Geopolitics

Highlights The U.K. and EU may get a technical divorce, but the underlying economic and financial relationship may not end up changing dramatically - which is good news for the pound in the long term. Our 6-12 month preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third. The euro area economy will perform at least in line with the U.S. economy through 2017, so the T-bond/German bund yield spread will continue to compress. Long euro area retailers, short U.S. retailers has catch-up potential. The focussed stock pair-trade would be long Hornbach (Germany), short Home Depot (U.S.) Feature Brexit Will Become A Fake Divorce Theresa May's stinging reversal at the ballot box last Thursday has left some people wondering: will Brexit actually happen? The answer is very likely yes, but this is no longer the right question to ask. Chart I-1 Jeremy Corbyn's resurgent Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats and pro-European Conservatives now form a parliamentary majority which proposes that a non-EU U.K. negotiates tariff-free access to the single market and customs union.1 In such an arrangement, the U.K. and EU would be technically divorced. But economically and financially, the relationship would not be so different to being married. In effect, Brexit would become a fake divorce. Unfortunately, there is a flipside. The U.K. would be unable to reclaim swathes of sovereignty over its borders and its law. This is because the tariff-free movement of goods, services and capital is, in theory, indivisible from the free movement of people. Furthermore, EU law would transcend national law in the regulation and policing of the single market's so-called 'four freedoms'. Admittedly, the four freedoms are an unachieved - and arguably unachievable - ideal. But they are an aspiration which EU policymakers do not want Brexit to threaten. Angela Merkel recently put it in very strong terms: "Cherry-picking (from the four freedoms) would have disastrous consequences for the other 27 member countries... Tariff-free access to the single market can only be possible on the conditions of respecting the four basic freedoms. Otherwise one has to talk about limits to access" Hence, Brexit reduces to a trade-off between the extent of tariff-free access to the European single market that the U.K. wants to keep, and the extent of national sovereignty it is willing to concede (Chart of the Week). Economically and financially, it is largely irrelevant whether the U.K. gets tariff-free access to the single market via a bespoke free-trade arrangement or via membership of an off-the-shelf structure like EFTA or the EEA.2 The much bigger question is: in order to keep most of its tariff-free access to the single market, will the U.K. now downgrade its plans to "take back full control" of its borders and law? Following last Thursday's stunning election result - and its impact on parliamentary composition (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3) - the answer seems to be yes. The U.K. and EU may get a technical divorce, but the underlying economic and financial relationship might not end up changing dramatically. Chart I-2 Chart I-3 Euro First, Pound Second, Dollar Third Avoiding a dramatic change in the U.K./EU economic and financial relationship reduces the risk of a major disruption to the U.K. economy and the need for further emergency easing from the Bank of England. Thereby, it is good news for the pound in the long term. That said, our 6-12 month preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third. The crucial point is that currencies and bond market relative performance depends front and centre on the evolution of relative interest rate expectations. In turn, the evolution of relative interest rate expectations must ultimately follow relative economic performance, as evidenced in hard data such as GDP growth, inflation and job creation. Over a period of a few months, central banks can look through hard data on the basis that the data is noisy or "transient". But over periods of 6 months and longer, the noisy and transient excuse wears thin. Central banks' strong commitment to data-dependency means that their actions and/or words must follow the hard data. No ifs, buts or maybes. Hence, relative interest rate expectations ultimately follow relative economic performance (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). We are unashamedly republishing these two charts from last week because they prove the point so powerfully. Based on the latest PMIs which capture current economic sentiment, and on 6-month credit impulses which lead activity, euro area hard data will continue to perform at least in line with those in the U.S. (Chart I-6). In which case, relative interest rate expectations will continue to converge, the T-bond/German bund yield spread will continue to compress, and euro/dollar will ultimately drift higher. Chart I-4Relative Interest Rate Expectations Must Follow ##br##Relative Economic Performance Relative Interest Rate Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Relative Interest Rate Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Chart I-5Relative Bond Yields Must Follow Relative##br## Economic Performance Relative Bond Yields Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Relative Bond Yields Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Chart I-6Only A Modest Decline In The Euro Area ##br##6-Month Credit Impulse Only A Modest Decline In The Euro Area 6-Month Credit Impulse Only A Modest Decline In The Euro Area 6-Month Credit Impulse The Eurostoxx50 Is Not A Play On The Euro Area Economy. So What Is? Does it follow that the Eurostoxx50 equity index will outperform? Not necessarily. Unlike for currencies, interest rates and bond yields, the connection between relative economic performance and relative equity market performance is weak, or even non-existent. Note that the Eurostoxx50 has underperformed the S&P500 this year even though the euro area economy has outperformed. Chart I-7The Global Growth Pause ##br##Has Hurt Cyclicals The Global Growth Pause Has Hurt Cyclicals The Global Growth Pause Has Hurt Cyclicals The reason is that the over-arching driver of an equity market's relative performance is its skew to dominant international sectors and international stocks. The Eurostoxx50 has a higher exposure to the global growth cycle via its dominant weighting in Financials and Resources; conversely the S&P500 has a higher exposure to the less globally-sensitive Technology and Healthcare sectors. The defining sector skew has penalised the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500 because globally-sensitive cyclicals have strongly underperformed in a very clear global growth pause. Furthermore, the ever-reliable global 6-month credit impulse strongly suggests that the global growth pause will persist through the summer (Chart I-7). This begs the question: is there a way for equity investors to play the resilient performance of the euro area economy? The answer is yes. But before explaining how, a quick note of caution. An aggregate small cap equity index is not a good way to play a domestic economy. This is because the dominant characteristic of small cap stocks - in aggregate - is their very high beta. Hence, rather than a strong play on the domestic economy, investors are effectively buying highly leveraged exposure to market direction. Great when markets are rising, but painful when they are falling, irrespective of how the domestic economy is faring. Instead, a good equity play on relative economic performance is the relative performance of retailers (Chart I-8). Drilling down further, the relative performance of home improvement retailers is an even purer play (Chart I-9) - given that household spending on home improvement is closely tied to the domestic economic cycle. Chart I-8Retailers Are A Good Play On Relative ##br##Economic Performance Retailers Are A Good Play On Relative Economic Performance Retailers Are A Good Play On Relative Economic Performance Chart I-9Euro Area Home Improvement Retailers ##br##Can Now Ourperform Those In The U.S. Euro Area Home Improvement Retailers Can Now Outperform Those In The U.S. Euro Area Home Improvement Retailers Can Now Outperform Those In The U.S. On the expectation that the euro area economy will perform at least in line with the U.S. economy,3 the equity market play would be long euro area retailers, short U.S. retailers. In particular, long euro area home improvement retailers, short U.S. home improvement retailers has a lot of catch-up potential. And the focussed stock pair-trade would be long Hornbach (Germany), short Home Depot (U.S.) Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In simple terms, the single market defines the zone of tariff-free trade for European countries with each other. Whereas the customs union defines the zone of a single set of rules and tariffs for European countries to trade with the rest of the world. Membership of the customs union allows goods and services that enter from the rest of the world to then move around Europe unhindered. 2 The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a free trade area consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway participate in the EU single market through their membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). Whereas Switzerland participates through a set of bilateral agreements with the EU. 3 Based on growth in real GDP per head. Fractal Trading Model* Long nickel / short tin hit its 6.5% profit target and is now closed. This week's trade is to switch to long nickel / short palladium with a 10% profit target. 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-10 Long Nickel / Short Palladium Long Nickel / Short Palladium The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Trump's failures have helped fuel the bull market; Yet inflation and Trump legislative wins will embolden the Fed; The U.K. will have yet another election by 2019; Dodd-Frank repeal is a no go ... but small banks may get relief; The Tea Party just found its hard constraint ... in Kansas. Feature Investors in South Africa surprised us last week. The first question on everyone's mind was "Will Trump be impeached?" Our answer that impeachment is highly unlikely at least until the midterm elections was received with suspicion.1 The perspective of our South African clients is understandable. Their domestic assets have been underpinned since Trump's election by a phenomenon we like to call "the Trump put." The thesis posits that U.S. politics will remain a mess for much of the year, delaying any progress on populist economic policies that would have buoyed U.S. nominal GDP growth and given the Fed a reason to hike interest rates more aggressively. The result is a weak dollar, lower 10-year Treasury yields, and a rally in global risk assets (Chart 1). Of course, stubbornly weak inflation and disappointing Q1 GDP numbers bear responsibility as well as Trump (Chart 2). Chart 1The 'Trump Put' The 'Trump Put' The 'Trump Put' Chart 2Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market For our South African clients, the fate of President Trump is irrelevant. What matters is that the American political imbroglio continues, reducing the likelihood of a hawkish mistake from the Fed, and thus keeping EM risk assets well bid. The market has generally agreed. Several assets associated with Trump's populist agenda have reversed their gains since the election. The yield curve, small caps, and high tax rate equities have all shown signs of disappointment with the Trump agenda (Chart 3). If the Trump put were to continue, we would expect U.S. bonds and stocks to rally, DXY to continue to face headwinds, and international stocks to outperform U.S. stocks. That said, the proxies for Trump's agenda in Chart 3 are starting to perk up. They may be sniffing out some positive political signs, such as the movement in the Senate on the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The budget reconciliation procedure - a process by which Republicans in Congress intend to avoid the Democrat filibuster in the Senate - requires Obamacare to be resolved before the House and the Senate can take up tax reform.2 If Obamacare clears Congress's calendar by the August recess, the odds of tax reform (or merely tax cuts) being passed by the end of 2017 will rise considerably. Second, former Director of the FBI James Comey's testimony was a non-event. We refused to cover it in these pages as we expected it to be theatre. The market had already digested everything that Comey was going to say, given that he had leaked the juiciest components of his testimony weeks ahead of the event. Chart 3Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Chart 4 Third, President Trump's approval rating with Republican voters remains resilient (Chart 4). If the worst has passed with the Russian collusion investigation - which we expect to be the case now that Comey's testimony has come and gone with little relevance - we could see GOP voters rally around the president. Several clients have pointed out that our measure is less relevant given the decline in voters who identify as Republicans (Chart 5). We disagree. As long as Republican voters vote in Republican primaries, they can act as a constraint on GOP members in Congress who are thinking of abandoning the president's populist agenda. This brings us to the main event: the economy. Our colleague Ryan Swift, who writes BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy, could not care less about the ongoing political drama. As Ryan has argued in a cogent report that we highly recommend to clients, the Fed's median projection for two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the end of the year, and for PCE inflation to reach 1.9% (Chart 6), is not going to happen if inflation continues to disappoint over the summer.3 The market seems to be saying that a PCE of 1.9% is unlikely. Core PCE inflation is running at only 1.54% year-over-year through April, and will probably stay low in May given that year-over-year core CPI fell from 2% in March to 1.89% in April. Chart 5Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Chart 6Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Ryan's Philips Curve model, however, disagrees with the market. The model looks to approximate Chair Yellen's own philosophy for forecasting inflation, which she outlined in a September 2015 speech.4 Specifically, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy models core PCE as a function of: 12-month lag of core PCE; Long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters; Resource utilization; Non-oil import prices relative to overall core PCE. BCA's core PCE model is sending a strong signal that the market's inflation expectations are overly pessimistic (Chart 7). Even after stressing the model under several adverse scenarios, Ryan concludes that it is very likely that core PCE inflation will indeed approach the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year-end. The U.S. economy is quickly running out of slack, with unemployment at a 16-year low of 4.3%. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally attached workers and those in part-time employment purely for economic reasons, has dropped to its pre-recession print of 8.4% (Chart 8). Chart 7Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Chart 8U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack Wages are also rising, with the underlying trend in wage growth having accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 9). The acceleration has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 10). Chart 9Wages Heating Up Wages Heating Up Wages Heating Up Chart 10Wage Improvements Broad-Based Wage Improvements Broad-Based Wage Improvements Broad-Based BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, therefore expects the Fed to raise rates in line with its own expectations. In fact, the Fed could expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later in the year.5 It will be difficult for the Fed to ignore macroeconomic data, even if, from a political perspective, the Trump put continues. The analogy we use with clients in meetings is that of the U.S. economy as a camp fire around which the various market participants - bond and equity investors, foreign and domestic, etc. - are huddled. According to our sister publications that conduct macroeconomic research, that campfire is well lit. And according to our political research, "Uncle Donny" had a few too many drinks and is about to pour some bourbon on the fire to show the kids a good time. Chart 11Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures For the Trump put to continue, we would have to see a combination of the following: GOP voters begin to abandon President Trump; Congress remains embroiled in Obamacare debates through FY2017, only seriously picking up on tax reform and other agenda items in FY2018. Greater doubts would undermine the recent uptick in assets tied to Trump's policy agenda (Chart 11). Impeachment concerns heat up again due to new revelations that implicate President Trump directly. So far impeachment talk has not correlated with the rally in Treasuries but it could do so if new evidence comes to light. Perhaps Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and special counsel investigating Russia's role in the election, will drop another bombshell later this year. In addition, for the Trump put to continue our colleagues Ryan and Peter would have to be wrong about the economy and inflation. For investors interested in playing the Trump put, and allocating funds to EM assets in particular, we would caution against it. However, given that BCA's bond and FX views have been challenged over the past several months by the Trump put, we understand why many of our clients are itching to chase the global asset rally. The summer months will be critical. Does Brexit Still Mean Brexit? We posited last week that the extraordinary election in the U.K. was about austerity and, more importantly, about repudiating the Conservative Party's fiscal policies.6 This remains our view. The most investment-relevant message to take from the election is that U.K. fiscal policy will become easier over the life of the coalition government, while monetary policy remains stuck in D - for dovish. This should weigh on the pound over the course of the year. That said, investors will begin to wonder about the longevity of the coalition between the U.K. Conservative Party and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In practice the coalition will have only a five-seat majority, which would be tied for the second-smallest margin since Harold Wilson in 1964 (Chart 12). Technically it is an even smaller one-seat majority. U.K. governments with a majority of fewer than ten seats are rare and usually only last one-to-two years (Harold Wilson's four-seat 1974-79 run is an exception). This bodes ill for May's government - that is, if she survives today's brewing leadership challenge from within her party. Chart 12 We have no idea if the election means a softer Brexit as we have no idea - and neither does anyone else - what that means. Generally speaking, the wafer-thin majority for the Tories means the following: "No deal is better than a bad deal" is no longer going to be acceptable to the government or the public; London will end up paying a larger "exit fee" than it probably thinks it will; There will be no favorable deal for the U.K.'s financial industry. In essence, the U.K. clearly has the weaker hand in the upcoming negotiations. Cheers went up in Brussels. Does this change anything? First, we never bought the argument that the U.K. had a strong negotiating position because continental Europeans want to export BMWs to consumers in Britain. The EU is a far bigger market for the U.K. than the U.K. is for the EU (Chart 13). On this measure alone, the U.K. was always going to be the underdog in the negotiations. Chart 13The U.K. Lacks Leverage The U.K. Lacks Leverage The U.K. Lacks Leverage Chart 14 Second, the influence of Tory Euroskeptics has been reduced. That might appear counterintuitive, given that May wanted to reduce their influence by getting a bigger majority. However, it is highly unlikely that she will get the ultimate EU deal through Westminster, with a five-seat majority, without at least some votes from the opposition. Euroskeptics will therefore either remain quiet and compliant or force May to seek a deal that Labour MPs could agree to. Which brings us to the very likely scenario that the final deal will not pass Westminster without a new election. As we argued right after the referendum, the U.K. will likely have a "Brexit election" sometime in 2019.7 There is no way around it now. At very least the ruling alliance will face a contradiction in trying to soften Brexit while maintaining a strict stance on immigration. And given the weak majority, if Labour does not play ball, the Tories will have to call a new election on the basis of the deal they conclude. Chart 15 The good news for the Conservative Party is that the polls continue to show that a majority of U.K. voters support Brexit (Chart 14). Furthermore, the two Brexit-lite campaign promises by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were the least preferred policies ahead of the election (Chart 15, see next page). However, the election also saw a complete collapse in support for Euroskeptic-leaning parties, in terms of share of the overall vote (Chart 16). Could Brexit ultimately be reversed? Certainly the odds have risen. Furthermore, there does appear to be some regret amongst U.K. voters, with a recent survey showing a decline in national identification: now more Britons identify as "also European" than ever (Chart 17). Nonetheless, a full reversal of Brexit will still require an exogenous shock, such as a recession or a geopolitical calamity that convinces the U.K. that they need Europe. Investors should remain vigilant of the polls. A clear trend reversal in Chart 14 would constitute a political opportunity for the opposition parties to campaign on a new referendum. Chart 16Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Chart 17 Bottom Line: Odds of a softer Brexit have certainly risen as the Tories face considerable domestic constraints in their negotiating strategy with the EU. We continue to believe that the negotiations will not be acrimonious and therefore the pound will not fall below its lows on January 16. However, it may re-test that 1.2 level due to a coming mix of easy fiscal and monetary policy over the course of the year. U.S.: Doing A Number On Dodd-Frank Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff, Than an ambulance down in the valley! - Joseph Malins, "The Fence or the Ambulance," 1895 The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 by a vote of 233-186 on June 8. This is the GOP's second major attempt, after the Affordable Care Act, to rewrite a signature law of President Obama's administration. This time it is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, known simply as "Dodd-Frank," that is on the docket. The bill's prospects in the Senate are dim. President Trump promised to "do a number" on Dodd-Frank shortly after coming into office, by which he meant dismantling the law. The so-called "CHOICE Act" put forward by Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) now goes to the Senate, where it faces a high hurdle because Democrats can filibuster it, forcing the GOP to summon 60 votes. So the question is what kind of a "number" can the GOP actually do to Dodd-Frank, and does it matter? First a little bit of background.8 Dodd-Frank cleared Congress in the wake of the subprime financial crisis, July 2010. It had both a quixotic and a more pragmatic aim: the first to reduce the likelihood of future financial crises, and the second to improve the ability of regulators to stem risks as they emerge. The law has never been fully implemented and is best understood as a work in progress. The law grants the Federal Reserve and other agencies greater powers of oversight, prevention, and crisis management. In particular it ensures that the Fed would regulate not only banks but also non-bank investment companies and other financial firms (such as the giant insurance company AIG that had to be bailed out at the height of the crisis). It also frees the Fed of the responsibility to rescue failing institutions or dismantle them, handing those duties over to others, while still enabling the Fed to act as lender of last resort. The key provisions are as follows: Impose tougher capital standards: In keeping with the international Basel III banking reforms,9 Dodd-Frank tried to ensure that banks were better fortified against liquidity shortages in future. The new standards would apply both to domestic banks and foreign banks with American subsidiaries. Orderly Liquidation Authority: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a major institution born amidst the Great Depression, would take over the responsibility of liquidating failing firms in the event of a crisis - assuming Treasury's go-ahead due to the systemic importance of the failing firm. Additional measures would hold the entire financial sector responsible for the bill if the FDIC made losses in the process. Each firm would have to maintain a "living will" to make the resolution process easier in the event of disaster. A new Financial Stability Oversight Council: Chaired by the Treasury Secretary and consisting of the various financial regulatory bodies, this council would identify systemically important financial companies, monitor them, and take actions to prevent crises. