Geopolitics

Special Report

Highlights The epicenter of the new Middle East crisis is the Shia Crescent, which threatens global oil supply. However, the escalation of conflict in the Mediterranean is also relevant to global investors. The crises in Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean are escalating as President Erdogan makes a last attempt to benefit from his relationship with Trump before US elections in November. A breakup between Turkey and NATO is not our base case, but European sanctions against Turkey are likely. Turkish risk will rise. A revival in Libyan oil production would not be a meaningful risk to the recovery in oil markets. Stay strategically long Brent crude oil. Libya could become a “Black Swan” for market participants exposed to southern Europe, Turkey, and North Africa. We remain short our EM Strongman Currency Basket versus other emerging market currencies. Feature Dear Clients, This week we present to you a special report on Turkey by my colleague Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor, Geopolitical Strategy. Roukaya argues that President Erdogan is at a crossroads in which he will confront major military and economic constraints to his foreign policy adventurism. On Monday, July 27 you will receive a special report that I co-wrote with Anastasios Avgeriou, chief strategist of our US Equity Strategy. In this report we continue our analysis of the equity sector implications of the upcoming US election. Anastasios also provides analysis of two cyclical sectors that you may find of interest. On Friday, July 31 we will send you our regular monthly GeoRisk Update, which surveys our proprietary, market-based geopolitical risk indicators and what they imply for your portfolio. We trust you will enjoy these reports and look forward to your feedback. All very best, Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chart 1Shia Crescent' Flailing Under Maximum Pressure And COVID-19 The Middle East is suffering a wave of instability after the COVID-19 crisis just as it did in the years after the 2008 financial crisis. The crises in Libya, Syria, and Yemen were never resolved and now new crises are emerging from Egypt and Turkey to Iran and Iraq. By contrast with the “Arab Spring” of 2011, the epicenter of the political earthquake this time around is likely to be the “Shia Crescent,” i.e. Iran, Iraq, eastern Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon. The US policy of maximum pressure on Iran, which is intensifying in the lead-up to the US election, has weakened Iran and its sphere of influence (Chart 1). Chart 2Dominant Arab States Also Face Struggles Meanwhile the pandemic and collapse in oil prices have destabilized the predominantly Arab states (Chart 2). Authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia that consolidated power after the Arab Spring are more stable than they were but still vulnerable to external and internal forces. These cyclical developments are occurring against the backdrop of structural changes like the US’s energy independence and strategic pivot to Asia, which have created a power vacuum in the Middle East. The pivot to Asia is rooted in US grand strategy and has proceeded across partisan administrations, so it will continue. Indeed US-China tensions are escalating rapidly in 2020 despite the financial market’s lack of interest. Turkey and Russia are scrambling to take advantage of the US’s withdrawal and gain greater influence through regional proxy wars. This year has seen a marked escalation of their involvement in Libya, where the war is re-escalating and drawing in Egypt, Europe, and Gulf Arabs. At minimum a Mediterranean conflict could affect oil prices as well as Turkish, Russian, and other regional financial assets. At maximum it could affect European assets, which are exposed to geopolitical risk in Turkey and North Africa. The Shia Crescent is the crisis’s epicenter, but Libya is also investment relevant. Bottom Line: The epicenter of the new Middle East crisis is the Shia Crescent, which threatens global oil supply. However, the escalation of conflict in the Mediterranean is also relevant to global investors, primarily through its potential to impact European assets. Re-Escalation In Libya The Libyan crisis has been escalating since the beginning of the year and is on the verge of turning into a major multilateral conflict. The risk now is that Egypt, another regional power, will intervene in Libya against Turkey in a battle for North African hegemony (Map 1). Map 1Libya Could Become A "Black Swan" Event Several incidents since we outlined Egypt’s red lines on the Libyan conflict suggest that Cairo and Ankara will clash in Libya (Table 1). Table 1Egypt And Turkey Up The Ante In Libya While Egypt has declared Sirte and al-Jufra as red lines, threatening military intervention if crossed, Turkey is calling for the Libyan National Army’s (LNA) withdrawal from these regions as a precondition for a ceasefire (Map 2). Egypt is allied with General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army, which is based in Benghazi and holds parliament in Tobruk. Map 2Libya’s Battlefront Is Closing In On The Oil Crescent The next move is now in Turkey’s hands. The escalation depends on whether it insists on moving forward toward Egypt’s red line. Turkey’s recent movements do not suggest it is backing down. True on July 21, and again on July 22, top officials from Turkey’s foreign ministry referred to a political solution as being the only solution in Libya. However, these statements were made while Turkey held diplomatic meetings with Niger and Malta that could be aimed at establishing airbases there.1 At its core, the conflict in Libya is a clash between the two dominant geopolitical forces in the Middle East. On the one hand, Turkey and Qatar are independent economic forces to Saudi Arabia and supporters of political Islam. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt form an economic bloc and support Saudi religious authority and political authoritarianism. Bottom Line: The crisis in Libya is heading toward an Egypt-Turkey confrontation. Be ready for an escalation. Egypt Has More To Lose Than Turkey In Libya Both Egypt and Turkey are nearing a point of no return in Libya. A last-minute change of heart from either side would be increasingly more humiliating, both domestically and regionally. Chart 3Defeat In Libya Would Accelerate Erdogan’s Decline While Egypt’s geographic proximity to Libya makes it more interested in what goes on there and will give it a home advantage in any military confrontation, Egypt’s military may be overstretched as it is also at risk of conflict with Ethiopia over water resources.2 For Egypt, a victory would resuscitate its position as a regional power, bringing about a new era of greater Egyptian regional leadership. It would silence domestic skeptics who argue Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s rule is based on the illegitimate ousting of Egypt’s only democratically elected leader. It would squash any prospect of a revival of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and validate authoritarian rulers in the region. It could also annul the recent Libya-Turkey maritime demarcation agreement – a positive for Egypt’s natural gas ambitions. A loss would be a wake-up call for Egypt’s military, which has been spending scarce funds on costly equipment. It may also result in a change in leadership in Egypt or at the very least weaken al-Sisi’s domestic power and Egypt’s regional clout. The regime would persist over the short and medium term, but it would suffer a loss of legitimacy and the underground domestic opposition would intensify, creating a long-term threat. A complete defeat of LNA forces would pose a major security risk. Haftar’s LNA acts as a buffer between Egypt and unfriendly militias in Western Libya. Turkey does not have a vital national strategic interest in Libya and therefore the constraint pushing against on a protracted conflict is stronger than it is for Egypt. Given that Turkey is a democracy, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has more to lose in the case of a military defeat. It would accelerate the decline in his popular support and that of his Justice and Development Party (AKP) (Chart 3). A conflict with Egypt is therefore a gratuitous gamble. However, victory would vindicate Erdogan’s efforts to create a strongman regime and revive memories of the great Ottoman empire.3 Such an accomplishment could mark a major turning point for Erdogan. His domestic blunders would be forgiven and he would be able to claim that he is one of the great leaders of Turkey. Given that Turkey lacks strategic necessity in Libya, and a defeat could dislodge Erdogan in 2023, one should expect Turkey not to cross Egypt’s red lines. However, Erdogan’s rule has been characterized by hubris, nationalism, and foreign assertiveness to distract from domestic economic mismanagement. Therefore we cannot have a high conviction that Turkey will bow to its political and military constraints. The risk of a large conflict is underrated. Bottom Line: Egypt has greater national interests at stake in Libya than Turkey. The implication is that Turkey should recognize Egyptian red lines. However, Turkey’s decision to intervene in Libya suggests that Erdogan could overreach. Libya could become a “Black Swan” for market participants exposed to southern Europe, Turkey, and North Africa. Will Turkey Break With NATO? Since signing the maritime and military cooperation agreements with Libya on November 27, Turkey has raised its stakes in Libya. Ankara has sent more armed drones, surface-to-air missile defense systems, naval frigates, a hundred officers, and up to 3,800 Syrian fighters. It has rolled back all of the strategic gains that the Libyan National Army made in 2019. The timing of the recent escalation is significant. The US election cycle offers Erdogan a chance to increase Turkey’s foreign assertiveness with minimal US retaliation. US-Turkish relations have been icy for years. Turkey is an ascendant regional power that is pursuing an increasingly independent national policy, while the US is no longer as dominant of a global hegemonic power capable of enforcing discipline among minor allies. The US alliance with the Kurds in Syria and Iraq has alienated Turkey. The 2016 Turkish coup attempt also increased the level of distrust between the two states. However, President Trump’s personal and political affinity for President Erdogan has resulted in a permissive policy toward Turkey. Trump seeks to distance the US from conflicts in Syria and Libya inherited from his predecessor. He has little commitment to the Kurds. More broadly he has embraced geopolitical multipolarity and avoided telling Erdogan what to do. The Trump administration has not retaliated against Turkey for purchasing Russia’s S400 missile defense system or for pursuing expansive maritime-territorial claims near Cyprus. Even though the Turkish arms purchase makes it eligible for sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Trump administration has yet to impose sanctions. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is close to the Trump administration, suggested in July 2019 that sanctions could be avoided if Turkey did not activate the system.4 Turkey, for its part, has yet to activate the system three months after the April target date for activation. Turkey blames the delay on COVID-19. With regard to Libya, the Trump administration has remained largely on the sidelines. It has promised to reduce American commitment to overseas conflicts and has criticized the Obama administration’s intervention in Libya in 2011 to bail out the European allies. Officially the US is aligned with Fayez al-Sarraj’s UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), but so far its role has been minimal, refraining from providing any military support. Moreover, Washington’s key allies in the region – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, even France – support the Libyan National Army. Libya could become a “Black Swan” event. It is Haftar’s other main backer – Russia – that would present an incentive for greater American involvement. The US African Command reports that two thousand Russian mercenaries from the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group have fought in Libya. The US also reported in June that at least 14 MiG29 and Su-24 Russian warplanes were sent to Libya via Syria, believed to be located in the al-Jufra airbase. Moreover, the US State Department has accused Russia of printing billions of fake Libyan dinars to fund Haftar’s forces.5 The Trump administration has been permissive toward Russia as well as Turkey, letting them work out deals with each other, but US electoral politics could prompt Trump to make shows of strength against Russia to fend off criticism. Thus the months in the lead up to the US elections offer the Turkish leader what may be a closing opportunity to increase the country’s foreign assertiveness with minimal US retribution. If Trump loses, Erdogan may face a less sympathetic Washington. By contrast France, also a NATO ally, has taken a stronger position against Ankara over its involvement in Libya. Relations with other eastern Mediterranean countries have also been rocky due to Turkey’s exclusion from gas deals in the region and drilling in disputed waters near Cyprus and Greece. France has a commercial interest in Libya’s oil industry and backs Haftar’s Libyan National Army to some extent.6 Citing aggressive behavior by Turkish warships after an encounter in the Mediterranean, France suspended its involvement in NATO’s Operation Sea Guardian on July 1.7 France has also demanded EU sanctions against Turkey – both for its drilling activities around Cyprus as well as for its role in Libya.8 Still, Europeans have little appetite for direct intervention in Libya. The leaders of France, Italy and Germany have threatened sanctions against foreign states that violate the arms embargo in Libya. This warning comes after EU foreign ministers agreed to discuss the possibility of another set of sanctions against Turkey in their August meeting if Turkey persists in converting the Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque. Despite the fracturing within NATO, the alliance will not break up. Turkey’s geographic proximity to Russia, large number of troops, and military strength make it an essential member of the defense treaty (Chart 4). Chart 4NATO Will Not Break With Turkey Instead, the Europeans will retaliate against Erdogan’s foreign adventurism through sanctions, while maintaining the NATO alliance. This acts as a cyclical rebuke without damaging the secular relationship. Europe will use sanctions to retaliate against Turkey’s provocations. The Europeans will be particularly rattled if Turkey succeeds in its North African endeavor and amasses significant regional power as a result. Victory in Libya would make Turkey the gatekeeper to two major migrant entry points to the European continent, providing Ankara with leverage in its negotiations with Europe (Chart 5). It would also increase the likelihood that Turkey increases its assertive behavior in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, and Italy are seeking to develop a natural gas hub. Chart 5Turkish Victory In Libya Would Rattle Europe Although Erdogan shows no signs of backing down, constraints suggest that Erdogan may pull back from being perceived as overly provocative. The Turkish economy is highly dependent on Europe in trade and capital flows (Chart 6). Thus unlike American sanctions, which have little bearing on the Turkish economy short of radical financial measures, European sanctions suppress any chance of an economic recovery. Chart 6European Sanctions Would Reverse Turkey's Recovery Chart 7Erdogan Risks Popularity By Overstepping In Libya And East Med Turkey’s frail economy and crackdown on opposition parties could weigh on Erdogan’s approval, which is losing its COVID-induced bounce (Chart 7). Thus, as in the case of Egypt, Erdogan should recognize these constraints and reduce his foreign assertiveness. If he does not, then he will hit up against material constraints that will harm the Turkish economy. Bottom Line: The Libyan crisis is escalating as Erdogan makes a last attempt to benefit from his relationship with Trump before US elections in November. Washington’s detached stance in Libya highlights that its foreign policy priorities lie elsewhere – in Asia and Iran. Meanwhile, Europe is divided over Libya. A breakup between Turkey and NATO is not our base case, but new European sanctions against Turkey are not unlikely. A Turkish victory in Libya would lead to a significant escalation in tensions between Turkey and the West. Investment Implications Turkish geopolitical risk is set to rise in the lead up to the November US elections as Turkey becomes increasingly embroiled in foreign conflicts – in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and most recently in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict (Chart 8). Ankara’s more provocative stances raise the risk of sanctions from the US and more significantly from the EU. This would hurt Turkish risk assets at a time of already heightened vulnerability. If Turkey manages to secure a victory in Libya, it would benefit economically from construction and energy contracts there. However, it would also result in a significant uptick in geopolitical tensions in the Middle East as the West and the West’s regional allies will be disturbed by Ankara’s expanding influence. Stay short our EM Strongman Currency Basket composed of the Turkish lira, Philippine peso, and Brazilian real versus other emerging market currencies. Even though the lira is already cheap against the US dollar, it faces more downside due to the risks highlighted in this report and the massive growth in money supply in Turkey. Similarly, the prospect of a military confrontation will raise the equity risk premium priced in Egyptian stocks. Egypt will continue underperforming emerging markets as long as it remains invested in an unsettled conflict in Libya (Chart 9). Chart 8Turkish Risk Will Rise Libyan oil exports are unlikely to stage a major revival anytime soon (Chart 10). Although the Libyan National Oil Company lifted force majeure on July 10, Haftar’s Libyan National Army reintroduced the blockade a day later. Clashes are also occurring near oil facilities in the Brega region where Syrian, Sudanese, and Russian Wagner Group mercenaries currently have a presence. Chart 9Egyptian Risk Assets Will Underperform Chart 10Libyan Oil Handicapped By Haftar’s Blockade Chart 11Stay Bullish Euro Over The Long Run Even in the best-case scenario, in which force majeure is promptly lifted, the blockade damaged both the reservoirs and oil and gas infrastructure, preventing a resurgence of exports to pre-January levels. The Libyan National Oil Company warned that unless oil production restarts immediately, output will average 650,000 barrels per day in 2022. This is significantly less than the over 1 million barrels per day just prior to the blockade, and the 2.1 million barrels per day Libya had planned to produce by 2024. In any case these figures pale in comparison to the production curtailments currently in place by OPEC 2.0, which are set to decrease to 8.3 million barrels per day beginning in August from 9.6 million barrels per day now. Given OPEC 2.0’s demonstrated commitment to production discipline, a revival in Libyan oil production is not a meaningful risk to the recovery in oil markets. We remain strategically long Brent crude oil, which is up 78% since inception in March. This trade could experience near-term volatility due to any hiccups in global economic stimulus or risk-off events from geopolitical risks. But over a 12-month time frame we expect oil prices to rise higher. BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy strategists expect Brent prices to average $44/bbl in 2H2020, and $65/bbl in 2021. The recent rise in the euro is rooted in global macro and structural factors but a major Mediterranean crisis and/or other geopolitical risks we have highlighted surrounding the US election cycle could create headwinds in the short term. Over the long run we are bullish euro (Chart 11).   