Geopolitics

Highlights The cyclical bull market in stocks will last until the end of next year. That said, global equities have become increasingly vulnerable to a correction, so fast-money investors should consider putting on a tactical hedge spanning the next few weeks. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. We ultimately expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a larger budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Feature Rising Odds Of A Stock Market Correction We remain cyclically bullish on global equities based on the expectation that global growth will stay strong over the next 12 months, which should support corporate earnings. Nevertheless, the recent price action in credit markets is disconcerting. Yesterday's relief rally notwithstanding, junk bonds have been selling off in recent weeks, as have EM credit and currencies (Chart 1). We have found that credit trends generally lead the stock market. This raises the risk of an equity correction. The fact that the bull/bear ratio has reached a 30-year high in the weekly Investors Intelligence Sentiment survey (Chart 2), and that the most recent BofA Merrill Lynch Survey shows that a record share of fund managers are overweight risk assets, only add to our worries. Chart 1Junk Bond Selloff Raises ##br##Risks Of An Equity Correction Junk Bond Selloff Raises Risks Of An Equity Correction Junk Bond Selloff Raises Risks Of An Equity Correction Chart 2Equity Bullish Sentiment:##br## Getting Stretched Equity Bullish Sentiment: Getting Stretched Equity Bullish Sentiment: Getting Stretched Doubts about the ability of Republicans in Congress to push through tax cuts further muddle the picture. We continue to expect a tax bill to be signed into law early next year, but the intention of President Trump and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to include a provision in the bill to rescind the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could greatly complicate this task. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, the economic benefits of the tax legislation are likely to be muted, even if equity prices do rise on the back of lower corporate tax rates. This will make selling the merits of the tax plan to the American people all the more difficult. With all this in mind, we are putting on a short S&P 500 trade recommendation. We are targeting a gain of 5% and putting in a stop-loss of 2%. We will close this trade before the end of the year, so this should be seen as a purely tactical decision appropriate for fast-money investors only. Fiscal Policy Was Tightened Too Early ... Global bond yields plummeted during the Great Recession, but then quickly recovered. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit 3.95% in June 2009, while the German bund yield reached 3.72% that same month. Today, output gaps are much smaller globally than they were seven years ago, yet bond yields are substantially lower (Chart 3). Chart 3ASmaller Output Gaps... Smaller Output Gaps... Smaller Output Gaps... Chart 3B...But Lower Bond Yields ...But Lower Bond Yields ...But Lower Bond Yields Many theories have been offered to account for this seemingly paradoxical turn of events. Was it QE? Maybe the Phillips curve broke down? Perhaps investors have steadily revised down their estimate of the neutral rate of interest? One can make compelling arguments in support of all these explanations. However, there is one reason that has received relatively little attention: fiscal policy. Chart 4 shows that fiscal policy was tightened by an average of 4.1% of GDP in the G20 economies between 2010 and 2015. This happened despite the fact that unemployment was still quite high. One could make a half-plausible case that fiscal austerity was necessary in southern Europe, where one country after another was being attacked by the bond vigilantes (although even there, the failure of the ECB to act as a lender of last resort to European sovereigns greatly exacerbated the problem). It is harder to justify the shift towards austerity in countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. which were able to issue debt in their own currencies; or to explain why Germany felt the need to tighten fiscal policy when its structural primary balance was already in surplus. In Japan's case, the 2.9% of GDP in fiscal tightening that occurred between 2013 and the 2015 was a key reason why Abenomics failed to push the country out of deflation. Faced with the reality of what was happening on the fiscal front, central banks had no choice but to step in. They did so by slashing interest rates, in some cases pushing them into negative territory. They also engaged in massive asset purchases. The tsunami of easy money helped to keep economies afloat. But in many countries, slower government debt growth was replaced by faster private-sector debt growth (Chart 5). Debt continued to rise. It just did so in a different form. Chart 4Fiscal Belt-Tightening##br## In 2010-2015 Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Chart 5Private Debt Growth Picked Up##br## Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth Private Debt Growth Picked Up Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth Private Debt Growth Picked Up Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth ... And Is Now Being Eased Too Late The good news is that governments are abandoning their obsession with fiscal austerity. The bad news is that they are doing it at a time when fiscal easing is no longer warranted. Standard economic theory suggests that governments should run budget deficits when unemployment is high, and surpluses when it is low. In the U.S., the unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, 0.6 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. And yet, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are pushing for massive tax cuts which, according to the CBO, would add $1.7 trillion to federal debt over the next ten years, while pushing up the debt-to-GDP ratio by an extra six percentage points to 97% (Chart 6). Limited Supply-Side Benefits Proponents of the legislation argue that lower tax rates will spur growth by so much that they will pay for themselves. This is highly unlikely. Chart 7 shows that major tax cuts in the past have always led to a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, whereas tax hikes have led to a deceleration, or even outright decline, in the debt ratio. Even the much lauded 1981 Reagan tax cuts had to be partially rolled back in 1982 after the budget deficit widened sharply. Chart 6More Red Ink Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Chart 7Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? The growth-enhancing effects of lower tax rates are likely to be smaller at present than they were in the early 1980s. The Reagan tax cuts were introduced when the economy was in the doldrums and government debt levels were much lower than they are today. Cross-border ownership of foreign assets has also increased tremendously since the Reagan era. Foreigners now own more than $10 trillion of U.S. equities, or close to 35% of the total, up from 10% in the early 1980s (Chart 8). This implies that a corporate tax cut would not only represent a massive windfall for foreigners - a bizarre outcome for a self-professed nationalist president - but would mean that a smaller share of capital gains taxes will make their way into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. Personal income tax cuts are also likely to generate much less bang for the buck. Most empirical studies suggest that lower personal tax rates increase labor supply largely by boosting female labor participation.1 The prime-age female labor participation rate in the U.S. today is 11 points higher than it was in 1980, which limits the scope for further gains. Moreover, when Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981, the top personal tax rate stood at 70% (Chart 9). At such a high rate, a one percentage-point cut in the top rate increases take-home pay by 3.3% (1/30). Today, the top rate stands at 39.6%, so a one-point cut would raise after-tax income by only 1.6% (1/60.4). Thus, the incentive effect from cutting the top marginal tax rate is only half of what it was back then. And, of course, the lower the tax rate, the less incremental revenue the government gets from every additional dollar of income. A reasonable estimate is that the revenue offset from tax cuts today would be only one-quarter of whatever modest amount it was in the early 1980s. Chart 8Growing Share Of U.S. Equities##br## Is Held By Foreigners Growing Share Of U.S. Equities Is Held By Foreigners Growing Share Of U.S. Equities Is Held By Foreigners Chart 9Lower Bang For The Buck From##br## Cutting Individual Tax Rates Lower Bang For The Buck From Cutting Individual Tax Rates Lower Bang For The Buck From Cutting Individual Tax Rates Tax Cuts Versus Tax Reform This is not to say that tax reform is undesirable. Statutory corporate tax rates in the U.S. are quite high, but effective rates are very low, given the myriad deductions and tax-sheltering strategies (Chart 10). The combination of base-broadening and lower statutory rates would make the economy more efficient. In this respect, the set of reforms unveiled by Paul Ryan earlier this year actually had a lot going for it. Unfortunately, the half-measures in both the House and Senate bills run the risk of making the current system even worse. For example, the proposed transition from the current system where U.S. companies are taxed on their worldwide profits to one where they are taxed only on the profits they earn in the U.S. is likely to increase the incentive to use accounting gimmicks to shift more taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions abroad.2 The new "pass through" tax rate of 25% would also provide passive business owners, who are currently subject to the top marginal tax rate, with a massive tax break. Chart 10Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap In theory, full business investment expensing is a good idea, but the economic impact is likely to be modest. Companies pay less tax upfront when they can write off the value of capital expenditures immediately, but incur higher taxes in the future due to the absence of any further depreciation expenses. When interest rates are low, as they are today, the present value gain from shifting tax liabilities around in this way is bound to be small. This, along with the fact that companies can already write off a large share of capital purchases under current law in the first few years after they are made, will limit the benefits of the proposal. The full expensing of capital purchases also expires after five years under the Republican plan. This could cause companies to pull forward capital spending simply to game the tax code. Such a policy could be justified if the economy were depressed, but that is not the case today. The Tax Foundation, a free-market think tank that a number of left-leaning economists have accused of overstating the benefits of tax cuts, estimates that temporary expensing would raise the level of real GDP by only 0.18% after a decade, compared to 1.6% in the case of permanent expensing.3 From Populism To Pluto-Populism Chart 11This Is Not Populism Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Martin Wolf has aptly referred to Donald Trump as a "pluto-populist" - someone who talks like a champion of the poor and middle class to his adoring supporters, but actually pushes for policies that mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans.4 Many of the proposals in the Republican tax bills - including the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the phase-out of the estate tax, and the aforementioned reduction in the business pass-through tax - would further skew the distribution of income towards the rich (Chart 11). Indeed, the benefits for the wealthy grow over time under the proposed plans, even as those for the middle class dissipate, eventually reaching the point where the average middle-class household ends up paying more taxes under the House plan than they do now (Chart 12).5 And no, one cannot say that this outcome is simply the inevitable consequence of the fact that the rich pay most of the taxes. Once regressive taxes such as the payroll tax and state and local taxes are included in the tally, the rich pay about the same share of their income in taxes as the middle class (Chart 13). To make matters worse, the Republican tax bill would trigger $25 billion in Medicare cuts and $111 billion in cuts to other government programs under current PAYGO rules. More pain for middle-class voters. Donald Trump was quick to throw Ed Gillespie under the bus after he failed to win the governor's race in Virginia, tweeting that Gillespie "did not embrace me or what I stand for." But the truth is Trump has not embraced Trumpism either. We were widely scorned in the early days of the primary season for saying that Trump would secure the Republican nomination, and mocked again in 2016 for predicting that he would win the presidential election. At this point, however, the odds are high that the Republicans will lose the House next November and Trump will fail to get re-elected in 2020. Chart 12Middle-Class Tax Cuts Will Morph Into Tax Hikes Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Chart 13U.S. Taxation Not Very Progressive Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Investment Conclusions U.S. equities are overbought and ripe for a correction. As is almost always the case, lower stock prices in the U.S. will negatively impact global bourses. Fortunately, the selloff is likely to be short-lived, with strong global growth and rising earnings powering stocks into 2018. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. Nevertheless, we expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a wider budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Chart 14Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Higher government debt levels will also increase the temptation to inflate away debt. As we discussed a few weeks ago, rising political polarization is affecting every facet of society, with the NFL just being the latest example.6 It is hard to believe that the Fed will remain above the fray. History suggests that the loss of central bank independence is often associated with higher inflation (Chart 14). Such may be America's fate as well. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Robert K. Triest, "The Effect Of Income Taxation On Labor Supply In The United States," The Journal of Human Resources, Special Issue on Taxation and Labor Supply in Industrial Countries, 25:3 (Summer 1990); and Costas Meghir and David Phillips, "Labour Supply And Taxes," IZA Discussion Paper No. 3405 (March 2008). 2 Both the House and Senate versions of the tax bill have a number of provisions to limit the ability of corporations to shift profits abroad, but at present, it is unclear how effective these measures will be. 3 Please see "Economic and Budgetary Impact of Temporary Expensing," Tax Foundation, dated October 4, 2017. 4 Martin Wolf, "Donald Trump Embodies How Great Republics Meet Their End," Financial Times, March 1, 2016. 5 This mainly occurs because the "Family Flexibility Credit" expires after 2022. The expanded Child Tax Credit is also not indexed to inflation under the House plan, implying that its value to tax filers will go down over time. In addition, the repeal of the individual mandate would cause fewer lower-income earners to buy health insurance, leading them to forego the tax subsidies that they would otherwise receive. 6 Please see , "Three Demographic Megatrends," dated October 27, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The Arabic title of this Special Report is "Against Wasta." Wasta roughly translates as reciprocity in formal and informal dealings. It "indicates that there is a middleman or 'connection' between somebody who wants a job, a license or government service and somebody who is in a position to provide it."1 While it has been helpful, it also has led to profound corruption. Feature The political sandstorm ripping through the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) - visible in the lifting of the ban on women driving cars earlier this year, and, most recently in the consolidation of military and political power by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (often referred to as "MBS") over the past few weeks - must be seen as prelude to implementing Vision 2030, which will feature an ongoing battle against wasta in KSA. If successful, this could transform a feudal desert kingdom into a modern nation-state.2 When the storm passes, MBS will hold the military and political reins of power in the Kingdom. This will allow the Sudairi branch of the Saud family, led by MBS's father, King Salman, to execute on its Vision 2030 agenda to wean itself from an almost-complete dependence on oil-export revenues. To do so, the Kingdom's leadership must successfully navigate OPEC 2.0's production-cutting deal in the short term, and the IPO of Saudi Aramco in the long term.3 KSA's Leadership Is On A Mission Chart of the WeekMarkets Take KSA News In Stride Markets Take KSA News In Stride Markets Take KSA News In Stride It's fairly obvious KSA's leadership and Russian President Vladimir Putin are on the same page re extending OPEC 2.0's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting deal to end-2018, given the public statements of MBS and Putin supporting such a measure. While markets have been responsive to this messaging, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak is restraining a full-throttled embrace of this expectation, saying a decision to extend the deal might not come at OPEC's November 30 meeting, given the amount of data to be analyzed.4 Markets appear to be taking the recent news - particularly the headlines out of KSA - in stride, as the major safe-haven assets have been remarkably well-behaved (Chart of the Week). In our base case, we continue to expect the OPEC 2.0 deal to be extended to end-June, which will lift Brent and WTI prices to $65 and $63/bbl next year. If we do get an extension of the OPEC 2.0 deal to end-December - and the odds of this appear very high - our 2018 Brent and WTI average-price forecasts could increase by as much as $5/bbl.5 KSA, Russia Have A Transactional Relationship, Not An Alliance The public alignment of the views of the Saudi and Russian leaderships are important over the short term. However, this does not necessarily mean both states have achieved a general alignment of views on everything of common concern to them. The OPEC 2.0 coalition led by KSA and Russia - the two largest oil exporters in the world - is a transactional relationship, not an alliance. The coalition members negotiated a deal to remove 1.8mm b/d of oil from the market in order to drain global inventories, particularly in the OECD. This deal was negotiated under duress - Brent prices threatened to fall through the $20/bbl level at the beginning of 2016 in the wake of the market-share war declared by OPEC at the end of 2014.6 Such an outcome would have imperiled the very survival of the member states (Chart 2). The success of OPEC 2.0 has taken many by surprise: The overwhelming market consensus in the lead-up to the deal getting done was the coalition would never come about, and, if it did, it would never be able to maintain the discipline necessary to follow through on its goal to return OECD inventories to their five-year average. BCA was outside this consensus from the get-go.7 And we continue to expect OPEC 2.0's production discipline to be maintained into next year, with KSA and Russia leading by example (Chart 3). Chart 2Oil-Price Collapse Clobbered Reserves Oil-Price Collapse Clobbered Reserves Oil-Price Collapse Clobbered Reserves Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Holds OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Holds OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Holds As important as the management of OPEC 2.0 is to KSA, Russia and the oil markets, the Kingdom's leadership has a laser focus on its chief long-term goal: the Saudi Aramco IPO. In light of its Vision 2030 agenda, the most important decision the Kingdom's leadership will make will be whether to IPO Aramco on a Western bourse - e.g., the NY Stock Exchange - or whether the initial offering of KSA's crown jewel is placed directly with China's sovereign wealth fund (SWF) and two of that country's largest oil companies. KSA controls this evolution. Decisions made by its leaders will resound in the oil markets for years, if not decades, to come. KSA's Anti-Corruption Campaign And The Aramco Offering The recent arrest of Saudi royals and consolidation of power by the Sudairi branch of the Saud royal family - led by King Salman and his son, MBS - appear to be part and parcel of an anti-corruption campaign laid out in the Vision 2030 document last year. This campaign, like the formation of OPEC 2.0, is being undertaken to support the IPO of Saudi Aramco next year. Proceeds from the IPO will support KSA's diversification away from being almost wholly dependent on oil exports.8 King Salman, MBS and their closest advisors have concluded they must reform the system of wasta if the Kingdom is to offer anything resembling a prosperous future full of opportunity to its restive population, most of which - more than 50% - are members of MBS's 30-something demographic cohort (Chart 4). Chart 4KSA's Under-30 Cohort Needs Jobs KSA's Under-30 Cohort Needs Jobs KSA's Under-30 Cohort Needs Jobs The wasta system in the Middle East - like the "old-boy" networks in the West - can be positive, in that it can "lower transaction costs and reduce the problem of asymmetric information if, for example, the use of such connections can place disadvantaged groups or individuals into the workforce who might otherwise not have the same opportunity as others," according to Prof. Ramady. However, such