Geopolitics

Highlights We are hesitant to call a top to the volatility spike just yet. The US dollar is experiencing a counter-trend bounce. We also see political and geopolitical risks flashing yellow. House Democrats are drafting a reconciliation bill that will remind financial markets of looming tax hikes. President Biden faces imminent tests on China/Taiwan and Iran. The tech sector has bounced amid the setback to the reflation trade. Over the long run the Biden administration’s reflationary agenda suggests tech will no longer outperform. Biden’s regulatory risk to the tech sector is not immediate but still a downside risk. No major piece of bipartisan legislation is forthcoming but the Department of Justice, FCC, and FTC can bring negative surprises. We are hitting pause on our S&P trades until Biden passes some early hurdles. Feature Volatility has room to run, judging by past post-crisis periods (Chart 1), and this time we are especially concerned with brewing geopolitical risks, namely the US-China tensions over the Taiwan Strait. This geopolitical risk comes on top of the short squeezes and battles that retail investors are having against hedge funds all over the market. China is reminding the world of its red line against Taiwanese independence while testing the newly seated Joe Biden administration over whether it will seek a technological blockade against the mainland. Economic and trade policy uncertainty have collapsed but they would surge in the event of a crisis incident (Chart 2). While war is not likely, it is possible, so we need to see the Biden administration defuse the situation and pass this first test before we are willing to take on more risk on a tactical three-to-six-month time frame. Chart 1Volatility Can Go Higher Still Volatility Can Go Higher Still Volatility Can Go Higher Still Chart 2Uncertainty Down But Beijing Testing Biden Uncertainty Down But Beijing Testing Biden Uncertainty Down But Beijing Testing Biden Chart 3Biden's Approval Starts At 55% Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same President Biden’s average approval rating in his first two weeks in office is 55%, right where former President Trump’s disapproval rating would have suggested (Chart 3). This is a significant but not extravagant improvement in political capital for the White House. Our Political Capital Index shows Biden’s position as moderate-to-strong (Table 1). Table 1Biden’s Political Capital Moderate-To-Strong Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same The implication is that he still has a chance of passing his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan as a bipartisan bill with 10 Republican senators, a feat that would likely lower the topline value to around $1.3 trillion (Republicans proposed $618 billion) and exclude an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. There is also a strong swing of independents in favor of Democrats in the opinion polling, in the wake of the incident on Capitol Hill on January 6, despite the fact that Republican and Democratic party identification are both stuck at around 30% — meaning that the Biden administration does have something to gain by appearing bipartisan (Chart 4).1 Republicans might cooperate to staunch the bleeding of their own support. Even Republicans approve of stimulus amid the pandemic and they would later be able to oppose Biden’s more controversial proposals with better optics having demonstrated bipartisan intent at the outset. However, House Democrats are already proceeding with a budget resolution, the first step in the budget reconciliation process that enables them to bypass Republicans entirely and get almost everything they want (Diagram 1). Chart 4Will Independents Keep Breaking Toward Democrats? Will Independents Keep Breaking Toward Democrats? Will Independents Keep Breaking Toward Democrats? Diagram 1Timeline Of Impeachment, Budget Reconciliation, And Regular Legislation Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Biden’s political capital should strengthen over the next year as the vaccine rollout improves and the economy comes roaring back. Official economic projections suggest that growth will glide solidly above potential until 2026 and that the output gap will close by 2024 (Chart 5). These estimates will be disappointed in various ways, of course, but in the near-term the risk is to the upside as they do not include Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion rescue plan or his remaining, post-COVID agenda afterwards, which could cost anywhere from $3.7-$6.4 trillion over a ten-year period.2 The economy will be at less risk of relapsing than of overheating. This is especially true given the Federal Reserve’s new average inflation targeting strategy, which will discourage rate hikes till next year at the very earliest (and, from a political point of view, we would think 2023). Looking at the chart, Biden’s economic backdrop is far more propitious than that of his former boss Barack Obama’s back in 2009. Biden’s political momentum is therefore sustainable when it comes to the two budget reconciliation bills he wants to pass this year and next year. Republican internal divisions will help him. These were highlighted this week by Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel’s criticism of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s claims of voter fraud after the election and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent scathing criticism of controversial pro-Trump freshman House member Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Republicans are only beginning their internal struggle and it is not certain that it will be resolved in time for the 2022 midterm elections. This is another reason to think that Biden’s political capital will be sustained and that moderate Republicans might assist with some Democratic legislation. The risks to Biden’s momentum stem from foreign policy (China, Iran, Russia), rapidly emerging financial instability, his party’s attempts at social control, and any major (not minor) negative developments involving the still-running pandemic and vaccine rollout. Chart 5US Economic Outlook Over Biden’s Term Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Macro Reflation Says Stay Underweight Tech The tech sector experienced a manic phase last year when COVID-19 struck and lockdowns kept consumers at home with nothing to do but work, shop, and stare at their phones. The big five companies – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook – together witnessed an extraordinary run up relative to the other 495 companies in the S&P index that has since peaked and dropped off (Chart 6). Chart 6Fade The Big Tech Bounce Over Long Run Fade The Big Tech Bounce Over Long Run Fade The Big Tech Bounce Over Long Run Tech stock market capitalization accounts for 34% of American economic output – an extreme sign of over-concentration at a time when the market is generally inflated, according to the Buffett Index of stock market cap relative to GDP (Chart 7). Tech outperformance rests on strong earnings growth – supercharged due to the COVID crisis – as well as the secular fall in bond yields as a result of the global backdrop of excessive savings, low inflation, and scarce growth. Tech stocks are especially sensitive to bond yields because markets are projecting their earnings far into the future, as our colleague Mathieu Savary explained back in August. Ultra-dovish monetary policy with zero interest rates for longer and longer time frames is a perennial gift to these companies (Chart 8). Chart 7Buffett Indicator Says Big Tech Too Big Buffet Indicator Says Big Tech Too Big Buffet Indicator Says Big Tech Too Big Chart 8Big Tech Maxing Out As Bond Yields Rise? Big Tech Maxing Out As Bond Yields Rise? Big Tech Maxing Out As Bond Yields Rise? The catch is when and if growth and inflation expectations pick up. Even during the Dotcom bubble in the 1990s, the tech sector could not withstand rising interest rates (Chart 9). Eventually higher inflation will translate into central bank hikes and rising real interest rates – which should be very bad for tech as future cash flows lose value. Rising rates increase the cost of capital, while cyclical industries perform better in high growth environments with rising commodity prices. A recovery of inflation is becoming a more visible risk to investors over the coming few years. Even though unemployment is still elevated, and the output gap negative, the sea change in fiscal policy is likely to close this gap quickly and put upward pressure on expectations and prices. It will still take time to close the gap but each new dose of government spending on top of what is needed to plug the gap in demand due to the pandemic-stricken service sector will accelerate the time frame in which the labor market will tighten and price pressure will return. Investors are increasingly wary of this inflation risk as it is the logical consequence of the new combination of extreme monetary and fiscal accommodation. Earnings in the tech sector relative to the rest of the market have also peaked – and did not exceed their previous high point in 2010 despite the uniquely favorable backdrop (Chart 10). The big five have nearly saturated a lot of markets which raises the possibility that if the policy backdrop darkens, then they will see earnings disappointments. The Biden administration’s plan to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on company book income would come as a double whammy for tech earnings, as they are relatively more exposed to increases in effective tax rates than other sectors. Chart 9Big Tech Wants Deflation, Big Government Wants Reflation Big Tech Wants Deflation, Big Government Wants Reflation Big Tech Wants Deflation, Big Government Wants Reflation Chart 10Big Tech Earnings Outperformance Hit Ceiling Amid Pandemic Big Tech Earnings Outperformance Hit Ceiling Amid Pandemic Big Tech Earnings Outperformance Hit Ceiling Amid Pandemic Finally, there is the long building problem of regulatory risk, as Americans have clearly become more concerned about Big Tech’s power and influence over their daily lives and politics. Here we do not think the Biden administration poses an immediate threat of frontal legislative assault, but we do think the end game is greater regulation, including tougher enforcement from antitrust agencies. Combined with geopolitical risk from Europe and other countries also seeking to tax and regulate these companies, the recent global semiconductor shortage, and the potential for a Taiwanese tech blockade, the political risk is clearly to the downside. Bottom Line: The macro backdrop has darkened for the tech sector. With governments turning more reflationary via a sea change in fiscal policy on top of ultra-easy monetary policy, inflation expectations should recover and inflation-sensitive sectors like tech should underperform. This risk is clear despite the fact that inflation requires the labor market to heal first. Any political, geopolitical, or regulatory risks would only further undermine the case for tech sector outperformance. Tech, Polarization, And Disinflation A critical question for investors is the relationship between US political polarization, the tech sector, and the disinflationary macroeconomic context that has proven so beneficial for Big Tech’s stock market performance. If polarization leads to gridlock, austerity, and disinflation, then tech can continue to enjoy the policy environment. But if polarization subsides, or if it coexists with a reflationary backdrop – as is the case today – then tech faces a new risk. It is fair to hypothesize that the rise of Silicon Valley and especially of social media has something to do with the explosion in US polarization over the past three decades. A simple chart of the S&P 500 alongside our polarization proxy – which measures the difference in presidential approval based on party – suggests that polarization could have some connection with tech sector outperformance (Chart 11). This is not a coincidence but the causality may work differently than some assume. The first period of tech sector outperformance, which rested on the “peace dividend” period of hyper-globalization, strong growth, strong dollar, low inflation, and technical innovation, occurred during the explosion of US polarization in the wake of the Cold War, when the US’s common enemy fell and the country’s political parties turned to do battle with each other for global supremacy. The structural changes of Reaganomics and NAFTA coincided with the political battles of the Republican revolution of 1994 and Bill Clinton’s sex scandal and impeachment. This heady period came to a peak in 2000 when the dotcom bubble burst and the US suffered its first contested election since 1876. Essentially globalization led to a deflationary backdrop that favored tech but also triggered the political struggle within the US for the spoils of victory in the Cold War. Chart 11Big Tech Likes Polarization And Gridlock Big Tech Likes Polarization And Gridlock Big Tech Likes Polarization And Gridlock The second period of tech sector outperformance emerged from the Great Recession, still higher wealth inequality, and the slow-burn economic recovery of the 2010s. The disinflationary environment and dollar bull market proved beneficial to the tech companies. In this case globalization’s deflationary effects continued but were compounded with US household deleveraging, which was far more malicious for the American middle class. Crucially, polarization created gridlock in Congress from 2010, preventing the US from pursuing a robust fiscal policy in the wake of the crisis that might have led to a more rapid recovery. Instead an extended disinflationary environment fed into social unrest and populism. While public animus naturally turned against Wall Street and the Big Banks in the wake of the financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank financial reform helped to pacify the public’s anger (though not entirely – and financial regulation is gradually reemerging as a relevant political risk). As the financial crisis faded from memory, but the low-growth, disinflationary environment continued to take a toll on households, an angry electorate began to freely express itself in the digital realm. Tech companies were happy to ride this wave and outperformed other sectors. As the backlash continued mounting, tech companies failed to rein in the angry userbase they had cultivated, and now they are staring at massive regulatory and legal risks from policymakers. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump used Twitter and social media as a tool to establish direct engagement with their political base, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had used the radio and the fireside chat. This rising political heft ultimately made the companies conspicuous as conservatives blamed them for supporting the Obama administration (and Clinton campaign) while liberals especially blamed them for getting Trump elected. The Trump saga in particular gave rise to the so-called “tech-lash,” or backlash, as the companies’ core base of young, urbanized, cosmopolitan, and international users called on the tech companies to stop the spread of Russian propaganda, or other propaganda they disagreed with, and undertake socially progressive causes. Meanwhile the older, conservative, and rural population doubted that Russian interference caused the 2016 election result and sensed that the tech companies’ content moderators might not be all that scrupulous regarding the difference between conservative views and Russian information warfare (Chart 12, top panel). In combination with the heated election year campaigning, the pandemic and the backlash against lockdown, tension in the virtual world came to a peak last year and spilled out into the real world. This all came to a head with Twitter and Facebook first censoring and then banning President Trump from their platforms amid his claims of voter fraud and the riot on Capitol Hill. Chart 12Big Tech Not The Chief Driver Of Polarization Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Two major policy changes have occurred that threaten to reverse this macro backdrop. First, as a result of the 2020 crisis the Democrats won control of the White House and Congress and can now pass their mammoth spending agenda, which goes beyond pandemic relief to expanding the role of government in American economy and society – including by reflating the economy and imposing higher taxes on corporations, both of which threaten to undermine the tech sector’s outperformance. Second, China’s secular slowdown, reduction of trade dependency, and divorce from the US economy have undermined hyper-globalization. The Biden administration is pursuing on-shoring and China restrictions albeit to a lesser extent than its predecessor. If technological advance and social media cause political polarization, then these policy shifts may not last long or have a durable macro effect. But technology and communication tools have advanced throughout history regardless of whether polarization in any given country was rising or falling. Older people are the most partisan in the US yet they are the least enthusiastic users of social media (Chart 12, bottom panel). Tech and social media have proliferated across the world and yet polarization has fallen in Germany, Australia, Sweden, and other economies even as it has risen in the United States and arguably the United Kingdom (Chart 13). If social media enabled populist outcomes like Trump and Brexit, then why did populism fall short in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany? Social media participation thrived on the rise of polarization through the 2000s and 2010s but it exacerbated the problem – and once polarization erupted in the form of an anti-establishment presidency, Russian interference, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and real world riots and social unrest, the tech platforms found themselves in the crosshairs of both of the political factions and the various politicians trying to appease their anger. Silicon Valley and the FAANGs operate in a power struggle – not merely a politicized environment – that is here to stay and will direct their attention away from their primary business and toward