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 In Niger, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu met with his Nigerien counterpart and stated the two states’ willingness to boost bilateral relations in agriculture, mining, energy, industry, and trade. A day earlier, Turkey and Qatar’s defense ministers met with Libya’s minister of interior in Ankara to discuss the situation in Libya. And on July 20, a trilateral meeting was held between Turkey’s defense minister, Libya’s interior minister, and Malta’s minister of home affairs and national security. The inclusion of Malta – located just north of Libya in the Mediterranean – is perplexing. The three discussed defense cooperation and efforts toward regional stability and peace. These recent meetings could suggest that Turkey is negotiating agreements to fortify its strategic approaches to Libya. This could involve greenlighting airbases in Niger and Malta in exchange for economic support and Qatari funding. 2 The latest developments suggest that the Egypt-Ethiopia conflict is de-escalating. On July 21, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed tweeted that Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan had reached a “common understanding on continuing technical discussions on filling.” But Ethiopia will have an opportunity if Egypt becomes embroiled in Libya. 3 The Turks ruled Tripolitania from the mid-1500s until Italy’s 1912 victory in the Italo-Turkish War. Surveys conducted by Metropoll reveal that the share of Turks with a positive perception of Turkey’s active role in Libya shot up to 58% in June from 35% in January. 4 Senate Majority Whip John Thune has even proposed using the US Army’s missile procurement account to buy the Russian missiles from Turkey, thus reducing tensions between the two NATO allies. This is unlikely to occur because it would look politically weak in the US, while Turkey would face Russian pressure. The US suspended Turkey from the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program, banning it from purchasing F35s, and removing it from the aircraft’s production program. US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper stated that the US would only consider allowing Turkey back into the F35 Joint Strike Program if the Russian defense system were moved out of the country. The Turkish purchase of the Russian defense system was partly driven by the need to work with Russia and partly driven by Erdogan’s desire to reduce the risk of another coup attempt. Ankara was indefensible against the Turkish Air Force’s F-16s during the 2016 coup attempt since its military relies heavily on US built missile defense. 5 Moscow has denied all allegations of involvement in Libya. 6 US-made javelin missiles purchased by France were found at the pro-Haftar base in Gharyan in June last year, raising suspicion that France was backing Haftar’s offensives. 7 On June 10, French frigate Courbet approached a Tanzanian-flagged ship heading to Libya in suspicion that it was violating the UN arms embargo. France accused three Turkish vessels that were escorting the Tanzanian vessel of harassment by targeting the Courbet’s fire control radars. Turkey denied harassing the Courbet and maintains that the Tanzanian vessel was transporting humanitarian aid to Libya. A NATO investigation into the incident was inconclusive. 8 The EU agreed to impose sanctions on two Turkish oil company officials in February in protest against Turkish drilling activity in the Eastern Mediterranean. However these sanctions are mostly just political symbolism.

Special Report

Dear Clients, This week we offer you a Special Report on Russia and cyber security by our colleague and friend, Elmo Wright. Elmo recently retired from US Army civil service after 43 years working in intelligence, either on active duty, reserves, or as a civilian. From 2018 to 2020, he served as the senior civilian executive at the US Army National Ground Intelligence Center. He has served on five continents and provided analysis of the most pressing global trends in national security and intelligence. In this Special Report with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team, Elmo analyzes Russia’s cyber capabilities and argues that structural and cyclical factors, including COVID-19, will ensure the continued salience of Russian and global cyber security challenges in the coming years. His thesis reinforces our recommendation that investors buy cyber security equities. Elmo’s work for this report is in his personal capacity and does not represent any position of the US government. Only publicly available information was used as background research material for Elmo’s contribution to the report. All very best, Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Highlights As the US elections come closer, there will be a return to news about Russia and its potential interference via social media. Russia will continue to use cyber, both state sponsored attacks, and in coordination with criminal groups, to advance Russian national security objectives. In contrast to nuclear doctrine, there is no commonly accepted framework for cyber warfare between Russia and other nations that provides understandable signals for escalation, de-escalation, appropriate targets, or goals. US efforts to conduct military operations against Russia or China would likely be countered by Russian or Chinese cyber operations before any physical military operations could be initiated. Cyber security stocks offer a way for investors to capitalize on our long-term themes of nationalism, multipolarity, and de-globalization. The ISE Cyber Security Index offers value relative to the broad NASDAQ and S&P 500 indexes as well as the S&P tech sector. Feature   As the national elections in the US come closer, there will be a return to news about Russia and its potential interference via social media. Indeed Russia is making headlines even as we go to press. This report aims to provide context for Russian cyber capabilities in general as a contributor to overall geopolitical instability (Chart 1). We forecast Russia will continue to use cyber, both state sponsored attacks, and in coordination with criminal groups, to advance Russian national security objectives. Chart 1Russian Cyber Interference Resurfaces Around US Elections As background, the word cyber is commonly accepted to be derived from cybernetics, a phrase attributed to Norbert Wiener, an MIT scientist. The phrase itself is related to the ancient Greek word for steering or helmsman, in other words, control. Chart 2Russian Excellence In Math Makes It Competitive In Cybernetics Russia has a long history of excellence in science, especially theoretical work in mathematics and physics (Chart 2). Those fields can explain natural phenomena in formulas and mathematical relationships. The Soviets believed that centralized state planning that manipulated data in formulas could lead to better outcomes in all aspects of the society. Although central state economic planning did not work out for the Soviet economy, Soviet military science built on the concept of data relationships in formulas to develop its theory of troop control, a derivative of reflexive control, that is, the presenting of data to the recipient, either friendly or enemy, in order to get that recipient to act in a way favorable to Soviet military plans. One can see the Soviets embraced the idea of cybernetics as very congruent to their desire for top down control. Russia, as the core part of the Soviet Union, retained significant numbers of scientists and mathematicians who were naturally drawn to the ability of computers to take data and manipulate that data according to formulas. Other Russian scientists and mathematicians emigrated to the West where their expertise was rewarded in the rise in the use of computers to manipulate data. Over time, the term cyber has come to be associated with many aspects of computers, especially the intellectual and physical structures hidden behind the direct interface of a person with a keyboard and screen. Russian expertise in the use of computers to do cyber work was not limited to working for the State. As the Soviet Union broke apart and many people lost their jobs working for the State, there were those persons who took their talents to criminal ventures. And in the symbiotic nature of society in Russia, many of those who went into criminal ventures were former intelligence and security personnel who could maintain their connection to the official organizations that were successors to the KGB, the GRU, and others. Senior Russian military officials, such as General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation armed forces, equivalent to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have noted the growth of nonmilitary means of achieving strategic goals, and specifically in the information space. Gerasimov, in an article in 2013, has been widely quoted that all elements of national power have to be harnessed, including cyber capabilities. One Soviet and Russian military concept that relates to the information space is maskirovka, the use of camouflage, deception, and disinformation to confuse the enemy. Maskirovka is intimately connected with the Soviet/Russian concept of “active measures”. Active measures include actions taken generally by intelligence services to provide propaganda, false information, and otherwise sow discord and confusion among the enemy ranks at all levels of war as well as in the political, economic, and social spheres. In today’s time period, cyber, especially social media, offers the opportunity for the wide spread of aspects of maskirovka and active measures to all users, as well as targeted groups (Chart 3). Reporting indicates a continued Russian emphasis on cyber as a means for active measures concealed by maskirovka. Chart 3Social Media Offers Russia An Opportunity For The Spread Of