a system can, and has, become corrosive to the evolution of society, and can stunt the evolution toward an innovative, dynamic society and economy. Prof. Ramady notes, "Fighting negative wasta is important for the countries that seek to truly implement a more equal opportunity and entrepreneurial knowledge-based economic base." This discontent with the status quo post-Arab Spring was apparent in 2016, when BCA's Geopolitical Strategy noted KSA was in the early stages of such reforms.9 From everything King Salman and MBS have said and done to date, this appears to be the agenda that is being enacted. The lifting of the ban on women driving in KSA to take effect next year; hosting investors and entrepreneurs in Riyadh in September - the so-called Davos in the Desert presentations; even the recent mass arrests and consolidation of power are part and parcel of this reform.10 Early indications of this agenda could be seen in April 2015, when KSA lowered the value of projects requiring approval by the Council of Ministers to SR100 million from SR300 million ($27 million from $80 million). The collapse in oil prices from more than $100/bbl in 2014 likely drove this decision, but, as Prof. Ramady notes, "the intention of the Saudi government was clear: that even 'small' projects (by Saudi standards) could now be scrutinised to avoid 'hidden costs' and corruption." Following the April 2015 reforms, King Salman told the Kingdom's Anti-Corruption Committee "that his government would have zero tolerance for corruption in the country and that he and other members of the royal family are not above the law and that any citizen can file a lawsuit against the king, crown prince or other members of the royal family. These were some of the strongest statements to be made by a Saudi monarch on the issue of combating corruption and nepotism." (Emphasis added.)11 The Aramco IPO The way KSA monetizes its crown jewel will have a profound effect on the evolution of the country's institutions and the oil markets. MBS's implementation of the anti-corruption campaign laid out by his father, King Salman, suggests an IPO on a western bourse is in the offing. Such a listing would impose regulatory and transparency requirements on Aramco that are fully consistent with the royal family's words and deeds since King Salman took power in January 2015. Monetizing 5% of what could potentially be the largest oil-producing and -refining enterprise in the world - the only asset capable of funding the transformation of an entire country of 32mm people - on a bourse that requires even a minimal level of transparency for investors means the government of KSA could demand similar transparency from every other firm and individual in the Kingdom. It gives the government license, so to speak, to develop and enforce the rule of law, consistent with King Salman's remarks to the Anti-Corruption Committee. This will resonate with the younger KSA elites, many of whom are tech-savvy, educated in the West and in MBS's 30-something cohort. This would be a huge gamble on the future and the Kingdom's ability to transform itself into an open monarchy. Success would transform a feudal kingdom into a modern nation-state with an enfranchised population that can advance based on entrepreneurial innovation and merit. The rule of law and transparency in business and governmental dealings would replace wasta, privilege and corruption. It also could expose the royal family to a palace coup, as Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical strategist, notes in his most recent report "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," which we cite above. The stakes couldn't be higher. Listing on a Western bourse also would position Saudi Aramco squarely in the market and central to it, executing on its plan to become the dominant global oil refiner, and funding the Kingdom's diversification away from near-total dependence on oil exports. Lastly, it would allow KSA to retain its geopolitical optionality - playing competing global interests off each other when negotiating alliances and commercial deals. Implications Of An Aramco Private Placement If the Aramco shares are privately placed with China's SWF and the country's two largest oil companies, the pressure to reform likely would be lessened, as the Chinese government typically does not make reform demands on governments of resource-rich countries in which it is investing.12 Assuming China's SWF and/or the oil companies participating in its bidding consortium received a seat(s) on the Aramco board, China certainly would gain greater assurance over its crude oil and refined product supplies going forward. This is a critical concern with domestic production falling and demand for crude oil increasing (Chart 5). And it would give China an eventual interest in using military power to protect its investments in KSA, thus advancing and supporting its long-term evolution as a superpower.13 It also would, in all likelihood, expand the membership of the club trading oil in yuan, which now includes Russia and Iran, to KSA and its GCC allies and Iraq by 2020, if not sooner. This would represent ~ 39mm b/d of production (Chart 6), and 23mm b/d of exports. BP estimates just over 42mm b/d of crude oil are traded globally, meaning this petro-yuan producing coalition would account for 55% of total exports.14 Chart 5China Needs To Offset Declining Production China Needs To Offset Declining Production China Needs To Offset Declining Production Chart 6A Petro-yuan Would Be Formidable A Petro-yuan Would Be Formidable A Petro-yuan Would Be Formidable At some 9mm b/d, China accounts for ~ 21% of global crude oil imports. The combination of OPEC 2.0's crude production and exports with China's import volumes could make the OPEC 2.0 + 1 - the "+1" being China - the most potent force in the oil trading markets, if such a coalition can find a way to balance the competing interests of the world's largest exporters (KSA and Russia) with those of the world's largest importer (China). It also would put the petro-yuan bloc firmly in China's geopolitical orbit, allowing it to expand its sphere of influence deeply into the Persian Gulf, and the global oil market. Bottom Line: The recent turmoil in KSA must be seen as the opening moves in the transformation of a feudal desert kingdom into a modern nation-state. The evolution of the transformation is critically dependent on decisions made by KSA's leadership. How this breaks will profoundly affect the global oil markets and the Kingdom itself particularly in regard to how oil is priced - USD vs. yuan - and the effect new trading blocs have on market structure. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Ramady, Mohamed A., ed. (2016), "The Political Economy of Wasta: Use and Abuse of Social Capital Networking," Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Ramady is a professor of Finance and Economics at King Fahd in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The introduction of the book starts by quoting the proverb: To accept a benefit is to sell one's freedom. 2 Please see "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," published November 15, 2017, in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy, for a full analysis of these issues. 3 OPEC 2.0 is our moniker for the OPEC and non-OPEC coalition of oil producers led by KSA and Russia, which agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market at the end of last year. 4 Please see "Russia's Novak: Oil cut pact extension decision not necessarily at Nov meeting," published November 2, 2017, by reuters.com. Elevating the level of uncertainty as to when the OPEC 2.0 pact will be unwound is exactly the sort of forward guidance OPEC 2.0 leaders would need to convey to markets in order to backwardate the forward oil-price curve - i.e., keep longer-dated prices below prompt prices. A backwardated forward curve means U.S. shale producers realize lower prices on longer-dated hedges, which restrains the number of rigs they can deploy in the field. On Wednesday, Reuters also reported as spokesman for Rosneft, Russia's largest oil company, foresees difficulty in the wind-down of OPEC 2.0's production cuts - and the return to unrestrained production. Mikhail Leontyev said, "Speaking about the company's concerns, first of all it was about how to prepare for suspending measures to restrict production. This is a serious question. Sooner or later, of course, these measures will be lifted," Leontyev said. "Now or later, that's a separate question. It's a serious challenge, for which one needs to prepare." Roseneft is responsible for 40% of Russia's oil output; it is 50% owned by the Russian government. Please see "Russia's Rosneft says managing exit from OPEC+ deal is a serious challenge," published by reuters.com on November 15, 2017. 5 Please see "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, October 19, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Worth noting is the fact that should OPEC 2.0 not extend the expiry of the production-cutting deal markets likely would sell off quickly. This is because the leadership of the coalition - MBS and President Putin - have publicly embraced such a move; not doing so would be a disappointment to markets. Our modelling in the article cited here indicates the cuts have to be extended at least to end-June 2018, if the OPEC 2.0 goal of reducing OECD commercial oil inventories to their 5-year average levels is to be achieved. Also worth noting, if we do see the OPEC 2.0 cuts extended to end-2018, we likely will be widening our implied Brent vs. WTI spread to $4/bbl, given the transportation bottlenecks that are likely to emerge in the event of a further lift in U.S. prices: Pipeline infrastructure in the most productive shales, particularly the Permian Basin, cannot get oil to export facilities as quickly as it is produced. Please see "Transportation constraints and export costs widen the Brent-WTI price spread," published in the U.S. EIA's This Week in Petroleum series November 8, 2017. 6 We discuss this at length in our 2017 outlook. Please see "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy December 8, 2016. See also our "2016 Commodity Outlook: Neutral Across the Board," published December 17, 2016, for a detailed discussion of pricing dynamics as this time. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see the 2017 Outlook referenced above in footnote 6. 8 KSA officials believe the company is worth $2 trillion, based on their expectation a 5% IPO of the company would generate $100 billion. 9 Please see "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," the May 2016 issue of BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at gps.bacresearch.com. 10 Please see "Saudi Arabia plans to build futuristic city for innovators," published October 24, 2017, by phys.org. 11 Please see footnote 1, p. ix. 12 Please see "Exclusive - China offers to buy 5 percent of Saudi Aramco directly: sources," published by reuters.com October 16, 2017. 13 We examined this in depth in our report entitled "OPEC 2.0: Fear and Loathing in Oil Markets," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy on April 27, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/oil/oil-trade-movements.html. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades ضد الواسطة ضد الواسطة Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table ضد الواسطة ضد الواسطة Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Middle Eastern geopolitics will add upside risk to our bullish oil view, but not cause a drastic supply shock; Saudi Arabia is at last converting from a feudal monarchy to a modern nation-state; The greatest risk is domestic upheaval, motivating Saudi internal reforms and power consolidation; Abroad, the Saudis are constrained by military weakness, relatively low oil prices, and U.S. foreign policy; Geopolitical risk premia are seeping back into oil prices, but OPEC 2.0 and the Saudi-Iranian détente are still intact. Feature Geopolitical and political turbulence in Saudi Arabia kicked into high gear in November, with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman apparently turning the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton into a luxury prison for members of the royal family.1 At the same time, rumors are swirling that the bizarre resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, allegedly orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, is a potential casus belli. In this scenario, Lebanon would become a proxy war for a confrontation between Sunni Gulf monarchies led by Saudi Arabia (aided by Israel) and their Shia rivals, led by Iran and its proxy Hezbollah. To our clients around the world we say, "please take a deep breath." In this report, we intend to separate the signal from the noise. The Middle East has been a theater of paradigm shifts since at least 2011.2 Not all of them are investment relevant. In this report, we conclude that: Changes under way in the Middle East are the product of impersonal, structural forces that have been in place since the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in 2011; Saudi Arabia is engaged in belated, European-style nation-building, a volatile process that will raise tensions in the country and the region; Saudi Arabia remains constrained by a lack of resources and military capabilities, and unclear alliance structures. Iran, meanwhile, benefits from the status quo. As such, no major war with Iran is likely in the short term, although proxy wars could intensify. In the short term, we agree that the moves by Saudi leadership will increase tensions domestically and in the region. However, over the long term, the evolution of Saudi Arabia from the world's last feudal monarchy into a modern nation-state should improve the predictability of Middle East politics. Regardless of our view, one thing is clear: Saudi Arabia has an incentive to keep oil prices at the current $64 per barrel, or higher, as domestic and regional instability looms. As such, we believe that risks to oil prices are to the upside, but a global growth-constraining geopolitical shock to oil supply is unlikely. The Paradigm Shift: Multipolarity "Tikrit is a prime example of what we are worried about ... Iran is taking over [Iraq]."3 -- Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Foreign Minister, to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, March 5, 2015 Pundits, journalists, investors, and Middle East experts all make the same mistake when analyzing the region: they assume it exists on "Planet Middle East." It does not. The Middle East is part of a global system and its internal mechanic is not sui generis. Its actors are bit players in a much bigger game, which involves nuclear powers like the U.S., China, and Russia. Yes, the whims and designs of Middle East leaders do matter, but only within the global constraints that they are subject to. The greatest such constraint has been the objective and observable withdrawal of the U.S. from the Middle East, emblematized by a dramatic reduction of U.S. troops in the region (Chart 1). The U.S. went from stationing 250,000 troops in 2007 to mere 36,000 in 2017. The withdrawal was not merely a manifestation of President Barack Obama's dovish foreign policy. Rather, it was motivated by U.S. grand strategy, specifically the need to "pivot to Asia" and challenge China's rising geopolitical prowess head on (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging Chart 2China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. As we expected, President Donald Trump has not materially increased the U.S. presence in the region since taking office.4 His efforts to eradicate the Islamic State have largely built on those of his predecessor. While he has rhetorically changed policy towards Iran, and taken steps to imperil the nuclear deal by decertifying it, he has not abrogated the deal. The U.S. president can withdraw from the nuclear deal without congressional approval, yet President Trump has merely passed the buck to Congress, which has until the end of the year to decide whether to re-impose sanctions. For Saudi Arabia, U.S. rhetoric and half measures do not change the fact that Iraq is now devoid of American troops and largely in the Iranian sphere of influence. Following the 1991 Gulf War, Saudi Arabia enjoyed the best of both worlds for two decades: a Sunni-dominated but weakened Iraq serving the role of an impregnable buffer between itself and the much more militarily capable Iran. Since Iraq's paradigm shift in the wake of American invasion, the buffer has not only vanished but has been replaced by a Shia-dominated, Iranian-influenced Iraqi state (albeit still relatively weak). Unsurprisingly, Saudi military spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from the 2011 U.S. withdrawal to 2015, and in absolute terms has risen from $48.5 billion in 2011 to $63.7 billion in 2016, revealing a deep concern in Riyadh that its northern border has become nearly indefensible (Chart 3). Chart 3Saudis React To U.S. Withdrawal The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Meanwhile, Baghdad's heavy-handed political and military tactics produced an immediate reaction from the Sunni population.5 Militant Sunni insurgent groups, with material support from unofficial (and probably official) channels in Saudi Arabia and wider Gulf monarchies, began to fight back. Violence escalated and soon melded with the emerging civil war in Syria, which by early 2013 had taken on a sectarian cast as well. This led to the emergence of the Islamic State, which grew out of the earlier Sunni insurgence against the U.S. in the Al Anbar governorate. The military success of the Islamic State in 2014 against the inexperienced and demoralized Iraqi Army forced Baghdad to lean even more heavily on domestic Shia militias, and Iran, for survival. Islamic State militants reached the outskirts of Baghdad in September 2014 and were only beaten back by a combination of hardline Shia militias and Iranian advisers and irregular troops. From the Saudi perspective, this direct intervention by the Iranian military in Iraq was the final straw. Most jarring to the Saudis was the fact that the Americans acquiesced to the Iranian presence in Iraq and even collaborated with Iran. In fact, the overt presence of Iranian military personnel in Syria and Iraq drew no rebuke from the U.S. Some American officials even seemed to praise the Iranian contribution to the global effort against the Islamic State. Meanwhile, the nuclear negotiations continued undisturbed, right down to their successful conclusion in July 2015. Bottom Line: Global multipolarity and the rise of China has forced America's hand, and the dramatic withdrawal of military assets from the Middle East is the direct consequence. Saudi Arabia has suffered a dramatic reversal of geopolitical fortunes, with its crucial geographic buffer, Iraq, now dominated by its strategic rival, Iran. Saudi Arabia "Goes It Alone," And Fails Miserably "Saudi Arabia will go it alone."6 -- Mohammed bin Nawwaf Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Saudi ambassador to the U.K., December 17, 2013 To counter growing Iranian influence across the region and its strategic isolation, Saudi Arabia relied on five general strategies, all of which have failed: Map 1Saudi Arabia's Shia-Populated Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Asymmetric warfare: Saudi Arabia has explicitly and implicitly supported radical-Islamist Sunni militant groups around the region. Some of these groups were either directly linked to, or vestiges of, al-Qaeda. The Islamic State, which received implicit support from Saudi Arabia in its early days of fighting president Bashar al-Assad in Syria, eventually turned against Saudi Arabia itself. Its agents claimed multiple mosque attacks in the Shia-populated Eastern Provinces (Map 1), attacks intended to incite sectarian violence in this key oil-producing Saudi area. Saudi officials also became alarmed at a large number of Saudi youth who went to fight with Islamic State fighters across the region, some of whom are now back in the country (Chart 4). "Sunni NATO": Talk of a broad, Sunni alliance against Iran has not materialized. Despite the Saudis' best efforts, the main Sunni military powers - Egypt and Pakistan - have remained aloof of its regional efforts to isolate Iran. The best example is the paltry contribution of its Sunni peers to the ongoing war in Yemen, where anti-government Houthi rebels are nominally allied with Iran. Pakistan contemplated sending a brigade of 3,000 troops to the Saudi-Yemen border earlier this year, but has refused to join the fight directly. Egypt sent under 1,000 troops early in the war, but none since. Talk of a 40,000 Egyptian deployment to the Yemen conflict earlier this year has not materialized. If Pakistan and Egypt are unwilling to help Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, why would they be interested in directly confronting a formidable military power like Iran? Direct warfare: When supporting militants and spending money on allies did not work, Saudi Arabia decided to try its hand at direct warfare. In February 2015, it began airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The war, which costs Saudi Arabia over $70 billion a year, has gone badly for Saudi Arabia.7 Despite two years of intensive involvement by Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies, the capital Sanaa remains in Houthi hands. As far as we are aware, there has been no real Saudi ground troop commitment to the conflict. K-street: Despite its best efforts, and the vast resources spent on lobbyists in Washington, Saudi Arabia could not prevent the U.S. détente with Iran. What the Saudis failed to appreciate was multipolarity, i.e. how the U.S. pivot to Asia would affect Washington's policy toward the Middle East.8 Oil prices: At the fateful November 2014 OPEC meeting, Saudi Arabia refused to cut oil production in the face of falling prices, instead increasing production (Chart 5). Since late 2016, however, Saudi Arabia has reversed this aggressive bid for market share and orchestrated oil production cuts with Russia and OPEC states. Chart 4The Islamic State Movement Threatens Saudi Arabia The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Chart 5Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Each and every one of the above strategies has failed. The last one is the most spectacular: Saudi Arabia was forced to backtrack from its oil production surge and negotiate with long-time geopolitical rival Russia, which was courting the Saudis to relieve its budget pressures from low oil prices. Saudi Arabia not only accepted the need to work with Russia, but also acquiesced to Russia's geopolitical demands for détente in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The latter will force Saudi Arabia at least tacitly to accept the continued leadership of President al-Assad in Syria. Furthermore, Saudi intervention in Yemen has gone nowhere. Pundits who claim that the Saudis are on the verge of a major military engagement in ______ (insert Middle East country), should carefully study the effectiveness of the Saudi military in Yemen. After over two years of Saudi bombardment, the Houthis are further entrenched in the country. