War/Conflict
Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, but have now become understated; If Donald Trump becomes an early "lame duck" president, he will seek relevance abroad; This could mean a protectionist White House, or increased geopolitical tensions with Iran and North Korea; North Korean internal stability could come into question as economic sanctions begin to bite; Political risks in the U.K. and Italy could rise with markets overly complacent on both; Emerging markets, particularly Brazil and Mexico, will see renewed political risk. Feature Buoyant global growth, political stability in Europe, and steady policymakers' hands in China have fueled risk assets in 2017. As the year draws to a close, investors also have tax cuts in the U.S. to celebrate. Our high conviction view that tax cuts would happen - and that they would be fiscally profligate - is near the finish line.1 In making this call, we ignored the failure to repeal Obamacare, the "wisdom" of old "D.C. hands," and direct intelligence from a source inside the White House circle who swore tax reform would be revenue neutral. Throughout the year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy remained confident that the GOP would ignore its fiscal conservative credentials and focus on the midterm elections.2 That election is increasingly looking like a bloodbath-in-the-making for the Republican Party (Chart 1). What of the latest opinion polls showing that the tax cuts are unpopular with half of all Americans? The polls also show that a solid one-third of all Americans remain in support of the Republican plan (Chart 2). We suspect - as do Republican strategists - that those are the Republicans who vote in midterm elections. Given the atrociously low turnout in midterm elections - just 36.4% of Americans voted in 2014 - Republicans need their base to turn out in November. The tax cuts are not about the wider American public but the Republican base. Chart 1Midterm Election: A Bloodbath? Chart 2Republican Base Supports Tax Cuts As we close the book on 2017, we look with trepidation towards 2018. Our main theme for next year is that the combination of economic stimulus from the tax cuts in the U.S. and structural reforms in China will create a U.S.-dollar-bullish policy mix that will combine into a headwind for global risk assets, particularly emerging market equities.3 However, in this report, we focus on some of the more exotic risks that investors may have to deal with. In particular we focus on five potential "black swans" - low probability, high market-impact events - that are neither on the market's radar nor the media's. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months. Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk. Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of our geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events - such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe - do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: Lame Duck Trump "Lame duck" presidents - leaders whose popularity late in their term has sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy - are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.4 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents seek relevance abroad. Chart 3The Day After The Midterms, Trump's Overall Popularity Will Matter More Than That Among Republicans President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains healthy, his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 3). Based on these poll numbers, his party is likely to underperform in the upcoming midterm election (Chart 4). A Democrat-led House of Representatives would have the votes to begin impeachment, which we would then consider likely in 2019. As we have argued in our "impeachment handbook," the market impact of such a crisis would ultimately depend on market fundamentals and the global context, not political intrigue.5 Chart 4Trump Is Becoming A Liability For The GOP President Trump's political capital ahead of the midterm elections is based on his ability to influence Republican legislators. Despite low overall poll numbers, President Trump can use the threat of endorsing primary challengers against conservative peers in Congress to move his agenda in the legislature. He has effectively done this with tax cuts. However, the day after the midterm elections, President Trump's own numbers will matter for the GOP. Given that President Trump will be on the ballot in the 2020 general election, his low approval numbers with non-Republican voters will hang like an albatross around the party's neck. This is a serious issue, particularly given that 22 of the 33 Senators up for reelection in 2020 will be Republican.6 Robust economic growth and a roaring stock market have not boosted Trump's popularity so far. At the same time, a strong economy ready to translate into higher wages is about to be "pump-primed" by stimulative tax cuts (Chart 5). We would expect the result to be a stronger dollar, which should keep the U.S. trade deficit widening well into Trump's second year in office. At some point, this will become a sore political point, given Trump's protectionist rhetoric and his administration's focus on the trade balance as a key measure of U.S. power. Chart 5Wage Pressures Are Building What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2018? There are three prime candidates: China-U.S. trade war: The Trump administration started off with threats against China and then proceeded to negotiations. However, neither the North Korean situation nor the trade deficit has seen substantial improvement, and a lame duck Trump administration would be more likely to resort to serious punitive actions. Even improvements on the Korean peninsula would not necessarily prevent Washington from getting tougher on Beijing over trade, as the Trump administration will be driven by domestic politics. Investors should carefully watch whether the World Trade Organization deems China a "market economy," which could trigger a U.S. backlash, and whether the various