paying for lobbyists in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere. This in itself is a danger to their business models even if it were not the case that the macro and policy backdrop is less supportive. Bottom Line: The reflationary fiscal and policy backdrop will continue in the coming years, a macro headwind for tech outperformance, while political risks to the tech sector have grown substantially. Chart 13Polarization Falls In Many Countries Despite Social Media Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Congress In Check But Regulatory Risk Persists Democrats and Republicans have a different and opposed set of grievances against Big Tech, which is likely to prevent comprehensive legislation from developing anytime soon. But legislation is still possible, and in the meantime risks will come from emboldened regulators. Based on the House judiciary hearing in July 2020, Democrats are concerned with content moderation and market concentration. They want to fortify their recent gains in preventing social media companies from aiding what they regard as the spread of seditious and libelous material or propaganda that favors the anti-establishment Trumpist right wing. Judging by the Senate Republicans’ hearings in October and November 2020, Republicans are primarily concerned with content moderation– i.e. preventing conservatives from being de-platformed, and conservative views from being censored. Republicans are less concerned about market concentration, i.e. accusations of monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.3 Now that the social media companies have more or less thrown in with the Democrats on content moderation, Democratic priorities are likely to shift to antitrust and anti-competitive behavior. But serious changes would require either abolishing the filibuster in the Senate (which is not happening for the time being due to last month’s bipartisan power-sharing arrangement) or winning over 10 Republicans. This will be difficult, especially when it comes to the Democratic belief that a generational shift in antitrust doctrine and practice is necessary. A frontal assault on the sector would require passing a law that resolves a number of jurisprudential issues so that the courts could be instructed to interpret antitrust issues with a greater focus on rooting out anti-competitive or collusive behavior (as opposed to lowering prices and preventing consumer harm). This is possible but Republican agreement would require major compromises that the Democrats are not inclined to make. A bipartisan bill is still possible because last year’s hearings revealed that there is common ground between the two parties. Both have agreed that anti-trust agencies should be strengthened and empowered to examine Big Tech; that data should be portable and platforms should be interoperable (rather than favoring their own services or imposing penalties for users who would switch services); that mergers and acquisitions should be examined with the presumption that consumers will be harmed, so that the merging parties must show that they cannot otherwise achieve the desired consumer benefits and that their actions will serve some public good; and that regulators need not trouble themselves excessively about the problem of accurately defining the market, which is always a sticking point for such fast evolving services.4 Moreover there is overlap between the populist sides of both parties, comparable to the bipartisan populist demands to give larger household rebates amid the COVID crisis. For example, Democrats want to revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects the tech companies from being held liable for the actions and comments of third parties on their platforms. The Democratic proposal is to break down the distinction between neutral tools and content creation, arguing that tech platforms can be “negligent” and that in order to benefit from the liability protections they should have to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent unlawful misuse of their platforms that cause harm to others. This idea of “reasonable moderation” would leave a very vague standard for judges that would lead to a complex operating environment across different jurisdictions, but it is attractive to Trumpists and right-wing populists who support greater ability to sue the platforms for alleged bias.5 Thus revising Section 230 could create a bridge between the two parties, albeit isolating the free-market contingent in either party. It would foist huge new liabilities not only on the tech giants but also on startups and market entrants with far fewer lawyers. The mechanism will be a decisive feature of any future legislative proposal, however. Republicans are staunchly opposed to creating an Internet oversight committee, similar to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or anything that smacks of Big Brother and would risk too cozy of a relationship between the regulatory state and the immense capabilities of the tech companies. But they could be amenable to law that strengthens the antitrust agencies and alters the parameters of judicial scrutiny if they believed it would make consumer choice and innovation more likely. If popular opinion suggested great urgency on this issue then perhaps the parties’ differences could be resolved more quickly in the form of a major bill. But polls suggest the populace is also divided on tech regulation – in part because the pandemic left consumers largely thankful for the Internet services that they relied on so heavily while under lockdown. A bare majority of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats now favor tech regulation, the average voter is lukewarm, and moderates of both parties show little enthusiasm (Chart 14). By contrast, at the height of Democratic anxiety over Trump’s election and Russian interference, a clear majority of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents favored tougher regulation. Chart 14Public Split On Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same In short, the public is split, the parties are split, and the various 2020 crises have temporarily subsided, so tech regulatory risk will emanate from regulatory authorities but not from major new legislation anytime soon. Regulatory agencies thus threaten to give tech stocks negative surprises – even if the process takes time. Biden will replace one commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) immediately but may only be able to replace two Republican commissioners toward the end of his term, in September 2023 and 2024, meaning that the commission will be divided (Table 2). Any major crackdown on market concentration will have to proceed upon bipartisan grounds unless Democrats gain control of this commission sooner. Meanwhile Biden will be able to replace outgoing Republican Ajit Pai on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) right away, giving a Democratic tilt to this body, which is capable of pursuing the administration’s goals on content regulation (Table 3). Here the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in to defend free speech and press rights, which Section 230 ultimately reinforces, but the tech companies will be in the firing line until then. Table 2Federal Trade Commission Balance Of Power Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Table 3Federal Communications Commission Balance Of Power Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Finally, Biden’s nominee for the US Assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division will be a critical post to watch for the Department of Justice’s involvement in tech regulation and antitrust, though this position requires Senate confirmation, which will rule out any populist candidate. If Biden picks a former Facebook lawyer as rumored then he clearly will not be prioritizing a tough antitrust stance.6 Bottom Line: With the Senate filibuster intact for the time being, Democrats need 10 Republican senators to join them to pass any significant legislation that would amount to a frontal assault on the tech sector. This is possible but not probable in the short run, as Congress prioritizes the fight against the pandemic, Republicans and Democrats remain divided and the public is lukewarm about regulation. Much more likely is a regulatory slow boil at the hands of the DOJ, FCC, FTC, and the states. Biden Maintains Obama Alliance With Silicon Valley Public opinion is wishy washy about Big Tech, as mentioned above. Compare attitudes toward Wall Street and the major pharmaceutical corporations. Opinion shifted against the banks drastically during the financial crisis and has since recovered to about 24% net approval, although there are also polls showing that consumers of all stripes believe the banking sector got off easy and could use more regulation (Chart 15). The health care industry also took a hit during the Great Recession, when laid off workers also lost their health insurance, and has also largely recovered due to its conduct during the pandemic. The exception is Big Pharma, which is widely blamed for excessive drug prices, got bashed under President Trump, and is about to get bashed by President Biden in the form of price caps and Medicare negotiations. By contrast with these sectors, the computer and Internet industry has seen a hit to its popular support since Trump’s election but never dipped into net negative territory and may be recovering due to its helpful role during the COVID lockdowns. When net popular approval turns negative then it will be a flashing red light for the tech sector that sweeping regulation is imminent. While some of the opinion polling is lagging, the crisis over the election is unlikely to produce this effect because the public views break down along partisan lines. Chart 15Big Tech More Popular Than Big Banks, Big Pharma Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Thus unlike the Trumpists, or the populists in the Democratic Party, the Biden administration is only inclined gradually to dial up the pressure on Big Tech. Biden would bite off more than any president could chew if he tackled tech aggressively along with other big corporations. His campaign platform and early executive orders show that he is already tackling Big Health Insurance and Big Oil, sectors that make up 7.5% and 1.4% of GDP respectively. There is at least some focus on re-regulating the financial industry as well (7.7% of value add), albeit with lower priority. To attempt a major overhaul of Big Tech (at least 5.3% of GDP) on top of all this would be impracticable even if Biden were inclined to listen to the anti-monopoly crusaders in his party. Information services are obviously important to the economies of solid blue states like California, New York, and Washington but they are increasingly important to critical swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania – places where voters will be skeptical of Biden’s policies on energy and immigration. The information sector is growing fastest in blue states and in battlegrounds like Arizona. It employs more people in blue states and in battlegrounds like Georgia. And it is rapidly employing more people in the grand prize of Democratic designs, Texas, where an exodus of Californians fleeing poor governance and high costs holds out the possibility of creating a decisive Democratic ascendancy in the Electoral College. Silicon Valley and other tech clusters will maintain their unique strengths and network effects for a long time but the dispersion of the tech sector to cheaper heartland regions has electoral consequences that mainline Democrats will not want to suppress. Not only did the tech firms help Biden get elected through votes and media controls but also through campaign contributions. The financial and health care industries punished the Democrats for passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank reforms in 2009-12 (Chart 16). By contrast the tech heavily favors Democrats over Republicans (with donations at $170 million versus $20 million in the 2020 election). Biden’s priorities are two budget reconciliation bills that will partially reverse the Trump tax cuts in order to pay for the entrenchment and expansion of Obamacare and other aspects of his health care and child care agenda. He is also focused on infrastructure, particularly green infrastructure and renewables, to create jobs and galvanize the climate change coalition. Broad re-regulation is coming down the pike, but health, immigration, energy, and labor are higher priorities than tech. The tech sector faces greater scrutiny than before, first from the FCC and later from the DOJ and FTC, but the administration will have more room for maneuver later in its term. Bottom Line: The Obama administration forged an alliance with Silicon Valley that Biden will largely maintain. The purpose of regulatory pressure is to build leverage over the tech giants. Chart 16Big Tech A Big Donor To Democratic Party Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Investment Takeaways Not all of the dominoes are lined up to topple Big Tech in a massive display of federal monopoly busting. The public is lukewarm and the political elite are divided. Nevertheless the long-term trajectory points to greater government scrutiny – and the tech sector has no margin of safety for political risk as the macro backdrop has started to shift in a more inflationary direction. Our colleague Juan Correa Ossa has shown that antitrust action to curb corporate power has tended to occur at times in US history where stock market earnings are elevated or rising rapidly relative to average wages, when inflation is running hot, and yet the economy has entered a bust phase where politicians are looking for a scapegoat to deflect public anger (Table 4). Table 4Stock Performance In Selected Judicial Events Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same While inflation is not an immediate problem (at least not yet), it was not a problem when the FTC and DOJ went after Microsoft starting in 1998. The distressed economy and tech bubble are good enough reason for investors to expect the government to increase antitrust pressure (Chart 17). If inflation recovers in the coming years around the time the Biden administration gains room to maneuver on this issue then it is doubly bad for the tech sector. Chart 17Anti-Trust Usually Follows Economic Bust Anti-Trust Usually Follows Economic Bust Anti-Trust Usually Follows Economic Bust In Microsoft’s case, the stock fell when the government first brought charges but rallied throughout the twists and turns of the courtroom – especially after 2002 when the case was settled, and ever since (Chart 18). Fortunately for the company the DOJ backed away from breakup and instead ordered it to open up its application programming to others. But even firms that are broken up usually create buying opportunities. Note that Microsoft cleared its image and has not become the subject of government or popular scrutiny again today. Today’s regulators are likely to place a greater burden of proof on tech companies attempting mergers and acquisitions. The alternative for startups is to hold an initial public offering – and IPOs have exploded amid the current context of low rates, easy money, investor exuberance, a chilling effect on M&A, and a lingering pandemic. The markets are frothy, buyer beware (Chart 19). Chart 18Microsoft's Anti-Trust Warning Microsoft's Anti-Trust Warning Microsoft's Anti-Trust Warning Chart 19Regulators Will Crack Down On M&A Regulators Will Crack Down On M&A Regulators Will Crack Down On M&A Strategically we remain favorable toward value stocks over growth stocks given the changing macro and policy backdrop outlined above (Chart 20). However, in the very near term we would not encourage investors to take on any additional risk. The latest bout of volatility is not necessarily over, political and geopolitical risks are now underrated after a period in which they subsided from peak levels, and exuberant markets are subject to very sharp corrections.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Take A Pause Amid Value Vs Growth Setback Take A Pause Amid Value Vs Growth Setback Take A Pause Amid Value Vs Growth Setback   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Table A2Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same Big Tech Regulation Is A Slow Boil – But A Boil Just The Same   Footnotes 1     Congressional Budget Office, “Overview of the Economic Outlook: 2021-2031,” February 2021, cbo.gov. 2     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The Cost of the Trump and Biden Campaign Plans” October 7, 2020, and “The Cost of the Trump and Biden COVID Response Plans,” October 29, 2020, October 7, 2020, crfb.org. 3    The huge gap between the two parties can be illustrated by the recent case of Parler, the microblog that sought to rival Twitter by maintaining laissez faire content moderation standards. When Parler came under fire for attracting conservatives in the wake of the Twitter ban against Trump, Apple and Amazon teamed up to block it from their app purchasing and cloud services, thus effectively banning the app for 99% of users. There is no doubt that any private platform can regulate content according to its own standards on its own sites. In the words of Section 230, this extends not only to “obscene” or “excessively violent” material but to anything “otherwise objectionable.” But once tech companies prevent the emergence of competitors and alternatives, and cooperate in doing so, they enter much more dangerous legal territory. And yet the response from the House Democrats on the oversight committee was to ask the FBI to investigate Parler for hosting far-right extremists. Conservatives are therefore up in arms. The courts have not yet weighed in but the case represents a larger risk to the tech firms than the usual challenges under Section 230. 4    Representative Ken Buck, “The Third Way,” House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law 5    See Will Duffield, “Circumventing Section 230: Product Liability Lawsuits Threaten Internet Speech,” Cato Institute, January 26, 2021, cato.org. 6    See Ryan Grim and David Dayen, “Merrick Garland Wants Former Facebook Lawyer To Top Antitrust Division,” The Intercept, January 28, 2021, theintercept.com. 

