Geopolitics

Highlights The bull market in US-Iran tensions was never resolved, and now a series of suspicious explosions in Iran raises the possibility that tensions will re-escalate. Iran’s interest lies in waiting out Trump so that a Democratic victory in the US election can restore the US-Iran strategic détente agreed in 2015. However, both the Trump administration and US ally Israel are applying “maximum pressure” on Iran and could go on the offensive at a time when Trump’s odds of re-election are collapsing. Israel cannot engage in a full-fledged war with Iran alone but it would have American backing for pressure tactics through the duration of Trump’s term. A “wag the dog” scenario is not inconceivable because the US and Israel have long-term national security interests at stake while Iran is on the verge of economic collapse. Investors should prepare for near-term global equity volatility and safe-haven demand for a number of reasons but a major escalation in Iran would add to the list. Stay long Brent crude oil. Feature Since May 2018 we have argued that US-Iran tensions will remain market-relevant. We downgraded the odds of US air strikes from 40% in June 2019 to 20% in January of this year after Iran’s lackluster retaliation to the US assassination of its top military commander. Now things are heating up again due to a series of extremely suspicious explosions in Iran that may or may not be linked to Israel and the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic, oil price rout, and global recession have reinforced this bull market in US-Iran tensions by weakening and destabilizing the entire Shia Crescent, from Lebanon to Iran. They have also pushed President Trump dangerously close to “lame duck” status, which reduces the constraints on conflict with Iran for the remainder of his term. In this report we update our Iran view by looking at whether the Trump administration or Israel could attempt to “wag the dog,” i.e. provoke a conflict with Iran to boost Trump’s re-election odds or achieve some long-term strategic objectives while Trump is still in power. We have long held the view that Iran poses a market-relevant geopolitical risk and now the mysterious attacks in Iran suggest it could be materializing. Nothing is confirmed, but it is wise for investors to monitor these developments in case they escalate. Geopolitical incidents often cause buying opportunities but they can create substantial equity drawdowns first. Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East A string of mysterious explosions and fires at military and economic facilities have rocked Iran in recent days (Table 1). Table 1Iran Hit By A String Of Mysterious Attacks Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East The most significant of these incidents is the July 2 explosion at the Natanz nuclear facility – Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility, which houses a new centrifuge assembly center.1 The fire resulted in a significant setback to the development and production of advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges used to enrich uranium – by up to two years. Iranian officials initially downplayed the incidents as unsuspicious accidents. However the Natanz explosion was too significant to cast off. Iran’s state-run news agency IRNA declared that the Natanz incident may be the work of foreign countries, “especially the Zionist regime [Israel] and the US,” and vowed Iranian retaliation if sabotage is proven to be the case. Similarly, the New York Times reported that an anonymous Middle Eastern intelligence official – rumored to be Mossad chief Yossi Cohen – called the incident the work of Israel.2 Israel’s response to these allegations has been oblique, but the accusation is not far-fetched. Israel has a successful history of halting the advancement of nuclear programs in the region. Mossad’s Operation Opera destroyed Iraq’s only known nuclear facility in 1981, and Operation Outside the Box bombed a suspected nuclear reactor at the Kibar site in Syria in 2007. Israeli intelligence has also previously been accused of targeting Iran’s missile program – with the assassination of four Iranian nuclear scientists between 2010 and 2012. Israel is also believed to be involved, with the US, in Operation Olympic Games, the Stuxnet cyber attacks that stunted Iran’s uranium enrichment program circa 2010. Iran’s ballistic missile program and alleged nuclear weapons ambitions remain Israel’s greatest long-term strategic threat in the region. More recently, Iran and Israel have been locked in a series of cyber-attacks. Israel claims to have foiled an Iranian attack on its water facilities in April which attempted a cyber break on water control systems. A May 9 cyberattack on Iranian shipping hub Shahid Rajaae – through which half of Iran’s maritime trade traverses – is seen as Israeli retaliation. Most recently, Israel’s Mossad revealed that it thwarted Iranian attempts to attack Israeli diplomatic missions in Europe. These attacks come as the US increases pressure on UN Security Council members to support the indefinite extension of the UN arms embargo against Iran, which is scheduled to expire on October 18.3 But other signatories to the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement – China, Russia, Germany, Britain, and France – argue that since the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), its threat to invoke a “snapback” provision of the deal to reimpose former UN sanctions on Iran is not legally valid. The other JCPA signatories remain committed to the deal, arguing for its necessity in order to continue IAEA inspections that prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They are biding their time to see if Trump is re-elected before deciding anything. Iran has moved further from the JCPA’s requirements since announcing, on January 5, 2020, that it will no longer comply with restrictions to its nuclear program (Table 2). The risk is that unless controlled, this will eventually significantly reduce Iran’s “breakout time” – the time required to acquire enough fissile material for one bomb. The nuclear deal aimed to maintain at least a one-year breakout time, and this is generally understood to be the US’s “red line.” Table 2Iran No Longer Complying With 2015 Nuclear Deal Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East Despite some non-compliance, Iran is still permitting IAEA inspectors to monitor and verify its nuclear activities. Yet the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution, requesting Iran’s cooperation in the investigation into possible undeclared nuclear materials and sites.4 Chart 1Iran's Sphere Of Influence In Collapse Iran's Sphere Of Influence In Collapse Iran's Sphere Of Influence In Collapse As tensions with US and Israel escalate, Tehran has been keen to highlight its military capabilities. Revolutionary Guard Navy Commander Rear Admiral Alireza revealed the existence of onshore and offshore underground missile sites along the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, holding advanced long-range missiles and new weapons, more capable of launching attacks against enemies. Escalating tensions raise the likelihood of retaliation as Iran reconsiders its “strategic patience” policy.5 Tehran had been playing the waiting game, especially since Trump’s decision to assassinate Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani in January. Iran has an interest in avoiding confrontation in the months ahead of the US election on November 3. Iran’s attack on Saudi Arabia in September 2019 led to a boost in Trump’s approval rating. A major conflict today would cause a patriotic rally around the president at a time when he is beset with negative opinion over the coronavirus response and poor race relations. Iran has an interest in Joe Biden winning the presidency in November. Biden would likely restore the US-Iran deal, which would remove sanctions and allow Iran to open its economy. However, neither the Trump administration nor the Israeli government share that interest. The latest attacks raise the possibility that the US and/or Israel are going on the offensive. This could force Iran to retaliate. Iranian moderates are already suffering domestically. Iran’s hardline parliamentarians were never on board with the nuclear deal and criticized President Hassan Rouhani when President Trump pulled out of it in May 2018. This past weekend Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, an ally of Rouhani whose reputation also rests on the deal, was heckled as he addressed the parliament. As of February, parliament is mostly comprised of hardliners.6 Iran is also on shaky ground in the Shia Crescent. Lebanon and Iraq – the two countries most entrenched in Iran’s sphere of influence – have been experiencing civil unrest. Protesters in both countries initially took to the streets last fall in demonstration of anger over government corruption, the sectarian based political system, and poor economic conditions. The pandemic and recession have breathed new life into these movements. The Lebanese pound collapsed on the parallel market since October, and some groups have called for the disarmament of Iran-backed Hezbollah (Chart 1). Meanwhile a June cabinet decision in Iraq to cap the amount and number of state salaries and pension payments collected – in attempt to buttress the country’s ailing finances – fueled outrage. Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi is also in a tussle with Iran-backed paramilitary forces as he attempts to curb their influence and bring them under state control.7 Chart 2Iran Has Little To Lose Iran Has Little To Lose Iran Has Little To Lose Thus a timid stance by Iran in face of foreign attacks will not go down well. Instead, with oil production having collapsed, the economy in shambles, and its sphere of influence in turmoil, Tehran has little to lose in protecting what is left of its nuclear program and deterring American or Israeli aggression (Chart 2). With few options left, Iran is likely to move further away from its “strategic patience” in response to the uptick in “maximum pressure.” Bottom Line: Tensions are escalating between Tehran and Washington/Tel Aviv. Cyber attacks are likely to increase in the lead up to the expiration of the arms embargo on October 18 and US elections this fall. Iran may be forced to abandon its policy of “strategic patience” if its foes sabotage its nuclear capabilities. Expect the conflict to spillover to Iran’s proxies in the region – Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. So What? Massive monetary and fiscal stimulus and continued commitment from OPEC 2.0 on the supply side will keep oil prices moving higher this year. Barring a second COVID-19 wave, our Commodity & Energy Strategists expect oil markets to rebalance beginning in 3Q2020, with Brent prices averaging $40/bbl this year and $65/bbl in 2021 (Chart 3). We remain long Brent which is up 70.55% since initiation in March.   The escalation in tensions in the Persian Gulf is an upside risk to this assessment. That said, with major oil producers now operating significantly below capacity in compliance with the OPEC 2.0 production agreement, the net impact on oil prices will likely be muted and short-lived. Production can be increased to fill gaps. As demonstrated by the recent acts of sabotage in Iran and Israel, the increase in geopolitical tensions globally will manifest in cyberattacks, supporting cyber stocks. Our strategically long ISE Cyber Security Index relative to the S&P500 Info Tech sector trade is up 2% since initiation in April (Chart 4). Chart 3Oil Markets On The Way To Recovery Oil Markets On The Way To Recovery Oil Markets On The Way To Recovery Chart 4Buy Cybersecurity Stocks Buy Cybersecurity Stocks Buy Cybersecurity Stocks Finally, we should note that Iran is not the only geopolitical risk that could explode amid the US election cycle. China is the greater risk. But President Trump faces fewer financial and economic constraints in a conflict with Iran than he does in a conflict with China. A conflict with Iran could change the game ahead of the election at a time when Trump is beset with the coronavirus and social unrest. His opinion polling would benefit from a rally around the flag, as it did in September 2019. The risk for Trump is that this bump may not last long. Americans are less concerned about Iran than China and Russia and Trump himself has benefited from American weariness of Middle Eastern wars. All we can say for certain is that the US election is of critical strategic importance to several major and minor powers. Trump’s allies and enemies know that the next six months offer their best chance to take actions that either affect the election or exploit the current alignment of US foreign policy relative to a Democratic Party alignment. While China probably prefers Biden, it can deal with either ruling party. Whereas Israel has a unique opportunity to advance its objectives under Trump and Iran has a clear imperative to remove Trump from office.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The damaged building was constructed in 2013 to be a site for the development of advanced centrifuges. Work there was stopped in 2015 as per requirements of the JCPA, but was restarted when the US withdrew from the deal in 2018. 2 Meanwhile a group of dissidents from within Iran’s military and security forces, calling themselves Homeland Cheetahs, claimed responsibility for the Natanz attack. However, it is possible that the claim was made with the intention to mislead. Please see Jiyar Gol, "Iran blasts: What is behind mysterious fires at key sites?" BBC News, July 6, 2020. 3 The draft US resolution bans Iran from supplying, selling, or transferring weapons after the October 18 expiration of the embargo. It bans UN member states from purchasing Iranian arms or permitting citizens to train or provide financial resources or assistance to Iran without Security Council approval. 4 This resolution, introduced by France, Germany, and the UK, refers to an undeclared uranium metal disc, potential fuel-cycle-related activities such as uranium processing and conversion, and suspected storage of nuclear material. Iran’s parliament responded by issuing a statement signed by 240 out of the 290 members which called the resolution excessive and requested that Iran halt voluntary implementation of additional protocol and change inspections 5 Iran’s state-run news agency IRNA published the following commentary in response to the Natanz explosion: "The Islamic Republic of Iran has so far tried to prevent intensifying crises and the formation of unpredictable conditions and situation … the crossing of red lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran by hostile countries, especially the Zionist regime and the US, means that strategy … should be revised." 6 In addition, 120 out of the 290 parliamentarians signed and delivered a motion to the presiding board of the assembly, requesting that Rouhani be summoned for questioning. The presiding board may not issue the summons and is unlikely to result in Rouhani’s impeachment as Khamenei has requested unity amid high foreign tensions. It nonetheless reflects Rouhani’s weakened position ahead of next year’s elections. 7 Hisham al-Hashemi, an advisor to Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi who had advised the government on reducing the influence of Iran-backed militias in Iraq, was killed on July 6, days after receiving threatening telephone calls from militias.