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the anti-Wall Street firebrand, the bureau would be funded by the Fed but otherwise entirely independent of it, and tasked with patrolling the banks on behalf of consumers. The Volcker Rule: The rule, named after former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, would force banks to curtail a number of short-term, high-risk trading activities on their own accounts, including derivatives, futures, and options, unless to hedge risks or serve bank customers. This was viewed as a partial reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall law, a Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking but was repealed by President Clinton in 1999. Republicans want to overturn Dodd-Frank to increase financial sector profits, credit growth, economic growth, and animal spirits. Lending has arguably suffered as a result of the new regulations (Chart 18). The share of bank loans to overall bank credit has remained subdued, reflecting bank behavior under QE and possibly also risk-aversion under tighter regulation (Chart 19). Chart 18Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Chart 19Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Republicans would also satisfy an ideological goal of reducing state involvement, which grew as a result of the law. In addition, the CBO estimates that the proposed rewrite would cut the budget deficit by a net $22.3 billion over a ten-year period.10 A very small amount, but again in line with GOP's political bent. The way the CHOICE Act would work is to create an "escape hatch" that would allow banks that maintain capital-to-asset ratio of over 10% to bypass Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial companies that do not meet the 10% leverage ratio could either raise funds or remain subject to Dodd-Frank oversight, including required capital ratios, stress tests, living wills, and other regulations. Critically, the 10% leverage ratio for those banks that opt out of Dodd-Frank would not be calculated using risk-weightings for different assets (whereas Dodd-Frank requires both risk-weighted and non-risk-weighted capital ratios to be maintained). Therefore, banks that opt out would be able to take on greater risk while still fulfilling minimum capital requirements. This is supposed to boost lending, earnings, and growth. About 70% of the $18 trillion in U.S. banking assets belongs to banks defined by Dodd-Frank as "systemically important." The eight U.S. banks defined as "globally systemic important banks" account for about $9 trillion in assets and are unlikely to take advantage of the Republicans' escape hatch because they would then have to raise new capital and yet would still be subject to international Basel III regulations even if exempted from Dodd-Frank. The CBO estimates that banks holding about 2% of the bank assets held by systemically important banks (i.e. $252 billion) would opt out of Dodd-Frank (Chart 20). Chart 20 Further, the CBO estimates that, among non-systemically important banks (30% of $18 trillion total banking assets), the banks that both meet the 10% leverage ratio and would opt out of Dodd-Frank account for about 7% of U.S. banking assets ($1.26 trillion) (see Chart 20 above). Community banks (with assets under $10 billion each) and credit unions are especially likely to do so. Therefore, if the Republican bill were to become law, banks comprising something like $1.5 trillion in U.S. banking assets would become less restricted and eligible to adopt riskier trading practices free of Dodd-Frank policing. The greatest impact will be in areas with a higher concentration of small banks and credit unions than elsewhere. These U.S. banks would also, arguably, become more likely to take excessive risks and fail at some future point. Using probabilistic models for bank failures, the CBO found that the U.S.'s Deposit Insurance Fund would only suffer an additional $600 million in losses over the next ten years as a result of this increase in risk. It is a credible estimate but the reality could be far costlier if more and more banks gain the ability to bypass regulation or if banks significantly change their behavior to take advantage of the regulatory loophole. Other aspects of the bill would: Repeal the FDIC's orderly liquidation fund: The private sector would largely take over the responsibility for managing liquidations. The CBO estimates that the federal government would save an estimated $14.5 billion in liquidation costs over ten years. Eliminate the Volcker Rule: Banks would be able to trade riskier assets on their own accounts and forge closer relationships with private equity and hedge funds. Audit the Fed: Within one year of passage, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would audit the Fed's board of governors and the Federal Reserve regional banks, including their handling of monetary policy. The Fed's open market committee (FOMC) would also have to establish a new interest rate target, based on economic parameters, which the GAO would monitor. Reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Board: The agency would have its powers neutered and funding dependent on the Congress, rather than transfers from the Fed. It would be re-branded as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency and have its power to oversee institutions with more than $10 billion in assets taken away, making it, in effect, a monitor of small banks only. Cut penalties for violating regulations: However, outright criminality would be punished more severely. Various authorities and institutions would be tweaked, mostly in accordance with the general aim of reducing regulatory burdens on the financial sector. So, what options do the Republicans have going forward?11 Republicans either need 60 votes to defeat a Senate filibuster or they need procedural work-arounds like budget reconciliation. Chart 21Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Some Republicans claim that certain elements of the rewrite can be tucked into a reconciliation bill. However, reconciliation requires a single, concentrated policy focus. The GOP is currently undertaking an unprecedented two budget reconciliation bills in a single year: first, the FY2017 reconciliation procedure to repeal Obamacare, and second, the FY2018 procedure to cut taxes. Rewriting Dodd-Frank is a far cry from either health care or tax reform. Dodd-Frank measures crammed into either of these bills would likely be revoked under the so-called "Byrd Rule" which keeps the reconciliation process focused and excludes extraneous material.12 So it is unlikely that this method will work. The FY2018 budget resolution will be a critical signpost. Second, it is hard to see how a bipartisan rewrite of Dodd-Frank is possible. Dodd-Frank was the Democrats' signature response to the subprime mortgage debacle and broader financial crisis. They will not participate in dismantling it. We cannot see eight Democrats joining Republicans in the Senate for what Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has called "collective amnesia." However, there is one general principle that could find its way into law: the idea of giving small, regional banks a reprieve from Dodd-Frank requirements. Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has tentatively supported giving these banks a break.13 These banks, with under $10 billion in assets, face the most difficulty in meeting Dodd-Frank's requirements and yet tend to meet the 10% leverage ratio. Politicians could at least attempt to make a popular argument for easing the burden on small community banks and credit unions, which are often vital to local communities. The same cannot be said for the Dodd-Frank rewrite as a whole, which smacks of granting impunity to Wall Street. Still, we think that even a bill focused exclusively on helping small banks would have trouble passing on its own. The legislative agenda is too busy in 2017; while 2018 will see midterm elections, when few candidates will want to appear soft on Wall Street. Instead, a provision helping small banks could pass if tacked onto the larger budget bill or bills for FY2018, if not later. It would have to be made palatable to Democrats, or else it would be perceived as a "poison pill" and risk adding to the numerous risks of government shutdown over the budget this fall. Other than these legislative options, the Trump administration can ease regulation, or relax enforcement, through executive action, as it has already promised to do. Assuming America's financial sector will get a reprieve, investors could capitalize on it by favoring small U.S. bank equities over large bank equities. The share price of small banks relative to large banks, which rallied in the aftermath of Trump's election only to fall back in the subsequent months, has recently perked up (Chart 21). Relative earnings have been flat over the same period. If Dodd-Frank is partially watered down, these banks should see earnings improve, which should drive up their share prices. Our colleagues at BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy are positive on global bank equities, particularly European and American ones. The latter are still relatively affordable as they undertake the long trek of recovery after a once-in-a-generation crisis (Chart 22). U.S. banks have notably better fundamentals than peers in Europe and Japan - more capital, higher net interest margins, lower or equal NPL ratios. They also stand to benefit from relatively faster rising interest rates (Chart 23).14 Chart 22The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery Chart 23U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally In addition, the FiscalNote Financial Sector Index suggests that the flow of legislative and regulatory proposals has been steadily getting less onerous on the financial sector.15 Chart 24 is an aggregation of the favorability scores - which assess whether the bill is likely to be favorable or unfavorable to the sector - for all U.S. Congressional legislation that is determined to be relevant to the financial sector since 2006. It provides a snapshot of the regulatory environment for the financial sector at any given point in time. Chart 24Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Risks to the view? Republicans could somehow squeeze a broader Dodd-Frank rewrite through the budget reconciliation process. We think the probability of this is less than 10%. Financially, this would deliver a bigger jolt to the financial sector, and financial stocks, than currently expected. But it would still benefit small banks more than large ones. Politically, a full repeal could add to Republican woes in 2018 - particularly if it is their only legislative achievement. It may well be political suicide to contest the 2018 midterm election on two pieces of legislation: one that denies millions of Americans health insurance and another that favors Wall Street. A full rewrite would also probably increase systemic financial risks. Even deregulation just for the small banks would do so. Lawmakers, focused on restraining the "too big to fail" giants, could end up clearing the way for excesses among the pygmies. That said, excessive regulation can also fuel shadow banking, a risk in itself. And the next crisis may well emanate from somewhere other than the financial sector. Bottom Line: Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits even for Republicans in an environment of populism. However, a bill focused on lightening the regulatory load on small banks has a chance of passing if tacked onto the budget process. Large banks would remain subject to closer scrutiny and stricter international standards. The Trump election rally for bank stocks has mostly fallen back. Now is an opportunity to favor small banks versus large ones on expectations of Trump getting tax cuts passed and regulatory easing of some kind. Kansas: Where Seldom Is Heard A Discouraging Word A chill went through the Tea Party's collective spine on June 6 when two-thirds of the GOP-controlled Kansas legislature overrode the veto of GOP Governor Sam Brownback to repeal a 2012 budget law that slashed taxes on income, small business, and retail sales. You heard that right: Republicans in one of America's reddest states just overrode their leader in order to increase taxes. And it was the largest tax hike in state history. We will spare our readers the nitty-gritty details of the Brownback saga. Suffice it to say that the Tea Party-friendly Kansas legislature slashed state taxes and spending under Brownback's leadership in May 2012. Brownback called it a "real live experiment" of conservative economic principles and argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster growth. Art Laffer, of "Laffer Curve" fame, allegedly consulted on these measures via the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The medicine proved more dangerous than the illness. Since 2012, the state has burned through a budget surplus and growth has slowed (Chart 25). Both Moody's and S&P downgraded Kansas debt. Employment gains have lagged those of neighboring states. Beginning in October 2013, Brownback began to slip in public opinion polls (Chart 26). Cuts to core government services, especially education, caused a tide of criticism. In an extraordinary development, a hundred establishment Republicans supported his Democratic opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial election. He won by a margin of 3.7% but soon afterwards fell out of favor with the public. Chart 25 Chart 26 A series of confrontations with the Kansas Supreme Court hastened his decline, mostly over education funding, which is guaranteed by the state constitution. Brownback, the legislature, and various activist groups attempted to strong-arm the courts, including by ousting four members of the Supreme Court in the 2016 elections. All four retained their posts. The new budget law raises $1.2 billion in income taxes over two years by revoking swathes of the 2012 law, particularly the income tax exemption for business owners and professionals. Brownback duly vetoed the legislation and was promptly overridden by two-thirds of a legislature that is 70% Republican. This is a remarkable event for a state as ideologically conservative as Kansas. What does it mean nationally? There are two reasons that the Kansas experiment will have a limited impact on Republican thinking nationally: Kansas has a balanced budget law (Section 75-3722), while D.C. does not ... and this helped increase the pressure on the administration; Brownback is the least popular governor of any governor in the United States (Chart 27). The blame for the whole fiasco may fall on him personally, distracting from the policy failure. Chart 27 Nevertheless, we think Kansas has set the high-water mark for an aggressive Tea Party agenda in the U.S. that focuses on fiscal conservativism to the exclusion of everything else. Republicans will take note that even as conservative of a state as Kansas has a limit when it comes to spending cuts. It was the cuts to education - which resulted in shorter schoolyears in some districts, and various other disruptions - that fatally wounded Brownback's public standing. Thus public demand for core services is a real constraint on the extent to which taxes can be slashed. Bottom Line: We expect the Trump administration to go forward with tax cuts. But we also think that Trump will get far less in spending cuts than his budget proposals pretend. As such, we expect the GOP tax reform agenda to blow out the budget deficit, a path that Kansas could not legally (or politically) take. This will be the path of least resistance for Congressional Republicans who want to slash taxes yet fear they may not survive the spending cuts necessary to pay for them.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 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. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Janet L. Yellen, "Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy," Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 24, 2015, available at www.federalreserve.gov. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit - Next Steps," dated July 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We are particularly indebted to Ben S. Bernanke's account in The Courage To Act: A Memoir Of A Crisis And Its Aftermath (New York: Norton, 2015), pp. 435-66. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Preparing For Basel III: Who Will Win, Who Will Lose?" dated September 12, 2011, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 10, Financial CHOICE Act of 2017," CBO Cost Estimate, May 18, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 11 The Republicans managed to repeal one aspect of Dodd-Frank with a simple majority via the Congressional Review Act, an option that is now closed. U.S. oil, gas, and mineral companies can now be somewhat less transparent about payments made to foreign governments to gain access to resources. Proponents claim U.S. resource companies will gain competitiveness; opponents claim corruption will increase, particularly in foreign countries. 12 Please see Bill Heniff Jr., "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's 'Byrd Rule,'" Congressional Research Service, November 22, 2016, available at fas.org. 13 Please see Yellen's February testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, e.g. "Yellen Wants To Ease Regulations For Small Banks," Associated Press, February 14, 2017, available at www.usnews.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Girding For A Breakout," dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com, and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Breakout," dated May 5, 2017, and "Wind Of Change," dated November 11, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 15 The FiscalNote Policy Index measures regulatory risk daily for sectors, industries, and individual companies from every legislative and regulatory proposal. Using proprietary machine-learning-enabled natural language processing algorithms, FiscalNote ingests and processes thousands of legislative and regulatory policy events, scoring each for relevance, favorability, and importance to affected sectors. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The current economic and profit environment supports our stance of favoring stocks over bonds. The Fed will need to see more evidence to alter its gradual path for rates. Although valuations remain elevated, they are not a great market timing tool. Margins are expanding according to the S&P 500 data, and we expect this to continue in the second half of the year. But a peak in margins next year could be the justification to scale back on overweight positions in stocks, in anticipation of slower EPS growth. Corporate balance sheets continued to deteriorate in the first quarter, but that is not enough to warrant cutting back on corporate bond positions within fixed-income portfolios. Watch real short-term rates and bank C&I lending standards, as an exit warning. Feature Environment Remains Supportive For Stocks Over Bonds Investors are wondering whether the equity and currency/bond markets are living on different planets. The dollar and Treasurys seem to be priced for sluggish economic growth, less inflation and no fiscal stimulus. Yet, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. Many believe that the only reason that stocks got to this level in the first place is the prospect of tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending. If true, then it is only a matter of time before equity investors capitulate. We look at it another way. Yes, equities initially received a boost following the U.S. election on hopes for tax reform. But indicators such as the ratio of small-to-large-cap stocks, or high-tax companies relative to the S&P 500, suggest that the stock market has priced out all chances of any tax reform. The overall stock market has performed well despite this because of the favorable profit backdrop. The fact that Corporate America can generate such profits despite a lackluster economy is impressive. Moreover, the recent softening in inflation has led many to believe that the Fed can proceed even more slowly than the market previously believed, leading to a bond rally. This is quite a bullish backdrop for equities. One does not have to conclude that the bond and stock markets are living on different planets. The backdrop is also positive for corporate bonds versus Treasurys, despite the fact that corporate health continues to deteriorate (see below). Turning to politics, the political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The outcome of the election does not change our core views on the U.S. dollar, equity or bond markets. The dollar has rallied, Treasury yields are higher and U.S. equity prices moved up as this report was being prepared on Friday, June 9. Looking ahead, the coalition-building process in the U.K. will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds. Nonetheless, our high conviction view is that the investment implications are in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. A key takeaway for investors is that, aside from Brexit, domestic fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Moreover, the Brexit process will continue, albeit of a potentially more "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal.1 Will They Or Won't They? A 25-basis point rate hike is likely this week, but the FOMC will need more evidence on the direction of inflation and the economy before significantly changing the timing and pace of rate hikes or economic forecasts. The market is fully pricing in the anticipated 25-basis point rate bump, but beyond that, there is not much agreement between the Fed and the market on interest rates or economic projections. Nonetheless, as the Fed prepares its June forecast and dot plots, policymakers and the market are on the same page in terms of the labor market, inflation, and the economy in the next few years. The unemployment rate (4.3% in May 2017) is below the Fed's forecasts for 2017 (4.5%) and longer run (4.7%). The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate keeps it below the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 1, panel 3). Even assuming that the 120,000 pace of job growth in the past three months persists, the unemployment rate would remain below the Fed's view of NAIRU (Chart 2). Our unemployment rate projections are based on a stable labor force participation rate and a 1% gain in the working age population. Chart 1Fed, Market And Reality##BR##Not Too Far Apart Fed, Market And Reality Not Too Far Apart Fed, Market And Reality Not Too Far Apart Chart 2The Unemployment Rate##BR##Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios The Unemployment Rate Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios The Unemployment Rate Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios However, a closer look at what policymakers have said about prices and the trajectory of inflation in recent years suggests that the market and the Fed are not that far apart. At +1.7% in April, the PCE deflator remains near the FOMC's projection of 1.9% for this year and 2.0% in the long run. Bloomberg consensus estimates for inflation for this year and next are above the top end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 1, panel 2). The FOMC's May minutes state that "participants generally continued to expect that inflation would stabilize around the Committee's two percent objective over the medium run as the effects of transitory factors waned." The market is still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with the economy below the Fed's estimate of full employment. We will discuss the Phillips curve in a post-GFC world in an upcoming edition of The Bank Credit Analyst. As we discussed in last week's report,2 GDP growth in 2017 is on track to exceed the Fed's 2017 target (2.1%) and is already running ahead of the Fed's GDP projection (1.8%) for the long term. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is at the upper end of the Fed's range set in March (Chart 1, panel 1). Despite the general agreement between the Fed and the market on certain aspects, they diverge on the outlook for the fed funds rate in the next 18 months (Chart 3). As of June 9, the Fed sees a total of six quarter-point rate hikes by the end of 2018. The market sees just two in the same period. The Fed and market are still far apart on rates in 2019. However, the disconnect between the Fed and the market is not as large as it was in early 2015. This disagreement was a major factor in the equity market pullback in the first few months of 2016 (Chart 3). Neither the recent weakness in the economic data nor softer-than-expected inflation readings will be enough to prompt a significant shift from the Fed in terms of the 'dot plot'. The economic surprise index has been declining for 63 days since peaking in early- to mid-March, but remains consistent with slow growth, not a recession. Economic data tends to disappoint for an average of 90 days after the economic surprise index is above 40, as it was in late 2016/early 2017 in the wake of the U.S. election (Chart 4). Chart 3Disconnect Between Fed##BR##And Market On Rates Disconnect Between Fed And Market On Rates Disconnect Between Fed And Market On Rates Chart 4Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over##BR##Since Early To Mid March Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over Since Early To Mid March Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over Since Early To Mid March Bottom Line: It would take a significant deterioration in the economy and labor market and in the benign inflation environment to alter the Fed's gradual rate hike plan. A backdrop of gradual hikes and eventually, a smaller balance sheet, will continue to foster the conditions under which stocks have outperformed bonds since 2009. We believe that the recent Treasury rally is overdone because the market has gone too far in revising down the path of Fed rate hikes. A re-evaluation of the outlook could see bond yields jump, sparking a small equity correction. This is not enough of a risk to scale back on equities versus bonds. Valuations, Earnings And Margins: An Update U.S. equities remain overvalued and would be even more extended if not for low rates. However, they are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasurys. Valuation is not a great tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we don't foresee a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond our tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Our BCA valuation indicator has deteriorated since we last published it in March 2017 and shows that U.S. equities remain expensive.3 Individually, two of the three components of the Valuation index remain in overvalued territory. The Earnings Group remains at a record high (aside from the tech bubble). The Balance Sheet group shows the same profile. Only the Yield Group, which compares stock prices with various nominal and real interest rates, suggests that equities are undervalued. Thus, U.S. stock prices are vulnerable to a sharp jump in rates, which supports our view that U.S. equity markets will perform well in an economic and inflation backdrop that allows the Fed to raise interest rates and unwind its balance sheet gradually (Chart 5). While tax cuts and infrastructure spending might provide the equity market with a "sugar high", it probably would not last long because fiscal stimulus would bring forward Fed rate hikes. Moreover, Chart 6 shows that U.S. stocks remain favorably priced relative to competing assets such as corporate bonds, Treasurys and residential housing. That said, equity valuation measures such as price-to-book or price-to-sales make the market vulnerable to shocks. Chart 5U.S. Stocks##BR##Are Overvalued... U.S. Stocks Are Overvalued... U.S. Stocks Are Overvalued... Chart 6Stocks Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Inflated valuations alone are not enough to trigger a bear market or even a significant correction in U.S. equities. Outside of aggressive Fed tightening, we will become more defensive when profits come under pressure. On this score, the decline in Q4 profits according to the NIPA data is concerning. We are in a period where margins based on the NIPA data are diverging from the S&P's measure. Like corporate earnings, there is more than one data source for profit margin data, and the data itself is a mix of art and science. In the long run, the S&P-based margin data and the data derived from the NIPA accounts tend to move together. Over shorter time horizons, however, these two metrics may diverge. The NIPA margins peaked in 2014 and have moved steadily lower since then, but the BEA-derived profit data are not closely watched by investors and are subject to significant revision. On the other hand, margins based on S&P data are followed closely by the markets, are not subject to revision and have been moving higher since end of 2015. In the past 55 years, the peak in NIPA margins has often led the S&P data at peaks; the caveat is that it is unclear whether the NIPA data led in real time because of the endless revision process for GDP and profit data.4 The margin series based on S&P data tends to lead heading into margin troughs, but it is not a reliable signal. During the long economic expansion in the 1960s, both indicators topped out around the same time (1966-67). The NIPA derived margins peaked in 1975 as the S&P margins troughed, and later in the decade, the zenith in NIPA margins peaked three years before the S&P version. Similar to the current decade the long expansion in the 1980s saw a mid-decade collapse in oil prices and margins. In the late 80s, NIPA and S&P measures peaked almost simultaneously, which was three years before the crest in equity prices. The 1990s saw unabated margin expansion through 1997 for NIPA margins; the expansion in S&P-based margins lasted until 1999 (Chart 7). Chart 7Margins, Like Profits Are Mix Of Art & Science Margins, Like Profits, Are Mix Of Art & Science Margins, Like Profits, Are Mix Of Art & Science History also shows that falling margins do not always mean declining EPS growth. In the past 40 years, when the U.S. economy was not in recession, corporate EPS growth was very high on average when margins rose. It was mostly a wash when margins dropped, with slightly negative EPS growth on average. There were two episodes (late-1990s and mid-2000s) when margins fell, but EPS growth was strongly positive (Chart 8). The stock market can also rise significantly even after margins peak for the cycle. Chart 8EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract According to S&P data we are in a phase of climbing margins and we expect EPS growth to further accelerate into year end, peaking at just under 20%, before moderating in 2018. If profit growth decelerates in 2018 and the S&P measure of margins begins to narrow again, it would send a strong signal to trim exposure, especially given lofty equity valuations (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Bottom Line: Rich valuations in U.S. equities will be overlooked as most investors are focused on the S&P and not the NIPA margins. EPS growth will decelerate sharply when margins resume their mean reversion, which could be the catalyst for a major correction or bear market in stock prices. We do not expect this scenario to play out until 2018 at the earliest. Meanwhile, rising margins and profits trump expensive multiples for U.S. equities. Stay long. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Last week's U.S. Flow of Funds release allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart 10). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." The deterioration in the Monitor over the past few years is largely reflected in the profit-related components of the CHM, including the return on capital, cash flow coverage and free cash flow-to-total debt. Chart 10Deteriorating Since 2015, But... Deteriorating Since 2015, But... Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and most reliable indicators in BCA's stable of indicators. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. A blowout requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to rise, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist usually occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. Even now, inflationary pressures are so muted that the Fed can proceed quite slowly. It will be some time before real short-term interest rates are in restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. As an aside, recent weakness in the growth rate of C&I loans has contributed to concerns over the health of the U.S. recovery. However, the easing in lending standards this year points to an imminent rebound in C&I loan growth (Chart 11). Our model for C&I loans, based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate, supports this view. Chart 11C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart 12 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, has eased on a 4-quarter moving average basis (although it ticked up in Q1 on a 2-quarter basis; Chart 13). As a result, ratings migration has improved (i.e. easing net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The moderating appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart 12Still Some Value In##BR##High-Yield Corporates Still Some Value In High-Yield Corporates Still Some Value In High-Yield Corporates Chart 13Net Transfers To Shareholders##BR##Eased In Past Two Quarters Net Transfers To Shareholders Eased In Past Two Quarters Net Transfers To Shareholders Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle, for reasons we outlined in the April 17, 2017 Weekly Report. In a nutshell, value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Bottom Line: Corporate balance sheets are still deteriorating but risk assets, including corporate bonds, should continue to outperform Treasurys and cash in the near term. We will look to downgrade risk assets when core inflation moves closer to the Fed's 2% target, which would trigger a more aggressive FOMC tightening campaign and tighter bank lending standards. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken, published on June 9, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?" June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks", dated March 13, 2017 available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth, Inflation and the Fed", May 8, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. Chart 3 In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 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.

Dear Client, I am visiting clients in Asia. Along with a brief Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Chief Strategist of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the U.S. is vulnerable to serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election, as a result of the widening gulf between elites and the rest. Trump, thus far, seems unlikely to bridge this gap. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights The United States has produced too many elites, while popular well-being has fallen; Elite-controlled institutions have failed to protect households from the negatives of globalization and technological change; Tribalism, polarization, and money politics are preventing political compromise; Trump won by assaulting the "elites" but neither his policies, Congress, nor the economy look to improve well-being; With recession likely by 2019, the U.S. will see a revolt of some kind by the 2020 election. Feature Crime is increasing Trigger happy policing Panic is spreading God knows where We're heading Oh, make me wanna holler They don't understand Make me wanna holler They don't understand - Marvin Gaye, "Inner City Blues," 1971 If we had to explain the election of Donald Trump and the decision by U.K. voters to exit the EU with one chart it would be Chart 1. It depicts the relationship between high income inequality and low generational mobility and suggests that highly unequal societies develop structures that perpetuate unequal income through generations.1 The U.S. and the U.K. stand at the extreme of the relationship, with Italy close behind. Chart 1 Not surprisingly, the common people, "the plebs," in all three countries are dissatisfied with the arrangement. Low social mobility perpetuates unequal economic outcomes, throwing middle- and low-income voters into a sense of desperation. They fear that both their children's lot in life and their own is already decided, i.e. cannot and will not improve. A pre-election Gallup study of 125,000 American adults confirms that President Trump's support was strongest among voters in communities with poor health and low generational mobility.2 Of no relevance was whether respondents came from areas supposed to suffer most heavily from the ills that Trump opposed, i.e. communities exposed to global competition via trade, or those with high levels of immigration, or areas with relatively high unemployment and low incomes. America is supposed to be immune to income inequality because of social mobility. Equality of opportunity matters more than equality of outcome. This is the trade-off that has existed at the heart of America since its founding. For decades this trade-off has atrophied. Donald Trump was then elected to bring the U.S. back to its default setting. In this report, we explain why it may be too late and what will happen if he fails. If BCA's House View is correct, that a recession will occur by the end of 2019 (if not earlier), then the economic and political conditions are ripe for serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election.3 The Dynamic Of Elite Overproduction In Why Nations Fail, economist Daron Acemoglu and political scientist James Robinson tell a story of "How Venice Became A Museum."4 From the eleventh to fourteenth century, Venice was one of the richest places in the world. Behind its rapid economic expansion was the commenda, an early form of a joint-stock company formed for the duration of a single trading mission. It spurred Venice's ambitious entrepreneurs to find new trading routes by allowing them to share in the profits with the owners of capital who funded the risky journeys. As new families enriched themselves, political institutions grew more inclusive to accommodate them: in 1032, for instance, Venice held elections for its doge, or leader. An independent judiciary, private contracts, and bankruptcy laws followed. By 1330, Venice was a wealthy and strikingly modern republic with a population as large as that of Paris. The commenda system, however, had a dark side: creative destruction. Each new wave of young, enterprising explorers reduced the political privileges and profits of the established elites. In the late thirteenth century, these elites began to restrict membership in the Great Council, or legislature. Such efforts culminated in La Serrata ("The Closure") in 1297, which severely restricted access to the Great Council for new members but expanded it for families of established elites. An economic serrata quickly followed the political one, and the commenda system that underpinned Venice's wealth was replaced by a state monopoly on trade in 1314. The rest is, as they say, history. Venice rapidly declined as the newly closed economic and political institutions failed to deal with the rise of Portugal and Spain, the revolution in navigation and discovery of new trade routes to the East, and various regional attempts to encroach on its wealth and power. After the seventeenth century this decline accelerated. Today, its only source of income is tourism, which parlays the pre-Serrata wonders - such as the Doge's Palace and St. Mark's Cathedral - for cash that the city desperately needs to keep itself afloat.5 Acemoglu and Robinson make the case in their research that societies with both politically and economically inclusive institutions are rare. They cite a number of reasons for this, but the one that is most relevant to this report is "elite overproduction." Elites have a perfectly human and rational desire to perpetuate their political and economic privileges and pass them on to their children. A society that truly promotes equality of opportunity is one that leaves its elites to the fates. The elite desire to pass on privileges to future generations is a constant, but human conflict and state collapse are cyclical. Peter Turchin, a biologist who studies human conflict, has noted that periods of intense conflict in societies tend to recur within 40-to-60-year cycles. He posits that elite overproduction - and its counterpart, low societal well-being - is to blame.6 In post-industrial societies, low and falling labor costs are one of the principal conditions for elite multiplication. International trade, immigration, technological advancements, and investment in human and physical capital all suppress labor costs, benefiting the consumers of labor, i.e. the elites. Globalization has played a particularly important role in suppressing wages in the modern developed world. It expanded the global supply of labor by opening up new populations to capitalism (Chart 2), leading to suppressed wage growth for the middle classes in advanced economies (Chart 3). This process has been reinforced by technological change, particularly innovation that is biased in favor of capital (i.e. saving on labor costs) (Chart 4). Chart 2Globalization Expanded ##br##The Global Supply Of Labor... Globalization Expanded The Global Supply Of Labor... Globalization Expanded The Global Supply Of Labor... Chart 3 Chart 4 As elites capture an ever-greater share of the economic pie (even a growing economic pie), they become accustomed to ever greater levels of consumption, which drives inter-elite competition for social status. Everyone tries to "keep up with the Joneses," which for many is only achievable by supplementing wages with debt (Chart 5).7 The demand for elite goods - say homes in the "right" zip codes - exhibits runaway growth as the cost of elite membership rises and as sub-elites with rising income levels compete for access (Chart 6). Chart 5Credit Supplanted Income Credit Supplanted Income Credit Supplanted Income Chart 6Middle Class Incomes Don't ##br##Buy Middle Class Goods Middle Class Incomes Don't Buy Middle Class Goods Middle Class Incomes Don't Buy Middle Class Goods Focusing on the U.S., Turchin shows that Americans are today living in the second "Gilded Age." His research shows that "elite overproduction" has not been this high, and "population well-being" this low, since the early twentieth century (Chart 7). He calculates population well-being as a combination of general health, family formation, and wage and employment prospects. All indicators are currently in decline relative to history, save for health. But even life expectancy is taking a hit, albeit for select demographic groups most negatively impacted by poor job and wage prospects (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 For elite overproduction, Turchin relies on standard measures: wealth inequality, university education cost, and political polarization. This makes intuitive sense, since major policies aimed at reversing entrenched inequality can only be enacted after polarization has fallen due to events that subdued elites, such as major economic calamities or geopolitical challenges - e.g. the New Deal following the Great Depression, or the Great Society following World War II and amidst the Cold War. The danger of extreme polarization between elite prosperity and general well-being is that it is theoretically and empirically associated with political polarization, social unrest, and war. Acemoglu and Robinson detail case after case - from ancient Mayans and Romans to modern French and Japanese - in which the competition for resources between elites and the general population led to civil strife or all-out warfare. Meanwhile Turchin's research shows that politically motivated violence in the U.S. (Chart 9), which last peaked 50 years ago in the late 1960s, is associated with large gaps in well-being between elites and the masses (Chart 10).8 Chart 9 Chart 10 Bottom Line: Elite overproduction has been identified by academic research as a constant source of social instability throughout human history. Elites subvert inclusive political and economic institutions in order to stifle creative destruction, which would enrich new entrepreneurs but dilute elite privileges. As such, societies that prevent elite overproduction and promote equality of opportunity (and creative destruction) are successful in perpetuating themselves over the long term. Repatrimonialization In The U.S. Chart 11Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s A sure sign that a society is in decline? When elites strive to hold onto their status and create barriers to entry for others. In the case of Venice, these barriers were overtly political. Le Serrata was followed by the introduction of Libro d'Oro (the "Golden Book"), which created an official registry of Venetian families that would be allowed to share in the deliberations of the Great Council. As the population revolted against such measures, Venice introduced a police force in 1310, with other coercive methods to follow. Today, the U.S. exhibits similar signs of institutional capture by the elites, albeit updated for the twenty-first century. Political theorist Francis Fukuyama calls this process "repatrimonialization." It occurs amidst long periods of economic prosperity and peace, as elites lose sight of their symbiotic relationship with fellow citizens and begin to serve their own "tribal" interests.9 Note in the above Chart 7 that elite overproduction, as defined by Turchin, reaches its peak after long periods of peace: the first high point came in 1902, 37 years after the Civil War, and the second came in 2007, 62 years after World War II. The latter case in particular suggests that as threats dissipate, elites lose sight of personal sacrifices - military service, income redistribution, public service, public works - that are required for geopolitical competition with peer challengers. At the height of the Cold War (1949 to 1962), for example, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 92% (Chart 11).10 The point is not the tax rate, but that elites were far more acquiescent to fiscal sacrifices on behalf of the public. Fukuyama points to the U.K. and the U.S. as the two countries that have been