Highlights Biden’s initial political capital is moderate-to-strong according to our Political Capital Matrix. He will pass his American Rescue Plan and one or two budget reconciliation bills over the next 18 months. Investors will need to discount the impact of tax hikes eventually.  The Democrats’ second impeachment of President Trump is a distraction but the party will not let it derail their legislative agenda. The bipartisan power-sharing agreement in the Senate will keep the filibuster in place for now (though not permanently). This does not affect the most market-relevant aspects of Biden’s policies, at least not in 2021, but beyond that it is an open question.  The stock rally is stretched, so prepare for volatility in the near term. But over the long run continue to prefer stocks over bonds, cyclicals over defensives, and value over growth stocks. Feature The US equity rally is getting frothy even as President Joe Biden kicks off his administration with a flurry of executive orders. Financial exuberance stems from combined monetary and fiscal stimulus that will provide a positive backdrop for risk assets for most of this year. Still, most of the good news is priced so we expect volatility to revive in the short run. The BCA Equity Capitulation Indicator is nearing the highest points of its historic range, which is typically a signal for a 10% equity correction or more (Chart 1). Not all indicators point decisively to a bubble that will pop imminently but several suggest that a bubble is being formed.1 The policy backdrop of fiscal largesse combined with an ultra-dovish Fed makes it easy to see why some parts of the market are getting manic. In this context, the Biden administration’s regulatory and tax agenda will become a negative catalyst in the short run even though its big spending will secure the economic recovery, which is positive in the long run. Chart 1Mania Unfolding Mania Unfolding Mania Unfolding Biden’s First Executive Orders Biden’s initial decrees brought zero surprises so far. He rejoined the Paris climate agreement, canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, suspended new oil and gas leasing on federal land, reversed President Trump’s border emergency and immigration curbs, ordered federal workers to wear masks, and directed the federal government to “Buy American.” The energy sector suffered the brunt of Biden’s initial regulatory salvo but the relative performance of energy stocks did not drop as much as financials, where Biden’s regulatory risks are less immediate. Biden’s policies are negative for health care stocks but they suffered least from what was a general setback for value plays in the context of a small bounce in the dollar and fears about global growth weakness stemming from the pandemic which has not yet been quelled. Large caps in all three of these sectors are underperforming small caps, suggesting that Biden’s new regulations and looming tax hikes are not driving the markets – at least not yet (Chart 2). Rather these cyclical small caps stand to benefit from the administration’s large spending plans, which include the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan currently being negotiated (Table 1). These plans are highly likely to pass as explained below.    Chart 2Biden's Executive Orders: No Surprises So Far Biden's Executive Orders: No Surprises So Far Biden's Executive Orders: No Surprises So Far Table 1Biden’s American Rescue Plan (With Previous COVID Relief) Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital Going forward, Biden’s regulatory onslaught will bring negative surprises eventually as it expands and deepens but these will not counteract the stronger tailwinds of the vaccine and fiscal spending. Democrats have yet to invoke the Congressional Review Act, which enables them rapidly to reverse the regulations that the Trump administration ordered just before leaving office.2 The regulatory risk is greater for health care and energy than it is for financials and tech, though the latter two are not void of risk. Health care is the Democrats’ top priority outside of pandemic relief and economic recovery. (See Appendix for our updated political risk matrix by sector.) While the market can look through Biden’s regulatory threat, at least for now, it cannot look through the impact of higher taxes on corporate earnings forever. Over the next two months House Democrats will start revealing details of their budget proposals, which could serve as a negative catalyst for the overstretched equity rally. Other negative catalysts from an ambitious new administration are also possible with a market at such dizzy heights. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen has discouraged raising taxes initially but investors know that taxes will go up sooner or later. Moreover the specific legislative vehicle for Biden to push his agenda – “budget reconciliation” – requires tax hikes to offset spending increases. Thus if Democrats initiate a reconciliation bill in February or March then it will imply at least some revenue offsets, even if the biggest tax increases are saved for the second reconciliation bill for FY2022. Bottom Line: Value stocks have taken a breather but will continue to outperform over the cyclical 12-month time horizon. Looming Democratic tax proposals are more likely to serve as a near-term negative catalyst for the overstretched equity rally than Biden’s regulatory onslaught, which will take time to be felt. We are sticking with value over growth stocks due to the extremely accommodative fiscal and monetary policy setting. The Filibuster Preserved (For Now) A critical check on lawmaking in the Senate, the filibuster, has been preserved – at least for the moment. This is positive news for markets as it lowers the odds of major legislative surprises this year. The filibuster enables senators to block normal legislation through endless debate. Sixty senators are needed to invoke “cloture” and bring debate to a close. Otherwise the bill goes nowhere. With the Senate divided evenly at 50-50 seats between the two parties, Biden’s agenda will now depend on any bills that can garner 10 Republican senators, plus two “budget reconciliation” bills for fiscal 2021-22. Reconciliation bills only require a simple 51-seat majority in the Senate. Eliminating the filibuster will remain a risk over the long run. It was only preserved because two centrist Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, declared that they would not vote to abolish it. This prompted Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to drop his chief demand, that the filibuster be kept, in his negotiations with Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer toward an agreement for the two evenly divided parties in the Senate to share power. Now a power-sharing agreement is in place so the legislative process can begin, albeit within the filibuster’s guardrails. Notice that Schumer never conceded to McConnell that the filibuster would be preserved. And two Democrats is not very many. Later these centrists may succumb to party pressure, say amid Republican obstructionism of a voting rights bill, to eliminate the filibuster. The last time the Senate was evenly divided, after the 2000 election, the power-sharing agreement only lasted six months, from January to June 2001. A single retirement or death could turn the balance. Moreover since Democrats have the option of two reconciliation bills first, the filibuster is not a substantial check on them until 2022 or beyond, at which point the centrists could fall under sustained pressure.3 Bottom Line: Preserving the filibuster provides a source of stability – it reduces policy uncertainty and polarization. It restricts Biden’s agenda largely to his major initiatives: entrenching the Affordable Care Act, expanding infrastructure spending, partially repealing Trump tax cuts, and various other tax-and-spend measures known to investors. It lowers the chance that financial markets will be blindsided in 2021 by a sweeping new legislative initiative – for example, the Green New Deal – or radical redistributive schemes. While markets will need to discount the tax hikes they will be able to recover more quickly than if they also expected a stream of unpredictable legislation from a Senate unshackled from the filibuster. Stimulus And The Tax Hike Timeline The American Rescue Plan could pass in February at the earliest or April at the latest. If at least 10 Republican senators cooperate then it will fly through Congress. The advantage of this bipartisan route is that it would achieve an early Biden objective while still leaving Democrats with two full chances to pass reconciliation bills covering fiscal 2021-22. The economic recovery would be on sure footing thereafter, giving Biden more room to maneuver (Charts 3 and 4). Chart 3Is More Stimulus Necessary? Is More Stimulus Necessary? Is More Stimulus Necessary? Bipartisan talks are under way. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia set up talks with about 15 other senators and three White House aides, including National Economic Council director Brian Deese, toward revising and passing the rescue plan.4 Winning over ten Republicans is a tall order but GOP senators are aware that the pandemic is still going and even Republican voter opinion favors more relief. So far Democrats have not allowed any compromise in the size of the deal but that could change to get 60 votes, since they can always make up the difference through reconciliation later. The rescue plan is unlikely to be passed before Trump’s second impeachment trial begins on February 8, however. If 10 Republicans cannot be found, the Senate will be slowed down by juggling reconciliation and impeachment. Trump’s first impeachment took 49 days, leaving the average at 65 days (Table 2). It will keep the Senate busy at least through mid-March. Chart 4More Checks Coming For Households? More Checks Coming For Households? More Checks Coming For Households? Table 2Impeachment Takes At Least A Month Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital Since Democrats are highly unlikely to win over 17 Republicans to convict Trump of inciting insurrection, the impeachment could be a policy mistake. Democrats are determined not to let slide the opportunity to position themselves as the arch defenders of democracy. Acquitting Trump would put several prominent Republicans on record endorsing him even after his alleged interference with the peaceful transition of power. However, impeachment will not be allowed to derail Biden’s agenda. The Democratic Party controls both processes. The Senate can wrap up the trial if it becomes an obstacle. Diagram 1 presents the timeline for these events to occur. The implication is that March 14, when the latest expansion of unemployment benefits starts to expire, will serve as a deadline for Biden’s rescue plan. Diagram 1Timeline Of Impeachment, Budget Reconciliation, And Regular Legislation Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital Budget reconciliation takes seven months on average but it only took three months in 2017, which is the proper analogy for today. Even if tax hikes are passed in Q2 there is an open question as to when they would take effect (Diagram 2). Prudent investors should be prepared for a retroactive January 1, 2021 effective date, even if it is more likely that they will kick in on January 1, 2022 to give the economy more time to recover. Again, taxes pose a risk to the rally. Diagram 2How Long Does It Take To Pass A Budget Reconciliation Bill? Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital If Republicans do not cooperate on Biden’s rescue plan then Democrats will cite it as obstructionism from the beginning, despite Biden’s call to unity, and it will play into any future efforts to eliminate the filibuster. But those will likely center on the period after the two reconciliation bills. Bottom Line: As the House Democrats begin to draft their first budget resolution, to initiate the reconciliation process, tax hikes will come more into focus. The near-term upside risk is that Democrats skip taxes in the first bill and save it for later. But there will have to be at least some revenue raisers in any reconciliation bill. So a near-term pullback is entirely reasonable to expect. We would be buyers on the dip given the extremely accommodative fiscal and monetary backdrop. Introducing Our Political Capital Index To assess any government’s capability – namely its ability to alter the policy setting that affects the economy and financial markets – we need to measure its political capital or grounds of support. To this end we have constructed a Political Capital Index to measure the strength and capability of US ruling parties and presidencies (Table 3). Table 3Political Capital Index Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital The Political Capital Index shows a series of political and economic indicators, as of the latest available data (December or January), as well as the change since Biden’s election in November.5 Below we describe the political and economic categories of political capital that we chose and the data we use to represent them: Political Strength: The most basic measure of political capital is President Biden’s margin of victory in the popular vote (4.4%) and Electoral College vote (306/538), the number of days he has been in power, his party’s Congressional majorities, and the Supreme Court’s ideological leaning. These components will last for two-to-four years and can only be changed by new elections or deaths (Table 4). Even a president elected in a landslide would see his political capital decay over time. The sooner the next election, the less political capital the ruling party has. The president and Congress will have more trouble passing legislation just before the election and will be more careful about what they do pass to avoid punishment at the ballot box. Any difficult economic policies or reforms will tend to be done at the beginning of the term, as political capital is still abundant and the next election is not a clear and present danger. President Biden has moderate political capital. His popular victory was solid, his electoral victory was the same as President Trump’s, but his congressional majorities are weak. His initial legislative efforts should be assumed to pass but aside from his rescue plan and one or two reconciliation bills he will not be able to get much else done. Table 4Political Capital: White House And Congress Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital Household Sentiment: Household sentiment is the origin of political capital since households are voters. We measure it through presidential net approval ratings, both in general and in handling the economy, as well as through consumer confidence (Chart 5). Household sentiment changes easily – it can drive policies and react to them. Even if the economy is objectively improving, sentiment can remain downbeat if politicians fail to communicate their policies, which could cost them the election. Measures that improve household pocketbooks or welfare are more popular than those that impose structural changes like taxes and regulation. But reforms are possible when a politician has sufficient political capital, or when a worse outcome would follow from doing nothing. Biden will start with a higher approval rating than President Trump but his average approval is not much higher at present and consumer confidence has ticked down as a result of the pandemic. His economic stimulus should create an improvement in household sentiment in the coming year. Chart 5US Households: Still Downbeat US Households: Still Downbeat US Households: Still Downbeat Business Sentiment: Business sentiment is another important element of political capital. Businesses that are confident about the economy’s prospects will spend on capex, new orders, and new hires, and they will also deplete their inventories (Table 5). Animal spirits respond to spending, taxation, regulation, and trade – all areas where politicians have some control. Table 5Political Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital Policymakers can run down business sentiment by enacting painful policies for business, in favor of government or households or personal whim – or they can pass business-friendly policies to boost animal spirits. Businesses cannot vote like households but they have a powerful influence over politicians through lobbyists and political donations and a powerful influence on voters through employment. Higher animal spirits encourage new employment, which improves household welfare, thus boosting political capital. Biden is starting out fairly strong with respect to business sentiment, with the exception of the service sector, which is still beaten down by the pandemic. This is an area where his political capital could decay over time. Big business was happy to get rid of Trump’s trade war but now it faces larger government encroachment. This risk is flagged by small businesses, which are already highly distrustful of new taxes and regulation (Chart 6). Chart 6US Business Sentiment US Business Sentiment US Business Sentiment Chart 7Measures Of Polarization Measures Of Polarization Measures Of Polarization Political Polarization: Starkly divided populations and governments are often gridlocked or obstructionist, preventing policies from getting approved or implemented (Chart 7). Our polarization proxy measures the difference in approval of the sitting president according to party, while our economic polarization measure does the same for economic sentiment. Structural polarization is a low-frequency data series from political science literature that measures whether House members and senators tend to vote with the “party line” or “reach across the aisle.”6 The Philly Fed Partisan Index also measures the degree of political disagreement among politicians at the federal level. A highly polarized environment ensures that there will be strong opposition to any policy put forward by lawmakers and a higher likelihood of reversal by the next governing party. This leads to erratic policymaking and policy uncertainty among households and businesses. Lower polarization increases the durability of policies. Fiscal Policy: The government sector contributes to political capital through fiscal policy, especially fiscal thrust (the change in the cyclically adjusted primary budget deficit) (Table 6). An expansionary fiscal policy affords policymakers greater latitude – especially in times and places where inflation is not a public concern. It can also be an effort by the ruling party to boost its political capital when it is low, or when an election looms. The Biden administration is lucky to start off with a new business cycle, as Obama did in 2009, but the large dose of fiscal support today will become a fiscal drag by 2024 so the long-term effectiveness of today’s “pump priming” will be essential. Table 6Political Capital: The Economy And Markets Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital Economic Conditions: Economic conditions are arguably the most important component of political capital. We included several objective measures of household wellbeing such as unemployment, inflation, gasoline prices at the pump, and wage growth. If voters have seen their quality of life improve under the current set of leaders then they are more likely to vote to continue their windfall. To judge whether a party will be re-elected, it is critical to know whether household wellbeing has changed since the last election. High unemployment, high inflation, high economic uncertainty, and high bankruptcy levels point to struggling voters who are more likely to take their grievances to the ballot box. By the same token, leaders will struggle to get anything done if voters are beset with these ills. Asset Markets: Asset markets play at least some role in determining political capital. Most voters are not highly exposed to the stock market, though they care about their pension fund. Most voters are highly exposed to the property market. A euphoric stock market will not necessarily buoy the political capital of a president or ruling party, as demonstrated by the recent election: President Trump’s approval was closely linked to the stock market, which also restrained his actions, yet a rallying market did not get him re-elected. A market crash will always hurt policymakers, especially if it happens just before an election. We watch the stock market primarily as a downside risk to the ruling party’s political capital rather than upside. Bottom Line: Our Political Capital Index is how we will monitor President Biden’s and the Democratic Party’s capability in the coming months and years. The administration begins with moderate political capital but it is likely to improve on economic recovery, which will be secured through control of Congress and the purse strings. Our confidence that Biden’s American Rescue Plan and one or two reconciliation bills will pass stems from this assessment. This means a large spending program and tax hikes are highly probable and investors should prepare for them. Investment Takeaways Signs of mania – from Bitcoin to TESLA to GameStop – have gripped the market as the combined effect of ultra-dovish monetary and fiscal policy is priced. This process can continue beyond reasonable expectations. Nevertheless we are prepared for near-term volatility and a correction at any time. The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine faces inevitable bumps and the pandemic is still triggering government lockdown measures and consumer caution – though these will improve over time. Biden’s regulatory agenda and especially looming tax hikes will also spur some risk aversion in the near term as the House Democrats begin preparing a reconciliation bill. Overcoming the hurdle of Trump’s impeachment will free up the Senate to move forward on reconciliation as well, which means tax hikes will fall under the market’s radar sooner or later. A regular bill could be passed in February without new taxes but otherwise a reconciliation bill will pass as early as April and include at least some new taxes, even if they take effect next year. We would still use the opportunity to buy into any further weakness in value plays relative to growth plays (Chart 8). Fundamentally the economy is set to improve this year, the pandemic is set to subside, and the policy support will be reinforced and expanded as necessary. Chart 8A Setback For Growth Versus Value A Setback For Growth Versus Value A Setback For Growth Versus Value Chart 9Equity Correction Looms Equity Correction Looms Equity Correction Looms The reflation trade is technically over-extended, investors are complacent, and some profit-taking is due. The extremely depressed put-to-call ratio tracks well with the US dollar index, both of which are showing signs of life (Chart 9). We would fade a rebound in the dollar, however, as the Democratic Party’s policies will ensure widening twin deficits (budget and trade deficits) even as the Fed demonstrates its commitment to its new goal of allowing an inflation overshoot to make up for past undershoots.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital Table A2Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Biden's Political Capital Biden's Political Capital   Footnotes 1     See BCA Research US Equity Strategy, “Overdose?” January 25, 2021, bcaresearch.com. 2     The Congressional Review Act of 1996 enables Congress to speed up the removal of regulations that were adopted recently, in this case since August 21, 2020. The process requires both houses of Congress to repeal a regulation but the Senate cannot prevent repeal via filibuster. The Trump administration used the law aggressively to remove several of President Barack Obama’s outgoing regulations. See Jonathan H. Adler, “Will Democrats Learn To Love The Congressional Review Act?” Reason, January 23, 2021, reason.com.  3    Democrats are explicitly interested in repealing the filibuster, as Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have indicated (not to mention former President Obama who characterized it as a relic of the racist Jim Crowe era). 4    See Ed O’Keefe et al, “16 senators from both parties meet with White House on COVID-19 relief plan,” CBS News, January 25, 2021, cbsnews.com; Aamer Madhani and Lisa Mascaro, “White House Begins Talks With Lawmakers On COVID-19 Relief,” Associated Press, January 25, 2021, apnews.com.  5    Biden’s term technically began on January 20 but voters in 2024 will judge the president and ruling party based on whether they are better off than they were four years ago, i.e. when they last made a major judgment. 6    See Jeffrey Lewis, Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal, et al, at voteview.org.  