investigations by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross result in anti-dumping and countervailing duties being imposed more frequently on specific Chinese exports. Thus far, the empirical evidence suggests that the Trump administration has picked up the pace of protectionist rulings (Chart 6). Notably, the Trump administration claims that the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue has "stalled," and it is reviving deeper, structural demands on Chinese policymakers.7 Iran Jingoism: Rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo - who would be replaced at the CIA by Senator Tom Cotton - can only mean one thing: the White House has Iran in its sights. Both Pompeo and Cotton are hawks on Iran. The administration may be preparing to shift its focus from North Korea, where American allies in the region are urging caution, to the Middle East, where American allies in the region are urging aggression. Investors should watch whether Tillerson is removed and especially how Congress reacts to President Trump's decision on October 15 to decertify the Iran nuclear agreement (also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA). The Republican-controlled Congress has until December 15 to reimpose sanctions on Iran that were suspended as part of the deal, with merely a simple majority needed in both chambers. However, President Trump will also have an opportunity, as early as January, to end waivers on a slew of sanctions that were not covered under the JCPOA. North Korea: It would be natural to slot North Korea as first on our list of potential foreign policy adventures for President Trump. However, it does not really fit our qualification of a black swan. North Korea is not "out of sight." Additionally, President Trump has already broken with the tradition of previous administrations by upping the pressure on Pyongyang. In fact, a North Korean black swan would be if President Trump succeeded in breaking the regime in Pyongyang. To that scenario we turn next. Chart 6Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy? Bottom Line: Geopolitics has not affected the markets in 2017, with risk assets reaching record highs and the VIX reaching record lows (Chart 7). This was our view throughout the year and we called for investors to "buy in May and have a nice day" as a result of our analysis.8 We do not see this as likely in 2018. The Trump administration has no credible legislative agenda after tax cuts. We expect Congress to stall as we enter the summer primary season and for the GOP to lose the House to the Democrats. President Trump is an astute political analyst and will sense these developments before they happen. There is a good chance that he will attempt to sway the election and pre-empt his lame duck status with an aggressive foreign policy. Chart 72017 Goldilocks: S&P 500 Up, VIX Down Investment implications are twofold. First, we continue to recommend an equally weighted basket of Swiss 10-year bonds and gold as a portfolio hedge.9 Second, risk premium for oil prices should rise in 2018. Not only is the supply-demand balance favorable for oil prices, but geopolitical risks are likely to rise as well. Black Swan 2: A Coup In Pyongyang Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, has suggested that a coup d'état against Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un could be a black swan trigger that spooks the markets.10 While Peter used the scenario as a tongue-in-cheek way to weave Kim into a narrative that tells of a late 2019 recession, we have long raised North Korean domestic politics as the true Korean black swan.11 Here we entertain Peter's idea for three reasons.12 First, China has upped the economic pressure on Pyongyang. Under Kim Jong-un, the North Korean state has attempted some limited economic "opening up," namely to China. But the attempt to finalize the nuclear deterrent has delayed an already precarious process. There has now been a $617 million drop in Chinese imports from the country since the beginning of the year (Chart 8), with coal imports particularly affected (Chart 9). China has also pulled back on tourism. Meanwhile, North Korea's imports of Chinese goods have risen, which suggests that the country's current account balance may be widening. At some point, if these trends continue, Pyongyang will run out of foreign currency with which to purchase Chinese and Russian imports. Chart 8China Is Turning The Screws On Pyongyang... Chart 9...Particularly On Coal Imports Second, Pyongyang is well aware of pressures against the regime. The assassination of Kim Jong-nam - the older half-brother of Kim Jong-un - in February of this year sent a message to the world, but especially to China, which kept Kim Jong-nam around as an alternative to the current Kim. That Pyongyang went to the extreme lengths of poisoning Kim Jong-nam with VX nerve agent in a foreign airport suggests that Kim Jong-un is still worried about threats to his rule.13 If Beijing's economic sanctions continue to tighten in 2018, the military could conceivably see the Supreme Leader's aggressive foreign policy as a risk to regime survival. Third, Pyongyang could miscalculate and create a crisis from which it cannot deescalate. A provocation that disrupts international infrastructure and commerce or kills civilians from the U.S. or Japan could trigger a downward spiral. For instance, an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.14 We could see the U.S. following the script from Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf in 1988 - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War. In that incident, the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines. Such a conflict is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. How would Pyongyang react to the sinking of its submarines? Our best case is that the regime would do nothing. The leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. True, North Korea has around 6 million military personnel - about 25% of the total population is under arms - but unfortunately for Pyongyang, this