Maskirovka Wikileaks has provided a platform for the dissemination of information normally hidden from the general public. It is noteworthy how much of the information on the Wikileaks platform relates to the US and the West, and relatively little on Russia. Possible factors that explain that characteristic include the disparity in penalties for disclosing information between the US and the West versus Russia; the greater number of journalists and other persons involved in the media, both for profit and personal reasons, in the West; and the language barriers involved in understanding Russian versus English. A final possible factor in Wikileaks greater dissemination of Western information might be an aspect of active measures undertaken by Russia. Russia is the source of the most sophisticated cyber threats to the US. There are numerous actions attributed to Russian state actors in the cyber field in the recent past (Table 1). They include a distributed denial of service attack on Estonia (2007); hacking the Ministry of Defense in the country of Georgia during a military conflict (2008); attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure (2015); and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (2016). Chancellor Angela Merkel recently publicly named and shamed Russia for a cyber-attack on Germany circa 2015 (Appendix). Table 1Russian State Actors Responsible For Many Of This Year’s Cyber Attacks Senior US officials have cited Russia as the source of the most sophisticated cyber threats to the US, both for espionage and state sponsored attacks against US national security capabilities such as energy, transportation, and telecommunications infrastructure; as well as for criminal activity such as ransom ware and identity theft. Russian use of cyber, both state sponsored and sponsoring criminal actors, has been the top threat to the US in each of the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessments for 2017, 2018, and 2019 (Chart 4). Although the 2020 annual threat assessment was not made public in Congressional testimony, there’s little reason to suspect that Russian use of cyber would not continue to be cited as the top threat. Chart 4Russian Use Of Cyber Is A Top Threat To The US Other nation states have state sponsored cyber capabilities which are of national security concern to the US, including China, Iran, and North Korea. These nation states are called out in the US intelligence community Annual Threat Assessments. Each of these nation states has been identified as committing intelligence and economic cyber attacks against the US and other Western nations. The recent speech by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation designates China as the top threat. Given the nature of the internet, the pathway of a cyber attack will likely bounce around multiple countries before reaching its intended target. As the Director notes, forensic identification of the source of a cyber attack takes time and expertise. However, there is a clear record of specifically identifying the state sponsored entity that commits attacks on US or Western government information technology and infrastructure. More likely than confusing one state sponsored cyber actor from one country to another would be the potential blending of criminal elements across national boundaries. In this case, cyber criminal elements with Russian backgrounds or connections are clearly the most capable. The stages of cyber conflict include reconnaissance, penetration, mapping, exfiltration, and operations. The US National Security Agency has an extensive technical cyber threat framework which goes into much detail. Cyber security professionals note the ongoing actions in cyber space and the attempts by elements suspected to be linked to Russia to gain and maintain access to US networks for potential military operations, or to exfiltrate data for criminal or other purposes. Part of the frustration of cyber security experts is the lack of transparency and timely reporting of those affected by malign cyber activities. Although some cyber activities may go on for multiple months, the exfiltration of data, or the emplacement of malware may only take a few seconds. Many networks lack the ability to detect penetration and mapping. Companies with large resources devoted to cyber security may have that investment negated if they have affiliations with other companies with lax cyber security which can allow for hostile intrusions into the connected network. Unfortunately, public and open attribution for cyber attacks has lagged. As an example, although the attack on the Democratic National Committee email servers was noted in 2016, it was not until 2018 that specific Russian individuals were charged with the crime. Factors that cause lags in public and open attribution include the difficulty of tracing specific computer code through cyberspace; the disjointed nature of the internet; the lack of an easy and accepted mechanism for involvement of US intelligence agencies in providing assistance to private sector parties; and the reticence of individuals and organizations negatively affected by cyber attacks to publicly disclose their injuries. Chart 5Unlike Nuclear Doctrine, Cyber Lacks A Framework To Control Escalation Doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons developed over a period of years in the US and the West and in the Soviet bloc. The Soviets developed a coherent doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that was understandable to the West. Arms control agreements between nuclear powers established mechanisms for controlling escalation of tensions (Chart 5). The Soviet doctrine was adopted by the Russians after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia and Western nations continue to have a common understanding of the role of nuclear weapons in military affairs that allows for discussion of escalation and de-escalation. In contrast to nuclear doctrine, there is no commonly accepted framework for cyber warfare between Russia and other nations that provides understandable signals for escalation, de-escalation, appropriate targets, or goals. This is reflected in the Russian information security doctrine of 2016 which notes “The absence of international legal norms regulating inter-State relations in the information space…” The US Director of National Intelligence also noted this lack of agreement in his annual threat assessment testimony of 2017. The rapid growth of the internet, and reliance on it by government and private sectors reflects its founding as an open system, vulnerable to negative actors and actions (Chart 6). The intermingling of hardware and software, the information infrastructure used both by individuals and states, by the private sector and by government, makes separating doctrine and practice for cyberwar from legitimate use very difficult. Since non-cyber military capabilities, both conventional, and nuclear, rely upon the use of commercial information technology infrastructure, the use of offensive cyber is subject to the problem of blowback. As the NotPetya incident of 2018 indicated, damage from malware installed on one computer can rapidly spread across networks, industries, and international boundaries. The code for StuxNet and the code released by the more recent hack of CIA cyber tools have been noted in other cases of cyber attacks. Chart 6Rapid Growth Of Internet Raises Vulnerability To Harmful Actions The view of the international cyber environment by Russia is very similar to views in the US and the West. The Russian national security doctrine of 2015 notes “... An entire spectrum of political, financial-economic, and informational instruments have been set in motion in the struggle for influence in the international arena. Increasingly active use is being made of special services' potential … The intensifying confrontation in the global information arena caused by some countries' aspiration to utilize informational and communication technologies to achieve their geopolitical objectives, including by manipulating public awareness and falsifying history, is exerting an increasing influence on the nature of the international situation.” Although much of the Russian information security doctrine of 2016 is concerned with noting threats to Russia’s information space, what might be called counterintelligence in other documents, there are key comments that note the suitability of using attacks in the information space as an effective means of projecting Russian power, such as “… improving information support activities to implement the State policy of the Russian Federation …” As per usual Soviet and Russian state doctrinal documents, the 2016 doctrine notes all the negative activity of other actors in this field. This practice is consistent with historical Soviet and Russian open press documents which ascribe to other states the activities in which Russia engages or plans to engage. Cyber-crime is rising despite deterrence. Unlike other forms of national security alliances, such as for intelligence, there is little public literature on cyber alliances, especially for offensive action. For example, the US and Israel have never publicly acknowledged a government alliance to emplace the StuxNet virus into the Iranian nuclear development program. Should there be offensive cyber alliances in the West, it is likely they fall along traditional intelligence and defense lines. There is no public reporting on any sort of offensive cyber alliances that involve Russia. There are public efforts at common standards for information technology security, but these efforts are foundering on citizen and government concerns over privacy, as well as commercial proprietary advantage. It is an open question as to whether cyber alliances among friendly nations would deter would-be cyber attackers or hackers. Certainly the growth of complaints to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center would indicate that statements of deterrence and even prosecutions are failing to reduce cyber attacks (Chart 7). Chart 7Cyber Attacks Are On