Highlights Chinese equities have rallied enthusiastically since the COVID-19 outbreak and are now exposed to underlying political and geopolitical risks. Xi Jinping’s intention is to push forward reform and restructuring, creating a significant risk of policy overtightening over the coming two years. In the first half of 2021, the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment suggest that overtightening will be avoided. But the risk will persist throughout the year. Beijing’s fourteenth five-year plan and new focus on import substitution will exacerbate growing distrust with the US. We still doubt that the Biden administration will reduce tensions substantially or for very long. Chinese equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction. The renminbi is at fair value. Go long Chinese government bonds on the basis that political and geopolitical risks are now underrated again. Feature The financial community tends to view China’s political leadership as nearly infallible, handling each new crisis with aplomb. In 2013-15 Chinese leaders avoided a hard landing amid financial turmoil, in 2018-20 they blocked former President Trump’s trade war, and in 2020 they contained the COVID-19 pandemic faster than other countries. COVID was especially extraordinary because it first emerged in China and yet China recovered faster than others – even expanding its global export market share as the world ordered more medical supplies and electronic gadgets (Chart 1). COVID-19 cases are spiking as we go to press but there is little doubt that China will use drastic measures to curb the virus’s spread. It produced two vaccines, even if less effective than its western counterparts (Chart 2). Monetary and fiscal policy will be utilized to prevent any disruptions to the Chinese New Year from pulling the rug out from under the economic recovery. Chart 1China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID Chart 2China Has A Vaccine, Albeit Less Effective China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 In short, China is seen as a geopolitical juggernaut that poses no major risk to the global bull market in equities, corporate bonds, and commodities – the sole backstop for global growth during times of crisis (Chart 3). The problem with this view is that it is priced into markets already, the crisis era is fading (despite lingering near-term risks), and Beijing’s various risks are piling up. Chart 3China Backstopped Global Growth Again China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 First, as potential GDP growth slows, China faces greater difficulty managing the various socioeconomic imbalances and excesses created by its success – namely the tug of war between growth and reform. The crisis shattered China’s attempt to ensure a smooth transition to lower growth rates, leaving it with higher unemployment and industrial restructuring that will produce long-term challenges (Chart 4). Chart 4China's Unemployment Problem China's Unemployment Problem China's Unemployment Problem The shock also forced China to engage in another blowout credit surge, worsening the problem of excessive leverage and reversing the progress that was made on corporate deleveraging in previous years. Second, foreign strategic opposition and trade protectionism are rising. China’s global image suffered across the world in 2020 as a result of COVID, despite the fact that President Trump’s antics largely distracted from China. Going forward there will be recriminations from Beijing’s handling of the pandemic and its power grab in Hong Kong yet Trump will not be there to deflect. By contrast, the Biden administration holds out a much greater prospect of aligning liberal democracies against China in a coalition that could ultimately prove effective in constraining its international behavior. China’s turn inward, toward import substitution and self-sufficiency, will reinforce this conflict. In the current global rebound, in which China will likely be able to secure its economic recovery while the US is supercharging its own, readers should expect global equity markets and China/EM stocks to perform well on a 12-month time frame. We would not deny all the positive news that has occurred. But Chinese equities have largely priced in the positives, meaning that Chinese politics and geopolitics are underrated again and will be a source of negative surprises going forward. The Centennial Of 1921 The Communist Party will hold a general conference to celebrate its 100th birthday on July 1, just as it did in 1981, 1991, 2001, and 2011. These meetings are ceremonial and have no impact on economic policy. We examined nominal growth, bank loans, fixed asset investment, industrial output, and inflation and observed no reliable pattern as an outcome of these once-per-decade celebrations. In 2011, for example, General Secretary Hu Jintao gave a speech about the party’s triumphs since 1921, reiterated the goals of the twelfth five-year plan launched in March 2011, and reminded his audience of the two centennial goals of becoming a “moderately prosperous society” by 2021 and a “modern socialist country” by 2049 (the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic). China is now transitioning from the 2021 goals to the 2049 goals and the policy consequences will be determined by the Xi Jinping administration. Xi will give a speech on July 1 recapitulating the fourteenth five-year plan’s goals and his vision for 2035 and 2049, which will be formalized in March at the National People’s Congress, China’s rubber-stamp parliament. As such any truly new announcements relating to the economy should come over the next couple of months, though the broad outlines are already set. There would need to be another major shock to the system, comparable to the US trade war and COVID-19, to produce a significant change in the economic policy outlook from where it stands today. Hence the Communist Party’s 100th birthday is not a driver of policy – and certainly not a reason for authorities to inject another dose of massive monetary and credit stimulus following the country’s massive 12% of GDP credit-and-fiscal impulse from trough to peak since 2018 (Chart 5). The overarching goal is stability around this event, which means policy will largely be held steady. Chart 5China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred Far more important than the centenary of the Communist Party is the political leadership rotation that will begin on the local level in early 2022, culminating in the twentieth National Party Congress in the fall of 2022.1 This was supposed to be the date of Xi’s stepping down, according to the old schedule, but he will instead further consolidate power – and may even name himself Chairman Xi, as the next logical step in his Maoist propaganda campaign. This important political rotation will enable Xi to elevate his followers to higher positions and cement his influence over the so-called seventh generation of Chinese leaders, pushing his policy agenda far into the future. Ahead of these events, Beijing has been mounting a new battle against systemic risks, as it did in late 2016 and throughout 2017 ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. The purpose is to prevent the economic and financial excesses of the latest stimulus from destabilizing the country, to make progress on Xi’s policy agenda, and to expose and punish any adversaries. This new effort will face limitations based on the pandemic and fragile economy but it will nevertheless constitute the default setting for the next two years – and it is a drag on growth rather than a boost. The importance of the centenary and the twentieth party congress will not prevent various risks from exploding between now and the fall of 2022. Some political scandals will likely emerge as foreign or domestic opposition attempts to undermine Xi’s power consolidation – and at least one high-level official will inevitably fall from grace as Xi demonstrates his supremacy and puts his followers in place for higher office. But any market reaction to these kinds of events will be fleeting compared to the reaction to Xi’s economic management. The economic risk boils down to the implementation of Xi’s structural reform agenda and his threshold for suffering political pain in pursuit of this agenda. For now the risk is fairly well contained, as the pandemic is still somewhat relevant, but going forward the tension between growth and reform will grow. Bottom Line: The hundredth birthday of the Communist Party is overrated but the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022 is of critical importance to the governance of China over the next ten years. These events will not prompt a major new dose of stimulus and they will not prevent a major reform push or crackdown on financial excesses. But as always in China there will still be an overriding emphasis on economic and social stability above all. For now, this is supportive of the new global business cycle, commodity prices, and emerging market equities. The Fourteenth Five-Year Plan (2021-25) The draft proposal of China’s fourteenth five-year plan (2021-25) will be ratified at the annual “two sessions” in March (Table 1). The key themes are familiar from previous five-year plans, which focused on China’s economic transition from “quantity” to “quality” in economic development. Table 1China’s 14th Five Year Plan China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China is seen as having entered the “high quality” phase of development – and the word quality is used 40 times in the draft. As with the past five years, the Xi administration is highlighting “supply-side structural reform” as a means of achieving this economic upgrade and promoting innovation. But Xi has shifted his rhetoric to highlight a new concept, “dual circulation,” which will now take center stage. Dual circulation marks a dramatic shift in Chinese policy: away from the “opening up and reform” of the liberal 1980s-2000s and toward a new era of import substitution and revanchism that will dominate the 2020s. Xi Jinping first brought it up in May 2020 and re-emphasized it at the July Politburo meeting and other meetings thereafter. It is essentially a “China First” policy that describes a development path in which the main economic activity occurs within the domestic market. Foreign trade and investment are there to improve this primary domestic activity. Dual circulation is better understood as a way of promoting import substitution, or self-reliance – themes that emerged after the Great Recession but became more explicit during the trade war with the US from 2018-20. The gist is to strengthen domestic demand and private consumption, improve domestic rather than foreign supply options, attract foreign investment, and build more infrastructure to remove internal bottlenecks and improve cross-regional activity (e.g. the Sichuan-Tibet railway, the national power grid, the navigation satellite system). China has greatly reduced its reliance on global trade already, though it is still fairly reliant when Hong Kong is included (Chart 6). The goals of the fourteenth five-year plan are also consistent with the “Made in China 2025” plan that aroused so much controversy with the Trump administration, leading China to de-emphasize it in official communications. Just like dual circulation, the 2025 plan was supposed to reduce China’s dependency on foreign technology and catapult China into the lead in areas like medical devices, supercomputers, robotics, electric vehicles, semiconductors, new materials, and other emerging technologies. This plan was only one of several state-led initiatives to boost indigenous innovation and domestic high-tech production. The response to American pressure was to drop the name but maintain the focus. Some of the initiatives will fall under new innovation and technology guidelines while others will fall under the category of “new types of infrastructure,” such as 5G networks, electric vehicles, big data centers, artificial intelligence operations, and ultra-high voltage electricity grids. With innovation and technology as the overarching goals, China is highly likely to increase research and development spending and aim for an overall level of above 3% of GDP (Chart 7). In previous five-year plans the government did not set a specific target. Nor did it set targets for the share of basic research spending within research and development, which is around 6% but is believed to need to be around 15%-20% to compete with the most innovative countries. While Beijing is already a leader in producing new patents, it will attempt to double its output while trying to lift the overall contribution of technology advancement to the economy. Chart 6China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency Dual circulation will become a major priority affecting other areas of policy. Reform of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), for example, will take place under this rubric. The Xi administration has dabbled in SOE reform all along, for instance by injecting private capital to create mixed ownership, but progress has been debatable. Chart 7China Will Surge R&D Spending China Will Surge R&D Spending China Will Surge R&D Spending The new five-year plan will incorporate elements of an existing three-year action plan approved last June. The intention is to raise the competitiveness of China’s notoriously bloated SOEs, making them “market entities” that play a role in leading innovation and strengthening domestic supply chains. However, there is no question that SOEs will still be expected to serve an extra-economic function of supporting employment and social stability. So the reform is not really a broad liberalization and SOEs will continue to be a large sector dominated by the state and directed by the state, with difficulties relating to efficiency and competitiveness. Notwithstanding the focus on quality, China still aims to have GDP per capita reach $12,500 by 2025, implying 5%-5.5% annual growth from 2021-25, which is consistent with estimates of the International Monetary Fund (Chart 8). This kind of goal will require policy support at any given time to ensure that there is no major shortfall due to economic shocks like COVID-19. Thus any attempts at reform will be contained within the traditional context of a policy “floor” beneath growth rates – which itself is one of the biggest hindrances to deep reform. Chart 8China's Growth Target Through 2025 China's Growth Target Through 2025 China's Growth Target Through 2025 Chart 9Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions As the economy’s potential growth slows the Communist Party has been shifting its focus to improving the quality of life, as opposed to the previous decades-long priority of meeting the basic material needs of the society. The new five-year plan aims to increase disposable income per capita as part of the transition to a domestic consumption-driven economy. The implied target will be 5%-5.5% growth per year, down from 6.5%+ previously, but the official commitment will be put in vague qualitative terms to allow for disappointments in the slower growing environment. The point is to expand the middle-income population and redistribute wealth more effectively, especially in the face of stark rural disparity. In addition the government aims to increase education levels, expand pension coverage, and, in the midst of the pandemic, increase public health investment and the number of doctors and hospital beds relative to the population. Beijing seems increasingly wary of too rapid of a shift away from manufacturing – which makes sense in light of the steep drop in the manufacturing share of employment amid China’s shift away from export-dependency. In the thirteenth five-year plan, Beijing aimed to increase the service sector share of GDP from 50.5% to 56%. But in the latest draft plan it sets no target for growing services. Any implicit goal of 60% would be soft rather than hard. Given that manufacturing and services combined make up 93% of the economy, there is not much room to grow services further unless policymakers want to allow even faster de-industrialization. But the social and political risks of rapid de-industrialization are well known – both from the liquidation of the SOEs in the late 1990s and from the populist eruptions in the UK and US more recently. Beijing is likely to want to take a pause in shifting away from manufacturing. But this means that China’s exporting of deflation and large market share will persist and hence foreign protectionist sentiment will continue to grow. The fourteenth five-year plan ostensibly maintains the same ambitious targets for environmental improvement as in its predecessor, in terms of water and energy consumption, carbon emissions, pollution levels, renewable energy quotas, and quotas for arable land and forest coverage. But in reality some of these targets are likely to be set higher as Beijing has intensified its green policy agenda and is now aiming to hit peak carbon emissions by 2030. China aims to be a “net zero” carbon country by 2060. Doubling down on the shift away from fossil fuels will require an extraordinary policy push, given that China is still a heavily industrial economy and predominantly reliant on coal power. So environmental policy will be a critical area to watch when the final five-year plan is approved in March, as well as in future plans for the 2026-30 period. As was witnessed in recent years, ambitious environmental goals will be suspended when the economy slumps, which means that achieving carbon emissions goals will not be straightforward (Chart 9), but it is nevertheless a powerful economic policy theme and investment theme. Xi Jinping’s Vision: 2035 On The Way To 2049 At the nineteenth National Party Congress, the critical leadership rotation in 2017, Xi Jinping made it clear that he would stay in power beyond 2022 – eschewing the nascent attempt of his predecessors to set up a ten-year term limit – and establish 2035 as a midway point leading to the 2049 anniversary of the People’s Republic. There are strategic and political goals relevant to this 2035 vision – including speculation that it could be Xi’s target for succession or for reunification with Taiwan – but the most explicit goals are, as usual, economic. Chart 10Xi Jinping’s 2035 Goals China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Officially China is committing to descriptive rather than numerical targets. GDP per capita is to reach the level of “moderately developed countries.” However, in a separate explanation statement, Xi Jinping declares, “it is completely possible for China to double its total economy or per capita income by 2035.” In other words, China’s GDP is supposed to reach 200 trillion renminbi, while GDP per capita should surpass $20,000 by 2035, implying an annual growth rate of at least 4.73% (Chart 10). There is little reason to believe that Beijing will succeed as much in meeting future targets as it has in the past. In the past China faced steady final demand from the United States and the West and its task was to bring a known quantity of basic factors of production into operation, after