Highlights Our quantitative US election model suggests Trump has a 44% chance of re-election. This presents a risk to our formal subjective view that he has a 35% chance. We are sticking with our subjective odds for now, as Trump is beset with a reviving COVID-19 outbreak, a recession, social unrest, and execution risks for the next round of fiscal stimulus. But we may increase his chances in August if his circumstances improve. In the worst case, the devastated economy will lead to a landslide in which Trump even loses Iowa. But peak political polarization makes that unlikely and suggests that the race will tighten from here. Uncertainty and volatility will rise from here through November and possibly beyond. Feature The BCA Geopolitical Strategy presidential election model was first introduced to our readers in November 2019 in order to predict and quantify the Electoral College vote outcome of the 2020 US presidential election. The election model is a state-by-state model that uses both economic and political variables in order to predict the probability of the incumbent party winning the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states. We favored predicting the Electoral College vote over the popular vote since the winner of the presidential election is determined by the Electoral College. There have been five cases in history where the popular vote did not determine the outcome and two in recent history (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). The college imposes a significant (and deliberate) constraint on popularity and mass movements. Our sample size includes nine elections over the period 1984-2016, across 50 states, netting 450 observations. One of our four explanatory variables, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index, was suspended indefinitely amid the COVID-19 crisis. Hence we needed a replacement variable that could capture a similar impact on the predicted outcome, and one that was readily available on a state-by-state basis. Enter our replacement variable: 1. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index. The state leading index in our previous election model was an estimate of the six-month growth rate in the state coincident index. Therefore the state coincident index is the natural replacement variable as it will essentially proxy the state leading index, albeit without the forward-looking element. The coincident index for each state combines four of the state’s indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four indicators are nonfarm payroll employment; average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers; the unemployment rate; and wage and salary disbursements plus proprietors' income deflated by the consumer price index (US city average). We applied several transformations to the data to obtain meaningful results in the modeling process. Transformations included three-month, six-month, and twelve-month changes in the state coincident indexes. Ultimately we decided to use the three-month change of the state coincident index in our updated Version 2 (V2) election model. As before, we took a weighted average of the three-month change of all the monthly state coincident indexes in the presidential term preceding the election. Later months are weighted heavier than earlier months. A significant difference from the first version of our model is that, unlike the state leading indexes, the state coincident indexes do not have leading properties that give a forward-looking “view” on what the economic environment will look like going into Q1 of the post-election year. We acknowledge that past, current, and future economic conditions are likely to weigh on voters’ minds when casting their vote, but we also note the difficulties in accurately weighting one expectation more than another. We assume that prevailing economic conditions matter most to voters (as people’s assessment of their current situation inevitably affects their future expectations, and vice versa), and this bolsters our rationale in using a 3-month change of the state coincident index. Our final calculation of three-month changes to the state coincident indexes occurs in September of the election year, given that most voters make their decision at least one month in advance of the election, as we have previously shown. The October data release will arrive too late in November for inclusion in the election forecast anyway. Our remaining explanatory variables for V2 of our model update: 2. The incumbent party’s margin of victory in the previous presidential election in each state. Same as our original model. 3. A “time for change” variable – a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has been in the White House for one or more terms. Same as our original model. 4. The range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. Our original model used the level of approval. Our V2 model excludes the average approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year as it was found to be statistically insignificant at widely accepted significance levels (1%, 5% and 10%) when estimated with the state coincident index (as opposed to the state leading index), no matter the transformation applied to that index. This does not mean we exclude Trump’s approval data from our modeling process. Instead, we include the range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. This was the only transformed variation in presidential job approval rating data that showed statistical significance when combined with the variables above. For V2 of our model, the range is computed as the maximum monthly average of various job approval polls less the minimum monthly average of such polls throughout a president’s term. Despite Trump’s job approval being low relative to previous presidents, he has maintained consistency. Hence the range of Trump’s job approval is fairly tight relative to previous presidents and should not be ignored in affecting the election outcome. Upside Risk To Trump’s Re-Election Odds? Chart 1 below depicts our revised prediction of November’s presidential election. Chart 1Trump Is Slated To Lose Re-election With 259 Electoral College Votes Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model As it stands, Trump is slated to lose the election with 259 Electoral College votes (45 less than his 2016 victory). This is just ten votes shy of our previous prediction in March this year, but several swing states that were narrowly in Trump’s camp in March are now far less likely to go his way. Our previous prediction, which of course did not account for COVID-19’s economic shock, had Trump tied with the presumptive democrat nominee at the time. But the latest results still point to a tight race come November. Our updated quantitative model gives Trump a 44% chance of winning. The collapse of the state economies is overwhelming Trump’s re-election bid. Poor economic conditions hardly ever favor a sitting president up for reelection. But note that the three-month change in the state indexes will be the first to register the economic rebound this summer and fall (should it continue). This would improve Trump’s probability of victory. Under our V2 model, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are no longer toss-up states. Rather, Florida is the only toss-up state, with a 52% probability of staying with the incumbent party. Minor negative changes to the state indexes could result in more toss-up states, even throwing traditionally red states into toss-up territory. States that are expected to turn from Republican in 2016 to Democratic in 2020 are Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – the entire “Blue Wall” that delivered Trump his surprise victory four years ago. On the whole, the model gives Trump a 44% chance of retaining the White House. Do we uncritically accept these results? No. As with all of our analysis, we provide a qualitative judgment in addition to our quantitative indicators and models. In general the findings make sense. We agree that Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina remain in Trump’s camp at present, if narrowly. Our qualitative estimate, since March, has given Trump a 35% chance of winning, in keeping with the historical win rate of incumbent parties when recessions occurred during the election year (Table 1). Online political betting markets have recently converged to this view (Chart 2). Thus our quant model suggests that the risk to our view, and the new consensus, is a Trump comeback. Table 1Recessions Weigh On Incumbent Win Rates Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Chart 2A Democratic Victory Is The New Consensus Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model We will not formally upgrade Trump’s odds until we are convinced that his freefall has been reversed. We are concerned about the rise in deaths from COVID-19 in key swing states, including Florida, Arizona, and Texas and the potential for another major economic setback. We also would want to see Trump get the next round of fiscal stimulus passed in order to turn more optimistic on his chances. Therefore we will stick to our 35% odds and will reassess in late August when the Republican and Democratic party conventions are held. Model Performs Well In Back Tests Our V2 model performs well during in-sample back testing when comparing actual Electoral College vote outcomes for each election since 1984. On balance, V2 correctly predicts all election outcomes over our sample period (Chart 3). Chart 3Our Model Predicts All Election Outcomes In Our Sample … Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model The same can be said of V2 during out-of-sample back testing, correctly predicting election outcomes from 2000 - 2016 (Chart 4). Chart 4… And During Out-Of-Sample Back Testing Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model As mentioned, we cannot ignore the impact that Trump’s job approval may have on his re-election. Since no other transformation of Trump’s approval data test significantly in our V2 model, what if we transform the state coincident index by a longer frequency? What would the predicted outcome be? Trump would maintain his current level of predicted Electoral College votes of 259. The major change is that the state of Florida would no longer be a toss-up. Instead New Hampshire would become the only toss-up, with Trump having only a 45% chance of winning it. Transforming the state coincident index by a longer frequency is more favorable for Trump. Florida moves out of toss-up territory and New Hampshire moves in. But no change in Electoral College votes are recorded as neither party flips a state in this scenario. What if we were to exclude Trump’s approval range as a variable entirely – how would Trump fare? This “barebones” or economic-focused variation is the least favorable for Trump, allocating just 180 Electoral College votes. Arizona and – surprisingly – Iowa would become toss-up states with probabilities of Trump victory at 47% and 49%, respectively (Table 2). Table 2The Economy Is Weighing Down On Trump’s Odds Of Re-Election Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model It should be noted that models including Trump’s approval range as an explanatory variable exhibited higher over/under estimation during the sample period when compared to models that excluded Trump’s approval range entirely. Despite larger errors in some election years, these models also predicted two elections with almost no error (1988 and 2004), and one election with zero error (2008). These results suggest that Trump’s job approval should not be ignored. Peak Polarization Chart 5Peak Polarization Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model An interesting takeaway from our V1 model was that it produced a new measure of American political polarization, a phenomenon widely observed by scholars. The model showed that many states would be won or lost with extreme certainty (0% or 100%), i.e. that they are not even competitive. We take this finding as an indication of polarization, in which group loyalty overcomes all other variables. Results of in-sample predictions from our V2 model corroborate this finding (Chart 5). They are virtually the same as in V1, except that they show a higher degree of polarization in 2020, which now matches the previous peak in 2012. This is intuitive and corroborates other evidence that US polarization is reaching or exceeding recent highs. Polarization may or may not rise higher in the next election cycle, but we suspect that we are witnessing peak polarization from a historical point of view. Over five to ten years, polarization should fall. Generational change in the US will produce more domestic policy consensus, while geopolitical struggle with China will unify the nation against a common enemy for the first time since the cold war. Expect uncertainty and market volatility ahead of the election and in the aftermath. Thus the US may continue to export political instability to the rest of the world in the near-term. But eventually it will find an internal equilibrium and external sources of instability will become the bigger geopolitical risk for investors. So What? Our V2 US presidential election model predicts Trump will lose the November reelection, only amassing 259 Electoral College votes. The model implies that Trump has an overall probability of 44% in taking the White House. Florida is the only toss-up state in the latest prediction, with a 52% probability of staying with the incumbent party. Florida accounts for 29 Electoral College votes. Should the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin switch back to Republican, Trump would score an additional 46 Electoral College votes. But if Trump has Florida then he only needs to win one of these three states to win the election. Should the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin switch back to Republican, Trump would score an additional 46 Electoral College votes which would hand him the win in November. Conversely, the Democrats are expected to win in November with 279 Electoral College votes. As it stands, the Democrats have a 55% chance of victory. For now, we will maintain our subjective 35/65 odds. But the model shows that the risk is to the upside for Trump and that the race will likely tighten from here. We will likely increase his odds in late August if the renewed virus outbreak in Sunbelt swing states gets under control and Congress passes another major stimulus bill by August 10, as we expect. These findings reinforce our long-held view that the election will come down to narrow margins in the swing states. The deluge of bad news for Trump makes it less likely that the election will be narrow. But the fundamentals, as captured in our V2 model, suggest that Florida, at minimum, will still be an extremely tight race. Thus we would reiterate that this election may feature contested results, vote recounts, and Supreme Court interventions, like the year 2000. Investors should prepare for uncertainty and market volatility to rise between now and November 3, and possibly beyond.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious about how our V2 election model differs from our V1 model. We discuss the salient differences herein. Chart A1Our Updated Model Offers Reduced Error Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model 1. The modeling method remains the same Firstly, our V1 model was based off a probit regression, where the dependent variable is stated as 1 = incumbent party wins all Electoral College votes in a given state, or 0 = incumbent party does not win any Electoral College votes in this state.1 The probit regression allows us to assign probabilities of the incumbent party winning each state, given that the inverse of the probability is modeled as a linear combination of the model’s predictors. This modeling technique is maintained in V2 of our model. 2. Variable replacement In V1 of our model, we relied on the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index as an economic variable. In V2, due to the state leading index being discontinued, we adopt the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index. V1 of our model also used the average approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year. Since this transformation of job approval data proved statistically insignificant, we tested and included the range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. The approval range variable showed statistical significance at 5% and 10% levels. 3. Predicted error Assessing the predicted error by each election outcome shows that our V2 model, on balance, trends well with our V1 model (Chart A1), and offers reduced error, on balance, post the 2000 election. Our V2 model also has a lower absolute error when compared to our V1 model. Note, and as we pointed out earlier, our V2 model suffers from some large errors mid-way through the sample period but V2’s predictability improves notably over time. Comparing the error of our V2 model with alternative models that we highlighted in Table A1 also shows just how closely they trend together, despite offering some differing results pertaining to Electoral College votes and toss-up states. Table A1Variations Of Our Model Offer Similar Classified Predicted Outcomes Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Our V2 model has a lower predicted error in the 2012 and 2016 election than an alternative V2 in which the state coincident indicator is transformed by a six-month change (Chart A2). This warrants our decision in choosing V2 as our preferred model. Chart A2Three-Month Change In State Coincident Indicators Reduces Model Error Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Chart A3Including Trump’s Approval Data Improves The Model’s Robustness Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Updating Our Quantitative Election Model Our V2 model versus the “barebones” V2 model (which excludes the approval range variable and thus can be seen as a purely economic model) has higher predicted error in the elections of 1992 and 1996, but lower error from 2000 onwards (Chart A3). Whilst our V2 model does have a higher absolute error in contrast to the “barebones” model, we believe minimizing a model’s error while still including an element of Trump’s approval data provides us with the most robust election model. Model Diagnostics Regression diagnostics for V2 of our model and other variations that we highlighted in Table A1 above, but do not use, show that our updated model correctly classifies predicted outcomes at a rate of 88.21%. The “barebones” model classifies predicted outcomes marginally better, but we take confidence in the fact that predicted error in our V2 model trends lower as we move further into our sample period, and in the lead up to the 2020 election, bolstering our preferred model choice. The V2 model, if we apply a six-month change to the coincident indicator, classifies predicted outcomes the lowest at 87.43%. Summary Our V2 model shows areas of improved robustness when compared to V1. We keep to the same modeling technique as we did in V1 of our model, a probit regression. We replaced the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index with the Coincident Index and through statistical testing. We opted to drop the average approval level of the incumbent president in July and replace it with the range of the incumbent president’s job approval rating. With mostly lower error for election outcomes from 2000-2016, and lower absolute error and higher correctly classified outcomes, V2 is an adequate model in predicting the upcoming presidential election. Footnotes 1 Two states, Maine and Nebraska, do not have a “winner takes all” distribution of Electoral College votes. Instead they give two Electoral College votes to the winner of the statewide election, plus additional Electoral College votes to the winner within each congressional district. Maine has two congressional districts, Nebraska has three. Nebraska’s second district voted for President Obama in 2008 while Maine’s second district voted for President Trump in 2016.