The Rise Both the US national intelligence community and private sector cybersecurity companies agree Russia has a sophisticated state sponsored effort to acquire intelligence via hacking and insert favorable themes into cyberspace via the use of social media. There is also agreement that Russia state elements have a close relationship with criminal elements which can provide a plausibly deniable means of engaging in cyber warfare activities favorable to Russia, as well as engaging in activities for illegal economic advantage. For example, see this quote from the CYBEREASON Intel team: “The crossing of official state sponsored hacking with cybercriminal outfits has created a specter of Russian state hacking that is far larger than their actual program. This hybridization of tools, actors, and missions has created one of the most potent and ill-defined advanced threats that the cybersecurity community faces. It has also created the most technically advanced and bold cybercriminal community in the world. When, as a criminal, your patronage is the internal security service that is charged with tracking and arresting cybercrime, your only concern becomes staying within their defined bounds of acceptable risk and not what global norms, laws, or even domestic Russian law states.” The US Department of Justice in June 2020 noted a Russian national was sentenced to prison for malicious cyber activities. Key points of his illegal activity were the operation of websites open only to Russian speakers, and the vetting or recommendation of other criminals before allowing entry to the websites. One analysis of this situation notes the ties to Russian state security organs and personnel which likely held up the Russian national’s extradition for trial in the US. Government leaders in the US have noted the potential for major cyber attacks in the US affecting physical infrastructure and causing significant economic and social damage, including further attacks on the political election process. However, they have been reticent to state any explicit sort of retaliation. The US Cyber Command notes it is actively combatting hostile cyber actors. Therefore, the question remains open as to what level of cyber attacks would be considered serious enough to be treated as an act of war by the US. There has been public speculation of both Russian and Chinese implants of malware into the US information technology infrastructure that might be activated in the case of open hostilities. US efforts to conduct military operations against Russia or China would likely be countered by Russian or Chinese cyber operations before any physical military operations could be initiated, especially since US based forces would have to transit oceans, taking many days, when cyber operations could happen in seconds. Russian “gray zone” tactics, that is, actions short of large scale conventional war, many of which involve cyber attacks, active measures, and maskirovka, are the subject of much Department of Defense planning and action. To combat such gray zone activity analysis from the RAND Corporation notes the need for a spectrum of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic actions, which would involve commercial partners and allied nations. The difficulty of coordinating such counter action is one reason the Russians continue their gray zone efforts. Russia’s unique characteristics, some of which are weaknesses compared to the US and the West, are indicative of why Russia engages in state sponsored as well as criminal cyber activities (Chart 8). Russian scientific history, the intertwining of state and criminal elements, and continent-spanning location are factors which promote the use of cyber. Russia’s economic position vis-à-vis the US, Russia’s relative lack of military power projection capability beyond the states on its borders (the Near Abroad), except for its nuclear forces, and Russia’s declining demographic situation are negative factors which push Russia to use cyber as a cost effective means of advancing national security and economic policy (Chart 9). Despite US and Western imposed sanctions on Russia for past misdeeds, none of the factors noted above will be changed in the near future. Therefore, those factors, and published Russian doctrine should indicate to Western governments and businesses that Russia will continue to use cyber as a means to advance Russian national security objectives, as well as a means to siphoning off wealth from the West via criminal activities. Chart 8Russia's Relative Weakness Drives Engagement In Cyber Activities Chart 9Deteriorating Demographics Also Drive Russia’s Cyber Activities US preparedness for Russian cyber activity in the upcoming months should be greater given several factors. First, there is clearly awareness of a Russian cyber threat to US interests across government and in the private sector. Second, the US has established new organizations, shifted resources of money and people, and had practice defending against cyber attacks since the 2016 US election cycle. However, the US information technology infrastructure is vast and porous, making it hard to protect against every threat. Russian cyber actors, both state sponsored and criminal, are smart and persistent. Investment Takeaways Cyber security companies offer a way for investors to capitalize on major themes arising from the COVID-19 crisis and its aftermath. These themes include not only changes in worker behavior, e-commerce, corporate culture, and network security, but also our major geopolitical themes like nationalism and the retreat from globalization. Reports as we go to press that Russian hackers have targeted vaccine developers in the US, UK, and Canada underscore the point. The trend is not limited to Russia or COVID-19 vaccines. It is all too apparent from the actions of Russia and China – as well as the increasing efforts by the US and its allies to patrol their own cyber realms, IT systems, and ideological discourse – that governments view the Internet as a frontier to be conquered and fortified rather than as a free space of human exchange in which globalization can operate unfettered (Map 1). Map 1Governments View The Internet As A Frontier To Be Conquered Formal measures of country risk are inadequate but provide some perspective as to which countries and companies are least prepared. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations body charged with monitoring information technology and communications. It ranks countries according to their commitment to cyber security and their exposure to cyber security risks (Chart 10). Chart 10Countries Have An Imperative To Strengthen Cyber Security We take these rankings with a grain of salt knowing that advanced countries like the US and UK rank near the top of the list, and yet are the prime targets of hackers and thus face enormous cyber security risks. What is clear is that no country is safe and every country has an economic and national security imperative to strengthen its cyber security. These indexes also suggest that several European countries are less well prepared than one would think and that emerging markets are grossly underprepared. China, Russia and Iran should not be thought of only as aggressors – they will increasingly become targets as the West seeks to counteract them. As Russia expands operations it becomes a target of cyber counter-strikes as well as economic sanctions. And as China accelerates its drive to become a high tech giant, it encourages economic decoupling from the West and retaliation for its use of cyber-theft and state-based hacking. China, Russia, and Iran will also increasingly become victims of cyber attacks. There are two main cyber security equity indexes – the NASDAQ CTA Cybersecurity Index (NQCYBR) and NASDAQ ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR). These indexes trade in line with each other and have rallied extensively since the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 11). Investors are aware that the surge in working from home and companies conducting operations off-site, as well as geopolitical great power struggle, have created extensive new vulnerabilities and capex requirements. Chart 11Cyber Security Stocks Have Benefited From COVID-19 ... On April 24, we recommended that investors go long the ISE index relative to the S&P 500 information technology sector. We are also going long the ISE index relative to the NASDAQ on a strategic horizon. Chart 12... But Not So Much Relative To Broad Tech Sector Tech has been the prime beneficiary of the COVID-19 crisis while the necessary corollary of the tech companies’ continued success is the need for security of their information, property, and customers (Chart 12). We also favor the ISE index because it has a slightly heavier cyclical component due to the fact that 13% of its companies are in the industrial sector, compared to 10% for the CTA index. The industrial side should benefit more as economies reopen and recover. These indexes are tracked by two ETFs. The First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) tracks the NASDAQ CTA index with an emphasis on larger companies, while the ETFMG Prime Cyber Security ETF (HACK) tracks the ISE index, companies with market capitalization lower than $250 million, and a slightly lower exposure to the communications sector as opposed to IT and software. The HACK ETF has lagged the CIBR this year so far and offers an opportunity for investors to invest in data protection and up-and-coming firms. Over the past ten years cyber security has proven to be a volatile investment space with rapidly increasing competition for market share. But the secular tailwinds are powerful and a diversified exposure to the sector will be rewarding for investors positioning for the post-COVID-19 world. Elmo Wright Consulting Editor Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix TableMajor Cyber-Attacks Over The Past Decade   Footnotes Coats, Dan. “Statement For The Record Worldwide Threat Assessment Of The Us Intelligence Community,” May 23, 2017. Coats, Dan. “Statement For The Record Worldwide Threat Assessment Of The Us Intelligence Community,” March 6, 2018. Coats, Dan. “Annual Threat Assessment Opening Statement,” January 29, 2019. CyberReason Intel Team, “Russia And Nation-State Hacking Tactics: A Report From Cybereason Intelligence Group,” cybereason.com, June 5, 2017. Department of Justice, “Russian National Sentenced To Prison For Operating Websites Devoted To Fraud And Malicious Cyber Activities”, June 26, 2020. Department of Justice, “U.S. Charges Russian FSB Officers And Their Criminal Conspirators For Hacking Yahoo And Millions Of Email Accounts, Fsb Officers Protected, Directed, Facilitated And Paid Criminal Hackers”, March 15, 2017. Gerasimov, Vasily. “The Value Of Science In Prediction,” Military Industrial Courier, Feb 27, 2013. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Internet Crime Complaint Center Marks 20 Years From Early Frauds to Sophisticated Schemes, IC3 Has Tracked the Evolution of Online Crime,” May 8, 2020. Fedorov, Yuriy Ye. “Arms Control In The Information Age” Symposium “Emerging Challenges In The Information Age,” 23 January 2002, Arlington, Virginia. Galeotti, Mark. “The ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’ And Russian Non-Linear War,” In Moscow’s Shadows, July 6, 2014. Greenberg, Andy. “The Untold Story Of Notpetya, The Most Devastating Cyberattack In History,” Wired Magazine, August 22, 2018. Krebs, Brian. “Why Were the Russians So Set Against This Hacker Being Extradited?,” Krebs on Security, Nov 18, 2019. Lusthaus, Jonathan. “Cybercrime in Southeast Asia Combating a global threat locally,” May 20, 2020. Mattis, James. Department of Defense, “Summary Of The 2018 National Defense Strategy Of The United States Of America”. Meakins, Joss. “Living in (Digital) Denial: Russia’s Approach To Cyber Deterrence,” Russia Matters, July 2018. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. “Doctrine Of Information Security Of The Russian Federation,” Dec 5, 2016. Nakasone, Paul. “Cybercom Commander Briefs Reporters At White House,” Department of Defense video briefing, Aug 2, 2018. National Security Agency, “NSA/CSS Technical Cyber Threat Framework V2”, a report from: Cybersecurity Operations The Cybersecurity Products And Sharing Division, 29 November 2018. Pettijohn and Wasser. “Competing In The Gray Zone,” RAND Corporation, 2019. Putin, Vladimir. “Strategy of National Security of the Russian Federation,” Office of the President of the Russian Federation, Dec 31, 2015. Russian National Security Strategy 31 Dec 2015, Russia Matters. Snegovaya, Maria. “Putin’s Information Warfare In Ukraine: Soviet Origins Of Russia's Hybrid Warfare,” Institute for the Study of War, Sep 22, 2015. Tsygichko, V. N. “About Categories of “Correlation Of Forces” for Potential Military Conflicts in the New Era,” Symposium “Emerging Challenges In The Information Age,” 23 January 2002, Arlington, Virginia. Wiener, Norbert, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, (1948).

Special Report

Dear Client, Next Monday, July 20, we will be hosting our quarterly webcast, one at 10am EST for our US and EMEA clients and one at 9pm for our Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand clients; our regular weekly publication will resume on Monday July 27, 2020. Kind Regards, Anastasios Highlights A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. A Biden presidency would lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. Democrats would remove the Senate filibuster. Yet the macro agenda is reflationary. A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps. While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Feature Online political betting markets are still not fully pricing our “Blue Wave” scenario for the US election this year. The odds are closer to 50%-55% than 35%. Hence the equity market, especially the NASDAQ, is complacent about rising political risks to US equity sectors (Chart 1). The immediate risk to the rally is not politics but the pandemic, namely the COVID-19 resurgence in the United States, which is causing governors of major states like Texas, California, and Florida to slow down the economic reopening. The US’s failure to limit the spread of the virus has not yet led to a spike in deaths in aggregate, but it is leading to a spike in major states like Texas and Florida (Chart 2). Deaths are ultimately what matter to politicians and financial markets, since governments will not shut down all of society for less-than-lethal ailments. Fear will weigh on consumer and business confidence, including fear of a deadly second wave this winter. Near-term risks to the equity rally are elevated. Chart 1Blue Wave Expected, Equities Unconcerned Chart 2COVID-19 Outbreak Still A Risk Beyond this risk, the driver of the cyclical rally is the gargantuan monetary and fiscal stimulus – and more is on the way. President Trump wants another $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, while House Democrats already passed a $3 trillion package to demonstrate their election platform that government should take a greater role in American life. Senate Republicans (and reportedly Vice President Mike Pence) want a smaller $1 trillion bill but will capitulate in the face of a growing outbreak and any financial turmoil. Congress is highly likely to pass a new relief bill before going on recess on August 10. If COVID-19 causes another swoon in financial markets and the economy, then this congressional timeline will accelerate. America’s total fiscal stimulus for 2020 is rapidly approaching 20% of GDP, or 7% of global GDP (Chart 3). Thus it is understandable that the market has not reacted negatively to an impending blue wave election. Bipartisan reflation is overwhelming the Democratic Party’s market-negative agenda of re-regulation, tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, energy curbs, price caps, and anti-trust probes. Moreover the Democrats’ agenda also includes social and infrastructure spending, cheap immigrant labor, and less hawkish trade policy ex-China, which are all reflationary. Chart 3US Stimulus Greater Than Global – And Rising In short, over the next year, the US is not lurching from massive stimulus to a mid-term election that imposes budget controls and “austerity,” as occurred in 2010, but rather from massive stimulus to a likely Democratic sweep that will be fiscally profligate (Charts 4A & 4B). After all, Democrats are openly flirting with modern monetary theory. Chart 4ADeficits Would Soar Under Democrats Chart 4BDemocrats Would Be Ultra-Dovish On Fiscal Debt monetization is the big change, regardless of the election, which makes investors cyclically bullish. China is also bound to provide massive fiscal-and-credit stimulus because its first recession since the 1970s is threatening the Communist Party’s source of legitimacy (Chart 5). The European Union is uniting under a banner of joint debt issuance to fend off deflation. Bottom Line: Near-term risks to the exuberant post-lockdown rally abound, but the cyclical view remains constructive due to the ultimate policymaker stimulus put. Chart 5China Loosens Credit And Fiscal Taps Pre-Election Volatility And Post-Election Equity Returns Volatility normally rises ahead of US elections and it could linger in the aftermath given extreme polarization and the risk of vote recounts, contested results, Supreme Court interventions, and refusals by either candidate to concede. This is a concern in the short run but not the long run. US equities will grind higher over the long run regardless of the election outcome. Stocks normally rise by 10% in the 12 months after a presidential election that yields single-party control, though the upside is smaller and the initial downside is bigger than is the case with a gridlocked government (Chart 6, top panel). In cases of gridlock – which is virtually assured if Trump wins – the equity pullback after the election is just as deep but tends to be later in coming. On average stocks rise by the same amount after 12 months in either case (Chart 6, bottom panel). Thus political risks are primarily relevant in their regional or sectoral effects, though investors should take note that a Democratic sweep probably limits next year’s upside. Chart 6Equities Have Less Upside Under Democratic Sweep There are two likely scenarios. The first is the risk that President Trump makes a historic comeback and wins re-election, with Republicans retaining the Senate. Subjectively we put Trump’s odds at 35% though our quantitative model suggests they could be as high as 44%. The second scenario is our base case that the Democratic Party wins the Senate as well as the White House. In this scenario, the Democrats will prove more left-wing and anti-corporate than the market currently expects. Bottom Line: A Democratic sweep would not prevent the stock market from grinding higher over the 12 months after the election. With this year’s massive stimulus, this cyclical view is reinforced. However, history shows that a clean sweep limits the market’s upside risk. And full Democratic rule entails major political risks that have a regional and sectoral character. Biden And The Blue Wave Our expectation of a blue sweep is not based only in polling – which is uniformly disastrous for Trump as we go to press – but in the surge in unemployment. The basis for investors to view Biden as a risk-on candidate is driven by the macro and market views outlined above, not political fundamentals. From the political point of view, Biden may prefer to govern as a centrist, but victory in the Senate would remove constraints on his party’s domestic agenda. He would move to the left. Indeed, a Democratic sweep would mark a paradigm shift in domestic economic policy that is negative for corporate profits and the capital share of national income. It would unleash pent-up ideological and generational forces in favor of redistributing wealth and restructuring the economy. Progressivism would have the tendency to overshoot and create negative surprises for investors (Chart 7). Unlike 2008-10, when Republicans were last out