lying underutilized for decades, which made for high growth rates and fairly predictable outcomes. In the future the sources of demand are not as reliable and China’s ability to grow will be more dependent on productivity enhancements and innovation that cannot be as easily created or predicted. The fourteenth five-year plan and Xi’s 2035 vision will attempt to tackle this productivity challenge head on. But restructuring and reform will advance intermittently, as Xi is unquestionably maintaining his predecessors’ commitment to stability above all. Outlook 2021: Back To The Tug Of War Of Stimulus And Reform The tug of war between economic stimulus and reform is on full display already in 2021 and will become by far the most important investment theme this year. If China tightens monetary and fiscal policy excessively in 2021, in the name of reform, it will undermine its own and the global economic recovery, dealing a huge negative surprise to the consensus in global financial markets that 2021 will be a year of strong growth, rebounding trade, a falling US dollar, and ebullient commodity prices. Our view is that Chinese policy tightening is a significant risk this year – it is not overrated – but that the government will ultimately ease policy as necessary and avoid what would be a colossal policy mistake of undercutting the economic recovery. We articulated this view late last year and have already seen it confirmed both in the Politburo’s conclusions at the annual economic meeting in December, and in the reemergence of COVID-19, which will delay further policy tightening for the time being. The pattern of the Xi administration thus far is to push forward domestic reforms until they run up against the limits of economic stability, and then to moderate and ease policy for the sake of recovery, before reinitiating the attack. Two key developments initially encouraged Xi to push forward with a new “assault phase of reform” in 2021: First, a new global business cycle is beginning, fueled by massive monetary and fiscal stimulus across the world (not only in China), which enables Xi to take actions that would drag on growth. Second, Xi Jinping has emerged from the US trade war stronger than ever at home. President Trump lost the election, giving warning to any future US president who would confront China with a frontal assault. The Biden administration’s priority is economic recovery, for the sake of the Democratic Party’s future as well as for the nation, and this limits Biden’s ability to escalate the confrontation with China, even though he will not revoke most of Trump’s actions. Biden’s predicament gives Beijing a window to pursue difficult domestic initiatives before the Biden administration is capable of turning its full attention to the strategic confrontation with China. The fact that Biden seeks to build a coalition of states first, and thus must spend a great deal of time on diplomacy with Europe and other allies, is another advantageous circumstance. China is courting and strengthening relations with Europe and those very allies so as to delay the formation of any effective coalition (Chart 11). Chart 11China Courts EU As Substitute For US China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Thus, prior to the latest COVID-19 spike, Beijing was clearly moving to tighten monetary and fiscal policy and avoid a longer stimulus overshoot that would heighten the country’s long-term financial risks and debt woes. This policy preference will continue to be a risk in 2021: Central government spending down: Emergency fiscal spending to deal with the pandemic will be reduced from 2020 levels and the budget deficit will be reined in. The Politburo’s chief economic planning event, the Central Economic Work Conference in December, resulted in a decision to maintain fiscal support but to a lesser degree. Fiscal policy will be “effective and sustainable,” i.e. still proactive but lower in magnitude (Chart 12). Local government spending down: The central government will try to tighten control of local government bond issuance. The issuance of new bonds will fall closer to 2019 levels after a 55% increase in 2020. New bonds provide funds for infrastructure and investment projects meant to soak up idle labor and boost aggregate demand. A cut back in these projects and new bonds will drag on the economy relative to last year (Chart 13). Chart 12China Pares Government Spending On The Margin China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Chart 13China Pares Local Government Spending Too China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Monetary policy tightening up: The People’s Bank of China aims to maintain a “prudent monetary policy” that is stable and targeted in 2021. The intention is to avoid any sharp change in policy. However, PBoC Governor Yi Gang admits that there will be some “reasonable adjustments” to monetary policy so that the growth of broad money (M2) and total social financing (total private credit) do not wildly exceed nominal GDP growth (which should be around 8%-10% in 2021). The risk is that excessive easiness in the current context will create asset bubbles. The implication is that credit growth will slow to 11%-12%. This is not slamming on the brakes but it is a tightening of credit policy. Macro-prudential regulation up: The People’s Bank is reasserting its intention to implement the new Macro-Prudential Assessment (MPA) framework designed to tackle systemic financial risk. The rollout of this reform paused last year due to the pandemic. A detailed plan of how the country’s various major financial institutions will adopt this new mechanism is expected in March. The implication is that Beijing is turning its attention back to mitigating systemic financial risks. This includes closer supervision of bank capital adequacy ratios and cross-border financing flows. New macro-prudential tools are also targeting real estate investment and potentially other areas. Larger established banks will have a greater allowance for property loans than smaller, riskier banks. At the same time, it is equally clear that Beijing will try to avoid over-tightening policy: The COVID outbreak discourages tightening: This outbreak has already been mentioned and will pressure leaders to pause further policy tightening at least until they have greater confidence in containment. The vaccine rollout process also discourages economic activity at first since nobody wants to go out and contract the disease when a cure is in sight. Local government financial support is still robust: Local governments will still need to issue refinancing bonds to deal with the mountain of debt coming into maturity and reduce the risk of widespread insolvency. In 2020, they issued more than 1.8 trillion yuan of refinancing bonds to cover about 88% of the 2 trillion in bonds coming due. In 2021, they will have to issue about 2.2 trillion of refinancing bonds to maintain the same refinancing rate for a larger 2.6 trillion yuan in bonds coming due (Table 2). Thus while Beijing is paring back its issuance of new bonds to fund new investment projects, it will maintain a high level of refinancing bonds to prevent insolvency from cascading and undermining the recovery. Table 2Local Government Debt Maturity Schedule China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Monetary policy will not be too tight: The People’s Bank’s open market operations in January so far suggest that it is starting to fine-tune its policies but that it is doing so in an exceedingly measured way so as not to create a liquidity squeeze around the traditionally tight-money period of Chinese New Year. The seven-day repo rate, the de facto policy interest rate, has already rolled over from last year’s peak. The takeaway is that while Beijing clearly intended to cut back on emergency monetary and fiscal support this year – and while Xi Jinping is clearly willing to impose greater discipline on the economy and financial system prior to the big political events of 2021-22 – nevertheless the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment will ensure a relatively accommodative policy for the first half of 2021 in order to secure the economic recovery. The underlying risk of policy tightening is still significant, especially in the second half of 2021 and in 2022, due to the underlying policy setting. Investment Takeaways The CNY-USD has experienced a tremendous rally in the wake of the US-China phase one trade deal last year and Beijing’s rapid bounce-back from the pandemic. The trade weighted renminbi is now trading just about at fair value (Chart 14). We closed our CNY-USD short recommendation and would stand aside for now. China’s current account surplus is still robust, real reform requires a fairly strong yuan, and the Biden administration will also expect China not to depreciate the currency competitively. Thus while we anticipate the CNY-USD to suffer a surprise setback when the market realizes that the US and China will continue to clash despite the end of the Trump administration, nevertheless we are no longer outright short the currency. Chinese investable stocks have rallied furiously on the stimulus last year as well as robust foreign portfolio inflows. The rally is likely overstretched at the moment as the COVID outbreak and policy uncertainties come to the fore. This is also true for Chinese stocks other than the high-flying technology, media, and telecom stocks (Chart 15). Domestic A-shares have rallied on the back of Alibaba executive Jack Ma’s reappearance even though the clear implication is that in the new era, the Communist Party will crack down on entrepreneurs – and companies like fintech firm Ant Group – that accumulate too much power (Chart 16). Chart 14Renminbi Fairly Valued Renminbi Fairly Valued Renminbi Fairly Valued Chart 15China: Investable Stocks Overbought China: Investable Stocks Overbought China: Investable Stocks Overbought Chart 16Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Chart 17Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Chinese government bond yields are back near their pre-COVID highs (though not their pre-trade war highs). Given the negative near-term backdrop – and the longer term challenges of restructuring and geopolitical risks over Taiwan and other issues that we expect to revive – these bonds present an attractive investment (Chart 17). Housekeeping: In addition to going long Chinese 10-year government bonds on a strategic time frame, we are closing our long Mexican industrials versus EM trade for a loss of 9.1%. We are still bullish on the Mexican peso and macro/policy backdrop but this trade was premature. We are also closing our long S&P health care tactical hedge for a loss of 1.8%. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Indeed the 2022 political reshuffle has already begun with several recent appointments of provincial Communist Party secretaries.

Highlights In the wake of COVID-19, the low-probability, high-impact “Black Swan” event is as relevant as ever. Investors should already expect US terrorist incidents, a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis, and crises involving Turkey – these are no longer black swans. What if Russia had a color revolution, Japan confronted China, or Saudi Arabia collapsed? What if the US and China brokered a North Korean deal? Or a major terrorist attack caused government change in Germany? Ultimately this exercise illustrates what the market is not prepared for – a new rally in the US dollar – though some scenarios would fuel the rise of the euro and renminbi. Feature The COVID-19 pandemic reminded us all of the power of the “Black Swan” – the random, unpredictable event with massive ramifications. As historian Niall Ferguson pointed out at the BCA Conference last fall, COVID-19 was not really a black swan, as epidemiologists had predicted that a pandemic would occur and the world was not ready. Astrophysicist Martin Rees made a bet with psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker that “bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event within a six month period starting no later than 31 December 2020.”1 Tellingly, countries neighboring China were the best prepared for the outbreak, having dealt with SARS and bird flu. COVID accelerated major trends building up throughout the past decade – notably the shift toward pro-active fiscal policy, which had been gaining traction in policy circles ever since the austerity debates of the early 2010s. In that sense forecasting is still necessary. If solid trends can be identified, then random shocks may simply reinforce them (Chart 1). Chart 1US Fiscal Stimulus About To Get Even Bigger Five Black Swans For 2021 Five Black Swans For 2021 In this year’s “Five Black Swans” report, we focus on geopolitical risks that are highly unlikely, not at all being discussed, and yet would have a major impact on financial markets. Domestic terrorist events in the United States in 2021 would not qualify as a black swan by this definition. A crisis in the Taiwan Strait, which we have warned about for several years, is now widely (and rightly) expected. Black Swan #1: A Color Revolution In Russia Russia is one of the losers of the US election. Not because Trump was a Russian agent – the Trump administration ended up authorizing a fairly hawkish posture toward Russia in eastern Europe – but rather because the Democratic Party threatens Russia with a strengthening of the trans-Atlantic alliance and a recovery of liberal democratic ideology. Geopolitical risk surrounding Russia is therefore elevated, as we argued last year. Both President Vladimir Putin and his government have seen their approval rating drop, a development that has often led Russia to lash out abroad (Chart 2). But our expectation of rising political risk within Russia’s sphere has been reinforced by Russia’s alleged poisoning of opposition politician Alexei Navalny and the eruption of pro-democracy protests in Belarus. Vladimir Putin is increasingly focusing on home affairs due to domestic instability worsened by the pandemic and recession. Fiscal and monetary austerity have weighed on the public. The largest protests since 2011 occurred in mid-2019 in opposition to the fixing of the Moscow municipal elections. This could be a harbinger of larger unrest around the Russian legislative elections on September 19, 2021. Nominal wage growth has collapsed and is scraping its 2015-16 lows (Chart 3). Chart 2Black Swan #1: A Color Revolution In Russia Black Swan #1: A Color Revolution In Russia Black Swan #1: A Color Revolution In Russia Chart 3Russia's Fiscal Austerity Russia's Fiscal Austerity Russia's Fiscal Austerity Meanwhile US policy toward Russia will become more confrontational. New US presidents always start with outreach to Russia, but the Democratic Party blames Russia for betraying the good faith of the Obama administration’s “diplomatic reset” from 2009-11. Russia invaded Ukraine and took Crimea in exchange for cooperating on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Adding in the Snowden affair, the 2016 election interference, and now the monumental SolarWinds cyberattack, the Democratic Party will want to strike back and reestablish deterrence against Russia’s asymmetrical warfare. While Biden will seek to negotiate an extension of the New START missile treaty from February 5, 2021 until 2026, he will gear up for confrontation in other areas. The US could seek to go on offense with Russia’s wonted tools: psychological warfare and cyberattacks. The Americans are not willing or able to attempt regime change in Moscow. That would be taken as an act of war among nuclear powers. But if Russia is less stable internally than it appears, then US meddling could hit a weak spot and set off a chain reaction. Even if the US is incapable of anything of the sort, Russia is still ripe for social unrest. Should the authorities mishandle it, it could metastasize. Russia has a long tradition of peasant uprisings – a descent into anarchy is not out of the question. The regime would not be devoting so much attention to suppressing domestic dissent if the conditions for it were not ripe.2 Putin’s constitutional reforms in mid-2020, which could extend his term until 2036, also speak to concerns about regime stability. A successful Russian uprising would threaten to raise serious instability in Europe and the world. When great but decadent empires are destabilized, political struggle can intensify rapidly and spill out to affect the neighbors. Bottom Line: Russian domestic political instability could produce a black swan. The ruble would tank and the US dollar would catch a bid against European currencies. Black Swan #2: A Major Terror Attack In Germany 2020 was a banner year for European solidarity. Brexit went forward but none of the European states have followed – nor would any want to follow given the political turmoil it aroused. Brussels initiated a recovery fund to combat the global pandemic that consisted of a mutual debt scheme – in what has been hailed somewhat excessively as a “Hamiltonian moment,” a move toward federalism. Germany stood at the center of this process. After opening the doors to a flood of migrants from Syria in 2015, Chancellor Angela Merkel suffered a blow to her popularity and was eventually forced to make plans for her exit. But she stuck to her core liberal policies and her fortunes have recovered (Chart 4). She is stepping down in 2021 as the longest-serving chancellor since Helmut Kohl and an influential European stateswoman. The EU member states are more integrated than ever while Germany has taken another step toward improving its international image. The public has rewarded the ruling coalition for its relatively competent handling of the global pandemic (Chart 5). Chart 4Black Swan #2: A Major Terror Attack In Germany Black Swan #2: A Major Terror Attack In Germany Black Swan #2: A Major Terror Attack In Germany Chart 5German People Happy With Their Government Five Black Swans For 2021 Five Black Swans For 2021 Merkel’s approval coincides with a recovery of the liberal democratic consensus in Europe after a series of challenges from anti-establishment and populist parties. Only in Italy did populists take power, and they were forced to back down from their extravagant fiscal policy demands while modifying their policy platform with regard to membership in the monetary union. Even today, as Italy’s ruling coalition comes apart at the seams, the risk of a populist backlash is lower than it was in most of the past decade. One of the main ways the European establishment neutralized the populist challenge was by tightening control over immigration and cracking down on terrorism (Charts 6 and 7). These two forces have played a large role in generating support for right wing parties, and these parties have declined in popularity as these two forces have abated. Chart 6Terrorist Attacks Have Fallen In Europe Terrorist Attacks Have Fallen In Europe Terrorist Attacks Have Fallen In Europe Chart 7Europeans Softening Toward Immigrants? Europeans Softening Toward Immigrants? Europeans Softening Toward Immigrants? Still, the risk posed by terrorist groups has not disappeared – and it is always possible