Feature Over the last several years when I travelled to Europe, I would meet with Ms. Mea, an outspoken client of the Emerging Markets Strategy service. We have published our conversations with Ms. Mea in the past and this semi-annual series has complemented our regular reports. She has challenged our views and convictions, serving as a voice for many other clients. In addition, these conversations have highlighted nuances of our analysis, for her and to the benefit of our readers. With travel restrictions in force, this time we had to resort to an online meeting with Ms. Mea. Below are the key parts of our conversation from earlier this week. Ms. Mea: Let’s begin with your main thesis, which over the past several years has been as follows: China’s growth drives EM business cycles and financial markets overall. Indeed, as long as China’s growth dithers, EM growth and asset prices languish. However, since the pandemic started China has stimulated aggressively and there are clear signs that the economy is recovering. The latest surge in Chinese share prices confirms that a robust recovery is underway. Why do you not think China’s economy is on the upswing? Answer: True, we believe China’s business cycle is instrumental to EM economies’ growth and balance of payments. We upgraded our outlook for Chinese growth in our May 28 report as the National People’s Congress set the objective for monetary policy in 2020 to significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth as well as both private and public credit have accelerated since April and will continue to increase (Chart I-1). Domestic orders have also surged though export orders are still languishing (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating Chart I-2China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones     That said, financial markets, including the ones leveraged to China, have run ahead of fundamentals and a pullback is overdue. We have been waiting for such a setback to turn more positive on EM risk assets and currencies. Further, the snapback in business activity following the lockdown should not be confused with an economic expansion. As economies around the world reopened, business activity was bound to improve. Were any asset markets priced to reflect months or a whole year of closures? Even at the nadir of the global equity selloff in late March, we do not think risk assets were priced for extended lockdowns. The Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the nearterm outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. In our view, the rally in global stocks and commodities has been much stronger than is warranted by the near-term economic conditions in a majority of economies around the world. In short, we have not been surprised at all by the economic data that has emerged since economies have reopened, but we have been perplexed by the markets’ response to these data. Even in China, which is ahead of all other countries in regards to the reopening and normalization of business activity, the level and thrust of economic activity remains worrisome. Specifically: China's manufacturing PMI new orders and the backlog of orders sub-components remain below the neutral 50 line (Chart I-3). The imports subcomponent of the manufacturing PMI has shown signs of peaking below the 50 line, portending a risk to industrial metals prices (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 Chart I-4A Yellow Flag For Commodities A Yellow Flag For Commodities A Yellow Flag For Commodities   Marginal propensity to spend for both enterprises and households continues to trend lower (Chart I-5). These gauge the willingness of consumers and companies to spend and, hence, reflect the multiplier effect of the stimulus. These indicators contend that the multiplier so far remains low/weak. Finally, with the exception of new economy stocks (such as Ali-Baba and Tencent) that have been exceptionally strong worldwide, Chinese share prices leveraged to capital expenditure and consumer discretionary spending had not been particularly strong before last week, as illustrated in Chart I-6.  Chart I-5Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Chart I-6Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones In a nutshell, the Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the near-term outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. As to EM risk assets, the key risk to our stance is a FOMO-driven rally buoyed by the “visible hand” of governments. Ms. Mea: What is your interpretation of the latest policy push in China for higher share prices? Is it also a part of the “visible hand” of government? Don’t you think this could create another strong multi-month run like it did in early 2015? Answer: Yes, this is one of many instances of the “visible hand” of governments around the world. It is not clear why Beijing is boosting investor sentiment and explicitly promoting higher share prices given how badly similar efforts in 2015 ultimately ended. At the moment, we can only speculate that one or several of the following reasons are behind this move: Beijing is preparing for an escalation in the US-China geopolitical confrontation ahead of the US presidential elections. This latter is highly probable in our opinion.1 To limit the impact of this confrontation on their economy, they want to ensure that the stock market remains in an uptrend. The same can be said for the US authorities. Apparently, the “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Robust equity markets will become a prominent feature of the geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. In the long run, however, this is a very negative phenomenon for the world because the two of the largest and most prominent stock markets could increasingly be driven by the “visible hand” of their governments rather than by fundamentals. As a result, equity markets could regularly send wrong price signals and will no longer serve as an efficient mechanism of capital allocation. Chart I-7Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Beijing has been luring foreign investors to buy onshore stocks and bonds and this strategy has become more vital in expectation of an escalation in the US-China confrontation. Chart I-7 shows that net inflows into onshore stocks and bonds have been surging. The more US investors buy into mainland markets, the more these investors will exercise pressure on the current and future US administrations to go soft on China. Like those US companies relying on Chinese demand, large US investment funds will have a notable exposure to Chinese financial markets and will accordingly lobby the White House and Congress to take a less adversarial stance toward China. This will reduce the maneuvering room of US politicians in this geopolitical confrontation. Finally, it is also possible that these latest media reports encouraging a bull market in China were not initiated by leaders in Beijing but were in fact spurred by mid-level bureaucrats. If that is the case, a full-blown mania akin to the one in 2015 will not be repeated and the latest frenzy surrounding Chinese stocks could end up being the final surge before a correction sets in. In brief, Chinese stocks, like other bourses worldwide, are in a FOMO-driven mania that might last for a while. Nevertheless, regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we reiterate our overweight stance on Chinese equities within the EM benchmark. Also, we have a strong conviction with respect to the merits of a long Chinese/short Korean stocks trade. Both these positions were initiated on June 18 before the latest surge in Chinese stocks. The “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Ms. Mea: What will it take for you to go long EM risk assets and currencies in absolute terms? Answer: EM equities, credit markets and currencies are driven by three, or more recently four, factors. We need to witness or foresee an imminent improvement in three out of four of these to go outright long. These factors include: (1) China’s business cycle and its impact on EM via global trade; (2) each individual EM country’s domestic fundamentals (inflation/deflation, balance of payments, return on capital, domestic economic cycles, monetary and fiscal policies, health of the banking system, domestic politics, etc.); (3) global risk-on and risk-off cycles that drive portfolio flows into EM. The direction of the S&P500 is an important trendsetter for these risk-on and risk-off cycles; (4) swings in geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. The first element – China’s impact on EM – is becoming positive. There could be a minor setback in mainland business cycles in the near term, but this should be used as a buying opportunity. As to structural problems in China like credit/money and property bubbles as well as the misallocation of capital, ongoing money and credit growth acceleration will fill in holes and kick the can down the road. That said, those structural problems will become even more challenging in the years to come. In short, Beijing is making credit, money and property bubbles even bigger. The second factor – domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan – remain downbeat. The COVID-19 outbreak has been out of control in a number of EM economies (Chart I-8). In addition, outside of China, Korea and Taiwan, EM fiscal stimulus has not been as large as in DM economies. Critically, the monetary transmission mechanism has been broken in several developing economies. In particular, central banks’ rate cuts have not translated to lower lending rates in real terms (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies Chart I-9Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan   The basis is two-fold: First, banks saddled with non-performing loans are reluctant to bring down their lending rates and lend more; and second, the considerable decline in EM inflation has pushed up real lending rates (Chart I-9). The third variable driving EM financial markets – the S&P 500 – remains at risk of a material setback. If the S&P drops more than 10 or 15%, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets will also sell off markedly. Finally, there is the fourth aspect of the EM view – geopolitics – which could be critical in the coming months. The US-China confrontation will likely heighten leading up to the US elections. This will likely involve North and South Korea and Taiwan. Chart I-10EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies Chinese investable stocks as well as Korean and Taiwanese equities altogether make up 65% of the MSCI EM benchmark. Hence, a flareup in geopolitical tensions will weigh on these three bourses. Outside these markets, EM share prices and currencies have already rolled over (Chart I-10). In sum, out of the four factors listed above only the Chinese business cycle warrants an upgrade on overall EM. The other three drivers of the EM view are still negative. This keeps us on the sidelines for now. Importantly, we have been gradually moving our investment strategy from bearish to neutral on EM. Specifically, we: Took profits on the long EM currencies volatility trade on March 5. Took large profits on the long gold / short oil and copper trade on March 11. Booked gains on the short position in EM stocks on March 19. Recommended receiving long-term (10-year) swap rates (or buying local currency bonds while hedging the exchange rate risk) in many EMs on April 23. Upgraded EM sovereign credit from underweight and booked profits on our short EM corporate and sovereign credit / long US investment grade bonds strategy on June 4. The only asset class where we have not yet closed our shorts is EM currencies. In fact, we now recommend shifting our short in EM currencies (BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, PHP and IDR) from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: What is the rationale behind switching your short positions in EM currencies against the US dollar to short positions versus the Swiss franc, the euro and Japanese yen? Wouldn’t the selloff in global stocks drive the greenback higher? Answer: We have been bullish on the US dollar since 2011, consistent with our negative view on EM and commodities prices and recommendation of favoring the S&P 500 versus EM. What is making us question this strategy are the following, in order of importance: First, the Federal Reserve is monetizing US public and some private debt. The amount of US dollars is surging. Meanwhile, the pace of broad money supply growth is much more timid in the euro area, Switzerland and Japan. Broad money growth is 23% in the US, 9% in the euro area, 2.5% in Switzerland, 5% in Japan and 11% in China. This will reduce investors’ willingness to hold dollars as a store of value, incentivizing them to switch to other DM currencies. Second, the pandemic is out of control in the US and this will damage its near-term growth outlook. More fiscal stimulus and more debt monetization will be required to revive the economy. Third, the Fed will not hike interest rates even if inflation rises well above their 2% target in the next several years. This implies that the Fed will prefer to be behind the inflation curve in the years to come, which is bearish for the greenback. Finally, the yen and the euro as well as EM currencies are cheaper than the US dollar (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap Chart I-12EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap     The broad trade-weighted US dollar has yet to break down as per the top panel of Chart I-13, but we are becoming nervous about it. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: That is interesting. Has there ever been an episode where the US dollar depreciated while the S&P 500 sold off? Answer: Yes, it occurred in late 2007 and H1 2008. The 2007-08 bear market in global stocks can be split into two periods. During the initial phase of that bear market, the US dollar depreciated substantially despite the drawdowns in global equity and credit markets (Chart I-14, top and middle panels). Chart I-13Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Chart I-14In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market   EM stocks performed in line with DM ones during the first phase (Chart I-14, bottom panel). The economic backdrop was characterized by the US recession and US banks tightening credit. In fact, EM growth was still robust during that phase even though the US economy was shrinking. Remarkably, commodities prices were surging – oil reached $140 per a barrel and copper $4 per ton in June 2008. The second phase of that bear market commenced in autumn of 2008 when Lehman went bust. The orderly bear market in global stocks gave way to an acute phase – a crash in all global risk assets. Business activity collapsed worldwide and the US dollar surged. In the current cycle, the order will likely be the reverse of the 2007-08 bear market. March 2020 witnessed a crash in global risk assets and the global economy plunged similar to the second phase of the 2007-08 bear market while the US dollar surged. The second stage of this recession could resemble the first phase of the 2007-08 bear market. There will be neither worldwide lockdowns nor a crash in business activity. However, the level of activity might struggle to recover as rapidly as markets have priced in or there might be relapses in economic conditions in certain parts of the world. This is especially true for the US and other countries where the pandemic has not been effectively contained. On the whole, the second downleg in the S&P 500 and global stocks will be less dramatic but could last for a while and still be meaningful (more than 10-15%). Critically, unlike the March 2020 selloff, the greenback will likely struggle during this episode for the reasons we outlined above. Ms. Mea: What about overweighting EM equities and credit versus their DM peers? Will EM equities, credit and currencies underperform their DM peers in the potential selloff that you expect? Wouldn’t USD weakness help EM risk assets to outperform even in a broad risk selloff? Answer: Yes, we can see a scenario where EM stocks and credit markets perform in line or better than their DM peers in a potential selloff. The key is the