of power, Republicans this time would be divided over Trump and populism and would be unlikely to recuperate as quickly. Chart 7Democratic Party Would Focus On Inequality Biden would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration, promoting Big Government while restricting Big Business and re-regulating Wall Street banks. A sharp leftward turn would be in keeping with the trend in the Democratic Party and the generational shift in the electorate (Chart 8). Only if Republicans pull off a surprise and keep the Senate despite losing the White House (~10% chance) would Biden be forced to govern as a true centrist. Even then Biden would oversee a large re-regulation of the economy through executive powers alone (Chart 9).1 Chart 8Generational Shift Favors Wealth Redistribution Chart 9Biden Would Re-Regulate The Economy Additional reasons to expect a left-wing policy overshoot:  · Presidents tend to succeed in passing their initial legislative priority after an election. This is incontrovertible when they control both chambers of Congress, as Obama showed in 2009 and Trump showed in 2017.2 · Biden will have huge tailwinds. He will not be launching a new agenda so much as restoring a policy status quo in most cases (laws and agreements that Trump either revoked or refused to enforce). He will also benefit from majority popular opinion and support of the bureaucracy and media (Chart 10). · Biden and the Democrats will be even more determined not to “let a good crisis go to waste” after having witnessed the Obama administration’s frustrations the last time the party took over in a sweeping victory on the back of a national disaster. · Democrats will not hesitate to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their first priority legislation with a mere 51 votes in the Senate. This is how Trump passed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). This is also how progressive stalwart Howard Dean believed the party should have passed a public health insurance option in 2009. This means Biden will be capable of increasing the corporate tax rate higher than 28%, pass a minimum 15% tax rate for corporations, and raise the capital gains tax and individual taxes. Chart 10Popular Opinion Would Boost Biden Administration · Contrary to consensus, Democrats are likely to remove the filibuster in the Senate – enabling bills to pass with a simple majority rather than the 60/100 votes required to close off debate. Yes, some moderate Democrats have already spoken out against “going nuclear” and changing such a critical norm. But populism and polarization are the driving forces in US politics today and we would advise investors not to bet heavily on “norms.” If Republicans prove capable of obstructing major legislative initiatives in the Senate, then Democrats, remembering obstructionism in the Obama years, will go nuclear to enact their progressive agenda. This would mark a massive increase in uncertainty for investors on everything from taxes to wages to anti-trust laws. Bottom Line: Whether Biden governs as a centrist or a left-winger will depend not on Biden’s preferences but on whether Republicans have a majority in the Senate to constrain the Democratic Party. But the party that wins the White House is highly likely to win the Senate in this cycle. Investors should expect Biden to govern from the left. If Republicans are obstructionist, Democrats will remove the filibuster. Biden’s Legislative Priorities First, Biden would seek to restore and expand the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The party has fixated on health care since 1992. Investors are complacent about Biden’s plan. A public health insurance option will be a major new progressive initiative that would undercut private health insurers over time (Chart 11). The bill will also impose caps on pharmaceutical prices and allow imports, reducing Big Pharma’s pricing power (Chart 12). Chart 11Health Insurers Will Be Undercut By Biden Public Option Investors are also complacent about taxation. Biden will pay for health care reform by partially repealing the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. He has proposed raising the corporate rate from 21% to 28%, but this could go higher and still fall well below the 35% that Trump inherited in 2017. Chart 12Big Pharma Faces Price Caps A rate above 28% would be a major negative surprise for financial markets and yet it is an obvious way for Democrats to raise much-needed revenue. Biden also intends to pass a 15% minimum tax that would hit large firms adept at paying lower effective taxes. Capital gains taxes and individual income taxes for high-earners could also rise by more than is expected (Table A1 in Appendix). Second, Biden will seek to offset the negative growth impact of falling stimulus and rising taxes by enacting large “Great Society” fiscal spending on infrastructure, the Green New Deal, education, and other non-defense discretionary spending (Table A2 in Appendix). Even defense spending will be largely kept flat due to rising geopolitical conflicts. As mentioned, this part of the agenda is reflationary, especially relative to a scenario in which fiscal largesse is normalized more rapidly by a Republican Senate. The redistribution effects would be marginally positive for household consumption, but marginally negative for corporate investment. On immigration, Biden will follow the Obama administration in pursuing a path to citizenship for “Dreamers” (illegal immigrants brought to the US as children) and taking executive action to allow more high-skilled workers and refugees, defer deportation of children and families, and reduce border security enforcement. There will be some constraints due to the risk of provoking another populist backlash, but comprehensive immigration reform is possible. This would be positive for potential GDP, agriculture, construction, and housing demand on the margin (Chart 13). On trade, Biden will have to steal some thunder back from Trump if he is to win the election and maintain the Rust Belt. He will concentrate his protectionist policy on China, while removing virtually all risk of a trade war with Europe, Mexico, or other partners. China may get a reprieve at first but Biden will ultimately prove hawkish (Chart 14). Investors are underrating the use of import duties to punish countries like China for carbon-intensive production. Chart 13Biden Lax Immigration Policy A Boon For Housing Biden will take a multilateral approach and restore international agreements that Trump revoked. Joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is not a massive change given that even Trump agreed to trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and Japan. But it is marginally positive for the US-friendly trade bloc while contributing to the US economic decoupling from China (Chart 15). Chart 14Watch Out, Biden Won’t Be Too Dovish On China In Office! Chart 15Biden Eliminates Risk Of Global Trade War Ex-China On foreign policy, Biden will face the ongoing US-China cold war. He will also seek to restore the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The removal of Iran risk is positive for European companies with a beachhead in Iran as well as for the euro more generally, since regional instability ultimately threatens the EMU with waves of refugees (Chart 16). Chart 16Biden Removes Tail-Risk Of Iran War Bottom Line: A Biden presidency will lead to negative surprises on regulation, taxes, health care, trade, energy, and tech. But Biden’s agenda is mostly reflationary in other respects. Blue Wave Equity Market And Sector Implications The most profound implication of a blue sweep of government is an SPX profit margin squeeze that will weigh heavily on EPS. Importantly, there are two clear avenues through which net profit margins will suffer: An increase in the corporate tax rate. A rise in labor’s share of national income. As a reminder these are two of the four primary profit margin drivers we discussed in detail in our “Peak Margins” Special Report last October (Chart 17). The other two are selling price inflation and generationally low interest rates. Odds are high that all four drivers are slated to dent S&P 500 margins. With regard to corporate tax rates, the mirror image of the one time fillip that SPX EPS enjoyed in 2018, owing to Trump’s 1.2% increase in fiscal thrust that year, is a drop in S&P 500 profits given that a Biden presidency will boost the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% or higher. In early-December 2017 we posited that SPX EPS would jump 14% on the back of that fiscal easing package, which is very close to what actually materialized. Chart 18 compares S&P 500 EBIT growth with S&P 500 net profit growth. The 2018 delta hit a zenith of 16%. Chart 17Profit Margin Drivers Chart 18Spot Trump's Tax Cut Assuming a blue wave, the opposite would happen, i.e. net profit growth would suffer an 11% one-time contraction according to our calculations (Table 1). The bill would pass in 2021 and take effect in 2022. Importantly, Table 1 reveals that the hardest hit GICS1 sectors are real estate, tech and health care, and the ones faring the best are consumer staples, industrials and energy. Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table The second way SPX margins undergo a squeeze is via climbing labor costs. Labor costs have been increasing since 2008/09 (labor’s share of income shown inverted, second panel, Chart 17), coinciding with the apex of globalization (third panel, Chart 17). A Biden presidency would also more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour for all workers over six years. These policies would take a bite out of corporate profits by knocking down profit margins. While S&P 500 EPS maybe recover back to trend near $162 in 2021, they would gap lower in 2022 which is not at all priced in sell side analysts’ EPS expectations of $186. A blue sweep would produce some other US equity sore spots. Small caps would suffer disproportionately compared with their large cap brethren as would banks, health care, and parts of tech (see below). Chart 19 shows that according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey, small and medium enterprise (SME) owners grew extremely concerned about higher taxes and red tape by the end of the Obama presidency. When President Trump got elected, he cut back these fears drastically. Today concerns about taxes and regulation are probing multi-decade lows, which implies that SMEs are not prepared for the regulatory shock that a Biden administration has in store for them (Chart 19). These small business concerns will resurface with a vengeance if there is a blue sweep this November. The implication is that at the margin small caps would underperform their large cap peers, especially given that small cap indexes sport 1.5x the financials sector market cap weight compared with the SPX (Table 2). Bottom Line: A blue trifecta would dent S&P 500 profit margins and take a bite out of EPS in 2022. Small caps will also likely suffer at the margin versus mega caps as they will have to vehemently contend with rising red tape and taxes. Chart 19Re-Regulation Will Weigh On Small Business Sentiment Historical Parallel Of Blue Sweeps And Select Sector Performance A more detailed discussion on banks, health care, and technology sectors is in order, as they are the likeliest candidates to be at the forefront of Biden’s regulatory, wage, and tax policies. There are two recent episodes when US presidential elections resulted in a blue sweep, namely in 1992 and 2008. Both times, Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and the White House but eventually surrendered this trifecta two years later during the 1994 and 2010 mid-term elections.3 Charts 20 & 21highlight the S&P banks, S&P health care, and S&P IT sectors’ performance during the last two blue waves. In both cases, banks remained flat to down; health care equities went down sharply; while tech stocks had mixed results. Tech took off in 1993-1994, but remained flat in 2009-2010 (excluding the recovery rally off the recessionary trough). Armed with this general roadmap, we now dive deeper into each of these three sectors for a more detailed discussion. Chart 20Not Everyone Is A Fan... Chart 21...Of The Blue Sweeps Banks Face High Risk Of Re-Regulation There is little doubt that Biden will re-regulate Wall Street, especially after the recent COVID-19-related watering down of the Dodd-Frank Act. Big banks are popular scapegoats. In fact, Biden already moved to the left on bankruptcy reform by adopting Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s progressive proposal after a long drawn-out battle over this issue between them. Both of the earlier blue wave elections proved challenging for the banking sector. In addition, banks are already under pressure from the recent Fed stress tests. There are high odds that a number of banks will further cut or suspend dividend payments in coming quarters in line with the Fed’s guidance, especially if profits take a big hit, as we expect. Currently, the market is underestimating the Biden threat to the banking sector as a substantial divergence has materialized between the banks’ relative performance and the blue sweep probability series (Chart 22). As the election draws closer, a repricing in the banking sector is likely looming. Chart 22Mind The Divergence Health Care Stands To Lose The Most From A Blue Sweep The health care sector was the only sector we analyzed that clearly underperformed in both 1992 and 2008 blue waves. Health care reform will be Biden’s top priority, as outlined above. Biden will also go after pharma manufacturers. As a reminder, while Medicare has substantial bargaining power with hospitals and other drug providers due to the number of Americans enrolled, it has no leverage when it comes to pharma manufacturers leaving them free to set prices at will. Biden intends to end such practices, enabling Medicare to bargain for prices. He also wants to link the rise in drug prices to inflation and allow foreign imports. These actions will put a cap on pharma manufacturers’ pricing power. Importantly, the S&P pharmaceuticals index is the dominant player within the S&P health care universe comprising 29% of the entire health care sector. A direct hit to pharma earnings will be a hard pill to swallow, especially if the S&P biotech index (comprising 17% of the S&P health care market cap weight) is included that are similar to Big Pharma as they manufacture blockbuster drugs. In fact, as the American electorate is getting more interested in Biden’s campaign, the market is pricing in a tougher environment for US pharmaceuticals (Chart 23). Markets can rely on the fact that Biden has rejected a single-payer government health system (“Medicare For All”) – this policy position helped him beat Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. However, he is proposing a public insurance option, which will have the ability to absorb losses indefinitely and will have the insurance regulators at its side. Thus private health insurers will be undercut. Chart 23Beginning Of The End A public option is also seen even by promoters as a “Trojan Horse” that will increase the odds that Democrats will move toward a single-payer system in 2024 or thereafter. Thus the risk/reward ratio skews further to the downside for the S&P health care sector. Will Technology Escape Unscathed? In the wake of COVID-19, and facing geopolitical competition in cyber space, a Biden administration will also seek a much stronger regulatory handle on Big Tech. Social media companies are already buttering up to the Democrats to ensure that Biden maintains the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley and does not pursue extensive anti-monopoly and anti-trust investigations. Yet the tech sector cannot avoid heightened scrutiny due to its conspicuous gains in the midst of an economic bust – this is what normally prompts anti-trust actions (Chart 24). The Democrats will pursue probes into data privacy and excessive market concentration and will demand stricter patrolling of the ideological space in battles that will be adjudicated by the courts. Chart 24How Much Is Too Much? Should the monopolistic tech stocks – including FB and GOOGL, which are now classified under the GICS1 S&P communication services index – be forced to sell their crown jewel assets, then a hit to earnings is a given. The S&P technology sector plus FB & GOOGL commands more than one third on the SPX index, meaning that a dent in tech earnings will have negative ramifications for the entire market. In previous research, we drew a parallel with the chemicals industry and the regulatory shock that came in 1976 when the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was introduced.The bill pushed chemical stocks off the cliff as investments in the index became dead money for a whole decade – until 1985 when chemicals finally troughed (Chart 25) In the near future, a similar shock might come as a result of privacy-related regulation. A series of anti-monopoly or anti-trust probes, whether by the US or the EU, would make investors cautious about their tech exposure. While the probes may not result in a break-up, the heightened uncertainty would dampen the allure of tech stocks. The pattern of anti-trust probes in US history is that a probe first causes a selloff in the stock of the company investigated; then another selloff occurs when it is clear that a break-up is a real option under consideration; then a buying opportunity emerges either when the company is cleared or when the long dissolution process is completed. Bottom Line: While select Tech Titans are exposed to a blue sweep regulatory shock, the broad technology sector will prove to be more resilient especially compared with banks and health care equities. Chart 25Will History Rhyme?     Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten YearsTable A2Biden Would Spend $6 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years   Footnotes 1     Republicans have 13 Senate seats at risk this cycle while Democrats have only four. More conservatively, Republicans have nine at risk while Democrats have two. Opinion polling has Democrats leading in seven out of nine top races, and tied in the other two – including states like Kansas where Democrats should have zero chance. Most of these races are tight enough that they will hinge on whether the election is a referendum on Trump. If so, Democrats will likely win the net three seats they need to control the chamber. Most likely they will have a 51-49 majority if Biden wins, though a 52-48 balance is possible.   2     The Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017 but success in passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reflects the fact that political constraints are higher on taking away an entitlement than they are on giving benefits (tax cuts). 3    As noted above, however, investors today cannot be assured that Republicans will come roaring back in 2022 to impose constraints. Trump’s populism threatens to divide the party if he loses and delay its ability to regroup and recover.  

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 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 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 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 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 Chart 4Buy 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.

Special Report

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 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 Chart 2A Democratic Victory Is The New Consensus 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 … 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 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 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 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 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 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 Chart A3Including Trump’s Approval Data Improves The Model’s Robustness 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.