Voter On balance then, the deck is stacked against the Republicans in the coming election. The economy is firing on all cylinders, but that was also the case in November 2016 when Americans voted for dramatic political change. In fact, the unemployment rate had fallen from 6.6% in 2014 to 4.6% in November 2016, whereas it has only marginally improved more recently. Meanwhile, only 25% of independent voters approve of the GOP's tax legislation.4 Heightened partisanship will make voter perceptions among independents a particularly important factor in determining the outcome of the 2018 election. Investors should monitor Trump's approval rating among these voters and their evolving view of the Republican tax legislation, which will certainly underpin the GOP's campaign message on why they should be re-elected (Chart 5). But it remains to be seen how the equity bull market will translate into Republican political fortunes, given that the median American voter is not heavily invested in stocks (Chart 6). Chart 5Only Republicans Like Trump The American Pocketbook Voter The American Pocketbook Voter Chart 6Most Voters Don't Directly Own Stocks The American Pocketbook Voter The American Pocketbook Voter Partisanship And The PBV Theory Voter perceptions of the economy have always been influenced by party identification. The role of partisanship in politics has become especially important in the U.S. as political polarization has reached its highest recorded level in 150 years (Chart 7). Reflecting the growing divide between the policy preferences of each party, the core political values held by American voters are not best described by demographic factors such as race, income, or religion, but by party identification - and by a wide margin (Chart 8). A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 86% of Americans believe that conflict between Democrats and Republicans is either strong or very strong.5 The same survey found that the likelihood of conflict based on race or income was only 65% and 60%, respectively. And since 2012, the percentage of Americans who see very strong conflict between the Democrats and Republicans has risen substantially from 47% to 64%. Chart 7Highest Level Of Polarization In 150 Years Highest Level Of Polarization In 150 Years Highest Level Of Polarization In 150 Years Chart 8Party Affiliation Means A Lot Today The American Pocketbook Voter The American Pocketbook Voter The link between partisanship and voter perceptions of the economy can be strong, and became very clear after the recent election. Before President Trump was elected, only 14% of Republicans felt that national economic conditions were excellent or good. After his victory, that same number skyrocketed to 57%.6 This implies that retrospective assessments of economic conditions will continue to be susceptible to partisan interpretations. However, the gap between some Republicans and Democrats on views regarding the role of government in the economy, the U.S.'s participation in the global economy, and the fairness of the current economic system has been narrowing. Specifically, the Pew Research Center recently divided Republicans into four distinct typologies: Core Conservatives, New Era Enterprisers, Country First Conservatives, and Market Skeptic Republicans. The latter two groups represented 43% of the Republicans surveyed - let's call them "Change Republicans," as they are most supportive of changes to the current economic system.7 Among Change Republicans, only 15% felt that the "U.S. economic system is generally fair to most Americans." Comparatively, 75% of the remaining two groups of GOP voters believe the current system is fair. This wide gap in current perceptions on the effectiveness of today's economic model makes Change Republicans more receptive to policies aimed at redefining the role of government and redistributing income. This conclusion has important consequences for policy beyond 2018. Prospective PBV Theory And The 2020 Election Although most analyses of the PBV theory have focused on retrospective assessments of economic well-being, scholar Michael Lewis-Beck and others have found that future expectations of income growth are statistically more important in determining voting patterns.8 As a result, prospective PBV theory suggests that voters will often look beyond current economic conditions and assess policy proposals that will influence future economic potential. In recent decades, income growth has slowed while debt levels have increased. In addition, inequality has increased on three important levels. Separating income inequality into three groups is useful because it helps forecast where voters will demand changes in policy. Chart 9Globalization: No Friend To DM Middle Class The American Pocketbook Voter The American Pocketbook Voter The first level of unequal growth has unfolded on the global stage, as middle-class voters in developed economies experienced the slowest level of income gains among the world's population - and by a large margin (Chart 9). The second level of inequality has occurred within the U.S. economy, between capital (owners) and labor (workers) (Chart 10). And the third level of inequality has materialized most starkly within labor, as the highest income earners have reaped big rewards while the rest of Americans have experienced basically zero gains in real income since the early 1980s (Chart 11). Chart 10Politically Unsustainable Politically Unsustainable Politically Unsustainable Chart 11Will The GOP Tax Bill Make America More Unequal? Will The GOP Tax Bill Make America More Unequal? Will The GOP Tax Bill Make America More Unequal? These observations are likely going to play a central role in the policy prescriptions offered by both candidates in the 2020 presidential election. In terms of U.S. trade policy, Republicans under Trump have become much less inclined to support free trade. Before the global financial crisis, 57% of GOP voters felt that trade agreements were a good thing for the United States. Fast-forward to April 2017, and only 36% of Republicans felt the same way.9 The near-term risk of protectionism centers on the renegotiation