large army is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man: the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). To support its ground forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15s and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending on how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Which is why they may never initiate one. If Kim Jong-un insists on retaliation, the military could remove and replace him with, for instance, his 30-year old sister, who has recently risen in party ranks, or his 36-year old brother Kim Jong-chul, who is apparently not entirely uninvolved in the regime despite living an unassuming life in Pyongyang. What would a regime change mean for the markets? It depends on whether it is successful or not. An unsuccessful coup could lead to a massive purge and likely a total break in Pyongyang's relations with the outside world, including China. This would seriously destabilize North Korea's decision-making. The global community would have to begin contemplating a total war on the Korean peninsula. Alternatively, a successful coup could lead to temporary volatility, yet long-term stability. The military regime in the North may even be open to reunification over the long term, depending on how U.S.-China relations evolve. Bottom Line: China does not want to cripple North Korea or throw a coup. But it is cooperating with sanctions and could therefore trigger one by mistake. At least two regimes have collapsed in the past when facing the pincer movement of economic sanctions and American military pressure - South Africa's apartheid regime in 1991 and Slobodan Miloševic's Yugoslavia in 1999. Kim Jong-un could face a similar fate, particularly if China applies excessive economic pressure. Black Swan 3: Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn There is no election scheduled in the U.K. for 2018, but if one were to be held the ruling Tories would be in trouble (Chart 10). In fact, the combined anti-Brexit forces are currently in a solid lead over the pro-Brexit parties, Conservatives and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) (Chart 11). Chart 10Labour Is In The Lead... Chart 11...As Are Anti-Brexit Forces Writ-Large What could trigger such an election? Ultimately, the final exit deal may prompt a new election. More immediately, the ongoing negotiations over the status of the Irish border would be a prime candidate. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi, head of BCA's European Investment Strategy noted recently, Prime Minister Theresa May's government is propped up by the Northern Irish Unionists to whom May has promised that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will likely create a crisis as the EU negotiations may inadvertently threaten the Good Friday peace agreement. The Northern Ireland Unionists will not tolerate the border moving to the Irish Sea. This would effectively take Northern Ireland into the EU customs union and single market, and out of the U.K.'s domestic trading zone. It would also embolden Scotland's push for single market access. In essence, the Tory government may collapse because of differences within the U.K.'s "three kingdoms" before it even has the chance to collapse over differences with the EU.15 The market may cheer a Labour-Scottish National Party (SNP) coalition government, a potential winner of an early election, as it would mean that a new referendum on the U.K. leaving the EU could be held. The latest polls suggest that "Bremorse" (remorse for Brexit) has set in, as a clear majority in the U.K. thinks that Brexit was a bad idea (Chart 12). However, we suspect that it would take Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn several months, if not over a year, before he called such a referendum. First, Corbyn is on record supporting a soft Brexit, not a new referendum, and he has only just begun to adjust this position. Second, a soft Brexit is far more difficult to achieve than the hard Brexit of Prime Minister Theresa May since it requires the U.K. to subvert its sovereignty in significant ways (i.e., accepting EU regulation) in order to access the EU Common Market. Third, the most politically palatable way to re-do the referendum is to put a U.K.-EU deal up to the people to decide, which means that Corbyn first has to spend a long time negotiating that deal. Chart 12Bremorse Sets In The market may be disappointed to find out that PM Corbyn is not willing or able to put the question of the U.K.'s EU exit up to a vote right away. Instead, the market would have to deal with Corbyn's economic policies, which are markedly left-wing. Corbyn harkens back to the 110 Propositions pour la France of French President François Mitterrand, if not exactly to the ghastly 1970s of the U.K.'s own history. A brief sample platter of Labour's proposals under Corbyn includes: Increasing the U.K. corporate tax rate to 26% from 20%; Increasing the minimum wage; Forcing companies not to out-source operations; Nationalizing public infrastructure companies. How should investors play a Corbyn victory? We think that the U.K. pound would likely rally on a higher probability of reversing Brexit. However, this "no Brexit" rally would quickly dissipate as PM Corbyn reiterated his promise to fulfill the democratic desire of the population to exit the EU. While Corbyn's negotiating team set to work on getting a better Brexit deal out of Brussels, the market would quickly turn its attention to the reality that Corbyn is not kidding about socialism.16 The result would be a selloff in the pound. Bottom Line: BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that the pound remains well below its fair value (Chart 13). However, as BCA's chief FX strategist Mathieu Savary points out, the valuation technicals may be misleading as the currency has entered a new economic, trade, and political paradigm. A Corbyn premiership is not clearly positive for Brexit, while opening up a completely different question: is the U.K. also exiting the free-market, laissez-faire paradigm that it has helped