the least politically responsive to the challenges of globalization and technological change in the developed world. In the case of the U.S., this is because interest groups are capable of steering policy towards further globalization and technological change. Both processes have also empowered elites, which have steered policy towards less redistribution and more austerity for the middle classes. The data is clear on this point. Despite Europe's being as exposed to globalization and technological advances as the U.S., European median wage growth has kept pace with GDP growth since 2000, whereas in the U.S. it not only failed to keep up but declined over the same time period (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe Shielded ##br##Households From Global Winds Europe Shielded Households From Global Winds Europe Shielded Households From Global Winds What are some of the mechanisms of repatrimonialization in the U.S. and can they be reversed? The good news is that elite capture of state institutions is now out in the open and easy to identify. Both Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned explicitly against it. The bad news is that it is unlikely to be reversed endogenously, at least not without a catalyst. What follows is a short description of the most salient problems facing the country as a result of elite entrenchment. Campaign Financing The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave rise to political action committees, also known as Super PACs. These groups are allowed to receive unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations as long as they do not cooperate, coordinate, or directly contribute funding to actual candidates. This supposed firewall, however, is a fig leaf. The elimination of caps on this type of campaign financing allows single-issue groups and even single individuals with deep pockets to fund fringe candidates or support single-issue ballot measures that would otherwise lack sources of funding. This is especially important in primary elections where turnout is very low. In response, incumbent legislators have to tread carefully and avoid angering individual donors or Super PACs that could single-handedly fund a campaign against them in the primary elections, especially since the average cost of a congressional election campaign is relatively low at $1.4 million (a small amount compared to the funds that can be brought to bear by activist donors). In 2012, more than 40% of the campaign donations used in all federal elections was contributed by 0.01% of the voting-age population. That means that about 24,000 people were responsible for a near-majority of all contributions.11 Two other findings reported in the academic literature provide insight on how (and if) that money might steer policy. First, a study confirmed the general belief that the wealthiest Americans are much more conservative than the general public when it comes to tax policy and economic regulation.12 Second, another study found that when the policy preferences of the top 10% of income earners diverge from the preferences of the bottom 50%, the policy outcome is more likely to reflect the intentions of the former group.13 Polarization Political polarization benefits elites by impeding the democratic process and locking in rules that are beneficial to the status quo. Chart 13 shows that income inequality and political polarization in the sphere of economic policy are correlated.14 The simple reason the two are so highly correlated is because the right-of-center Republican Party increasingly opposes redistribution, while the left-of-center Democratic Party favors it. As the two parties diverge on matters of economic principle, compromises become virtually impossible, locking redistributive efforts at the current levels favored by the elites. Polarization is subsequently reinforced by electoral-district "gerrymandering" and an extremely bifurcated and increasingly distrusted news media. Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter due to their superior position at the state level) have redrawn administrative boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart 14). Chart 13Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 14Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Tribalization Elite overproduction often leads to the tribalization of society. Elites, to ensure that they are not torn asunder by the plebs, mobilize the population behind various causes that divert attention away from themselves, i.e. away from the real cause of social malaise. These causes are "wedge issues," in today's parlance. They can include identity politics, religious issues, as well as foreign policy. The Democratic Party has often relied on identity issues to mobilize support, but the effort kicked into high gear as it evolved from a redistributive "Old Left" party to the more centrist, "Third Way," neo-liberal orientation of Bill Clinton's presidency. Senator Bernie Sanders attempted to reverse this trend and overtly downplayed identity politics during his presidential campaign. He saw his party's neo-liberal turn as an elite-driven effort to distract from the real problems affecting low-income households. Hillary Clinton, the neo-liberal Democrat, by contrast, suffered as a result of the perception that she was an elite. Chart 15 The problem is that these wedge issues have begun to ossify into actual identities. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on a list of 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats, as opposed to other elements of identity. This has not always been the case, as Chart 15 shows. We suspect that this data will grow even starker after the divisive, borderline hysterical 2016 campaign. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become almost tribal in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Bottom Line: America's repatrimonialization is advanced. The democratic process, which is supposed to adjudicate between interest groups and regulate elite economic and political privileges, has been drawn to a halt by polarization, the political influence of big money, and emerging tribalism between non-elites. It is extremely difficult to see how these hurdles can be overcome via America's regular political process. As such, they will be resolved only after some kind of crisis, whether endogenous or exogenous. Will Trump Fix It? President Donald Trump famously said in his nomination speech at the Republican Convention, "I alone can fix it." In a way, he may be correct. Although he is very much part of the American economic elite, he has no links to the D.C. establishment and owes no favors to special interest groups.15 His entire campaign personified the conclusions of this report: that the U.S. economy has been captured by economic and political elites and that the well-being of regular citizens is in the doldrums. It is unfair to judge President Trump's record and legacy based on a little over four months in office. However, we lean heavily towards the conclusion that his efforts to undermine American patricians will ultimately fail. Here is why: Policy President Trump does not have much of a legislative record. Nonetheless, his first major piece of legislation - the Obamacare repeal and replace bill - would, in its current form, leave 14 million people without health care - and an estimated 24 million by 2026. If not substantially revised, the bill is likely to impose a roughly $445 billion burden on U.S. households in order to pay for the "hyuge" tax cuts that Trump has promised (Chart 16). Further throwing Trump's plebeian credentials into doubt is his second signature legislative act: tax reform. His campaign proposal fell largely in line with previous Republican efforts, which, it should be noted, have contributed greatly to elite overproduction in the U.S. (Chart 17). Trump's original proposal would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of middle-class Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.16 We expect that his White House team will adjust this original plan to offer middle-class tax cuts, but the main thrust of the effort is still to eliminate estate taxes and lower the top marginal rates significantly. Chart 16 Chart 17Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites On trade and immigration, Trump has little record to show. His meeting with President Xi Jinping of China revealed that he is like previous presidents in talking tough about Chinese trade on the campaign trail yet lacking the desire to take aggressive action once in office. We expect that Trump will eventually pivot towards greater protectionism, but it is not clear that it will be executed in a way that actually improves household well-being.17 Congress So far Trump has shown that he is more interested in getting legislation passed than shaping it in a populist way. For example, he has urged Congress to pass the Obamacare replacement even though many conservative Senators are wary of its negative impact on households. If he adopts the same strategy with tax reform, we would suspect that he will err on the side of "getting things done," rather than fulfilling his campaign pledges to blue-collar workers. The problem for Trump is the same problem President Obama had: polarization. Trump would be far more successful in passing populist legislation if he developed a working relationship with Democrats, who ostensibly have discarded the elitism of the Clinton years. Yet to do so he would have to "betray" his only friends, leaving himself vulnerable should the Democrats refuse to play ball. He is thus stuck with partisan Republican policies, which means voters are stuck with a lack of compromise. Macroeconomics Populists everywhere have one overarching goal when they come to power: boosting nominal GDP growth (Chart 18). We suspect that Trump will ultimately get tax reform through Congress and that it will be moderately stimulative.18 Chart 18 The problem is that the U.S. economic recovery is already far advanced. As such, even moderate stimulus could hasten the timing of an economic recession. Given the lack of major economic imbalances, it is unlikely that such a recession would freeze the financial system and be as painful as that of 2008-9. Nonetheless, the trade-off between moderate stimulus and a quicker recession is unlikely to benefit Trump's voters. Bottom Line: Donald Trump has tapped into the deep social malaise in the U.S. and responded to the populace's demands that elite overproduction be curbed. Unfortunately, his track record during the campaign and as president gives little evidence that he will be successful in restraining America's elites. Especially because he is forced to cooperate with them through Congress, and in a way that does not encourage broad compromise. Investment Implications We suspect that polarization will grow throughout Trump's term and that he will largely be unsuccessful in pursuing an agenda that genuinely increases opportunity or well-being. In fact, we would bet that most of his policies will contribute to, not reduce, elite overproduction in the U.S. What happens when Donald Trump fails to reform America and resolve its elite overproduction problem? If a recession occurs by 2019 - our House View at BCA - then the economic and political conditions suggest that a serious revolt is in the cards by the time of the 2020 election. By this we mean not just an electoral revolt, like Trump's election, but also a concrete increase in social tension and unrest. A repeat of the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, yet more violent, could be in cards. By the 2020 election, we would also suspect that our clients may look back fondly, with nostalgia, for Senator Bernie Sander's campaign platform, which by that point may look downright centrist. Investors should prepare for an increase in economic populist policy proposals, from both the left and the right. If economic policy begins to steer towards populism, investors should bet on higher inflation and thus higher nominal - but potentially lower real - Treasury yields. The independence of the Fed could also suffer, putting considerable downward pressure on the USD. In this environment, equities will outperform bonds, but global assets should outperform those of the U.S. Gold, which has failed as a safe-haven asset in the contemporary deflationary era, should become attractive once again.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Miles Corak, "Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility," Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Discussion paper no. 7520, July 2013, available at iza.org. 2 Please see Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell, "Explaining Nationalist Political Views: The Case Of Donald Trump," Gallup, dated November 2, 2016, available at papers.ssrn.com. 3 Please see BCA's The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Daren Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Publishers, 2012). 5 Literally. 6 Please see Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov, Secular Cycles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). 7 Please see Neal Fligstein et al, "Keeping up with the Joneses: Inequality and Indebtedness, in the Era of the Housing Price Bubble, 1999-2007," presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, August 2015. 8 Please see Peter Turchin, "Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780-2010," Journal of Peace Research 49:4 (2012), pp. 577-91. 9 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2014). 10 Today's dispersed terrorist threat does not even come close to approximating the threat that the Soviet Union during the Cold War presented to the U.S., and as such we do not consider it seriously as an existential threat to either the U.S. or the West. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Adam Bonica et al., "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 27:3 (Summer 2013), pp. 103-24. 12 Please see Benjamin Page et al., "Democracy And The Policy Preferences Of Wealthy Americans," Perspectives On Politics 11:1 (March 2013), pp. 51-73. 13 Please see Martin Gilens, "Inequality And Democratic Responsiveness," Public Opinion Quarterly 69:5 (2005), pp. 778-796. 14 The latter measure of polarization is one of Turchin's factors in elite overproduction. 15 Save for the Kremlin! We jest, we jest. At least, we think we jest ... 16 Several groups would have seen no substantial tax cuts under his original campaign plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would have seen their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would have seen their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would have seen their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. For our original discussion, see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The United States has produced too many elites, while popular well-being has fallen; Elite-controlled institutions have failed to protect households from the negatives of globalization and technological change; Tribalism, polarization, and money politics are preventing political compromise; Trump won by assaulting the "elites" but neither his policies, Congress, nor the economy look to improve well-being; With recession likely by 2019, the U.S. will see a revolt of some kind by the 2020 election. Feature Crime is increasing Trigger happy policing Panic is spreading God knows where We're heading Oh, make me wanna holler They don't understand Make me wanna holler They don't understand - Marvin Gaye, "Inner City Blues," 1971 If we had to explain the election of Donald Trump and the decision by U.K. voters to exit the EU with one chart it would be Chart 1. It depicts the relationship between high income inequality and low generational mobility and suggests that highly unequal societies develop structures that perpetuate unequal income through generations.1 The U.S. and the U.K. stand at the extreme of the relationship, with Italy close behind. Chart 1 Not surprisingly, the common people, "the plebs," in all three countries are dissatisfied with the arrangement. Low social mobility perpetuates unequal economic outcomes, throwing middle- and low-income voters into a sense of desperation. They fear that both their children's lot in life and their own is already decided, i.e. cannot and will not improve. A pre-election Gallup study of 125,000 American adults confirms that President Trump's support was strongest among voters in communities with poor health and low generational mobility.2 Of no relevance was whether respondents came from areas supposed to suffer most heavily from the ills that Trump opposed, i.e. communities exposed to global competition via trade, or those with high levels of immigration, or areas with relatively high unemployment and low incomes. America is supposed to be immune to income inequality because of social mobility. Equality of opportunity matters more than equality of outcome. This is the trade-off that has existed at the heart of America since its founding. For decades this trade-off has atrophied. Donald Trump was then elected to bring the U.S. back to its default setting. In this report, we explain why it may be too late and what will happen if he fails. If BCA's House View is correct, that a recession will occur by the end of 2019 (if not earlier), then the economic and political conditions are ripe for serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election.3 The Dynamic Of Elite Overproduction In Why Nations Fail, economist Daron Acemoglu and political scientist James Robinson tell a story of "How Venice Became A Museum."4 From the eleventh to fourteenth century, Venice was one of the richest places in the world. Behind its rapid economic expansion was the commenda, an early form of a joint-stock company formed for the duration of a single trading mission. It spurred Venice's ambitious entrepreneurs to find new trading routes by allowing them to share in the profits with the owners of capital who funded the risky journeys. As new families enriched themselves, political institutions grew more inclusive to accommodate them: in 1032, for instance, Venice held elections for its doge, or leader. An independent judiciary, private contracts, and bankruptcy laws followed. By 1330, Venice was a wealthy and strikingly modern republic with a population as large as that of Paris. The commenda system, however, had a dark side: creative destruction. Each new wave of young, enterprising explorers reduced the political privileges and profits of the established elites. In the late thirteenth century, these elites began to restrict membership in the Great Council, or legislature. Such efforts culminated in La Serrata ("The Closure") in 1297, which severely restricted access to the Great Council for new members but expanded it for families of established elites. An economic serrata quickly followed the political one, and the commenda system that underpinned Venice's wealth was replaced by a state monopoly on trade in 1314. The rest is, as they say, history. Venice rapidly declined as the newly closed economic and political institutions failed to deal with the rise of Portugal and Spain, the revolution in navigation and discovery of new trade routes to the East, and various regional attempts to encroach on its wealth and power. After the seventeenth century this decline accelerated. Today, its only source of income is tourism, which parlays the pre-Serrata wonders - such as the Doge's Palace and St. Mark's Cathedral - for cash that the city desperately needs to keep itself afloat.5 Acemoglu and Robinson make the case in their research that societies with both politically and economically inclusive institutions are rare. They cite a number of reasons for this, but the one that is most relevant to this report is "elite overproduction." Elites have a perfectly human and rational desire to perpetuate their political and economic privileges and pass them on to their children. A society that truly promotes equality of opportunity is one that leaves its elites to the fates. The elite desire to pass on privileges to future generations is a constant, but human conflict and state collapse are cyclical. Peter Turchin, a biologist who studies human conflict, has noted that periods of intense conflict in societies tend to recur within 40-to-60-year cycles. He posits that elite overproduction - and its counterpart, low societal well-being - is to blame.6 In post-industrial societies, low and falling labor costs are one of the principal conditions for elite multiplication. International trade, immigration, technological advancements, and investment in human and physical capital all suppress labor costs, benefiting the consumers of labor, i.e. the elites. Globalization has played a particularly important role in suppressing wages in the modern developed world. It expanded the global supply of labor by opening up new populations to capitalism (Chart 2), leading to suppressed wage growth for the middle classes in advanced economies (Chart 3). This process has been reinforced by technological change, particularly innovation that is biased in favor of capital (i.e. saving on labor costs) (Chart 4). Chart 2Globalization Expanded ##br##The Global Supply Of Labor... Globalization Expanded The Global Supply Of Labor... Globalization Expanded The Global Supply Of Labor... Chart 3 Chart 4 As elites capture an ever-greater share of the economic pie (even a growing economic pie), they become accustomed to ever greater levels of consumption, which drives inter-elite competition for social status. Everyone tries to "keep up with the Joneses," which for many is only achievable by supplementing wages with debt (Chart 5).7 The demand for elite goods - say homes in the "right" zip codes - exhibits runaway growth as the cost of elite membership rises and as sub-elites with rising income levels compete for access (Chart 6). Chart 5Credit Supplanted Income Credit Supplanted Income Credit Supplanted Income Chart 6Middle Class Incomes Don't ##br##Buy Middle Class Goods Middle Class Incomes Don't Buy Middle Class Goods Middle Class Incomes Don't Buy Middle Class Goods Focusing on the U.S., Turchin shows that Americans are today living in the second "Gilded Age." His research shows that "elite overproduction" has not been this high, and "population well-being" this low, since the early twentieth century (Chart 7). He calculates population well-being as a combination of general health, family formation, and wage and employment prospects. All indicators are currently in decline relative to history, save for health. But even life expectancy is taking a hit, albeit for select demographic groups most negatively impacted by poor job and wage prospects (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 For elite overproduction, Turchin relies on standard measures: wealth inequality, university education cost, and political polarization. This makes intuitive sense, since major policies aimed at reversing entrenched inequality can only be enacted after polarization has fallen due to events that subdued elites, such as major economic calamities or geopolitical challenges - e.g. the New Deal following the Great Depression, or the Great Society following World War II and amidst the Cold War. The danger of extreme polarization between elite prosperity and general well-being is that it is theoretically and empirically associated with political polarization, social unrest, and war. Acemoglu and Robinson detail case after case - from ancient Mayans and Romans to modern French and Japanese - in which the competition for resources between elites and the general population led to civil strife or all-out warfare. Meanwhile Turchin's research shows that politically motivated violence in the U.S. (Chart 9), which last peaked 50 years ago in the late 1960s, is associated with large gaps in well-being between elites and the masses (Chart 10).8 Chart 9 Chart 10 Bottom Line: Elite overproduction has been identified by academic research as a constant source of social instability throughout human history. Elites