Global

Dear client, We are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of the year and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, July 9 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Markets will trade nervously over the coming weeks in response to the second wave of the pandemic and the looming US fiscal cliff. Nevertheless, we would “buy the dip” if global equities were to fall 5%-to-10% from current levels. While the pace of reopening will slow, there is little appetite for the sort of extreme lockdown measures that were implemented in March. The US Congress will ultimately extend fiscal support for households and firms. Around the world, both fiscal and monetary policy will remain highly accommodative, which should provide a supportive backdrop for stocks. Many institutional investors missed the rebound in stocks and are eager to get back in. High levels of “cash on the sidelines” will further buttress equities. Remain overweight stocks versus bonds on a 12-month horizon. Favor cyclical sectors over defensives and non-US stocks over their US peers. The US dollar has entered a bear market. A weaker greenback will boost commodity prices and EM assets. Global bond yields will rise modestly over the next few years. However, they will remain extremely low by historic standards. Bond yields will only surge once inflation reaches uncomfortably high levels. At that point, the equity bull market will end. Fortunately, this is unlikely to happen for at least three years. I. Macro And Markets Financial markets’ response to the pandemic has followed three distinct phases: Phase One: Hope and Denial. While equities did buckle on the news that a previously unknown coronavirus had emerged in China, they quickly recovered in the hope that the epidemic would be contained. Equities remained resilient even as the virus resurfaced in South Korea and Iran, prompting us to pen a report in February entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.”1 Phase Two: The Wile E. Coyote Moment.2 The second phase began with the outbreak in Italy. Scenes of overflowing emergency rooms prompted governments to order all non-essential workers to stay home. The resulting decline in commerce caused equities to plummet. Credit spreads widened, while funding markets began to seize up (Chart 1). Phase Three: Recovery. With memories of the 2008 global financial crisis still fresh in their minds, policymakers sprung into action. The combination of massive monetary and fiscal easing helped stabilize financial markets. Risk assets received a further boost as the number of new cases in Italy, Spain, New York City and other hotspots began to decline rapidly in April (Chart 2). The hope that lockdown measures would be relaxed continued to power stocks in May and early June. Chart 1Echos Of The Global Financial Crisis Prompted A Powerful Policy Response Echos Of The Global Financial Crisis Prompted A Powerful Policy Response Echos Of The Global Financial Crisis Prompted A Powerful Policy Response Chart 2Sharp Decline Of New COVID-19 Cases In April Allowed Equities To Recover Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Fast forward to the present and things do not seem as straightforward. Despite today’s rally, global equities are still down 4.7% from their June 8th high. The key immediate question for investors is whether the recent bout of volatility marks the end of Phase Three or just a temporary pause in a new cyclical bull market for stocks. On balance, we lean towards the latter scenario. As we discuss in greater detail below, while we do think that the next few months will be more treacherous for investors due to a resurgence in the number of Covid cases in some countries, as well as uncertainty over how the looming US fiscal cliff will be resolved, we expect global equities to be higher 12 months from now. Stocks And The Economy Pundits such as Paul Krugman often like to recite the mantra that “the stock market is not the economy.” While there is some truth to that, equities still tend to track the ups and downs of the business cycle. This can be observed simply by looking at the strong correlation between the US ISM manufacturing index and the S&P 500 (Chart 3).  Chart 3Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks As happened in 2009 and during prior downturns, stocks bottomed this year at roughly the same time as leading economic indicators such as initial unemployment insurance claims peaked (Chart 4). Chart 4Equities Bottomed This Year At Around The Same Time As Leading Economic Indicators Peaked Equities Bottomed This Year At Around The Same Time As Leading Economic Indicators Peaked Equities Bottomed This Year At Around The Same Time As Leading Economic Indicators Peaked Will the economic data continue to improve, allowing equities to move higher? In the past, recoveries following exogenous shocks have tended to be more rapid than those following recessions that arose from endogenous problems. The pandemic would seem to qualify as an exogenous shock. Temporarily furloughed workers have accounted for the vast majority of the increase in US unemployment this year (Chart 5). As lockdown