dollar’s dynamics. If the dollar rebounds, EM stocks and credit markets will underperform their DM counterparts. If the dollar weakens during this selloff, EM stocks and credit will likely perform in line with or better than their DM peers. In sum, a technical breakdown in the broad trade-weighted dollar and a breakout in the emerging Asian currency index – both shown in Chart I-13 – would lead us to upgrade our EM allocation in both global equity and credit portfolios. For now, we are only switching our shorts in EM currencies from the US dollar to an equally-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Ms. Mea: What are some of your other current observations on financial markets? Answer: The breadth and thrust of this global equity rally has already peaked and is weakening. It is just a matter of time before a narrowing breadth translates into lower aggregate stock indexes for both EM and DM equities as illustrated by our advance-decline lines in Chart I-15. Chart I-15EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over Chart I-16Cyclicals And High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Cyclicals and High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Cyclicals and High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Consistently, there has already been a decoupling between various sectors and industries. The rally has been solely focused on tech and new economy stocks. Equity prices in China and Taiwan have been surging while the rest of the EM equity index has been languishing. In the DM equity space, global industrials, US high-beta stocks and micro caps have already rolled over (Chart I-16). Further, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency index is flashing red for EM equities (Chart I-17). Chart I-17A Red Flag For EM Equities? A Red Flag For EM Equities? A Red Flag For EM Equities? Chart I-18Long Gold / Short Stocks Long Gold / Short Stocks Long Gold / Short Stocks Finally, EM share prices have outperformed DM stocks since late May mostly due to the sharp rally in Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks. Hence, the breadth of EM equity outperformance has been subdued. Ms. Mea: To wrap up our conversation, I want to ask you what is your strongest conviction trade for the coming months? Answer: Our strongest conviction trade is long gold / short global or EM stocks (Chart I-18). This trade will do well regardless of the direction of global share prices, the US dollar, and bond yields. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Watch Out For A Second Wave (Of US-China Frictions)," dated June 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, I will present our view on China’s economic recovery, geopolitical risks, and implications on financial markets in two live webcasts. The webcasts will take place next Wednesday, July 15 at 10:00AM EDT (English) and at 9:00PM EDT (Mandarin). Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist Highlights China’s economic recovery continues through June, but the pace of its demand-side recovery has been more muted compared to the V-shaped rebound in 2009. The intensity of the PBoC’s monetary easing may start to taper in H2, but the central bank is likely to stay on the easing course and keep liquidity conditions ample. Bank lending to the corporate sector should increase further in H2. Chinese stocks rallied through last week’s enactment of the new national security law for Hong Kong and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government. The existing US sanctions should have limited impact on Hong Kong and mainland China’s economies and financial markets. We remain positive on Chinese stocks despite the recent rallies in China’s equity markets. Feature June’s official and Caixin manufacturing PMIs indicate that China’s economic recovery continues at a steady rate, with the production side of the economy picking up slightly faster than the demand side. The drag on China’s economic recovery from lackluster demand growth should be temporary. Unlike in 2015 when policy uncertainties hindered the recovery in both economic activity and stock prices, the Chinese government has been determined to support its economy and job market in the current cycle. The massive stimulus implemented since March has tremendously boosted activities in China’s construction sector. While households and the corporate sector remain reluctant to spend and to invest, their marginal propensity to spend usually catches up with credit growth with about a 6-9-month lag (Chart 1). The sharp pickup in credit growth should meaningfully support China’s economic rebound, while a better global growth outlook in H2 should also provide some modest tailwinds. On June 30, the PBoC announced a 0.25 percentage point cut to its relending rates for small and rural enterprises and to its general rediscount rate. While the scale of rate cuts in H2 will unlikely match that of Q1, China’s monetary and fiscal policy support will remain in place through the rest of the year. Chinese investable and domestic equities were some of the best performers among global asset classes in June, whereas they were the third-worst the month prior (Chart 2). In the first week of July, both Chinese investable and domestic stocks rallied even further. As we noted in our last week’s report,1 China’s stronger economic outlook, less uncertainty related to its domestic COVID-19 containment, and policy support should provide more room for Chinese stocks to trend upwards. Last week’s passing of the new national security law for Hong Kong and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government, in our view, should have limited impact on investors’ sentiment for now. Chart 1China's Household And Corporate Marginal Propensities Lag The Credit Impulse By 6-9 Months China's Household And Corporate Marginal Propensities Lag The Credit Impulse By 6-9 Months China's Household And Corporate Marginal Propensities Lag The Credit Impulse By 6-9 Months Chart 2Chinese Equities Are Taking Flight China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review   Tables 1 and 2 present key developments in China’s economic and financial market performance in the past month, and we highlight several of these developments below: Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review China’s June official manufacturing PMI ticked up to 50.9 from 50.6 in the previous month. The Caixin manufacturing PMI came in at 51.2, beating the expectation of 50.5 and compared to 50.7 in May. Both suggest that China’s manufacturing sector continues to expand, however the pace of its demand-side recovery has been more muted compared to the V-shaped rebound in 2009 (Chart 3). Although the import and export subcomponents have fared better in June from the low levels in April and May, their readings in June were still below the 50 boom-bust line (Chart 4). Headwinds remain strong for global trade as the US and many of emerging economies are still struggling with the pandemic. Even without re-imposing lockdowns, the resurge in the number of new cases in the US may result in a drag on consumption and global trade. The IMF projects a 12% contraction in global trade in 2020. While the external demand may improve in H2, positive contribution to China's GDP growth from the net exports will be limited this year. Chart 3Current Recovery Lies Somewhere Between 2009 And 2015 Current Recovery Lies Somewhere Between 2009 And 2015 Current Recovery Lies Somewhere Between 2009 And 2015 Chart 4Demand-Side Recovery Remains Muted Demand-Side Recovery Remains Muted Demand-Side Recovery Remains Muted   The employment situation in the manufacturing sector has worsened since May, and has returned to contraction following a brief improvement in March and April (Chart 5). An estimated 8.7 million new graduates in 2020,2 a historical high number, will hit the job market in July and August. As such, China’s labor market will likely remain under significant pressure. Even though employment usually lags economic recoveries, depressed expectations on the job market will refrain policymakers from prematurely withdrawing stimulus measures. Small and micro enterprises are an important part of China’s private sector, which provides 80% of jobs in China. The manufacturing PMI of small enterprises fell below the 50 boom-bust line in June, reflecting a persistent weakness in this part of China’s economy. The recent relending and rediscount rate cuts suggest that the PBoC is committed to stay on the easing course. The intensity of monetary easing may start to taper in H2, but the central bank is likely to keep liquidity conditions ample and encourage banks to accelerate lending to the corporate sector. The contraction in Chinese producer prices deepened to -3.7% (year-over-year) in May. However, we think PPI deflation is likely to bottom in Q3. Both the purchasing and producer price subcomponents of the manufacturing PMI ticked up sharply in June, while the drawdown in industrial product inventory relative to new orders has accelerated (Chart 6). The ongoing accommodative policy should provide powerful tailwinds to both economic activity and the PPI in H2. The improvement in the PPI will help to boost industrial profits growth, which turned positive in May (year-over-year) for the first time this year. We expect year-to-date industrial profits to end the calendar year with a modest positive growth rate.  Chart 5Labor Market Pressure Intensifies Labor Market Pressure Intensifies Labor Market Pressure Intensifies Chart 6PPI Deflation Nears Its Bottom PPI Deflation Nears Its Bottom PPI Deflation Nears Its Bottom   China’s property market indicators have notably trended up in May, with year-over-year growth in housing demand normalizing to its pre-pandemic level (Chart 7A & Chart 7B). As the demand in housing rebounded faster than the supply, housing prices have correspondingly turned the corner in May after trending down for 6 consecutive months. Chart 7AHousing Prices Ticked Up Slightly Following A Sharp Fall In Q1 Housing Prices Ticked Up Slightly Following A Sharp Fall In Q1 Housing Prices Ticked Up Slightly Following A Sharp Fall In Q1 Chart 7BStrong Rebound In Property Investments Strong Rebound In Property Investments Strong Rebound In Property Investments   Chart 7B shows that housing investments and land purchases have also recovered to near their pre-pandemic levels. Financing restrictions for property developers that were put in place since 2018 have been loosened in H1, which helped to boost real estate investments. We expect the property sector financing conditions to remain accommodative through the rest of this year. Moreover, there is a possibility that the PBoC will lower the 5-year MLF (medium lending facility) rate in Q3. As downward pressures on China's labor market and household income growth intensify, the government is likely to lower the mortgage rate to ease payment constraints on households. Chart 8Chinese Stocks Rallied Through Frictions Over Hong Kong Chinese Stocks Rallied Through Frictions Over Hong Kong Chinese Stocks Rallied Through Frictions Over Hong Kong Despite the passing of China’s new and controversial national security law for Hong Kong on June 30 and the subsequently announced sanctions from the US government, stock prices in both China’s onshore and offshore markets rallied (Chart 8). While we agree the US may impose further and more concrete sanctions on China during the months leading up to the November US presidential election, our preliminary assessment points to a limited economic cost on China from the existing US sanctions. The removal of Hong Kong’s special trade status will subject Hong Kong’s export goods to the same tariffs the US levies on Chinese exports. But the raised tariffs will barely make a dent in Hong Kong or mainland China’s export status quo. Hong Kong’s economy consists mainly of the financial, logistical and services sectors. The manufacturing sector only accounts for 1% of its overall economy. Chart 9 shows that Hong Kong’s exports to the US only accounted for around 1% of its total exports and 1.3% of its GDP in 2019. More importantly, of the $5 billion goods Hong Kong exports to the US, only 10% is actually produced in Hong Kong. Most of Hong Kong's exports to the US are goods produced in China that are re-exported through Hong Kong, which are already subject to the same tariffs as the goods China exports to the US directly.3 On the other hand, US exports to Hong Kong accounts for 2% of its total exports, with a trade surplus of about $30 billion in the past two years (Chart 9, bottom panel). The US trade surplus with Hong Kong has drastically reduced since the US-China trade war broke out in 2018, suggesting that the US has already imposed restrictions on its export goods to mainland China through Hong Kong. Moreover, the large trade surplus with Hong Kong as well as China’s commitment to the Phase One trade deal may be part of the reason President Trump is unwilling to impose more substantial sanctions on China right now. The US senate and house have also passed a bill which, if signed and implemented by President Trump, will allow the US government to levy any foreign financial institutions for knowingly conducting business with individuals who are involved in jeopardizing Hong Kong’s autonomy. Chinese banks with operations in the US will be mostly exposed to such sanctions. However, Chinese banks are largely domestic-focused with very low reliance on foreign-currency funding (Chart 10). Hence, the direct impact of a deteriorating operating environment in the US will be limited on Chinese banks. Chart 9Trade Sanctions On Hong Kong Exports Have A Minimum Impact On Its Local Economy Trade Sanctions On Hong Kong Exports Have A Minimum Impact On Its Local Economy Trade Sanctions On Hong Kong Exports Have A Minimum Impact On Its Local Economy Chart 10Chinese Banking Sector Stock Performance Is Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Factors Chinese Banking Sector Stock Performance Is Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Factors Chinese Banking Sector Stock Performance Is Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Factors   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Upgrading Chinese Stocks To Overweight," dated July 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 iiMediaReport, Analysis report on current situation and development trend of Chinese employment entrepreneurship market in 2020. 3 Please see Nicholas Lardy, “Trump’s latest move on Hong Kong is bluster”. Peterson Institute For International Economies, dated June 1, 2020.   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Theoretically the US could employ a “Reverse Kissinger” strategy – befriend Russia to isolate China or at least prevent the budding Russo-Chinese alliance.  But Trump has made no headway in relations with Russia. Meanwhile Democrats now see engagement with Putin as a failure and will pursue a more aggressive policy. Competition in Europe’s natural gas market underscores the broader Russo-American geopolitical confrontation. Russia will likely succeed in preserving its share in the European natural gas market in the medium term, but not in the long run. We remain overweight Russian equities and bonds relative to EM benchmarks, but will downgrade if Biden’s election becomes a foregone conclusion. Feature Investors do not need to wait for the US election verdict to assess the general trajectory of US-Russia relations. Some points are clear regardless of whether President Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden prevails: US-Russia engagement had mostly but not entirely failed between the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and President Trump’s election in 2016.   President Trump could not break free of the constraints of office and his administration has remained adversarial toward Russia despite his preference for deeper engagement. Whether Democrats or Republicans take the White House in 2021, the result will be confrontation with Russia over the four-year term and likely beyond. The geopolitical risk premium in the Russian ruble will rise relative to its current level. A Trump victory would reduce this risk, but only temporarily.   