that disaffected individuals could evade detection. French President Emmanuel Macron faced seven terrorist attacks over the past year, which partly stemmed over the commemoration of the Charlie Hebdo massacre but also points to the persistence of underground extremist networks (Chart 8).3 Chart 8French Fear Of Terrorism Has Increased Five Black Swans For 2021 Five Black Swans For 2021 Chart 9European Breakup Risk At Testing Point European Breakup Risk At Testing Point European Breakup Risk At Testing Point What would happen if a major attack occurred in Germany in 2021? Would it upset the country’s liberal consensus and fuel another surge in popular support for far-right parties like the Alternative for Germany? Only a major attack would have a lasting impact. A systemically important attack in the pivotal year of Merkel’s retirement could create more uncertainty in domestic German politics than has been seen since the 1990s and early 2000s. It is possible that an attack could strengthen the ruling coalition and the public’s desire to continue with the leadership of the Christian Democrats after Merkel. More likely, however, it would divide the conservative and right-wing parties among themselves. Merkel’s chosen successor, Defense Minister Annagret Kramp-Karrenbauer, was forced to abandon her bid for the chancellorship last year after members of her Christian Democratic Union in the state of Thuringia voted along with the anti-establishment Alternative for Germany to remove the state’s left-wing leader. The cooperation was minimal but it set off a firestorm by suggesting that Kramp-Karrenbauer was willing to work together with the far right.4 She bowed out and now the party is about to pick a new leader. The point is that if any event strengthens the far right, it would suck away votes from the Christian Democrats. The latter could also see divisions emerge with their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, which has differed on immigration in the past. Or the conservatives could alienate the median German voter by tacking too far to the right to preempt the anti-establishment vote (e.g. overreacting to the attack). Either way, German politics would be rocked. Ironically, if the coalition was seen as mishandling the response, a left-wing coalition of the Greens and the Social Democrats could be the beneficiaries. The risk of a government change – in the wake of Merkel and the pandemic – is greatly underrated, entirely aside from black swans. Nevertheless a major shock that strengthens the far right would be a black swan by forcing the question of whether the center-right is willing to cooperate with its fringe. If that occurred, then Europe would be stunned. If it did not, then the conservatives could lose the election and plunge into intra-party turmoil. The takeaway of a rightward shift on the back of any shock would be a renewed risk of fiscal hawkishness – a partial relapse from the past two years’ fiscal expansion to the more traditionally austere German posture. The takeaway of a leftward shift would be the opposite – a doubling down on that fiscal expansion. German hawkishness would increase the European breakup risk premium, while a confirmation of the new German dovishness would further suppress it (Chart 9). Bottom Line: The fiscal dovish turn is the more likely response to such a black swan in today’s climate, but a major terrorist attack could have unpredictable consequences. Black Swan #3: A US-China Deal On North Korea Critics misunderstood President Trump’s policy on North Korea. Trump’s policy – even his belligerent rhetoric – echoed that of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The intention of the US show of force was to create an overwhelming threat that would force Pyongyang into serious negotiations toward a nuclear deal. That in turn would pave the way to economic cooperation. Trump’s efforts failed – Kim Jong Un stonewalled him in the final year and a half. Kim’s bet paid off since he avoided making major concessions and now Biden must start from scratch. Pyongyang has ramped up its threats and Kim has elevated his sister, Kim Yo Jong, to a higher standing in the party – apparently to lob attacks at South Korea full-time. Biden will put the technocrats and Korea experts in charge. Pyongyang may test nuclear weapons or launch intercontinental ballistic missiles to attract Biden’s attention. But Kim could also go straight to negotiations. Optimistically, a few years of talks could result in a phased reduction of sanctions in exchange for nuclear inspections. Kim has the incentive and the dictatorial powers to open up the economy and engage in market reforms while managing any backlash among the army. He has already prepared the ground by elevating economic policy to the level of military policy in the national program. For years he has allowed some market activity to little effect. The North must have suffered from the pandemic, as Kim publicly confessed to the failure of economic management at the latest party meeting. His country needs a vaccine for COVID. And if he intends to go the way of Vietnam, then he needs to open up the doors while a new global business cycle is beginning (Chart 10). The black swan would emerge if the Biden administration’s attempt to reboot relations with China produced a unified effort to force a resolution onto Kim. It is undeniable that Trump broke diplomatic ice by meeting with Kim directly, giving Biden the option of doing so quickly and with minimal controversy if he should so desire. Most importantly, China has enforced sanctions, if official statistics can be trusted (Chart 11). Beijing made no secret that it saw North Korea as an area of compromise to appease US anger. After all, success on the peninsula would remove the reason for the US to keep troops there. Chart 10Black Swan #3: A US-China Deal On North Korea Five Black Swans For 2021 Five Black Swans For 2021 Chart 11An Area Of US-China Cooperation Under Biden? An Area Of US-China Cooperation Under Biden? An Area Of US-China Cooperation Under Biden? The last point is the material point. If the North sought to open up, it would likely have to do so through talks with the US, China, South Korea, and Japan. Success would mean that US-China engagement is still effective. Bottom Line: A breakthrough on the Korean peninsula would mean that investors could begin imagining a future in which the US and China are not “destined for war” but rather capable of reviving their old cooperative approach. This has far-reaching positive implications, but most concretely the Korean won and Chinese renminbi would rally against the US dollar and Japanese yen on the historic reduction of war risk. Black Swan #4: Saudi Arabia (And Oil Prices) Collapse Saudi Arabia is an even greater loser from the US election than Russia. The Saudis came face to face with their geopolitical nightmare of US abandonment under the Obama administration, as the US gained energy independence while reaching out to Iran. The 2015 nuclear deal gave Iran a strategic boost and enabled it to resume pumping oil (Chart 12). The Saudis, like the Israelis, lobbied hard to stop the deal but failed. They threw their full support behind President Trump, who reciprocated, and now face the restoration of the Obama policy under Joe Biden. Chart 12Black Swan #4: Saudi Arabia (And Oil Prices) Collapse Black Swan #4: Saudi Arabia (And Oil Prices) Collapse Black Swan #4: Saudi Arabia (And Oil Prices) Collapse Chart 13Fiscal Pressure On Saudis Fiscal Pressure On Saudis Fiscal Pressure On Saudis Global investors should expect Biden to return to the nuclear deal with Iran as quickly as possible, notwithstanding Iran’s latest nuclear provocations, since the latter are designed to increase negotiating leverage. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was an executive agreement that Biden could restore with the flick of his wrist, as long as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani returned to compliance. Rouhani can do so before a new president is inaugurated in August – he could secure his legacy at the cost of taking the blame for “dealing with the devil.” This would save the regime from further economic and social instability as it prepares for the all-important succession of the supreme leader in the coming years. A black swan would occur if this diplomatic situation led to a breakdown in support for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). MBS, whose nickname is “reckless,” in part because his foreign policies have backfired, could attempt to derail or sabotage the US-Iran détente. If he tried and failed, the US could effectively abandon Saudi Arabia – energy self-sufficiency, public war-weariness, and Iranian détente would pave the way for the US to downgrade its commitment. This would create an existential risk for the kingdom, which depends on the US for national security. It could also be the final straw for MBS, who already faces opposition from elites who have been shoved aside and do not wish to see him ascend the throne in a few years’ time. A different trigger for the same black swan would be a collapse of the OPEC 2.0 oil cartel. The Saudis and Russians have fought two market-share wars over the past seven years. They could relapse into conflict in the face of shifting global dynamics, such as the green energy revolution, that disfavor oil. Arthur Budaghyan and Andrija Vesic, of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy, have argued that financial markets will start pricing in a higher probability of Saudi currency depreciation versus the US dollar in coming years. Lower-for-longer oil prices (say $40 per barrel average over next few years) would pose a dilemma to the authorities: either (1) cut fiscal spending further and tighten liquidity or (2) resort to local banks financing (money creation “out of thin air”) to sustain economic activity. The first scenario would impose severe fiscal austerity on the population (Chart 13), which is politically difficult to endure in the long run. The second scenario will lead to depleting the country’s FX reserves, robust money growth and some inflation culminating in downward pressure on the currency. The main reason for believing the devaluation will not happen is that it would topple the regime. Currency devaluation would result in unbearable inflation in a country that lacks domestic production and domestically sourced staples. But that is precisely why it is a black swan risk. After all, prolonged fiscal austerity may not be feasible either. Bottom Line: MBS controls the security forces and has consolidated power for years but that may not save him if his foreign policies led to American abandonment or a breakdown of the peg. Black Swan #5: A Sino-Japanese Crisis For the first time since 2016, we are not including US-China tensions over Taiwan in our list of black swans. A crisis in the strait is only a matter of time and the global news media is increasingly aware of it (Chart 14). It would not necessarily have to be a war or even a show of military force, though either are possible. A mere Chinese boycott or embargo of Taiwan would violate the US’s Taiwan Relations Act and trigger a US-China crisis from the get-go of the Biden administration. What is less widely recognized is that peaceful resolution of the China-Taiwan predicament is not just a concern for the United States. It is a concern for Japan and South Korea as well – whose vital supplies must travel around the island one way or another. These two nations would face constriction if mainland China reunified Taiwan by force – and therefore Beijing’s signals of increasing willingness to contemplate armed action are already reverberating among the neighbors. Japan sounded an uncharacteristically stark warning just last month. The hawkish statement from State Minister of Defense Yasuhide Nakayama is worth quoting at length: We are concerned China will expand its aggressive stance into areas other than Hong Kong. I think one of the next targets, or what everyone is worried about, is Taiwan … There’s a red line in Asia – China and Taiwan. How will Joe Biden in the White House react in any case if China crosses this red line? The United States is the leader of the democratic countries. I have a strong feeling to say: America, be strong!5 China and Japan have improved trade relations through the RCEP agreement, as Beijing looks to diversify from the United States. But China’s rise is of enormous strategic concern for Japanese policymakers. COVID-19 and the rollback of Hong Kong’s freedoms have made matters worse. The belt of sea and land around China – the “first island chain” – is the critical area from which Beijing seeks to expel American and foreign military presence. With China already having shown a willingness to clash with India and Australia simultaneously in 2020 – as it carves a sphere of influence in the absence of American pushback – it should be no surprise to see conflicts erupt in the East or South China Sea (Chart 15). Chart 14Differences In The Taiwan Strait Differences In The Taiwan Strait Differences In The Taiwan Strait Chart 15Black Swan #5: A Sino-Japanese Crisis Black Swan #5: A Sino-Japanese Crisis Black Swan #5: A Sino-Japanese Crisis In the aftermath of the last global crisis, in 2010, China and Japan clashed mightily over maritime-territorial disputes in the East China Sea. China imposed a brief embargo on exports of rare earth elements to Japan. The two clashed again the following year and tensions escalated dramatically when China rolled out an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in 2013. Tense periods come and go and are often attended by mass anti-Japanese protests, as in 2005 and 2012. Usually these events are of passing importance, though they have the potential to escalate. What would truly be a black swan would be if Japan took the initiative to challenge China and test the Biden administration’s commitment to Japanese security. With the US internally divided and distracted, and China ascendant, Japan could grow increasingly insecure and seek to take precautions. China could see these as offensive. A new Sino-Japanese crisis could ensue that would catch investors by surprise. It is highly unlikely that Tokyo would provoke China – hence the black swan designation – but the effective absence of the Americans is a strategic liability that Tokyo may wish to resolve sooner rather than later. In this case the market reaction would be predictable – the yen would appreciate while the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar would fall. The risk-off period could be extended if the US failed to reinforce the Japanese alliance for fear of China, with the whole world watching. Bottom Line: Global investors would be blindsided if a sudden explosion of Sino-Japanese tensions prevented any US-China thaw and confirmed their worst fears about China’s economic decoupling from the West. Investment Takeaways This exercise in identifying black swans may be useful in at least one way: it exposes the vulnerability of financial markets to a sudden reversal of the US dollar’s weakening trend (Chart 16). The dollar would surge on broad Russian instability, Sino-Japanese conflict, or another exogenous geopolitical shock. This kind of dollar surprise would be much greater than a temporary counter-trend bounce, which our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor fully expects. It would upset the financial community’s dollar-bearish consensus, with far-reaching ramifications for the global economy and financial markets. A rising dollar against the backdrop of a recovering global economy represents a de facto tightening of global financial conditions. Equity markets, for example, have only started to rotate away from the US and this trend would be reversed (Chart 17). Whereas further appreciation of the euro and the renminbi is not only expected but would support global reflation. Chart 16The USD Over Trump's Four Years The USD Over Trump's Four Years The USD Over Trump's Four Years Chart 17Global Market Cap Over Trump's Four Years Global Market Cap Over Trump's Four Years Global Market Cap Over Trump's Four Years There is a much plainer and straighter way to an upset of the dollar-bearish consensus. Rather than a black swan it is a “gray rhino,” the term that Michele Wucker uses for risks that are common, expected, and staring you right in the face.6 This would be the peak of China’s stimulus, which holds out the risk of a major reversal to the pro-cyclical global financial market rally in late 2021 (Chart 18). Chart 18China Impulse Will Linger In 2021, But EM Stocks Tactically Stretched China Impulse Will Linger In 2021, But EM Stocks Tactically Stretched China Impulse Will Linger In 2021, But EM Stocks Tactically Stretched It would be a colossal error if Beijing over-tightened monetary and fiscal policy in 2021 in the context of high debt, deflation, and unemployment (Chart 19). Chart 19Three Reasons China Will Avoid Over-Tightening (If It Can) Three Reasons China Will Avoid Over-Tightening (If It Can) Three Reasons China Will Avoid Over-Tightening (If It Can) Nevertheless the government’s renewed efforts to contain asset bubbles and credit excesses clearly increase the risk. Financial policy tightening is always a risky endeavor, as global policymakers routinely discover. Chart 20Book Profits But Stay Cyclically Positive On Reflation Trades Book Profits But Stay Cyclically Positive On Reflation Trades Book Profits But Stay Cyclically Positive On Reflation Trades We maintain that China’s major stimulus will have a lingering positive effects for the economy for most of this year and that the authorities will relax policy and regulation as needed to secure the recovery. The Central Economic Work Conference in December suggested that the Politburo still views downside economic risks as the most important. But this is a clear and present risk that will have to be monitored closely. Clearly the global reflation trend has extended to dangerous technical extremes over the past month on the realization that US fiscal stimulus will surprise to the upside. Therefore we are doing some housekeeping. We will book 31.1% profit on long cyber security, 16.7% on long US infrastructure, and 24.3% on long US materials. We will also book 9.5% gains on our long EM-ex-China equity trade, which has gone vertical (Chart 20).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Such epidemiologists include Michael Osterholm and Lawrence Brilliant. For Pinker and Rees, see George Eaton, "Steven Pinker interview: How does a liberal optimist handle a pandemic?" The New Statesman, July 22, 2020, newstatesman.com. 2 Thomas Grove, "New Russian Security Force Will Answer To Vladimir Putin," Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2016, wsj.com. 3 Elaine Ganley, "Grisly beheading of teacher in terror attack rattles France," Associated Press, October 16, 2020, apnews.com. 4 Philip Oltermann, "German politician elected with help from far right to step down," The Guardian, February 6, 2020, theguardian.com. 5 Ju-min Park, "Japan official, calling Taiwan ‘red line,’ urges Biden to ‘be strong,’" Reuters, December 25, 2020, reuters.com. 6 See www.wucker.com.