measures are relaxed, the hope is that most of these workers will return to their jobs. Chart 5Temporarily Laid Off Workers Account For The Vast Majority Of The Increase In US Unemployment This Year Temporarily Laid Off Workers Account For The Vast Majority Of The Increase In US Unemployment This Year Temporarily Laid Off Workers Account For The Vast Majority Of The Increase In US Unemployment This Year Bumps In The Road Nevertheless, the recovery will be a bumpy one. In the near term, the main barrier will be the virus itself. Globally, the number of new cases has been trending higher since early May. The number of deaths has also reaccelerated (Chart 6). In the US, the epicenter of the pandemic has shifted from the Northeastern tri-state corridor to the southern states. Florida, Texas, and Arizona have been particularly hard hit. Contrary to President Trump’s claims, more testing does not explain the rise in case counts. As Chart 7 shows, the fraction of tests coming back positive has actually been trending higher in all three states. Chart 6Globally, The Number Of New Cases Has Been Trending Higher Since Early May, While The Number Of Deaths Has Moved Off Its Recent Lows Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Chart 7Fraction Of Tests Coming Back Positive Has Been Moving Higher In Certain States Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave It did not have to be this way. The evidence suggests that the widespread use of masks could have kept the virus at bay while still allowing most economic activities to resume (Chart 8). Unfortunately, the question of whether to wear a mask, like almost everything else in the US, has become another front in the culture war. Chart 8Masks On! Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Mask wearing is much more common in China and the rest of east Asia, which is one key reason why the region has suffered far fewer casualties than elsewhere. Hence, a second wave is likely to be much more muted there. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand should also remain largely unscathed going forward. Luckily, treatment options have improved over the past few months, as medical professionals have learned more about the virus. Hospitals have also built up capacity to deal with an influx of patients. Another less well recognized development is that protocols have been put in place to protect residents in long-term care facilities. In Canada, more than 80% of COVID deaths have occurred in nursing homes. All this suggests that while a second wave will weigh on global growth over the coming months, we are unlikely to see the sort of broad-based economic dislocations experienced in March. A Structural Break Even if a second wave does not turn out to be as disruptive as the first, it probably will be several years before spending in the sectors most affected by the virus returns to pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, there is a chance that some sectors may not ever fully recover. The technology to work from home was in place before the pandemic began. Many workers chose not to do so because they did not want to be the odd ones out. The pandemic may have nudged society to a new equilibrium where catching a red-eye flight to attend a business meeting becomes more the exception than the rule, while working from home is seen as perfectly acceptable (and safer) than going to the office. If that happens, there will be, among other things, less business travel going forward, as well as less demand for office space. Such a transformation could end up boosting productivity down the road by allowing companies to slash overhead costs and unnecessary expenses. However, it will impose considerable near-term dislocations, particularly for airlines, hotels, commercial real estate operators and developers, and associated lenders to these sectors. The Role Of Policy It would be unwise for policymakers to try to prevent the shift of capital and labor towards sectors of the economy where they can be more efficiently deployed. However, policy can and should smooth the transition. Chart 9Residential Construction Accounted For Less Than 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Most of the suffering during recessions comes in the form of collateral damage. For example, more than 80% of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were outside the residential real estate sector (Chart 9). One does not have to fill a half-empty swimming pool through the same pipe from which the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs will likely find new jobs in other sectors. This is where the role of monetary and fiscal policy takes center stage. Central banks moved quickly to ease monetary policy as soon as the pandemic began. Unfortunately, with rates already quite low in most countries, there was only so much that conventional monetary policy could achieve. The Federal Reserve, which had more scope to cut rates than most, brought the fed funds rate down 150 bps to a range of 0%-to-0.25%. As helpful as this action was, it fell well short of the more than five percentage points in easing that the Fed has delivered, on