Geopolitics

Highlights The American Rescue Plan Act confirms the shift to “Big Government” and proactive fiscal policy in US politics. This sea change in policy is durable for now, given that Democrats can pass one or two more budget reconciliation bills without a Republican vote. Details of forthcoming tax hikes are starting to leak from Washington. Investors should not assume that progressive proposals like a wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, or a minimum corporate tax are dead on arrival. Taxing corporations and the rich is popular. The Republican Party is likely to choose a Trumpian agenda going forward and Trump has a good chance of being the presidential candidate in 2024. But cyclical and structural factors disfavor Republicans at this early stage. Industrials have rallied sharply in advance of Biden’s first law and are now overbought. But we would favor them over health care over a 12-month period, given the macro backdrop and relative policy risks. Feature Were there any surprises in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) signed by President Biden on March 11? Only that some of Biden’s health care and infrastructure agenda slipped into the bill, alongside a provision holding that if states cut taxes and lose revenue, they will lose an equivalent amount in state and local aid. The plan illustrates that the budget reconciliation process is an effective tool for the ruling party to get most of what it wants. The Biden administration will be able to pass one or two more reconciliation bills for FY2022 and FY2023. While the next bills will be harder to pass than the first, and moderate Democratic senators will limit Congress’s options somewhat, the point is that Democrats have just enough political capital to achieve their policy agenda without a single Republican vote. As always, our Political Capital Index is updated in the Appendix and highlights falling political polarization and improving business sentiment, which is positive for Biden’s political capital.  Investors will continue to bet on a cyclical recovery but will also become more concerned about tax hikes on one hand and excessive deficit spending on the other. The latter threatens eventually to overheat the economy and speed up the Fed’s rate hike cycle. In this report we conduct a quick recap of the ARPA now that it is official law, we review the tax hike proposals swirling out of the Washington rumor mill, and we update the status of the civil war in the Republican Party. We conclude with a look at industrial stocks, which have rallied tremendously on the back of the cyclical economic upturn (Chart 1) but may still offer some value relative to sectors like health care that face policy risks. Chart 1Cyclical Indicators High On Stimulus Cyclical Indicators High On Stimulus Cyclical Indicators High On Stimulus ARPA Symbolizes The ‘Big Government’ Shift The well-known provisions of the ARPA include: Treasury checks of $1,400 sent directly to individuals who earn less than $80,000 per year; extended unemployment benefits and a renewed federal top-up of $300 per week through September 6, 2021; $65 billion in business aid; and generous funding for various welfare programs such as the expanded Child Tax Credit and larger subsidies for enrollees in the Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces (Chart 2).1 Chart 2American Rescue Plan Act Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors In total the US fiscal stimulus amounts to $5 trillion or 23% of GDP since COVID-19 emerged, with $2.8 trillion or 13% of GDP passed since December. It is a gargantuan fiscal stimulus that will supercharge the economy today but lead to a rocky descent once it is exhausted in the coming years (Chart 3). Expiring provisions will occasion political showdowns over whether to make them permanent and how to address waste, corruption, and the long-term budget deficit. Chart 3The COVID-19 Fiscal Blowout Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors The provisions are so far flung that educated American citizens living abroad are reportedly receiving stimulus checks. Nevertheless the bulk of the impact will be felt by low-income people with high marginal propensities to consume. They are the prime beneficiaries of the $850 billion share of the law that funnels cash to individuals as opposed to businesses (Chart 4). This means that at least one-third of the money will be spent, while around two-thirds will be used to pay down debt, enabling consumers to spend more later, according to our Global Investment Strategy. The general effects are very supportive of the recovery. For example, the number of children living in poverty is estimated to fall by 40%, while about one in five renters are expected to catch up on their rent.2 Evictions, bankruptcies, and loan delinquencies will not revive in this context. The total amount of spending is almost twice the size of the output gap, which is now widely expected to be filled by the end of 2022.  Chart 4Cash Handouts To Families With High Propensity To Consume Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors While ARPA mainly consists of short-term cash relief – with pro-productivity investments to come in the reconciliation bill for FY2022 focused on infrastructure and renewables – nevertheless it is not wholly devoid of long-term investment. Each of the 50 states will receive $500 million in aid (more depending on their unemployment rate). Since state and local government revenues are not as dire as expected, some of this money will go into infrastructure, including soft infrastructure like the rural broadband buildout. States will be discouraged from cutting taxes, as mentioned.3 The most important takeaway is that the ARPA will reinforce the shift in public attitudes in favor of a larger government role in the economy. Democrats passed their “liberal wish list” and the result is that a range of constituencies – from those on food and housing programs to those working in the health and education systems – will receive a windfall of federal support. In this way a one-off and probably excessive relief bill will contribute to a sea change in American attitudes toward government. Conservatives and Republicans will still argue in favor of limited government but that is a relative concept and the goalposts just moved. Bottom Line: The ARPA secures the recovery, plugs the output gap, and likely reinforces the shift in public attitudes in favor of a larger role of government in society and the economy. The amount of stimulus is likely excessive, assuming the economy avoids any other bad shocks in the coming years. Hence the law marks a historic shift from reactive to proactive fiscal policy and sets the stage for an inflation overshoot in the long run if not the short run.  Yellen Becomes Warren? Not Quite, But Expect Negative Tax Surprises The next budget reconciliation bill is expected to be a 10-year green infrastructure package that will be partially offset by tax hikes. Whether in the same bill, or prioritized above it, we expect Biden to push for his expansion of the Affordable Care Act (only a small part of his health agenda was included in the ARPA). The House will draft its version in April and Biden may sign the final bill into law as early as September or as late as December. We discussed the bill in our March 3 missive. Rumors about the tax proposals are starting to leak out of Washington. At present none of the rumors change the policy consensus, based on Biden’s campaign proposal shown in Table 1. However, they do tentatively support our view that tax hikes will deliver negative surprises to the equity market this year, given that investors have so far been unperturbed by the prospect of higher taxes. Table 1Taxman Cometh Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen raised some eyebrows when she indicated that a wealth tax is being considered by the Biden administration.4 Previously a tax on a person’s (or trust’s) net assets, as opposed to a tax on their income, was the domain of Biden’s progressive-left rivals such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Warren’s proposal would levy a 2% annual tax on those who possess more than $50 million in net wealth, rising to 3% on billionaires. During the Democratic primary election their proposals were estimated to raise anywhere from $1.4 trillion – if Warren’s proposal met with extreme tax avoidance – to $4.5 trillion, as estimated by Sanders.5  Yellen has also spoken to the finance ministers of France and Germany as part of a diplomatic initiative through the OECD to encourage global participation in a minimum corporate tax rate of around 12%. In exchange for enacting this tax floor, Yellen signaled to the Europeans that she would not insist on providing American Big Tech with a “safe harbor” from Europe’s planned digital tax.6 Whatever ends up happening internationally, the implication is that the Biden administration will push forward with its proposed 15% minimum tax on corporation’s book income. Yellen says that she expects tax hikes to be phased in the latter part of the 10-year budget window for FY2022 so as to make sure that the government’s interest burden is manageable over the long run. She is not concerned about excess deficits or debt in the short run, as they are related to the pandemic relief and economic recovery and interest rates are below the nominal growth rate of the economy. But she has endorsed passing tax hikes for later in the decade, as did both President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail.  Several of the more ambitious tax proposals face limitations in Congress. Moderate senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia have raised objections to a large tax hike during trying times. He might be joined by other moderates like John Tester of Montana and the four narrowly elected senators from Arizona and Georgia. However, while these moderates will keep the tax agenda in check, it is important to understand their position. None of these senators are against tax hikes in principle – that would be a Republican stance. They are against tax hikes that increase the burden on the middle class or jeopardize the economic recovery. From that point of view Biden’s proposals are fairly palatable: the highest individual income tax bracket would go back to where it stood in 2016, the corporate rate would go halfway (at most) to its pre-Trump level, and the estate tax would be restored. These proposals focus on big corporations and the wealthy and are likely to be watered down in negotiation, so we would not rule out moderate Democratic support.  Investors should not rest easy about the tax agenda until more information is known. Negative surprises are likely. The consensus is that the Democrats will not pass a wealth tax, or a “Wall Street tax” on financial transactions, or other progressive proposals. But these taxes would be popular and politically defensible – some polls even show a majority of Republicans supporting a wealth tax.  Therefore these taxes cannot be ruled out in advance.7 Bottom Line: The tax debate is underway and our expectation of negative surprises is looking more, not less, likely. How Will Republicans Respond To The Big Government Onslaught?   Republicans have duly retreated to the political wilderness after their election loss and the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. The critical question is whether and how they will regroup to contest future elections – the deeper their divisions, the more certain Democratic policy becomes. At the center of this question is whether the Republican Party will adopt Trumpist policy and whether Trump himself will continue to be the flagbearer and presumptive nominee for the presidential election in 2024. Our answer is that the Republicans will adopt a Trumpist agenda of tough trade and immigration policies combined with fiscal largesse but they will struggle over Trump himself and how to broaden their base. Every election is unique. COVID-19 reinforces the point. There is a clear case to be made that Trump would have won the election if not for the pandemic and recession. We favor this view given how narrowly he lost in the midst of the crisis. But there is also a clear case to be made that he would have lost anyway.8 The problem for the Republicans going forward is that cyclical and structural trends work against them. Cyclically, the economy should be in full stride in 2022-24 and the Federal Reserve is highly likely to play a supportive role. This may or may not prevent the usual midterm opposition gains but it will make it very hard for an opposition presidential candidate to win. True, Democrats will not have a full incumbent advantage if President Biden passes the baton to Vice President Harris. Inflation and other problems will emerge. But given the timing of the pandemic, election, and vaccine, voters will probably be much better off in four years than they were last November, which is the most reliable prediction of whether the incumbent party will stay in power.      Structurally, demographic change in America diminishes Trump’s base. A generational shift is transforming the American electorate, as the Silent Generation, which is the most reliably Republican, passes on (Chart 5). Millennials favored the Democratic Party by 6% in the 2020 election (10% in Georgia and 21% in Pennsylvania). Chart 5Generational Shift A Risk To Unreconstructed Republicans Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Ethnic minorities also skew Democratic, generally speaking, and are taking a much larger share of the electorate, especially in critical swing states – as highlighted by Biden’s victories in Arizona and Georgia (Chart 6). Hispanics favored Biden by 33% (24% in Arizona). Chart 6US Demographics Drive Political Change Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Demographic extrapolations by the Center for American Progress show that even if post-Millennial generations grow more conservative over time, the Electoral College will shift inexorably against the Republicans as long as current trends continue (Chart 7). Chart 7Electoral Math Frowns On Republicans Even Without Generational Shift Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Demographics are not destiny: Trump would never have won in 2016 if projections based on age and race were so predictive. Yet Republicans cannot merely wait on cyclical or exogenous events to discredit the Democrats. The electoral math is devastating if they do not broaden their appeal. Their quandary is that generating enthusiasm among their base of white voters with less formal education may exclude the very groups to whom they need to appeal: suburban women, educated whites, and ethnic minorities. The immediate question is what to do about Trump, who has divided the party over the Capitol riot, culminating in seven Republican votes against him in his second impeachment. On the surface the Republican Party is a much older entity than any single member or leader and can therefore play a longer strategy. It could choose the correct electoral strategy of courting independents, women, and Hispanics even if it meant losing an election or two due to divisions with the Trumpists. The problem is that Trump’s personal following is uniquely threatening to the viability of the party. Trump alone could split the Republican Party and nullify its chances in 2022-24 and beyond. Trump has suggested starting his own party, the Patriot Party. Opinion polls show that 46% of Republicans would join it while only 27%would insist on sticking with the Republican Party (Chart 8). Even if a Trumpist party stole only 2-3% of Republican voters it would be enough to ensure a Democratic victory in any election given the very small margins of victory in swing states in recent decades. Trump would easily spoil the Republican bid, just as Ross Perot did in the 1990s, Robert La Follette did for the Democrats in the 1930s, and Theodore Roosevelt did in 1912 (Table 2). As Senator Lindsey Graham said of Trump and the Republican Party, after holding post-election negotiations with the former president: “He can make it bigger. He can make it stronger. He can make it more diverse. And he also could destroy it.”9 Chart 8Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Table 2Major Third Party Breakaway Candidates Undercut Their Former Party Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors So What Will Republicans Do? We conducted an exercise using game theory to determine the likeliest strategy that Trump and the party will take. We used the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” as our template because both sides have a lot to gain if they cooperate and a lot to lose if not.10 But they do not trust each other. And each side will lose the most if it stays true while the other betrays it, worsening the distrust. Diagram 1 shows the outcome. Republicans could win eight years in the Oval Office if they adopted Trump’s agenda yet put forward a young new candidate with Trump’s personal endorsement; or they could win four years if they chose Trump himself (the constitutional limitation). By contrast, if they chose an establishment Republican agenda, they could win eight years (reduced to four in Diagram 1 because less likely) or zero years if Trump opposed. Trump, for his part, would win zero years if he bowed out to support the Republicans regardless of whether they adopted his agenda, but he would have a chance of winning four more years if he ran at the head of a Trumpist Republican Party. The outcome is that the Republicans will adopt Trumpism while Trump himself could easily run for president again, given his sway over the party. Diagram 1Game Theory Says Republicans Will Court Trump Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors The game works out the same way if we assign minimal positive payoffs (e.g. one point for a win, zero points for a loss), various other probability weighted payoffs (50% chance of winning), or negative payoffs for time spent out of power. In each variation a stable equilibrium emerges in which Republicans adopt Trump’s agenda and Trump runs again in 2024. Of course, if one changes the structure of the game or assigns subjective scores a different outcome can be produced. But the clearest and most logical games all produce the same outcome: Trump 2024.   This view fits with the consensus in online betting markets. According to the bookies, Trump has between a 20% and 35% chance of running as the Republican nominee in 2024. The same markets give Republicans a 44%-50% chance of winning the White House that year. At this early stage we would take the “over” on Trump and the “under” on a GOP victory given the above points about the cyclical and structural factors weighing against Republicans (Chart 9). Our quantitative US election model, which produced the correct result for all states except Arizona, Georgia and Michigan in 2020, gives the Republicans a 44% chance of winning in 2024 but that number will fall sharply as the economy improves. Chart 9Trump's Odds Of Winning The Republic Nomination In 2024 Trump's Odds Of Winning The Republic Nomination In 2024 Trump's Odds Of Winning The Republic Nomination In 2024 What might change this outcome, according to game theory? Republicans could offer a powerful sweetener to convince Trump to bow out of the race and support the party’s candidate, such as letting one of his children or his son-in-law Jared Kushner run in his place. Alternately Democrats could increase the danger to Trump of their winning again, perhaps by threatening to throw him in jail. Otherwise Trump may not be sufficiently convinced of his party’s loyalty, or frightened of Democratic rule, to bow out of the race.  We are never beholden to game theory and there are countless real-world ways in which the 2022-24 election outlook could change. But as things stand today, Republicans are highly likely to adopt Trump’s agenda. Trump may or may not do what is best for the party. He is unpredictable and at critical junctures over the past year he has not done so. He could start his own party just for the fun of it and in doing so break the party of Lincoln. This irrational factor creates an imbalance in the game that the Republican Party will be anxious to prevent, reinforcing its likely decision to adopt his agenda and let him seek the nomination freely. If the Republican Party does split, officially or unofficially, the Democrats will be guaranteed to expand their hold on Congress in 2022 and keep the White House in 2024. Note that Republicans would normally be heavily favored to retake the House of Representatives in 2022, though not the Senate, so such an outcome would be a political earthquake. A Democratic ascendancy could last for more than one election cycle: Republicans held the White House from 1980-92 and Democrats held it from 1932-52. Since we cannot reliably forecast Trump’s individual behavior, we cannot rule out a deep Republican rift. On the other hand, while the demographic trends point to Democratic rule out to 2036 and beyond, no Democratic ascendancy would last that long, given economic cycles, international threats, and the inevitable corruptions of single-party rule. But policy uncertainty would collapse over the 2022-24 cycle, pushing the timing of major policy change to 2026 or later. Investors would face a high probability that a sweeping Democratic agenda would be enacted, even assuming the persistence of checks and balances provided by moderate Democratic senators and the judicial branch. One clear implication is that financial markets may not evade the risk of negative regulatory and tax surprises over the long run even if they manage to do so in the FY2022 and FY2023 reconciliation bills – which we doubt. Bottom Line: Republicans cannot win the White House in 2024 without Trump’s popular base, even though they would prefer to have a fresh face capable of expanding that base. Trump cannot win without the Republican Party but he can unpredictably decide to do something other than win, i.e. endorse a Republican successor or start a third party. As a result a true Republican split cannot be ruled out. Meanwhile Republicans will have to court Trump rather than vice versa. Democratic policy is well ensconced for now, an underrated risk to the equity market. Investment Takeaways We know that Democrats are pushing forward on their legislative agenda and capable of passing one or two more budget reconciliation bills. We know that cyclical and especially structural factors will put Republicans at a disadvantage in the 2024 presidential race and possibly even the 2022 midterm. We also know that the Republican Party has a non-negligible risk of fracturing due to Trump’s personal following and unpredictability. These points suggest investors should not bet against the current policy setup. The macro backdrop favors cyclical sectors such as industrials, energy, materials, and financials. In our US Political Risk Matrix we have highlighted that the policy backdrop is especially beneficial to industrials (Appendix, Table A1). This is reinforced by ARPA and Biden’s forthcoming reconciliation bills on infrastructure and green projects, subsidies for domestic production, and simultaneous attempts to reduce trade tensions with US allies and partners – if not with China. Of course, industrials have rallied enthusiastically alongside a sharp rebound in core durable goods orders, a more gradual improvement in non-residential capital expenditures, and an environment in which capex intentions will respond to a general domestic and global upswing (Chart 10). A weak dollar, premised on a global recovery, excess liquidity, lower interest rates for longer, and large budget and trade deficits, also favors the industrial sector and reinforces the recovery in global trade and growth. Rising commodity prices are driven by supply constraints as much as global demand, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy has showed in depth, and help to restore pricing power to industrial firms  (Chart 11). Chart 10Industrials Outperform On Recovery And Stimulus Industrials Outperform On Recovery And Stimulus Industrials Outperform On Recovery And Stimulus Chart 11Commodity Boom Supports Industrials' Pricing Power Commodity Boom Supports Industrials' Pricing Power Commodity Boom Supports Industrials' Pricing Power Hence the good news is largely priced into industrials, which are tactically overvalued according to our BCA valuation indicator. The sector looks more or less expensive on all valuation metrics other than price-to-sales (Chart 12). Therefore the best value must be sought on a relative basis, where industrials are outperforming communications services and just beginning to outperform the superstars, tech and health care. From a policy point of view, health care is one of the biggest losers of the Biden administration, which aims to expand health insurance coverage and reduce drug prices. This may be for the benefit of society but it comes at the expense of old cash cows. Investors should stay guarded against a near-term correction in industrials due to looming tax hikes but strategically favor them over health care and tech (Chart 13), which are even more vulnerable to higher taxes. We will execute this trade by going long against health care over a strategic time frame. Chart 12Industrials Overvalued On Most Measures Industrials Overvalued On Most Measures Industrials Overvalued On Most Measures Chart 13Favor Industrials Over Health Care Favor Industrials Over Health Care Favor Industrials Over Health Care Industrials also have a favorable profile against consumer discretionary stocks but we maintain a positive outlook on the US consumer in an era of government largesse. Our Geopolitical Strategy has also highlighted that Great Power struggle will prevent the Biden administration from cutting defense spending – another boon for industrials. Instead it will have to increase spending for defense as well as supply chain resilience and research and development in the midst of a cold war with China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Table A2Political Capital Index Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors Republicans, Industrials, And Tax Rumors         Footnotes 1     Garrett Watson and Erica York, “The American Rescue Plan Act Greatly Expands Benefits Through The Tax Code In 2021,” Tax Foundation, March 12, 2021, taxfoundation.org.              2     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “American Rescue Plan Act Will Help Millions And Bolster The Economy,” March 15, 2021, cbpp.org. 3    See footnote 2 above. 4    Paul Kiernan and Catherine Lucey, “Yellen Says Biden Administration Undecided On Wealth Tax,” Wall Street Journal, wsj.com. 5    Kyle Pomerleau, “How Much Revenue Would A Wealth Tax Raise?” On The Margin, American Enterprise Institute, April 20, 2020, aei.org. 6    Jeff Stein, “Yellen pushes global minimum tax as White House eyes new spending plan,” Washington Post, March 15, 2021, washingtonpost.com. 7     Howard Schneider and Chris Kahn, “Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll,” Reuters, January 10, 2020, reuters.com; Matthew Sheffield, “New poll finds overwhelming support for an annual wealth tax,” The Hill, February 6, 2019, thehill.com. 8    A recession could have happened as a result of the cyclical slowdown from the trade war, which hurt the Midwestern swing states. The yield curve had inverted and the economy’s margin of safety was low. There would not have been any fiscal stimulus without the pandemic. 9    James Walker, “Lindsey Graham Warns Donald Trump Could ‘Destroy’ GOP After Combative CPAC Speech,” Newsweek, March 8, 2021, newsweek.com. 10   The Prisoner’s Dilemma involves two prisoners detained separately and pressured into confessing their crimes. If they both stay quiet, nothing can be proved and they only spend one year in jail. If they both confess, they are proven guilty and both spend five years in jail. If only one of them confesses while the other stays silent, the confessor goes scot free while the other spends 20 years in jail! The incentive is to confess. The equilibrium is for both to confess. The traditional game reveals the benefits of trust as well as the difficulty of maintaining it in isolation and doubt.   