Highlights Structural reform is coming to the US in the wake of the riotous 2020 election cycle. Extreme levels of political polarization will subside, albeit remaining relatively elevated. This will smooth the way to a more proactive fiscal policy that secures the economic recovery. The Biden administration has enough political capital to pass large fiscal stimulus, an expansion of Obamacare, and an increase of taxes, regulations, and the minimum wage. The Republican Party will go into the political wilderness – and it may not recover from its internal struggle in time for the 2022-24 elections. Moderate Republicans will assist in passing legislation. Stay cyclically long stocks over bonds, cyclicals over defensives, and value over growth, but introduce tactical hedges. Go long VIX.  Feature Structural reform is coming to the United States in the wake of the riotous 2020 election cycle. The incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden will usher in a stabilization of US politics by means of a substantial increase in fiscal support for the economy. This provides a backstop for the recovery that, combined with the ultra-accommodative Federal Reserve, suggests investors should keep an optimistic attitude toward risk assets over the coming 12 months, despite the inevitable ups and downs (Chart 1). Biden and the establishment politicians of both parties are beset by rising forces of populism on the right and left. They likely recognize that their political survival, as well as the country’s stability, depends on maintaining the recovery. The soon-to-be ruling Democratic Party narrowly obtained the majorities necessary to pass at least a few major laws. Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days Triggers Brief Pullback 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform The change in political leadership will be beneficial for the middle class household but  less so for Big Business and corporate earnings. The US faces a rocky historical transition toward larger government involvement in the economy, more restrictions on private enterprise, and more redistribution of wealth. Labor is taking up a larger share of national income, as opposed to capital – a big shift away from the trend of the past 40 years (Chart 2). That period was extremely friendly to equity investors. The future will be trickier, though for the time being the market is pricing the good news. Chart 2Labor Makes A Comeback Versus Capital 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform In this report we lay down our three key views for 2021: Peak Polarization – US political polarization is at extreme levels and though it will subside in the wake of the feverish 2020 cycle, it will remain elevated in the coming years. There will be aftershocks from the past year’s crises. Extremism and political violence will continue to flare up with the possibility of domestic terrorist incidents. The market impact of this trend is inherent in the Democratic victory in the White House and Congress, but the Biden administration’s political capital will increase upon any major shocks stemming from extreme polarization. Bipartisan Structural Reform – Investors should expect a flurry of legislation. The Democrats will be anxious to reward their base and consolidate power. Moderate Republicans will assist on some votes. New taxes and spending, a higher federal minimum wage, a larger safety net (e.g. healthcare), and administrative reforms will all ensue. Republicans In The Wilderness – The Republican Party is hereby exiled into the political wilderness to settle its internal struggle over Trumpism. The Party of Lincoln will somehow survive but it may not recover by 2024. Below we explain these views, what would undermine them, and what they mean for investors over the next 12 months and beyond. View #1: Peak Polarization US political polarization hit extreme levels over the past year according to various measures (Chart 3). Polarization will retreat as a result of Biden’s victory over Trump – Biden will have a higher approval rating, both generally and among the opposite party, than Trump did. But it will remain elevated relative to history. Structural drivers of polarization, such as wealth and racial inequality, congressional gerrymandering, and regional disparities, remain unaddressed. It will take time to reduce them. Hence, US social and political instability will continue in 2021. Most of this will be noise but some of it will not. Chart 3Polarization At Extremes 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Chart 4Terrorism On The Rise In The US 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform There will be aftershocks in the wake of the Trump rebellion on January 6 and the House Democrats’ decision to impeach him for a second time. A massive show of force will attend Biden’s inauguration, but extremism and political violence of various kinds have been flaring in recent years and will persist for some time (Chart 4). Both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have warned of a rise in domestic extremism and terrorism. Increased political instability creates fertile ground for malign actors of all stripes to operate, including domestic or foreign saboteurs. At a critical juncture in the nation’s politics like today, a major attack could wreak more panic and uncertainty than otherwise would be the case. The past year of unrest shows that the bar is high for markets to respond to passing political events. But a major crisis event that has systemic importance cannot be ruled out in today’s precarious environment. In the event of a major domestic terrorist incident, such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the vast majority of the public would react with utter revulsion and rally around the flag (Chart 5), while the federal counterterrorism response would be overwhelming, just as it was in the 1990s. Chart 5OKC Bombing Spurred Rally Round The Flag 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform The market impact of such an attack would be fleeting. Other domestic incidents bear this out, such as the Waco siege (1993), the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta (1996), the Charleston church massacre (2015), and the shooting of Republican lawmakers in 2017 (Chart 6). This point is intuitive given the extensive rioting and unrest in 2020 yet the fall of market volatility throughout the year. Yet the past year’s social and political instability does have major investment implications. It has led to full Democratic control of Congress and the White House on an agenda of fiscal expansion and wealth redistribution. Chart 6Market Largely Ignores Domestic Terrorism 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform What About Long-Term Effects? With the government supporting the economy, it is less likely that the US will experience a drastic backslide into even greater social instability in the coming years. On the contrary, a more proactive fiscal policy, with more robust social safety nets in terms of health, unemployment, child care, and old age, means that social stability should improve (Chart 7). If the material wellbeing of the country fails to improve, or if exogenous events further destabilize the US, then the social and political environment will deteriorate further. But we would expect that 2021 will see the US secure the recovery and begin to restore order, at least temporarily. Longer term stabilization will require a succession of improvements that span administrations.  Chart 7Better Social Safety Net Could Reduce Deaths Of Despair 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s political support will increase if there are any major attacks and that support will be used to restore order. The market ramifications of any such response are already known: expansive, proactive fiscal policy to stabilize the economy and society and thus reduce the odds of greater division and radicalization. This kind of stabilization is positive for risk assets over a 12-month horizon. View #2: Bipartisan Structural Reform Investors should bet on a flurry of legislation from the Democrats (Table 1). They will be anxious to reward their base, consolidate power, and restore the political establishment to a position of primacy. They will be determined to act quickly, remembering how the 2010 midterms stymied their agenda after winning a blue sweep in the wake of the last major national crisis. Table 1Biden’s Priority? Stimulus … And More Stimulus 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Not only do Democrats control Congress but also Republicans are divided – by their loss of the Senate and by Trump’s rebellion. Over the coming year, moderate Republicans will be much more likely to vote with Democrats than the latter will be to defect from their party, especially on popular legislation such as economic stimulus (Chart 8). Chart 8Biden’s Priority? Stimulus … And More Stimulus 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform If Republicans prove obstructionist then we would not rule out the Democrats mustering the votes to remove the Senate filibuster. But in the current climate, several moderate Republicans, such as Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, and Utah Senator Mitt Romney, are looking to distance themselves from Trump and Trumpism. Opposition to government spending has lost a lot of steam in US politics. The populist Republicans are increasingly willing to accept large spending to ease burdens on their voter base. Trump was a big spender, and the Republicans passed large spending bills during his term. Republicans have supported large household rebates as a COVID relief measure, as our Global Investment Strategy points out. These include prominent Senators like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as well as presidential hopefuls like Marco Rubio of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri. Granted, desperate times call for desperate measures – Republican fiscal hawkishness will return now that the party is in the opposition. But there can be little doubt that Republican fiscal discipline has eroded given that both populists and moderates have loosened their standards. Austerity will not have as much support in the 2020s as it did after 2008. There is no chance that Democrats and Republicans will agree on a 2011-style Budget Control Act in the near future. The budget deficit will normalize albeit at a higher level than before the crisis (Chart 9). Chart 9Budget Deficit: Larger For Longer 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Democrats are guaranteed to drive a big spending agenda through Congress. They have the votes, the popular support, and the lingering COVID crisis as added impetus. The voting record of the Obama administration reinforces the high likelihood of Democratic unity as well as moderate GOP support (Chart 10). Chart 10Obama Era Shows Democrats Will Pass Legislation 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform What About Tax Hikes? Congress will also raise taxes sooner or later. The party is united on the need to tackle economic inequality. There is no clear relationship between marginal tax rates and economic growth, capital spending, or productivity, according to our US Investment Strategist Doug Peta. If anything a positive correlation exists between corporate tax rates and economic growth, suggesting the right time to increase taxes is when the economy has recovered from recession or is otherwise in full stride (Chart 11). Nevertheless it is intuitive that a big tax hike could weigh on growth when it is first rolled out. Chart 11A Growing Economy Enables Tax Hikes 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform So there is a good basis for the Biden administration to delay raising taxes until the recovery is secure. However, taxes will go up sooner or later (Chart 12). Chart 12Corporate Tax Rate Will Rise Sooner Or Later But The Economy Can Power Through It 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Taxes must rise to pay for new spending and, in the Democratic Party’s view, redress inequality. The use of the budget reconciliation procedure to pass laws with a simple majority in the Senate will necessarily require revenue offsets over a ten-year window to pay for new spending. The Trump tax cuts were never very popular to begin with, so the political blowback is manageable (Chart 13). Any delay would be temporary and thus its positive effects would be counteracted by the expectations of firms and investors. Passing tax hikes in 2021 enables COVID to serve as a pretext for a larger round of spending increases than would otherwise be possible to offset the new tax burden. Taxes can be passed in 2021 but not take effect until 2022. That might prevent the full impact from hitting ahead of midterm elections that year. Democrats hope to pick up two seats in the Senate, bringing their majority to 52-48 and bringing the more controversial parts of their agenda within reach. Chart 13Trump Tax Cuts Were Never Very Popular 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Note also that the Biden administration aims only partially to repeal the Trump tax cuts. The new corporate tax rate will rise to no more than 28%, which is still seven percentage points lower than Trump found it in 2016. Nor is Biden projecting a higher top marginal individual rate than the 39.6% that prevailed before Trump. The minimum corporate tax rate of 15% will bring a bigger negative impact for firms but it will be politically popular. There could also be a financial transactions tax, which Biden has said he supports. All of this is achievable with Senate control (Table 2). Table 2Biden’s Fiscal Agenda 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Investors should expect an early hit to earnings expectations. There will be an earnings hit from the simultaneous increase in taxes, regulations, and the doubling of the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Moreover investors need to price in more than Biden’s agenda. They need to price in a broader shift in US policy to redistribute wealth from capital to labor. Firms will face a new paradigm that is less corporate-friendly and laissez faire, at least until the Republican Party recovers and offers a viable alternative. And as discussed below, that could take a while. Bottom Line: The Biden administration will pass big new increases in spending and taxation as well as minimum wages and a slew of new regulations on labor and the environment. The shift to a fiscally proactive US government, at a time when the Fed is ultra-dovish, will ensure that the positive market reaction continues for the most part of the coming 12 months. But sooner or later markets will have to discount a generally more intrusive government that will reduce profit margins. View #3: Republicans In The Wilderness The Republican Party will go into the political wilderness in 2021, where it faces an internal struggle over how to deal with Trump and Trumpism. In the short run this means Republicans will not be well organized to oppose the Biden administration. In the long run, the outcome of this internal struggle will have a historic impact on the overall US policy outlook. Trump has become the first president to be impeached twice. There are eight days until Biden’s inauguration at noon on January 20. The Senate, still led by Republicans, has scheduled the trial to take place after that time, but it may still be relevant. If Trump is tried and convicted, which requires a two-thirds vote, then he could be disqualified from holding any future office on a simple majority vote. Otherwise, Congress could censure him, which would be merely symbolic. The Democrats hope to force Republicans to go on the record after Trump’s interference with the peaceful transfer of power to force them either to break with their party or wear the Trump albatross forevermore. Republican senators are not as reliable for Trump in any new impeachment as in the first one. A vote to remove, disqualify, or censure him would enable them to wash their hands of his actions. This could be useful for swing state moderates. The problem for the GOP is that it is still beholden to Trump, who generated large voter turnout and won 47% of the national vote, despite a pandemic and recession. Trump has left the party in better condition, in terms of seats, than his predecessor George Bush did (Chart 14). If he leaves the GOP and starts his own party, he could bring anywhere from one-third to half of Republican voters with him and thus hobble the party semi-permanently (Chart 15). It has happened before in US history.1 Chart 14GOP Still Fairly Strong In Congress, State Capitol 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform Chart 15If Trump Leaves, He Could Take One-Third To Half Of GOP Voters 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform A high-stakes negotiation will have to be held in a smoke-filled back room. Trump wants the 2024 nomination; the GOP wants his base. A solution would involve the GOP exculpating Trump yet again while he shepherds his base over to a successor within the party. But there is deep distrust. Trump was never a normal Republican and now he is even at odds with Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, and his former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. The party is losing donors over Trump’s actions, as companies withdraw support in the name of democracy. Moderate lawmakers and high-profile Republicans are trying to sever ties with Trump and considering leaving the party. If Republicans convince Trump to put away his 2024 aspirations and support the party, they may recuperate fairly quickly, on a populist basis. If they cannot, then the party may split, whether formally or informally, and hand the Democrats a decade-long ascendancy in US politics. Trump has shown that his base is too small to win against a fully mobilized Democratic-led political establishment. But without his base the Republicans definitely cannot win. The Republican Party will thus experience varying degrees of fracture in 2021. So far, Trump says he will run in 2024 and there is no reason to doubt him. But this is moot if the Senate agrees to impeach. This means the party is almost guaranteed to suffer a lasting split that will undermine its prospects in 2022, which would normally be fairly strong, and set up a bloody primary election in 2024. If this is the path the party embarks on in 2021, then investors should expect the Biden administration to be more effective than its narrow majorities suggest in passing legislation. Bottom Line: The Republican Party will suffer a deep fissure, or split entirely apart, depending on President Trump’s actions in the coming years. The implication is that the GOP opposition will be mostly ineffective in Washington in 2021. Moderate senators will be liable to vote with the Democratic majority on major bills. This is especially true of bills relating to COVID relief, economic stimulus, health care, or administrative reform to prevent 2020 election debacles from happening again. Investment Takeaways US equity markets and risk assets will eventually suffer a correction when the market comes to grips with the Biden administration’s capabilities and the looming rise in taxes, regulations, and wages. A stock market drop around Biden’s inauguration and first 100 days would fit the pattern of new “sweep” governments with single-party control. Timing is always tricky especially because the market is exuberant about the combination of larger fiscal and monetary stimulus. Stock prices are technically extended, expensive, and vulnerable to a negative growth surprise, but we would be buyers amid an equity pullback as the policy and macro fundamentals remain supportive. We are bullish over the 12-month horizon, especially in the first half. We are long stocks, the stock-to-bond ratio, value over growth, infrastructure plays, and reflation plays. Fiscal spending will go up quickly with new legislation, whereas tax hikes could be delayed. The implication is that the deficit will get larger and the yield curve will steepen, which is beneficial for cyclical and value plays. When tax hikes come into focus – which we expect to be soon – the tech sector will be the first casualty. We are long materials relative to Big Tech and would also be constructive toward energy relative to tech. The sectors that face the greatest policy risks under the Biden administration – health care, energy, financials – are also the ones best positioned to capitalize on the fresh burst of policy reflation, especially the latter two.   Big Pharma and the health insurers clearly face higher policy and regulatory risks. We recommend going tactically short S&P managed health care relative to the broad market. Consumers stand to benefit from stimulus measures that add to their already formidable pile of savings and provide more robust safety nets. Consumer discretionary stocks will also benefit from the normalization of the economy. Thus we view consumer plays favorably in general and recommend going long consumer staples as a tactical hedge.     As another tactical hedge we recommend going long volatility (VIX).   Several clients have asked about the drop in Twitter’s share prices upon its announcement that President Trump would be permanently removed from the platform. In general, we expect a drop in polarization to coincide with a drop in tech outperformance (Chart 16). The reason is that a slight increase in bipartisanship will result in fewer fiscal cliffs and policy-induced shocks, thus helping inflation expectations recover. This will benefit value stocks more so than growth. The Biden administration is allied with Big Tech but the threats to this sector are sprouting up in both political parties and from every direction – from anti-trust authorities, state-level governments, privacy advocates, free speech advocates, foreign tax authorities and regulators, and unions. We will discuss the latest controversies regarding Big Tech and free speech/press in future reports but for now suffice it to say that the macro and policy landscape is shifting against Big Tech. The big five tech firms may still see their stock prices rise but they will underperform the other 495 companies on the S&P. Chart 16Polarization And Tech Go Hand-In-Hand 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform   Matt Gertken Vice President US Political Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform 2021 Key Views: Structural Reform   Footnotes 1     Namely in the 1912 election when Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican Party and started the progressive “Bull Moose” party, costing incumbent President William Howard Taft the election versus Democratic challenger Woodrow Wilson. One could loosely interpret Texan Ross Perot’s presidential runs in 1992 and 1996 in a similar vein, and perhaps that would be more applicable to any future independent run by President Trump.  