subvert inclusive political and economic institutions in order to stifle creative destruction, which would enrich new entrepreneurs but dilute elite privileges. As such, societies that prevent elite overproduction and promote equality of opportunity (and creative destruction) are successful in perpetuating themselves over the long term. Repatrimonialization In The U.S. Chart 11Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s A sure sign that a society is in decline? When elites strive to hold onto their status and create barriers to entry for others. In the case of Venice, these barriers were overtly political. Le Serrata was followed by the introduction of Libro d'Oro (the "Golden Book"), which created an official registry of Venetian families that would be allowed to share in the deliberations of the Great Council. As the population revolted against such measures, Venice introduced a police force in 1310, with other coercive methods to follow. Today, the U.S. exhibits similar signs of institutional capture by the elites, albeit updated for the twenty-first century. Political theorist Francis Fukuyama calls this process "repatrimonialization." It occurs amidst long periods of economic prosperity and peace, as elites lose sight of their symbiotic relationship with fellow citizens and begin to serve their own "tribal" interests.9 Note in the above Chart 7 that elite overproduction, as defined by Turchin, reaches its peak after long periods of peace: the first high point came in 1902, 37 years after the Civil War, and the second came in 2007, 62 years after World War II. The latter case in particular suggests that as threats dissipate, elites lose sight of personal sacrifices - military service, income redistribution, public service, public works - that are required for geopolitical competition with peer challengers. At the height of the Cold War (1949 to 1962), for example, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 92% (Chart 11).10 The point is not the tax rate, but that elites were far more acquiescent to fiscal sacrifices on behalf of the public. Fukuyama points to the U.K. and the U.S. as the two countries that have been the least politically responsive to the challenges of globalization and technological change in the developed world. In the case of the U.S., this is because interest groups are capable of steering policy towards further globalization and technological change. Both processes have also empowered elites, which have steered policy towards less redistribution and more austerity for the middle classes. The data is clear on this point. Despite Europe's being as exposed to globalization and technological advances as the U.S., European median wage growth has kept pace with GDP growth since 2000, whereas in the U.S. it not only failed to keep up but declined over the same time period (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe Shielded ##br##Households From Global Winds Europe Shielded Households From Global Winds Europe Shielded Households From Global Winds What are some of the mechanisms of repatrimonialization in the U.S. and can they be reversed? The good news is that elite capture of state institutions is now out in the open and easy to identify. Both Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned explicitly against it. The bad news is that it is unlikely to be reversed endogenously, at least not without a catalyst. What follows is a short description of the most salient problems facing the country as a result of elite entrenchment. Campaign Financing The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave rise to political action committees, also known as Super PACs. These groups are allowed to receive unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations as long as they do not cooperate, coordinate, or directly contribute funding to actual candidates. This supposed firewall, however, is a fig leaf. The elimination of caps on this type of campaign financing allows single-issue groups and even single individuals with deep pockets to fund fringe candidates or support single-issue ballot measures that would otherwise lack sources of funding. This is especially important in primary elections where turnout is very low. In response, incumbent legislators have to tread carefully and avoid angering individual donors or Super PACs that could single-handedly fund a campaign against them in the primary elections, especially since the average cost of a congressional election campaign is relatively low at $1.4 million (a small amount compared to the funds that can be brought to bear by activist donors). In 2012, more than 40% of the campaign donations used in all federal elections was contributed by 0.01% of the voting-age population. That means that about 24,000 people were responsible for a near-majority of all contributions.11 Two other findings reported in the academic literature provide insight on how (and if) that money might steer policy. First, a study confirmed the general belief that the wealthiest Americans are much more conservative than the general public when it comes to tax policy and economic regulation.12 Second, another study found that when the policy preferences of the top 10% of income earners diverge from the preferences of the bottom 50%, the policy outcome is more likely to reflect the intentions of the former group.13 Polarization Political polarization benefits elites by impeding the democratic process and locking in rules that are beneficial to the status quo. Chart 13 shows that income inequality and political polarization in the sphere of economic policy are correlated.14 The simple reason the two are so highly correlated is because the right-of-center Republican Party increasingly opposes redistribution, while the left-of-center Democratic Party favors it. As the two parties diverge on matters of economic principle, compromises become virtually impossible, locking redistributive efforts at the current levels favored by the elites. Polarization is subsequently reinforced by electoral-district "gerrymandering" and an extremely bifurcated and increasingly distrusted news media. Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter due to their superior position at the state level) have redrawn administrative boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart 14). Chart 13Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 14Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Tribalization Elite overproduction often leads to the tribalization of society. Elites, to ensure that they are not torn asunder by the plebs, mobilize the population behind various causes that divert attention away from themselves, i.e. away from the real cause of social malaise. These causes are "wedge issues," in today's parlance. They can include identity politics, religious issues, as well as foreign policy. The Democratic Party has often relied on identity issues to mobilize support, but the effort kicked into high gear as it evolved from a redistributive "Old Left" party to the more centrist, "Third Way," neo-liberal orientation of Bill Clinton's presidency. Senator Bernie Sanders attempted to reverse this trend and overtly downplayed identity politics during his presidential campaign. He saw his party's neo-liberal turn as an elite-driven effort to distract from the real problems affecting low-income households. Hillary Clinton, the neo-liberal Democrat, by contrast, suffered as a result of the perception that she was an elite. Chart 15 The problem is that these wedge issues have begun to ossify into actual identities. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on a list of 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats, as opposed to other elements of identity. This has not always been the case, as Chart 15 shows. We suspect that this data will grow even starker after the divisive, borderline hysterical 2016 campaign. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become almost tribal in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Bottom Line: America's repatrimonialization is advanced. The democratic process, which is supposed to adjudicate between interest groups and regulate elite economic and political privileges, has been drawn to a halt by polarization, the political influence of big money, and emerging tribalism between non-elites. It is extremely difficult to see how these hurdles can be overcome via America's regular political process. As such, they will be resolved only after some kind of crisis, whether endogenous or exogenous. Will Trump Fix It? President Donald Trump famously said in his nomination speech at the Republican Convention, "I alone can fix it." In a way, he may be correct. Although he is very much part of the American economic elite, he has no links to the D.C. establishment and owes no favors to special interest groups.15 His entire campaign personified the conclusions of this report: that the U.S. economy has been captured by economic and political elites and that the well-being of regular citizens is in the doldrums. It is unfair to judge President Trump's record and legacy based on a little over four months in office. However, we lean heavily towards the conclusion that his efforts to undermine American patricians will ultimately fail. Here is why: Policy President Trump does not have much of a legislative record. Nonetheless, his first major piece of legislation - the Obamacare repeal and replace bill - would, in its current form, leave 14 million people without health care - and an estimated 24 million by 2026. If not substantially revised, the bill is likely to impose a roughly $445 billion burden on U.S. households in order to pay for the "hyuge" tax cuts that Trump has promised (Chart 16). Further throwing Trump's plebeian credentials into doubt is his second signature legislative act: tax reform. His campaign proposal fell largely in line with previous Republican efforts, which, it should be noted, have contributed greatly to elite overproduction in the U.S. (Chart 17). Trump's original proposal would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of middle-class Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.16 We expect that his White House team will adjust this original plan to offer middle-class tax cuts, but the main thrust of the effort is still to eliminate estate taxes and lower the top marginal rates significantly. Chart 16 Chart 17Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites On trade and immigration, Trump has little record to show. His meeting with President Xi Jinping of China revealed that he is like previous presidents in talking tough about Chinese trade on the campaign trail yet lacking the desire to take aggressive action once in office. We expect that Trump will eventually pivot towards greater protectionism, but it is not clear that it will be executed in a way that actually improves household well-being.17 Congress So far Trump has shown that he is more interested in getting legislation passed than shaping it in a populist way. For example, he has urged Congress to pass the Obamacare replacement even though many conservative Senators are wary of its negative impact on households. If he adopts the same strategy with tax reform, we would suspect that he will err on the side of "getting things done," rather than fulfilling his campaign pledges to blue-collar workers. The problem for Trump is the same problem President Obama had: polarization. Trump would be far more successful in passing populist legislation if he developed a working relationship with Democrats, who ostensibly have discarded the elitism of the Clinton years. Yet to do so he would have to "betray" his only friends, leaving himself vulnerable should the Democrats refuse to play ball. He is thus stuck with partisan Republican policies, which means voters are stuck with a lack of compromise. Macroeconomics Populists everywhere have one overarching goal when they come to power: boosting nominal GDP growth (Chart 18). We suspect that Trump will ultimately get tax reform through Congress and that it will be moderately stimulative.18 Chart 18 The problem is that the U.S. economic recovery is already far advanced. As such, even moderate stimulus could hasten the timing of an economic recession. Given the lack of major economic imbalances, it is unlikely that such a recession would freeze the financial system and be as painful as that of 2008-9. Nonetheless, the trade-off between moderate stimulus and a quicker recession is unlikely to benefit Trump's voters. Bottom Line: Donald Trump has tapped into the deep social malaise in the U.S. and responded to the populace's demands that elite overproduction be curbed. Unfortunately, his track record during the campaign and as president gives little evidence that he will be successful in restraining America's elites. Especially because he is forced to cooperate with them through Congress, and in a way that does not encourage broad compromise. Investment Implications We suspect that polarization will grow throughout Trump's term and that he will largely be unsuccessful in pursuing an agenda that genuinely increases opportunity or well-being. In fact, we would bet that most of his policies will contribute to, not reduce, elite overproduction in the U.S. What happens when Donald Trump fails to reform America and resolve its elite overproduction problem? If a recession occurs by 2019 - our House View at BCA - then the economic and political conditions suggest that a serious revolt is in the cards by the time of the 2020 election. By this we mean not just an electoral revolt, like Trump's election, but also a concrete increase in social tension and unrest. A repeat of the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, yet more violent, could be in cards. By the 2020 election, we would also suspect that our clients may look back fondly, with nostalgia, for Senator Bernie Sander's campaign platform, which by that point may look downright centrist. Investors should prepare for an increase in economic populist policy proposals, from both the left and the right. If economic policy begins to steer towards populism, investors should bet on higher inflation and thus higher nominal - but potentially lower real - Treasury yields. The independence of the Fed could also suffer, putting considerable downward pressure on the USD. In this environment, equities will outperform bonds, but global assets should outperform those of the U.S. Gold, which has failed as a safe-haven asset in the contemporary deflationary era, should become attractive once again.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Miles Corak, "Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility," Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Discussion paper no. 7520, July 2013, available at iza.org. 2 Please see Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell, "Explaining Nationalist Political Views: The Case Of Donald Trump," Gallup, dated November 2, 2016, available at papers.ssrn.com. 3 Please see BCA's The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Daren Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Publishers, 2012). 5 Literally. 6 Please see Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov, Secular Cycles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). 7 Please see Neal Fligstein et al, "Keeping up with the Joneses: Inequality and Indebtedness, in the Era of the Housing Price Bubble, 1999-2007," presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, August 2015. 8 Please see Peter Turchin, "Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780-2010," Journal of Peace Research 49:4 (2012), pp. 577-91. 9 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2014). 10 Today's dispersed terrorist threat does not even come close to approximating the threat that the Soviet Union during the Cold War presented to the U.S., and as such we do not consider it seriously as an existential threat to either the U.S. or the West. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Adam Bonica et al., "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 27:3 (Summer 2013), pp. 103-24. 12 Please see Benjamin Page et al., "Democracy And The Policy Preferences Of Wealthy Americans," Perspectives On Politics 11:1 (March 2013), pp. 51-73. 13 Please see Martin Gilens, "Inequality And Democratic Responsiveness," Public Opinion Quarterly 69:5 (2005), pp. 778-796. 14 The latter measure of polarization is one of Turchin's factors in elite overproduction. 15 Save for the Kremlin! We jest, we jest. At least, we think we jest ... 16 Several groups would have seen no substantial tax cuts under his original campaign plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would have seen their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would have seen their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would have seen their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. For our original discussion, see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. Chart 3 In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 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.

Highlights 'Super Thursday' June 8 brings three potentially high-impact events for financial markets: a U.K. General Election; a ECB monetary policy meeting; and former FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the U.S. Senate intelligence committee. Each of these events has the potential to move markets - especially currencies - abruptly in either direction. Medium-term investors should use Super Thursday and its aftermath as follows: If the pound sells off, use it to buy pound/dollar. If the euro sells off, use it to buy both euro/pound and euro/dollar. Use any associated underperformance of FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 to buy this relative equity position. Feature Traders will be salivating at the prospect of three potentially high-impact events for financial markets in the space of a day: a U.K. General Election; a ECB monetary policy meeting; and former FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the U.S. Senate intelligence committee about possible collusion between the campaign of President Donald Trump and Russian officials. This report will focus on the first two of these 'Super Thursday' events. Chart of the WeekRelative Interest Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Relative Interest Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Relative Interest Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance 300-340 Conservative Seats = Short-Term Pain For The Pound Chart I-2The Pound Is Where It Was When##br## The Election Was Called The Pound Is Where It Was When The Election Was Called The Pound Is Where It Was When The Election Was Called The U.K. General Election result has the potential to move the pound abruptly in either direction. Therefore, it also has the potential to drive FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 relative performance which is just an inverse currency play. But treat the U.K. election result as a trading opportunity rather than as a game changer for any investment position. Theresa May admits that she called the snap election to strengthen her narrow parliamentary majority ahead of Brexit negotiations. When she called the election, the Conservatives were riding high in the polls, and markets expected May easily to achieve her aim. Reasoning that a much strengthened majority would reduce the influence of the hard Brexiters in her party, the pound rallied (Chart I-2). But as the polls have tightened, it has given back this gain. If the number of Conservative seats does not meaningfully move up from the current 330, or worse, if the result increases uncertainty, the pound is vulnerable to a further snap sell-off. A parliamentary majority requires 326 MPs, but around 320 is enough for an effective majority because Sinn Fein MPs,1 the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote. 315 might just scrape a Conservative minority government supported by its Northern Ireland Unionist allies. Hence, if the Conservatives win 300-340 seats, a knee-jerk sell-off in the pound is likely. Chart I-3The Brexit Vote Depressed The Pound Because##br## It Depressed U.K. Interest Rate Expectations The Brexit Vote Depressed The Pound Because It Depressed U.K. Interest Rate Expectations The Brexit Vote Depressed The Pound Because It Depressed U.K. Interest Rate Expectations If the Conservatives win well above 340 seats, the pound should knee-jerk rally - as May's effective majority would strengthen enough to marginalize the hard Brexiters. If the Conservatives win well below 300 seats, the pound might also settle higher - as this is the territory of a Labour minority government supported by the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats, and thereby a softer Brexit. But any major moves in the pound after the election will prove to be transient, because the over-arching driver of currencies is the interplay of interest rate expectations. Chart I-3 illustrates that last year's Brexit vote depressed the pound because the shock outcome precipitated a base rate cut and depressed expectations for Bank of England interest rate policy. In contrast to the Brexit vote, the General Election result per se will not have a lasting impact on the pound because it is unlikely to change the interest rate setting calculus for the BoE relative to other central banks. The BoE has been one of the most inert central banks when it comes to changing interest rates in either direction. Last year's emergency rate cut, forced by the shock vote for Brexit, has been the BoE's only policy rate move in 8 years! We expect the BoE to continue with its policy rate inertia because U.K. real consumption is highly correlated (inversely) to inflation. When inflation is too high, real consumption is undermined, making it difficult to hike rates; when inflation is too low, real consumption tends to grow strongly, making it difficult to cut rates (Chart I-4). This mirror image performance of inflation and real consumption has tied the hands of the BoE for 8 years, and will continue to do so. Chart I-4Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied With the BoE's hands tied, relative interest rate expectations - and therefore the medium-term direction of the pound - will depend on the other central bank in the respective cross rate. Which brings us neatly to the ECB. The ECB Must Follow The Hard Data Years of extreme and experimental central bank intervention have left markets hyper-sensitive to the slightest change of nuance in central bank communication. We have now come to a ridiculous state of affairs where reducing two instances of the sentence "the balance of risks remain tilted to the downside" in the March 9 ECB press conference introductory statement to just one instance in the April 27 statement is regarded as de facto monetary tightening! The slightest change of nuance in central bank communication can powerfully drive markets over a timeframe of a few weeks or months. As Peter Praet, the ECB Chief Economist, warns: "After a prolonged period of exceptional monetary policy accommodation, financial markets are particularly sensitive to any perceived change in the future course of monetary policy. (Therefore) any substantial change in communication needs to be motivated by some more evidence in the hard data." On this basis, we expect the ECB to acknowledge the hard data showing euro area growth is solid and broad, and downside risks are diminishing; but that the required upward adjustment in inflation remains sluggish. For euro/dollar, a mixed message such as this might create a near-term setback of around 2%, given that it has rallied strongly in the past 65 days and is now technically overbought (see page 8). We would regard a 2% setback for the euro as a medium-term buying opportunity. As Peter Praet points out, central banks' data-dependency means that policy must follow the hard data over a timeframe of six months or longer. The Chart of the Week, Chart I-5 and Chart I-6 should make this crystal clear. Relative interest rate expectations and bond yield spreads ultimately follow relative economic performance. Chart I-5Bond Yield Spreads Must Follow The Hard Data On Economic Growth Differentials... Bond Yield Spreads Must Follow The Hard Data On Economic Growth Differentials... Bond Yield Spreads Must Follow The Hard Data On Economic Growth Differentials... Chart I-6...And Inflation Differentials ...And Inflation Differentials ...And Inflation Differentials If, as we expect, euro area growth2 continues to perform in line with or better than the U.S. and U.K. - and inflation differentials continue to narrow - then relative interest rate expectations will also continue to converge. Even the ECB admits that its main growth worry comes not from the euro area economy itself but rather from "the considerable uncertainty surrounding the new U.S. Administration's policies." In this regard, observe that the post-Trump spike in U.S. interest rate expectations has barely unwound (Chart I-7). We think it should unwind more. And who knows, perhaps James Comey will be the immediate catalyst. Chart I-7The Trump Spike In U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Hasn't Unwound The Trump Spike In U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Hasn't Unwound The Trump Spike In U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Hasn't Unwound What To Do After Super Thursday Chart I-8Pound/Euro (Inversely) Drives ##br##FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 Pound/Euro (Inversely) Drives FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 Pound/Euro (Inversely) Drives FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 In summary, policy rate expectations - in relative terms - will structurally continue to: Get less dovish in the euro area. Remain broadly unchanged in the U.K. Get more dovish in the U.S. Hence, our structural preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third. Which brings us finally to what medium-term investors should do after Super Thursday. If the pound sells off, use it to buy pound/dollar. If the euro sells off, use it to buy both euro/pound and euro/dollar. And use any associated underperformance of FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 to buy this relative equity position (Chart I-8). Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Sinn Fein MPs are not eligible to vote because they refuse to pledge allegiance to the Queen. 2 Growth must be adjusted for different demographics. Our preference is to use real GDP per head based on working age (15-64) population. Fractal Trading Model* Euro/dollar is technically overbought, so traders can play a countertrend move. Target a 2% retracement. 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-9 Short Euro/Dollar Short Euro/Dollar The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Merkel is not revolutionizing but reaffirming Germany's Europhile policy; An earlier date for the Italian election would bring market jitters forward from Q1 2018; Yet a new German-style electoral law would decrease the risks of a populist win; The Tories will retain their majority in U.K. elections. Fiscal policy will ease regardless of the outcome; Close long Chinese equities versus Hong Kong/Taiwan; remain overweight Euro Area equities. Feature Possible early elections in Italy and a narrowing lead for Theresa May in the June 8 U.K. election has unsettled investors over the past week. The former threatens to rekindle the flames of the Euro Area conflagration and has weighed on Euro Area equities (Chart 1). The latter threatens Prime Minister May's mandate and political capital, suggesting that the U.K.-EU Brexit negotiations could be acrimonious later this year. This report deals with both issues. Yes, Italy is a major risk to the Euro Area, and despite general awareness of the election, it is not clear to us that investors realize the depth of the risk. As such, Euro Area equities may outperform developed market peers right until the election. As for the U.K. election, we think its impact on global risk assets is non-existent and its impact on U.K. assets is likely to be fleeting. The bigger threat to global markets remains China. In a March report, we suggested that Chinese policymakers may be testing the waters for broad-based financial and industrial sector reform akin to their late 1990s efforts.1 These reforms could be deflationary in cyclical terms and thus a risk for global growth. We argued that the timeline for these efforts would have to wait for the conclusion of the nineteenth National Party Congress this fall and thus Beijing's policy represented a potential problem for 2018.2 Chart 1Italy Weighs On European Risk Assets Italy Weighs On European Risk Assets Italy Weighs On European Risk Assets Chart 2China: Monetary Tightening Takes A Toll China: Monetary Tightening Takes A Toll China: Monetary Tightening Takes A Toll Then again, President Xi Jinping may flout the rule of thumb in Chinese politics that aggressive policy actions should wait until after the five-year party congresses. Monetary tightening - which could be the first salvo of broader financial-sector reform - has already had negative effects on the real economy (Chart 2). The economic surprise index has corrected, as have China's PMI and LEI. Further Chinese tightening would invariably hurt Chinese demand for imports (Chart 3), which would have negative knock-on effects for EM economies, whose growth momentum appears to have already rolled over (Chart 4). Investors should carefully monitor China over the summer. Any signaling from policymakers that they are willing to move away from the "Socialist Put" and towards genuine deleveraging (not to mention their promised free-market reforms) would have negative global implications. Our colleague Mathieu Savary, of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has pointed out that Europe's economic outperformance relative to the U.S. is highly leveraged to Chinese liquidity (Chart 5).3 As such, decisions made by policymakers in Beijing will likely be more important for European asset performance than who sits in Rome's Palazzo Chigi. Chart 3Tighter Credit Impulse##br## Will Drag Down Imports Tighter Credit Impulse Will Drag Down Imports Tighter Credit Impulse Will Drag Down Imports Chart 4A Chinese Import ##br##Drag Will Hurt EM A Chinese Import Drag Will Hurt EM A Chinese Import Drag Will Hurt EM Chart 5Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials ##br##And Chinese Liquidity Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials And Chinese Liquidity Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials And Chinese Liquidity We are closing our long Chinese equities / short Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities trade for a gain of 3.45%. While policymakers are already backpedaling a bit, financial tightening inherently raises risks in an excessively leveraged economy. Europe Über Alles? Many clients are asking about German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent comments on European unity. On the heels of the G7 summit, during which Merkel locked horns with U.S. President Donald Trump, Merkel delivered the most Europhile speech of her career: The era in which we could fully rely on others is over ... That's what I experienced over the past several days ... We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands ... But we have to know that we Europeans must fight for our own future and destiny. To many in the media and financial industry the speech seemed like a massive departure from Merkel's cautious and reticent approach to European policymaking. We could not disagree more. European integration imperatives are intrinsically geopolitical, as we have argued since 2011.4 Members of the Euro Area are integrating not because of liberal idealism or misguided dogmatism on monetary union. Rather, they are engaged in a cold, calculated, and deeply realist political project to remain relevant in the twenty-first century. This net assessment has guided our analysis of various Euro Area crises. We supported our top-down theoretical view with bottom-up data showing that European voters were not revolting against integration. Integration may be elite-driven, but it has broad popular support. Support for the common currency has never dipped below 50% (Chart 6), despite a once-in-a-generation economic crisis, and most European states are pessimistic about their separate futures outside the EU (Chart 7). Chart 6Voters Approve Of The Euro Voters Approve Of The Euro Voters Approve Of The Euro Chart 7EU Exits: Not On Horizon EU Exits: Not On Horizon EU Exits: Not On Horizon German policymakers have operated within these geopolitical confines since the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis began in the waning days of 2009. At every turn of the crisis, whenever one or another German policymaker issued a "red line" regarding what "Berlin cannot accept," the correct view was to bet against that policymaker, i.e. against any Euroskeptic outcome. Since 2010, we have seen: Numerous direct bailouts of member states; A dove appointed to lead the ECB, with Berlin's blessing; Direct ECB purchases of government bonds; Deeper fiscal and banking integration of the Euro Area, albeit at a slow pace; Expansion - not contraction - of Euro Area membership; The reversal of fiscal austerity. We were able to forecast these turns because our constraint-based methodology gave us a high-conviction view that German policymakers would ultimately be forced down the integrationist, Europhile road. The German population did not revolt against these constraints. Germans are not Euroskeptic. We have no idea why many investors think they are: there is no evidence of it in data or history. German history is replete with failed efforts to unify (and lead) the European continent by hook or by crook. The country is cursed with just enough economic prowess to be threatening to its peers and yet not enough to dominate them by force. As such, it is a German national security imperative to ensure that it does not see the rest of Europe coalesce into an economic or military alliance against it. The EU and its institutions, which allow Germany to be prosperous without the threat of an enemy coalition, are therefore worth preserving, even at a steep cost. True, the costs of bailing out Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain tested German enthusiasm for European integration. However, German support for the common currency never dipped below 60% amidst the sovereign debt crisis and has since rebounded to a record high of 81% (Chart 8). Only 20% of Germans are confident of a future outside the EU (Chart 9). Chart 8Rise Of The Europhile Germany Rise Of The Europhile Germany Rise Of The Europhile Germany Chart 9Germany: No Life After EU Death Germany: No Life After EU Death Germany: No Life After EU Death As such, Merkel's statement following the G7 summit is only surprising because it is explicit. Indeed, the reason Merkel made this statement now is not because she suddenly had a grand geopolitical realization, nor because Trump suddenly disabused her of a naïve belief in the benevolence of the United States. Merkel has understood Europe's imperatives for at least a decade. The real reason for her statement is domestic politics. Martin Schulz, Merkel's opponent in general elections to be held on September 24, has tapped into the rising Europhile sentiment among Germans. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) sprang back to life this year following Schulz's appointment as SPD chancellor-candidate. Despite a recent relapse for the SPD in the polls, Merkel wants to ensure that she is not vulnerable on her left flank to the more Europhile Social Democrats. In the face of this renewed threat from the SPD, the venue of Merkel's speech was highly symbolic: a summit of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), held in a beer hall no less! Bavaria is the most conservative and Euroskeptic part of Germany. Over the past two years, the CSU has flirted with abandoning its post-war electoral alliance with the CDU due to Berlin's various Europhile turns. This development threatened to undermine Merkel and her base of power from within. Merkel's speech, to the most Euroskeptic part of Germany, was designed to prepare her conservative base for a further deepening of European integration. It was not a policy shift but rather a statement that brought her rhetoric more in line with her policy actions. It was also a reminder to her core allies that they must continue on the current policy path unless they would rather have Schulz's SPD force them into even deeper European integration, and faster. What does this mean going forward? We think that the dirty word of European politics - "Eurobonds" - will come into play again. As if on cue, the European Commission has published a report that proposes bundling the debt of Euro Area sovereigns.5 The proposal is not exactly calling for Eurobonds, but rather for securitizing existing bonds into new instruments. As usual, a German finance ministry spokesperson opposed the plan. However, the path of least resistance will be towards more integration that may include such securitization. In fact, Eurobonds already exist. Europe's fiscal backstop mechanisms - formerly the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and now the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - have both issued bonds to finance sovereign bailout efforts. So has the European Investment Bank (EIB). Their bonds trade largely in line with French sovereign debt, with a 37 basis point premium over German 10-year Bunds (Chart 10). Chart 10 Most importantly, the European Commission - the executive arm of the EU - already has authority to issue bonds and even tap member states for funds in case it needs to fill a gap. As the European Commission cites in its pitch-book to bond investors (yes, you read that correctly), "should the funds available from the EU budget be insufficient, the Commission may directly draw on the Member States, without any extra decision making being required."6 Currently, EU treaties forbid bond issuance that would directly finance the budget of a member state. However, Article 143 lays down the possibility of granting mutual assistance to an EU country facing a balance-of-payments crisis, which the EU Commission handles via its €50 billion balance-of-payments assistance program. In the future, the Commission could issue bonds to finance joint, EU-wide projects for areas like defense or infrastructure. It does not appear that such a decision would require a change to EU treaties. Over the long term, the integration imperative will remain strong in Europe. Ironically, Donald Trump is probably the best thing that has happened to European unity, at least since President Vladimir Putin. However, we think media commentators may be overstating President Trump's impact. The U.S. was already growing aloof toward Europe under President Obama, who overtly tilted his foreign policy towards Asia, and President Bush, whose administration clashed with "old Europe" and merely flirted with "new Europe." With the prospect of the U.S. withdrawing its security blanket, Europeans are being forced to integrate. Otherwise they would have to deal with the full range of global crises - from debt to terrorism to migration to war - as separate, and weak, individual states. And the U.S. is unlikely to return to its post-World War II level of concern regarding European affairs anytime soon. We doubt that even a recession would greatly impede the integrationist impulse on the continent. The Great Financial Crisis was a once-in-a-generation economic crisis and yet it has deepened, not decreased, support for integration. That said, risks remain. While the median voter in Europe appears to support the elite-driven integrationist effort, the median voter in Italy is on the fence. Bottom Line: Merkel's Europhile speech in Bavaria was meant to reinforce the ongoing integrationist path to her domestic audience in an election year. We suspect that Germany under Merkel, along with France under recently elected President Emmanuel Macron, will continue down the same path. At some point in the not-so-distant future, this may include the issuance of Eurobonds for specific projects. Our long-held geopolitical view supports overweighting Euro Area risk assets, given economic momentum and valuations. However, near-term political risks in Italy are substantial and pose the main risk to our strategic view. Italy's Divine Comedy - Coming Soon To A Theater Near You? Early Italian elections - in September 2017, instead of February-May 2018 - have become a real possibility. Matteo Renzi, leader of the ruling Democratic Party (PD) and former prime minister, recently signaled that he would be willing to compromise on a new electoral law, and that it could pass as early as July, given a tentative agreement with the Forza Italia party of former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. This would satisfy the condition of President Sergio Mattarella that a new electoral law be passed before elections can proceed. What does this development mean for markets? Italian political elites share the same integrationist goals of their European peers. There is no logic in Italian independence from the EU. Rome's ability to patrol its coastline for smugglers bringing in migrants would not improve with independence, nor would its ability to negotiate a low price for Russian natural gas. Italy is, as much as any European country, in terminal decline as a geopolitical power. Membership in the EU is therefore a natural, and realist, response to its weakness. In addition, exiting the monetary union would be fraught with risks that would overwhelm any benefits that Italian exports may gain from devaluation. It is highly unlikely that Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands would allow Italy - the Euro Area's third largest economy - to set a precedent of using massive currency devaluation while maintaining access to the Common Market. Rome would in fact break its Maastricht Treaty obligations. These stipulate that every member state, save for Denmark and the U.K., must become a member of the EMU. It would likely be evicted from both the EU and the Common Market. Furthermore, as we discussed in our September net assessment of Italy, the country's 19th nineteenth century unification has never made much sense.7 We would go so far as to argue that Euro Area amalgamation makes more sense than the unification of Italy. Northern Italy remains as much part of "core Europe" as London, the Rhineland, or the Netherlands, whereas the south - the Mezzogiorno - might as well be in the Balkans. We do not see how Rome would afford the Mezzogiorno on its own without access to both the EU's markets and ECB-induced low financing costs. All that said, the median Italian voter is not buying the Euro Area at the moment. Unlike their European peers, Italians seem to be flirting with overt Euroskepticism. When it comes to support for the common currency, Italians are clear outliers, with support levels around 50% (Chart 11). Similarly, a plurality of Italians appears to be confident in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 12). Chart 11Italy A Clear Outlier On The Euro Italy A Clear Outlier On The Euro Italy A Clear Outlier On The Euro Chart 12Italians Willing To Go Solo? Italians Willing To Go Solo? Italians Willing To Go Solo? Of course, only about a third of Italians identify themselves as only "Italians," largely in line with the Euro Area average and nowhere near the trend in Britain, where the share of the public that feels exclusively British has generally ranged from half to two-thirds (Chart 13). Nevertheless, the Euroskeptic trend in Italy is real and jeopardizes European integration. Our high-conviction view that European politics would be a "red herring" in 2017 was originally based on data that showed that voters in the Netherlands, France, and Germany increasingly supported European integration. This allowed us to dismiss polls that suggested that Euroskeptic politicians - such as Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen - would do well in this year's elections. Even if they did perform well, the median voter's stance on European integration would force such policymakers to modify their Euroskepticism. This process has already happened in Spain (Podemos), Finland (The Finns, formerly known as the True Finns), and Greece (SYRIZA). In Italy, however, the median voter's Euroskepticism has not abated. As such, parties such as the Five Star Movement (M5S) and Lega Norde (LN) have no political incentive to modify their Euroskepticism. In fact, LN has done the opposite, evolving from a liberal and pro-EU regional sovereignty movement into a far-right, anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic, and nationalist Italian party -- a full brand overhaul. The timing of the upcoming election is difficult to forecast. Nonetheless, Renzi's compromise on changing electoral rules has now increased the probability that the election be held in Q4 2017, instead of Q1 2018. Renzi reportedly favors the same date as the German election, September 24. To accomplish this timetable, the new electoral law would have to be rushed through Italy's bicameral Parliament. The Chamber of Deputies - the lower house - is expected to vote on the compromise law in the first week of June, with the Senate passing the law by July 7. Given that the top four parties all seem to agree with adopting a German-style electoral system - proportional representation, with parties required to gain at least 5% of the vote to gain any seats - this ambitious timeline is possible. However, there are still some minor outstanding issues, which could drag out the process until the fall. In addition, local elections scheduled for June 11 (with a second-round run-off on June 25) could change the calculus of the ruling PD. If Renzi's party underperforms, he may back away from early elections, although the message would be that a strong populist performance in early 2018 is more likely. Polls have not budged much for the past 18 months, although Renzi's PD lost support around the time of its failed December 2016 constitutional referendum (Chart 14). The market may find solace in the fact that the revised electoral law would grant no "majority-bonus" to the winner, virtually ensuring that the Euroskeptic M5S cannot govern on its own. Chart 13Majority Of Italians Are Also Europeans Majority Of Italians Are Also Europeans Majority Of Italians Are Also Europeans Chart 14Ruling Party And Populist M5S Neck-In-Neck Ruling Party And Populist M5S Neck-In-Neck Ruling Party And Populist M5S Neck-In-Neck The risk to the market, however, is that M5S outperforms and then creates a limited coalition with right-wing Euroskeptics. Such a coalition could have the singular goal of calling a "non-binding, consultative" referendum on Italy's Euro Area membership. The official M5S line is that it would call such a referendum "if fiscal policies of the Euro Area did not change." Either way, the Italian constitution forbids referendums on international treaties, but a consultative referendum would give impetus to Euroskeptic parties to start negotiating a Euro Area exit for the country. There are two reasons why such an outcome is possible, if not our base scenario. First, a German-style 5% threshold will eliminate the votes cast for a number of minor parties from the overall calculation. These currently combine to make up about 18% of the total vote. This means that the parties that meet the 5% minimum will gain a larger share of seats in the parliament than they gained of the overall popular vote (82% of the vote will hold 100% of the seats), as is the case in Germany. There is a chance that both the PD and M5S get a considerable seat boost in the final tally that puts them close an overall majority. Second, much will hinge on whether the right wing - and Euroskeptic - Fratelli d'Italia (FdI) enter parliament. They are currently polling at about 5% of the vote. If they gain seats, it