Highlights The report from last week’s National People’s Congress (NPC) indicates a gradual pullback in policy support this year. Fiscal thrust will be neutral in 2021, whereas the rate of credit expansion will be slightly lower compared with last year. China’s economy should run on its own momentum in the first half, before slowing to a benign and managed rate. Nonetheless, the risk of policy overtightening is nontrivial and could threaten the cyclical outlook on China’s economy and corporate profits. The recent price correction in Chinese stocks has not yet run its course. Moreover, equity prices in both onshore and offshore markets are breaching their technical resistance. We are downgrading our tactical (0 to 3 months) and cyclical (6 to 12 months) positions on Chinese stocks to underweight relative to global benchmarks. Feature China’s budget and key economic initiatives unveiled at last week’s NPC indicate that policy tightening will be gradual this year. Overall, maintaining stability, both socially and economically, remains the focal point of Premier Li Keqiang’s work plan presented at the NPC’s annual plenary session in Beijing. However, investors have centered on the government’s plan to have a smaller policy push on growth in its budget compared with last year, fearing that economic and corporate profit rebound will disappoint. The Shanghai Composite Index dropped by 6% during the week when the NPC took place. In our view, the risks of a policy over-tightening in the next six months are high. As such, with this report we are downgrading our cyclical call on Chinese stocks to underweight within a global equity portfolio.      Reading Policy Tea Leaves China's growth trajectory since the middle of 2020 has given the government comfort in staying the course on policy normalization. The question is how much Chinese policymakers are willing to pull back support for the economy this year. Overall, the central government plans a smaller policy push in this year's budget and intends to let the economy run on its own steam. Further policy reflation is not in the cards unless a relapse in the economy threatens job creation. The NPC outlined a growth target “above 6%” for 2021 and did not set a numerical goal for the 14th Five-Year Plan from 2021 to 2025. However, de-emphasizing growth does not mean China has abandoned its GDP targets (Table 1). Indeed, in most years in the past two decades, China’s expansion in GDP has overshot objectives set at the NPC (Chart 1). Our baseline estimate is that real GDP will increase by 8% in 2021. Table 12021 Economic And Policy Targets National People’s Congress Sets Tone For 2021 Growth National People’s Congress Sets Tone For 2021 Growth Chart 1Actual Econ Growth Rates Have Overshot Targets In Most Years Actual Econ Growth Rates Have Overshot Targets In Most Years Actual Econ Growth Rates Have Overshot Targets In Most Years   We also maintain our view that the rate of credit expansion will be reduced by 2 to 3 percentage points this year to about 11% annually, which is in line with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). On the fiscal front, the target for a budget deficit was cut by less than half percentage point compared with last year. When taking into account both the government’s budgetary and fund expenditures, the broad-measure fiscal deficit will probably be around 8% of GDP (about the same as last year), which implies there will not be any fresh fiscal thrust in 2021 (Chart 3) Chart 2Credit Growth Will Decelerate From Last Year Credit Growth Will Decelerate From Last Year Credit Growth Will Decelerate From Last Year Chart 3Neutral Fiscal Thrust Neutral Fiscal Thrust Neutral Fiscal Thrust The pullback in fiscal impulse is larger than in 2010, 2014, and 2017, following the previous three fiscal expansionary cycles. However, the government's eased budget deficit target this year does not mean government expenditure growth will slow. Government revenues climbed sharply by the end of 2020 and will continue to improve this year (Chart 4). Higher revenues will allow more government spending while keeping the fiscal deficit within its objectives. Chart 4Gov Revenue Is On The mend But Spending Has Yet To Pick Up Gov Revenue Is On The mend But Spending Has Yet To Pick Up Gov Revenue Is On The mend But Spending Has Yet To Pick Up Chart 5A Small Reduction In ##br##LG Bond Quota National People’s Congress Sets Tone For 2021 Growth National People’s Congress Sets Tone For 2021 Growth Furthermore, the quota for local government special purpose bonds was reduced by only 2% from last year.  It should help to support a steady growth in China’s infrastructure investment (Chart 5). The data from January and February total social financing shows a noticeable improvement in corporate demand for bank loans, as well as the composition of bank loans. Corporate demand for medium- and long-term loans remains on a strong uptrend, which reflects an ongoing recovery in corporate profits and supports an optimistic view on capital investment in the months ahead (Chart 6). Chart 6More Demand For Longer-Term Loans Reflects Better Investment Propensity More Demand For Longer-Term Loans Reflects Better Investment Propensity More Demand For Longer-Term Loans Reflects Better Investment Propensity Bottom Line: The growth and budget targets set at this year’s NPC suggest only a modest pullback in policy support. Downside Risks To The Economy Chart 7Econ Growth Usually Peaks Six To Nine Months After Credit Expansion Rate Slows Econ Growth Usually Peaks Six To Nine Months After Credit Expansion Rate Slows Econ Growth Usually Peaks Six To Nine Months After Credit Expansion Rate Slows Despite a relatively dovish tone from the NPC, investors should not be complacent about the risk of a policy-tightening overshoot, which could lead to disappointing economic and profit growth this year.  In most of the previous policy tightening cycles, China’s economic activities remained resilient in the first 6 to 9 months (Chart 7). One exception was 2014, when nominal GDP growth dropped sharply as soon as credit growth slowed. The reason is that Chinese authorities kept a very disciplined fiscal stance and aggressively tightened monetary policy, while allowing the RMB to soft peg to a rising USD. In other words, macroeconomic policies were too restrictive during the 2013/14 cycle. Although messages from the NPC do not suggest that Chinese authorities are on such an aggressive tightening path this year, investors should watch the following signs that could threaten China's cyclical economic health: Policymakers may keep monetary conditions too tight, by allowing the RMB to rise too fast while lifting bank lending and policy rates. Currently rates are maintained at historically low levels, much lower than in previous policy tightening cycles (Chart 8). However, the trade-weighted RMB has appreciated by 6% since its trough in July last year and has returned to its pre US-China trade war level (Chart 9).  The Chairman of China’s Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission recently signaled that bank lending rates would climb. Although we do not expect the rate to return to its 2014 or 2017 level, China is much more indebted than in previous cycles. Even a small bump in interest rates will place a burden on corporates and local governments’ debt servicing cost, dampening their propensity to invest (Chart 10).  Chart 8Aggressive Rate Hikes Are ##br##Unlikely This Year Aggressive Rate Hikes Are Unlikely This Year Aggressive Rate Hikes Are Unlikely This Year Chart 9Rising RMB Should Refrain Chinese Policymakers From Further Tightening Monetary Stance Rising RMB Should Refrain Chinese Policymakers From Further Tightening Monetary Stance Rising RMB Should Refrain Chinese Policymakers From Further Tightening Monetary Stance Chart 10Chinese Private Sector Has Become Much More Sensitive To Rising Interest Rates Chinese Private Sector Has Become Much More Sensitive To Rising Interest Rates Chinese Private Sector Has Become Much More Sensitive To Rising Interest Rates Chart 11Bank Lending To Property Sector Has Become Increasingly Restrictive Bank Lending To Property Sector Has Become Increasingly Restrictive Bank Lending To Property Sector Has Become Increasingly Restrictive   Policies could become too restrictive in key old-economy industries. Chinese authorities have reiterated their determination to contain price bubbles in the property sector. For the first time since 2017, bank lending to real estate developers grew at a pace far below overall bank loans and continued to trend downward in February this year (Chart 11). Moreover, household mortgage loans have reached their slowest expansion rate since 2013.  At 22% of China’s total bank lending, a sharp setback in the property sector’s loan growth will be a significant drag on total credit and the economy.   A worsened imbalance in supply and demand could lead to too much buildup in industrial inventory. Manufacturing inventories recovered sharply following last year’s massive stimulus and many sectors have surpassed their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 12). Strong external demand helped to boost China’s production and propensity to restock on raw materials. However, both China’s core CPI and producer prices for consumer goods remain in the doldrums, which indicates that domestic final demand has yet to fully recover (Chart 13).  As discussed in last week’s report, reopening the world economy in 2H21 should benefit the service sector more than tradeable goods. China’s inventory buildup, particularly in the upstream industries, could turn excessive when export growth slows and domestic demand fails to pick up the slack. Chart 12How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go? How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go? How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go? Chart 13Final Demand Remains ##br##Weak Final Demand Remains Weak Final Demand Remains Weak The service sector could take longer than expected to recuperate, even though China’s domestic COVID-19 situation is under control. China’s services sector has flourished in recent years and accounted for 54% of the nation’s pre-pandemic economic output. However, about half of the service sector output is tied to real estate and financial services. Increasing pressures from tighter policy regulations targeting both the property and online financial service sectors could dampen their support to the economy more than policymakers anticipated. At the same time, wage and household income growth could remain tame by China’s standards (Chart 14).   The NPC’s targeted 7% annual increase in spending for national research and development – far below the 12% annual average reached during the past five years – will not be enough to offset the slowdowns in real estate and financial services (Chart 15). Chart 14Household Income Growth Has Yet To Recover Household Income Growth Has Yet To Recover Household Income Growth Has Yet To Recover Chart 15Chinas Pace Of R&D Investment Has Slowed Along With Econ Growth Chinas Pace Of R&D Investment Has Slowed Along With Econ Growth Chinas Pace Of R&D Investment Has Slowed Along With Econ Growth Bottom Line: The downside risks to China’s cyclical growth trajectory are nontrivial. A tug-of-war between policy tightening and growth support will likely persist throughout this year. Investment Implications We recommend investors to underweight Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio, in the next 0 to 9 months (Chart 16A and 16B). Chart 16AChinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance Chinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance Chinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance Chart 16BChinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance Chinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance Chinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance On January 13, we tactically downgraded Chinese stocks from overweight to neutral, anticipating that China’s equity markets are sensitive to rising expectations of policy tightening, due to higher corporate debt-servicing costs and lofty valuations.  Chinese stock prices peaked in mid-February, but in our view the correction has not yet run its course. In terms of the economy, we maintain our baseline view that China's overall policy environment this year will be more accommodative than in 2017/18. The growth momentum carried over from last year's stimulus should prevent China's economy and corporate profits from slumping by too much this year. However, as policy supports are scaled back, investors will increasingly focus on the intensity of China’s domestic policy tightening and the uncertainties surrounding it. Downside risks are nontrivial and will continue to weigh on investors' sentiment. For investors that are mainly exposed to the Chinese domestic equity market, the near-term setbacks in the A-share market are taking some air out of Chinese equities' frothy valuations, and may pave the way for a more optimistic cyclical outlook beyond the next 9 to 12 months. We recommend domestic investors to stay on the sidelines for now, but will start recommending sector rotations in the next few months when opportunities arise. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The Biden administration’s early actions suggest it will be hawkish on China as expected – and the giant Microsoft hack merely confirms the difficulty of reducing strategic tensions. US-China talks are set to resume and piecemeal engagement is possible. However, most of the areas of engagement touted in the media are overrated. Competition will prevail over cooperation. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected, creating an entry point for investors seeking exposure to a secular theme of Great Power conflict in the cyber realm and beyond. Global defense stocks are even more attractive than cyberstocks as a “back to work” trade in the geopolitical context. Continue to build up safe-haven hedges as geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated and underrated by financial markets. Feature The Biden administration passed its first major law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, on March 10. This gargantuan infusion of fiscal stimulus accounts for about 2% of global GDP and 9% of US GDP, a tailwind for risky assets when taken with a receding pandemic and normalizing global economy. The US dollar has perked up so far this year on the back of this extraordinary pump-priming and the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which have lifted relative growth expectations with the rest of the world. Hence the dollar is rising for fundamentally positive reasons that will benefit global growth rather than choke it off. Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor argues that the dollar has 2-3% of additional upside before relapsing under the weight of rising global growth, inflation expectations, commodity prices, and relative equity flows into international markets. We agree with the dollar bear market thesis. But there are two geopolitical risks that investors must monitor: Cyclically, China’s combined monetary and fiscal stimulus is peaking, growth will decelerate, and the central government runs a non-negligible risk of overtightening policy. However, China’s National People’s Congress so far confirms our view that Beijing will not overtighten. Structurally, the US-China cold war is continuing apace under President Biden, as expected. The two sides are engaging in normal diplomacy as appropriate to a new US administration but the Microsoft Exchange hack (see below) underscores the trend of confrontation over cooperation. Chart 1Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated The second point reinforces the first since persistent US pressure on China will discourage it from excessive deleveraging at home. In a world where China is struggling to cap excessive leverage, the US is pursuing “extreme competition” with China (Biden’s words), and yet the US rule of law is intact, global investors will not abandon the US dollar in a general panic and loss of confidence. They will, however, continue to diversify away from the dollar on a cyclical basis given that global growth will accelerate while US policy will remain extremely accommodative. Reinforcing the point, geopolitical frictions are rising even outside the US-China conflict. A temporary drop in risk occurred in the New Year as a result of the rollout of vaccines, the defeat of President Trump, and the resolution of Brexit. But going forward, geopolitical risk will reaccelerate, with various implications that we highlight in this report. While we would not call an early end to the dollar bounce, we will keep in place our tactical long JPY-USD and long CHF-USD hedges. These currencies offer a good hedge in the context of a dollar bear market and structurally high geopolitical risk. If the dollar weakens anew on good news for global growth then the yen and franc will benefit on a relative basis as they are cheap, whereas if geopolitical risk explodes they will benefit as safe havens. We also recommend going long the Japanese yen relative to the South Korean won given the disparity in valuations highlighted by our Emerging Markets team, and the fact that geopolitical tensions center on the US and China (Chart 1). “Our Most Serious Competitor, China” Why are we so sure that geopolitical risk will remain structurally elevated and deliver negative surprises to ebullient equity markets? Our Geopolitical Power Index shows that China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence are disruptive to the US-led global order (Chart 2). If anything this process has accelerated over the COVID-19 crisis. China and Russia have authoritarian control over their societies and are implementing mercantilist and autarkic economic policies. They are carving out spheres of influence in their regions and using asymmetric warfare against the US and its allies. They have also created a de facto alliance in their shared interest in undermining the unity of the West. The US is meanwhile attempting to build an alliance of democracies against them, heightening their insecurities about America’s power and unpredictability (Chart 3). Chart 2Great Power Struggle Continues Great Power Struggle Continues Great Power Struggle Continues Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is positive for economic growth and corporate earnings but it reduces the barriers to geopolitical conflict. Nations can pursue foreign and trade policies in their self-interest with less concern about the blowback from rivals if they are fueled up with artificially stimulated domestic demand. Chart 3Biden: ‘Our Most Serious Competitor, China’ More Reasons To Buy Cybersecurity And Defense Stocks More Reasons To Buy Cybersecurity And Defense Stocks Total trade between the US and China, at 3.2% and 4.7% of GDP respectively in 2018, was not enough to prevent trade war from erupting. Today the cost of trade frictions is even lower. The US has passed 25.4% of GDP in fiscal stimulus so far since January 1, 2020. China’s total fiscal-and-credit impulse has risen by 8.4% of GDP over the same time period. The Biden administration is co-opting Trump’s hawkish foreign and trade policy toward China, judging by its initial statements and actions (Appendix Table 1). Specifically, Biden has issued an executive order on securing domestic supply chains that demonstrates his commitment to the Trumpian goal of diversifying away from China and on-shoring production, or at least offshoring to allied nations. The Democratic Party is also unveiling bipartisan legislation in Congress that attempts to reduce reliance on China.1 These executive decrees are partly spurred on by the global shortage of semiconductors. China, the US, and the US’s allies are all attempting to build alternative semiconductor supply chains that bypass Taiwan, a critical bottleneck in the production of the most advanced computer chips. The Taiwanese say they will coordinate with “like-minded economies” to alleviate shortages, by which they mean fellow democracies. But this exposes Taiwan to greater geopolitical risk insofar as it excludes mainland China from supplies, either due to rationing or American export controls. The surge in semiconductor sales and share prices of semi companies (especially materials and equipment makers) will continue as countries will need a constant supply of ever more advanced chips to feed into the new innovation and technology race, the renewable energy race, and the buildout of 5G networks and beyond (Chart 4). It takes huge investments of time and capital to build alternative fabrication plants and supply lines yet governments are only beginning to put their muscle into it via stimulus packages and industrial policy. Chart 4Semiconductor Supply Shortage Semiconductor Supply Shortage Semiconductor Supply Shortage Supply shocks have geopolitical consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1990s motivated the US to escalate its interventions and involvement in the Middle East. They also motivated the US to invest in stockpiles of critical goods and alternative sources of production so as to reduce dependency (Chart 5). Although semiconductors are not fungible like commodities, and the US has tremendous advantages in semiconductor design and production, nevertheless the bottleneck in Taiwan will take years to alleviate. Hence the US will become more active in supply security at home and more active in alliance-building in Asia Pacific to deter China from taking Taiwan by force or denying regional access to the US and its allies. China faces the same bottleneck, which threatens its technological advance, economic productivity, and ultimately its political stability and international defense. Chart 5ASupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Supply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Supply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Chart 5BSupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Supply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Supply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Semiconductor and semi equipment stock prices have gone vertical as highlighted above but one way to envision the surge in global growth and capex for chip makers is to compare these stocks relative to the shares of Big Tech companies in the communication service sector, i.e. those involved in social networking and entertainment, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Netflix. On a relative basis the semi stocks can outperform these interactive media firms which face a combination of negative shocks from rising interest rates, regulation, economic normalization, and ideologically fueled competition (Chart 6). Chart 6Long Chips Versus Big Tech Long Chips Versus Big Tech Long Chips Versus Big Tech What about the potential for the US and China to enhance cooperation in areas of shared interest? Generally the opportunity for re-engagement is overrated. The Biden administration says there will be engagement where possible. The first high-level talks will occur in Alaska on March 18-19 between Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral summit sometime soon and the old strategic and economic dialogue may resume, enabling cabinet-level officials to explore a range of areas for cooperation independently of high-stakes strategic negotiations. However, a close look at the policy areas targeted for engagement reveals important limitations: Health: There is little room for concrete cooperation on the COVID-19 pandemic given that the pandemic is already receding, the Chinese have not satisfied American demands for data transparency, Chinese officials have fanned theories that the virus originated in the US, and the US is taking measures to move pharmaceutical and health equipment supply chains out of China. Trade: Trade is an area of potential cooperation given that the two countries will continue trading while their economies rebound. The Phase One trade deal remains in place. However, China only made structural concessions on agriculture in this deal so any additional structural changes will have to be the subject of extensive negotiations. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen says the US will use the “full array of tools” to ensure compliance and will punish China for abuses of the global trade system. Cybersecurity: On cybersecurity, China greeted the Biden administration by hacking the Microsoft Exchange email system, an even larger event than Russia’s SolarWinds hack last year. Both hacks highlight how cyberspace is a major arena of modern Great Power struggle, making it unlikely that there will be effective cooperation. The hack suggests Beijing remains more concerned about accessing technology while it can than reducing tensions. The Americans will make demands of China at the Alaska meetings. Environment: As for the environment, the US is a net oil exporter while China imports 73% of its oil, 42% of its natural gas and 7.8% of its coal consumption, with 40% and 10% of its oil and gas coming from the Middle East. The US wants to be at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology but it has nowhere near the impetus of China (or Europe), which are diversifying away from fossil fuels for the sake of national security. Moreover China will want its own companies, not American, to meet its renewable needs. This is true even if there is success in reducing barriers for green trade, since the whole point of diversifying from Middle Eastern oil supplies is strategic self-sufficiency. The Americans would have to accept less energy self-sufficiency and greater renewable dependence on China. Nuclear Proliferation: Cooperation can occur here as the Biden administration will seek to return to a deal with the Iranians restraining their nuclear ambitions while maintaining a diplomatic limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons stockpile and ballistic missile development. China and Russia will accept the US rejoining the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal but they will require significant concessions if they are to join the US in forcing anything more substantial on the Iranians. China may enforce sanctions on North Korea but then it will expect concessions on trade and technology that the Biden administration will not want to give merely for the sake of North Korea. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s China strategy is taking shape and it is hawkish as expected. It is not ultra-hawkish, however, as the key characteristic is that it is a defensive posture in the wake of the perceived failures of Trump’s strategy of “attack, attack, attack.” This means largely maintaining the leverage that Trump built for the US while shifting the focus to actions that the US can take to improve its domestic production, supply chain resilience, and coordination with allied producers. Punitive measures are an option, however, and if relations deteriorate over time, as expected, they will be increasingly relied on. Buy The Dip In Cybersecurity Stocks A linchpin of the above analysis is the Microsoft Exchange hack, which some have called the largest hack in US history, since it confirms the view that the Biden administration will not be able to de-escalate strategic tensions with China much. China has been particularly frantic to acquire technology through hacking and cyber-espionage over the past decade as it attempts to achieve a Great Leap Forward in productivity in light of slowing potential growth that threatens single-party rule over the long run. The breakdown in ties between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping occurred not only because of Xi’s perceived violation of a personal pledge not to militarize the South China Sea but also because of the failure of a cybersecurity cooperation deal between the two. When the Trump administration arrived on the scene it sought to increase pressure on China and cybersecurity was immediately identified as an area where pushback was long overdue. Cyber conflict is highly likely to persist, not only with Russia but also with China. Cyber operations are a way for states to engage in Great Power struggle while still managing the level of tensions and avoiding a military conflict in the real world. The cyber realm is a realm of anarchy in which states are insecure about their capabilities and are constantly testing opponents’ defenses and their own offensive capabilities. They can also act to undermine each other with plausible deniability in the cyber realm, since multiple state and quasi-state actors and a vast criminal underworld make it difficult to identify culprits with confidence. Revisionist states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran have an advantage in asymmetric warfare, including cyber, since it enables them to undermine the US and West without putting their weaker conventional forces in jeopardy. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected but the general up-trend is well established and fully justified (Chart 7). It is not clear, however, that investors should favor cybersecurity stocks over the general NASDAQ index (Chart 8). The trend has been sideways in recent years and is trying to form a bottom. Cybersecurity stocks are volatile, as can be seen compared to tech stocks as a whole, and in both cases the general trend is for rising volatility as the macro backdrop shifts in favor of higher interest rates and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 7Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Chart 8Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Chart 9Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Great Power struggle will not remain limited to the cyber realm. There is a fundamental problem of military insecurity plaguing the world’s major powers. Furthermore the global economic upturn and new energy and industrial innovation race will drive up commodity prices, which will in turn reactivate territorial and maritime disputes. Turf battles will re-escalate in the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean basin, the Mediterranean, and even the Baltic Sea and Arctic. One way to play this shift is as a geopolitical “back to work” trade – long defense stocks relative to cybersecurity stocks (Chart 10). The global defense sector saw a run-up in demand, capital expenditures, and profits late in the last business cycle. That all came crashing down with the pandemic, which supercharged cybersecurity as a necessary corollary to the swarm of online activity as households hunkered down to avoid the virus and obey government social restrictions. Cybersecurity stocks have higher EV/EBITDA ratios and lower profit margins and return on equity compared to defense stocks or the broad market. Chart 10Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics The trade does not mean cybersecurity stocks will fall in absolute terms – we maintain our bullish case for cybersecurity stocks – but merely that defense stocks will make relative gains as economic normalization continues in the context of Great Power struggle. Bottom Line: Structurally elevated geopolitical risks will continue to drive demand for cybersecurity in absolute terms. However, we would favor global defense stocks on a relative basis. The US Is Not As War-Weary As People Think America is consumed with domestic divisions and distractions. Since 2008 Washington has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to confront foreign rivals over small territorial conquests. This risk aversion has created power vacuums, inviting ambitious regional powers like China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey to act assertively in their immediate neighborhoods. However, the US is not embracing isolationism. Public opinion polling shows Americans are still committed to an active role in global affairs (Chart 11). The 2020 election confirms that verdict. Nor are Americans demanding big cuts in defense spending. Only 31% of Americans think defense spending is “too much” and only 12% think the national defense is stronger than it needs to be (Chart 12). Chart 11No Isolationism Here No Isolationism Here No Isolationism Here True, the Democratic Party is much more inclined to cut defense spending than the Republicans. About 43% of Democrats demand cuts, while 32% are complacent about the current level of spending (compared to 8% and 44% for Republicans). But it is primarily the progressive wing of the party that seeks outright cuts and the progressives are not the ones who took power. Chart 12Americans Against ‘Forever Wars’ But Not Truly Dovish More Reasons To Buy Cybersecurity And Defense Stocks More Reasons To Buy Cybersecurity And Defense Stocks Biden and his cabinet represent the Washington establishment, including the military-industrial complex. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris should become president she would, if anything, need to prove her hawkish credentials. Defense spending cuts might be projected nominally in Biden’s presidential budgets but they will not muster majorities in the two narrowly divided chambers of Congress. Biden has co-opted Trump’s (and Obama’s) message of strategic withdrawal and military drawdown. He is targeting a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, notwithstanding the leverage that a military presence there could yield in its priority negotiations with Iran. Yet he is not jeopardizing the American troop presence in Germany and South Korea, much more geopolitically consequential spheres of action in a long competition with Russia and China. While it is true (and widely known) that Americans have turned against “forever wars,” this really means Middle Eastern quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan and does not mean that the American public or political establishment have truly become anti-war “doves.” The US public recognizes the need to counter China and Russia and Congress will continue appropriating funds for defense as well as for industrial policy. The Biden administration will increase awareness about the risks of a lack of deterrence and alliance-building. This is especially apparent given the military buildup in China. The annual legislative session has revealed an important increase in military focus in Beijing in the context of the US rivalry. Previously, in the thirteenth five-year plan and the nineteenth National Party Congress, the People’s Liberation Army aimed to achieve “informatization and mechanization” reforms by 2020 and total modernization by 2035. However, at the fifth plenum of the central committee in October, the central government introduced a new military goal for the PLA’s 100th anniversary in 2027 – a “military centennial goal” to match with the 2021 centennial of the Communist Party and the 2049 centennial goal of the founding of the People’s Republic. While details about this new military centenary are lacking, the obvious implication is that the Communist Party and PLA are continuing to shift the focus to “fighting and winning wars,” particularly in the context of the need to deter the United States. The official defense budget is supposed to grow 6.8% in 2021, only slightly higher than the 6.6% goal in 2020, but observers have long known that China’s military budget could be as much as twice as high as official statistics indicate. The point is that defense spending is going up, as one would expect, in the context of persistent US-China tensions. Bottom Line: Just as US-China cooperation will be hindered by mutual efforts to reduce supply chain dependency and support domestic demand, so too it will be hindered by mutual efforts to increase defense readiness and capability in the event of military conflict. The beneficiary of continued high levels of US defense spending and Chinese spending increases – in the context of a more general global arms buildup – will be global arms makers. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated despite the temporary drop in tensions in late 2020 and early 2021. The China-backed Microsoft Exchange hack reinforces the Biden administration’s initial foreign policy comments and actions suggesting that US policy will remain hawkish on China. While Biden will adopt a more defensive rather than offensive strategy relative to Trump, there is no chance that he will return to the status quo ante. The Obama administration itself grew more hawkish on China in 2015-16 in the face of cyber threats and strategic tensions in the South China Sea. Cybersecurity stocks will continue to benefit from secular demand in an era of Great Power competition where nations use cyberattacks as a form of asymmetric warfare and a means of minimizing the risks of conflict. The recent correction in cybersecurity stocks creates a good entry point. We closed our earlier trade in January for a gain of 31% but have remained thematically bullish and recommend going long in absolute terms. We would favor defense over cybersecurity stocks as a geopolitical version of the “back to work” trade in which conventional economic activity revives, including geopolitical competition for territory, resources, and strategic security. Defense stocks are undervalued and relative share prices are unlikely to fall to 2010-era lows given the structural increase in geopolitical risk (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Defense Stocks Oversold Global Defense Stocks Oversold Global Defense Stocks Oversold Chart 14Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Defense stocks have seen profit margins hold up and are not too heavily burdened by debt relative to the broad market (Chart 14). Defense stocks have a higher return on equity than the average for non-financial corporations and cash flow will improve as a new capex cycle begins in which nations seek to improve their security and gain access to territory and resources (Chart 15). Chart 15Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Chart 16Discount On Global Defense Stocks Discount On Global Defense Stocks Discount On Global Defense Stocks Valuation metrics show that global defense stocks are trading at a discount (Chart 16).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On China More Reasons To Buy Cybersecurity And Defense Stocks More Reasons To Buy Cybersecurity And Defense Stocks Footnotes 1 See Federal Register, "America’s Supply Chains", Mar. 1, 2021, federalregister.gov and Richard Cowan and Alexandra Alper, "Top U.S. Senate Democrat directs lawmakers to craft bill to counter China", Feb. 23, 2021, reuters.com.

Highlights The US has largely passed a “stress test” of its political system. Rule of law is intact. The US dollar and treasuries may fall further due to cyclical and macro developments but not due to a structural loss of confidence in US governance. The judicial system will become the key check on the Biden administration as it shifts from short-term economic relief to its longer-term agenda, especially on executive orders. The court becomes even more important as a check if the Democrats muster the votes to remove the filibuster. This is possible but not imminent. Packing the court is much harder. Major court cases only sometimes have a major impact on the stock market but key sectors can be given certainty through court verdicts after being disrupted by policy. The US dollar is bouncing on the basis of economic recovery and political stability which poses a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Feature US government bonds continued to sell off over the past week as the economic recovery gained steam and investors rotated into cyclical equities and commodities. The US Senate passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan – a massive and likely excessive infusion of fiscal relief – sending it to the House where it will be ratified shortly and passed over to President Joe Biden for signing. Across America shops and restaurants are opening up as immunization to COVID-19 advances and hospitalizations collapse. Meanwhile the Supreme Court announced its first set of rulings under the Biden administration: it dismissed former President Trump’s last challenge to the 2020 election and ruled on other issues such as free speech. The country has tentatively passed a political “stress test.” The rule of law remains intact. On the surface these two trends stand in opposition. US treasuries have been attractive to a savings-rich world not just because of the size of the US economy but also because of the country’s 245-year tradition of good governance – the balance of freedom and stability in its government and financial markets. The share of foreign holdings of US treasuries is declining but the reason is that the Federal Reserve is increasing its share (Chart 1). Foreigners are not liquidating their holdings just yet, although it is a risk given the US’s combination of extremely easy monetary and fiscal policy and populist politics. Chart 1Foreign Holdings Of US Treasuries Foreign Holdings Of US Treasuries Foreign Holdings Of US Treasuries In this report we focus on governance in the wake of the Trump administration and COVID-19 pandemic. Is US governance eroding? If so, how will it impact the markets? How will the courts interact with the Biden administration? Should investors care about the rule of law? With a new business cycle beginning, any assurance of a basic level of US governance allows risk appetite to recover and enables investors to pursue higher-yielding cyclical assets with less inhibition. But it also suggests that US assets will remain safe havens. How Rule Of Law Matters To Investors Rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are critical aspects of good governance that make a market attractive to foreign investors and secure for domestic investors. Nowhere is this clearer than in the breakdown of global reserve currencies. The United States and its developed market allies hold pride of place (Chart 2). Nevertheless the US has lost some of its reserve status to other currencies over two decades of partisanship and repeated crises, from 9/11 through Trump’s trade war. Chart 2Rule Of Law: Bedrock For Reserve Currencies Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Government bond yields exhibit some degree of correlation, inversely, with rule of law: better governance implies lower yields and vice versa. As the global savings glut grew over the past few decades, investors sought to preserve capital in securities perceived to be the safest. This is apparent whether judging by a simple comparison of developed and emerging market bond yields or by the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators.1 The relationship between governance and bond yields is strongest with emerging markets but it loosely holds among developed markets like the US, as shown in Chart 3. Chart 3Bond Yields Lower Where Laws Rule Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market It is the level of governance rather than any change matters, since bond yields have fallen for all developed markets regardless of changes in governance over the past decade. However, governments that take negative steps that harm governance attract fewer foreign purchases of their debt than those that improve governance (Chart 4). This is true of developed and emerging economies. The implication is that demand for US treasuries would have been even greater over the past decade if the US political system had remained stable like Canada’s. Chart 4Improved Rule Of Law Attracts Bond Investors Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Differences in developed economy governance only slightly (if at all) correlate with portfolio or direct investment flows (Charts 5 and 6). This is not surprising as governance does not translate into short-term corporate earnings growth and foreign countries invest directly in developed markets to access technology and consumer markets. By contrast, in emerging markets, better governance goes along with stronger equity demand and foreign direct investment. Chart 5Rule Of Law A Boon For Equity Flows? Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Chart 6Eroding Rule Of Law Discourages Direct Investment Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Still the global phenomenon suggests that an erosion of rule of law can shake up one’s faith in a government’s ability or willingness to make debt payments and its operating environment for private companies. Domestically focused investors have to be concerned about rule of law since its collapse would undermine political stability as well as property rights, the surety of contracts, and the redress of grievances. US Rule Of Law Post-Trump And Post-COVID The US has the world’s longest continuously running constitution and one of the highest standards of living. Other countries with similarly high standards of living have similar constitutions or even adopted theirs from the United States. At the same time US governance has deteriorated in recent years, raising the question of whether bond investors or private entrepreneurs face greater governance risk. The drop in rule of law is apparent in the World Bank’s index (Chart 7A). The turmoil of the 2020 election cycle proves beyond doubt that the US suffers from some serious governance problems. At the same time the independence of the US judiciary is rising in the ranks (Chart 7B). Looking ahead, this trend will likely continue as the judicial system managed to get through the disruptive Trump presidency and the 2020 pandemic and election with minimal damage to its independence. Chart 7AUS Rule Of Law Erosion Will Pause Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Chart 7BUS Judicial Independence Has Improved Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market This is a remarkable feat as the underlying problem in the US system – political polarization – threatens to entangle the judiciary as much as any other institution. Today, with polarization subsiding yet still at a historically high level, the court’s integrity and credibility are critical to the overall maintenance of the rule of law (Chart 8). Chart 8US Polarization Set To Fall US Polarization Set To Fall US Polarization Set To Fall Chart 9Trust In Supreme Court Fairly Steady Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Polarization creates gridlock in Congress, which forces other branches of government to fill the vacuum and deliver solutions, thus becoming more controversial. This process has ensnared the high court from time to time as well as the central bank and other institutions.2 Over the past ten years the courts have struggled to minimize the damage from polarization. Confidence in the high court has fallen, but not catastrophically, and most voters feel about the same as ever toward the court (Chart 9). Meanwhile disapproval of Congress is stuck around 80%. The Trump era featured a range of claims about the rule of law in America that can now be assessed with some distance. The Democratic Party was not able to remove President Trump through extra-electoral means, while President Trump was not able to ride roughshod over the courts via executive order. Several of Trump’s initiatives were upheld, such as his immigration ban, while others were shot down, such as his attempt to deport the so-called “Dreamers” or add a question about citizenship on the US census. The 2020 election irregularities were not enough to sway the outcome of the electoral vote while the insurrection at the Capitol stood no chance of overthrowing the system. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts refrained from presiding over Trump’s second impeachment – differentiating it from the impeachment of a sitting president – without intervening to tell the Senate whether it could impeach a previous president. Going forward, however, the courts will act as a check on the Biden administration and therefore new controversies will arise. One of the Trump administration’s lasting legacies was to appoint three justices to the high court, creating a six-to-three conservative ideological leaning on the court. Since the Democrats won control of both the White House and Congress, the Supreme Court becomes a critical check on the administration and will thus attract opposition (Chart 10). Speculation about a conservative ideological takeover of the court has proved overrated, based on the court’s neutrality amid the election. Antagonism will inevitably increase going forward as Biden moves away from COVID relief and economic welfare to his larger legislative agenda. Yet the second reconciliation bill, which features infrastructure and green energy investments, would have to include major surprises to create anything as controversial as the dispute over the individual mandate, which imposed a tax on citizens who did not purchase health insurance.3 In other words, a major clash over legislation is more likely only when the Senate Democratic majority removes the filibuster, the rule that effectively requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass regular legislation. This can happen but it does not appear imminent. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia opposes removing it, keeping the Democrats at least one vote shy of repealing it, though he has recently shown some flexibility by suggesting that the Senate return to the good old days when senators had to deliver a filibuster in person (and therefore the procedural hurdle was more burdensome to maintain). Chart 10Balance Of Power In The Three Branches Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Thus the main arena of friction between the Biden administration and the judiciary will boil down to executive action, as with the Trump administration. Not all of this friction will be partisan but certainly ideological leanings will matter in the most important cases. While the number of Trump’s judicial appointments is often exaggerated – President Obama appointed more (Chart 11) – it is still the case that conservatives possess an improved ideological advantage due to the past few decades of appointments (Chart 12). So far Biden has faced pushback on his 100-day deportation moratorium. Chart 11Trump's Judicial Impact Overstated Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Chart 12Federal Courts A Bulwark For Conservatives Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Table 1 highlights the most investment-relevant Supreme Court cases coming due in the current session. The court will determine, among other things, whether Facebook can be treated similar to a telephone company in some respects; whether the federal government or states oversee cases brought against oil and natural and gas companies over climate change; and to what extent tech company acquisitions include patents and copyrights. The use of executive authority to reallocate funds that Congress has appropriated for different reasons, and state exemptions for Medicaid requirements, are also on the docket. Table 1Major Cases Pending At Supreme Court Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market In addition we would identify several policy areas that are likely to become relevant to investors due to contemporary political and geopolitical concerns combined with historical precedent: National Security: The Trump administration relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s historic deference to presidents on issues involving national security and foreign policy. This tendency will likely continue, giving President Biden a freer hand in cases where he claims a national security justification, particularly in dealing with export controls vis-à-vis China. The hack into Microsoft’s Exchange email system, allegedly committed by Chinese state-backed hackers, highlights our Geopolitical Strategy view that the Biden administration will not reduce the US-China power struggle. Industrial Policy: The Supreme Court famously rebuked President Harry Truman for trying to seize control of private steel production during the Korean war (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, 1952). Similar cases could emerge in an era in which the president is attempting to assert US government control over critical supply chains in health, tech, and defense. Immigration: The Supreme Court rebuked the Trump administration on the question of the “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, whom the Obama administration refused to deport under an initiative called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The court said the Trump administration failed to provide adequate procedural justification for revoking the DACA program. Now the Biden administration’s executive orders loosening immigration and border controls face challenges from lower courts that could ascend the ladder. Also, following from the logic of Trump’s defeat on this issue, it is possible that the Supreme Court could overturn some of Biden’s revocations of Trump’s orders if not adequately justified. Environment: The Biden administration has pledged to phase out the fossil fuel industry over time, yet legislative majorities will be lacking and much of the activity occurs on private land free from direct federal control. The result is that Biden administration will revive regulatory expansions from the Obama era to attempt to raise the cost of carbon emissions. These actions will likely provoke court rulings. Labor: One of the Clinton presidency’s biggest legal controversies, outside the impeachment, centered on executive orders aimed at stopping businesses from hiring replacements for workers who went on strike. The Biden administration explicitly aims to have a muscular policy on labor regulation and to promote union interests and these could run afoul of the courts. Big Tech and free speech: The court has just ruled with an eight-to-one majority in favor of a free speech case on campus. The only reason Chief Justice Roberts dissented was because the case was moot. Future cases may not be moot in an era in which first amendment quarrels are heating up as Big Business, Big Tech, and mainstream media ramp up censorship of disfavored speech. The Supreme Court is likely to enforce first amendment protections robustly which could result in breaking open the digital arena for alternative platforms and services with looser standards. Bottom Line: With Democratic control over the White House and Congress, the judicial branch will become a critical source of limitations on the Biden administration’s policies. While controversial cases could possibly arise from any ambitious proposals in Biden’s second reconciliation bill, the main source of friction will center on executive orders. This is the case at least until the filibuster is removed, which is possible down the road but not imminent. Could Democrats Pack The Court? Finally there is an ongoing concern over the risk of “court packing,” i.e. partisan enlargement of the Supreme Court, under the Biden administration. During the 2020 campaign several leading Democratic Party figures suggested the party could increase the size of the high court so as to reduce the six-to-three conservative leaning. The threat was partly intended to motivate the progressive voting base and deter the Republicans from going forward with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett ahead of the election. However, the possibility of court packing remains as long as polarization is extreme and the ruling party has at least 51 votes needed to repeal the filibuster in the Senate. President Biden said he was “not a fan” of court packing but one of his first acts in office was to appoint a commission of experts to study the idea of Supreme Court reform. This can be interpreted as a way of sidelining the question or as a preliminary to packing the court should it become possible later. Packing the court is politically explosive so while Democrats could remove the filibuster if and when they get the votes, they are less likely to succeed at packing the vote due to public opinion (though it cannot be ruled out over the long run). The bar to altering the filibuster is much lower than that to changing the composition of the court. History suggests that it would be a market-relevant episode if court packing were attempted. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court after it ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional, notably a wage hike mandated by the National Industrial Recovery Act (Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 1935). Roosevelt narrowly fell short of expanding the court after the Senate majority leader, a key ally, passed away unexpectedly. The S&P rallied when higher wages were struck down but there are many reasons for these developments – industrial production was rallying at the time, and when industrial production recovered later, and court packing was ruled out, the market remained low. At minimum one cannot say the case was inconsequential to the market (Chart 13). Chart 13FDR Tried To Stack The Courts FDR Tried To Stack The Courts FDR Tried To Stack The Courts In a more recent example of a Supreme Court ruling having a substantial market impact, the court ruled with a narrow five-to-four vote to uphold the legality of most of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the signature legislative effort of Obama’s presidency (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). The market reaction at that time was positive, even in the health care sector, as the result removed uncertainty. Only later, in 2015, when the major provisions of the law took effect, did the sector start to feel the negative effects (Chart 14). It is reasonable to expect that any showdown over a major piece of legislation and the courts would have a similar impact today: the market would struggle with uncertainty but rally on the verdict. Chart 14Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Had Market Impact Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Had Market Impact Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Had Market Impact Otherwise the Supreme Court’s ideological balance will likely be in place for a while. Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, is 82 years old while Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush, is 72 years old. The other justices are all younger than 66, meaning that conservatives would retain a five-to-four advantage even if Biden had the chance to replace both Breyer and Thomas. Bottom Line: As things stand, court packing is out of reach, more so than removing the filibuster, and therefore the current Supreme Court balance will remain an effective check on the Biden administration. Investment Takeaways The judicial system will become the major check on the Biden administration if its second reconciliation bill contains surprisingly ambitious and controversial provisions or if the Democrats ever get the votes to remove the filibuster. Otherwise the court is primarily a check on Biden’s executive orders. Climate policy is a likely area of friction given that the Biden administration will attempt to pioneer new areas of federal involvement in raising the cost of private industry when it comes to carbon emissions. At the same time the court could insist that the digital arena is a common forum where different voices must be heard, which could open the way to competitors to the tech giants. While the energy sector faces policy risks, it is favored by cyclical economic factors and will also benefit from checks and balances. Whereas the tech sector is not cyclically favored and could face some pushback from courts regarding competition (Chart 15). US rule of law is mostly intact. The selloff in the dollar and treasuries is driven by cyclical factors, not a structural loss of confidence in the rule of law or the American legal and political system. The Trump saga did not in itself trigger a collapse of the US dollar or government bonds – what did that was the Federal Reserve’s shift back to ultra-easy policy and the blowout fiscal spending stemming from the COVID-19 crisis. The US dollar is bouncing on the strong outlook for the economy as well as political stabilization. Chart 16 highlights that this is a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Assuming the dollar resumes its cyclical weakening path it will power the next leg of outperformance for these sectors. Chart 15Courts Could Impact Energy, Tech Courts Could Impact Energy, Tech Courts Could Impact Energy, Tech Chart 16Dollar Bounce A Near-Term Risk To Cyclical Outperformance Dollar Bounce A Near-Term Risk To Cyclical Outperformance Dollar Bounce A Near-Term Risk To Cyclical Outperformance   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Table A2Political Capital Index Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Court Rulings And The Market Court Rulings And The Market   Footnotes 1     The World Bank uses expert judgment and opinion polls to evaluate rule of law, defined as quality of contract enforcement, property rights, and functioning of the law and justice systems. Biases stem from the policy elite and non-governmental organizations of the western world. For instance, Hong Kong’s high rankings have all too predictably been undercut by Communist China’s power grab there.              2     Polarization escalated after Roe v. Wade and similar rulings that legalized abortion (1973), the Bush v. Gore ruling that decided the 2000 election, the NFIB v. Sebelius ruling that approved the Affordable Care Act (2012), and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized gay marriage (2015).   3    The individual mandate is not expected to get shot down by the court this year, though it is conceivable. Even so, Biden’s second reconciliation bill would give the Democrats the chance to respond to any court ruling on health care reform. Biden’s health initiatives of automatic enrollment and government-provided insurance will be challenged but do not seem as controversial as the individual mandate in principle.       