of NAFTA. The U.S. is much less economically dependent on NAFTA compared to Canada and Mexico and, more importantly, the political benefits associated with abrogating the deal could push President Trump and his mercantilist cabinet toward doing so.10 Investors should remain short the Mexican peso. The greater risk associated with voter demands for trade protectionism centers on China. The Trump administration began with a mere "shot across the bow" and has not initiated a trade war with the Chinese so far. However, a diplomatic resolution of U.S. tensions with North Korea, or a failure to renegotiate NAFTA, would put more pressure on President Trump to turn his attention to the large American trade deficit with China - as he often did during the 2016 presidential election. (As long as North Korea remains the top foreign policy priority, Trump will need Chinese cooperation that will in turn, at least partially, reduce his appetite for trade conflict.) Ironically, the growing share of income that has accumulated to capital owners relative to labor over the past 20 years did not dissuade Republicans from cutting corporate taxes. This strategy could prove to be very risky. In fact, just a few months before the passage of the GOP tax plan, a majority of Americans surveyed by Pew believed that tax rates on corporations and large businesses should be increased.11 Perhaps a more important reason for the widening gap between capital and labor has been technology. But a recent survey showed that only 7% of Americans feel that their own job or profession will be very vulnerable to robots or computers during their lifetime (Chart 12). This implies that voter demand for policies that reduce the impact of technology on inequality remain less likely than tax policies that put gradual downward pressure on corporate profits. Investors should expect Democrats to focus squarely on the rise in corporate profits and the absence of meaningful wage growth in the 2020 election. Chart 12Most People Don't Think They##br## Are Vulnerable To Technology The American Pocketbook Voter The American Pocketbook Voter The final piece of the puzzle for Democrats in the 2020 election will be redistributionist policies that shift income from the top earners to the rest of the population. This political strategy is supported by the effects of previous tax reform on income inequality - highlighted in Chart 11. Specifically, while previous rounds of tax reform have obviously benefited the U.S.'s highest income earners, the vast majority of Americans, as mentioned, experienced zero gains in real income after the Reagan and Bush tax plans were implemented. Compared to protectionism or redistribution from the corporate sector, movement on legislation to tax high-income earners could be relatively slow moving. First, only 43% of Americans think that taxes should be raised on people earning more than $250,000; and only a quarter of Republican voters support that proposition.12 And second, despite stark inequality and a low level of upward mobility in the United States, six-in-ten Americans still believe that people who work hard tend to get ahead.13 These two observations of voter preferences could weigh on the appeal of policy proposals that aim to redistribute income from the top 1% to the rest of the income pool. Trade protectionism, and a reversal of some of the corporate tax cuts, are more politically feasible. Concluding Thoughts Retrospective assessments of economic well-being can be helpful in forecasting electoral outcomes. The U.S. economy has found its footing, the labor market is strong, and confidence is up. However, these factors will likely prove insufficient to protect Republicans from the difficult task of retaining a majority government in the face of declining popular support. Divided government is not necessarily a bad outcome for investors. Recall that during the most recent period of divided government from November 2010 to November 2016, the S&P 500 rose by 80%! Even impeachment proceedings against the president could fail to derail the rising stock market, as occurred in the late 1990s.14 But as the 2020 election approaches, presidential candidates will be increasingly responding to voter demands for more protectionism, policies that shift income from companies to workers, and proposals that raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The former two will have some chance of passage. Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and 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. 2 For the seminal treatise on the PBV theory, please see Michael Lewis-Beck, Economics And Elections: The Major Western Democracies, (Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2000). 3 Please see Alberto Alesina and Howard Rosenthal, Partisan Politics, Divided Government, And The Economy, (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995). 4 Please see Frank Newport, "Public Opinion And The Tax Reform Law," Gallup, dated December 21, 2017, available at news.gallup.com. 5 Please see John Gramlich, "Far More Americans Say There Are Strong Conflicts Between Partisans Than Between Other Groups In Society," Pew Research Center, dated December 19, 2017. 6 Please see Pew Research Center, "Views Of Job Situation Improve Sharply, But Many Still Say They're Falling Behind Financially," dated November 7, 2017, available at www.people-press.org. 7 Please see Pew Research Center, "Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures On The Right And Left," dated October 24, 2017, available at www.people-press.org. 8 See footnote 2, pp. 120. 9 Please see Bradley Jones, "Support For Free Trade Agreements Rebounds Modestly, But Wide Partisan Differences Remain," Pew Research Center, dated April 25, 2017, available at www.pewresearch.org. 10 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Hannah Fingerhut, "More Americans Favor Raising Than Lowering Tax Rates On Corporations, High Household Incomes," Pew Research Center, dated September 27, 2017, available at www.pewresearch.org. 12 Please see footnote 11. 13 Please see footnote 7. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.