average, during past recessions (Chart 10). Chart 10Fed Easing Has Fallen Short This Time Around Fed Easing Has Fallen Short This Time Around Fed Easing Has Fallen Short This Time Around With conventional monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, central banks turned to unconventional tools, the most important of which were asset purchases, lending backstops, and forward guidance. These tools blurred the line between fiscal and monetary policy. To some extent, this was by design. By offering to buy government debt in unlimited quantities and at extremely low rates, central banks incentivized governments to run larger budget deficits. Even if one excludes loan guarantees, governments have eased fiscal policy by an extraordinary degree this year (Chart 11). The G7 as a whole has delivered 11.7% of GDP in fiscal stimulus, compared to 4% of GDP in 2008-10. In China, we expect the credit impulse to reach the highest level since the Global Financial Crisis, and the budget deficit to hit the highest level on record (Chart 12).  Chart 11Fiscal Stimulus Is Greater Today Than It Was During The Great Recession Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Chart 12China Has Opened The Spigots China Has Opened The Spigots China Has Opened The Spigots   Fiscal Austerity? Don’t Bet On It The recovery following the Great Recession was hampered by the decision of many governments, including the US, Germany, and Japan, to tighten fiscal policy prematurely, despite a lack of pressure from bond markets to do so. While a repeat of such an outcome cannot be excluded, we think it is quite unlikely. Politically, stimulus remains very popular (Table 1). Unlike during the housing bust, there has been little moral handwringing about bailing out households and firms that “don’t deserve it.” Thus, while the US faces a daunting fiscal cliff over the next two months – including 3% of GDP in expiring Paycheck Protection Program funding and over 1% of GDP in expanded unemployment benefits and direct payments to individuals – we expect Congress to ultimately take action to avert most of the cliff. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave This will probably involve rolling over some existing programs and supplanting others with new measures such as increased aid to state and local governments. The same pattern is likely to be repeated globally. II. Long-Term Focus: Inflation And The Fiscal Hangover The combination of large budget deficits and falling output has caused the ratio of government debt-to-GDP to explode. The IMF now expects net government debt to reach 132% of GDP in advanced economies in 2021, up from an earlier estimate of 104% made last October (Chart 13). What will happen to all that debt? The answer partly hinges on what happens to the neutral rate of interest, or more precisely, the difference between the neutral rate and the trend growth rate of the economy. The neutral rate of interest is the interest rate that is consistent with full employment and stable inflation. When policy rates are above the neutral rate, unemployment will tend to rise, and vice versa. Most estimates of the neutral rate, such as those produced by the widely used Laubach-Williams model, suggest that it is currently quite low — certainly lower than the potential growth rate of most economies (Chart 14). Theoretically, when GDP growth exceeds the interest rate the government pays on its borrowings, the debt-to-GDP ratios will eventually converge to a stable level, even if the government keeps running a huge budget deficit.3 Chart 13Ratio Of Government Debt-To-GDP Is Exploding Higher On The Back Of Large Budget Deficits And Falling Output Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Ratio Of Government Debt-To-GDP Is Exploding Higher On The Back Of Large Budget Deficits And Falling Output Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Ratio Of Government Debt-To-GDP Is Exploding Higher On The Back Of Large Budget Deficits And Falling Output Chart 14The Neutral Rate Is Lower Than The Potential Growth Rate In Most Economies Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave   The catch is that this “stable” level of the debt-to-GDP ratio could turn out to be very high. This would leave the government extremely vulnerable to any future change in interest rates. Specifically, if at some point the neutral rate were to rise above the trend growth rate of the economy – and the central bank were to align policy rates with the new higher neutral rate – the government’s borrowing costs would soar. The government would then need to cut spending and/or increase in taxes to make room for additional interest payments.4  The Inflation Solution What if highly indebted governments refuse to tighten fiscal policy? At that point, they would either have to: 1) allow debt levels to spiral out of control; 2) default on the debt; or 3) lean on their central banks to keep rates low. The first two options are unlikely to be politically feasible, implying that the third one would be chosen. By definition, the third option would entail keeping policy rates below their neutral level, or in other words, keeping monetary policy more