The Failure Of Engagement Russia’s rise from the ashes of the Soviet Union can be illustrated by our Geopolitical Power Index – it shows Russia’s rise relative to the US in terms of demographic, economic, technological, commercial, and military variables that make a nation strong (Chart 1). Chart 1Russia Rose From Soviet Ashes, But Still Lags US Russia Rose From Soviet Ashes, But Still Lags US Russia Rose From Soviet Ashes, But Still Lags US Russia is a shadow of its Soviet self and lags far behind the US in raw capability. But its recovery from the chaos of the 1998 financial crisis, fueled by a global commodity bull market, has consisted of a systematic removal of domestic political constraints. It is politically unified under the personal rule of Putin, has reformed its economy and modernized its military, and has successfully pushed back against the US and the West in its sphere of influence. Russia punches above its economic weight in the world by means of its military, which it has wielded opportunistically in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and Libya (Chart 2). Neither the US nor any other power was willing to fill the power vacuum in these locations. A Trump victory only temporarily reduces the rise in Russian geopolitical risk. The US and Russia have a fundamentally antagonistic relationship over influence in Europe and occasionally the Far East. They have little need to trade with each other. They are both large, independent commodity exporters and advanced weapon-makers separated by vast distances. Russia is threatened by the US’s military and technological superiority, its economic strength and newfound status as an energy exporter (see energy section), and its ability to undermine Russian legitimacy in the former Soviet sphere by promoting democracy.  Russia’s advantage is that the US is internally divided by political factions. Putin’s popular approval has benefited from his restoration of domestic order and Russia’s standing as a great power. Successive American presidents have floundered under domestic partisanship and polarization (Chart 3).   Chart 2Russia’s Military Punches Above Its Economic Weight US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) Chart 3Russia Is Politically Unified, The US is Internally Divided US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet)   Attempts to “reset” relations have failed.1 The Barack Obama administration’s 2009-11 Reset, announced by Biden, saw several concrete compromises, including the New START treaty and Russia’s joining the WTO. But the Bolotnaya Square protests in 2011-12, at the height of the Arab Spring, rekindled Moscow’s fear that the US aimed to foment “color revolutions” not only in Russia’s periphery but even in Russia itself. Faced with losing its control over Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation, Russia invaded parts of Ukraine and seized Crimea, the first military annexation of territory in Europe since World War II. The US and Europe applied extensive sanctions that last to this day and drag on Russian growth.2  True, Moscow cooperated on the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Russia does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons. Yet this is not imminent. And Russia gained global oil market share when the US walked away from the deal and restarted sanctions (Chart 4). Either way, Iran survives as a Russian ally capable of exerting influence across the Middle East.   President Trump launched another attempt at engagement with Russia. If there is a strategic basis for this policy – i.e. if it is not just based in Trump’s personal proclivities – then it is the idea of a “Reverse Kissinger” maneuver. During the Cold War, the US befriended Maoist China in order to isolate the Soviet Union. Today, with China posing the clear threat to US hegemony, the US could try to befriend Russia to isolate China or at least prevent the budding Russo-Chinese alliance.  The difference is that in 1972, American and Chinese interests were complementary. China wished to stabilize its borders and the US offered geopolitical relief as well as technology and knowhow. Today American and Russian interests are not complementary other than the political convenience of demonizing each other (Chart 5). The US offers Russia limited investment capital; Russia does not offer cheap labor or a vast consumer market. Chart 4Russia’s Oil Market Share Benefitted From Iran Sanctions US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) Chart 5US-Russo Interests Are Not Complementary US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet)   The Trump administration’s attempt to engage Putin has failed. Putin’s declaration of a global oil market share war this year drove American shale oil companies into bankruptcy during an election year. Barring an “October surprise” engineered by Putin to get Trump reelected, their “alliance” is at best rhetorical and at worst a mirage. Putin might favor Trump because he sharpens US internal divisions, or because he has an isolationist foreign policy preference, but Putin’s actions so far in 2020 suggest a deeper strategic reality: Russia seeks to foment political turmoil in the US, not solidify either of the parties in power, as the latter could backfire against Russia. What Comes After Engagement? Russia lacks the power to create a new world order, but it will continue to leverage its relative power to exercise a veto over affairs in the current global order, in which US influence is weakening. It can hasten the West’s decline by sowing divisions within the West. Chart 6COVID-19 Dented Support For Trump And Putin US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) What happens when US polarization falls and a new political consensus takes shape? This would pose a major threat to Putin’s strategic options. Thus it is relevant if Joe Biden wins the 2020 election with a strong majority and a full Democratic sweep of government. Presidents Trump and Putin, and their political parties, are among the worst performers amid the COVID-19 pandemic and recession (Chart 6). The implication is that Trump will lose the election and Putin will resort to time-tried techniques of confrontation with the West to restore his domestic support. Democrats will pursue a more aggressive policy toward Russia. The Democrats harbor a deep vendetta against Russia over its interference in the 2016 election and will go on the offensive to prevent Russia from trying to undermine their grip on power again. They will also seek to deter Russia from further undermining American strategic interests. Biden will try to revive NATO, expand US troop presence in eastern Europe, and promote democracy and human rights in Russia’s periphery, using the Internet to launch a disinformation campaign against Putin’s regime. Cyber warfare will escalate.  A “Reverse Kissinger” is not achievable until Russia feels threatened by China. The silver lining for Russia is economic: Biden’s policies will help to weaken the dollar and cultivate a global growth recovery. Biden will be less inclined to start disruptive Trump-style trade war with China that could permanently damage China’s potential growth or global growth. Chinese imports are essential to propping up Russia’s sluggish economy. In enabling commodity prices to recover, and reducing global policy uncertainty, Biden would inadvertently aid Russian recovery (Chart 7). Chart 7The Silver Lining Of A Biden Presidency For Russia Is A Weaker Dollar The Silver Lining Of A Biden Presidency For Russia Is A Weaker Dollar The Silver Lining Of A Biden Presidency For Russia Is A Weaker Dollar Ultimately Russia is insecure because the US threatens to undermine its economy and political legitimacy both at home and in its strategic buffers. Putin has re-centralized control while shutting out foreign influence. This approach is not changing anytime soon given the recent constitutional changes to prolong Putin’s rule till 2036. Preliminary reports claim that, with 65% of the public voting, these changes were ratified by 76% of the population.3  What changed is that the US is no longer as optimistic about engaging Russia. If anything, its internal divisions will encourage it to go on the offensive. Sanctions may well be expanded before they are eased, the Ukraine conflict could revive rather than simmer down, and new fronts in the conflict could widen, particularly in cyberspace. This is particularly the case if Biden wins the White House in November. The structural, geopolitical risk premium of US-Russia conflict is priced into Russian assets, but there is room for a cyclical increase if Biden is elected. Our market-based Russian geopolitical risk indicators – which define geopolitical risk as excessive ruble weakness relative to its macro context – show that Russian risk is elevated because of COVID-19, but dropping. The US election should reverse this trend, unless Trump wins (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Geopolitical Risk Set To Increase Even If Trump Re-Elected Russian Geopolitical Risk Set To Increase Even If Trump Re-Elected Russian Geopolitical Risk Set To Increase Even If Trump Re-Elected Alternative measures of political risk that utilize non-market variables support our qualitative assessment, such as the indicator provided by GeoQuant. The implication is that Russian political risk is higher than the market is pricing (Chart 9). Chart 9Market Is Underpricing Russian Political Risk Market Is Underpricing Russian Political Risk Market Is Underpricing Russian Political Risk Kissinger Reversed? Not Yet. If Trump wins, could he not engineer a major détente with Russia? In 2018 the US shifted its national defense strategy to emphasize that “the central challenge to US prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition,” arguing specifically that “it is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.4”  Yet US geopolitical power has declined such that taking an offensive approach to Russia and China simultaneously is not practicable.  If the US pursues the Reverse Kissinger strategy, then it will have to make major concessions to Putin’s Russia. It would need to provide substantial sanctions relief, accept the Crimean annexation, allow a high degree of Russian influence in Donbass (Ukraine), abandon hopes of retribution for the 2016 election interference, ask for a return to the 2015 nuclear deal on Iran at best, and settle for arms control agreements that do not cover new technologies. It is not clear that President Trump would concede this much in a second term, though in most cases he would have the power to do so. Yet Moscow cannot downgrade its cooperation with Beijing by much, since US-Russia détente never lasts long and China weighs more heavily in its economic calculus than the West’s sanctions. Chart 10US-Russo Struggle Is Subordinate To US-Sino Conflict US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) The Democrats, by contrast, are not prepared to make these concessions, particularly on 2016. They are more willing to pursue a gradualist approach in dealing with China, which they believe is less urgent due to shared economic interests.5  If the US confronts Russia, then Russia will draw closer to China. The informal alliance between these two powers is well advanced. A closer association provides China with a better position in waging its long-term geopolitical competition with the United States.  Ultimately US grand strategy and public opinion will drive American presidents to take a harder line on China because it rivals the US in economic resilience and technology over the long run (Chart 10). The conflict with Moscow will eventually be subordinate to the US-China struggle. But a “Reverse Kissinger” is not achievable until Russia feels threatened by China, either through its own weakness or Chinese strength. A much stronger trans-Atlantic alliance, or much greater Chinese influence over East Asia and/or the Middle East, could trigger a shift in Russian strategy. We are not there yet. Russia’s cooperation with China will deepen, strengthening China’s hand and making it all the more imperative for the United States to solidify the trans-Atlantic alliance with Europe. Otherwise the risk of a precipitous decline in American power will threaten global stability.  Bottom Line: US-Russian antagonism will continue for the foreseeable future. Russian geopolitical risk is underpriced, particularly if Biden wins the election. A Trump victory would offer only a temporary reprieve.  Direct Competition In Energy Russia can offer low cost natural gas alongside an existing and projected (under construction) network of pipelines into Europe. This capability will help it to sustain and marginally increase its market share in Europe relative to the US in the medium term. In turn, this will help Russia secure vital revenues for its macro stability.  Natural gas exports to Europe represent 2.5% of GDP or 9% of total exports. A Biden presidency is negative for Russian assets, but Russia has room to ease policy. In the long run, however, US LNG will challenge Russia’s share in the European natural gas market. On the whole, the US sees Russia as an economic competitor in the European natural gas market and it will continue to disrupt Russian natural gas exports to Europe through sanctions and/or by other means. A resulting market share war between the US and Russia will lead to low natural gas prices benefitting the consumer, Europe. Competition in Europe’s natural gas market underscores the broader geopolitical confrontation between the US and Russia. The following factors will shape heightened competition: Escalating Competition For European Natural Gas Market Europe will remain a major market for natural gas. The combination of falling domestic production, steady consumption growth and the ongoing structural shift to cleaner sources of energy will require greater imports of natural gas (Chart 11). Critically, Europe’s natural gas consumption might rise faster than its GDP making this market attractive to energy producers. According to the IEA, Europe’s consumption of natural gas will continue to grow at a steady rate over the next 5 years. In a nutshell, European policymakers are promoting cleaner energy such as natural gas over coal and nuclear energy. This push will facilitate rising demand for natural gas.  Yet, European natural gas production is expected to drop by 40%, driven by field closures in the Netherlands and the UK.  As such, the diverging gap between falling production and steady consumption opens up a space for both Russian and US natural gas exports into the continent. Russia Natural Gas Strategy: Russia and its largest natural gas producer, Gazprom, are aiming to increase their share in the European market from their current 36% to 40% (Chart 12). Chart 11Europe's Nat Gas Imports Will Continue Growing... Europe's Nat Gas Imports Will Continue Growing... Europe's Nat Gas Imports Will Continue Growing... Chart 12...Allowing Russia To Grab Market Share ...Allowing Russia To Grab Market Share ...Allowing Russia To Grab Market Share   Table 1Russia’s Pipeline Export Capacity US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) More specifically, Russia’s latest 2035 strategy (known as ES-2035) reaffirms its two-pronged strategy: (i) continue to provide low-cost natural gas to Europe and Asia through pipelines and (ii) developing LNG export capacity for exports to the Far East. Pipelines: Russia’s export capacity to Europe is set to increase to 190 Bcm/y by 2022 excluding existing transit routes passing through Ukraine (Table 1). Two new sources of pipeline routes will be the Nord Stream2, coming online by the end of this year, and Turk Stream, expected to come online by 2022. These pipelines will have an export capacity of 55 Bcm/y and 31.5/y Bcm, respectively (Map 1).   