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's Sunni allies have not committed many ground troops to the effort, save for Sudan, which is impoverished and has no choice but to curry favor with its largest foreign donor. Bottom Line: The past six years have taught the Saudi leadership a series of hard lessons. Saudi Arabia cannot "go at it alone." On the contrary, the rise of the Islamic State - a messianic political entity claiming religious superiority to the Saudi kingdom - has alarmed the Saudi leadership and awoken it to a truly existential risk: domestic upheaval. Nation-Building, Saudi Style "What happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region in the last 30 years is not the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, people wanted to copy this model in different countries, one of them is Saudi Arabia. We didn't know how to deal with it. And the problem spread all over the world. Now is the time to get rid of it."9 -- Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, October 24, 2017 European nation-states developed over the course of five hundred years, from roughly the end of the Hundred Years' War between England and France to the unification of Italy and Germany in the mid-nineteenth century. Fundamentally, these efforts were about centralizing state power under a single authority by evolving the governance system away from feudal monarchy toward a constitutional, bureaucratic, and national system. The defining feature of feudalism was the separation of feudal society into three "estates": the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The first two estates - the clergy and the nobility - had considerable rights and privileges. The king, who was above all three estates, nonetheless had to curry favor with both in order to raise taxes and wage wars. The state was weak and often susceptible to foreign influence via interference in all three estates. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's last feudal monarchies and it does not have five hundred years to evolve. Still, the best model for what is going on inside Saudi Arabia today is the European nation-building of the past. In brief, recent Saudi policies - from foreign policy assertiveness to domestic reforms - are intended to centralize power and evolve Saudi Arabia into a modern nation-state. Three parallel efforts, modeled on European history from the last millennia, are under way: Curbing the "first estate": Saudi Arabia has begun to curb the power of the religious establishment. In April 2016, it severely curbed the powers of the hai'a - the country's religious police. They no longer have the power to arrest. Instead, they have to report violations of Islamic law to the secular police; and they are only allowed to work during office hours.10 The state has even arrested a prominent cleric who opposed the change in hai'a powers, and has dismissed many other conservative clerics since King Salman came to power. Curbing the "second estate": The detention of members of the Saudi royal family at the Ritz Carlton is part of an ongoing effort to curb the powers of the "landed aristocracy" and bring it under the control of the ruling Sudairi branch of the royal family.11 This is not just palace intrigue, but a necessary step in harnessing the financial resources of the state, which are currently dispersed amongst roughly 2,000 members of the "second estate." Rallying the "third estate": Nationalism was used by European leaders of the nineteenth century to rally the plebs behind the state-building efforts of the time. Similarly, King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are building a Saudi national identity. To do so, they are appealing to the youth, which makes up 57% of the country's population (Chart 6), as well as emphasizing the existential threat that Iran poses to the kingdom. Chart 6Still A Young Country Still A Young Country Still A Young Country We do not see these efforts as merely the reckless agenda of an impulsive thirty year-old, as Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is often derisively portrayed by his opponents. We see genuine strategy in every policy that has been initiated by Saudi leadership since King Salman took over in January 2015. Several efforts are particularly notable. Vision 2030: A Major Salvo Against The "First Estate" As we indicated in May 2016, we consider the Saudi "Vision 2030" reform blueprint to be a serious document.12 While its plan to address Saudi economic constraints is overly ambitious and vague, there are nonetheless several prominent themes that reveal the preferences of Saudi leaders: Education: The document emphasizes the link between education and economic development. Notably, there is no mention of religion. Gender Equality: Elevating the role of women in the economy will require relaxing many strict social and religious rules that impede gender equality. As if on cue, the Saudi leadership announced that it would soon end its policy of forbidding women to drive. Corruption: A new emphasis on government transparency and reducing corruption will undermine many powerful vested interests, including the religious elites. We were right to emphasize these three themes back in May 2016 as it is now obvious that King Salman and his son Mohammad bin Salman are following the prescriptions of their Vision 2030. What explains their reformist zeal? Over half of the Saudi population of almost 30 million is below 35 years of age. The youth population is facing difficulty entering the labor force, with unemployment above 30% (Chart 7). This rising angst is often expressed online, where the Saudi population is as interconnected as its peers in emerging markets (Chart 8). Saudi citizens have an average of seven social media accounts and the country ranks seventh globally in terms of the absolute number of social media accounts. Between a quarter and a fifth of the population uses Facebook, a quarter of all Saudi teenagers use Snapchat,13 and Twitter has the highest level of penetration in Saudi Arabia of any other country in the region.14 Chart 7A Potential National Security Risk A Potential National Security Risk A Potential National Security Risk Chart 8Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others The idea that the royal family can take on the religious establishment on behalf of the youth seems far-fetched. Skeptics point out that the conservative Sunni Wahhabi religious movement lies at the foundation of the Saudi state. However, commentators who take this mid-eighteenth-century alliance as a key feature of modern Saudi Arabia often overstate its nature and influence. Not only is the Wahhabi hold on power potentially overstated, but Westerners may even overstate the country's religiosity as a whole. According to the World Values Survey, Saudi Arabia is less religious than Egypt and is on par with Morocco.15 Although Saudi Arabia has not appeared in the survey since 2004, it is fair to assume that, with the proliferation of social media and rise in the youth population, the country has not become more religious over the past decade (Chart 9). In addition, Saudis identify with values of self-expression over values of survival (as much as moderate Muslim Malaysians, for example), which is a sign of a relatively wealthy, industrial society. Chart 9Saudi Arabia: More Modern Than You Think The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Weekend At The Ritz: The "Second Estate" Is Put On Notice The ongoing effort to curb the power of the Saudi "second estate" is not just about court intrigue and political maneuvering. Without harnessing the economic resources of the wider Saudi aristocracy, the state would succumb to debilitating capital outflows. If the Saudi "second estate" decided to "vote" against King Salman and his son with their "deposits" - and flee the country - the all-important currency peg would collapse. Despite a pickup in oil prices, Saudi Arabia's currency reserves are falling rapidly and could soon dip below the total amount of local-currency broad money (Chart 10). Beneath that point, confidence among locals and foreigners in the currency peg could shatter, leading to massive capital flight, which was clearly a very serious problem as of end-2016 (Chart 11). Chart 10KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting Chart 11KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist The peg of the Saudi riyal to the U.S. dollar is not just an economic tool. It is a crucial social stability anchor for an economy that imports nearly all of its basic necessities. De-pegging would lead to a massive increase in import costs and thus a potential political and social crisis. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) has at its disposal considerable resources for the next two years. However, this is only the case if capital outflows do not pick up and oil prices continue to stabilize. The Russia-OPEC deal is in place to ensure the latter. The "weekend at the Ritz" is meant to ensure the former. But doesn't the crackdown against the wealth of 2,000 royal family members represent appropriation of private property? Not in the minds of King Salman and his reformist son. In fact, if the financial wealth of the royal family is used to fill the coffers of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, there is no reason why members of the Saudi "second estate" cannot benefit from its future investment returns and essentially "clip coupons" for a living. In fact, prior to the anti-corruption crackdown against the "second estate," Saudi officials hosted a completely different event at the Ritz Carlton: a gathering of top international investors for a conference called "Davos in the Desert." Judging by the conversations we had with a number of participants at that event, the point was not to encourage investments in Saudi Arabia. Rather, it was to secure the services of top international managers as Saudi Arabia ramps up the investment activities of its Public Investment Fund (PIF). Investors should therefore consider the first weekend at the Ritz as the launch of a new international investment vehicle by Saudi officials and the second weekend at the Ritz as its capitalization by the wider "second estate." We expect that fighting corruption will remain a major domestic policy thrust going forward. A recent academic study, for example, takes on the difficult job of eradicating wasta - the concept that each favor or privilege in Saudi society flows through middlemen or connections.16 The volume has been edited by Mohamed A. Ramady, professor of Finance and Economics at King Fahd University in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and is undoubtedly supported by the royal family. Moreover, King Salman and his son have the example of Chinese President Xi Jinping's impressive power consolidation via anti-corruption campaign right in front of them and are unlikely to have embarked on this course with the expectation that it would be a short process. Iran As An Existential Threat: Harnessing The "Third Estate" Real reform is always and everywhere difficult, otherwise the desired end-state would already be the form. For the Saudi leadership, attacking both the first and second estate presents considerable risks. It is appropriate, therefore, to believe that a palace coup may be attempted against King Salman and his son.17 International tensions with Iran are a particularly useful strategy to distract the opposition and paint all domestic dissent as treasonous. This is not to say that Saudi Arabia does not face considerable strategic challenges from Iran. As mentioned, Iranian influence in Iraq is particularly threatening to Saudi Arabia as it gives Tehran influence over a key strategic buffer that also produces 4.4 million barrels of crude per day. Furthermore, Iran supported the 2011 uprising in Shia-majority Bahrain against the Saudi-allied al-Khalifa monarchy; it at least nominally supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen; it has directly intervened in Syria on behalf of President al-Assad; and it continues to support Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is safe to say that, since 2011, Iran has been ascendant in the Middle East and has surrounded Saudi Arabia with strategic threats on all points of the compass. But to what extent is the Saudi rhetoric on Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, and Qatar a real threat to the stability in the Middle East? We turn to this question in our next section. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia's domestic intrigue is far more logical than pundits and the media make it out to be. King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are trying to build a modern nation state from what is today the world's last feudal monarchy. To do so, they have to enlist the support of the third estate - the country's large youth population - and curb the powers of its first and second estates - the religious establishment and the landed aristocracy. The process will be filled with risks and volatility, but is ultimately necessary for the long-term stability of the kingdom. Regional Risk Of War Is Overstated "[I am] positive there will be no implications coming out of this dramatic situation at all."18 -- Secretary of Defense James Mattis, asked about the Qatar crisis and the fight against ISIS, June 5, 2017 As this report goes to publication Saudi Arabia has accused Iranian-allied Hezbollah of forcing Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to run for his life. Hariri resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia. Although he claims that he is not being held against his will by Saudi authorities, his resignation is highly suspect. Saudi officials have also called a failed missile attack on Riyadh's airport, allegedly launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen, as a possible "act of war" by Iran. Meanwhile, Bahrain's Saudi-allied government has accused Iran of destroying an oil pipeline via terrorist action. The region's rumor mill - one of the most productive in the world - is in overdrive. What are the chances of increased proxy warfare between Saudi Arabia and Iran? We think that there is a good chance that Saudi Arabia will step up its military activity in the ancillary parts of the Middle East. In particular, we could see renewed Saudi military campaigns in Yemen and Bahrain. In isolation, these campaigns would add a temporary risk premium to oil prices. But given that Iran has no intention to become directly involved in either, we would expect Saudi moves to be largely for show. Over the long term, we do not see a direct confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia for three reasons. First, Saudi military capabilities are paltry and the kingdom has failed to secure the support of the wider Sunni world for its "Sunni NATO." We have already mentioned Saudi military failures in Yemen. Anyone who thinks that Saudi Arabia is ready to directly confront Iran must answer two questions. First, how does the Saudi military confront a formidable foe like Iran when it cannot dislodge Houthis from Yemen? Second, if Saudi Arabia is itching for a real conflict with Iran, why is it not saber-rattling in Iraq, a far more strategic piece of real estate for Saudi Arabia than any of the other countries where it accuses Iran of meddling? Chart 12Correlation Between Oil Prices And Military Disputes The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Second, oil prices remain a constraint to war. The reality is that there is a well-known relationship between high oil prices and aggressive foreign policy in oil-producing states (Chart 12). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. Chart 13 shows that oil states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes when oil prices are higher.19 While oil prices have recovered from their doldrums from two years ago, they are also a far cry from their pre-2014 highs. In fact, by our calculation, oil prices are still below the Saudi budget break-even price of oil, despite its best efforts to implement austerity (Chart 14). Chart 13More Oil Revenue = More Aggression The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Chart 14Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Third, Saudi Arabia has failed to secure a clear security commitment from the U.S. While the Trump administration is far more open to supporting Saudi Arabia than the Obama administration, it still criticized the Saudi decision to ostracize Qatar. Secretary of Defense James Mattis made a visit to Qatar in September to offer American support. In a shocking reversal to over half-a-century of geopolitics, King Salman went to Moscow this October to deepen geopolitical relations with Russia.20 The visit included several business deals in the realm of energy and a significant promise by Saudi Arabia to purchase Russian arms in the future, including the powerful S-400 SAM system. Saudi Arabia is the world's third-largest arms importer and uses purchases as a tool of diplomacy, but has never purchased weapons from Russia in a significant way in the past. While many pundits have pointed to the Saudi-Russian détente as a sign of strength, we see it as a sign of weakness. It illustrates that Saudi Arabia is diversifying its security portfolio away from the U.S. It is doing so because it has to, not because it wants to. As U.S. petroleum imports continue to decline due to domestic shale production, Saudi Arabia is compelled to find new allies (Chart 15). The plan to hold an initial public offering for Aramco, and to target sovereign Chinese entities as major bidders for Aramco assets, fits this pattern as well. Chart 15Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security ##br##Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline However, diversifying the geopolitical security portfolio to include Russia and China will not mean that Saudi Arabia will have a blank check to wage direct war against Iran. Both Russia and China have considerable diplomatic and economic interests in Iran and are as likely to restrain as to enable Saudi ambition. Finally, talk of a Saudi-Israeli alliance against Hezbollah in Lebanon is as far-fetched as a direct Saudi-Iranian confrontation. Israel won the 2006 war against Hezbollah, but at a high cost of 157 soldiers killed and 860 wounded.21 The Israeli public grew tired of the one month campaign, showing political limits to offensive war. Furthermore, twelve years later, Hezbollah is even more deeply entrenched in Lebanon. Unless Saudi Arabia is willing to provide ground troops for the effort (see Yemen discussion above), it is unclear why Israel would want to enter the morass of Lebanese ground combat on behalf of Riyadh. Bottom Line: Constraints to Saudi offensive military action remain considerable: paltry military capability, fiscal constraints imposed by low oil prices, and a lack of clear support from the U.S. While rhetorical attacks on Iran serve the strategic goal of nation-building, we do not expect a major war between oil-producing states that would significantly raise oil prices over the medium term. The rhetoric and posturing will increase volatility and temporarily push up prices from time to time. Investment Implications Of Saudi Nation-Building First, on the question of OPEC 2.0, our baseline case is for the 1.8 million barrel-per-day production cuts to be extended through June 2018, drawing OECD inventories down toward their five-year average and creating the conditions for Brent and WTI prices to average $65 per barrel and $63 per barrel respectively next year.22 Moreover, both Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin have endorsed extensions through end-2018. These comments add bullish upside risk to prices, though they also alter perceptions and thus raise the short-term downside risk if no extension is agreed this month (which we think is the least likely scenario). Second, as to broader geopolitical risks in the Middle East, we believe they are rising yet again in the short and medium term, after the relative calm of 2017.23 We could see Saudi officials decide to ramp up military operations in Yemen or revive them in neighboring Bahrain. However, we do not see much of a chance of serious conflict in Lebanon or Qatar. The former would require an Israeli military intervention, which is unlikely given the outcome of the 2006 war. The latter would require American acquiescence, which is unlikely given the vital U.S. strategic presence in the country's Al Udeid military base. Nonetheless, even temporary military operations in any of these locales could add a geopolitical risk premium to oil markets. For example, the 2006 Lebanon-Israel War, which had no impact on oil production, generated a significant jump in oil prices (Chart 16). Chart 16Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Over the long term, how should investors make sense of the complicated Middle East geopolitical theater? Our rule of thumb is always to seek out the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. For a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications, we would need to see it have an impact on at least two of the following three factors: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni versus Shia. When we consider the security dilemma between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia are two regions critical to global oil supply. Tellingly, neither has played a role in the recent spate of tensions between the two countries. Saudi Arabia has been very careful not to increase tensions with Iran in Iraq. In fact, the Saudi leadership has reached out to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who was received by King Salman in October in the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. How should investors price domestic political intrigue in Saudi Arabia? In the long term, any failure of King Salman and his son to reform the country would be negative for internal stability, with risks to oil production if social unrest were to increase. In the short and medium term, however, even a palace coup would likely have no lasting impact on oil prices as it would be highly unlikely that an alternative leadership would imperil the kingdom's oil exports. On the contrary, a coup against King Salman could lead to lower oil prices if the new leadership in Riyadh decided to renege on their oil production cuts with Russia. The bottom line is that the geopolitical risk premium is likely to rise. The evolution of Saudi Arabia away from a feudal monarchy requires the suppression of the kingdom's first and second estates, a dangerous business that will likely be smoothed by nationalism and saber-rattling. Risks to oil prices, therefore, are to the upside. However, given the considerable constraints on Saudi Arabia's military and foreign policy capabilities, we do not foresee global growth-constraining oil supply risks in the Middle East. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The latest news from Riyadh is that the nearby Courtyard by Marriott Hotel may have been enlisted by the Saudi authorities for the crackdown, in addition to the Ritz Carlton. If true, we can only imagine the horrors that the prisoners are subject to! 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Iran 'taking over' Iraq, Saudis warn, blaming U.S. refusal to send troops against ISIS," The National Post, dated March 5, 2015, available at nationalpost.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Iran's influence in Iraq grew almost immediately following the American military withdrawal. Iraq's Shia Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, wasted no time revealing his allegiance to Iran or his sectarian preferences. Baghdad issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi literally the day after the last American troops withdrew from the country, signaling to the Sunni establishment that compromise was not a priority. Persecution of the wider Sunni population soon followed, with counter-insurgency operations in Sunni populated Al Anbar and Nineveh governorates. 6 Please see Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, "Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone," New York Times, dated December 17, 2013, available at nytimes.com. 7 Please see Bruce Riedel, "Saudi Arabia's Mounting Security Challenges," Al Monitor, dated December 2015, available at al-monitor.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Martin Chulov, "I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam, says crown prince," The Guardian, dated October 24, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 10 Something tells us that most violations of Islamic law are likely to be committed after hours! 11 The Sudairi branch of the Saud dynasty refers to the issue of Saudi Arabia's founder Abdulaziz Ibn Saud with Hassa bint Ahmed Al Sudairi, one of Ibn Saud's wives and a member of the powerful Al Sudairis clan. The union produced seven sons, the largest faction out of the 45 sons that Ibn Saud fathered. As the largest grouping, the sons - often referred to as the "Sudairi Seven" - were able to consolidate power and unite against the other brothers. In addition to the current King Salman, the other member of the Sudairi faction who became a king was Fahd, ruling from 1982 to 2005. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The app is used to transmit photos and videos between users that disappear from the device after being viewed in 10 seconds. It is highly unlikely to be used for religious education. It is highly likely to be used by teenagers for ... well, use your imagination. 14 Please see "Social Media In Saudi Arabia - Statistics And Trends," TFE Times, dated January 12, 2017, available at tfetimes.com; "Saudi social media users ranked 7th in the world," Arab News, November 14, 2015, available at arabnews.com. 15 The World Values Survey is used in academic political science research to track changes in global social and political values. Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have summarized the key findings in Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005). For more information, please see http://worldvaluessurvey.org. 16 Please see Mohamed A. Ramady, ed., The Political Economy Of Wasta: Use and Abuse of Social Capital Networking (New York: Springer, 2016). 17 It would not be the first such coup in Saudi history. King Saud was deposed in 1962 by his brother, King Faisal. 18 Please see Nahal Toosi and Madeline Conway, "Tillerson: Dispute Between Gulf States And Qatar Won't Affect Counterterrorism," dated June 5, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 19 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behaviour," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at www.iie.com. 20 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "Mideast War, By The Numbers," Associated Press, August 17, 2006, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 22 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," dated October 19, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Stay short the rand. The South African currency has broken down, and further downside is looming. The rand is cheap for a reason. A lack of import substitution has hampered the benefits of a depreciated currency for the economy. The trade balance will deteriorate as metals prices drop due to growth deceleration in China. Lingering political uncertainty, a poor structural backdrop and reliance on foreign portfolio flows that are at risk of reversal all argue for material downside in the rand's value from current levels. Dedicated EM equity and bond portfolios should continue to underweight South Africa. Feature The South African rand posted an impressive rally in 2016 and early 2017, despite the economy's technical recession (Chart I-1). Yet recently, the rand has started breaking down, despite domestic demand data showing modest improvement. We have argued in the past that lower commodities prices and rising U.S. interest rates along with a negative political backdrop and a weak economy would put downward pressure on the rand. However, domestic demand has recently ticked up, and according to our broad money (M3) impulse, domestic demand will likely continue to improve modestly in the next several months (Chart I-2) - barring the intensifying political headwinds hurting business and consumer sentiment. The M3 impulse is the second derivative of outstanding broad money M3. Chart I-1South Africa: ##br##Economy And Currency South Africa: Economy And Currency South Africa: Economy And Currency Chart I-2South Africa: Modest ##br##Upside In Domestic Demand South Africa: Modest Upside In Domestic Demand South Africa: Modest Upside In Domestic Demand Therefore, today we are posing the following question: Can South African risk assets sell off even as domestic demand continues to recover moderately? Our answer is yes. The basis is that the balance of payments (BoP) is set to deteriorate again. What Drives The Rand? The narrative that a high carry will support high-yielding EM currencies including the rand is misplaced. Chart I-3 illustrates that there has been no positive correlation between the rand's exchange rate and its short-term interest rate differential with those in the U.S. Notably, neither the level nor direction of interest rate differential correlates positively with the value of the rand. If anything, it is the exchange rate that drives interest rates in South Africa and in many high-yielding EM markets, not the other way around. The bottom panel of Chart I-3 demonstrates that the rand's appreciation typically leads to lower interest rates, and vice versa. While in the near term the rand could be under pressure from rising U.S. interest rate expectations and a U.S. dollar rebound, the currency's medium-term outlook will continue be shaped by commodities prices. Chart I-4 demonstrates that the rand's exchange rate is strongly correlated with industrial and precious metals prices. Chart I-3Rand Drives Interest ##br##Rates Not Other Way Around Rand Drives Interest Rates Not Other Way Around Rand Drives Interest Rates Not Other Way Around Chart I-4Rand Is Correlated ##br##With Metal Prices Rand Is Correlated With Metal Prices Rand Is Correlated With Metal Prices The fundamental basis for rand depreciation going forward is a worsening BoP: Industrial metals prices will drop as China's growth slows (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, a moderate pick-up in domestic demand will lead to rising imports and a deteriorating trade balance (Chart I-2, bottom panel on page 2). Precious metals prices will also be under pressure in the near term as U.S. interest rate expectations rise, supporting the U.S. dollar. In fact, the most reliable factor driving gold prices has historically been U.S. real (TIPS) yields (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China's Money/Credit Impulses ##br##Are Bearish For Industrial Metals bca.ems_sr_2017_11_15_s1_c5 bca.ems_sr_2017_11_15_s1_c5 Chart I-6Gold Is Driven By U.S. ##br##Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Gold Is Driven By U.S. Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Gold Is Driven By U.S. Real Rates (TIPS Yields) We expect the rand to depreciate considerably and make new lows against the euro and European currencies. This will contrast with what occurred in 2014-'15, when the rand's depreciation versus the euro and European currencies was much less pronounced than versus the dollar. Chart I-7Foreigners Are Record ##br##Long South African Bonds Foreigners Are Record Long South African Bonds Foreigners Are Record Long South African Bonds As the rand falls versus the majority of DM currencies, foreign investors will be prompted to reduce their holdings of South African local currency bonds and equities. Given foreigners own 42% of the country's local government bonds (Chart I-7, top panel), the bond market will sell off further, and outflows could be meaningful. Another angle to consider is whether a revival in domestic demand would be enough to offset the above negatives and attract enough foreign capital to finance the BoP. In our opinion, not this time around. First, any domestic demand recovery in South Africa will be muted. Given lingering political uncertainty, upside in business spending and job creation will remain subdued. Notably, risks are skewed to the downside for domestic demand due to lingering political uncertainty. Second, in 2016 the rand rallied considerably, even as domestic demand was falling. During 2016 and early 2017, the rand was supported by external forces such as rising metals prices and capital flows to EM. In turn, weakening domestic demand induced an imports contraction, helping the trade balance. Presently, all of these factors are reversing. Finally, portfolio flows have been much more important than FDIs for South Africa in recent years (Chart I-8). This implies that as portfolio flows dry up, FDIs will not finance the BoP. Bottom Line: South Africa's BoP dynamics are set to deteriorate markedly, leading to a major currency downleg. Is The Rand Cheap? A Look At Import Substitution Our valuation measures show that the rand is one standard deviation cheap (Chart I-9). Chart I-8South Africa: FDI Versus Portfolio Flows South Africa: FDI Versus Portfolio Flows South Africa: FDI Versus Portfolio Flows Chart I-9The Rand's Valuation Profile The Rand's Valuation Profile The Rand's Valuation Profile However, we believe it is "cheap for a reason." Structural forces have been and remain currency bearish. Chart I-10No Import Substitution In South Africa No Import Substitution In South Africa No Import Substitution In South Africa A cheap currency leads to import substitution - i.e., domestic producers become more competitive than foreign ones, and they replace imports with locally produced goods. This in turn improves the trade balance and boosts domestic jobs and income. Stronger output growth and higher return on capital allow the economy to withstand higher interest rates. Rising return on capital and interest rates attract foreign capital (both portfolio inflows and FDI), leading to currency appreciation. In South Africa, the inherent problem is that despite substantial weakness in the currency since 2011, there has been very little import substitution. This is true across the most basic types of goods that do not require sophisticated production methods such as footwear, plastic, rubber products and textiles (Chart I-10). Astonishingly, this has continued to hold true even after the collapse of the rand in 2015 to two-standard-deviations below its fair value. Given import substitution has not materialized, economic growth has not benefited much from a depreciated currency, and all the usual drivers that typically mark a bottom in the exchange rate and jump-start sustainable currency appreciation are thus still lacking. Hence, the rand will have to stay cheap. Interestingly, in the absence of a shift from foreign to locally produced goods, a recovery in domestic demand will boost imports, benefiting foreign producers relative to local ones - i.e., "leaking" growth to the rest of the world. Bottom Line: An ongoing lack of import substitution in South Africa has been due to lingering structural malaise. Therefore, the rand will have to stay structurally cheap. Productivity Demise It is not surprising that import substitution has been non-existent, given the demise of productivity within the South African economy. When assessing competitiveness, it is essential to analyze a country's unit labor costs in U.S. dollar terms. South African unit labor costs in U.S. dollar terms have risen by 50% in the manufacturing sector, and by 160% in the overall economy since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Comparative Unit Labor Costs In US$: ##br##South Africa & U.S. Comparative Unit Labor Costs In US$: South Africa & U.S. Comparative Unit Labor Costs In US$: South Africa & U.S. For comparison, in the U.S., overall non-farm unit labor costs in U.S. dollars have risen by 20% since 2000, and have been more or less flat in the manufacturing sector. In brief, in the past 17 years, unit labor costs in U.S. dollar in South Africa have risen substantially more than in the U.S. There are also other ramifications of lingering productivity malaise: First, in South Africa, fiscal and monetary stimuli typically widen the current account deficit more than in countries where manufacturing is able to compete with global manufacturers. Second, inflation dynamics in South Africa are even more sensitive to exchange rate movements. A large share of imports for domestic consumption ensures that South African inflation remains correlated with the exchange rate rather than with the domestic business cycle. Third, for monetary policy, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) has been forced to pursue more pro-cyclical monetary policy - raising rates when metals prices drop and the rand depreciates. Higher interest rates amid a negative terms-of-trade shock - i.e. falling metals prices - has historically reinforced boom-bust cycles in the South African economy and created less visibility for domestic investments, further hindering long-term growth. That said, there are presently low odds that the SARB will hike rates materially, even if the rand drops substantially. The monetary authorities did not significantly cut rates amid the rand's rally in 2016-'17. Hence, odds of rate hikes are low, which heralds yield curve steepening. Bottom Line: Poor productivity has been and remains a major constraint on South African growth and a major drag on the currency. An Update On Politics The December African National Congress (ANC) presidential election is around the corner, and it is worth asking if any positive outcome for the economy and markets may emerge. We do not expect so. At this point, there are two scenarios to consider. The first is that current Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa wins. Given his recent strong performance in key swing provinces and lack of competition from Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Ramaphosa has decent chances of winning the ANC presidency. However, as our colleagues from the Geopolitical Strategy service argued, the structural reality is that the median voter in South Africa is not in a position to support a pro-market reformer willing to pursue painful structural reforms.1 In a system where policymakers are price takers in the political marketplace and not price makers, even if Ramaphosa wins, he is unlikely to address the majority of South Africa's lingering structural issues in a meaningful way. Furthermore, the rising popularity of the left-wing radical Economic Free Fighters, led by ex-Youth League Leader Julius Malema, will also be a constraint on Ramaphosa in terms of enacting supply side reforms. The second scenario is that Ramaphosa does not win, in which case he and his supporters could split from the ANC and perhaps form a new party with the Democratic Alliance (DA). It is hard to tell at the moment what this scenario would entail for the general elections in 2019. Historically, given the ANC's stronghold on the country's politics, the winner of the ANC Congress has moved on to become President of South Africa. However in the event of an ANC split, some revaluation of the political landscape would be required. Regardless of who wins the elections in 2019, a general lack of appetite for structural and painful reforms point to fiscal policy remaining lax - and being used to boost growth (Chart I-12). At 51% of GDP, the public debt burden is not yet at alarming levels. In the meantime, easy or easing fiscal stance will continue to put downward pressure on the rand. Bottom Line: Odds of structural reforms are low, regardless of who wins the December elections. Fiscal policy will remain easy, and public debt will continue to rise. This is a bad omen for the currency. Investment Recommendations We continue to recommend the following strategy: Continue shorting the ZAR versus the USD. The rand has broken down from a key resistance level, and has much more downside (Chart I-13). Chart I-12South Africa: Fiscal Deficit Is Wide South Africa: Fiscal Deficit Is Wide South Africa: Fiscal Deficit Is Wide Chart I-13The Rand: A Breakdown The Rand: A Breakdown The Rand: A Breakdown Underweight South African domestic bonds and sovereign credit relative to their EM benchmarks. Sovereign spreads have hit a strong technical resistance and are starting to bounce off (Chart I-14). Continue betting on yield-curve steepening. A lack of economic vigor will keep the SARB on hold for now, yet the country's populist fiscal stance and withdrawals by foreigners from the bond market will push up long-dated bond yields. For EM local fixed-income portfolios, we maintain the following trade: short South African and Turkish 5-year bonds / long Polish and Hungarian ones. Lastly, a few words on the stock market: Our cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio for the MSCI South Africa equity index suggests that this bourse is one standard deviation expensive (Chart I-15, top panel). Chart I-14South Africa: Sovereign Spreads ##br##To Move Above EM Benchmark South Africa: Sovereign Spreads To Move Above EM Benchmark South Africa: Sovereign Spreads To Move Above EM Benchmark Chart I-15South African Equites: ##br##Valuation & Technicals South African Equites: Valuation & Technicals South African Equites: Valuation & Technicals Interestingly, the relative performance of this bourse versus the EM benchmark might be on a precipice of a major breakdown (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Continue underweighting South African stocks. Chart I-16Banks To Outperform As Yield Curve Steepens Banks To Outperform As Yield Curve Steepens Banks To Outperform As Yield Curve Steepens As to sectors, we recommend an overweight position in banks and materials. A steepening yield curve typically benefits bank stocks (Chart I-16), while materials will in turn benefit from a depreciating currency. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, link available at gps.bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, Instead of our Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Marko argues that while there is considerable risk that NAFTA is abrogated, the Trump administration would quickly move to alleviate the effects to trade flows. The risk to our view is that President Trump is a genuine populist, a view that his actions thus far do not support. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The "Great Gatsby" Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 Chart 11Mexico's Growing Population Is A Potential Market NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).1 0Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto##br## Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has ##br##Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment:##br## China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).10 Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,” dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S. Election: The Great White Hype,” dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency,” dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The bill is bullish for growth and therefore for the equity markets and the U.S. dollar; The bill consists mostly of tax cuts, not reforms, that favor corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers; The bill is bullish for growth in the short term, but also inflationary and hence a risk to growth in the medium term; A non-populist White House is a relief to the markets, particularly on trade policy, but may mean a more hawkish foreign policy. Feature Chart 1Trump: A Boon For##BR##Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Since the November 2016 election, and particularly since President Donald Trump's inauguration, financial markets have celebrated. This is ironic given that on the campaign trail, Trump often adopted populist rhetoric indistinguishable from that of Bernie Sanders, the bête noire of the business community. Trump's cabinet, however, quickly took on a pro-business outlook following the inauguration. Despite appointing several notable trade hawks, the administration sported half a dozen former Goldman Sachs employees. Business confidence soared, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries hanging over CEO's melted away (Chart 1). Both Wall Street and Main Street took one look at President Trump's cabinet at the end of January and decided that there was not an iota of genuine populism in the White House. This view was reinforced by three early decisions by the Trump administration: China: President Trump reneged on his promise to designate China a currency manipulator formally on day one of his administration.1 Instead, he hosted President Xi Jinping at the Mar-A-Lago Summit in April and agreed to engage in trade talks over the rest of the year. (He again declined to accuse China of currency manipulation in October.) Budget: President Trump's "skinny budget" proposal in May oozed with Republican Party orthodoxy, bolstering spending on defense and border security, while calling for drastic cuts to domestic programs. The implication was that future tax cuts would ultimately be "paid for" via draconian fiscal austerity in the distant future. "Breitbart clique" ousted: Steve Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and self-described economic nationalist, was fired in mid-August, with several prominent allies ousted in the wake of his departure. Bannon's departure left Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Enter Tax Cuts The coup-de-grâce of Republican orthodoxy is the just-proposed tax cut plan. The proposal by the House Ways and Means Committee is heavily stacked in favor of corporations and the top-income brackets. As Table 1 clearly illustrates, the household component of the plan is nearly balanced - and therefore deserving of the moniker "reform" - whereas the corporate side of the ledger is closer to a pure and simple cut. Table 12017-2018 Republican Tax Cut Proposal - House Ways And Means Committee (Oct. 2017) Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Some of the more prominent measures proposed by the House and Ways Committee are: Household Income The highest tax rate remains 39.6%, but would now only kick in at $1 million in taxable income;2 The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be repealed, which hurts the upper middle class and wealthy by limiting tax benefits from a variety of deductions; The estate tax will be fully eliminated by 2024; The standard deduction will be doubled from $12,700 to $24,000, one of the few direct benefits to lower-income families; The plan would repeal the state and local income and sales tax deductions, while capping the state and local property tax deduction to $10,000; Almost all itemized deductions will be eliminated - such as medical expenses, property losses, casualty losses, etc.; The mortgage interest rate deduction for future home purchases will be capped, with only homes up to $500,000 covered. Corporate Income The corporate tax rate will be cut from 35% to 20%; Companies will be able to deduct the full amount of business investments in the year that they are made, although the provision would expire at the end of 2022; The tax rate on income from pass-through businesses would fall to 25%, considerably below the top household income tax rate; Several deductions would be eliminated, including the deduction of interest on debt; The "worldwide" tax system would be overhauled and foreign earnings repatriated: U.S. multinational corporations would pay a 12% tax rate on past profits that they repatriate, while future overseas earnings would be taxed at the new 20% corporate rate. We would caution clients from parsing too carefully through the proposal, lest they waste their time. The Senate is likely to pass a completely different set of proposals. The GOP plan is to get to a "conference committee" as fast as possible, where a new draft legislation can be hammered out from the two disparate proposals. We suspect that this entire process will miss the self-imposed target of "before Christmas," and probably last until the end of the first quarter.3 Nonetheless, we can discern the priorities of the House Republicans by gauging the winners and losers of their proposal. Our immediate take is that the tax cuts greatly benefit upper-income filers (households making over $423,000), moderately hurt upper-middle-class / lower-upper-class filers (those making between $260,000 and $423,000), and are largely neutral for the rest of households. First, the highest income groups are the clear beneficiaries: households making between roughly $450,000 and $1,000,000 will see their income tax rates fall by nearly 5%, by far the largest decrease planned. And, obviously, it is upper-income households that benefit from repealing the estate tax. Meanwhile, the upper middle class takes on the brunt of the burden of "reform": households making between $260,000 and $423,000 will see far fewer benefits under the proposed legislation. First, they are the only income bracket that will see a tax increase, from 33% to 35%. Second, they will not necessarily have the wherewithal to reclassify their income as pass-through business income. Third, many of the itemized deductions that will be eliminated will make a real difference in their filings. Fourth, they were the most likely to purchase homes between $500,000 and $1,000,000, which will no longer be eligible for interest-rate deduction. Fifth, the repeal of the estate tax will make less of a difference for this income group. Sixth, if they are domiciled in high-tax rate states and municipalities, these households will now be limited to how much they can deduct from federal taxes.4 Overall, the proposed tax cut plan fits general Republican orthodoxy.5 It tries to stimulate growth by favoring corporations and the wealthy. For economic growth, the plan is bullish in the short term. Particularly bullish is the ability of corporations to fully deduct the amount of business investment for the next five years. This provision could significantly increase investment in the short term, especially given the implicit threat that the opportunity will expire in 2022.6 Will the plan fail? It could, if enough Republican voters turn against it. The latest polling from Pew research - albeit from April of this year - shows that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 2). On the other hand, Republican and Republican-leaning voters do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 3), and the proposed plan simplifies taxes for some middle-income households by doubling the standard deduction and repealing the AMT. The White House has already begun stressing this feature given that it polls well with voters. Chart 2American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Chart 3...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Polling suggests that President Trump remains relatively popular with Republican voters despite his dismal polling with the general public (Chart 4). He is polling only slightly below the average of previous Republican presidents at this point in his term in office. As long as Trump remains more popular with Republican voters than his Republican peers in Congress, we think that he will be able to force the tax plan through both the Senate and the House. In fact, we could even see some Democrats in the Senate supporting these tax cuts. Table 2 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin) are especially vulnerable. That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, potentially enough "slack" for the Republicans in the Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Chart 4Trump Remains Popular With GOP Voters Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Table 22018 Senate Races To Watch Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Is it even worthwhile to contemplate a scenario in which Republicans pass the tax cuts with Democrat support in the Senate? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska) all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states. Bottom Line: The proposed tax cuts will benefit corporations and the upper-income Americans. The Senate may make some symbolic changes to the proposal to make it more palatable to the median American - given that senators have to capture the median voter in their state to win reelection. For example, the estate tax repeal may be scrapped and rules on deducting state and local taxes may be modified. Regardless of how the horse-trading goes, we believe that the U.S. economy will receive a modest stimulus in the form of a roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut (over ten years). Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment and firing on all cylinders, the proposed tax cuts should be marginally bullish for growth and inflation (Chart 5). Chart 5Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped What Do The Tax Cuts Tell Us About President Trump? We are big believers in the theory of "revealed preferences." While this concept was formally applied by economist Paul Samuelson to consumer behavior, we like to apply it to policymakers. The idea is to ignore the rhetoric and focus on what patterns of behavior reveal about genuine preferences. Politicians talk a lot, particularly during an election campaign. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump was a clear populist candidate. He only revealed his tax reform plan in late September 2015 and then rarely mentioned it on the campaign trail. While his tax cut proposal languished on the campaign website, Trump focused on rallying voters around a combination of populist promises. These were, in no particular order, to build the border wall (and make Mexico pay for it), to rebuild American infrastructure, to repeal Obamacare, to destroy the Islamic State terrorist movement while disengaging the U.S. from global affairs, and to punish the unfair practices of trade partners like China and Mexico. Fast forward 12 months and we are now half-way to the 2018 mid-term election, with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, and yet the only electoral promise that President Trump is even close to achieving is the just-announced tax cut.7 The revealed preference of the Trump administration, at least at this point, is Republican orthodoxy. Trump is a pro-growth, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-spending, red-blooded Republican. He has eschewed trade conflict with China, ignored infrastructure proposals, largely toed-the-line of foreign policy orthodoxy, and left hedge fund managers - a punching bag on the campaign trail - alone.8 To put it bluntly, Trump's behavior thus far suggests that he is a pluto-populist. A pluto-populist is someone who rules on the behalf of a plutocracy - an oligarchy controlled by the wealthiest citizens - but whose main tactic is to rally the plebeians (the common people) through populist policies. The House's draft tax plan provides sweeping gains for the wealthiest. It also preserves or expands some benefits for the poorest groups, so as to make it politically achievable. The upper middle class - the professional class - stands to suffer the most under the new tax scheme. If this analysis is correct, what does it reveal about President Trump's strategy going forward? Anti-globalization rhetoric is just talk: The fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations ended with a bang: the U.S. delivered four new demands, two of which both Ottawa and Mexico City have identified as non-starters.9 However, in the pluto-populist scenario, even if NAFTA is ultimately abrogated, the Trump administration will ensure that the critical components are preserved in bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico. While those agreements are negotiated, the Trump Administration will not raise tariffs to the maximum, "bounded," level as allowed by the WTO. Meanwhile, trade relations with China may still sour in 2018, but they will not produce a trade war. Social unrest could increase: As we argued in a recent Special Report, the American structural context is ripe for more social unrest due to "elite overproduction."10 Trump's policies are likely to feed this condition. Meanwhile, his rhetoric and symbolic gestures will fuel the flames of division in order to play to his base, and force Democrats to argue about how to respond. This would be the populist part of pluto-populism. Hawkish foreign policy: With most of his domestic policies stymied, President Trump will pivot to the foreign theatre. We would particularly watch the growing tensions in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which could soon involve Lebanon.11 President Trump has also decertified the Iran nuclear deal, setting the stage for Congress to decide whether it will impose new sanctions and thus abrogate the deal. Plus, there is always North Korea. Bottom Line: Essentially, President Trump's strategy will be to pass pro-business, pro-market economic policies while distracting his largely anti-business, anti-market voters through ancillary issues. Investment Implications On the one hand, this analysis implies a very bullish policy mix as the Trump administration will not do anything domestically that hurts the ongoing bull market. On the other hand, some of those "ancillary" issues could flare up and impact the market, particularly if they involve a ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and North Korea. Chart 6No Debate: There Is No##BR##Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts No Debate: There Is No Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts No Debate: There Is No Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts The one risk that we remain concerned about is protectionism. We expected Trump to be more disruptive this year, and the above analysis suggests that protectionism, too, is merely hot air. However, Trump has only been in office for ten months. The absence of trade tensions with China may be a function of ongoing negotiations with North Korea: the U.S. needs China's cooperation in order to force North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un to the table. Ironically, then, a resolution of North Korean tensions could increase America's maneuvering vis-à-vis China, allowing Trump to become a lot more protectionist in 2018.12 Moreover, investors may be overemphasizing headline trade negotiations such as NAFTA or the China talks. The Trump administration may pursue protectionist aims through selective tariffs, such as countervailing and anti-dumping duties, in selective fashion. In other words, investors should pay attention to individual tariff decisions rather than overall negotiations.13 As for his electoral base, as long as President Trump can continue to ensure that they are focused on social disputes at home and hawkish rhetoric abroad, they may not notice the lack of movement on domestic promises. In particular, we have a high-conviction view that the just-proposed tax cuts will do nothing to curb income inequality in the U.S., and will likely deepen it, as previous such GOP-efforts did (Chart 6). Will this hurt President Trump in his 2020 reelection bid? We doubt it. But it does portend still greater socio-economic tensions and political populism in the long run. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The promise was made in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that then-candidate Trump penned on November 9, 2015. Please see Donald J. Trump, "Ending China's Currency Manipulation," dated November 9, 2015, available at wsj.com. 2 The top marginal tax rate of 39.6% is currently applied to single individuals making more than $418,401, a head of household making more than $444,501, and married couples, filing jointly, making more than $470,701. Technically, according to the current draft bill, the top tax rate in the House plan is supposedly about 45.6% between $1-$1.2 million, after which it falls back to 39.6%. A quirk in the proposal holds that once a filer hits $1 million of income, the IRS starts clawing back the $12,000 that the filer saved from having a 12% tax rate on his first $90,000 of income instead of a 25% tax rate. That clawback comes in the form of 6% surtax on income above $1 million. The $12,000 is completely reclaimed once the filer hits $1.2 million. By extension, everyone who makes over $1.2 million has had to pay that extra $12,000 in taxes. 3 For more on how the reconciliation process works, and how it will affect the timeline, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 From a political perspective, the GOP may have simply made a bet that high-tax-rate, blue-state households making $260,000-to-$430,000 do not vote Republican. 5 The congressional budget resolution that sets out the reconciliation instructions for these tax cuts also includes draconian spending cuts, which would presumably help balance the books. Although none of those cuts will pass Congress, they reveal the traditional preference of the Republican party: cut taxes, pay for the cuts by means of a smaller government delivering fewer services. 6 And perhaps this investment boost will come just in time to help re-elect Trump in 2020! 7 Although he deserves some credit for bringing to conclusion the pre-existing fight against the Islamic State. 8 In fact, the House tax bill leaves the "carried interest" tax break in the code. 9 For more on NAFTA, please see our upcoming Special Report with BCA's Global Investment Strategy, to be published on November 10. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Saad Harriri recently resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia, claiming that he feared for his life due to Iranian influence in Lebanon; Saudi Arabia itself is engaged in deep political struggle. 12 Indeed, in our original forecast of Trump's trade policy, we surmised that 2017 would largely be a year of negotiations, while 2018 would see the real fireworks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 An important such decision looms by January 12, 2018, which is the deadline by which President Trump must decide whether to impose "safeguard" tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines.