stimulative than is necessary to maintain full employment and stable inflation. Eventually, this would result in rising inflation. In theory, the increase in inflation can be temporary and limited. Rising consumer prices will lift nominal GDP, causing the ratio of debt-to-GDP to decline. Once the ratio shrinks by enough, central banks could raise interest rates to a suitably high level in order to bring inflation back down. Unfortunately, in practice, the whole process of driving inflation up in order to erode the real value of a government’s bond obligations could be quite destabilizing. This would be especially the case if, as is likely, a period of high inflation leads to a significant repricing of inflation expectations. Long-Term Inflation Risk Is Underpriced Chart 15Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Very Depressed Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Investors are not too worried that inflation will accelerate anytime soon. The CPI swap market expects inflation to remain subdued for decades to come (Chart 15). This could turn out to be an erroneous assumption. While central banks do not want inflation to get out of hand, they would be happy for it to increase from current levels. After all, they have been obsessing about the zero-lower bound constraint for the better part of two decades. If inflation is, say, 4% going into a downturn, central banks could cut nominal rates to zero, taking real rates to -4%. That would be quite stimulative. Such a deeply negative real rate would not be achievable if inflation were running at 1% going into a downturn.  As noted above, heavily indebted governments would also prefer higher inflation to higher interest rates. The former would erode the real value of debt, while the latter would require that tax dollars be diverted from social program to bondholders. The Neutral Rate May Rise The catch is that for inflation to rise, the neutral rate has to increase well above current policy rates. Will that happen? Our guess is that such an outcome is more likely than most investors believe. For one thing the neutral rate itself depends on the stance of fiscal policy. Looser fiscal policy will generate more demand in the economy. Since one can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply, this implies that larger budget deficits will increase the neutral rate. If, as seems likely, we are entering an era where political populism promotes big budget deficits, this makes it more likely that economies will, at some point, overheat. Savings Glut May Dissipate The structural forces that have depressed the neutral rate over the past few decades could also abate, and perhaps even reverse course. Take the example of demographics. Starting in the mid-1970s, the ratio of workers-to- consumers – the so-called “support ratio” – began to steadily increase as more women entered the labor force and the number of dependent children per household declined (Chart 16). An increase in the number of workers relative to consumers is equivalent to an increase in the amount of production relative to consumption. A rising support ratio is thus deflationary. More recently, however, the global support ratio has begun to decline as baby boomers leave the labor force in droves. Consumption actually increases in old age once health care spending is included in the tally (Chart 17). As populations continue to age, the global savings glut could dissipate, pushing up the neutral rate of interest in the process. Chart 16The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling Chart 17As Populations Continue To Age, The Global Savings Glut Will Dissipate As Populations Continue To Age, The Global Savings Glut Will Dissipate As Populations Continue To Age, The Global Savings Glut Will Dissipate Meanwhile, globalization, a historically deflationary force, remains on the backfoot. The ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 18). Globalization took a beating from last year‘s trade war, and is taking another bruising from the pandemic, as more companies relocate production back home in order to gain greater control over their supply chains. It is possible that newfangled technologies will allow companies to cut costs, thereby helping them to bring down prices. But, so far, this remains more a hope than reality. As Chart 19 shows, productivity growth in the major economies remains abysmal. Weak supply growth would slow income gains, potentially leading to a depletion of excess savings. Chart 18The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Failed To Rise For Over A Decade The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Failed To Rise For Over A Decade The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Failed To Rise For Over A Decade Chart 19Productivity Growth In The Major Economies Remains Abysmal Productivity Growth In The Major Economies Remains Abysmal Productivity Growth In The Major Economies Remains Abysmal   Social Unrest Continued social unrest could further disrupt the supply side of the economy. Violent crime has already spiked in a number of major US cities,5 just as it did five years ago in the aftermath of demonstrations