Highlights The Senate will pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan largely as it stands. Markets will now turn to Biden’s second major reconciliation bill for FY2022 – the one with tax hikes. Democrats will go forward with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy. But they will spend more than they tax for fear of squandering their term in power. Tax hikes threaten sectors like tech that already face headwinds from rising bond yields. The health sector is also at risk. Stick with cyclicals and value plays.  Feature Markets have seesawed as volatility spikes in the face of rapidly rising bond yields. Value stocks such as financials stand to benefit relative to growth stocks as the market comes to grips with the first hint of normal inflation expectations since 2019 (Chart 1). Underlying the trend is a sea change in US fiscal policy. Chart 1Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields The House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan so it will now go to the Senate for revision, back to the House for approval, and then to President Biden’s desk by around March 14. Investors will now turn to Biden’s second major legislative act prior to the 2022 midterm election cycle: the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation process. Before we outline the time frame and tax hikes that that process will entail, we should take a moment to review the current bill. Senate Will Pass American Rescue Plan Largely As Is The House version of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan contains $1,400 household rebates, direct checks via the Internal Revenue Service, for people who make less than $75,000 per year (double those numbers for married couples). Unemployment benefits are supposed to rise from $300 to $400 per week for 73 weeks instead of 50 weeks, with an expiration on August 29 instead of March 14. Those with children or other dependents will receive additional payments. The bill also includes $75 billion for fighting COVID-19, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for schools and universities, $225 billion for small business, $38 billion for the airline industry and various other tax benefits for families and workers.1 Those who have been let go from their jobs can more easily retain their previous health insurance. Chart 2 provides a visual comparison of the American Rescue Plan with the $900 billion in fiscal relief passed at the end of 2020 prior to House passage and Senate revision. Already the Senate version excludes a hike to the minimum wage, from $7.25 to $15 per hour, as the Senate parliamentarian ruled that does not qualify under the “Byrd rule” because it does not directly impact spending or taxation.2 Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also president of the Senate, could reverse this decision but otherwise the minimum wage will have to be considered in a separate bill later. Chart 2American Rescue Plan Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The Senate could pare back other aspects of the bill – such as state and local aid, given that local government revenues are in much better shape than expected. Chart 2 highlights that the state and local aid component is much larger this time around. Still, the purpose of Senate negotiations is to secure the votes of moderate Democrats, as winning over 10 Republicans is no longer feasible, and moderate senators are not going to sink the first legislative proposal of a president of their own party. The Senate is virtually guaranteed to pass the bill, likely by March 14 when current unemployment benefits expire. The bill’s economic impact will be to speed the vaccination process and provide another infusion of cash into households and various public institutions. Families are just starting to receive the last round of benefits passed in December and they had not exhausted the 14% year-on-year increase in real income that they saw as a result of last year’s CARES Act when the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act sent incomes soaring yet again (Chart 3). Economic growth will be supercharged as economic activity normalizes, consumer confidence recovers, and the service sector revives. Chart 3Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Biden’s Second Bill Will Pass This Fall The second budget reconciliation procedure, for fiscal year 2022, will begin in mid-April. The formal deadline to adopt a budget resolution is April 15 but the average delay would put the resolution in June.3 The maximum delay would see the resolution passed in October but that is unlikely in today’s context (Diagram 1). After the resolution passes, the House and Senate must reconcile their budgets, pass the same bill, and send it to the president for his signature.  Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden Administration’s Second Budget Reconciliation, FY2022 Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The average time between Congress adopting a budget resolution and the president signing a reconciliation bill into law is 150 days, putting completion on September 15, 2021. This period could easily extend to November. In the worst-case, judging by history, Democrats could fail to conclude the process until October 2022 – but that is highly unlikely. A delay till December of this year would be a fumble, but a more realistic fumble, say if moderate Democrats must be won over due to controversial provisions. The second reconciliation bill is supposed to consist of investments over a ten-year period rather than emergency relief for the lingering pandemic and economic recovery. Biden’s proposed $2-$3 trillion green infrastructure program is the highlight but we also expect Democrats to prioritize their health care plan, which is estimated to cost $1.7-$1.9 trillion. Hence $4 trillion is a reasonable expectation for new spending but in this case the headline spending figure will be at least partially defrayed by tax hikes, unlike the first reconciliation bill (Charts 4A & 4B). If Biden raises taxes by half as much as he intends, the full price tag would be $2 trillion. Chart 4ABiden Will Spend, Then Tax Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Chart 4BBiden Will Spend, Then Tax Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The precise contours of this bill will remain unknown until Biden presents an outline in April and the House of Representatives drafts a resolution. We test six different scenarios involving different assumptions about Biden’s tax-and-spend proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Generally, we assume that Democrats will much more readily compromise tax hikes rather than spending, given that they want to err on the side of firing up the economic recovery. They are just as capable as Republicans were in 2017 of manipulating the numbers when it comes to the reconciliation requirement that the budget deficit not increase beyond a ten-year time period. Table 1Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The results are broken down in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net interest costs in Chart 5. The baseline is Biden’s campaign proposal. Scenario 1 assumes that Biden gets all of the spending he wants but is forced to compromise on tax hikes. Scenario 2 is more realistic as it assumes that Biden gets half of what he wants on both spending and taxes. Scenarios 3-6 examine what would happen if Biden were forced to strike out either his green infrastructure plan or his health and social security plan, depending on different revenue assumptions. In Scenarios 5 and 6 we grant Biden only half of his proposed taxes on corporations and wealthy folks, leaving other tax proposals to the side – otherwise the result would be a net tightening of fiscal conditions, which is neither intended nor politically possible. Chart 5Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The impact on the budget deficit in each scenario is shown in Chart 6. The greatest economic stimulus would occur under Scenario 1, which would soon become a problem for investors as it would hasten inflation and rising interest rates. Chart 6Deficit Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Scenario 2 is the most realistic policy scenario while being the least inflationary. By contrast, Scenario 4 is realistic but hardly less inflationary than the baseline case. In each of these scenarios it is important to bear in mind that the new government programs would be administered over a ten-year period and therefore the increase to the budget deficit would be more gradual than is the case of the American Rescue Plan, which clearly aims to be disbursed in the first few years. In the case of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) the peak in spending occurred in 2013, four years after the bill was passed (analogous to 2025 today) (Chart 7). Infrastructure and green energy projects are also expected to increase productivity and hence potential growth. Chart 7Infrastructure Spending Could Peak Four Years After Bill’s Passage, As In 2009-13 Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The Byrd rule will become even more important with Biden’s second reconciliation bill because the bill will contain a mishmash of Biden’s campaign proposals. Democrats will try to pass as much of their agenda via fast track as possible so as to meet promises ahead of the 2022 midterm election. An advantage of health care spending is that it is unlikely to be struck down by the Senate parliamentarian given that the Obama administration relied on reconciliation to pass a critical second installment to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Biden’s health care plan is more popular than climate change policy, with both the general public and moderate Democrats, and it is guaranteed to pass reconciliation. Infrastructure spending faces greater challenges under reconciliation but they are not insurmountable. Infrastructure is normally handled via the traditional budget process or the Highway Trust Fund and some measures are likely to run afoul of the Byrd rule. Still, workarounds can be found.4  Hence the infrastructure plan is likely to be compromised but not prohibited due to technicalities. Even if infrastructure fails to make it into reconciliation, Biden can use the deadline to top up the exhausted Highway Trust Fund or to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act as alternative pathways. It is not impossible to get Republican cooperation on infrastructure though the green agenda will meet resistance. The reconciliation process is nominally forbidden from increasing the budget deficit beyond ten years. Short-term spending is exempt, as is the case with the American Rescue Plan and its crisis-response measures, but the purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to invest in long-term, productivity-enhancing programs. A new government health insurance option and/or a green infrastructure buildout will take many years to implement and could increase deficits beyond the ten-year window. But Democrats, like Republicans, will be able to use accounting chicanery and gimmicks to make the budget outlook serve their purposes in passing the legislation. As long as they keep moderate members of the party on their side.   Yes, Taxes Will Go Up … But That May Not Be All Bad For Markets Why should Democrats raise taxes at all? Why not focus on stimulus without taking on the political risk of higher taxes? After all, Republicans passed tax cuts via reconciliation without offsetting them by spending cuts. Was it not the higher taxes in Obamacare that greatly fueled resistance from Republicans and their victory in the House of Representatives in 2010? First, on the level of intentions, the Democrats clearly seek to increase taxes on corporations, high-income earners, and capital gains: Both Biden and Harris said they would raise taxes on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates despite the risk to their election prospects. Biden committed only to prevent tax hikes on those making less than $400,000 per year. Harris’s weakest moment in her debate with Mike Pence was her insistence that she would raise taxes but she stuck to her guns. Both factions of the Democratic Party want to raise taxes. Traditional Democrats view tax hikes as a way of paying for a larger government role in addressing social and economic imbalances. Populists view tax hikes as a way of redistributing from the ultra-rich. While budget deficits are not a general concern, combating inequality is a theme shared across the party. Second, on the level of capability, Democrats can get at least some of the tax increases that they want: The US is not overtaxed on the whole. True, Biden’s full tax agenda would push the US back up to the top of the OECD countries in terms of the corporate tax if an “integrated” view of both firm-level taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains (Chart 8). But this point suggests that Biden will moderate his tax plan rather than abandon it altogether. Popular opinion did not favor Trump for cutting corporate taxes. Chart 8Biden’s Corporate Tax Proposal Would Make US An Outlier Again Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The macroeconomic impact of raising taxes is manageable in the context of the extraordinary fiscal stimulus that the US is passing. There is no clear relationship between tax rates and economic growth but it is natural for the Democrats to fear that they could squander their term in power by excessive fiscal tightening. Yet the negative economic impact of raising the corporate rate is only 0.8% of GDP over the long run, and half of that if the corporate rate is raised only halfway to what Biden intends (25% instead of 28%) (Table 2), according to the conservative-leaning Tax Policy Foundation. Table 2Economic Impact Of Corporate Tax Not Dramatic Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout President Biden has the political capital early in his term to revise the Trump tax cuts according to Democratic prerogatives. His popularity will not hold up for long (Chart 9). And he only just has enough legislative power. While household sentiment is weak and economic conditions are moderate, both are set to improve as the pandemic fades and fiscal stimulus takes effect (Table 3). While tax hikes will embolden Republican opposition and the Democrats will have lost their chance to affect the tax code if Republicans win in 2022. At the moment, Republicans are divided and unpopular, so Democrats have a window of opportunity (Chart 10). Chart 9Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis? Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Chart 10Independents Up, Republicans Down Independents Up, Republicans Down Independents Up, Republicans Down Table 3Political Capital Index Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout While Democrats could chuck all the Senate rules out the window in order to pass their spending plans without any offsets, this would anger moderates who tend to uphold Senate rules and norms. The party cannot afford to lose a single vote from their caucus in the Senate. Yet moderate Democrats are not against tax increases in principle. What they would oppose is either excessive tax hikes or a fiscal spending bonanza without any revenue offsets at all.5  It is entirely feasible to back-load tax increases so that they take effect in the latter half of the ten-year budget window, especially after the 2024 election. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is advising precisely this course of action and has herself argued that corporate tax hikes will go through.6 There may be some risk that Democrats go full left-wing populist and abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility so as to supercharge the economy. So far they have agreed to maintain the Senate filibuster and scrap the minimum wage hike but this acceptance of Senate norms may not last as pressure builds. The second reconciliation bill is the last chance to fast-track major initiatives before the midterm. Vice President Harris could overrule the Senate parliamentarian across the board. This scenario is unlikely. The White House and Congress will find a balance that raises some revenue but errs on the fiscally accommodative side, as our scenarios above highlight. Investment Takeaways The market’s concern is that the Democrats will “overdo” the fiscal response and we fully share this concern. The American Rescue Plan alone will plug the output gap by almost three times more than the amount required. The coming tax hikes will not offset the wave of new spending that is coming down the pike. Democrats will partially reverse Trump’s tax cuts in the context of additional pump-priming that constitutes a net increase to the budget deficit. The net effect is inflationary.   If Congress were to pass another $2 trillion bill without any substantial revenue offsets then the market would face an even bigger inflationary jolt and an even earlier return to rate hikes by the Fed. But this scenario is unlikely. So the inflationary risk is clear but investors need not panic in the short run.  Our infrastructure trade is back on track as the reflation trade rumbles onward (Chart 11). The Democrats will get at least one more major bill passed and it will likely include at least half of Biden’s agenda, including around $2 trillion on green infrastructure. We will discuss the renewable energy portion at length in a forthcoming report. The health care sector faces headwinds from both Biden’s health policies and corporate tax hikes. The sectors that stand to benefit the most from a higher corporate tax rate are those that benefited least from Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act – namely energy, industrials, materials, and financials, in that order (Chart 12A). These are also the cyclical plays that we favor in today’s accommodative policy environment. Chart 11Infrastructure Trade Back On Track Infrastructure Trade Back On Track Infrastructure Trade Back On Track   Chart 12ACyclicals Outperforming Health Care Cyclicals Outperforming Health Care Cyclicals Outperforming Health Care Chart 12BCyclicals To Outperform Tech? Cyclicals To Outperform Tech? Cyclicals To Outperform Tech? The same cyclical sectors are also trying to make headway against the tech sector, which stands to suffer from higher interest rates as well as higher taxes, including a minimum tax on book earnings, if that part of Biden’s agenda makes it through the negotiations this fall (Chart 12B).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A2Political Risk Matrix Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Footnotes 1See Jeff Drew, “House passes $1.9 trillion stimulus bill with a variety of small business relief,” and Alistair M. Nevius, “Tax provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act,” February 27, 2021, Journal of Accountancy, journalofaccountancy.com.     2See “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule,’” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2020, fas.org.            3The current delay centers on whether the Senate will confirm Biden’s appointee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who lost support from key moderate Democrat Joe Manchin. If she does not receive a compensatory Republican vote then Biden will have to appoint someone else and the Senate will have to confirm. Thus the budget resolution could easily be delayed into May or June.       4For the difficulties, see Peter Cohn, “Democrats plan a spending blowout, but hurdles remain,” Roll Call, January 11, 2021, rollcall.com. For workarounds, see Zach Moller and Gabe Horwitz, “Reconciliation: How It Works and How to Use It to Help American Workers Recover,” Third Way, February 1, 2021, thirdway.org. 5See Alexander Bolton, “Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic,” The Hill, February 25, 2021, thehill.com. 6See Saleha Mohsin and Christopher Condon, “Yellen Favors Higher Company Tax, Signals Capital Gains Worth a Look”, Bloomberg, February 22, 2021, Bloomberg.com  

Highlights The Biden administration will not attempt a major diplomatic “reset” with Russia. The era of engagement is over. Russia faces rising domestic political risk and rising geopolitical risk at the same time. A war in the Baltics is possible but unlikely. Putin has benefited from taking calculated risks and wants to keep the US and Europe divided. The Russian economy is weighed down by structural flaws as well as tight policy. Investors focused on absolute returns should sell Russian assets. For EM-dedicated investors, our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends a neutral allocation to Russian stocks and local currency bonds and an overweight allocation to US dollar-denominated sovereign and corporate debt. Feature “We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia.” – US President Joseph R. Biden, State Department, February 4, 2021 The Biden presidency will differ from its predecessors in that there will not be a major attempt to engage Russia at the outset. Previous US presidents sought to reach out to their Russian counterparts to create room for maneuver. This was true of Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. Even Biden has shown a semblance of reengagement by extending an arms reduction pact. But investors should not be misled. The United States and the Democratic Party have shifted their approach to Russia since the failure of the diplomatic “reset” that occurred in 2009-11 and Washington will take a fundamentally more hawkish approach. Russia is not Biden’s top foreign policy focus – that would be Iran and China. But as with China, engagement has given way to Great Power struggle and hence there will not be a grace period before geopolitical tensions re-escalate. Tensions will keep the risk premium elevated for Russia’s currency and assets. The same is true of emerging European markets that get caught up in any US-Russia conflicts. Putin, Biden, And Grand Strategy Understanding US-Russia relations in 2021 requires a brief outline of both the permanent and temporary strategies of the United States and Russia. Russia’s grand strategy over the centuries has focused on establishing a dominant central government, controlling as large of a frontier as possible, and maintaining a high degree of technological sophistication. The nightmare of the Russian elite consists of foreign powers manipulating and weaponizing the country’s extremely diverse peoples and territories against it, reducing the world’s largest nation-state to its historical origin as a geographically indefensible and technologically backward principality. Chart 1Russia's Revival In Perspective Russia's Revival In Perspective Russia's Revival In Perspective Russia can endure long stretches of austerity in order to undermine and outlast rival states in this effort to achieve defensible borders. Russia’s strategy since the rise of President Vladimir Putin has focused on rebuilding the state and military after the collapse of the Soviet Union so as to restore internal security and re-establish political dominance in the former Soviet space (Chart 1). Partial invasions of Georgia and Ukraine and a military buildup along the border with the Baltic states show Russia’s commitment to prevent American or US-allied control of strategic buffer spaces. Expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union poses an enduring threat to Putin’s strategy. Putin has countered through conventional and nuclear deterrence as well as the use of “hybrid warfare,” trade embargoes, cyberattacks, and disinformation. To preempt challengers within the former Soviet space Russia also maintains a “veto” over geopolitical developments outside that space, as with nuclear proliferation (Iran), civil wars (Syria, Libya), or resource production (OPEC 2.0). The evident flaw in Putin’s strategy is the decay of the economy, the long depreciation of the ruble, and the drop in quality of life and labor force growth. See the macro sections below for a full discussion of these negative trends. Compare the American strategy: America’s grand strategy is to control North America, dominate the oceans, prevent the rise of regional empires, and maintain the leading position in technology and talent. A nightmare for American policymakers would be a collapse of the federal union among the disparate regions and the rise of a secure foreign empire that could supplant the US’s naval preponderance. This is especially true if the rival empire were capable of supplanting US supremacy in technology, since then the US would not even be safe within North America. America’s strategy under the Biden administration is to mitigate internal political divisions through economic growth, maintain its global posture by refurbishing alliances, and reassert its technological primacy by encouraging immigration and trade. The status quo of strong growth and rising polarization has been beneficial for US technology but not for foreign and defense policy (Chart 2). Political polarization has prevented the US from executing a steady long-term strategy for over 30 years. As a result, Russia has partially rebuilt the Soviet sphere of influence and China is constructing a sphere of its own. A few conclusions can be drawn from the above. First, China poses a greater challenge to the US than Russia from a strategic point of view. China is capable of creating a regional empire that can one day challenge the US for technological leadership. Modern Russia must summon all its strength to carve out small pieces of its former empire – it is not a contender for supremacy in technology or in any regions other than its own. Second, however, Russia’s resurgence under Putin poses a secondary challenge to American grand strategy. Russia can undermine US strategy very effectively. The effect today is to aid the rise of China, on which Russia’s economy increasingly depends (Chart 3). Chart 2US Tech Boom Coincided With Disinflation, Polarization US Tech Boom Coincided With Disinflation, Polarization US Tech Boom Coincided With Disinflation, Polarization Chart 3Russia’s Turn To The Far East Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Unlike the US, Russian leadership has not changed over the past year – and Vladimir Putin’s tactics are likely to be consistent. These were underscored by the constitutional revisions approved by popular vote in September 2020. Not only will Putin be eligible to remain president till 2036 but also Russia reaffirmed its willingness to intervene militarily into neighboring regions by asserting its right to defend Russian-speaking peoples everywhere. Finally, Russia ensured there would be no giving away of territories, thus ruling out a solution on Ukraine over Crimea.1 Bottom Line: The US-Russia conflict will continue under the Biden administration, even though Biden’s primary concern will be China. Biden’s Foreign Policy Intentions It is too soon to draw conclusions about Biden’s foreign policy “doctrine” as he has not yet faced any major challenges or taken any major actions. Biden’s first two foreign policy speeches and interim national security strategy guidance establish his foreign policy intentions, which will have to be measured against his administration’s capabilities.2 His chief intentions are to revive the economy and court US allies: First, Biden asserts that every foreign action will be taken with US working families in mind, co-opting Trump’s populism and emphasizing that US international strength rests on internal unity which flows from a strong economy. This goal will largely be met as the administration is already passing a major economic stimulus and is likely to pass a second bill with long-term investments by October. The impact on Russia is mixed but the Biden administration is largely correct that a strong recovery in the US economy and reduction in political polarization will be a major asset in its dealings with Russia and other rivals. Second, Biden asserts that diplomacy will be the essence of his foreign policy. He aims to create or rebuild an alliance of democracies that spans from the UK and European Union to the East Asian democracies. The two goals of economy and diplomacy are connected because Biden envisions the democracies working together to make “historic investments” in technology, setting global standards and rules of trade, and defending against hacking and intellectual property theft. This goal will have mixed success: the EU and US will manage their own trade tensions reasonably well but they will disagree on how to handle Russia and especially China. Biden explicitly sets up this alliance of democracies against autocracies. He calls China the US’s “most serious competitor” but also highlights Russia: “The challenges with Russia may be different than the ones with China, but they’re just as real.”3 Table 1 shows the Biden administration’s notable comments and actions on Russia so far. What is clear is that the US will not seek an extensive new diplomatic engagement with Russia.4 The failure of the Obama administration’s “diplomatic reset” with Russia has disabused the Democratic Party of the notion that strategic patience and outreach are the right approaches to Putin’s regime. The reset and its failure are described in detail in Box 1. Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On Russia Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Box 1: What Was The US-Russia Diplomatic Reset? What Comes Next? Most American presidents open their foreign policy with overtures to Russia to create space to maneuver, given that Russia is capable of undermining US aims in so many areas. The Barack Obama administration made a notable effort at this in 2009, which was dubbed the “diplomatic reset.” It was a rest because relations had collapsed over Russia’s use of natural gas pipelines as a weapon against Ukraine and especially its invasion of Georgia in 2008. Then Vice President Joe Biden led the reset. President Putin had stepped aside in accordance with constitutional term limits, putting his protégé Dmitri Medvedev in the presidential seat, which supported the reset because Medvedev had at least some desire to reform Russia’s economy. The reset lasted long enough for Washington and Moscow to agree on the need for a strategic settlement on the question of Iran – which would culminate in the 2015 nuclear deal – as well as to admit Russia to the World Trade Organization (WTO). But the aftermath of the financial crisis proved an inauspicious time for a reset. Along with the Arab Spring, popular unrest emerged in Moscow in 2011 and western influence crept into Ukraine – all of it allegedly fomented by Washington. Putin feared he would lose central control at home and frontier control abroad. He also sensed an opportunity given that commodity prices were filling state coffers while the US was focused on domestic policy, increasingly polarized, and unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to solidify its influence in eastern Europe. Russia’s betrayal of the reset resulted in a string of losses for the US and its European allies: the Edward Snowden affair, the invasion of Ukraine, the intervention in Syria, the meddling in the 2016 US election, and most recently the SolarWinds hack. The Obama administration refrained from a strong reaction over Crimea partly to seal the Iran deal. But Russia pressed its advantage after that. It is doubtful that Russia’s influence decided the 2016 election but, regardless, the Democratic Party fell from power and then watched in dismay as the Trump administration revoked the Iran deal. Now that the Democrats are back in power they will seek to retaliate not only for the SolarWinds hack but also for the betrayal of the reset. However, retaliation will come at a time of Washington’s choosing. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s foreign policy will emphasize alliances of democracies in opposition to autocracies like Russia and China. Biden is planning a more hawkish approach to Russia than previous recent administrations. Biden’s Foreign Policy Capabilities There are a few clear limitations on Biden’s foreign policy goals. First, his administration will largely be focused on domestic priorities. In foreign affairs there is at best the chance to salvage the Obama administration’s foreign policy legacy. Second, Biden’s dealings with China will take up most of his time and energy. China’s fourteenth five-year plan contains a state-driven technological Great Leap Forward that will frustrate any attempt by Biden to reduce tensions. Biden will not be able to devote much attention to Russia if he pursues China with the attention it deserves, i.e. to secure US interests yet avoid a war.5 Third, Biden will be limited by allied risk aversion and the need for consensus on difficult decisions. If his diplomacy with Europe is successful then China and Russia will face steeper costs for any provocative actions. If it fails then European risk aversion will prevail, the allies will remain divided, and China and Russia will faces few costs for maintaining current policies. Table 2Russia’s Pipeline Export Capacity Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time The Nordstream Two pipeline will be a key test of European willingness to follow the US’s lead even if it means taking on greater risks: Nordstream Two is a major expansion of Russian-EU energy cooperation but contrary to America’s national interest. German Chancellor Angela Merkel still backs the project despite Russia’s poisoning and imprisonment of dissident Alexei Navalny and forceful suppression of protests. However, Merkel is a lame duck and there is some evidence that German commitment to the project is fraying.6 Biden has not tried to halt the pipeline project, but he still could. There are only 100 miles left to the pipeline. Construction resumed in January after a hiatus last year due to US sanctions. The project will take five months to complete at the rate of 0.6 miles per day. The Biden administration still has time to halt the project through sanctions. If it does, the Russians will react harshly to this significant loss of economic and strategic influence over Europe (Table 2). Biden will have a crisis on his hands in Europe. If Biden does nothing on Nordstream, then Russia will conclude that his administration is not serious and take actions that undermine the Biden administration in accordance with Putin’s established strategy. This would prompt Biden to act on his pledge to stand up to Putin’s provocations. Whereas if Biden imposes sanctions to halt Nordstream, Russia will retaliate. Elsewhere it is possible that Biden will be too confrontational with Russia for Europe’s liking. Biden plans to increase support for Ukraine, which will prompt an increase in military conflict this spring.7 The US will promote democracy across eastern Europe, including Belarus, and it is possible that Russia could overreact to this threat of turning peripheral regimes against Russia. The EU is on the front lines in the conflict with Russia and will not want the US to act aggressively – but the US is specifically seeking to “raise the cost” on Russia for its aggression.8 Bottom Line: Russia is not Biden’s priority. But his pledge both to promote democracy and retaliate against Russian provocations sets the US up for a period of higher tensions. US-Russia Engagement On Iran? Will the US not need to engage Russia to achieve various policy goals? Specifically, while highlighting competition, Biden says he will engage Russia and China on global challenges, namely the pandemic, climate change, cybersecurity, and nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation is the only one of these areas where US-Russia cooperation might matter. After all, there is zero chance of cybersecurity cooperation. Whereas on nuclear issues, the US and Russia immediately extended the New START arms reduction treaty through 2026 and could also work together on Iran. Biden is determined to restore the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal. Moscow does not have an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran so there is some overlap of interest. The Iranian issue will require Biden to consider whether he is willing to make major concessions to Russia: Compromise the hard line on Russia: A new Iranian administration takes office in August. Biden is likely to have to rush a return to the 2015 nuclear deal before that time if he wants a deal with Iran. Otherwise it would take years for Biden and the Europeans to reconstitute the P5+1 coalition with Russia and China and negotiate an entirely new deal. Biden would have to make major concessions to Russia and China. His stand against autocracy would be compromised from the get-go. Maintain the hard line on Russia: The alternative is for Biden to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal with a flick of his wrist, with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signing off by August. Biden would extract promises from the Iranians to keep talking about a broader deal in future. In this case Biden would not need to give the Russians or Chinese any new concessions. Chart 4China Enforces Iran Sanctions China Enforces Iran Sanctions China Enforces Iran Sanctions The Biden administration will be keen to make sure that Russia does not exploit the US eagerness for a deal with Iran as it did with the original deal in 2014-15. Iran has an individual interest in restoring the deal, which is to gain sanction relief and avoid air strikes. The Europeans have helped Iran keep the deal alive. China is at least officially enforcing sanctions (Chart 4). Russia is also urging a return to the deal and would be isolated if it tried to sabotage the deal. This could happen but it would escalate the conflict between the US and Russia. Otherwise, if a deal is agreed, the US will continue putting pressure on Russia in other areas. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is likely to seal an Iranian nuclear deal without any major concessions to Russia. Tail Risk – A War In The Baltics? It is well established that the Putin regime will use belligerent foreign adventures to distract from domestic woes. Just look at poor opinion polling tends to precede major foreign invasions (Chart 5). With the eruption of social unrest in the wake of COVID-19 and the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, it is entirely possible that Russia will activate this tool again. The implication is a new crisis in Ukraine, a larger Russian military presence in Belarus, or further escalation of hybrid warfare or cyberwar in other areas. What about an invasion of the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia? Unlike other hotspots in Russia's periphery this is a perennial "black swan" risk that would equate with a geopolitical earthquake in Europe. A Baltic war is conceivable based on Russia’s geographic proximity, military superiority, and military buildup on the border and in the Kaliningrad exclave. The combined military spending of NATO dwarfs that of Russia but NATO is extremely vulnerable in this far eastern flank (Chart 6). However, Europe would cutoff Russia’s economy and join the US in countermeasures while Russia would be left to occupy hostile countries.9 Chart 5Putin Lashes Out When Popularity Falls Putin Lashes Out When Popularity Falls Putin Lashes Out When Popularity Falls The Baltic states are members of NATO and thus an attack on one is theoretically an attack on all. President Trump ultimately endorsed Article V of the NATO treaty on collective self-defense and President Biden has enthusiastically reaffirmed it. The guarantee is meaningless without greater military support to enforce it, so NATO could try to reinforce its forward presence there. This could provoke Russia to retaliate, likely with measures short of full-scale war. Chart 6Russia Would Be Desperate To Invade Baltics Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, US rivals have observed that the American public lacks the willingness to fight small wars. It responded weakly to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and China’s encroachments in the South China Sea and Hong Kong. However, foreign rivals do not know whether the unpredictable US leadership and public are willing to fight a major war. Hence Russia and China are likely to continue to focus on incremental gains and calculated risks rather than frontal challenges. Based on the Biden administration’s moderate political capital (very narrow electoral and legislative control), the US will continue to be divided and distracted. Russia, China, and other powers will test the administration and make an assessment before they attempt any major foreign adventures. The testing period is imminent, however, and thus holds out negative surprises for investors. It is also possible that Biden could make the first move – particularly on Russia, where retaliation for the 2020 SolarWinds hack should be expected. Bottom Line: A full-scale war in the Baltics is possible but unlikely as the Russians have succeeded through calculated risks whereas they face drastic limitations in a major war against the NATO alliance. Growth Weighed Down By Tight Policy We now turn to Russia’s domestic economic conditions. Here, Russia also faces major challenges. Authorities are determined to keep a tight lid on both monetary and fiscal policies. In particular, high domestic borrowing costs and negative fiscal thrust will weigh down domestic demand over the next six-to-12 months. There are three reasons authorities will maintain tight monetary and fiscal policies: First, concerns about high inflation are deeply entrenched among consumers, enterprises, and policymakers. Russian consumers and businesses tend to have higher-than-realized inflation expectations. This is due to the history of high inflation as well as stagflation in Russia. A recent consumer poll reveals that rising prices are the number one concern among households (Table 3). Remarkably, the poll was conducted in August amid the height of the pandemic and high unemployment. This suggests that households do not associate growth slumps with lower inflation but rather fear inflation even amid a major recession (i.e., worry about stagflation). Table 3Fear Of Inflation Prevalent Amongst Consumers’ Expectations Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Biden And Russia: No Diplomatic "Reset" This Time Second, Central Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina is one of the most hawkish central bankers in the world. Her early tenure was characterized by the 2014-15 currency crisis and a major inflation spike. To combat structural inflation and bring down persisting high inflation expectations, the central bank has adopted a very hawkish policy stance since 2014. There is no sign that the central bank is about to change its hawkish policy. Specifically, monetary authorities have been syphoning liquidity from the banking system. With relatively tight banking system liquidity and high borrowing costs, private credit growth will fail to accelerate from current levels. Third, the government still projects an austere budget for 2021. The fiscal thrust will be -1.7% of GDP this year (Chart 7). While a moderate spending increase is likely, it will not be sufficient to boost materially domestic demand. There are no signs yet that the fiscal rule10 will be further relaxed, potentially releasing more funds for the government to spend this year. The fiscal rule has become an important gauge of the country’s ability to weather swings in energy prices. In addition to the points listed above, policymakers’ inflation worries stem from the economy’s structural drawbacks: Despite substantial nominal currency depreciation in recent years, Russia runs a current account deficit excluding energy. When a country runs a chronic current account deficit, including periods of major domestic demand recessions and currency devaluations, it is a symptom of a lack of productivity gains. Real incomes grew at a quick pace from the mid-1990s, largely driven by the resource boom in the 2000s. Yet rising real incomes were not complemented by expanding domestic manufacturing capacity to produce consumer and industrial goods. As such, imports of consumer goods and services rose alongside real incomes. Russia has been underinvesting. Gross fixed capital formation excluding resources industries and residential construction has never surpassed 10% of GDP in either nominal or real terms (Chart 8). Chart 7Russia: Fiscal Policy Will Remain Austere In 2021 Russia: Fiscal Policy Will Remain Austere In 2021 Russia: Fiscal Policy Will Remain Austere In 2021 Chart 8Russia: Underinvestment Within Domestic Sectors Russia: Underinvestment Within Domestic Sectors Russia: Underinvestment Within Domestic Sectors Geopolitical tensions with the West have discouraged FDI inflows and hindered Russian companies’ ability to raise capital externally. This has inhibited capital spending and ”know-how” transfer and, hence, bodes ill for productivity gains. Russian domestic industries are highly concentrated and, in some cases, oligopolistic in nature. This allows incumbents to raise prices. The number of registered private enterprises has fallen below early 2000s levels (Chart 9). Despite chronic currency depreciation, Russian resource companies have failed to grab a large share of their respective export markets. For instance, Russia’s oil market share of total global oil production has been flat for over a decade and the nation has been losing market share in the global natural gas industry. A shrinking labor force due to poor demographics and meager immigration complements Russia’s sluggish productivity growth and caps its potential GDP growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Russia: Increasing Industry Concentration Russia: Increasing Industry Concentration Russia: Increasing Industry Concentration Some positive signs are appearing in the form of import substitution. Since the Ukraine conflict in 2014 and the resulting Western sanctions, the government has enacted various laws and decrees to incentivize domestic production, and with it providing substitutions for imported goods. Their impact is noticeable in certain sectors. Chart 10Russia: Poor Potential Growth Outlook Russia: Poor Potential Growth Outlook Russia: Poor Potential Growth Outlook In particular, the country has invested heavily in the food industry, as food imports are 16% of overall imports. Agricultural sector output has been rising while imports of key food categories have declined. Recent decrees on industrial goods will likely boost domestic production of some goods and processed resources. Around 40% of Russian imports are concentrated in machinery, industrial equipment, transportation parts, and vehicles. Hence, raising competitiveness in production of industrial goods is essential for Russia to reduce reliance on imports. In short, fewer imports of goods for domestic consumption will make inflation less sensitive to fluctuations in the exchange rate. The current trend is mildly positive, but its pace remains slow. Bottom Line: Russia needs to raise its productivity and labor force growth and, hence, potential GDP growth to deliver reasonable high-income growth without raising inflation. The Cyclical OutLook: Worry About Growth, Not Inflation Cyclically, high domestic borrowing costs and lackluster fiscal spending will weigh down domestic growth and cap inflation for the next 12 months. Russia’s real borrowing costs are among the highest in the EM space. High borrowing costs are causing notable financial stress amongst corporate and household debtors. Commercial banks’ NPLs and provisions are high and rising (Chart 11). Unwilling to take on more credit risk, banks have shunned traditional lending and have instead expanded their assets into financial securities. This trend will likely persist and corporate and consumer credit will fail to boost investment and consumption. The recent pickup in inflation was primarily due to rising food prices and the previous currency depreciation pass-through. Chart 12 illustrates the recent currency appreciation heralds a rollover in core inflation. Chart 11Russia: High Borrowing Costs Are Leading To Higher Credit Stress Russia: High Borrowing Costs Are Leading To Higher Credit Stress Russia: High Borrowing Costs Are Leading To Higher Credit Stress Chart 12Russia: Inflation Will Rollover Due To Stable RUB Russia: Inflation Will Rollover Due To Stable RUB Russia: Inflation Will Rollover Due To Stable RUB In fact, a broad range of inflation indicators suggest that core inflation remains within the central bank target (Chart 13). These measures of inflation are less correlated with the ruble movements. Chart 13Russia: Inflation Is At Central Bank Target Of 4% Russia: Inflation Is At Central Bank Target Of 4% Russia: Inflation Is At Central Bank Target Of 4% Chart 14Russia: Tame Recovery In Domestic Activity Russia: Tame Recovery In Domestic Activity Russia: Tame Recovery In Domestic Activity High-frequency data suggest that consumer spending and business activity remain tame (Chart 14). Bottom Line: The latest uptick in Russia’s core CPI is likely transitory. Cyclical conditions for a material rise in inflation and hence monetary tightening are not in place. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Russia Underperforms Amid Commodity Bull Run Russia Underperforms Amid Commodity Bull Run Russia Underperforms Amid Commodity Bull Run Russia’s sluggish economy and austere policy backdrop suggest that the fires of domestic political unrest will continue to burn. While political instability may force the Kremlin to ease fiscal policy, the easing so far envisioned is slight. The implication is that Russia faces rising domestic political risk simultaneously with the rise in international, geopolitical risk stemming from the Biden administration’s efforts to promote democracy in Russia’s periphery and push back against its regional and global attempts to undermine the US-led global order. So far the totality of Russia’s risks have outweighed the benefits of the global economic recovery as Russian assets are trailing the rally in commodity prices (Chart 15). The ruble is above the lows reached at the height of the Ukraine crisis, whether compared to the GBP or the EUR, suggesting further downside when US-Russia tensions spike (Chart 16). The currency is neither cheap nor expensive at present (Chart 17). Chart 16Ruble Will Fall Further On Geopolitical Risk But Floor Not Far Ruble Will Fall Further On Geopolitical Risk But Floor Not Far Ruble Will Fall Further On Geopolitical Risk But Floor Not Far Chart 17Russia: The Ruble Is Fairly Valued Russia: The Ruble Is Fairly Valued Russia: The Ruble Is Fairly Valued   Chart 18Geopolitical Risk Will Revive Despite Apparent Top Geopolitical Risk Will Revive Despite Apparent Top Geopolitical Risk Will Revive Despite Apparent Top Our Geopolitical Risk Indicator for Russia is forming a bottom, implying that global investors believe the worst has passed. This is a mistake and we expect the indicator to change course and price in new risk. The result will weigh on Russian equities, which are fairly well correlated with this indicator (Chart 18). Overall, we recommend investors who care about absolute returns to sell Russian assets. For dedicated EM equity as well as EM local currency bond portfolios, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy recommends a neutral stance on Russia (Chart 19). Rising bond yields in the US will continue weighing especially on high-flying growth stocks. The low market-cap weight of technology/growth stocks in the Russian bourse makes the latter less vulnerable to rising global bond yields. Concerning local rates, we see value in 10-year swap rates, as tight monetary and fiscal policies will keep a lid on inflation. With the central bank unlikely to hike rates anytime soon, a steep yield curve offers good value in the long end of the curve for fixed income investors. Finally, orthodox macro policies will benefit fixed-income investors on the margin. In regard to EM credit (USD bonds) portfolio, the Emerging Markets Strategy team recommends overweighting Russia (Chart 20). The government has little local currency debt and minimal US dollar debt. Not surprisingly, Russia has been a low-beta credit market and it will outperform its EM peers in a broad sell off. Chart 19Russia: Move To Neutral Local Currency Bond Allocation Russia: Move To Neutral Local Currency Bond Allocation Russia: Move To Neutral Local Currency Bond Allocation Lastly, the Emerging Markets Strategy is moving Ukrainian local currency government bonds to underweight and closing the 5-year local currency bond position. Risks of military confrontation on the Ukraine front have escalated. Chart 20Russia: Remain Overweight On USD Credit Russia: Remain Overweight On USD Credit Russia: Remain Overweight On USD Credit     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Andrija Vesic Associate Editor Emerging Markets Strategy AndrijaV@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Pavlo Limkin et al, “Putin’s new constitution spells out modern Russia’s imperial ambitions,” Atlantic Council, September 10, 2020, atlanticcouncil.org. 2 See White House, “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World,” February 4, 2021, and “Remarks by President Biden at the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference,” February 19, 2021, whitehouse.org. 3 See “Remarks … at the … Munich Security Conference” in footnote 2 above. 4 We first outlined this US-Russia disengagement in our last joint special report on Russia, “US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet),” July 3, 2020, bcaresearch.com. 5 See Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Jamestown Foundation, February 1, 2021, Jamestown.org. 6 Biden’s “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance,” White House, March 3, 2021, whitehouse.org, reinforces this point by focusing most of its attention on China and largely neglecting Russia. 7 See “Kremlin concerned about rising tensions in Donbass,” Tass, March 4, 2021, tass.com. 8 One way in which this could transpire would be a carbon border tax. The EU says imposing a tariff on carbon-intensive imports will proceed unilaterally if there is not a UN agreement in November because it is a “matter of survival” for its industry as it raises green regulation. The Biden administration also promised in its campaign to levy a “carbon adjustment fee.” Russia, which is exposed as a fossil fuel exporter that does not have a carbon pricing scheme, says such a fee would go against WTO rules. See Kate Abnett, “EU sees carbon border levy as ‘matter of survival’ for industry,” Reuters, January 18, 2021, reuters.com; Sam Morgan, “Moscow cries foul over EU’s planned carbon border tax,” Euractiv, July 27, 2020, euractiv.com. 9 See Heinrich Brauss and Dr. András Rácz, “Russia’s Strategic Interests and Actions in the Baltic Region,” German Council on Foreign Relations, DGAP Report, January 7, 2021, dgap.org; Christopher S. Chivvis et al, “NATO’s Northeastern Flank: Emerging Opportunities for Engagement,” Rand Corporation, 2017. 10 The rule stipulates that a portion of oil and gas revenues that the government can spend is determined by a fixed oil price benchmark. Currently, the benchmark oil price stands at $42 per barrel. The fiscal rule also encompasses constraints on the National Welfare Fund withdrawals in oil prices below $42 per barrel.