Highlights London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Stay underweight U.K. real estate and consumer services versus German real estate and consumer services. The global bond yield mini-cycle is driving asset allocation, sector allocation, value/growth allocation and country allocation. We are more than half way through the current mini-upswing in global bond yields. Look for opportunities to cut back overall portfolio cyclicality towards the end of the year. Feature London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago (Chart of the Week). The average London home is now worth £584,000,1 down from £628,000. Moreover, our leading indicator for London house prices which compares the number of new viewings (demand) with the number of new listings (supply) suggests no imminent end to the sharpest price decline since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Brexit Begins To Bite In London Brexit Begins To Bite In London Brexit Begins To Bite In London Chart I-2The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... Unsurprisingly, the many uncertainties surrounding the unfolding Brexit process are having a much greater impact on the London housing market than on the U.K. housing market as a whole. Outside London, the housing market is broadly flat-lining (Chart I-3). The average U.K. home outside London is now worth £256,500, modestly down from £260,000. Chart I-3 ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining U.K. Households Squeezed We are writing ahead of the Bank of England monetary policy meeting, at which the BoE may deliver its first interest rate hike since July 2007. But hike or no hike, we can confidently say one thing: U.K. households will be squeezed. If the BoE does hike the base rate in an attempt to counter overshooting inflation, it could tip the precariously flat-lining housing market outside London into a downturn - as this market is much more exposed to mortgage affordability than it is to Brexit uncertainties. Alternatively, if the BoE does not hike the base rate, the boost to sterling from recent hawkish rhetoric will be priced out, and the pound will come under renewed downward pressure. This would keep U.K. inflation elevated, and further choke U.K. households' real incomes. Absent the post Brexit vote slump in the pound, U.K. inflation would be substantially lower than it is (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). So the pound's weakness explains why the U.K. is one of the few major economies where inflation is running well north of 2%. Unfortunately for U.K. households, nominal wage inflation has not followed price inflation higher. And as we explained in Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes,2 nor is it likely to in the near future. Chart I-4The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... Chart I-5...And U.K. Core Inflation ...And U.K. Core Inflation ...And U.K. Core Inflation But doesn't textbook economic theory say that the pound's weakness should make U.K. exports more competitive - thereby boosting the net export contribution to economic growth? Yes, the theory does say that a currency devaluation should allow firms to trade in markets that were previously unprofitable to them. However, to trade in these newly profitable markets, firms first need to invest - for example, in marketing and distribution. The trouble is that, post-Brexit, many of the newly profitable markets may be unavailable, or come with heavy tariffs. So firms will hold off making the necessary investments, unless the currency devaluation is massive. But in this case, the corresponding surge in inflation and choke on households' real incomes would also be massive. In summary, U.K. consumer spending faces a continued squeeze. If the BoE delivers a rate hike, household borrowing is likely to fade as a driver of spending. But if the BoE does not deliver the rate hike, the pound will once again weaken, keeping inflation elevated and weighing on real incomes. Stay underweight U.K. consumer services versus German consumer services (Chart I-6). And stay underweight U.K. real estate versus German real estate - expressed either through direct real estate exposure or through real estate equities (Chart I-7). Chart I-6U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Chart I-7U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming Investment Reductionism Illustrated Turning to markets more generally, it is crucial to understand that most of the moves in most financial markets reduce to a very small number of over-arching macro drivers. We call this very important principle Investment Reductionism. Investment Reductionism emerges from two guiding philosophies: Occam's Razor - which says that when there are competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best; and the Pareto Principle (the 80:20 rule) - which says that a small minority of causes usually explain a large majority of effects. The upshot of Investment Reductionism is that the seeming complexity of asset allocation, sector selection, the choice between value or growth, and country allocation usually reduces to something much simpler. Let's illustrate this. The global 6-month credit impulse leads the cyclical direction of the global bond yield, and thereby determines asset allocation (Chart I-8). The direction of the global bond yield drives sector selection: for example Banks versus Healthcare. This is because higher bond yields imply higher net interest margins for banks as well as an improving growth outlook, favouring cyclicals over defensives. And vice-versa (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Investment Reductionism Step 1: ##br##The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Investment Reductionism Step 1: The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Investment Reductionism Step 1: The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Chart I-9Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives ##br##Sector Performance Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives Sector Performance Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives Sector Performance Banks versus Healthcare determines the European Value versus Growth decision. This is because in Europe, Banks and Healthcare are the dominant value sector and growth sector respectively (Chart I-10). Banks versus Healthcare also determines the country allocation between, say, Italy's MIB - which is bank heavy - and Denmark's OMX - which is healthcare heavy (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value ##br##Vs. Growth Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value Vs. Growth Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value Vs. Growth Chart I-11Step 4: Sector Performance Drives ##br##Country Performance Step 4: Sector Performance Drives Country Performance Step 4: Sector Performance Drives Country Performance Therefore, the important lesson from Investment Reductionism is to ignore the hundreds of things that matter little, and to focus on the very small number of things that matter a lot. And one of the things that matters a lot is the global bond yield mini-cycle. Where Are We In The Bond Yield Mini-Cycle? Empirically, the acceleration and deceleration of global bank credit flows - as measured in the global credit impulse - exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle lasting about 8 months (Chart I-12). The global bond yield shows a similarly regular wave like pattern with each half-cycle also averaging about 8 months (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern Chart I-13The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern It is not a coincidence that the bank credit impulse and bond yield exhibit near identical half-cycle lengths. The global credit impulse and global bond yield are inextricably embraced in a perpetual mini-cycle. A stronger credit impulse boosts economic growth. In response to the stronger economic data, the bond yield rises, which slows credit growth. A weaker credit impulse weighs down economic growth. In response to the weaker economic data, the bond yield declines, which re-accelerates credit growth. Go back to step 1 and repeat ad perpetuam. At this moment, from an investment perspective, there are three points worth making: first, bond yield mini-upswings tend to occur mostly within the credit impulse upswing; second, credit impulse mini-upswings have a consistent duration lasting about 8 months; and third, the current mini-upswing started in May. What does this mean for investment strategy? It means that we are more than half-way through the current mini-upswing which we would expect to end around January/February. And at some point early next year we are likely to enter a mini-downswing. So it is slightly premature to cut back cyclical exposure right now. But we would certainly consider opportunities as we move to the end of the year - especially if our now tried and tested fractal timing indicators signal that the price action in specific investments has reached a technical tipping point. Stay tuned. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: LSL Acadata 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes", dated August 10 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, our model suggests that the New Zealand dollar is oversold and ripe for a technical rebound. The recommended trade is long NZD/USD with a profit target/stop loss set at 3%. In other trades, long Canada 10-year bond/short German 10-year bund achieved its profit target while short Norway/long Switzerland hit its stop loss. This leaves five open trades. 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 I-14 Long NZD/USD Long NZD/USD * 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. 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Dear Client, The attached report on China’s just-completed nineteenth National Party Congress marks the culmination of six years of political analysis by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy. In it, my colleague Matt Gertken posits that President Xi Jinping’s domestic political constraints have significantly eased, allowing his administration to intensify its preference for structural reform. Our cardinal analytical rule holds that policymaker preferences are optional and subject to constraints, whereas constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. As a matter of methodology, we focus on constraints. In China, Xi faced formidable constraints when he took power five years ago, which is why we pushed against the enthusiastic narrative at the time that he would transform China through supply-side reforms. This narrative, strongest in the wake of the October 2013 Third Plenum, has not materialized in line with investor expectations thus far. In this report, we argue that it is time to adjust the view on China. Xi has amassed substantial political capital thanks to his anti-corruption campaign, centralization of power, and other actions largely popular with the middle class. Investors are today missing this point because they are disappointed with the lack of genuine progress since 2012. We expect that President Xi will begin spending this political capital by favoring supply-side reforms, especially by reining in the rampant credit growth that has underpinned China’s investment-led economic model. In the short term, this means that politics in China will evolve from a tailwind to a headwind to growth. In the long term, it is too soon to say what it means. For investors, however, it means that today’s synchronized global growth recovery may be at risk of a policy-induced growth slowdown in China. I sincerely hope you enjoy our report. If you are interested in similar investment-relevant geopolitical analysis, please do not hesitate to contact us for a sample of our work. Kindest Regards, Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Highlights Xi Jinping has shed domestic political constraints that have been in place since 2012; The lack of constraints suggests his reform agenda will intensify over the next 12 months; The use of anti-corruption agencies to enforce economic policy suggests that reform implementation will become more effective; Chinese politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets. Feature Chart 1Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? China's nineteenth National Party Congress concluded on October 25 with the new top seven leaders - the members of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - taking the stage in the Great Hall of the People. The party congress is a five-year leadership reshuffle that, in this case, marks the halfway point of President Xi Jinping's term in office.1 President Xi was the center of attention throughout the event. It is widely perceived that he is the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. The Communist Party chose to elevate his personal power in conspicuous ways that raises political uncertainties about the succession in 2022 as well as about the future trajectory of Chinese policy, including economic policy. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has awaited this transition since 2012, when President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang took over the top two positions in China.2 While we are inherently skeptical of Xi's grandiose reform agenda, we are also deeply aware of the importance of political constraints in determining economic policy outcomes - and Xi has just overcome significant domestic constraints. If Xi accelerates and intensifies his reforms next year - particularly deleveraging and industrial restructuring - he will add volatility to Chinese risk assets and create a drag on Chinese growth. Xi's personal concentration of power could be an enabling factor in driving reforms. But it will certainly be a source of higher political uncertainty over the next five years (Chart 1), especially as the 2022 succession approaches. Therefore a lack of reform would be a noxious combination. Finally, China's ascendancy increases the phenomenon of global multipolarity - it is a challenge to the U.S.-led system and will eventually produce a reaction, most likely a negative one.3 In short, Chinese political and geopolitical risk is understated. This situation presents a range of risks and opportunities for investors, but it is broadly a headwind for global growth and EM assets. A Chinese "policy mistake" is also a risk to our House View of being overweight equities and underweight bonds for the next 12 months. Back To 2012 When Xi rose to power in 2012, it was widely known that China's economy had reached a pivotal moment. Exports were declining as a share of GDP in the wake of the Great Recession and end of the U.S. "debt super-cycle," and investment was weakening as the country's massive fiscal and credit stimulus wore off (Chart 2). Meanwhile the Communist Party faced a crisis of legitimacy, with an emergent middle class making ever greater demands on the system (Chart 3). The rapid rise in household income over preceding years, combined with high income inequality and poor quality of life, raised the prospect of serious socio-political challenges to single-party rule.4 President Hu Jintao searched for ways to strengthen state control over an increasingly restless society, while outgoing Premier Wen Jiabao warned openly that China's economy was unsustainable and imbalanced and that political reform would be an "urgent task." Hu Jintao's farewell address at the eighteenth party congress (2012) reflected the party's grave concerns. His successor, Xi Jinping, was in charge of drafting the report. This relationship highlighted an important degree of party consensus. The report called for fighting corruption and disciplining the party, while doing more to protect households from the negative externalities of the past decade's rapid growth, including pollution (Chart 4). Chart 2Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Chart 3The Communist Party's Newest Constraint The Communist Party's Newest Constraint The Communist Party's Newest Constraint Chart 4Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks It also outlined China's hopes of becoming a more consequential global player through acquiring naval power and forging a new, peer relationship with the United States. The overriding imperative was to win back support and legitimacy for the party, lest it fall victim to the fate of the world's other Marxist-Leninist regimes - i.e. internal socio-economic sclerosis and external pressure from the U.S.-led, democratic-capitalist world order. Xi Jinping took over at this juncture, using the 2012 work report as his guideline for an ambitious policy agenda. Xi's main goals centered on power: namely, ensuring regime survival at home and increasing China's international clout abroad. Specifically, the Xi administration sought to (1) centralize political control so that difficult choices could be made and implemented effectively; (2) improve governance so that public discontent could be mitigated over the long run; and (3) restructure the economy so that productivity growth could remain robust in the face of sharply declining labor force growth, thus stabilizing the potential GDP growth rate.5 Obviously there was no guarantee that Xi would be successful. China's response to the Global Financial Crisis had required a large-scale decentralization of control: local governments, banks, state-owned enterprises and shadow lenders were encouraged to lever up and grow amid the global collapse (Chart 5). This created imbalances and liabilities for the central leadership while also creating new economic (and hence political) centers of power outside Beijing. Chart 5aLocal Government Spending Unleashed... Local Government Spending Unleashed... Local Government Spending Unleashed... Chart 5b...And Shadow Lending Too ...And Shadow Lending Too ...And Shadow Lending Too The central leadership also seemed to be losing control of the provinces: regional and institutional powerbrokers had emerged, challenging the party's hierarchy, and there was even reason to believe that the armed forces were deviating from central leadership.6 Without control of the local governments and other key institutions, any reform agenda would get bogged down. Finally, the political cycle was not particularly favorable to Xi. While the line-up of the all-powerful PSC looked favorable from 2012-17, the next crop of Communist leaders set to move up the ladder in 2017 seemed likely to constrain him. Moreover, the previous two presidents had chosen Xi's successors for 2022, according to party norms. Xi had very little room for maneuver - and this was negative for his policy outlook overall. As such, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy poured cold water on the more enthusiastic forecasts of economic reforms throughout Xi's first term. Our assessment was that he would focus on anti-corruption and governance reforms first and only attempt genuine economic reforms once his political capital grew significantly. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping faced major obstacles to his policy agenda of centralization, governance and economic reform in 2012. He faced a large and restless middle class, the difficulty of reining in local governments and state institutions, and the likelihood that China's previous top leaders would constrain his maneuverability in 2017 and 2022. Xi's First Term A lot has changed over the past five years. First, both global demand for Chinese goods and Chinese domestic demand have held up rather well, giving China a badly needed cushion during its economic transition. Steady consumption growth has partially offset the blow from declining investment, while Chinese exports have grown well, often faster than global trade (Chart 6).7 Second, Xi has consolidated power extensively within the party, the army, and other institutions. He executed the most aggressive purge that the party has seen in decades, enabling him to rebuild some public trust among a middle class worn out by corruption, as well as to remove political rivals (Chart 7). He also launched an extensive restructuring of the People's Liberation Army, its organizational structure and personnel, ensuring that "the party controls the gun."8 And he intensified social control, particularly in the online realm. Chart 6Changing The Economic Model Changing The Economic Model Changing The Economic Model Chart 7Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Symbolically, Xi was anointed the "core" of the Communist Party by the political elite in late 2016. Economic reform, however, has been compromised by Xi's focus on consolidating political power. True, he and Premier Li Keqiang tinkered with various policies to cut red tape, simplify domestic taxes, attract foreign investment, and encourage better SOE management, but none of the reforms launched over the past five years were painful and thus none were significant.9 Nowhere was this more apparent than during 2015-16, when economic and financial instability caused the Xi administration to delay reform initiatives and focus on reforming the economy. Beijing increased infrastructure spending, bailed out the local governments, depreciated the RMB, and imposed capital controls (Chart 8). "Old China," state-owned China, was the primary beneficiary. The stimulus-fueled rebound helped stabilize the global economy in 2016-17, particularly commodity-producing emerging markets, but it exacerbated China's internal problems - slow productivity growth, excessive debt creation, weak private sector investment, and waning foreign investment (Chart 9). Chart 8State Interventions In 2015-16 State Interventions In 2015-16 State Interventions In 2015-16 Chart 9Economic Reforms Still Needed Economic Reforms Still Needed Economic Reforms Still Needed The upside, however, was stability, which enabled Xi to approach the nineteenth National Party Congress from a position of strength. Now that the party congress has concluded, we can say that Xi has notched a series of significant "victories" and that his political capital is overflowing: Xi Jinping Thought: The congress voted to enshrine Xi's name into its constitution (Table 1), with a phrasing that echoes "Mao Zedong Thought," hence elevating Xi to immense moral authority within the party. The name of Xi's philosophy, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era," makes a slight adjustment to Deng Xiaoping's market-friendly philosophy. In other words, Xi's authority stems from his providing a synthesis of the regime's greatest two leaders: Mao's single-party Communist rule is being reaffirmed, but Deng's attention to economic reality and the need for pragmatic policies has also been preserved. As we have argued, this constitutional change is a reflection of the fact that Xi has already positioned himself to be the most influential leader well into the 2020s. Table 1Xi Jinping Thought China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Xi removes his successors: Xi managed to exclude any of China's "sixth generation" of leaders from the Politburo Standing Committee. He thus broke a very important (albeit informal) party norm. The norm was created under Deng Xiaoping to ensure a smooth transition of power, unlike the power struggle that occurred upon Mao's death. Now Xi will have a greater hand in choosing his successor, or even staying in power beyond 2022. This aids in the process of centralization, but it may well prove a step backwards in terms of governance and reform - that remains to be seen. It is a source of higher political uncertainty going forward. Xi dominates the Politburo: Xi prevented his predecessor Hu Jintao's loyalists from gaining a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, as they seemed lined up to do in 2012. The line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee broadly indicates that Xi and his faction are the dominant force (Table 2). Taken with Xi's personal power, this is significant political capital with which the new administration can push its priorities, whatever they may be. Xi gets a new inquisitor: The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CDIC) is the party's internal watchdog. It has taken the leading role in the sweeping party purge and anti-corruption campaign over the past five years. Xi removed its chief, the hugely influential Wang Qishan, by reinforcing the retirement age and two-term PSC limit - a notable case of institutional norms being upheld. He put one of his loyalists, Zhao Leji, in this role instead. The CDIC will have a huge role over the next five years, and a market-relevant one, as we discuss below. Table 2The Magnificent Seven: China's New Politburo Standing Committee China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? The above conclusions raise the possibility that Xi has become excessively powerful, that political institutions in China are being eroded by personal rule, and that political risks are set to explode upward in the near future. However, it is too soon to declare that Xi has staged a Maoist "power grab." There are reasons to think that Xi's accumulation of power has not overturned the delicate internal balances within the top leadership bodies.10 The result is in keeping with what we expected in our Strategic Outlook last December: Xi Jinping has amassed formidable political capital, but he has not destabilized the Chinese political system.11 He is a strongman leader within the established political system of an authoritarian state - he is not a tyrant seizing power in a bloodless revolution. (At least, not yet.) This is broadly positive for China's policy continuity and political framework - and in this sense it is also broadly market-positive, being an outgrowth of the status quo rather than a disruptive break from it. China's leaders continue to be career politicians, trained in law or economics, with considerable executive experience in governing and limited business or military experience, all unified in the name of regime preservation (Chart 10). Over the long run, this suggests that China's "Socialist Put" remains intact, i.e. that the state will intervene to prevent a crash landing.12 Nevertheless, an important corollary of the above is that Xi holds the balance, and hence there are no longer any major domestic political or governmental constraints to prevent him from pursuing his policy agenda - especially over the next 12 months, when his political capital is still fresh and the economic backdrop is favorable. The fact that Xi emphasized "sustainable and sound" growth, deliberately excluded GDP growth targets beyond 2021, and altered the definition of the Communist Party's so-called "principal contradiction" in order to prioritize quality-of-life improvements, suggests that the reform agenda is about to get rebooted. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has consolidated power extensively, but he has not staged a silent coup d' état or overthrown the balance of power within the Communist Party. This suggests that Xi's policies and reforms will intensify over the next year. Chart 10Characteristics Of Chinese Rulers Mostly Unchanged Since 2012 China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Xi's Second Term: What To Expect Instead of playing it safe in the lead-up to the all-important party congress over the past twelve months, Xi surprised the markets with a series of regulatory actions designed to tamp down the property bubble, regulate the financial markets, punish speculation, and reduce industrial overcapacity and pollution (Chart 11).13 This tightening of policy strongly signaled that Xi's appetite for political risk is rising in keeping with his growing political capital. Beijing is signaling that it aims to continue with tougher financial, industrial and environmental reforms in the aftermath of the party congress. In particular, systemic financial risk has been identified as a risk to the state's overall stability. Of course, China is unlikely to sharply reduce the ratio of total debt-to-GDP out of an ill-advised, self-imposed bout of austerity. But the Xi administration is likely to suppress its growth rate (Chart 12), as well as to continue cracking down on specific institutions and financial practices deemed to be excessively risky or under-regulated, as has occurred this year in insurance and shadow lending.14 Chart 11China's Borrowing Costs Rising China's Borrowing Costs Rising China's Borrowing Costs Rising Chart 12Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls This financial focus is clear from top-level appointments and meetings in 2017, including a special Politburo meeting on financial risks in April and the once-in-five-years Central Financial Work Conference in July.15 The latter declared new regulatory powers for the central bank that will be put into place in the coming 12 months. The head of the new Financial Stability and Development Committee to oversee this work will likely be named, along with a replacement for the long-serving People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan. This change will initiate a new generation of leadership in the central bank, and one ostensibly directed at overseeing stricter macro-prudential controls.16 Another outcome of the financial conference was the warning that, going forward, local government officials will be held accountable over the course of their entire lives if they allow excessive financial risks and debt to build up under their watch.17 These developments suggest that policy will become a headwind to growth next year. We would expect downside risks to China's implicit 6.5% growth target. Why should the new deleveraging campaign have any more effect than similar efforts in the past? Aside from Xi's stronger position to enforce policies - explained above - the nineteenth party congress reinforced an important trend in policy implementation. The Xi administration has been using the CDIC, the party's anti-corruption unit, as a political tool to ensure broader policy enforcement. We have observed this trend over the past year both in the financial regulatory crackdown and the anti-pollution and overcapacity crackdown.18 Anti-corruption officials can compel more serious implementation from local governments, SOE managers, and others because they threaten to impose job losses or jail time, rather than mere fines. The CDIC appointed two new officials to oversee its operations in China's financial regulators just as the party congress was getting underway. Moreover, on the final day of the party congress, officials have announced that corruption investigations will be conducted into the commercial housing sector.19 The message is that the regulatory storm will expand - and will have teeth. Xi went a step further at the party congress by declaring the creation of a National Supervisory Commission, which will oversee the next phase of the anti-corruption campaign.20 This commission will expand the campaign outside the ranks of the Communist Party - where it has operated so far - to the government as a whole, i.e. the state administration and bureaucracy. It implies that every official from China's top ministries down to its lowest-level governments will be subjected to new forces of scrutiny. If this effort resembles the CDIC's role in hastening compliance in other areas of economic policy, then it will be a powerful tool for the Xi administration as it attempts to engineer a top-down restructuring of China's governance and economy. An aggressive new regulatory push, with the threat of corruption charges, in China's financial and industrial sectors would create a powerful drag on economic growth. It could easily send a chill down the spines of government officials, prompting them to cut or delay key investment decisions, as the initial anti-corruption campaign did in 2013-14.21 China's leaders will eventually attempt to offset any disorderly slowdown from reform measures with additional stimulus. However, given that the deleveraging campaign cuts to the heart of the financial sector, and that sharp new tools are being put to use, we would think that the probability of a "policy mistake" is going up. Bottom Line: Risks to Chinese economy and assets are rising as politics shifts from being a tailwind to a headwind. Xi Jinping faces few policy constraints and has shown appetite for greater political risk in the pursuit of his reform agenda. His administration has signaled that China's financial imbalances pose a threat to overall stability and require tougher regulation. New enforcement mechanisms - particularly those connected with anti-corruption efforts - threaten to bring the financial sector, as well as local government debt, under the spotlight and to create a chilling-effect among local officials. Investment Conclusions On one hand, any genuine attempt to hasten the transition of China's economy to consumer-led growth, de-emphasize GDP growth targets, and pare back overbuilt and heavy-polluting industry is highly consequential and will redistribute global growth.22 Table 3Post-Party Congress Scenarios And Probabilities China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Broadly speaking, the transition is negative for Chinese growth in the short term, but positive in the long term, as productivity trends would improve. It is negative for China's heavy industry, yet positive for technology, health and education; negative for commodities tied to the old economy (e.g. coal, iron ore, and diesel), but positive for commodities tied to consumers (oil/gasoline, aluminum, nickel, and zinc); negative for emerging markets that are commodity- and export-reliant and China-exposed, yet positive for domestic-oriented and/or China-insulated EMs. On the other hand, there is no longer a convincing excuse for poor implementation of central government policies. If China does not take concrete steps in pursuit of Xi's reform agenda - an agenda of "supply-side reform" that is now enshrined in the party's constitution - then it follows that Xi himself is unwilling to practice what he preaches. The first big test will be whether, when the economy starts to wobble, policymakers stimulate the "old economy" with the usual fervor, or whether they hold true to a course of re-ordering the economy and concentrating any stimulative credit flows more heavily into the social safety net and consumer-led industries and services. Given Xi's and China's rare opportunity, a failure to undertake difficult reforms in the coming months and years would be a clear sign that China will never pursue significant reforms of its own accord. It would have to be forced to do so by an internal or external crisis. This would mean that China's potential GDP would continue to decline for the foreseeable future (Table 3). Chart 13China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. If that were the case, declining potential GDP growth would combine with political uncertainty over Xi's 2022 succession to create a noxious brew of social malaise. A final and very important consideration is China's relationship with the United States and its allies, given the ongoing strains over U.S.-China trade, North Korea's nuclear and missile advances, China's militarization of the South China Sea, Taiwan's widening ideological distance from the mainland, and Japan's accelerating re-armament. The party congress was a highly visible display of Chinese power and self-confidence, in which Xi broke with the past to suggest that China is moving into "center stage" in the world. Xi not only reaffirmed state-led growth but also emphasized that China's foreign policy assertiveness is here to stay over the long run. This is a poignant reminder of our long-term investment theme of global multipolarity. The United States is not likely to relinquish global or even regional leadership easily. So while relations may be pacified in the short term, the risk of conflict, whether economic or military, is rising over time (Chart 13). Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Two Factions, One Party," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 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. 4 Popular unrest was boiling up due to grievances over corrupt officials, mismanagement of internal migration, local government land seizures, a weak justice system, and a host of labor disputes and environmental incidents. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013. 6 The arrest and excommunication of Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai in 2012 epitomizes the regional and institutional challenge, since Bo had a network of alliances that fell under Xi Jinping's anti-corruption dragnet and sprawled across the energy sector and public security agencies. The regional problem was highlighted again this year when one of Bo's successors, Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai, was ousted for allegedly failing to extirpate Bo's influence. Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army became more vocal and independent in ways that raised concerns among foreign observers, such as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who suggested that the PLA took China's civilian leadership by surprise when it conducted a test flight of its stealth J-20 fifth generation fighter during Gates's visit to Beijing in January 2011. 7 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade," dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 For the military reshuffle, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The most important reform was the loosening of the one-child policy, which was a social change with long-term economic benefits. Reforms to household registration, land rights, the property sector, SOEs, fiscal policy, private property, and the judicial system have moved slowly. 10 The PSC has a three-way balance of sorts, with two representatives of each faction (Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping), plus Xi presiding over all. Please see Cheng Li, "The Paradoxical Outcome Of China's 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 26, 2017. Our own analysis of the 2017 result, drawing on Cheng Li's work, shows that the party bureaucracy, state bureaucracy and the military are represented at roughly the same levels as before on the 25-member Politburo. Further, the profile of the PSC members is relatively continuous with the previous PSC profiles. Namely, the relatively high share of leaders who have spent their careers ruling the provinces, or who have mostly worked in central government, is no higher than it was before, while the relatively low share of leaders who served on the military or managed state-owned enterprises is no lower than it was before. The division between rural and urban regions on the PSC is also the same as before. Thus, the only substantial change in the character profile of the PSC is the fact that China's leaders are increasingly coming from an educational background in the "soft sciences" rather than the "hard sciences": which is to be expected as the society evolves from manufacturing and construction to a services-oriented economy, even though it also suggests growing ideological orthodoxy. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see note 15 above. See also Barry Naughton, “The General Secretary’s Extended Reach: Xi Jinping Combines Economics And Politics,” dated September 11, 2017, available at www.hoover.org. 19 Please see "China To Launch Nationwide Inspection On Commercial Housing Sales," Xinhua, October 25, 2017, available at www.chinadaily.com. 20 Supervisory commissions will be created at every level of administration in all regions to ensure that the anti-corruption campaign is enforced across all government, not only within the Communist Party. The commissions will be based on experiences gained from trial programs in Beijing, Zhejiang, and Shanxi. Please see Viola Zhou, "Super anti-graft agency pilot schemes extended across China," South China Morning Post, October 30, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 21 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Understanding China's Master Plan," dated November 20, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Xi Jinping has shed domestic political constraints that have been in place since 2012; The lack of constraints suggests his reform agenda will intensify over the next 12 months; The use of anti-corruption agencies to enforce economic policy suggests that reform implementation will become more effective; Chinese politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets. Feature Chart 1Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? China's nineteenth National Party Congress concluded on October 25 with the new top seven leaders - the members of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - taking the stage in the Great Hall of the People. The party congress is a five-year leadership reshuffle that, in this case, marks the halfway point of President Xi Jinping's term in office.1 President Xi was the center of attention throughout the event. It is widely perceived that he is the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. The Communist Party chose to elevate his personal power in conspicuous ways that raises political uncertainties about the succession in 2022 as well as about the future trajectory of Chinese policy, including economic policy. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has awaited this transition since 2012, when President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang took over the top two positions in China.2 While we are inherently skeptical of Xi's grandiose reform agenda, we are also deeply aware of the importance of political constraints in determining economic policy outcomes - and Xi has just overcome significant domestic constraints. If Xi accelerates and intensifies his reforms next year - particularly deleveraging and industrial restructuring - he will add volatility to Chinese risk assets and create a drag on Chinese growth. Xi's personal concentration of power could be an enabling factor in driving reforms. But it will certainly be a source of higher political uncertainty over the next five years (Chart 1), especially as the 2022 succession approaches. Therefore a lack of reform would be a noxious combination. Finally, China's ascendancy increases the phenomenon of global multipolarity - it is a challenge to the U.S.-led system and will eventually produce a reaction, most likely a negative one.3 In short, Chinese political and geopolitical risk is understated. This situation presents a range of risks and opportunities for investors, but it is broadly a headwind for global growth and EM assets. A Chinese "policy mistake" is also a risk to our House View of being overweight equities and underweight bonds for the next 12 months. Back To 2012 When Xi rose to power in 2012, it was widely known that China's economy had reached a pivotal moment. Exports were declining as a share of GDP in the wake of the Great Recession and end of the U.S. "debt super-cycle," and investment was weakening as the country's massive fiscal and credit stimulus wore off (Chart 2). Meanwhile the Communist Party faced a crisis of legitimacy, with an emergent middle class making ever greater demands on the system (Chart 3). The rapid rise in household income over preceding years, combined with high income inequality and poor quality of life, raised the prospect of serious socio-political challenges to single-party rule.4 President Hu Jintao searched for ways to strengthen state control over an increasingly restless society, while outgoing Premier Wen Jiabao warned openly that China's economy was unsustainable and imbalanced and that political reform would be an "urgent task." Hu Jintao's farewell address at the eighteenth party congress (2012) reflected the party's grave concerns. His successor, Xi Jinping, was in charge of drafting the report. This relationship highlighted an important degree of party consensus. The report called for fighting corruption and disciplining the party, while doing more to protect households from the negative externalities of the past decade's rapid growth, including pollution (Chart 4). Chart 2Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Chart 3The Communist Party's Newest Constraint The Communist Party's Newest Constraint The Communist Party's Newest Constraint Chart 4Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks It also outlined China's hopes of becoming a more consequential global player through acquiring naval power and forging a new, peer relationship with the United States. The overriding imperative was to win back support and legitimacy for the party, lest it fall victim to the fate of the world's other Marxist-Leninist regimes - i.e. internal socio-economic sclerosis and external pressure from the U.S.-led, democratic-capitalist world order. Xi Jinping took over at this juncture, using the 2012 work report as his guideline for an ambitious policy agenda. Xi's main goals centered on power: namely, ensuring regime survival at home and increasing China's international clout abroad. Specifically, the Xi administration sought to (1) centralize political control so that difficult choices could be made and implemented effectively; (2) improve governance so that public discontent could be mitigated over the long run; and (3) restructure the economy so that productivity growth could remain robust in the face of sharply declining labor force growth, thus stabilizing the potential GDP growth rate.5 Obviously there was no guarantee that Xi would be successful. China's response to the Global Financial Crisis had required a large-scale decentralization of control: local governments, banks, state-owned enterprises and shadow lenders were encouraged to lever up and grow amid the global collapse (Chart 5). This created imbalances and liabilities for the central leadership while also creating new economic (and hence political) centers of power outside Beijing. Chart 5aLocal Government Spending Unleashed... Local Government Spending Unleashed... Local Government Spending Unleashed... Chart 5b...And Shadow Lending Too ...And Shadow Lending Too ...And Shadow Lending Too The central leadership also seemed to be losing control of the provinces: regional and institutional powerbrokers had emerged, challenging the party's hierarchy, and there was even reason to believe that the armed forces were deviating from central leadership.6 Without control of the local governments and other key institutions, any reform agenda would get bogged down. Finally, the political cycle was not particularly favorable to Xi. While the line-up of the all-powerful PSC looked favorable from 2012-17, the next crop of Communist leaders set to move up the ladder in 2017 seemed likely to constrain him. Moreover, the previous two presidents had chosen Xi's successors for 2022, according to party norms. Xi had very little room for maneuver - and this was negative for his policy outlook overall. As such, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy poured cold water on the more enthusiastic forecasts of economic reforms throughout Xi's first term. Our assessment was that he would focus on anti-corruption and governance reforms first and only attempt genuine economic reforms once his political capital grew significantly. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping faced major obstacles to his policy agenda of centralization, governance and economic reform in 2012. He faced a large and restless middle class, the difficulty of reining in local governments and state institutions, and the likelihood that China's previous top leaders would constrain his maneuverability in 2017 and 2022. Xi's First Term A lot has changed over the past five years. First, both global demand for Chinese goods and Chinese domestic demand have held up rather well, giving China a badly needed cushion during its economic transition. Steady consumption growth has partially offset the blow from declining investment, while Chinese exports have grown well, often faster than global trade (Chart 6).7 Second, Xi has consolidated power extensively within the party, the army, and other institutions. He executed the most aggressive purge that the party has seen in decades, enabling him to rebuild some public trust among a middle class worn out by corruption, as well as to remove political rivals (Chart 7). He also launched an extensive restructuring of the People's Liberation Army, its organizational structure and personnel, ensuring that "the party controls the gun."8 And he intensified social control, particularly in the online realm. Chart 6Changing The Economic Model Changing The Economic Model Changing The Economic Model Chart 7Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Symbolically, Xi was anointed the "core" of the Communist Party by the political elite in late 2016. Economic reform, however, has been compromised by Xi's focus on consolidating political power. True, he and Premier Li Keqiang tinkered with various policies to cut red tape, simplify domestic taxes, attract foreign investment, and encourage better SOE management, but none of the reforms launched over the past five years were painful and thus none were significant.9 Nowhere was this more apparent than during 2015-16, when economic and financial instability caused the Xi administration to delay reform initiatives and focus on reforming the economy. Beijing increased infrastructure spending, bailed out the local governments, depreciated the RMB, and imposed capital controls (Chart 8). "Old China," state-owned China, was the primary beneficiary. The stimulus-fueled rebound helped stabilize the global economy in 2016-17, particularly commodity-producing emerging markets, but it exacerbated China's internal problems - slow productivity growth, excessive debt creation, weak private sector investment, and waning foreign investment (Chart 9). Chart 8State Interventions In 2015-16 State Interventions In 2015-16 State Interventions In 2015-16 Chart 9Economic Reforms Still Needed Economic Reforms Still Needed Economic Reforms Still Needed The upside, however, was stability, which enabled Xi to approach the nineteenth National Party Congress from a position of strength. Now that the party congress has concluded, we can say that Xi has notched a series of significant "victories" and that his political capital is overflowing: Xi Jinping Thought: The congress voted to enshrine Xi's name into its constitution (Table 1), with a phrasing that echoes "Mao Zedong Thought," hence elevating Xi to immense moral authority within the party. The name of Xi's philosophy, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era," makes a slight adjustment to Deng Xiaoping's market-friendly philosophy. In other words, Xi's authority stems from his providing a synthesis of the regime's greatest two leaders: Mao's single-party Communist rule is being reaffirmed, but Deng's attention to economic reality and the need for pragmatic policies has also been preserved. As we have argued, this constitutional change is a reflection of the fact that Xi has already positioned himself to be the most influential leader well into the 2020s. Table 1Xi Jinping Thought China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Xi removes his successors: Xi managed to exclude any of China's "sixth generation" of leaders from the Politburo Standing Committee. He thus broke a very important (albeit informal) party norm. The norm was created under Deng Xiaoping to ensure a smooth transition of power, unlike the power struggle that occurred upon Mao's death. Now Xi will have a greater hand in choosing his successor, or even staying in power beyond 2022. This aids in the process of centralization, but it may well prove a step backwards in terms of governance and reform - that remains to be seen. It is a source of higher political uncertainty going forward. Xi dominates the Politburo: Xi prevented his predecessor Hu Jintao's loyalists from gaining a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, as they seemed lined up to do in 2012. The line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee broadly indicates that Xi and his faction are the dominant force (Table 2). Taken with Xi's personal power, this is significant political capital with which the new administration can push its priorities, whatever they may be. Xi gets a new inquisitor: The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CDIC) is the party's internal watchdog. It has taken the leading role in the sweeping party purge and anti-corruption campaign over the past five years. Xi removed its chief, the hugely influential Wang Qishan, by reinforcing the retirement age and two-term PSC limit - a notable case of institutional norms being upheld. He put one of his loyalists, Zhao Leji, in this role instead. The CDIC will have a huge role over the next five years, and a market-relevant one, as we discuss below. Table 2The Magnificent Seven: China's New Politburo Standing Committee China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? The above conclusions raise the possibility that Xi has become excessively powerful, that political institutions in China are being eroded by personal rule, and that political risks are set to explode upward in the near future. However, it is too soon to declare that Xi has staged a Maoist "power grab." There are reasons to think that Xi's accumulation of power has not overturned the delicate internal balances within the top leadership bodies.10 The result is in keeping with what we expected in our Strategic Outlook last December: Xi Jinping has amassed formidable political capital, but he has not destabilized the Chinese political system.11 He is a strongman leader within the established political system of an authoritarian state - he is not a tyrant seizing power in a bloodless revolution. (At least, not yet.) This is broadly positive for China's policy continuity and political framework - and in this sense it is also broadly market-positive, being an outgrowth of the status quo rather than a disruptive break from it. China's leaders continue to be career politicians, trained in law or economics, with considerable executive experience in governing and limited business or military experience, all unified in the name of regime preservation (Chart 10). Over the long run, this suggests that China's "Socialist Put" remains intact, i.e. that the state will intervene to prevent a crash landing.12 Nevertheless, an important corollary of the above is that Xi holds the balance, and hence there are no longer any major domestic political or governmental constraints to prevent him from pursuing his policy agenda - especially over the next 12 months, when his political capital is still fresh and the economic backdrop is favorable. The fact that Xi emphasized "sustainable and sound" growth, deliberately excluded GDP growth targets beyond 2021, and altered the definition of the Communist Party's so-called "principal contradiction" in order to prioritize quality-of-life improvements, suggests that the reform agenda is about to get rebooted. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has consolidated power extensively, but he has not staged a silent coup d' état or overthrown the balance of power within the Communist Party. This suggests that Xi's policies and reforms will intensify over the next year. Chart 10Characteristics Of Chinese Rulers Mostly Unchanged Since 2012 China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Xi's Second Term: What To Expect Instead of playing it safe in the lead-up to the all-important party congress over the past twelve months, Xi surprised the markets with a series of regulatory actions designed to tamp down the property bubble, regulate the financial markets, punish speculation, and reduce industrial overcapacity and pollution (Chart 11).13 This tightening of policy strongly signaled that Xi's appetite for political risk is rising in keeping with his growing political capital. Beijing is signaling that it aims to continue with tougher financial, industrial and environmental reforms in the aftermath of the party congress. In particular, systemic financial risk has been identified as a risk to the state's overall stability. Of course, China is unlikely to sharply reduce the ratio of total debt-to-GDP out of an ill-advised, self-imposed bout of austerity. But the Xi administration is likely to suppress its growth rate (Chart 12), as well as to continue cracking down on specific institutions and financial practices deemed to be excessively risky or under-regulated, as has occurred this year in insurance and shadow lending.14 Chart 11China's Borrowing Costs Rising China's Borrowing Costs Rising China's Borrowing Costs Rising Chart 12Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls This financial focus is clear from top-level appointments and meetings in 2017, including a special Politburo meeting on financial risks in April and the once-in-five-years Central Financial Work Conference in July.15 The latter declared new regulatory powers for the central bank that will be put into place in the coming 12 months. The head of the new Financial Stability and Development Committee to oversee this work will likely be named, along with a replacement for the long-serving People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan. This change will initiate a new generation of leadership in the central bank, and one ostensibly directed at overseeing stricter macro-prudential controls.16 Another outcome of the financial conference was the warning that, going forward, local government officials will be held accountable over the course of their entire lives if they allow excessive financial risks and debt to build up under their watch.17 These developments suggest that policy will become a headwind to growth next year. We would expect downside risks to China's implicit 6.5% growth target. Why should the new deleveraging campaign have any more effect than similar efforts in the past? Aside from Xi's stronger position to enforce policies - explained above - the nineteenth party congress reinforced an important trend in policy implementation. The Xi administration has been using the CDIC, the party's anti-corruption unit, as a political tool to ensure broader policy enforcement. We have observed this trend over the past year both in the financial regulatory crackdown and the anti-pollution and overcapacity crackdown.18 Anti-corruption officials can compel more serious implementation from local governments, SOE managers, and others because they threaten to impose job losses or jail time, rather than mere fines. The CDIC appointed two new officials to oversee its operations in China's financial regulators just as the party congress was getting underway. Moreover, on the final day of the party congress, officials have announced that corruption investigations will be conducted into the commercial housing sector.19 The message is that the regulatory storm will expand - and will have teeth. Xi went a step further at the party congress by declaring the creation of a National Supervisory Commission, which will oversee the next phase of the anti-corruption campaign.20 This commission will expand the campaign outside the ranks of the Communist Party - where it has operated so far - to the government as a whole, i.e. the state administration and bureaucracy. It implies that every official from China's top ministries down to its lowest-level governments will be subjected to new forces of scrutiny. If this effort resembles the CDIC's role in hastening compliance in other areas of economic policy, then it will be a powerful tool for the Xi administration as it attempts to engineer a top-down restructuring of China's governance and economy. An aggressive new regulatory push, with the threat of corruption charges, in China's financial and industrial sectors would create a powerful drag on economic growth. It could easily send a chill down the spines of government officials, prompting them to cut or delay key investment decisions, as the initial anti-corruption campaign did in 2013-14.21 China's leaders will eventually attempt to offset any disorderly slowdown from reform measures with additional stimulus. However, given that the deleveraging campaign cuts to the heart of the financial sector, and that sharp new tools are being put to use, we would think that the probability of a "policy mistake" is going up. Bottom Line: Risks to Chinese economy and assets are rising as politics shifts from being a tailwind to a headwind. Xi Jinping faces few policy constraints and has shown appetite for greater political risk in the pursuit of his reform agenda. His administration has signaled that China's financial imbalances pose a threat to overall stability and require tougher regulation. New enforcement mechanisms - particularly those connected with anti-corruption efforts - threaten to bring the financial sector, as well as local government debt, under the spotlight and to create a chilling-effect among local officials. Investment Conclusions On one hand, any genuine attempt to hasten the transition of China's economy to consumer-led growth, de-emphasize GDP growth targets, and pare back overbuilt and heavy-polluting industry is highly consequential and will redistribute global growth.22 Table 3Post-Party Congress Scenarios And Probabilities China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Broadly speaking, the transition is negative for Chinese growth in the short term, but positive in the long term, as productivity trends would improve. It is negative for China's heavy industry, yet positive for technology, health and education; negative for commodities tied to the old economy (e.g. coal, iron ore, and diesel), but positive for commodities tied to consumers (oil/gasoline, aluminum, nickel, and zinc); negative for emerging markets that are commodity- and export-reliant and China-exposed, yet positive for domestic-oriented and/or China-insulated EMs. On the other hand, there is no longer a convincing excuse for poor implementation of central government policies. If China does not take concrete steps in pursuit of Xi's reform agenda - an agenda of "supply-side reform" that is now enshrined in the party's constitution - then it follows that Xi himself is unwilling to practice what he preaches. The first big test will be whether, when the economy starts to wobble, policymakers stimulate the "old economy" with the usual fervor, or whether they hold true to a course of re-ordering the economy and concentrating any stimulative credit flows more heavily into the social safety net and consumer-led industries and services. Given Xi's and China's rare opportunity, a failure to undertake difficult reforms in the coming months and years would be a clear sign that China will never pursue significant reforms of its own accord. It would have to be forced to do so by an internal or external crisis. This would mean that China's potential GDP would continue to decline for the foreseeable future (Table 3). Chart 13China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. If that were the case, declining potential GDP growth would combine with political uncertainty over Xi's 2022 succession to create a noxious brew of social malaise. A final and very important consideration is China's relationship with the United States and its allies, given the ongoing strains over U.S.-China trade, North Korea's nuclear and missile advances, China's militarization of the South China Sea, Taiwan's widening ideological distance from the mainland, and Japan's accelerating re-armament. The party congress was a highly visible display of Chinese power and self-confidence, in which Xi broke with the past to suggest that China is moving into "center stage" in the world. Xi not only reaffirmed state-led growth but also emphasized that China's foreign policy assertiveness is here to stay over the long run. This is a poignant reminder of our long-term investment theme of global multipolarity. The United States is not likely to relinquish global or even regional leadership easily. So while relations may be pacified in the short term, the risk of conflict, whether economic or military, is rising over time (Chart 13). Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Two Factions, One Party," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 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. 4 Popular unrest was boiling up due to grievances over corrupt officials, mismanagement of internal migration, local government land seizures, a weak justice system, and a host of labor disputes and environmental incidents. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013. 6 The arrest and excommunication of Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai in 2012 epitomizes the regional and institutional challenge, since Bo had a network of alliances that fell under Xi Jinping's anti-corruption dragnet and sprawled across the energy sector and public security agencies. The regional problem was highlighted again this year when one of Bo's successors, Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai, was ousted for allegedly failing to extirpate Bo's influence. Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army became more vocal and independent in ways that raised concerns among foreign observers, such as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who suggested that the PLA took China's civilian leadership by surprise when it conducted a test flight of its stealth J-20 fifth generation fighter during Gates's visit to Beijing in January 2011. 7 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade," dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 For the military reshuffle, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The most important reform was the loosening of the one-child policy, which was a social change with long-term economic benefits. Reforms to household registration, land rights, the property sector, SOEs, fiscal policy, private property, and the judicial system have moved slowly. 10 The PSC has a three-way balance of sorts, with two representatives of each faction (Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping), plus Xi presiding over all. Please see Cheng Li, "The Paradoxical Outcome Of China's 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 26, 2017. Our own analysis of the 2017 result, drawing on Cheng Li's work, shows that the party bureaucracy, state bureaucracy and the military are represented at roughly the same levels as before on the 25-member Politburo. Further, the profile of the PSC members is relatively continuous with the previous PSC profiles. Namely, the relatively high share of leaders who have spent their careers ruling the provinces, or who have mostly worked in central government, is no higher than it was before, while the relatively low share of leaders who served on the military or managed state-owned enterprises is no lower than it was before. The division between rural and urban regions on the PSC is also the same as before. Thus, the only substantial change in the character profile of the PSC is the fact that China's leaders are increasingly coming from an educational background in the "soft sciences" rather than the "hard sciences": which is to be expected as the society evolves from manufacturing and construction to a services-oriented economy, even though it also suggests growing ideological orthodoxy. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see note 15 above. See also Barry Naughton, “The General Secretary’s Extended Reach: Xi Jinping Combines Economics And Politics,” dated September 11, 2017, available at www.hoover.org. 19 Please see "China To Launch Nationwide Inspection On Commercial Housing Sales," Xinhua, October 25, 2017, available at www.chinadaily.com. 20 Supervisory commissions will be created at every level of administration in all regions to ensure that the anti-corruption campaign is enforced across all government, not only within the Communist Party. The commissions will be based on experiences gained from trial programs in Beijing, Zhejiang, and Shanxi. Please see Viola Zhou, "Super anti-graft agency pilot schemes extended across China," South China Morning Post, October 30, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 21 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Understanding China's Master Plan," dated November 20, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.