Highlights Further fiscal easing is likely in the US now that the Democrats are set to take control of the US Senate following Tuesday’s runoff elections in Georgia. With the end of the pandemic in sight, a growing chorus of commentators, including none other than Larry Summers, are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In the short term, the risk that economies will overheat due to excessive fiscal support is low. There is still too much labor market slack, the bulk of any stimulus checks will be saved, and the short-run Phillips curve remains quite flat. Looking beyond the next two years, fiscal policy could indeed turn out to be inflationary. Political populism is rising. Central banks, fearful of the zero lower-bound constraint on interest rates, want higher inflation. Falling interest rates have also made it easier for governments to run larger budget deficits. We estimate that the US can run a primary budget deficit that is more than 2% of GDP larger than at the start of 2019, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. The “fiscal envelope” has increased significantly in other major economies as well. Ironically, in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth in GDP, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio permits larger budget deficits. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit more from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years once inflation begins to accelerate. A Race Against Time The past few weeks have seen a race between the virus, which continues to infect people at an alarming rate, and efforts to vaccinate the most vulnerable members of society. So far, the virus has the upper hand. Chart 1Tracking The Progress In Global Vaccination Rates Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? The “UK strain” has become more prevalent around the world.1 By some estimates it is 70% more contagious than the original virus that emerged in Wuhan, China. Another, potentially even more dangerous strain, has surfaced in South Africa and has spread to South America. The early evidence suggests that the recently approved vaccines will be effective in fighting the UK strain. Unfortunately, there is not enough data to judge whether this is also true for the South African strain. Right now, only 0.2% of the world’s population has been inoculated, but that number will rise rapidly over the coming months (Chart 1). Assuming that existing vaccines are effective against the myriad virus strains, the infection rate should fall precipitously by the middle of the year.   Georgia Runoffs Will Lead To Even More Stimulus Governments eased fiscal policy significantly last year in response to the unfolding crisis (Chart 2). At the worst point of the pandemic in April, US real disposable income was up 14% year-over-year (Chart 3). Transfers to households fell sharply following the expiration of the CARES Act, but are set to rise again thanks to the recently completed stimulus deal. Chart 2Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much?   The victory by both Democratic candidates in the Georgia Senate runoff races on Tuesday moves the political configuration in Washington even further towards fiscal easing. Having gained control of the Senate, the Democrats will now be able to use the “reconciliation process” to pass a budget that boosts spending on health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment. Granted, reconciliation requires that any extra spending be offset by additional revenue measures over a 10-year budgetary horizon. Thus, corporate taxes will probably rise. Nevertheless, the combination of more spending and higher corporate taxes will still produce a net boost to aggregate demand. This is partly because any revenue measures are likely to be backloaded. It is also because raising corporate taxes will not reduce investment by very much. The experience from the Trump tax cuts revealed that the main consequence of lowering corporate tax rates was to lower corporate tax receipts. The touted boost to corporate investment from lower taxes never materialized. In fact, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 4). Chart 3Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic   Chart 4No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much?   For stock market investors, the prospect of higher taxes will take some of the bloom off the rose from additional fiscal stimulus. That said, the impact will vary considerably across equity sectors. Cyclical stocks such as industrials and materials will benefit from stimulus-induced economic growth. Banks will also gain because stronger growth will suppress loan losses, while leading to steeper yield curves, thus raising net interest margins in the process. Value stocks have more exposure to banks and deep cyclicals, and hence we remain positive on them. Small caps also have more exposure to these sectors, but are starting to look increasingly pricey. Stimulus: How Much Is Enough? Chart 5Commercial Bankruptcies Are Well Contained Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal stimulus helped avert the cascade of business failures that normally accompany recessions. Despite a tick up in bankruptcies among large companies shortly after the pandemic began, 16% fewer companies filed for bankruptcy in the first 11 months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 (Chart 5). Overall bankruptcy filings, which include personal bankruptcies, have fallen to a 35-year low according to Epiq AACER. The pipeline for bankruptcies also looks fairly narrow. Junk bond prices have been rebounding and consumer loan delinquency rates have been trending down (Table 1). Table 1Personal Loan Delinquencies Have Also Been Trending Lower Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Generous fiscal transfers have allowed households to accumulate plenty of savings, which should help propel future spending. Chart 6 shows that accumulated US household savings are about $1.5 trillion above their pre-pandemic trend. We estimate that the combination of increased savings, rising home prices, and a surging stock market pushed up household net worth by $8 trillion in Q4 alone, leaving it 11% above Q4 2019 levels. In comparison, household net worth fell by over 15% during the Great Recession. Chart 6Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Little Risk Of Near-Term Fiscal Overheat With the prospect of a vaccine-led economic recovery in sight, a growing chorus of commentators are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Larry Summers contended that President Trump’s attempt to increase the size of stimulus checks from $600 per person to $2000 was “a serious mistake” that risked overheating the economy. Summers argued for a more streamlined approach that prioritized aid to state and local governments and increased funding for Covid testing and vaccine deployment. Despite Larry’s admonition, we see little risk that loose fiscal policy will cause any major economy to overheat in the near term, even if the Senate does enact more stimulus. For one thing, recent stimulus proposals have emphasized direct transfers to households. Unlike most other types of spending, across-the-board stimulus checks will go mainly into savings. The New York Fed has estimated that less than 30% of the direct stimulus payments in the CARES Act were used for consumption, with 36% saved and 35% used to pay down debt. Consistent with past experience, households expect to spend only about one-third of the forthcoming stimulus checks according to CivicScience, a market research firm (Chart 7). Chart 7How Will Americans Spend Their Second Stimulus Check? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Chart 8Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Moreover, there is still plenty of labor market slack. Chart 8 shows the employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers remains well below pre-pandemic levels across the OECD. In a best-case scenario, it will take a couple more years for employment levels to return to normal. Long-term inflation expectations are also well anchored, implying that the short-run Phillips curve is quite flat. In simple English, this means that a temporary burst of stimulus is unlikely to trigger an inflationary price-wage spiral. Some decline in budget deficits is also likely after the pandemic ends. The Hutchins Center at Brookings expects the fiscal package passed by the US Congress in December to boost GDP by 7% in the first quarter. However, it expects the four-quarter moving average in the fiscal contribution to growth to turn negative in the third quarter, and stay that way right through 2022 (Chart 9). Likewise, in its most recent forecasts, the IMF projected a negative fiscal impulse in the major advanced economies in 2021-22 (Chart 10). Chart 9Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part I) Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much?   Chart 10Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part II) Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Long-Term Fiscal Picture Is More Inflationary Granted, a negative fiscal impulse simply means that the structural budget deficit is declining over time. In absolute terms, the IMF expects budget deficits to remain quite large by historic standards, even if they do come down from their pandemic peak. Remember, it is the level of the budget deficit that helps determine the level of demand throughout the economy. Economies overheat when the level of aggregate demand exceeds the level of aggregate supply. If private-sector demand recovers more quickly than budget deficits come down, overall demand will rise. As such, it is certainly possible that excessively easy fiscal policy will contribute to an inflationary overshoot once labor market slack has been fully absorbed in two-to-three years. Politically, such an overshoot seems quite plausible. Populism is rising both on the left and the right. It is noteworthy that the Republican candidates in Tuesday’s runoff Senate races supported President Trump’s call for boosting the size of stimulus checks. The same goes for Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida. Rubio is widely considered an early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Economically, the case for bigger budget deficits has also become more appealing. Real interest rates are negative across the major economies. Low interest rates allow governments to take on more debt without having to make large interest payments. Indeed, the Japanese government today receives more interest than it pays by virtue of the fact that more than half of its debt was issued at negative rates. Persistent worries about the zero lower-bound constraint also encourage central banks to pursue policies that could fuel inflation, such as refraining from tightening monetary policy in response to looser fiscal policy. The current level of policy rates gives central banks almost no scope to cut rates in response to an adverse economic shock. If inflation were to rise, central banks would be able to bring real rates even further into negative territory should economic conditions warrant it. The Paradox Of Debt Sustainability When  r  Is Less Than  g One might think that today’s high debt-to-GDP ratios would force governments to slash deficits to keep debt from spiraling out of control. However, things are not so straightforward in a world of ultra-low interest rates. As Appendix A shows, the primary budget balance that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as: Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Where p is the primary budget balance (the difference between tax receipts and non-interest spending, expressed as a share of GDP), r is the real interest rate, and g is the growth rate of the economy. Notice that when r is less than g, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio corresponds to a larger primary budget deficit (i.e., a more negative p). In other words, by taking on more debt, governments would not only be able to raise spending or cut taxes, but they would also have enough money left over to pay the additional interest on the debt. And they could do all this without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on an unsustainable upward trajectory. Chart 11More Space For Bigger Budget Deficits In The US... More Space For Bigger Budget Deficits In The US... More Space For Bigger Budget Deficits In The US... What sort of funky magic allows this to happen? The answer is that even a small percentage increase in debt will correspond to a large increase in the absolute stock of debt when debt levels are elevated to begin with. If interest rates are low, most of the additional debt can go into financing a larger primary deficit instead of higher interest payments. One can see this point with a simple example. Suppose that initially, debt is 50, GDP is 100, and hence the debt-to-GDP ratio is 50%. Let us also assume that the primary deficit is 1% of GDP, the interest rate is 2%, and GDP grows at 4%. Next year, debt will be 50+50*0.02+1=52 while GDP will be 100*1.04=104. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain 52/104=50%. Now rerun the same example but assume that debt is initially equal to 100, implying an initial debt-to-GDP ratio of 100%. In that case, it is simple to verify that the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall to 103/104≈99% the following year if the primary deficit remained at 1% of GDP. The primary deficit would have to rise to 2% of GDP to keep the debt-to-GDP stable – double what it was in the first example. The level of the US primary budget deficit that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio has risen from 0.8% of GDP at the start of 2019 to 3.1% today if one uses the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of trend growth and the 10-year TIPs yield as a proxy for the real interest rate (Chart 11). A similar trend is visible abroad (Chart 12).   Chart 12... As Well As In Other Major Economies Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Investment Conclusions Thanks to the drop in interest rates, governments today have more scope to run larger budget deficits than they did in the past. This suggests that the sort of fiscal tightening that impeded the recovery following the Great Recession is unlikely to reoccur. The combination of above-trend growth and continued low rates will buoy equities in 2021. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit both from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years as unemployment approaches pre-pandemic levels and central banks begin to contemplate raising interest rates. A higher debt burden allows for a larger budget deficit when r is less than g, but requires a bigger budget surplus when r rises above g. If debt-saddled governments are unable or unwilling to tighten fiscal policy, they may end up applying political pressure on central banks to keep rates artificially low in order to suppress interest payments. As such, excessively easy monetary policy could trigger a bout of inflation. With that in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in fixed-income portfolios, favor inflation protected-securities over nominal bonds, and hold other inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. Cryptocurrencies could potentially serve as an inflation hedge, but given the recent run up in bitcoin prices, we would avoid this area of the market for the time being. Appendix AThe Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  A number of SARS-CoV-2 variants are circulating globally. The WHO reported this week that the UK variant of Covid-19 has spread to 40 other countries. Initial research suggests that the UK strain is more transmissible, but is characterized by unchanged disease severity compared to the original virus. The South African strain is also believed to be more contagious and was detected in six other countries. Some have raised concerns about the high number of mutations found in the South African variant. Research is ongoing to determine the potential consequences of the emerging variants on the speed of transmission, disease severity, ability to evade detection, and the efficacy of current treatments and vaccines. Please see Antony Sguazzin, “South Africa Virus Strain More Transmissible, Not More Severe,” Bloomberg, January 7, 2021;  Gabriele Steinhauser, “The New Covid-19 Strain in South Africa: What We Know,” The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2021; “Weekly epidemiological update - 5 January 2021,” World Health Organization; and “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated January 3, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Special Trade Recommendations Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Current MacroQuant Model Scores Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much? Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much?