Map 1Russia’s Latest Pipelines Bypass Ukraine US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet) Chart 13Russian Natural Gas Exports To Non-CIS Countries Russian Natural Gas Exports To Non-CIS Countries Russian Natural Gas Exports To Non-CIS Countries Meanwhile, pipeline capacity through Ukraine will remain 140 Bcm/y. Ultimately, Russia has been determined to diversify its natural gas transit routes despite pressures from the US.6 In addition, Gazprom natural gas production for transport via pipeline is expected to increase by 35% to 983 Bcm in the next 15 years. The European market is essential to Russia’s export revenues, as it currently represents 56% of Russia’s total gas export volumes compared with 83% total export to non-CIS countries (Chart 13). Lastly, regarding natural gas pricing, Gazprom will continue to move away from oil-indexed long-term contracts to shorter-term spot market contracts. This change of tack will cause deflation in Gazprom’s export prices to Europe but will preserve Russia’s market share in its strategic European market.   LNG: Russia will continue to be one the top four LNG producers alongside Qatar, Australia and the US. According to the latest estimates by the IEA, Russian exports of LNG, currently at 39 Bcm, are set to expand by 20% by 2025. The development of the Yamal peninsula into a major natural gas and LNG hub will allow Russia to produce close to 110 Bcm of LNG by 2035, which will constitute 16% of its overall current gas production. This will lead to continued LNG exports to various markets, particularly Europe, which consumes 50% of Russia’s LNG exports. Imported technology from Europe and external financing from China have allowed Novatek, Russia’s second largest natural gas producer, to become the leader in production and exports of LNG. Russia is also investing heavily in liquefaction. It is now fifth globally in liquefaction capacity. There are currently $21 billion in pre-final investment decision (FID) from the LNG Artic 2 in the Yamal that will increase its liquefaction capacity by over 200% by 2026.  Lastly, it is estimated that 70-80% of total commodity exporters’ costs are sourced locally and are in rubles due to the import substitution policy adopted by Moscow in 2015. This will alleviate cost pressures arising from a potentially weaker ruble in exploiting the Yamal reserves. US Needs To Find A Market For Its LNG: US produces 920 bcm/y of natural gas but consumes only 830 bcm/y. The rest is available for export. The need to export rising excess of natural gas output puts the US in direct competition with other natural gas exporters such as Russia. Chart 14US LNG Exports To Europe To Rise US LNG Exports To Europe To Rise US LNG Exports To Europe To Rise In the medium term, an oversupplied market alongside the COVID-19-induced demand shock in Europe will reduce European natural gas demand, hurting both the US and Russia. US LNG might lose market share in the European market to Russia due to falling production arising from capex cuts and bankruptcies in the US natural gas sector.7 Yet, in the long run, Europe’s geopolitical ties with the US and strategic interest in diversifying away from Russia make US LNG an obvious area of cooperation. The Trump-Juncker agreement in July 2018 led to a 300% increase in US LNG exports to Europe before the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 14). Since coming into effect, the agreement also resulted in a doubling of EU utilization of LNG regasification capacity, from 30% to close to 60% in early 2020 and is expected to continue expanding in the years to come. Bottom Line: Russia will likely succeed in at least preserving its share in the European natural gas market in the medium term, but will be challenged by US LNG in the long run. Macro And Financial Market Implications For Russia Chart 15Russia: Low Public Debt Burden Russia: Low Public Debt Burden Russia: Low Public Debt Burden Heightened confrontation with the US and new sanctions on Russia will materialize if Biden wins the presidency. All else constant, this is unfavourable for Russian asset prices. It should be noted, however, that years of fiscal conservativism, tight monetary policy, a prudent and pro-active bank regulatory stance as well as some success in import substitution have given Russia the capacity to offset negative external shocks by easing macro policy: Russia has one of the lowest public debt-to-GDP ratios among the largest countries in the world. Its total public debt stands at 13.5% of GDP (Chart 15). Its external public debt is at a mere 4% of GDP. As in many other countries, Russia’s fiscal deficit is widening sharply due to the pandemic and low oil prices. However, we expect the primary and overall fiscal deficits will be only 4.25% and 5% of GDP in 2020, respectively. So far, at 3.5% of GDP, the announced fiscal stimulus in response to the pandemic has been small by global standards. Russia has room to boost fiscal expenditure substantially this year and in the coming years to offset negative external shocks. The Central Bank still has room to reduce interest rates further. The real policy rate is 2.5% compared with 1% for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart 16, top panel). Russia’s local currency government bond yields offer value: their real yield is 2.5% compared with the EM GBI benchmark real yield of 1.5% (Chart 16, bottom panel). The Central Bank of the Russian Federation will refrain from QE-type policies (i.e., public debt monetization). This is a plus for the ruble relative to other EM currencies where central banks are engaged in QEs. Bank lending rates remain extremely elevated in Russia and local currency credit penetration is reasonably low (Chart 17). Companies and banks’ external indebtedness has declined from $1,200 bn in 2014 to $900 bn currently. Chart 16Russian Real Rates Offer Value Russian Real Rates Offer Value Russian Real Rates Offer Value Chart 17Russia: Real Lending Rates Are Too Elevated! Russia: Real Lending Rates Are Too Elevated! Russia: Real Lending Rates Are Too Elevated!   Authorities have cleaned up the banking system. The number of banks has dropped from 1000 in 2010 to 430. Banks have written down and provisioned for a large amount of loans. All of these reduce Russia’s vulnerability to negative shocks. Finally, pressured by US and EU sanctions, Russia has been moderately successful in import substitution as we discussed in a previous report. The nation has expanded its productive capacity, especially in agriculture and some other industries. As a result, it now has more room to deploy fiscal and monetary stimulus to boost demand that will be satisfied by domestic rather than foreign output. In short, fiscal and monetary stimulus will not cause the currency to plunge. On the negative side, the outlook for productivity growth remains lukewarm. Russia’s long-term economic outlook will be characterized by relative stability but low growth, as has been the case in recent years. Combining our geopolitical and macro analysis, two conclusions stand out. First, we remain overweight Russian equities as well as both local currency and US dollar bonds relative to their EM benchmarks. If Trump stages a comeback over the next four months, which is not impossible, then the geopolitical risk premium will continue to fall. Trump would offer a reprieve in tensions for a year or two.  Second, the US election threatens this view because Joe Biden is currently heavily favoured to beat Trump and if he does, he is likely to impose fresh sanctions on Russia, possibly as early as 2021. Therefore, if Biden’s election becomes a foregone conclusion, we will downgrade Russian assets. Matt Gertken  Vice President Geopolitical Strategist  mattg@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Michael McFaul, From Cold War To Hot Peace: The Inside Story of Russia and America (London: Penguin, 2018). 2  International Monetary Fund, “Russian Federation: 2019 Article IV Consultation,” IMF Country Report 19/260 (August 2019). 3  Ann M. Simmons and Georgi Kantchev, “Russians Vote for Overhaul That Could Keep Putin in Power Until 2036,” Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2020.  4  “Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening The American Military’s Competitive Edge,” Department of Defense, 2018. 5  Victoria Nuland, “Pinning Down Putin: How A Confident America Should Deal With Russia,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2020. 6  The US has tried to stop Russia’s expansion of pipelines into Europe in the past. Evidenced from both Kennedy and Reagan administration policies directed towards the building of the Friendship oil pipeline in the 1960s and the Brotherhood gas pipeline in the 1980s, respectively. In response, Russia began developing its own technological capacity through import substitution, hurting western firms in the process. 7  "U.S. natural gas giant Chesapeake Energy goes bankrupt,” CBC, June 29, 2020.

Highlights A clear U-turn in markets could make investors more conscious of losses, making them likely to sell. Hence, the fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) rally could turn into a fear-of-losing-out, or FOLO selloff. The P/E ratio is negatively correlated to the discount rate and the latter is the sum of the risk-free rate and the equity risk premium (ERP). Enormous lingering uncertainty warrants using an ERP that is at the upper end of its historical range.  By using the average equity risk premium in their equity valuation models, investors are underpricing risks that are presently exceptionally high. Several market-based indicators and technical configurations point to a relapse in the global equity rally and renewed US dollar strength. Feature For some time, we have been arguing that the global equity advance since late March can best be described as a fear-of-missing-out, or FOMO, rally. During a FOMO rally, investors are forced to chase share prices higher due to fear of missing out on gains. A clear U-turn in markets and falling share prices could make investors more conscious of losses, and they would likely resort to selling stocks. This will turn the FOMO rally into a fear-of-losing-out, or FOLO, selloff. Marginal investors trade with momentum during both FOMO and FOLO scenarios. This is why we argued in our June 18 note that current investment strategies should be placing more emphasis on momentum than would normally be the case. In a nutshell, if FOMO forces subside, investors – which are facing enormous uncertainty on several fronts – will likely require higher risk premiums to commit money to stocks. For now, the momentum of the equity rally has stalled, but it has not yet reversed (Chart I-1). Our momentum indicator for global share prices is struggling to break above the zero line. In the past, the indicator being above or below zero often differentiated bull versus bear markets, respectively (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Chart I-1Global Share Prices Are Facing An Important Resistance Global Share Prices Are Facing An Important Resistance Global Share Prices Are Facing An Important Resistance In this report, we examine the bullish narrative behind the rally and offer our interpretation of those arguments. Then, we present our assessment of the fundamentals. Finally, we highlight the signs we are looking for to confirm that a major selloff will soon occur. The Bull Case: Climbing A Wall Of Worries? The bull case rests on the thesis that risk assets are climbing a wall of worries, i.e., investors are correct to look through many apparent negatives. The following are the key bullish arguments that have supported the rally: Policymakers around the world will do whatever it takes. The US, China and Europe will continue to augment stimulus to prevent another relapse in economic activity. We have never doubted the willingness of policymakers around the world to provide stimulus to their economies amid the pandemic. Where we have had reservations and questions is in whether policymakers will be capable of limiting the bear market in stocks to only one month amid the pandemic and the worst global recession in decades. There is plenty of cash on the sidelines looking to be invested. We agree with the lots-of-cash-on-the-sidelines thesis. Our measure of US dollar cash that might be deployed in financial assets is illustrated in Chart I-2. It plots the ratio of the US broad money supply to the market value of all US dollar-denominated securities. The US broad money supply represents all US dollars in the world – in cash and in electronic bank deposits. The denominator is the market capitalization of US dollar-denominated stocks and all types of bonds held by non-bank investors. If the market shows resilience and the pandemic situation and corporate profits ameliorate, cash on the sidelines will leak into assets, lifting their prices. The counterargument is as follows: If and when the equity momentum reverses, FOMO will be followed by a FOLO phase. In such a case, investors will sell to avoid losses or protect profits, and cash on the sidelines might not matter for a period of time. The global economy reached a bottom in April-May. We agree that the worst of the contraction in economic activity globally was in April and May, when major economies were in lockdown. Nevertheless, it is also plausible that global share prices could relapse even if the bottom in economic output has already been reached. Interestingly, in the 2001-2002 recession, global stocks made a major new low in late 2002/early 2003 even though global growth bottomed in 2001 (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The US: Broad Money Supply Relative To US Equity And Bond Markets Capitalization The US: Broad Money Supply Relative To US Equity And Bond Markets Capitalization The US: Broad Money Supply Relative To US Equity And Bond Markets Capitalization Chart I-3Global Stocks And The Business Cycle In 2000-2003 Global Stocks And The Business Cycle In 2000-2003 Global Stocks And The Business Cycle In 2000-2003   This recession is different from the perspective of the magnitude of the drop in business activity. Many businesses are still operating below their breakeven points and will likely continue to do so for some time. As such, a marginal increase in the level of activity or slower annual contraction might not be sufficient to enable them to service their debt and resume hiring and business investment. Therefore, the recovery will be stumbling and hesitant and relapses are quite likely, especially in the context of the ongoing pandemic. Finally, one of the pervasive arguments dominating the current investment landscape is that equities are cheap given very low interest rates. Unlike some of our colleagues, we are not in accord with this valuation thesis on global stocks in general and US equities in particular. One consideration that is missing in this argument is the equity risk premium. The P/E ratio is negatively correlated to the discount rate.1 The discount rate is the sum of the risk-free rate and the equity risk premium (ERP). Presently, one should use an ERP that is materially higher than its historical mean (Chart I-4, top panel). Investors are currently facing record-high uncertainty related to the pandemic and the business cycle, as well as the structural trends in the economic, political and geopolitical spheres. This warrants using an ERP that is at the upper end of its historical range. Chart I-4Exceptionally High Uncertainty Warrants A Higher Equity Risk Premium Exceptionally High Uncertainty Warrants A Higher Equity Risk Premium Exceptionally High Uncertainty Warrants A Higher Equity Risk Premium Critically, the ERP is not a static variable. Yet many equity valuation models assume that the ERP is constant, and therefore compare equity multiples with risk-free rates. Such models are wrong-headed because a change in the ERP can in and of itself cause large fluctuations in share prices. The bottom panel of Chart I-4 plots the US ERP and the global policy uncertainty index. The latter is at an all-time high while US ERP is well below its highs. In a nutshell, if FOMO forces subside, investors – which are facing enormous uncertainty on several fronts – will likely require higher risk premiums to commit money to stocks. Bottom Line: By using the average ERP in their equity valuation models, investors are underpricing risks that are presently exceptionally high. Bear Markets (Like Pandemics) Occur In Waves The duration and magnitude of the rally from the late-March lows admittedly has taken us by surprise. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that the bear market associated with the worst recession and pandemic in a century was confined to only one down leg (albeit a vicious one) and lasted just one month. Just as corrections are inherent parts of bull markets, bear market rallies are an integral part of bear markets. It would be unprecedented if this bear market did not have at least one bear market rally. We do not mean EM or DM share prices will drop to new lows. Our point is that global stocks and EM currencies will likely experience a setback large enough to make investors feel that the bear market is back. Like pandemics, bear markets occur in waves. The timing, duration and magnitude of the second wave of the equity selloff is as impossible to predict as that of the second wave of COVID-19. Just as corrections are inherent parts of bull markets, bear market rallies are an integral part of bear markets. Our fundamental case for a relapse in EM equities and currencies is as follows: First, a downturn in US equities will dampen EM risk assets. The former are vulnerable due to the second wave of the pandemic that is already underway in a considerable portion of the US. Even if the second COVID-19 wave does not produce simultaneous shutdowns across the entire country, rolling lockdowns in parts of the US and lingering general uncertainty will hinder business investment and hiring. This will delay the profit recovery that the market has priced in. Second, global equities have rallied too fast and too far, as evidenced by the unprecedented gap that has opened up between stock prices and forward EPS (Chart I-5). The 12-month forward P/E ratio is 19.5 for global equities, 22.5 for the US and 14 for EM. Rising share prices amid falling projected EPS levels has been one of the key reasons behind our argument that the equity advance of the past three months has been a FOMO rally.  Third, retail participation in this equity rally has been unprecedented. This has been true not only in North America but also in many Asian markets. Specifically, Chart I-6 demonstrates increased retail participation in equity markets in Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia. These are corroborated by numerous media articles such as: Amateur Traders Pile Into Asian Stocks, Making Pros Nervous Small India Investors Are Latest to Snag Beaten-Down Stocks Fear of Missing Historic Rally Has Koreans Borrowing to Invest Retail Investors Are Driving Record Turnover in Thai Stocks Singapore’s Retail Investors Load Up On What Institutions Dump Chart I-5The Global Forward P/E Ratio Is At Its Highest Since 2002 The Global Forward P/E Ratio Is At Its Highest Since 2002 The Global Forward P/E Ratio Is At Its Highest Since 2002 Chart I-6A Stampede By Asian Retail Investors Into Local Equities A Stampede By Asian Retail Investors Into Local Equities A Stampede By Asian Retail Investors Into Local Equities   Chart I-7Oil Inventories Are Rising In The US And OECD Oil Inventories Are Rising In The US And OECD Oil Inventories Are Rising In The US And OECD Retail investors chasing share prices higher is another fact leading us to term this advance as a FOMO rally. If share prices relapse meaningfully, retail investors may well turn from net buyers to net sellers – i.e. FOMO will turn into FOLO. Fourth, oil prices have had a nice run, despite crude inventories in the US and OECD countries continuing to mushroom (Chart I-7). Rising inventories signify that demand remains deficient relative to supply. Hence, the oil price rally can also be qualified as a FOMO rally, driven by investors rather than demand-supply dynamics. Interestingly, global energy stocks have a higher correlation with forward oil prices rather than the spot rate. Both share prices of oil producers and three-year forward oil prices have already rolled over (Chart I-8). Finally, geopolitical tensions between the US and China are set to escalate as President Trump attempts to save his re-election campaign by rallying the nation behind the flag against foreign adversaries. China would certainly respond. As part of China’s response, North Korea will likely be “allowed” by Beijing to test a strategic weapon, undermining President Trump’s foreign policy achievements. The resulting geopolitical uncertainty will further weigh on the confidence of investors in Asian markets. Critically, share prices in north Asia – China, Korea and Taiwan – that account for 60% of the MSCI EM equity benchmark will come under selling pressure. Excluding these three bourses, EM shares prices have already rolled over (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Global Oil Stock Prices Move With Forward Oil Prices Global Oil Stock Prices Move With Forward Oil Prices Global Oil Stock Prices Move With Forward Oil Prices Chart I-9Diverging Equity Performance: North Asia Versus The Rest Of EM Diverging Equity Performance: North Asia Versus The Rest Of EM Diverging Equity Performance: North Asia Versus The Rest Of EM   In short, the key risk to Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks is geopolitics. The rest of the EM universe is suffering from the acute COVID-19 crisis and numerous economic challenges. Bottom Line: The overarching message from our fundamental analysis is that the rally in global and EM share prices has ignored many negatives and is at a risk of a meaningful relapse. Gauging The Second Selling Wave: Technical Observations Chart I-10The US Dollar And VIX Have Not Yet Broken Below Their Supports The US Dollar And VIX Have Not Yet Broken Below Their Supports The US Dollar And VIX Have Not Yet Broken Below Their Supports We constantly monitor numerous market indicators. We highlight below some of the most important ones that we feel are pointing to a second sell-off wave occurring sooner than later. The broad trade-weighted US dollar and the VIX index have not yet entered a bear market (Chart I-10). In fact, it seems they are finding support at their 200-day moving averages and respective horizontal lines - shown on Chart I-10. A rebound in both the trade-weighted dollar and VIX will coincide with an air pocket in global stocks. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency ratio has rolled over (Chart I-11). It correlates with EM shares prices, and points to a relapse in EM stocks. Chart I-11The Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Heralds A Pullback In EM Stocks The Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Heralds A Pullback In EM Stocks The Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Heralds A Pullback In EM Stocks Finally, credit spreads of riskier parts (CAA rated) of the US high-yield corporate bond universe have commenced widening versus the aggregate US high-yield benchmark. These relative spreads are shown inverted in Chart I-12. Chart I-12US Credit Markets Internals Point To A Relapse In US Small Cap Stocks US Credit Markets Internals Point To A Relapse In US Small Cap Stocks US Credit Markets Internals Point To A Relapse In US Small Cap Stocks Underperformance of riskier parts of the US corporate credit market often coincides with lower US small-cap share prices (Chart I-12). Bottom Line: Several critical market-based indicators and technical configurations point to a relapse in global equities and renewed US dollar strength. The odds of a selloff in EM share prices, currencies and credit markets are considerable. Investment Recommendations In our June 18 report, we contended that a breakout of global share prices and a breakdown in the trade-weighted US dollar would indicate that this rally might persist for a while. Conversely, a drawdown in global equities and a rebound in the greenback could be considerable. Since then, neither global stocks have broken out nor the US dollar broken down. Hence, the jury is still out. At the moment, the risk-reward profile of EM stocks remains unattractive. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue underweighting EM. Within a global credit portfolio, we are neutral on EM sovereign credit versus US corporate credit. The rationale is as follows: the low odds of public debt defaults among mainstream developing countries and the Federal Reserve’s purchases of US corporate bonds has channeled flows to EM credit, possibly precluding relative EM underperformance.  We continue shorting the following basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, IDR, PHP and KRW. Structurally, we are also short the RMB and SAR. Finally, we continue receiving rates in Mexico, Colombia, India, China, Malaysia, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan and Egypt. Central banks in the majority of EM countries will continue cutting rates, but we find better value in these fixed-income markets.  Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     The P/E ratio inversely correlates to the discount rate: P/E ratio = (Payout rate x (1 + Growth rate))/ (Discount rate – Growth rate) Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Economic shocks in recent decades have led to surges in nationalism and the COVID-19 crisis is unlikely to be different. Nationalism adds to the structural challenges facing globalization, which is already in retreat. Investors face at least a 35% chance that President Trump will be reelected and energize a nationalist and protectionist agenda that is globally disruptive. China is also indulging in nationalism as trend growth slows, raising the probability of a clash with the US even if Trump does not win. US-China economic decoupling will present opportunities as well as risks – primarily for India and Southeast Asia. Feature Since the Great Recession, investors have watched the US dollar and US equities outperform their peers in the face of a destabilizing world order (Chart 1). Chart 1US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder US Outperformance Amid Global Disorder Global and American economic policy uncertainty has surged to the highest levels on record. Investors face political and geopolitical power struggles, trade wars, a global pandemic and recession, and social unrest.  How will these risks shape up in the wake of COVID-19? First, massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ensure a global recovery but they also remove some of the economic limitations on countries that are witnessing a surge in nationalism.  Second, nationalism creates a precarious environment for globalization – namely the wave of “hyper-globalization” since 2000. Nationalism and de-globalization do not depend on the United States alone but rather have shifted to the East, which means that geopolitical risks will remain elevated even if the US presidential election sees a restoration of the more dovish Democratic Party.  Economic Shocks Fuel Nationalism’s Revival Nationalism is the idea that the political state should be made up of a single ethnic or cultural community. While many disasters have resulted from this idea, it is responsible for the modern nation-state and it has enabled democracies to take shape across Europe, the Americas, and beyond. Industrialization is also more feasible under nationalism because cultural conformity helps labor competitiveness.1  At the end of the Cold War, transnational communist ideology collapsed and democratic liberalism grew complacent. Each successive economic shock or major crisis has led to a surge in nationalism to fill the ideological gaps that were exposed. For instance, various nationalists and populists emerged from the financial crises of the late 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to restore Russia to greatness in its own and other peoples’ eyes (Chart 2). Not every Russian adventure has mattered for investors, but taken together they have undermined the stability of the global system and raised barriers to exchange. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the interference in the US election in 2016 helped to fuel the rise in policy uncertainty, risk premiums in Russian assets, and safe havens over the past decade. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created a surge in American nationalism (Chart 3). This surge has since collapsed, but while it lasted the US destabilized the Middle East and provided Russia and China with the opportunity to pursue a nationalist path of their own. Investors who went long oil and short the US dollar at this time could have done worse. Chart 2The Resurgence Of Russian Nationalism Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Chart 3USA: From Nationalism To Anti-Nationalism Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 The 2008 crisis spawned new waves of nationalist feeling in countries such as China, Japan, the UK, and India (Chart 4). Conservatives of the majority cultural group rose to power, including in China, where provincial grassroots members of the elite reasserted the Communist Party’s centrality. Japan and India became excellent equity investment opportunities in their respective spheres, while the UK and China saw their currencies weaken.  The rising number of wars and conflicts across the world since 2008 reflects the shift toward nationalism, whether among minority groups seeking autonomy or nation-states seeking living space (Chart 5). Chart 4Nationalist Trends Since The Great Recession Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Chart 5World Conflicts Rise After Major Crises Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 COVID-19 is the latest economic shock that will feed a new round of nationalism. At least 750 million people are extremely vulnerable across the world, mostly concentrated in the shatter belt from Libya to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India.2 Instability will generate emigration and conflict. Once again the global oil supply will be at risk from Middle Eastern instability and the dollar will eventually fall due to gargantuan budget and trade deficits. Today’s shock will differ, however, in the way it knocks against globalization, a process that has already begun to slow. Specifically, this crisis threatens to generate instability in East Asia – the workshop of the world – due to the strategic conflict between the US and China. This conflict will play out in the form of “proxy battles” in Greater China and the East Asian periphery. The dollar’s recent weakness is a telling sign of the future to come. In the short run, however, political and geopolitical risks are acute and will support safe havens. Globalization In Retreat Nationalism is not necessarily at odds with globalization. Historically there are many cases in which nationalism undergirds a foreign policy that favors trade and eschews military intervention. This is the default setting of maritime powers such as the British and Dutch. Prior to WWII it was the American setting, and after WWII it was the Japanese. Over the past thirty years, however, the rise of nationalism has generally worked against global trade, peace, and order. That’s because after WWII most of the world accepted internationalist ideals and institutions promoted by the United States that encouraged free markets and free trade. Serious challenges to that US-led system are necessarily challenges to global trade. This is true even if they originate in the United States. Globalization has occurred in waves continuously since the sixteenth century. It is not a light matter to suggest that it is experiencing a reversal. Yet the best historical evidence suggests that global imports, as a share of global output, have hit a major top (Chart 6).3 The line in this chart will fall further in 2020. American household deleveraging, China’s secular slowdown, and the 2014 drop in oil and commodities have had a pervasive impact on the export contribution to global growth.   Chart 6Globalization Hits A Major Top Globalization Hits A Major Top Globalization Hits A Major Top The next upswing of the business cycle will prompt an increase in trade in 2021. Global fiscal stimulus this year amounts to 8% of GDP and counting. But will the import-to-GDP  ratio surpass previous highs? Probably not anytime soon. It is impossible to recreate America’s consumption boom and China’s production boom of the 1980s-2000s with public debt alone. Global trend growth is slowing. Isn’t globalization proceeding in services, if not goods? The world is more interconnected than ever, with nearly half of the population using the Internet – almost 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every two people uses a smartphone. Eventually the pandemic will be mitigated and global travel will resume. Nevertheless, the global services trade is also facing headwinds. And it requires even more political will to break down barriers for services than it does for goods (Chart 7). The desire of nations to control and patrol cyber space has resulted in separate Internets for authoritarian states like Russia and China. Even democracies are turning to censorship and content controls to protect their ideologies.  