Highlights The Senate will pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan largely as it stands. Markets will now turn to Biden’s second major reconciliation bill for FY2022 – the one with tax hikes. Democrats will go forward with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy. But they will spend more than they tax for fear of squandering their term in power. Tax hikes threaten sectors like tech that already face headwinds from rising bond yields. The health sector is also at risk. Stick with cyclicals and value plays.  Feature Markets have seesawed as volatility spikes in the face of rapidly rising bond yields. Value stocks such as financials stand to benefit relative to growth stocks as the market comes to grips with the first hint of normal inflation expectations since 2019 (Chart 1). Underlying the trend is a sea change in US fiscal policy. Chart 1Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields The House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan so it will now go to the Senate for revision, back to the House for approval, and then to President Biden’s desk by around March 14. Investors will now turn to Biden’s second major legislative act prior to the 2022 midterm election cycle: the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation process. Before we outline the time frame and tax hikes that that process will entail, we should take a moment to review the current bill. Senate Will Pass American Rescue Plan Largely As Is The House version of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan contains $1,400 household rebates, direct checks via the Internal Revenue Service, for people who make less than $75,000 per year (double those numbers for married couples). Unemployment benefits are supposed to rise from $300 to $400 per week for 73 weeks instead of 50 weeks, with an expiration on August 29 instead of March 14. Those with children or other dependents will receive additional payments. The bill also includes $75 billion for fighting COVID-19, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for schools and universities, $225 billion for small business, $38 billion for the airline industry and various other tax benefits for families and workers.1 Those who have been let go from their jobs can more easily retain their previous health insurance. Chart 2 provides a visual comparison of the American Rescue Plan with the $900 billion in fiscal relief passed at the end of 2020 prior to House passage and Senate revision. Already the Senate version excludes a hike to the minimum wage, from $7.25 to $15 per hour, as the Senate parliamentarian ruled that does not qualify under the “Byrd rule” because it does not directly impact spending or taxation.2 Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also president of the Senate, could reverse this decision but otherwise the minimum wage will have to be considered in a separate bill later. Chart 2American Rescue Plan Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The Senate could pare back other aspects of the bill – such as state and local aid, given that local government revenues are in much better shape than expected. Chart 2 highlights that the state and local aid component is much larger this time around. Still, the purpose of Senate negotiations is to secure the votes of moderate Democrats, as winning over 10 Republicans is no longer feasible, and moderate senators are not going to sink the first legislative proposal of a president of their own party. The Senate is virtually guaranteed to pass the bill, likely by March 14 when current unemployment benefits expire. The bill’s economic impact will be to speed the vaccination process and provide another infusion of cash into households and various public institutions. Families are just starting to receive the last round of benefits passed in December and they had not exhausted the 14% year-on-year increase in real income that they saw as a result of last year’s CARES Act when the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act sent incomes soaring yet again (Chart 3). Economic growth will be supercharged as economic activity normalizes, consumer confidence recovers, and the service sector revives. Chart 3Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Biden’s Second Bill Will Pass This Fall The second budget reconciliation procedure, for fiscal year 2022, will begin in mid-April. The formal deadline to adopt a budget resolution is April 15 but the average delay would put the resolution in June.3 The maximum delay would see the resolution passed in October but that is unlikely in today’s context (Diagram 1). After the resolution passes, the House and Senate must reconcile their budgets, pass the same bill, and send it to the president for his signature.  Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden Administration’s Second Budget Reconciliation, FY2022 Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The average time between Congress adopting a budget resolution and the president signing a reconciliation bill into law is 150 days, putting completion on September 15, 2021. This period could easily extend to November. In the worst-case, judging by history, Democrats could fail to conclude the process until October 2022 – but that is highly unlikely. A delay till December of this year would be a fumble, but a more realistic fumble, say if moderate Democrats must be won over due to controversial provisions. The second reconciliation bill is supposed to consist of investments over a ten-year period rather than emergency relief for the lingering pandemic and economic recovery. Biden’s proposed $2-$3 trillion green infrastructure program is the highlight but we also expect Democrats to prioritize their health care plan, which is estimated to cost $1.7-$1.9 trillion. Hence $4 trillion is a reasonable expectation for new spending but in this case the headline spending figure will be at least partially defrayed by tax hikes, unlike the first reconciliation bill (Charts 4A & 4B). If Biden raises taxes by half as much as he intends, the full price tag would be $2 trillion. Chart 4ABiden Will Spend, Then Tax Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Chart 4BBiden Will Spend, Then Tax Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The precise contours of this bill will remain unknown until Biden presents an outline in April and the House of Representatives drafts a resolution. We test six different scenarios involving different assumptions about Biden’s tax-and-spend proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Generally, we assume that Democrats will much more readily compromise tax hikes rather than spending, given that they want to err on the side of firing up the economic recovery. They are just as capable as Republicans were in 2017 of manipulating the numbers when it comes to the reconciliation requirement that the budget deficit not increase beyond a ten-year time period. Table 1Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The results are broken down in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net interest costs in Chart 5. The baseline is Biden’s campaign proposal. Scenario 1 assumes that Biden gets all of the spending he wants but is forced to compromise on tax hikes. Scenario 2 is more realistic as it assumes that Biden gets half of what he wants on both spending and taxes. Scenarios 3-6 examine what would happen if Biden were forced to strike out either his green infrastructure plan or his health and social security plan, depending on different revenue assumptions. In Scenarios 5 and 6 we grant Biden only half of his proposed taxes on corporations and wealthy folks, leaving other tax proposals to the side – otherwise the result would be a net tightening of fiscal conditions, which is neither intended nor politically possible. Chart 5Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The impact on the budget deficit in each scenario is shown in Chart 6. The greatest economic stimulus would occur under Scenario 1, which would soon become a problem for investors as it would hasten inflation and rising interest rates. Chart 6Deficit Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Scenario 2 is the most realistic policy scenario while being the least inflationary. By contrast, Scenario 4 is realistic but hardly less inflationary than the baseline case. In each of these scenarios it is important to bear in mind that the new government programs would be administered over a ten-year period and therefore the increase to the budget deficit would be more gradual than is the case of the American Rescue Plan, which clearly aims to be disbursed in the first few years. In the case of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) the peak in spending occurred in 2013, four years after the bill was passed (analogous to 2025 today) (Chart 7). Infrastructure and green energy projects are also expected to increase productivity and hence potential growth. Chart 7Infrastructure Spending Could Peak Four Years After Bill’s Passage, As In 2009-13 Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The Byrd rule will become even more important with Biden’s second reconciliation bill because the bill will contain a mishmash of Biden’s campaign proposals. Democrats will try to pass as much of their agenda via fast track as possible so as to meet promises ahead of the 2022 midterm election. An advantage of health care spending is that it is unlikely to be struck down by the Senate parliamentarian given that the Obama administration relied on reconciliation to pass a critical second installment to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Biden’s health care plan is more popular than climate change policy, with both the general public and moderate Democrats, and it is guaranteed to pass reconciliation. Infrastructure spending faces greater challenges under reconciliation but they are not insurmountable. Infrastructure is normally handled via the traditional budget process or the Highway Trust Fund and some measures are likely to run afoul of the Byrd rule. Still, workarounds can be found.4  Hence the infrastructure plan is likely to be compromised but not prohibited due to technicalities. Even if infrastructure fails to make it into reconciliation, Biden can use the deadline to top up the exhausted Highway Trust Fund or to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act as alternative pathways. It is not impossible to get Republican cooperation on infrastructure though the green agenda will meet resistance. The reconciliation process is nominally forbidden from increasing the budget deficit beyond ten years. Short-term spending is exempt, as is the case with the American Rescue Plan and its crisis-response measures, but the purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to invest in long-term, productivity-enhancing programs. A new government health insurance option and/or a green infrastructure buildout will take many years to implement and could increase deficits beyond the ten-year window. But Democrats, like Republicans, will be able to use accounting chicanery and gimmicks to make the budget outlook serve their purposes in passing the legislation. As long as they keep moderate members of the party on their side.   Yes, Taxes Will Go Up … But That May Not Be All Bad For Markets Why should Democrats raise taxes at all? Why not focus on stimulus without taking on the political risk of higher taxes? After all, Republicans passed tax cuts via reconciliation without offsetting them by spending cuts. Was it not the higher taxes in Obamacare that greatly fueled resistance from Republicans and their victory in the House of Representatives in 2010? First, on the level of intentions, the Democrats clearly seek to increase taxes on corporations, high-income earners, and capital gains: Both Biden and Harris said they would raise taxes on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates despite the risk to their election prospects. Biden committed only to prevent tax hikes on those making less than $400,000 per year. Harris’s weakest moment in her debate with Mike Pence was her insistence that she would raise taxes but she stuck to her guns. Both factions of the Democratic Party want to raise taxes. Traditional Democrats view tax hikes as a way of paying for a larger government role in addressing social and economic imbalances. Populists view tax hikes as a way of redistributing from the ultra-rich. While budget deficits are not a general concern, combating inequality is a theme shared across the party. Second, on the level of capability, Democrats can get at least some of the tax increases that they want: The US is not overtaxed on the whole. True, Biden’s full tax agenda would push the US back up to the top of the OECD countries in terms of the corporate tax if an “integrated” view of both firm-level taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains (Chart 8). But this point suggests that Biden will moderate his tax plan rather than abandon it altogether. Popular opinion did not favor Trump for cutting corporate taxes. Chart 8Biden’s Corporate Tax Proposal Would Make US An Outlier Again Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout The macroeconomic impact of raising taxes is manageable in the context of the extraordinary fiscal stimulus that the US is passing. There is no clear relationship between tax rates and economic growth but it is natural for the Democrats to fear that they could squander their term in power by excessive fiscal tightening. Yet the negative economic impact of raising the corporate rate is only 0.8% of GDP over the long run, and half of that if the corporate rate is raised only halfway to what Biden intends (25% instead of 28%) (Table 2), according to the conservative-leaning Tax Policy Foundation. Table 2Economic Impact Of Corporate Tax Not Dramatic Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout President Biden has the political capital early in his term to revise the Trump tax cuts according to Democratic prerogatives. His popularity will not hold up for long (Chart 9). And he only just has enough legislative power. While household sentiment is weak and economic conditions are moderate, both are set to improve as the pandemic fades and fiscal stimulus takes effect (Table 3). While tax hikes will embolden Republican opposition and the Democrats will have lost their chance to affect the tax code if Republicans win in 2022. At the moment, Republicans are divided and unpopular, so Democrats have a window of opportunity (Chart 10). Chart 9Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis? Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Chart 10Independents Up, Republicans Down Independents Up, Republicans Down Independents Up, Republicans Down Table 3Political Capital Index Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout While Democrats could chuck all the Senate rules out the window in order to pass their spending plans without any offsets, this would anger moderates who tend to uphold Senate rules and norms. The party cannot afford to lose a single vote from their caucus in the Senate. Yet moderate Democrats are not against tax increases in principle. What they would oppose is either excessive tax hikes or a fiscal spending bonanza without any revenue offsets at all.5  It is entirely feasible to back-load tax increases so that they take effect in the latter half of the ten-year budget window, especially after the 2024 election. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is advising precisely this course of action and has herself argued that corporate tax hikes will go through.6 There may be some risk that Democrats go full left-wing populist and abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility so as to supercharge the economy. So far they have agreed to maintain the Senate filibuster and scrap the minimum wage hike but this acceptance of Senate norms may not last as pressure builds. The second reconciliation bill is the last chance to fast-track major initiatives before the midterm. Vice President Harris could overrule the Senate parliamentarian across the board. This scenario is unlikely. The White House and Congress will find a balance that raises some revenue but errs on the fiscally accommodative side, as our scenarios above highlight. Investment Takeaways The market’s concern is that the Democrats will “overdo” the fiscal response and we fully share this concern. The American Rescue Plan alone will plug the output gap by almost three times more than the amount required. The coming tax hikes will not offset the wave of new spending that is coming down the pike. Democrats will partially reverse Trump’s tax cuts in the context of additional pump-priming that constitutes a net increase to the budget deficit. The net effect is inflationary.   If Congress were to pass another $2 trillion bill without any substantial revenue offsets then the market would face an even bigger inflationary jolt and an even earlier return to rate hikes by the Fed. But this scenario is unlikely. So the inflationary risk is clear but investors need not panic in the short run.  Our infrastructure trade is back on track as the reflation trade rumbles onward (Chart 11). The Democrats will get at least one more major bill passed and it will likely include at least half of Biden’s agenda, including around $2 trillion on green infrastructure. We will discuss the renewable energy portion at length in a forthcoming report. The health care sector faces headwinds from both Biden’s health policies and corporate tax hikes. The sectors that stand to benefit the most from a higher corporate tax rate are those that benefited least from Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act – namely energy, industrials, materials, and financials, in that order (Chart 12A). These are also the cyclical plays that we favor in today’s accommodative policy environment. Chart 11Infrastructure Trade Back On Track Infrastructure Trade Back On Track Infrastructure Trade Back On Track   Chart 12ACyclicals Outperforming Health Care Cyclicals Outperforming Health Care Cyclicals Outperforming Health Care Chart 12BCyclicals To Outperform Tech? Cyclicals To Outperform Tech? Cyclicals To Outperform Tech? The same cyclical sectors are also trying to make headway against the tech sector, which stands to suffer from higher interest rates as well as higher taxes, including a minimum tax on book earnings, if that part of Biden’s agenda makes it through the negotiations this fall (Chart 12B).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A2Political Risk Matrix Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Taxes Will Rise But It Is Still A Fiscal Blowout Footnotes 1     See Jeff Drew, “House passes $1.9 trillion stimulus bill with a variety of small business relief,” and Alistair M. Nevius, “Tax provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act,” February 27, 2021, Journal of Accountancy, journalofaccountancy.com.     2     See “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule,’” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2020, fas.org.            3    The current delay centers on whether the Senate will confirm Biden’s appointee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who lost support from key moderate Democrat Joe Manchin. If she does not receive a compensatory Republican vote then Biden will have to appoint someone else and the Senate will have to confirm. Thus the budget resolution could easily be delayed into May or June.       4    For the difficulties, see Peter Cohn, “Democrats plan a spending blowout, but hurdles remain,” Roll Call, January 11, 2021, rollcall.com. For workarounds, see Zach Moller and Gabe Horwitz, “Reconciliation: How It Works and How to Use It to Help American Workers Recover,” Third Way, February 1, 2021, thirdway.org. 5    See Alexander Bolton, “Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic,” The Hill, February 25, 2021, thehill.com. 6    See Saleha Mohsin and Christopher Condon, “Yellen Favors Higher Company Tax, Signals Capital Gains Worth a Look”, Bloomberg, February 22, 2021, Bloomberg.com  

Highlights Market-based geopolitical analysis is about identifying upside as well as downside risk. So far this year upside risks include vaccine efficacy, coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, China’s avoidance of over-tightening policy, and Europe’s stable political dynamics. Downside risks include vaccine rollout problems, excessive US stimulus, a Chinese policy mistake, and traditional geopolitical risks in the Taiwan Strait and Persian Gulf. Financial markets may see more turmoil in the near-term over rising bond yields and the dollar bounce. But the macro backdrop is still supportive for this year. We are initiating and reinitiating a handful of trades: EM currencies ex-Brazil/Turkey/Philippines, the BCA rare earth basket, DM-ex-US, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership markets, and global value plays. Feature Chart 1Bond Yield Spike Threatens Markets In Near Term Bond Yield Spike Threatens Markets In Near Term Bond Yield Spike Threatens Markets In Near Term Investors hear a lot about geopolitical risk but the implication is always “downside risk.” What about upside risks? Where are politics and geopolitics creating buying opportunities? So far this year, on the positive side, the US fiscal stimulus is overshooting, China is likely to avoid overtightening policy, and Europe’s political dynamics are positive. However, global equity markets are euphoric and much of the good news is priced in. On the negative side, the US stimulus is probably too large. The output gap will be more than closed by the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan yet the Democrats will likely pass a second major bill later this year with a similar amount of net spending, albeit over a longer period of time and including tax hikes. The countertrend bounce in the dollar and rising government bond yields threaten the US and global equity market with a near-term correction. The global stock-to-bond ratio has gone vertical (Chart 1). Meanwhile Biden faces immediate foreign policy tests in the Taiwan Strait and Persian Gulf. These two are traditional geopolitical risks that are once again underrated by investors. The near term is likely to be difficult for investors to navigate. Sentiment is ebullient and likely to suffer some disappointments. In this report we highlight a handful of geopolitical opportunities and offer some new investment recommendations to capitalize on them. Go Long Japan And Stay Long South Korea China’s stimulus and recovery matched by global stimulus and recovery have led to an explosive rise in industrial metals and other China-sensitive assets such as Swedish stocks and the Australian dollar that go into our “China Play Index” (Chart 2). Chart 2China Plays Looking Stretched (For Now) China Plays Looking Stretched (For Now) China Plays Looking Stretched (For Now) While a near-term pullback in these assets looks likely, tight global supplies will keep prices well-bid. Moreover long-term strategic investment plans by China and the EU to accelerate the technology race and renewable energy are now being joined by American investment plans, a cornerstone of Joe Biden’s emerging national policy program. We are long silver and would buy metals on the dips. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “new era” policies will be further entrenched at the March National People’s Congress with the fourteenth five-year plan for 2021-25 and Xi’s longer vision for 2035. These policies aim to guide the country through its economic transition from export-manufacturing to domestic demand. They fundamentally favor state-owned enterprises, which are an increasingly necessary tool for the state to control aggregate demand as potential GDP growth declines, while punishing large state-run commercial banks, which are required to serve quasi-fiscal functions and swallow the costs of the transition (Chart 3). Xi Jinping’s decision to promote “dual circulation,” which is fundamentally a turn away from Deng Xiaoping’s opening up and liberal reform to a more self-sufficient policy of import substitution and indigenous innovation, will clash with the Biden administration, which has already flagged China as the US’s “most serious competitor” and is simultaneously seeking to move its supply chains out of China for critical technological, defense, and health goods. Chart 3Xi Jinping Leans On The Banks To Save The SOEs Xi Jinping Leans On The Banks To Save The SOEs Xi Jinping Leans On The Banks To Save The SOEs Chinese political and geopolitical risks are almost entirely priced out of the market, according to our GeoRisk Indicator, leaving Chinese equities exposed to further downside (Chart 4). Hong Kong equities have traded in line with GeoRisk Indicator for China, which suggests that they also have downside as the market prices in a rising risk premium due to the US’s attempt to galvanize its allies in a great circumvention of China’s economy in the name of democracy versus autocracy. Chart 4China/HK Political Risk Priced Out Of Market China/HK Political Risk Priced Out Of Market China/HK Political Risk Priced Out Of Market China has hinted that it will curtail rare earth element exports to the US if the US goes forward with a technological blockade. Biden’s approach, however, is more defensive rather than offensive – focusing on building up domestic and allied semiconductor and supply chain capacity rather than de-sourcing China. President Trump’s restrictions can be rolled back for US designed or manufactured tech goods that are outdated or strictly commercial. Biden will draw the line against American parts going into the People’s Liberation Army. Biden has a chance in March to ease the Commerce Department’s rules implementing Trump’s strictures on Chinese software apps in US markets as a gesture of engagement. Supply constraints and shortages cannot be solved quickly in either semiconductors or rare earths. But both China and the US can circumvent export controls by importing through third parties. The problem for China is that it is easier for the US to start pulling rare earths from the ground than it is for China to make a great leap forward in semiconductor production. Given the US’s reawakening to the need for a domestic industrial policy, strategic public investments, and secure supply chains, we are reinitiating our long rare earth trade, using the BCA rare earth basket, which features producers based outside of China (Chart 5). The renminbi is starting to rolling over, having reached near to the ceiling that it touched in 2017 after Trump’s arrival. There are various factors that drive the currency and there are good macro reasons for the currency to have appreciated in 2016-17 and 2020-21 due to strong government fiscal and monetary reflation. Nevertheless the People’s Bank allowed the currency to appreciate extensively at the beginning of both Trump’s and Biden’s terms and the currency’s momentum is slowing as it nears the 2017 ceiling. We are reluctant to believe the renminbi will go higher as China will not want to overtighten domestic policy but will want to build some leverage against Biden for the forthcoming strategic and economic dialogues. For mainland-dedicated investors we recommend holding Chinese bonds but for international investors we would highlight the likelihood that the renminbi has peaked and geopolitical risk will escalate. There is no substantial change on geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait since we wrote about it recently. A full-scale war is a low-probability risk. Much more likely is a diplomatic crisis – a showdown between the US and China over Taiwan’s ability to export tech to the mainland and the level of American support for Taiwan – and potentially a testing of Biden’s will on the cybersecurity, economic security, or maritime security of Taiwan. While it would make sense to stay long emerging markets excluding Taiwan, there is not an attractive profile for staying long emerging markets excluding all of Greater China. Therefore investors who are forced to choose should overweight China relative to Taiwan (Chart 6). Chart 5Rare Earth Miners Outside China Can Go Higher Rare Earth Miners