in cities such as Baltimore and St. Louis (the US homicide rate rose 23% between 2014 and 2016, partly because police pulled out of many troubled neighbourhoods6). Markets generally ignored the social unrest back then, and they may do so again over the coming months. However, if recent developments herald the beginning of an extended crime wave, this could have momentous implications for asset markets. The number of people institutionalized in prisons and mental hospitals dropped dramatically during the 1960s. This corresponded with a sharp increase in the homicide rate (Chart 20). As violent crime soared, equity valuations dropped. Inflation also accelerated, hurting bondholders in the process (Chart 21). If a country cannot credibly commit to protecting its citizens, it is reasonable to wonder if it can credibly commit to maintaining price stability. Chart 20Dramatic Drop In Institutionalizations During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Chart 21Rising Homicide Rates Coincided With A Drop In Equity Valuations And Higher Inflation In The 1970s Rising Homicide Rates Coincided With A Drop In Equity Valuations And Higher Inflation In The 1970s Rising Homicide Rates Coincided With A Drop In Equity Valuations And Higher Inflation In The 1970s As we discuss in greater detail below, the implication is that the long-term outlook for stocks and bonds is unlikely to be as rosy as the cyclical (3-to-12 month) outlook. III. Investment Implications For Now, Buy The Dip As anyone who has watched a horror movie knows, that scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always fathom something much more frightening than Hollywood can create. COVID-19 is a deadly disease, much deadlier than the common flu. But, at this point, it is a “known known.” The next few weeks will bring news reports of overflowing emergency rooms in some US states, delayed reopenings, and increased talk of renewed lockdowns. The knee-jerk reaction among investors will be to sell stocks. While that was the right trade in March, it may not be the right trade today, at least not for very long. Chart 22Betting Markets Now Expect Joe Biden To Become President Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave At this point, we know how the movie will end. As was the case during the first wave, the latest outbreak will be brought under control through a combination of increased voluntary social distancing and the cessation of activities that are known to significantly contribute to the spread of the disease (allowing bars and nightclubs to reopen was, as many predicted, a huge mistake). Likewise, while the next few weeks could see plenty of posturing among politicians in Washington, the end result will be a deal to avert most of the fiscal cliff. Investors who run for the hills now will end up making the same mistake as those who jettisoned stocks every time the debt-ceiling issue came to the fore in the past. Panicking about the outcome of November’s US presidential election would also be unwise. Yes, if Joe Biden wins and the Democrats take control of the Senate, then Trump’s corporate tax cuts would be in jeopardy. A full repeal would reduce S&P 500 EPS by about 12%. However, the betting markets are already expecting the Democrats to win the White House and Senate (Chart 22). Thus, some of this risk is presumably already priced in. Moreover, it is possible that the Democrats only partially reverse the corporate tax cuts, focusing more on closing some of the more egregious loopholes in the tax code. And even if corporate tax rates do rise, spending would likely rise even more, resulting in a net increase in fiscal stimulus. Lastly, a Biden presidency would result in less trade tension with China, which would be a welcome relief for equity investors. Are Stocks Already Pricing In A Benign Scenario? Chart 23Earnings Optimism Driven By Tech And Health Care Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Bottom-up estimates foresee S&P 500 earnings returning to 2019 levels next year. Does this mean that Wall Street analysts are banking on a V-shaped recovery? Not quite. Outside of the health care and technology sectors, EPS is still expected to be down 9% next year relative to 2019 (Chart 23). Globally, earnings estimates are still fairly downbeat. This suggests that analysts are expecting more of a U-shaped recovery. Of course, what matters to investors is not so much what analysts expect but what the market is pricing in. Given that the S&P 500 is down only 4% year-to-date, have investors gotten ahead of themselves? Again, it is not clear that they have. The value of the stock market does not simply depend on expected earnings growth. It also depends on the discount rate one uses to calculate the present value of future earnings. In a world of exceptionally low interest rates, the contribution from earnings far out into the future to this present value calculation is almost as important as the path of earnings over the next year or two. Provided that the pandemic does not permanently impair the supply-side of the economy, the impact on earnings should be transitory. In contrast, if long-term bond yields are any