would significantly increase the percentage of total seats held by Euroskeptic parties. There is no evidence at the moment that M5S, which is on the left of the policy spectrum, would contemplate such an electoral alliance with LN and FdI. The party remains opposed to any coalitions and we suspect that it would not break its pledge to pursue the highly risky strategy of calling a referendum on the Euro Area. The M5S stands for a lot of different things: anti-corruption, anti-establishment, youth empowerment, etc. Euroskepticism is one of its pillars, not a singular objective. In fact, party leader Beppe Grillo recently attempted to abandon the Euroskeptic alliance with UKIP at the European Parliament to join the ultra-liberal, and Europhile, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Various factions vying for control of the movement oscillate between overt Euroskepticism, aloofness toward Europe, and open support for European integration. In addition, Italian voters may adjust ahead of the election by switching their support away from the various minor parties currently polling below 5% and toward the four major parties. This will likely benefit the ruling PD more than any other party. Out of the four parties highly unlikely to cross the 5% threshold - Campo Progressista (CP), Movimento Democratica e Progressista (MDP), Alternativa Popolare (MP), and Sinistra Italiana (SI) - three are centrist or aligned with the PD. One (Sinistra Italiana) would likely see its voters split between the PD and M5S (Chart 15). Such vote migration would clearly benefit the center-left PD, which Renzi is likely counting on in accepting the German-style proportional electoral system.8 Chart 15Most Minor Party Votes ##br##Would Help Ruling Democrats Most Minor Party Votes Would Help Ruling Democrats Most Minor Party Votes Would Help Ruling Democrats Bottom Line: Investors trying to make sense of the Italian election will find relief in the new electoral law. A purely German-style system - given the current level of factionalism in Italian politics - is unlikely to produce a populist government in Italy. In fact, the center-left PD could see a boost in support as voters switch away from minor parties. The tentative compromise on the electoral law has both increased risks by making an earlier election more likely and decreased risks by reducing the probability of an anti-market result. That said, there is still a possibility that M5S crosses the ideological aisle to form an alliance with right-wing Euroskeptics to try to take Italy out of the Euro Area. We doubt that they will do so. Nonetheless, it will be appropriate to hedge such a risk in currency markets closer to the date of the election, once the date is known. We therefore closed our long EUR/USD recommendation last week for a gain of 3.48%. Whatever the outcome of the election, Italian political risks will remain the main threat to European integration (and assets) going forward. We therefore expect the ECB to keep one eye on Italy, forcing it to be less hawkish than it otherwise would be. We will explore Italian politics and economy further in an upcoming report with our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy. U.K.: The Election Is About G The latest polling averages show that Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party maintains a 5% lead over Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, despite Labour's remarkable rally since early elections were called on April 18 (Chart 16). One projection of actual parliamentary seats that takes into account the crucial factor of voter turnout suggest that the Tories could add from 15 to 34 seats to their 2015 take of 330 seats - and this roughly matches our back-of-the-envelope calculation that the Tories could pick up 11 seats on account of the Brexit referendum (Table 1).9 Chart 16Labour Revives On Snap Election Labour Revives On Snap Election Labour Revives On Snap Election Table 1Referendum Results Offer Some Simple Gains For Tories Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk? Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk? There have been only two other cases in recent memory in which Britain's incumbent party led by double digits two months ahead of an election: 1983 and 2001. In the first case, Margaret Thatcher followed up the hugely successful Falklands campaign by expanding her popular support in the final two weeks to win a huge 144-seat majority. In the second case, Tony Blair lost some of his lead but still won the election handily.10 There has not been a case in recent memory where a double-digit lead dropped into single digits as quickly as it did this past month. Moreover, looking at the latest individual polls, it is too soon to say that Labour's rally has ended. Indeed, YouGov's model even shows the Conservatives losing their majority.11 Snap elections are always a gamble, as we have stressed throughout this campaign.12 There is no question that Labour has the momentum and May is feeling the heat. Yet the Tories have a fairly solid foundation of support at the moment. First, they are still polling above 40% support, almost 10% higher than before the referendum, reflecting the rally-around-the-flag effect after voters' surprising decision to leave the EU. They even poll above 40% among working-class voters, the original base of Labour, and the country's aging demographic profile also heavily favors them. (Youth turnout would have to surprise upward to upset the Tories.) Second, the Tory strategy of gobbling up supporters of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) has succeeded (Chart 17). UKIP has no raison d'être after achieving its foundational goal of Brexit. The Conservative Party's decision to hold a referendum on the EU was, in fact, driven by this rivalry from the right flank. UKIP posed the chief threat to the Tories through its ability to dilute their vote share in Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system. Now, almost all conservative voters will vote for the Conservative Party, while Labour must still compete with the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Scottish National Party, and Welsh Plaid Cymru in various constituencies (Chart 18). Chart 17Tories Keep Devouring UKIP Tories Keep Devouring UKIP Tories Keep Devouring UKIP Chart 18Labour Has Rivals, Tories Do Not Labour Has Rivals, Tories Do Not Labour Has Rivals, Tories Do Not Third, while May's popularity is merely converging with her party's still-buoyant level, Corbyn is less popular than both May and his own party (Chart 19). Corbyn still has a net negative favorability and is seen as less "decisive" and less "in touch" with voters than May. Fourth, voters still see Brexit as the most important issue of the election (Chart 20) and May as the best candidate to manage the tricky exit negotiations ahead. Because Brexit is the driver, the benefit of the doubt goes to the Tories. The 2015 elections, the EU referendum, the polls since the referendum, and the parliamentary votes (driven by popular pressure) enshrining the referendum result all suggest a great deal of public momentum on this key issue. The only truly historic development that could have broken this momentum, given that the economy is holding up, is the Tory decision to seek a "hard Brexit," i.e. exit from the EU's Common Market. Yet opinion polls show that Brexit still has the support of a majority of likely voters; moreover, 55% of voters would rather have "no exit deal" than "a bad exit deal."13 If voters still see this as the defining issue, then the Tories still have a key advantage. On the other hand, perceptions of Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have improved rapidly and May's simultaneous popularity slump is especially important in this election. She is a "takeover prime minister" (having initially gained the office when Cameron resigned rather than leading her party into an election as the presumed prime minister) and thus highly vulnerable. This election is largely about her need for a "personal mandate."14 Her political missteps (both real and perceived) are very much at issue in this particular election. Chart 19May Lifts Tories, Corbyn Drags Labour May Lifts Tories, Corbyn Drags Labour May Lifts Tories, Corbyn Drags Labour Chart 20 If polls continue to narrow, the election could produce a "hung parliament," in which no single party holds the 326 seats necessary for a majority in the House of Commons. What should investors expect in that scenario? First, May would have the chance to rule a minority government or form a coalition. A minority government would be weak, vulnerable to collapse under pressure, and would have a harder time controlling the Brexit negotiations. As for a coalition, there is very little chance that the other major parties would cooperate with her - the Liberal Democrats would not reprise their role as coalition partner from 2010-15. But there is a slim chance that the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland could unite with the Tories to obtain a majority. The DUP has not exercised real power in a century, literally, and several of its members do not normally even take their seats in Westminster. However, the party is Euroskeptic and could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Suffice it to say that this outcome is not impossible - the Tories have been courting the DUP for months and the existence of a historic "common cause" changes the usual parliamentary dynamic. Still, this arrangement would be highly unusual, causing a massive uproar, and would lead to all kinds of uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Second, assuming May fails, the Labour Party would have to rule in the minority or form a coalition (if informal) with the Scottish National Party, LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, and others. Here are the most likely outcomes of such an arrangement, in broad brush strokes: Brexit will in all likelihood proceed, given that all parties have professed respect for the referendum outcome. Since the new government would likely not seek to curtail immigration as strictly, it could seek to retain membership in the Common Market. However, a la carte membership in the Common Market remains the greatest difficulty with the EU member states, and therefore it is possible that even Labour would have to accept the logic of exiting the Common Market. In fact, we could see Labour's insistence on access to the Common Market producing more acrimony with the EU than the Tory clean-break strategy. Nevertheless, the odds of a "Brexit cliff" in which the U.K. exits without a trade deal would fall from their already low level, given Labour's unwillingness to let that happen. Despite moving ahead with Brexit, a Labour-led government would increase the relatively low probability of an eventual reversal of the decision, given that it would be more inclined to accept or encourage such an outcome in the face of a bad exit deal, a recession, or other challenges that cause public opinion to shift. The Scottish National Party would probably sideline its demands for a second Scottish independence referendum - especially given that polls supporting a second referendum have floundered for the time being - though not permanently.15 Fiscal spending would increase as a result of Labour's and the SNP's campaign promises and greater focus on domestic social issues. Even if May avoids squandering her party's majority (our baseline case), there are several important takeaways from her drop in the polls: Chart 21Dementia Tax' Gaffe Added To Tory Woes Dementia Tax' Gaffe Added To Tory Woes Dementia Tax' Gaffe Added To Tory Woes The median voter wants government support: The Labour Party's rally began as soon as elections were called, with left-leaning voters switching away from the LibDems once they saw a chance to challenge the ruling party. But the Tories took a hit from May's unprecedented (and publicly awkward) reversal on a party manifesto pledge only days after publishing it (Chart 21). The pledge, now infamous as the "dementia tax," was an attempt at fiscal tightening by which the government would include the value of an elderly person's home in the assessment of their financial means when it came to government support for social care. By contrast, Labour has rallied on the back of a party manifesto that promises fiscal expansion in various categories, including £7.7 billion additional funds for health care, social care, and nursing. More broadly, National Health Service funding, rent caps, and a higher "living wage" are the top four campaign pledges that gain above 60% popular support. As we elucidated last year, the two economies that most enthusiastically embraced a laissez-faire model - the U.S. and the U.K. - are now experiencing the most effective swing to the left.16 The U.K. campaign confirms that, with the Tories minimizing cuts and Labour offering greater spending. Brexit means Brexit: 69% of the public claims that government should follow the referendum outcome, and 52% favor Theresa May's proposed Brexit strategy. The opposition parties are not openly opposing the referendum outcome, as mentioned. Moreover, Labour's pledge to prevent the U.K. leaving the bloc without a trade deal is one of the least popular campaign pledges (only 31% approve), while the Liberal Democrats' pledge to hold a second nationwide referendum on the outcome of the exit talks is also unpopular (34% approve) (Chart 22). Labour is recovering support by focusing on its bread-and-butter, left-wing, social platform. Terrorism is not driving voters: The tragic terrorist attacks at parliament, Manchester, and London Bridge have hardly given May and the Tories any additional support despite being the party viewed as stronger on security. Amid a bull market in terrorism, British voters, like European peers, are becoming somewhat inured to periodic attacks against "soft" targets.17 Health is a bigger concern than immigration: A large majority of Britons think immigration has been too high in recent years, but only about 25% think it is a major issue facing the country, compared with 43% who cite health care as a major issue (see Chart 20 above). These are not completely independent issues because many people believe that immigrants are putting pressure on scarce health care resources. Immigration is closely tied to Brexit and will remain a burning issue if the government does not convince voters that it is more vigilant. But the Labour Party's greater support on health care (as well as education and other social issues) is a growing liability to the Tories as Brexit becomes more settled. If Brexit was a revolt against the elites, it is not necessarily the only manifestation of that revolt. The elitist Tories should be careful that they do not rest on their laurels having been on the right side of that particular issue. The key takeaway is that, aside from Brexit, fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then.18 Chart 22 That is also why the ruling party has already eased fiscal policy. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline to beyond 2022 (Chart 23). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 24). Chart 23 Chart 24 The Tories are also claiming that they will reboot the country's industrial strategy to improve productivity, which will become all the more imperative if they even partially follow through on their pledge to cut immigration numbers from the current annual ~250,000 to under 100,000, which will necessarily reduce labor force growth and thus also potential GDP growth.19 The National Productivity Investment Fund will need a projected £23 billion just to get on its feet. Given that Labour is proposing even more ambitious spending increases (£49 billion additional spending through 2022), the direction of U.K. politics - away from austerity - is clear regardless of the election outcome. Finally, our colleagues at BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy expect the Bank of England to maintain loose monetary policy for the foreseeable future, being unable to turn more hawkish against inflation in the context of continued risks and uncertainties related to Brexit.20 Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative for the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports,21 the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, could weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. As such, we closed our short USD/GBP last week for a gain of 3.34%. Bottom Line: We do not expect a hung parliament; most signs suggest that the Tories will retain at least a weak majority. However, a hung parliament that produces a Labour-SNP alliance would not likely reverse Brexit (though it would make a reversal more conceivable). Such an alliance could eventually result in an exit deal that is both less politically logical than the Tory deal (because London would pay to stay in the Common Market yet have less say in how it is managed) and more favorable to the British economy in the long run (because retaining the benefits of Common Market access). But this is not a foregone conclusion. We maintain our view that Brexit itself has largely ceased to have concrete market-relevant impacts other than a decline in Britain's long-term potential GDP growth. There are two reasons for this. First, May has ruled out membership in the Common Market and thus has removed a potential source of acrimony with Brussels over any "special treatment." Second, the EU does not want to precipitate a crisis in the U.K. that could reverberate back onto the continental economy. Investment Implications We remain strategically overweight European equities relative to their U.S. peers, a trade that has returned 7.39% thus far. We would remind clients that we closed our long GBP/USD and long EUR/USD tactical trades last week for 3.34% and 3.48% gains, respectively. We are also booking a 3.45% profit on our "One China Policy" strategic trade (long Chinese equities as against their Taiwanese and Hong Kong peers). We still think policymakers will do everything they can to keep China's economic growth stable ahead of the party congress this fall, but, as we discussed in our May 24 missive,22 the decision to tighten financial regulation is risky and threatens to cause unintended consequences. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “China Down, India Up?” dated March 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “ECB: All About China?” dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Europe’s Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration,” dated November 3, 2011; and “Europe: The Euro And (Geo)politics,” dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see European Commission, “Reflection paper on the deepening of the economic and monetary union,” May 31, 2017, available at ec.europa.eu. 6 Please see European Commission, “EU Investor Presentation,” April 7, 2017, available at ec.europa.eu. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Europe’s Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno,” dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 The only minor party that is Euroskeptic, FdI, is just close enough to the 5% threshold that its voters are unlikely to abandon it. They will not likely give the Euroskeptic Lega Norde and M5S much of a boost. 9 Please see Lord Ashcroft Polls, “2017 Seat Estimates: Overall,” May 2017, available at lordashcroftpolls.com. 10 In the 1997 election, Tony Blair and Labour led by double digits, but they were in the opposition. Their lead in the polls shrank slightly before Blair won a 178-seat majority, even larger than Thatcher’s 144 seats in 1983 and Clement Attlee’s 147 seats in 1945. 11 Please see YouGov, “2017 UK General Election Model,” accessed June 6, 2017, available at yougov.co.uk. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!” dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see Anthony Wells, “Attitudes to Brexit: Everything We Know So Far,” March 29, 2017, available at yougov.co.uk. 14 Please see footnote 12 above. 15 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?” dated March 30, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?” dated April 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “A Bull Market For Terror,” dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Brexit Update: Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?” dated July 15, 2016, and “Brexit Update: Red Dawn Over Britain” in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Redistribution,” dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, “With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU,” dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Adventures In Fence-Sitting,” dated May 16, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see “Brexit: A Brave New World” in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The ‘What Can You Do For Me’ World?” dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets,” dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Dear clients, Instead of our usual Weekly Report, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Marko Papic and Matt Gertken with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service. In this piece, Marko and Matt argue that impeachment is a political, not legal, process in the U.S. political system. If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in 2018, Trump will almost certainly be impeached. Otherwise, it would require “smoking gun” evidence of criminal behavior to turn House Republicans against the president. For now, financial markets will largely ignore impeachment risks and focus on tax cuts. Midterm elections will accelerate their tax-cutting attempts. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Highlights Impeachment is a political, not legal, process; The House of Representatives decides what is impeachable; The Senate is judge, jury, and executioner; Democrats will impeach Trump if they take the House in 2018; Republicans will not impeach, unless there is a "smoking gun." Markets will look through impeachment risks to tax cuts, for now. Feature "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office." - Representative Gerald Ford, April 15, 1970 Chart 1Trump's Support Abysmal Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment Since the election of President Donald Trump we have been inundated with client questions regarding the probability of impeachment. We have hesitated to put our thoughts on paper due to the fact that the House of Representatives plays a crucial role in impeachment proceedings and that the Republican Party enjoys a comfortable 21-seat majority in that legislative chamber. Since the election, however, President Trump has continued to confound supporters and critics alike with controversial moves. His firing of FBI Director James Comey, reportedly without consulting any of his political advisors, is the latest in a string of unorthodox decisions. Leaks and accusations are swirling in the aftermath. In addition, his overall approval numbers continue to languish at historically abysmal levels for the start of a presidency (Chart 1), which portends a tough midterm election for the Republican Party in the House of Representatives (Chart 2). The American political context remains as polarized as ever, with the quantitative measure of ideological polarization at a record high (Chart 3).1 This dataset treats the North-South division of the Civil War differently from ideological polarization; the current level of ideological polarization is the highest since the post-Civil War period. In this environment, we suspect that, were the Democrats to win a majority in the House of Representatives, the probability of impeachment would be very high. Trump would have to hope that Republican Senators have his back, which at that point is by no means a foregone conclusion.2 Chart 2Republicans Heading For Huge Defeat In 2018 Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment Chart 3Record-High Polarization In U.S. Politics According To Key Quantitative Measure Record-High Polarization In U.S. Politics According To Key Quantitative Measure Record-High Polarization In U.S. Politics According To Key Quantitative Measure We will not get into the "merits" of a case against President Trump. It suffices to repeat Gerald Ford's quip from the top of this report: "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be." Given the vitriol and polarization of American politics at the moment, we therefore suspect that impeachment will almost certainly occur if the House falls to the Democrats. Otherwise, for the Republicans to impeach one of their own, even one as loosely allied with the GOP as Trump, would require "smoking gun" evidence of the president's direct hand in a grave scandal. A Guide To Impeaching The President Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "the President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This is a low bar for impeachment, not a high bar. "Misdemeanors" is a slippery term and the House of Representatives determines what it means. There is no appeals process and no interjection by the Supreme Court. The most important point about the U.S. impeachment process is that the "House decides." Decides what? Everything. Hence impeachment proceedings can be started by the House for whatever crime the legislative body deems worthy of impeachment proceedings. Once the House approves the "articles of impeachment," the Senate must hold a trial and vote on whether to remove the president from office by a two-thirds majority (67 votes). Historically the first presidential impeachment was that of President Andrew Johnson, who assumed the presidency following the assassination of President Lincoln in 1865. Johnson was a Democrat who ran with Republican President Lincoln on a National Union ticket. Johnson was impeached on the grounds that he violated the Tenure of Office Act (which is no longer applicable) by firing his Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. But the real political backdrop to the proceeding was that Johnson, a Southern Democrat, favored quick restoration of state rights to the rebellious South and was firing members of the Lincoln cabinet whom he deemed too abolitionist. Johnson was ultimately acquitted in the Senate by just one vote. President Bill Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached, with the GOP-held House of Representatives largely voting along party lines on the two articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate failed to get the 67 votes required for conviction, with Republican Senators from the Northeast (Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont) and Pennsylvania siding with the Democrats. Both the Johnson and Clinton impeachment were more about the deeply polarized environment in Washington and the country at large than about actual crimes. Only the impeachment proceedings initiated against President Nixon provide a clear example of high crimes and misdemeanors. However, President Nixon was never actually impeached as he resigned before the House of Representatives could consider the articles of impeachment against him. He had been warned he would not survive, given the "smoking gun" evidence of his direct personal involvement in the Watergate break-in scandal, and he did not want to be the first president to be removed from office. Thus, as far as a U.S. president is concerned, the House of Representatives is the accuser and the Senate is the judge, jury, and the executioner. Because the bar for adopting impeachment articles in the House is so low (simple majority), we are almost certain that a Democratic-held House would find a reason to impeach President Trump. Whether the Senate then removes President Trump would depend on the severity of his alleged crimes, which we have no way to assess at this point in time. One crucial point to note - particularly in the case of President Trump - is that the House of Representatives can vote on articles of impeachment that deal with alleged crimes committed prior to coming to the office. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the House decides and there is no appeals process.3 Therefore, if the House decides that the president can be impeached for alleged crimes and misdemeanors committed before or outside of his office, then he can. Bottom Line: Impeachment is an intrinsically political process. As such, the legal merits of the accusations matter less than the political context in which the House considers impeaching the president. Given the historically high level of political polarization in the U.S., the extremely low levels of Trump's popularity, and his unorthodox policymaking process, we expect that there is a high probability that a Democratic-held House would impeach President Trump on some grounds. Whether President Trump would then be removed from office would depend on whether the accusations of the House of Representatives have sufficient merit - both in terms of the weight of the crimes and the political interests - for Senate Republicans to abandon the president. A Guide To A Constitutional Coup D'état Intriguingly, the U.S. Constitution provides for a procedure by which the president can be removed from office even without an impeachment process.4 The 25th Amendment, passed following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, gives the Vice President and the Cabinet the authority to remove the president from power. Section 4 of Article 25 states: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [Cabinet members] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. If the above paragraph sounds like a constitutional coup d'état, that is because it is one. If the president challenges the argument that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the issue goes before Congress, where it would require two-thirds of each legislative body to vote to remove the president. As such, the 25th Amendment has a higher hurdle than the impeachment process in Congress, but it could be a quicker way to remove a sitting president who is incapacitated for health reasons, becomes mentally unstable, or broadly-speaking loses touch with reality.5 Chart 4GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment In the case of President Trump, this process would require a complete loss of confidence in his leadership by Vice President Pence, the Cabinet, and Republican members of Congress. Given Trump's high level of support with Republican voters (Chart 4), we are nowhere close to the risk of the 25th Amendment being invoked. However, if Trump's popularity declines precipitously, his own Cabinet has the ability to eject him from the Oval Office without any accusation of legal misconduct. Presumably Trump would have taken concrete action that proved plainly detrimental to the national interest in order to set this process in motion - at which point any number of earlier erratic behaviors or statements could come into play against him. Bottom Line: Impeachment is not the only process by which a sitting U.S. president can be removed from office. Article 25 of the Constitution, Section 4, offers a constitutional coup d'état process that avoids the messiness of a Senate trial. However, the legislative hurdle for this procedure is even higher than the impeachment process. As such, it would require Donald Trump to completely lose the faith of Republican voters and legislators. Signposts To Impeachment We do not intend to prosecute claims against President Trump in this or any future report. First, we are not legal experts. Second, we do not have access to full information. Third, as we pointed out above, the impeachment process is a highly political process. As such, key triggers are political, and only minimally criminal. First, either Democrats win the House of Representatives, or GOP voters turn against President Trump in large numbers. As such, investors should keep close attention to Chart 4 data, at least until the midterm elections. Second, President Trump has to lose the confidence of Republican legislators, particularly in the Senate. Nonetheless, there are several other, more specific, issues we will watch carefully. Special investigation: In both Nixon's and Clinton's scandals, a special committee investigated executive wrongdoing. In Nixon's case this was the Senate Watergate Committee; in Clinton's case it was the special investigation led by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Starr's investigation initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Why it matters today? The precedent of special investigations and committees is strong in American politics. It will be difficult for President Trump to deny the public a special investigation of his campaign team's dealing with Russian officials. The Clinton example illustrates the danger of such investigations: what began as an investigation into a suspicious real estate deal concluded with perjury accusations on a completely unrelated matter. In other words, once independent investigators start digging, there is no telling what skeletons they will exhume. Subpoenas: Congressional committees investigating impropriety can subpoena individuals or physical evidence to appear before the committee. Such subpoenas can reveal potential crimes and misconduct only tangentially related to the original investigation. The Watergate Tapes were critical to the eventual resignation of President Nixon. The White House challenged their subpoena, but the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs. Nixon, July 1974, that executive privilege did not allow President Nixon to deny the release of the tapes. Why it matters today? Currently, the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and has issued a subpoena to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for documents regarding his interactions with Russian officials. President Trump will not be able to claim ignorance if sufficient members of his inner circle are found to have colluded with a foreign power. It didn't work for President Nixon. Furthermore, it should worry President Trump that three Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are either former GOP primary opponents (Marco Rubio of Florida) or vocal critics (Susan Collins of Maine and Tom Cotton of Arkansas). Law enforcement: The President, as the head of the executive and as the attorney general's direct superior, is in charge of all U.S. federal law enforcement agencies. He therefore has the constitutional prerogative of summarily firing various members of the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies. However, this does not mean that those same agencies will stay loyal and not collude with the opposition or the press to undermine the president's authority. In the Watergate scandal, Associate Director of the FBI, Mark Felt, was the "Deep Throat" source that fed Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein the information that ultimately led to President Nixon to resign. Felt's actions were by no means selfless. Why it matters today? President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey under unorthodox circumstances. While the official reason is that Comey mishandled the investigation into Secretary Hillary Clinton's email scandal, sources close to Comey (read: Comey) argue that it was because the FBI Director wanted to expand the agency's investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. Trump also seems to have feared that Comey was after him personally. Given the penchant of U.S. intelligence agencies to leak embarrassing information on members of Trump's inner circle - e.g. the transcript of Flynn's conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak - we assume that members of the FBI who remain loyal to Comey could leak further information. In other words, President Trump has from the beginning of his presidency made powerful enemies in U.S. law enforcement agencies. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing on any front, we suspect that it will leak. Bottom Line: Once congressional committees begin investigating, subpoenaing documents and witnesses, there is no telling where or how the process ends. What begins as an investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election can end up somewhere completely different. Given that the Senate Intelligence Committee is already holding investigations and that President Trump has made powerful enemies in the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence community, we have to accept that there is a high probability that the investigations into impropriety expand. Whether they expand to the point of causing the impeachment preconditions listed above is anyone's guess at this point. Investment Implications Of Impeachment Given the small number of cases, it is difficult to rely on historical precedents to make broader conclusions on how the market would react to impeachment or severe political scandal in the White House. Chart 5 looks at market performance during the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974), and President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999). Of the three, Teapot Dome did not result in impeachment proceedings, but only because President Harding died in office in 1923 - and neither his death nor the unfolding scandal prevented the stock market from "roaring" through the mid-1920s.6 Chart 5AEquities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Equities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Equities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 5BVolatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals Volatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals Volatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals The market reaction to the Lewinsky Affair was also highly muted. Like Teapot Dome, it occurred amidst one of the greatest bull markets in U.S. history. Of course, U.S. equities did fall 19% mid-way through the Clinton impeachment process. Watergate appears to have affected both equity markets and volatility. The S&P 500 fell 39% from February 7, 1973 - when the Senate established a select committee to investigate Watergate - to Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. That said, the scandal alone did not cause the correction, but rather it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, and a massive insurance fraud. Writing in the summer of 1973, BCA's own Tony Boeckh remarked that a speculative, "Watergate-inspired," attack on the dollar further contributed to a short-term capital outflow, but that the macro-fundamentals of the economy would ultimately persevere: Particularly in recent weeks, the Watergate affair has had an effect on the market much like a slow presidential assassination might... The Watergate affair, while primarily of psychological importance in the short run, clearly has had the effect of sustaining the weakness in the dollar and adding greatly to an already deeply negative psychology. If one can see these basic factors as temporary, then the whipsaw possibilities are obvious.7 Tony's analysis ultimately proved prescient, with stocks rallying briskly from Nixon's resignation in August 1974 and throughout 1975. What would happen this time around? If scandals surrounding Russian interference in the election grow over the next several months, the market may begin to price in a loss of the House in November 2018, which would obviously stall Trump's populist, "pump-priming" agenda. We think that the market could fret if the scandals worsen for three main reasons: Legislative agenda - An embattled White House would be a distracted White House. It is difficult to see how the White House could provide leadership on health and tax reform. The seriousness of the alleged crimes - President Clinton was impeached for having an extra-marital workplace affair and lying about it. If the Russian electoral interference charges stick, the Trump administration would be essentially accused of treason. The White House lashes out - An embattled President Trump could shift gears from domestic to foreign policy, as he faces few constitutional constraints on the latter. President Clinton faced off against Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic mid-way through the impeachment process, finally ordering NATO air strikes on the heels of his acquittal by the Senate. President Trump could shift his focus on North Korea, Iran, or "unfair" trading partners. Despite good reasons to worry that impeachment will become a possibility after the midterm elections, we think the market will continue to focus on the prospects for tax reform. And on that front, it is highly unlikely that a growing scandal in the Trump administration would matter. Provided, of course, that there is not some material evidence that accelerates the crisis and forces even a GOP-controlled House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reform. We would therefore largely look through the risks of impeachment - as our predecessors at BCA did amidst the Watergate scandal - at least until the months before November 6, 2018 (midterm election date). In particular, there are three main reasons to fade any near-term equity market volatility: President Mike Pence - Under both impeachment rules and the 25th amendment, the U.S. president would be replaced by the Vice President. Vice President Pence's approval rating largely tracks that of President Trump and is in the 40% area, but investors should note that he once stood at nearly 60% during the campaign (Chart 6). As such, the worst case scenario for investors in case of a post-midterm impeachment is that Trump is replaced by Mike Pence, an orthodox Republican, and that Pence has to deal with a split Congress. It would grind reforms to a halt, but at least tax reform would be out of the way by then. Given the market's focus on tax reforms, it is difficult to see why this tail-risk would have to be priced in over the next 12 months. Midterm Election - If the Trump White House becomes engulfed in scandal, Republicans in the House will fear losing their majority. Yes, the partisan drawing of electoral districts - "gerrymandering" - has reduced the number of competitive U.S. House districts from 164 in 1998 to 56 in 2016 (Chart 7). But the Democrats managed to win the House in 2006 and the Republicans managed to take it back in 2010, so there is no reason the roles cannot be reversed yet again. However, this is not a risk, it is an opportunity. It will motivate the GOP in Congress to lock in tax and healthcare reform well ahead of the midterm elections. Given that they plan to use a FY2018 budget reconciliation bill to pass tax reform, it means that passage by April or May of 2018 is highly likely. Then they can campaign all summer on how they kept their promises to give tax relief and create jobs. Counter Revolution - With Trump embattled and facing impeachment, the market may give a sigh of relief because it would mark a clear defeat of populist politics in the U.S. Much as with electoral outcomes in Europe, investors may want to cheer the defeat of an unorthodox, anti-establishment movement in the U.S.8 Chart 6Could Be Worse Than Pence Could Be Worse Than Pence Could Be Worse Than Pence Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces ##br##Competitive House Seats Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive House Seats Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive House Seats As such, we would push against any "Russia scandal"-induced volatility in the U.S. markets, at least until the midterm election. We think the market would digest the volatility and realize that Trump's impeachment, were it to occur post-midterm elections, would not arrest the Republican agenda before the midterms. After all, the GOP has waited over 15 years to make Bush-era tax cuts permanent and the opportunity to do so may evaporate within the next 12 months. The one risk we do not account for here is that a "smoking gun" of Trump campaign collusion with Russia is unearthed well before the midterm election. This could force the GOP in the House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reforms. We do not expect this to happen, but we also have no evidence to support our view. At this point, however, there is absolutely no proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Do we agree that Trump's impeachment would signal the end of populism? No. As our colleague Peter Berezin has repeatedly said - and our clients ought to listen given that he correctly predicted Trump's victory in September 20159 - American voters voted for "Trumpism," not Trump. As Peter recently pointed out, "either Trump will start delivering on the promises that endeared him to blue-collar workers in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, or he will go down in flames in the next election."10 Of course, if Trump "goes down in flames" in an impeachment scenario, Peter's point about blue-collar workers still stands. The next election, in 2020, will still feature populism, especially if the U.S. experiences a recession in the meantime and if Trump's policies do not help the median voter by that time. In that case, the election in 2020 will not feature moderates such as Pence, but rather unorthodox policymakers from both the left and the right. We intend to publish a report on populism in America over the next several weeks and elucidate our pessimistic view of politics, the economy, and the markets after 2017. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 The data for polarization analysis uses "nominate" (nominal three-step estimation), a multidimensional scaling method developed to analyze the preference and choice of legislators based on their roll-call voting record in the U.S. Congress. According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level ever. Their research shows that the "primary dimension of polarization," the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy, explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension. Please see Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal, "D-Nominate After 10 Years: A Comparative Update To Congress: A Political-Economic History Of Roll-Call Voting," Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1 (Feb. 2001), pp. 5-29. 2 Especially when one considers that President Trump's fate may at some point in the near future be in the hands of Senators "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco." 3 Please see Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the jurisdiction of the Senate in the impeachment proceedings and confirmed that no judicial appeals process exists. As a side point, the case had nothing to do with former President Richard Nixon, but rather was brought against the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon. 4 We thank our former colleague, and expert on the U.S. Constitution, Mike Marchio for pointing out this loophole. 5 The only time the Section 4 of the 25th Amendment was seriously contemplated was in 1987, due to President Ronald Reagan's growing "inattentiveness" and "laziness" (probably early signs of Alzheimer disease). Incoming Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker Jr. was asked by his predecessor Donald Regan to carefully examine whether President Reagan was capable of performing his duties. President Reagan passed the test. Please see Jason Linkins, Huffington Post, "Happy 50th Birthday To The 25th Amendment To The Constitution!" dated February 10, 2017, available at huffingtonpost.com. 6 "Teapot Dome" was for decades the largest corruption scandal in U.S. history. It involved President Warren G. Harding, his Secretary of the Interior, other officials, and a number of oil companies that were given extremely favorable leases to drill oil on federal land in Wyoming. Investigations and prosecutions lasted through 1927. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Stock Market And Business Forecast," June 1973 - Vol. XXIV No.12 and July 1973 - Vol. XXV No. 1, copies available on request. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Establishment Strikes Back," dated April 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.