Outside China Can Go Higher Rare Earth Miners Outside China Can Go Higher Market forces have only begun to register the fact that Taiwan is the epicenter of geopolitical risk in the twenty-first century. The bottleneck for semiconductors and Taiwan’s role as middleman in the trade war have supported Taiwanese stocks. It will take a long time for China, the US, and Europe to develop alternative suppliers for chips. But geopolitical pressures will occasionally spike and when they do Taiwanese equities will plunge (Chart 7). Chart 6EM Investors Need Either China Or Taiwan ... Taiwan Most At Risk EM Investors Need Either China Or Taiwan ... Taiwan Most At Risk EM Investors Need Either China Or Taiwan ... Taiwan Most At Risk South Korean geopolitical risk is also beneath the radar, though stocks have corrected recently and emerging market investors should generally favor Korea, especially over Taiwan. The first risk to Korea is that the US will apply more pressure on Seoul to join allied supply chains and exclude shipments of sensitive goods to China. The second risk is that North Korea – which Biden is deliberately ignoring in his opening speeches – will demand America’s attention through a new series of provocations that will have to be rebuked with credible threats of military force. Chart 7Markets Starting To Price Taiwan Strait Geopolitical Risk Markets Starting To Price Taiwan Strait Geopolitical Risk Markets Starting To Price Taiwan Strait Geopolitical Risk Chart 8South Korea Favored In EM But Still Faces Risks Over Chips, The North South Korea Favored In EM But Still Faces Risks Over Chips, The North South Korea Favored In EM But Still Faces Risks Over Chips, The North   Chart 9Don't Worry About Japan's Revolving Door Don't Worry About Japan's Revolving Door Don't Worry About Japan's Revolving Door The North Korean risk is usually very fleeting for financial markets. The tech risk is more serious but the Biden administration is not seeking to force South Korea to stop trading with China, at least not yet. The US would need to launch a robust, multi-year diplomatic effort to strong-arm its allies and partners into enforcing a chip and tech ban on China. Such an effort would generate a lot of light and heat – shuttle diplomacy, leaks to the press, and public disagreements and posturing. Until this starts to occur, US export controls will be a concern but not an existential threat to South Korea (Chart 8). Japan is the geopolitical winner in Asia Pacific. Japan is militarily secure, has a mutual defense treaty with the US, and stands to benefit from the recovery in global trade and growth. Japan is a beneficiary of a US-driven tech shift away from excess dependency on China and is heavily invested in Southeast Asia, which stands to pick up manufacturing share. Higher bond yields and inflation expectations will detract from growth stocks more than value stocks, and value stocks have a larger market-cap weight in European and Japanese equity markets. Japanese politics are not a significant risk despite a looming election. While Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is unpopular and likely to revive the long tradition of a “revolving door” of short-lived prime ministers, and while the Liberal Democratic Party will lose the super-majorities it held under Shinzo Abe, nevertheless the party remains dominant and the national policy consensus is behind Abe’s platform of pro-growth reforms, coordinated dovish monetary and fiscal policy, and greater openness to trade and immigration (Chart 9). Favor EU And UK Over Russia And Eastern Europe Russian geopolitical risk appears to be rolling over according to our indicator but we disagree with the market’s assessment and expect it to escalate again soon (Chart 10). Not only will Russian social unrest continue to escalate but also the Biden administration will put greater pressure on Russia that will keep foreign investors wary. Chart 10Russia Geopolitical Risk Will Not Roll Over Russia Geopolitical Risk Will Not Roll Over Russia Geopolitical Risk Will Not Roll Over While geopolitics thus poses a risk to Russian equities – which are fairly well correlated (inversely) with our GeoRisk indicator – nevertheless they are already cheap and stand to benefit from the rise in global commodity prices and liquidity. Russia is also easing fiscal policy to try to quiet domestic unrest. The pound and the euro today are higher against the ruble than at any time since the invasion of Ukraine. It is possible that Russia will opt for outward aggressiveness amidst domestic discontent, a weak and relapsing approval rating for Vladimir Putin and his government, and the Biden administration’s avowed intention to prioritize democracy promotion, including in Ukraine and Belarus (Chart 11). The ruble will fall on US punitive actions but ultimately there is limited downside, at least as long as the commodity upcycle continues. Chart 11Ruble Can Fall But Probably Not Far Ruble Can Fall But Probably Not Far Ruble Can Fall But Probably Not Far Biden stated in his second major foreign policy speech, “we will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia.” There are two areas where the Biden administration could surprise financial markets: pipelines and Russian bonds. Biden could suddenly adopt a hard line on the Nordstream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany, preventing it from completion. This would require Biden to ask the Germans to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to trans-Atlantic solidarity. Biden is keen to restore relations with Germany, and is halting the withdrawal of US troops from there, but pressuring Germany on Russia is possible given that it lies in the US interest and Biden has vowed to push back against Russia’s aggressive regional actions and interference in American affairs. The US imposed sanctions on Russian “Eurobonds” under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) in the wake of Russia’s poisoning of secret agent Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018. Non-ruble bank loans and non-ruble-denominated Russian bonds in primary markets were penalized, which at the time accounted for about 23% of Russian sovereign bonds. This left ruble-denominated sovereign bonds to be sold along with non-ruble bonds in secondary markets. The Biden administration views Russia’s poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny as a similar infraction and will likely retaliate. The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act is not yet law but passed through a Senate committee vote in 2019 and proposed to halt most purchases of Russian sovereign debt and broaden sanctions on energy projects and Kremlin officials. Biden is also eager to retaliate for the large SolarWinds hack that Russia is accused of conducting throughout 2020. Cybersecurity stocks are an obvious geopolitical trade in contemporary times. Authoritarian nations have benefited from the use of cyber attacks, disinformation, and other asymmetric warfare tactics. The US has shown that it does not have the appetite to fight small wars, like over Ukraine or the South China Sea, whereas the US remains untested on the question of major wars. This incentivize incremental aggression and actions with plausible deniability like cyber. Therefore the huge run-up in cyber stocks is well-supported and will continue. The world’s growing dependency on technology during the pandemic lockdowns heightened the need for cybersecurity measures but the COVID winners are giving way to COVID losers as the pandemic subsides and normal economic activity resumes. Traditional defense stocks stand to benefit relative to cyber stocks as the secular trend of struggle among the Great Powers continues (Chart 12). Specifically a new cycle of territorial competition will revive military tensions as commodity prices rise. Chart 12Back To Work' Trade: Long Defense Versus Cyber Back To Work' Trade: Long Defense Versus Cyber Back To Work' Trade: Long Defense Versus Cyber By contrast with Russia, western Europe is a prime beneficiary of the current environment. Like Japan, Europe is an industrial, trade-surplus economy that benefits from global trade and growth. It benefits as the geopolitical middleman between the US and its rivals, China and Russia, especially as long as the Biden administration pursues consultation and multilateralism and hesitates to force the Europeans into confrontational postures against these powers. Chart 13Political Risk Still Subsiding In Continental Europe Political Risk Still Subsiding In Continental Europe Political Risk Still Subsiding In Continental Europe Meanwhile Russia and especially China need to court Europe now that the Biden administration is using diplomacy to try to galvanize a western bloc. China looks to substitute European goods for American goods and open up its market to European investors to reduce European complaints of protectionism. European domestic politics will become more interesting over the coming year, with German and French elections, but the risks are low. The rise of a centrist coalition in Italy under Mario Draghi highlights how overstated European political risk really is. In the Netherlands, Mark Rutte’s center-right party is expected to remain in power in March elections based on opinion polling, despite serious corruption scandals and COVID blowback. In Germany, Angela Merkel’s center-right party is also favored, and yet an upset would energize financial markets because it would result in a more fiscally accommodative and pro-EU policy (Chart 13). The takeaway is that there is limit to how far emerging European countries can outperform developed Europe, given the immediate geopolitical risk emanating from Russia that can spill over into eastern Europe (Chart 14). Developed European stocks are at peak levels, comparable to the period of Ukraine’s election, but Ukraine is about to heat up again as a battleground between Russia and the West, as will other peripheral states. Chart 14Favor DM Europe Over EM Europe Favor DM Europe Over EM Europe Favor DM Europe Over EM Europe Chart 15GBP: Watch For Scottish Risk Revival In May GBP: Watch For Scottish Risk Revival In May GBP: Watch For Scottish Risk Revival In May Finally, in the UK, the pound continues to surge in the wake of the settlement of a post-Brexit trade deal, notwithstanding lingering disagreements over vaccines, financial services, and other technicalities. British equities are a value play that can make up lost ground from the tumultuous Brexit years. There is potentially one more episode of instability, however, arising from the unfinished business in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party wants to convert any victory in parliamentary elections in May into a second push for a referendum on national independence. At the moment public opinion polls suggest that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s achievement of an EU trade deal has taken the wind out of the sails of the independence movement but only the election will tell whether this political risk will continue to fall in the near term (Chart 15). Hence the pound’s rally could be curtailed in the near term but unless Scottish opinion changes direction the pound and UK domestic-oriented stocks will perform well. Short EM Strongmen Throughout the emerging world the rise of the “Misery Index” – unemployment combined with inflation – poses a persistent danger of social and political instability that will rise, not fall, in the coming years. The aftermath of the COVID crisis will be rocky once stimulus measures wane. South Africa, Turkey, and Brazil look the worst on these measures but India and Russia are also vulnerable (Chart 16). Brazilian geopolitical risk under the turbulent administration of President Jair Bolsonaro has returned to the 2015-16 peaks witnessed during the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff amid the harsh recession of the middle of the last decade. Brazilian equities are nearing a triple bottom, which could present a buying opportunity but not before the current political crisis over fiscal policy exacts a toll on the currency and stock market (Chart 17). Chart 16EM Political Risk Will Bring Bad Surprises EM Political Risk Will Bring Bad Surprises EM Political Risk Will Bring Bad Surprises Chart 17Brazil Risk Hits Impeachment Peaks On Bolso Fiscal Populism Brazil Risk Hits Impeachment Peaks On Bolso Fiscal Populism Brazil Risk Hits Impeachment Peaks On Bolso Fiscal Populism Bolsonaro’s signature pension reform was an unpopular measure whose benefits were devastated by the pandemic. The return to fiscal largesse in the face of the crisis boosted Bolsonaro’s support and convinced him to abandon the pretense of austere reformer in favor of traditional Brazilian fiscal populist as the 2022 election approaches. His attempt to violate the country’s fiscal rule – a constitutional provision passed in December 2016 that imposes a 20-year cap on public spending growth – that limits budget deficits is precipitating a shakeup within the ruling coalition. Our Emerging Market Strategists believe the Central Bank of Brazil will hike interest rates to offset the inflationary impact of breaking the fiscal cap but that the hikes will likely fall short, prompting a bond selloff and renewed fears of a public debt crisis. The country’s political crisis will escalate in the lead up to elections, not unlike what occurred in the US, raising the odds of other negative political surprises. Chart 18Reinitiate Long Mexico / Short Brazil Reinitiate Long Mexico / Short Brazil Reinitiate Long Mexico / Short Brazil While Latin America as a whole is a shambles, the global cyclical upturn and shift in American policy creates investment opportunities – particularly for Mexico, at least within the region. Investors should continue to prefer Mexican equities over Brazilian given Mexico’s fundamentally more stable economic policy backdrop and its proximity to the American economy, which will be supercharged with stimulus and eager to find ways to use its new trade deal with Mexico to diversify its manufacturing suppliers away from China (Chart 18). In addition to Brazil, Turkey and the Philippines are also markets where “strongman leaders” and populism have undercut economic orthodoxy and currency stability. A basket of emerging market currencies that excludes these three witnessed a major bottom in 2014-16, when Turkish and Brazilian political instability erupted and when President Rodrigo Duterte stormed the stage in the Philippines. These three currencies look to continue underperforming given that political dynamics will worsen ahead of elections in 2022 (possibly 2023 for Turkey) (Chart 19). Chart 19Keep Shorting The Strongmen Keep Shorting The Strongmen Keep Shorting The Strongmen Investment Takeaways We closed out some “risk-on” trades at the end of January – admittedly too soon – and since then have hedged our pro-cyclical strategic portfolio with safe-haven assets, while continuing to add risk-on trades where appropriate. The Biden administration still faces one or more major foreign policy tests that can prove disruptive, particularly to Taiwanese, Chinese, Russian, and Saudi stocks. Biden’s foreign policy doctrine will be established in the crucible of experience but his preferences are known to favor diplomacy, democracy over autocracy, and to pursue alliances as a means of diversifying supply chains away from China. We will therefore look favorably upon the members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and recommend investors reinitiate the long CPTPP equities basket. These countries, which include emerging markets with decent governance as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all stand to benefit from the global upswing and US foreign policy (Chart 20). Chart 20Reinitiate Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Reinitiate Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Reinitiate Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Chart 21Reinitiate Long Global Value Over Growth Reinitiate Long Global Value Over Growth Reinitiate Long Global Value Over Growth The Biden administration will likely try to rejoin the CPTPP but even if it fails to do so it will privilege relations with these countries as it strives to counter China and Russia. The UK, South Korea, Thailand and others could join the CPTPP over time – though an attempt to recruit Taiwan would exacerbate the geopolitical risks highlighted above centered on Taiwan. The dollar is perking up, adding a near-term headwind to global equities, but the cyclical trend for the dollar is still down due to extreme monetary and fiscal dovishness. Tactically, go long Mexican equities over Brazilian equities. From a strategic point of view we still favor value stocks over growth stocks and recommend investors reinitiate this global trade (Chart 21). Strategically, wait to overweight UK stocks in a global portfolio until the result of the May local elections is known and the risk of Scottish independence can be reassessed. Strategically, favor developed Europe over emerging Europe stocks as a result of Russian geopolitical risks that are set to escalate. Strategically go long global defense stocks versus cyber security stocks as a geopolitical “back to work” trade for a time when economic activity resumes and resource-oriented territorial, kinetic, military risks reawaken. Strategically, favor EM currencies other than Brazil, Turkey, and the Philippines to minimize exposure to economic populism, poor macro fundamentals, and election risk. Strategically, go long the BCA Rare Earths Basket to capture persistent US-China tensions under Biden and the search for alternatives to China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   We Read (And Liked) … Supply-Side Structural Reform Supply-Side Structural Reform, a compilation of Chinese economic and policy research, discusses several aspects of Chinese economic reform as it is practiced under the Xi Jinping administration, spanning the meaning and importance of supply-side structural reform in China as well as five major tasks.1 The book consists of contributions by Chinese scholars, financial analysts, and opinion makers in 2015, so we have learned a lot since it was published, even as it sheds light on Beijing’s interpretation of reform. 2015 was a year of financial turmoil that saw a dramatic setback for China’s 2013 liberal reform blueprint. It also saw the launch of a new round of reforms under the thirteenth Five Year Plan (2016-20), which aimed to push China further down the transition from export-manufacturing to domestic and consumer-led growth. Beijing’s renewed reform push in 2017, which included a now infamous “deleveraging campaign,” ultimately led to a global slowdown in 2018-19 that was fatefully exacerbated by the trade war with the United States – only to be eclipsed by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Built on fundamental economic theory and the social background of China, the book’s authors examine the impact of supply-side reform on the Chinese financial sector, industrial sector, and macroeconomic development. The comprehensive analysis covers short-term, mid-term and long-term effects. From the perspective of economic theory, there is consensus that China's supply-side structural reform framework did not forsake government support for the demand side of the economy, nor was it synonymous with traditional, liberal supply-side economics in the Western world. In contrast to Say’s Law, Reaganomics, and the UK’s Thatcherite privatization reforms, China's supply-side reform was concentrated on five tasks specific to its contemporary situation: cutting excessive industrial capacity, de-stocking, deleveraging, cutting corporate costs, and improving various structural “weaknesses.” The motives behind the new framework were to enhance the mobility and efficiency of productive factors, eliminate excess capacity, and balance effective supply with effective demand. Basically, if China cannot improve efficiencies, capital will be misallocated, corporations will operate at a loss, and the economy’s potential will worsen over the long run. The debt buildup will accelerate and productivity will suffer. Regarding implementation, the book sets forth several related policies, including deepening the reform of land use and the household registration (hukou) system, and accelerating urbanization, which are effective measures to increase the liquidity of productive factors. Others promote the transformation from a factor-driven economy to efficiency and innovation-driven economy, including improving the property rights system, transferring corporate and local government debt to the central government, and encouraging investment in human capital and in technological innovation. The book also analyzes and predicts the potential costs of reform on the economy in the short and long term. In the short run, authors generally anticipated that deleveraging and cutting excessive industrial capacity would put more pressure on the government’s fiscal budget. The rise in the unemployment rate, cases of bankruptcy, and the negative sentiment of investors would slow China’s economic growth. In the medium and long run, this structural reform was seen as necessary for a sustainable medium-speed economic growth, leading to more positive expectations for households and corporates. The improved efficiency in capital allocation would provide investors with more confidence in the Chinese economy and asset market. Authors argued that overall credit risk was still controllable in near-term, as the corresponding policies such as tax reduction and urbanization would boost private investment and consumption in the short run. These policies increased demand in the labor market and created working positions to counteract adverse impacts. Employment in industries where excessive capacity was most severe only accounted for about 3% of total urban employment in 2013. Regarding the rise in credit risk during de-capacity, the asset quality of banks had improved since the 1990s and the level of bad debt was said to be within a controllable range, given government support. Moreover, in the long run, the merger and reorganization of enterprises would increase the efficient supply and have a positive effect on economic innovation-driven transformation. We know from experience that much of the optimism about reform would confront harsh realities in the 2016-21 period. The reforms proceeded in a halting fashion as the US trade war interrupted their implementation, prompting the government to resort to traditional stimulus measures in mid-2018, only to be followed by another massive fiscal-and-credit splurge in 2020 in the face of the pandemic. Yet investors could be surprised to find that the Politburo meeting on April 17, 2020 proclaimed that China would continue to focus on supply-side structural reform even amid efforts to normalize the economy and maintain epidemic prevention and control. Leaders also pledged to maintain the supply-side reform while emphasizing demand-side management during annual Central Economic Work Conference in December 2020. In other words, Xi administration’s policy preferences remain set, and compromises forced by exogenous events will soon give way to renewed reform initiatives. This is a risk to the global reflation trade in 2021-22. There has not been a total abandonment of supply-side reform. The main idea of demand-side reform – shifts in the way China’s government stimulates the economy – is to fully tap the potential of the domestic market and call for an expansion of consumption and effective investment. Combined with the new concept of “dual circulation,” which emphasizes domestic production and supply chains (effectively import substitution), the current demand-side reforms fall in line with the supply-side goal of building a more independent and controllable supply chain and produce higher technology products. These combined efforts will provide “New China” sectors with more policy support, less regulatory constraint, and lead to better economic and financial market performance. Despite the fluctuations in domestic growth and the pressure from external demand, China will maintain the focus on reform in its long-term planning. The fundamental motivation is to enhance efficiency and innovation that is essential for China’s productivity and competitiveness in the future. Thus, investors should not become complacent over the vast wave of fiscal and credit stimulus that is peaking today as we go to press. Instead they should recognize that China’s leaders are committed to restructuring. This means that the economic upside of stimulus has a cap on it– a cap that will eventually be put in place by policymakers, if not by China’s lower capacity for debt itself. It would be a colossal policy mistake for China to overtighten monetary and fiscal policy in 2021 but any government attempts to tighten, the financial market will become vulnerable. A final thought: it is unclear whether there is potential for an improvement in China’s foreign relations contained in this conclusion. What the western world is demanding is for China to rebalance its economy, open up its markets, cut back on the pace of technological acquisition, reduce government subsidies for state-owned companies, and conform better to US and EU trade rules. There is zero chance that China will provide all of these things. But its own reform program calls for greater intellectual property protections, greater competition in non-strategic sectors (which the US and EU should be able to access under recent trade deals), and targeted stimulus for sustainable energy, where the US and EU see trade and investment opportunities. Thus there is a basis for an improvement in cooperation. What remains to be seen is how protectionist dual circulation will be in practice and how aggressively the US will pursue international enforcement of technological restrictions on China under the Biden administration. Jingnan Liu Research Associate JingnanL@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Yifu L, et al. Supply-Side Structural Reform (Beijing: Democracy & Construction Publishing House, 2016). 351 pages. Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