guide, the impact on the discount rate may be longer lasting. The 30-year US TIPS yield, a proxy for long-term real rate expectations, has fallen by 76 basis points since the start of the year, representing a significant decline in the risk-free component of the discount rate (Chart 24). If we put together analysts’ expectations of a temporary decline in earnings with the observed decline in real bond yields, what we get is an increase in the fair value of the S&P 500 of about 15% since the start of the year (Chart 25). Chart 24The 30-Year TIPS Yield Is Pointing To A Significant Decline In The Risk-Free Component Of The Discount Rate The 30-Year TIPS Yield Is Pointing To A Significant Decline In The Risk-Free Component Of The Discount Rate The 30-Year TIPS Yield Is Pointing To A Significant Decline In The Risk-Free Component Of The Discount Rate Admittedly, the notion that there could be a temporary decline in corporate earnings but a permanent decline in bond yields sounds contradictory. However, it need not be. Imagine a situation where the pandemic does permanently reduce private demand, but that this is fully counteracted by looser monetary policy and increased fiscal stimulus. The result would be the same level of GDP but a lower interest rate.7 As odd as it sounds, this suggests that the pandemic might have increased the fair value of the stock market. Chart 25The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Lots Of Cash On The Sidelines Chart 26Lots Of Savings Slushing Around Lots Of Savings Slushing Around Lots Of Savings Slushing Around The combination of surging government transfers and subdued household spending has resulted in a jump in personal saving. Accumulated US personal savings totalled $1.25 trillion in the first five months of the year, up 123% from the same period last year. Much of that money has made its way into savings deposits and money market funds (Chart 26). As a share of stock market capitalization, US cash holdings currently stand at 51%, up nearly 12 percentage points from the start of the year. Looking at it differently, if the ratio of cash holdings-to-stock market capitalization were to return to January 1st levels, stocks would have to rise by about 30%. Retail Bros Versus The Suits Thanks to a steady flow of income from Uncle Sam, plenty of spare time, zero brokerage commissions, and a lack of opportunities for sports betting, the popularity of day trading has surged (Chart 27). It would be easy to dismiss the rise of the “retail bros” as another comical, and ultimately forgettable, chapter in financial history. That is what most have done. Not us. The late 1990s stock market bubble was as much a consequence of the boom in day trading as the cause of it. That boom lasted for more than four years, taking the S&P 500 to one record high after another. The current boom has lasted less than four months. It may have much further to run. Chart 27Day Trading Is Back In Style These Days Day Trading Is Back In Style These Days Day Trading Is Back In Style These Days Keep in mind that every time an institutional investor sells what they regard as overpriced shares to a retail trader, the institutional investor is left with excess cash that must be deployed elsewhere in the stock market. Buying begets buying. Then there are the hedge funds. Brokerages like Robinhood make much of their money by selling order flow data to hedge funds, who then trade on this information. This activity probably lifts prices by enhancing liquidity and reinforcing the price momentum generated by retail trades.  One would also be remiss not to point out that the mockery levelled at retail traders has an aura of hypocrisy to it. The average mutual fund underperforms its benchmark, even before fees are included. As we discussed before, this is not because active managers cannot outperform the market.8 It is because most don’t even bother to try. In contrast to retail traders, a large fraction of institutional investors did not participate in the stock market recovery that began in late March. According to the latest BoA Merrill Lynch Survey, fund managers were still more than one sigma underweight stocks and nearly one sigma overweight cash in June. Along the same vein, speculators increased short positions in S&P 500 futures contracts soon after stocks rallied, paring them back only recently (Chart 28). As of last week, bears exceeded bulls by 25 percentage points in the AAII survey (Chart 29). When positioning is underweight equities and sentiment is bearish, as it is today, stocks are more likely to go up than down.   