Chart 7Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Both Goods And Services Face Headwinds Political demands to protect workers and industries are gaining ground. Policymakers in China and Russia have already shifted back toward import substitution; now the US and EU are joining them, at least when it comes to strategic sectors (health, defense). Nationalists and populists across the emerging world will follow their lead. Regional and wealth inequalities are driving populations to be more skeptical of globalization. GDP per capita has not grown as fast as GDP itself, a simple indication of how globalization does not benefit everyone equally even though it increases growth overall (Chart 8). Inequality is a factor not only because of relatively well-off workers in the developed world who resent losing their job or earning less than their neighbors. Inequality is also rife in the developing world where opportunities to work, earn higher wages, borrow, enter markets, and innovate are lacking. Over the past decade, emerging countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have seen growing skepticism about whether foreign openness creates jobs or lifts wages.4  Immigration is probably the clearest indication of the break from globalization. The United States and especially the European Union have faced an influx of refugees and immigrants across their southern borders and have resorted to hard-nosed tactics to put a stop to it (Chart 9). Chart 8Global Inequality Fuels Protectionism Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Chart 9US And EU Crack Down On Immigration Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 There is zero chance that these tough tactics will come to an end anytime soon in Europe, where the political establishment has discovered a winning combination with voters by promoting European integration yet tightening control of borders. This combination has kept populists at bay in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. A degree of nationalism has been co-opted by the transnational European project. In the US, extreme polarization could cause a major change in immigration policy, depending on the election later this year. But note that the Obama administration was relatively hawkish on the border and the next president will face sky-high unemployment, which discourages flinging open the gates.  Reduced immigration will weigh on potential GDP growth and drive up the wage bill for domestic corporations. If nationalism continues to rise and to hinder the movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas, then it will reduce the market’s expectations of future earnings. American Nationalism Still A Risk  The United States is experiencing a “Civil War Lite” that may take anywhere from one-to-five years to resolve. The November 3 presidential election will have a major impact on the direction of nationalism and globalization over the coming presidential term. If President Trump is reelected – which we peg at 35% odds – then American nationalism and protectionism will gain a new lease on life. Other nations will follow the US’s lead. If Trump fails, then nationalism will likely be driven by external forces, but protectionism will persist in some form. Chart 10Trump Is Not Yet Down For The Count Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Investors should not write Trump off. If the election were held today, Trump would lose, but the election is still four months away. His national approval rating has troughed at a higher level than previous troughs. His disapproval rating has spiked but has not yet cleared its early 2019 peak (Chart 10).5 This is despite an unprecedented deluge of bad news: universal condemnation from Democrats and the media, high-profile defections from fellow Republicans and cabinet members, stunning defeats at the Supreme Court, and scathing rebukes from top US army officers. If Trump’s odds are 35% then this translates to a 35% chance that the United States will continue pursuing globally disruptive “America First” foreign and trade policies in the 2020-24 period.    First Trump will attempt to pass a Reciprocal Trade Act to equalize tariffs with all trading partners. Assuming Democrats block it in the House of Representatives, he will still have sweeping executive authority to levy tariffs. He will launch the next round in the trade war with China to secure a “Phase Two” trade deal, which will be tougher because it will be focused on structural reforms. He could also open new fronts against the European Union, Mexico, and other trade surplus countries. By contrast, these risks will melt away if Biden is elected. Biden would restore the Obama administration’s approach of trade favoritism toward strategic allies and partners, such as Europe and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but only occasional use of tariffs. Biden would work with international organizations like the World Trade Organization. His foreign policy would also open up trade with pariah states like Iran, reducing the tail-risk of a war to almost zero.  Biden would be tougher on China than Presidents Obama or Bill Clinton, as the consensus in Washington is now hawkish and Biden would need to keep the blue-collar voters he won back from Trump. He may keep Trump’s tariffs in place as negotiating leverage. But he is less likely to expand these tariffs – and there is zero chance he will use them against Europe. At the same time, it will take a year or more to court the allies and put together a "coalition of the willing" to pressure China on structural reforms and liberalization. China would get a reprieve – and so would financial markets. Thus investors have a roughly 65% chance of seeing US policy “normalize” into an internationalist (not nationalist) approach that reduces the US contribution to trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk over the next few years at minimum. But there are still four months to go before the election; these odds can change, and equity market volatility will come first. Moreover a mellower US would still need to react to nationalism in Asia. European Nationalism Not A Risk (Yet) European nationalism has reemerged in recent years but has greatly disappointed the prophets of doom who expected it to lead to the breakup of the European Union. The southern European states suffered the most from COVID-19 but many of them have made their decision regarding nationalism and the supra-national EU. Greece underwent a depression yet remained in the union. Italians could easily elect the right-wing anti-establishment League to head a government in the not-too-distant future. But there is no appetite for an Italian exit. Brexit is the grand exception. If Trump wins, then the UK and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be seen as the vanguard of the revival of nationalism in the West. If Trump loses, English nationalism will appear an isolated case that is constrained by its own logic given the response of Scottish nationalism (Chart 11). The trend in the British Isles would become increasingly remote from the trends in continental Europe and the United States. The majority of Europeans identify both as Europeans and as their home nationality, including majorities in countries like Greece, Italy, France, and Austria where visions of life outside the union are the most robust (Chart 12). Even the Catalonians are focused on options other than independence, which has fallen to 36% support. Eastern European nationalists play a careful balancing game of posturing against Brussels yet never drifting so far as to let Russia devour them. Chart 11English Versus Scottish Nationalism English Versus Scottish Nationalism English Versus Scottish Nationalism Chart 12European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) European Nationalism Is Limited (For Now) Europeans have embraced the EU as a multi-ethnic confederation that requires dual allegiances and prioritizes the European project. COVID-19 has so far reinforced this trend, showing solidarity as the predominant force, and much more promptly than during the 2011 crisis. It will take a different kind of crisis to reverse this trend of deeper integration. European nationalists would benefit from another economic crash, a new refugee wave from the Middle East, or conflict with Turkish nationalism. The latter is already burning brightly and will eventually flame out, but not before causing a regional crisis of some kind. European policymakers are containing nationalism by co-opting some of its demands. The EU is taking steps to guard against globalization, particularly on immigration and Chinese mercantilism. The lack of nationalist uprisings in Europe do not overthrow the contention that globalization is slowing down. Europe can become more integrated at home while maintaining the higher barriers against globalization that it has always maintained relative to the UK and United States. Chinese Nationalism The Biggest Risk The nationalist risk to globalization is most significant in East Asia and the Pacific, where Chinese nationalism continues the ascent that began with the Great Recession. China’s slowdown in growth rates has weakened the Communist Party’s confidence in the long-term viability of single-party rule. The result has been a shift in the party line to promote ideology and quality of life improvements to compensate for slower income gains. Xi Jinping’s governing philosophy consists of nationalist territorial gains, promoting “the China Dream” for the middle class, and projecting ambitious goals of global influence by 2035 and 2049. The result has been a clash between mainland Chinese and peripheral Chinese territories – especially Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chart 13). The turn away from Chinese identity in these areas runs up against their economic interest. It is largely a reaction to the surge in mainland nationalist sentiment, which cannot be observed directly due to the absence of reliable opinion polling. Chart 13Chinese Nationalism On The Mainland, Anti-Nationalism In Periphery Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 The conflict over identity in Greater China is perhaps the world’s greatest geopolitical risk. While Hong Kong has no conceivable alternative to Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan does. The US is interested in reviving its technological and defense relationship with Taiwan now that it seeks to counterbalance China. Chart 14Taiwan: Epicenter Of US-China Cold War Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19 Beijing may be faced with a technology cordon imposed by the United States, and yet have the option of circumventing this cordon via Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” used to be its security guarantee. Now that the US is tightening export controls and sanctions on China, Beijing has a greater need to confiscate that shield. This makes Taiwan the epicenter of the US-China struggle, as we have highlighted since 2016. The risk of a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is as pertinent in the short run as it is over the long run, given that the US and China have already intensified their saber-rattling in the Strait (Chart 14), including in the wake of COVID-19 specifically. China’s secular slowdown is prompting it to encroach on the borders of all of its neighbors simultaneously, creating a nascent balance-of-power alliance ranging from India to Australia to Japan. If China fails to curb its nationalism, then eventually US political polarization will decline as the country unites in the face of a peer competitor. If American divisions persist, they could drive the US to instigate conflict with China. Thus a failure of either side to restrain itself is a major geopolitical risk. The US and China ultimately face mutually assured destruction in the event of conflict, but they can have a clash in the near term before they learn their limits. The Cold War provides many occasions of such a learning process – from the Berlin airlift to the Cuban missile crisis. Such crises typically present buying opportunities for financial markets, but the consequences could be more far reaching if the Asian manufacturing supply chain is permanently damaged or if the shifting of supply chains out of China is too rapid. Globalization will also suffer as a result of currency wars. The US has not been successful in driving the dollar down, a key demand of the US-China trade war. It is much harder to force China to reform its labor and wage policies than it is to force it to appreciate its currency. But unlike Japan in 1985, China will not commit to unilateral appreciation for fear of American economic sabotage.   Punitive measures will remain an American tool. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not attempting to eliminate its trade deficit. It is attempting to reduce overreliance on China. Status quo globalization is intolerable for US strategy. But autarky is intolerable for US corporations. The compromise is globalization-ex-China, i.e., economic decoupling. Investment Implications Chart 15Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives Favor International Stocks As Growth Revives US stock market capitalization now makes up 58% of global capitalization (Chart 15), reflecting the strength and innovation of American companies as well as a worldwide flight to safety during a decade of rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. The revival of global growth amid this year’s gargantuan stimulus will prompt a major rotation out of US equities and into international and emerging market equities over the long run. As mentioned, the US greenback would also trend downward. However, there will be little clarity on the pace of nationalism and the fate of globalization until the US election is decided. Moreover the fate of globalization does not depend entirely on the United States. It mostly depends on countries in the east – Russia, China, and India, all of which are increasingly nationalistic.  A miscalculation over Taiwan, North Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, trade, or technology could ignite into tariffs, sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, saber-rattling, proxy battles, and potentially even direct conflict. These risks are elevated in the short run but will persist in the long run. As the US decouples from China it will have to deepen relations with other trading partners. The trade deficit will not go away but will be redistributed to Asian allies. Southeast Asian nations and India – whose own nationalism has created a shift in favor of economic development – will be the long-run beneficiaries.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). 2  Neli Esipova, Julie Ray, and Ying Han, “750 Million Struggling To Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net,” Gallup News, June 16, 2020. 3 Christopher Chase-Dunn et al, “The Development of World-Systems,” Sociology of Development 1 (2015), pp. 149-172; and Chase-Dunn, Yukio Kawano, Benjamin Brewer, “Trade globalization since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000), pp. 77-95. 4 Bruce Stokes, “Americans, Like Many In Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced Of Trade’s Benefits,” September 26, 2018. 5 In other words, the mishandling of COVID-19 and the historic George Floyd protests of June 2020 have not taken as great of a toll on Trump’s national approval, thus far, as the Ukraine scandal last October, the government shutdown in January-February 2019, the near-failure to pass tax cuts in December 2017, or the Charlottesville incident in August 2017. This is surprising and points once more to Trump’s very solid political base, which could serve as a springboard for a comeback over the next four months.