For this month’s Special Report, we are sending you a collaboration between our US Investment Strategy and US Political Strategy teams. US Political Strategy is our newest strategy service and it extends the proprietary framework of our Geopolitical Strategy service to provide analysis of political developments that is relevant for US-focused investors. Please contact your relationship manager if you would like more information or to begin trialing the service. Highlights Ronald Reagan cast a long shadow over the elected officials who followed him … :The influence of the economic policies associated with Ronald Reagan held such persistent sway that even the Clinton and Obama administrations had to follow their broad outlines. … just as Paul Volcker did over central bankers at home and abroad … : The Volcker Fed’s uncompromising resistance to the 1970s’ runaway inflation established the Fed’s credibility and enshrined a new global central banking orthodoxy. … but it appears their enduring influence may have finally run its course … : The pandemic overrode everything else in real time, but investors may ultimately view 2020 as the year in which Democrats broke away from post-Reagan orthodoxy and the Fed decided Volcker’s vigilance was no longer relevant. … to investors’ potential chagrin: If inflation, big government and organized labor come back from the dead, globalization loses ground, regulation expands, anti-trust enforcement regains some bite and tax rates rise and become more progressive, then the four-decade investment golden age that Reagan and Volcker helped launch may be on its last legs. Feature The pandemic dominated everything in real time in 2020, as investors scrambled to keep up with its disruptions and the countermeasures policymakers deployed to shelter the economy from them. With some distance, however, investors may come to view it as a year of two critical policy inflection points: the end of the Reagan fiscal era and the end of the Volcker monetary era. The shifts could mark a watershed because Reagan’s and Volcker’s enduring influence helped power an investment golden age that has lasted for nearly 40 years. What comes next may not be so supportive for financial markets. Political history often unfolds in cycles even if their starting and ending dates are never as clear cut in real life as they are in dissertations. Broadly, the FDR administration kicked off the New Deal era, a 48-year period of increased government involvement in daily life via the introduction and steady expansion of the social safety net, broadened regulatory powers and sweeping worker protections. It was followed by the 40-year Reagan era, with a continuous soundtrack of limited government rhetoric made manifest in policies that sought to curtail the spread of social welfare programs, deregulate commercial activity, devolve power to state and local government units and the private sector and push back against unions. The Obama and Trump administrations challenged different aspects of Reaganism, but the 2020 election cycle finally toppled it. Ordinarily, that might only matter to historians and political scientists, but the Reagan era coincided with a fantastic run in financial markets. So, too, did the inflation vigilance that lasted long after Paul Volcker’s 1979-1987 tenure at the helm of the Federal Reserve, which drove an extended period of disinflation, falling interest rates and rising central bank credibility. Our focus here is on fiscal policy, and we touch on monetary policy only to note that last summer’s revision of the Fed’s statement of long-run monetary policy goals shut the door on the Volcker era. The end of both eras could mark an inflection point in the trajectory of asset returns. The Happy Warrior The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”1 Chart II-1After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit Ronald Reagan held his conservative views with the zeal of the convert that he was.2 Those views were probably to the right of much of the electorate, but his personal appeal was strong enough to make them palatable to a sizable majority (Chart II-1). Substitute “left” for “right” and the sentiment just as easily sums up FDR’s ability to get the New Deal off the ground. Personal magnetism played a big role in each era’s rise, with both men radiating relatability and optimism that imbued their sagging fellow citizens with a sense of comfort and security that made them willing to try something very different. 1980 was hardly 1932 on the distress scale, but America was in a funk after the upheaval of the sixties, the humiliating end to Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation and a term and a half of uninspiring and ineffectual presidential leadership. Enter the Great Communicator, whose initial weekly radio address evoked the FDR of the Fireside Chats – jovial, resolute and confident, with palpable can-do energy – buffed to a shine by a professional actor and broadcaster whose vocal inflections hit every mark.3 The Gipper,4 with his avuncular bearing, physical robustness and ever-present twinkle in his eye, was just what the country needed to feel better about itself. Reaganomics 101 Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.5 President Reagan’s economic plan had three simple goals: cut taxes, tame government spending and reduce regulation. From the start of his entry into politics in the mid-sixties, Reagan cast himself as a defender of hard-working Americans’ right to keep more of the fruits of their labor from a grasping federal government seeking funding for wasteful, poorly designed programs. He harbored an intense animus for LBJ’s Great Society, which extended the reach of the federal government in ways that he characterized as a drag on initiative, accomplishment and freedom, no matter how well intentioned it may have been. That message hung a historic loss on Barry Goldwater in 1964 when inflation was somnolent but it proved to be far more persuasive after the runaway inflation of the seventies exposed the perils of excessive government (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up As the Reagan Foundation website describes the impact of his presidency’s economic policies, “Millions … were able to keep more of the money for which they worked so hard. Families could reliably plan a budget and pay their bills. The seemingly insatiable Federal government was on a much-needed diet. And businesses and individual entrepreneurs were no longer hassled by their government, or paralyzed by burdensome and unnecessary regulations every time they wanted to expand.” “In a phrase, the American dream had been restored.” The Enduring Reach Of Reaganomics I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. – Grover Norquist Though President-Elect Clinton bridled at limited government’s inherent restrictions, bursting out during a transition briefing, “You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f***ing bond traders?” his administration largely observed them. This was especially true after the drubbing Democrats endured in the 1994 midterms, when the Republicans captured their first House majority in four decades behind the Contract with America, a skillfully packaged legislative agenda explicitly founded on Reagan principles. Humbled in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and hemmed in by roving bands of bond vigilantes, Clinton was forced to tack to the center. James Carville, a leading architect of Clinton’s 1992 victory, captured the moment, saying, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or … a .400 … hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Reagan’s legacy informed the Bush administration’s sweeping tax cuts (and its push to privatize social security), and forced the Obama administration to tread carefully with the stimulus package it devised to combat the Great Recession. Although the administration’s economic advisors considered the $787 billion (5%-of-peak-GDP) bill insufficient, political staffers carried the day and the price tag was kept below $800 billion to appease the three Republican senators whose votes were required to pass it. Even with the economy in its worst state since the Depression, the Obama administration had to acquiesce to Reaganite budget pieties if it wanted any stimulus bill at all. Its leash got shorter after it agreed with House Republicans to “sequester” excess spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011. On the Republican side of the aisle, Grover Norquist, who claims to have founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at Reagan’s request, enforced legislative fealty to the no-new-tax mantra. ATR, which opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle, corrals legislators with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, “commit[ting] them to oppose any effort to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses.” ATR’s influence has waned since its 2012 peak, when 95% of Republicans in Congress had signed the pledge, and Norquist no longer strikes fear in the hearts of Republicans inclined to waver on taxes. His declining influence is testament to Reaganism’s success on the one hand (the tax burden has already been reduced) and the fading appeal of its signature fiscal restraint on the other. Did Government Really Shrink? When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. – The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance For all of its denunciations of government spending, the Reagan administration ran up the largest expansionary budget deficits (as a share of GDP) of any postwar administration until the global financial crisis (Chart II-3). Although it aggressively slashed non-defense discretionary spending, it couldn’t cut enough to offset the Pentagon’s voracious appetite. The Reagan deficits were not all bad: increased defense spending hastened the end of the Cold War, so they were in a sense an investment that paid off in the form of the ‘90s peace dividend and the budget surpluses it engendered. Chart II-3Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Nonetheless, the Reagan experience reveals the uncomfortable truth that there is little scope for any administration or Congressional session to cut federal spending. Mandatory entitlement spending on social security, Medicare and Medicaid constitutes the bulk of federal expenditures (Chart II-4) and they are very popular with the electorate, as the Trump campaign shrewdly recognized in the 2016 Republican primaries (Table II-1). Discretionary spending, especially ex-defense, is a drop in the bucket, thanks largely to a Reagan administration that already cut it to the bone (Chart II-5). Chart II-4The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... Chart II-5Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts   Table II-1How Trump Broke Republican Orthodoxy On Entitlement Spending March 2021 March 2021 The Reagan tax cuts therefore accomplished the easy part of the “starve the beast” strategy but his administration failed to make commensurate cuts in outlays (Chart II-6). If overall spending wasn’t cut amidst oppressive inflation, while the Great Communicator was in the Oval Office to make the case for it to a considerably more fiscally conservative electorate, there is no chance that it will be cut this decade. As our Geopolitical Strategy service has flagged for several years, the median US voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Reagan-era fiscal conservatism has gone the way of iconic eighties features like synthesizers, leg warmers and big hair, even if it had one last gasp in the form of the post-crisis “Tea Party” and Obama’s compromise on budget controls. Chart II-6Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Do Republicans Still Want The Reagan Mantle? Chart II-7“Limited Government” Falling Out Of Fashion March 2021 March 2021 Reaganism is dead, killed by a decided shift in broad American public opinion, and within the Republican and Democratic parties themselves. Americans are just as divided today as they were in Reagan’s era about the size of the government but the trend since the late 1990s is plainly in favor of bigger government (Chart II-7). Recent developments, including the 2020 election, reinforce our conviction that trend will not reverse any time soon. The Republicans are the natural heirs of Reagan’s legacy. Much of President Trump’s appeal to conservatives lay in his successful self-branding as the new Reagan. Though he lacked the Gipper’s charisma and affability, his unapologetic assertion of American exceptionalism rekindled some of the glow of Morning-in-America confidence. Following the outsider trail blazed by Reagan, he lambasted the Washington establishment and promised to slash bureaucracy, deregulate the economy and shake things up. Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment was the largest tax reform since Reagan’s in 1986. He oversaw defense spending increases to take on China, which he all but named the new “evil empire.”6 Like Reagan, he was willing to weather criticism for face-to-face meetings with rival nations’ dictators. Even his trade protectionism had more in common with the Reagan administration than is widely recognized.7 Chart II-8Reagan’s Amnesty On Immigration March 2021 March 2021 But major differences in the two presidents’ policy portfolios underline the erosion of the Reagan legacy’s hold. President Trump outflanked his Republican competitors for the 2016 nomination by running against cutting government spending – he was the only candidate who opposed entitlement reform. His signature proposal was to stem immigration by means of a Mexican border wall. While Reagan had sought to crack down on illegal immigration, he pursued a compromise approach and granted amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants living in America to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, sparing businesses from having to scramble to replace them (Chart II-8). While Reagan curtailed non-defense spending, Trump signed budget-busting bills with relish, even before the COVID pandemic necessitated emergency deficit spending. Trump tried to use the power of government to intervene in the economy and alienated the business community, which revered Reagan, with his scattershot trade war. Trump’s greater hawkishness on immigration and trade and his permissiveness on fiscal spending differentiated him from Reagan orthodoxy and signaled a more populist Republican Party. Chart II-9Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy March 2021 March 2021 More fundamentally, Trump represents a new strain of Republican that is at odds with the party’s traditional support for big business and disdain for big government. If he leads that strain to take on the party establishment by challenging moderate Republicans in primary elections and insisting on running as the party’s next presidential candidate, the GOP will be swimming upstream in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It is too soon to make predictions about either of these elections other than to say that Trump is capable of splitting the party in a way not seen since Ross Perot in the 1990s or Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s (Chart II-9).8 If he does so, the Democrats will remain firmly in charge and lingering Reaganist policies will be actively dismantled. Even if the party manages to preserve its fragile Trumpist/traditionalist coalition, it is hard to imagine it will recover its appetite for shrinking entitlements, siding against labor or following a laissez-faire approach to corporate conduct and combinations. Republicans will pay lip service to fiscal restraint but Trump’s demonstration that austerity does not win votes will lead them to downplay spending cuts and entitlement reform as policy priorities – at least until inflation again becomes a popular grievance (Chart II-10). Republicans will also fail to gain traction with voters if they campaign merely on restoring the Trump tax cuts after Biden’s likely partial repeal of them. Support for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act hardly reached 40% for the general public and 30% for independents and it is well known that the tax reform did little to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats took the House (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Republicans Have Many Priorities Above Budget Deficits March 2021 March 2021 Chart II-11Trump Tax Cuts Were Never Very Popular March 2021 March 2021 On immigration the Republican Party will follow Trump and refuse amnesty. Immigration levels are elevated and Biden’s lax approach to the border, combined with a looming growth disparity with Latin America, will generate new waves of incomers and provoke a Republican backlash. On trade and foreign policy, Republicans will follow a synthesis of Reagan and Trump in pursuing a cold war with China. The Chinese economy is set to surpass the American economy by the year 2028 and is already bigger in purchasing power parity terms (Chart II-12). The Chinese administration is becoming more oppressive at home, more closed to liberal and western ideas, more focused on import substitution, and more technologically ambitious. The Chinese threat will escalate in the coming decade and the Republican Party will present itself as the anti-communist party by proposing a major military-industrial build-up. Yet it is far from assured that the Democrats will be soft on China, which is to say that they will not be able to cut defense spending substantially. Chart II-12China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP Will Biden Take Up The Cause? One might ask if the Biden administration might seek to adopt some elements of the Reagan program. President Biden is among the last of the pro-market Democrats who emerged in the wake of the Reagan revolution. Those “third-way” Democrats thrived in the 1990s by accommodating themselves to Reagan’s free-market message while maintaining there was a place for a larger federal role in certain aspects of the economy and society. The 2020 election demonstrated that the Democrats’ political base is larger than the Republicans’ and third-way policies could be a way to make further inroads with affluent suburbanites who helped deliver Georgia and Virginia. Alas, the answer appears to be no. The Democrats’ base increasingly abhors Reagan-era economic and social policies, and the country’s future demographic changes reinforce the party’s current, progressive trajectory. That means fiery younger Democrats don’t have to compromise their principles with third-way policies when they can just wait for Texas to turn blue. Chart II-13Democrats Look To New Deal, Eschew ‘Third Way’ March 2021 March 2021 Biden has only been in office for one month but a rule of thumb is that his party will pull him further to the left the longer Republicans remain divided and ineffective. His cabinet appointments have been center-left, not far-left, though his executive orders have catered to the far-left, particularly on immigration. In order to pass his two major legislative proposals through an evenly split Senate he must appeal to Democratic moderates, as every vote in the party will be needed to get the FY2021 and FY2022 budget reconciliation bills across the line, with Vice President Kamala Harris acting as the Senate tie breaker. Nevertheless his agenda still highlights that the twenty-first century Democrats are taking a page out of the FDR playbook and unabashedly promoting big government solutions (Chart II-13). Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is not only directed at emergency pandemic relief but also aims to shore up state and local finances, education, subsidized housing, and child care. His health care proposals include a government-provided insurance option (originally struck from the Affordable Care Act to secure its passage in 2010) and a role for Medicare in negotiating drug prices. And his infrastructure plan is likely to provide cover for a more ambitious set of green energy projects that will initiate the Democratic Party’s next big policy pursuit after health care: environmentalism. The takeaway is not that Biden’s administration is necessarily radical – he eschews government-administered health care and is only proposing a partial reversal of Trump’s tax cuts – but rather that his party has taken a decisive turn away from the “third-way” pragmatism that defined his generation of Democrats in favor of a return to the “Old-Left” and pro-labor policies of the New Deal era (Chart II-14). The party has veered to the left in reaction to the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and Trumpism. Vice President Harris, Biden’s presumptive heir, had the second-most progressive voting record during her time in the Senate and would undoubtedly install a more progressive cabinet. Table II-2 shows her voting record alongside other senators who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary election. All of them except perhaps Senator Amy Klobuchar stood to his left on the policy spectrum. Chart II-14Democrats Eschew Budget Constraints March 2021 March 2021 Fundamentally the American electorate is becoming more open to a larger role for the government in the economy and society. While voters almost always prioritize the economy and jobs, policy preferences have changed. The morass of excessive inflation, deficits, taxation, regulation, strikes and business inefficiencies that gave rise to the Reagan movement is not remembered as ancient history – it is not even remembered. The problems of slow growth, inadequate health and education, racial injustice, creaky public services, and stagnant wages are by far the more prevalent concerns – and they require more, not less, spending and government involvement (Chart II-15). Insofar as voters worry about foreign threats they focus on the China challenge, where Biden will be forced to adopt some of Trump’s approach. Table II-2Harris Stood To The Left Of Democratic Senators March 2021 March 2021 Chart II-15Public Concern For Economy Means Greater Government Help March 2021 March 2021 When inflation picks up in the coming years, voters will not reflexively ask for government to be pared back so that the economy becomes more efficient, as they did once they had a taste of Reagan’s medicine in the early 1980s. Rather, they will ask the government to step in to provide higher wages, indexation schemes, price caps, and assistance for labor, as is increasingly the case. The ruling party will be offering these options and the opposition Republicans will render themselves obsolete if they focus single-mindedly on austerity measures. Americans will have to experience a recession caused by inflation – i.e. stagflation – before they call for anything resembling Reagan again. The Post-Reagan Market Landscape Many investors and conservative economists were shocked9 that the Bernanke Fed’s mix of zero interest rates and massive securities purchases did not foster runaway inflation and destroy the dollar. They failed to anticipate that widespread private-sector deleveraging would put a lid on money creation (and that other major central banks would follow in the Fed’s ZIRP and QE footsteps). But a longer view of four decades of disinflation suggests another conclusion: Taking away the monetary punch bowl when the labor party gets going and pursuing limited-government fiscal policy can keep inflation pressures from gaining traction. Globalization, technology-enabled elimination of many lower-skilled white-collar functions and the hollowing out of the organized labor movement all helped as well, though they helped foment a revolt among a meaningful segment of the Republican rank-and-file against Reagan-style policies. The Volcker Fed set the tone for pre-emptive monetary tightening and subsequent FOMCs have reliably intervened to cool off the economy when the labor market begins heating up. The Phillips Curve may be out of favor with investors, but wage inflation only gathers steam when the unemployment rate falls below its natural level (Chart II-16), and the Fed did not allow negative unemployment gaps to persist for very long in the Volcker era. Without wage inflation putting more money in the hands of a broad cross-section of households with a fairly high marginal propensity to consume, it’s hard to get inflation in consumer prices. Chart II-16Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall The Fed took the cyclical wind from the labor market’s sails but the Reagan administration introduced a stiff secular headwind when it crushed PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union, in 1981, marking an inflection point in the relationship between management and labor. That watershed event opened the door for employers to deploy much rougher tactics against unions than they had since before the New Deal.10 Reagan’s championing of free markets helped establish globalization as an economic policy that the third-way Clinton administration eagerly embraced with NAFTA and a campaign to admit China to the WTO. The latter coincided with a sharp decline in labor’s share of income (Chart II-17). Chart II-17Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor The core Reagan tenets – limited government, favoring management over labor, globalization, sleepy anti-trust enforcement, reduced regulation and less progressive tax systems with lower rates – are all at risk of Biden administration rollbacks. While the easy monetary/tight fiscal combination promoted a rise in asset prices rather than consumer prices ever since the end of the global financial crisis, today’s easy monetary/easy fiscal could promote consumer price inflation and asset price deflation. We do not think inflation will be an issue in 2021 but we expect it will in the later years of Biden’s term. Ultimately, we expect massive fiscal accommodation will stoke inflation pressures and those pressures, abetted by a Fed which has pledged not to pre-emptively remove accommodation when the labor market tightens, will eventually bring about the end of the bull market in risk assets and the expansion. Investment Implications Business revered the Reagan administration and investors rightfully associate it with the four-decade bull market that began early in its first term. Biden is no wild-eyed liberal, but rolling back core Reagan-era tenets has the potential to roll back juicy Reagan-era returns. Only equities have the lengthy data series to allow a full comparison of Reagan-era returns with postwar New Deal-era returns (Table II-3), but the path of Treasury bond yields in the three-decade bear market that preceded the current four-decade bull market suggests that bonds generated little, if any, real returns in the pre-Reagan postwar period (Chart II-18). Stagnant precious metal returns point to tame Reagan-era inflation and downward pressure on input costs. Table II-3Annualized Real Market Returns Before And After Reagan March 2021 March 2021 Chart II-18Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Owning the market is not likely to be as rewarding going forward as it was in the Reagan era. Active management may again have its day in the sun as the end of the Reagan tailwinds open up disparities between sectors, sub-industries and individual companies. Even short-sellers may experience a renaissance. We recommend that multi-asset investors underweight bonds, especially Treasuries. We expect the clamor for bigger government will contribute to a secular bear market that could rival the one that persisted from the fifties to the eighties. Within Treasury portfolios, we would maintain below-benchmark duration and favor TIPS over nominal bonds at least until the Fed signals that its campaign to re-anchor inflation expectations higher has achieved its goal. Gold and/or other precious metals merit a place in portfolios as a hedge against rising inflation and other real assets, from land to buildings to other resources, are worthy of consideration as well. BCA has been cautioning of a downward inflection in long-run financial asset returns for a few years, based on demanding valuations and a steadily shrinking scope for ongoing declines in inflation and interest rates. Mean reversion has been part of the thesis as well; trees simply don’t grow to the sky. Now that the curtain has fallen on the Volcker and Reagan eras, the inevitable downward inflection has received a catalyst. We remain constructive on risk assets over the next twelve months, but we expect that intermediate- and long-term returns will fall well short of their post-1982 pace going forward. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 August 12, 1986 Press Conference News Conference | The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (reaganfoundation.org), accessed February 4, 2021. Reagan makes the quip in his prepared opening remarks. 2 Reagan was a Democrat until he entered politics in his fifties. He claimed to have voted for FDR four times. 3 April 3, 1982 Radio Address President Reagan's Radio Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery - 4/3/82 - YouTube, accessed February 4, 2021. 4 As an actor, Reagan was perhaps best known for his portrayal of Notre Dame football legend George Gipp, who is immortalized in popular culture as the subject of the “win one for the Gipper” halftime speech. 5 July 22, 1981 White House Remarks to Visiting Editors and Broadcasters reaganfoundation.org, accessed February 8, 2021. 6 Reagan famously urged his followers, in reference to the USSR, “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” See his “Address to the National Association of Evangelicals,” March 8, 1983, voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu. 7 Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration trade representative who directed its tariff battles, was a veteran of Reagan’s trade wars against Japan in the 1980s. 8 “Exclusive: The Trump Party? He still holds the loyalty of GOP voters,” USA Today, February 21, 2021, usatoday.com. 9 Open Letter to Ben Bernanke,” November 15, 2010. Open Letter to Ben Bernanke | Hoover Institution Accessed February 23, 2021. 10 Please see the following US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Labor Strikes Back, Parts 1, 2 and 3,” dated January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.