Chart 28Speculators Still Net Short S&P 500 Futures Contracts Speculators Still Net Short S&P 500 Futures Contracts Speculators Still Net Short S&P 500 Futures Contracts Chart 29Many Investors Are Bearish On Stocks Many Investors Are Bearish On Stocks Many Investors Are Bearish On Stocks The bottom line is that stocks could fall another 5%-to-10% from current levels to about 2850 on the S&P 500 and 68 on the ACWI ETF but are unlikely to go much lower, as investors start to anticipate a peak in the number of new cases and a deal to maintain adequate levels of fiscal support. Start Of The Dollar Bear Market A weaker dollar should also help global equities (Chart 30). After peaking in March, the broad trade-weighted US dollar has fallen by 4.4%. Unlike last year, the dollar no longer benefits from higher US interest rates. Indeed, US real rates are below those of many partner countries due to the fact that US inflation expectations are generally higher than elsewhere (Chart 31). Chart 30A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Global Equities A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Global Equities A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Global Equities Chart 31The Dollar Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support The Dollar Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support The Dollar Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 32). If global growth recovers over the coming quarters, the dollar should weaken. The negative pressure on the dollar may be amplified by the fact that the second wave of the pandemic seems likely to affect the US more than most other large economies. Chart 32The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Commodities And Commodity Currencies To Benefit Once fears of a second wave abate, the combination of stronger global growth, infrastructure-intense Chinese stimulus, and a weaker dollar will also boost commodity prices (Chart 33). BCA’s commodity strategists remain particularly fond of oil. They expect demand to pick up gradually this year, with supply continuing to be curtailed by shut-ins among US producers and production discipline from OPEC and Russia. Their latest projections foresee WTI and Brent prices rising more than 50% above current market expectations in 2021 (Chart 34). Chart 33Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 34Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover Higher oil prices will be particularly beneficial to currencies such as the Norwegian krone, Canadian dollar, Mexican peso, Colombian peso, and Malaysian ringgit. A Weaker Dollar Will Support Non-US Stocks Stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and higher commodity prices will disproportionately help the more cyclical sectors of the stock market (Chart 35). Since cyclical stocks tends to be overrepresented outside the US, non-US equities should outperform their US peers over the next 12 months. A weaker dollar will also reduce the local-currency value of dollar-denominated debt. This will be especially helpful for emerging markets. Despite the recent rally, the cyclically-adjusted PE ratio for EM stocks remains near historic lows (Chart 36). EM equities should fare well over the next 12 months. Chart 35Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Chart 36EM Stocks Are Cheap Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Chart 37Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Chart 38Expected Earnings Recovery: US Lags Slightly Behind Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave More broadly, non-US stocks look quite attractive in both absolute terms and in relation to bonds compared to their US peers (Chart 37). They are also unloved. In the BofA Merrill Lynch survey mentioned above, equity managers are heavily overweight the US, despite the fact that consensus earnings estimates point to a slightly faster recovery in EPS outside the United States (Chart 38). Thus, earnings trends, valuations, and sentiment all currently favor non-US stocks. Bond Yields To Stay Subdued… For Now It will probably take a couple of years for the unemployment rate in the G7 to fall to pre-pandemic levels. It will likely be another year or two before labor markets tighten to the point where inflation takes off. And, as discussed above, even if inflation does rise, central banks will be slow to raise rates both because they want higher inflation and because governments will pressure them to keep rates low in order to avoid having to redirect tax revenue from social programs to bondholders. All this suggests that short-term rates could remain depressed across much of the world until the middle of the decade. Chart 39Corporate Debt Metrics Among Publicly-Traded Issuers Are Worrisome Corporate Debt Metrics Among Publicly-Traded Issuers Are Worrisome Corporate Debt Metrics Among Publicly-Traded Issuers Are Worrisome Yield curves will steepen marginally over the next few years as global growth recovers and long-term bond yields rise in relation to short-term rates. In absolute terms, however, long-term yields will remain low. An initial bout of higher inflation will not be enough to lift long-term yields to a significant degree given the ability of central banks to cap yields via the threat of unlimited bond purchases – something that Japan and Australia are already doing. Yields will only rise substantially when central banks start feeling uneasy about accelerating inflation. As noted above, that point is probably still 3-to-5 years away. But, when it does come, it will be very painful for bondholders and equity holders alike. Not Much Scope For Further Spread Compression Spreads are unlikely to widen much in a low-rate, higher growth environment. Nevertheless, one should acknowledge that spreads are already low and corporate debt levels were quite elevated going into the recession, especially among companies with publicly-traded bonds (Chart 39). As such, while we generally favor a pro-risk stance over the next 12 months, we would recommend only benchmark exposure to high-yield credit. Within that category, we would favor consumer credit or corporate credit. We would especially shy away from credit linked to urban office and brick-and-mortar retail shopping, given the unfavorable structural shifts in those sectors.  Gold Is Still Worth Owning Chart 40Real Price Of Gold Is Elevated Relative To Its Long-Term History Real Price Of Gold Is Elevated Relative To Its Long-Term History Real Price Of Gold Is Elevated Relative To Its Long-Term History Lastly, a few words on gold. We upgraded our view on gold in late March. A weaker dollar will boost gold prices over the next 12 months, while higher inflation down the road makes gold an attractive hedge. Yes, the real price of gold is elevated relative to its long-term history (Chart 40). However, gold prices were distorted during most of the 20th century as one country after another abandoned the gold standard. The move to fiat money eliminated the need for central banks to hold large amounts of gold, which reduced underlying demand for the commodity. Had this move not happened, the real price of gold – just like the price of other real assets such as property and art – would have risen substantially. Thus, far from being above their long-term trend, gold prices could still be well below it. Our full suite of tactical, cyclical, and structural market views are depicted in the matrix below. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020. 2  For those unfamiliar with Saturday morning cartoons, Wile E. Coyote is a devious and scheming Looney Tunes cartoon character usually depicted unsuccessfully attempting to catch his prey, the Road Runner. Wile E. Coyote is outwitted each time by the fast-running bird, but fails to learn his lesson and tries anew. One popular gag involves the coyote running off a cliff, stopping mid-air to look down, only to realize that there is no more road beneath him. 3 This is a tricky point to grasp, so it might be helpful to think through an example. Suppose that government debt is 100 and GDP is also 100. Let us assume that the interest rate is 1%, trend growth is 3%, and the government wishes to run a primary budget deficit of 5% of GDP (the primary deficit is the deficit excluding interest payments). It does not matter if the interest rate and growth are expressed in nominal terms or real terms, as long as we consistently use one or the other. Initially, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. The following year, debt increases to 100+5+100*0.01=106, while GDP rises to 103. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumps to 106/103=102.9%. The debt-to-GDP ratio will keep rising until it reaches 250%. At that point, debt-to-GDP will stabilize. To see why, go back to the original example but now assume that debt is 250 while GDP is still 100. The following year, debt increases to 250+5+250*0.01=257.5, while GDP, as in the first example, rises to 103. 257.5 divided by 103 is exactly 250%. 4 The standard equation of debt sustainability, which we derived in Box 1 of the Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?”, says that the ratio of government debt-to-GDP will be stable if the primary budget balance (expressed as a share of GDP), p, is equal to the debt-to-GDP ratio (D/Y) multiplied by the difference between the interest rate and the growth rate of the economy, that is, p=D/Y (r-g). When p>D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will fall. When, p<D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will rise. Note that the higher the debt-to-GDP ratio is at the outset, the more the primary budget surplus would need to increase in response to a rise in interest rates.  5 Please see Ashley Southall and Neil MacFarquhar, “Gun Violence Spikes in N.Y.C., Intensifying Debate Over Policing,” The Wall Street Journal, dated June 23, 2020; “Gun Violence Soars in Minneapolis,” WCCO/CBS Minnesota, dated June 22, 2020;  and Tommy Beer, “18 People Were Murdered In Chicago On May 31, Making It The City’s Single Deadliest Day In 60 Years,” Forbes, dated June 8, 2020. 6 Please see “Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence,” npr.org, dated December 31, 2017. 7 For economics aficionados, one can model this as a permanent inward shift of the IS curve and permanent outward shift of the LM curve which leaves the level of GDP unchanged but results in lower equilibrium interest rate. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Quant-Based Approaches To Stock Selection And Market Timing,” dated November 9, 2018. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Current MacroQuant Model Scores Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: Navigating The Second Wave

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

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

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