lead since May 1979? Black Swan 4: Italy Is A Black Swan Hiding In Plain Sight The spread between Italian and German 10-year government bonds has narrowed 72 basis points since April, suggesting that investors have grown comfortable with the risks associated with the Italian election due by May (Chart 14). There are three reasons why we agree with the market: Chart 13Pound Valuation Reflects Post-Brexit Paradigm Chart 14Investors Not Worried About Italy New electoral rules passed in October make it highly likely that a center-right alliance will take shape between the Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the mildly Eurosketpic Lega Nord. These two could form a government alone, or in a grand coalition with the center-left Democratic Party (PD) (Chart 15). Both Lega Nord and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) have moved to the center on the questions of European integration and membership in the currency union; The European migration crisis is over and its supposedly constant impact on Italy is waning (Chart 16). Meanwhile, Italy's economy is on the mend, with its banking sector finally following the Spanish trajectory with a drop in non-performing loans (Chart 17). Chart 15Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Chart 16Migration Crisis Is Over (Yes, Even In Italy) Chart 17Italian Recovery Is Just Starting That said, we continue to warn clients that the underlying support for the common currency is lagging in Italy. The support level is just above 55%, despite a strong rally in the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 18). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appear confident in the country's future outside of the EU (Chart 19). Chart 18Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 19Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a Euroskeptic one. How could we be wrong? Easy: one of the three reasons why we agree with the market could shift. For example, M5S could alter its pledge to remain in the Euro Area and surprisingly win on a Euroskeptic platform. Why would the party do something like that? Because it makes sense! Polls are already showing that M5S's recent moderation on the euro is not paying political dividends, with its support sharply sliding since the summer. With power quickly slipping out of reach for the party, why wouldn't they put a down-payment on the next election by trusting the underlying trend in opinion polling and investing in a Euroskeptic platform that might pay political dividends in the future? If we think that this strategy makes sense based on the data, then the M5S leadership might as well. Chart 20Can MIB Keep Outperforming? Another scenario is a major terror attack perpetrated by recent migrants from North Africa. Italy has been spared from radical Islamic terror. As such, the country may not be as desensitized to it as other European nations. A strong showing by Lega Nord and the far-right Fratelli d'Italia could force Forza Italia to move to the right as well. On our travels, we have noticed that few investors want to talk about Italy. There is wide acknowledgement of the structural trends pointing to a rise of Euroskepticism in the country, but also an appearance of consensus that this is a problem for a later date. We agree with this consensus, but our conviction is low. Bottom Line: Italian election risk is completely unappreciated by the markets. The country's equity market is one of the best performing this year (Chart 20), while government bonds are pricing in no political risk as the election approaches. We believe that shorting both would present a good hedging opportunity. Black Swan 5: Bloodbath In Latin America Our last black swan risk is not really a black swan to us but a forecast we believe will happen. As we outlined last month, we fear that Chinese policy-induced credit contraction will be negative for emerging markets, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy data asserts (Chart 21). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out in its latest missive that its "Carry Canary Indicator" - performance of EM/JPY crosses - is signaling that a sharp deceleration in global growth is coming in Q1 2018 (Chart 22).17 Latin America (especially Chile, Peru, and Brazil) is the region most exposed to the combination of a slowing China and a China-induced drop in commodity prices. Chart 21When China Sneezes, EM Gets The Flu Chart 22Ominous Signal From EM/JPY From a political perspective, this is most negative for Brazil and Mexico. Both countries hold elections in 2018, with the Mexican election further complicated by the ongoing NAFTA renegotiations. We believe that the future of NAFTA hangs in the balance, with a high probability that the Trump administration will decide to abrogate the deal.18 Currently, anti-market political forces are in the lead in both countries. In Brazil, no pro-market candidate is leading in the polls (Chart 23). In fact, anti-market options have a 48% lead on the centrists. Granted, there are ten months until the election, but we are skeptical that the Brazilian population will change its mind and support reformers. If the "median voter" in Brazil supported reforms, the current Temer administration would have passed them already. In Mexico, anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (also known as AMLO) is leading in the polls (Chart 24), as is his new party Morena (Chart 25). If Morena wins the most seats in the Mexican Congress, it will be more difficult for the opposition parties to combine to counter it.19 Chart 23There Is No Pro-Market Option In Brazil Chart 24AMLO Is In The Lead ... Chart 25...As Is Morena In 2017, we argued that politics were not a tailwind for EM asset performance. Instead, investors chased yield in the favorable economic context of Chinese economic stimulus, low developed market yields, and a weak U.S. dollar. In reality, politics was just as dire in much of EM as it was in prior years of asset underperformance, but the surge of global liquidity in 2018 masked the problems. We do not think the EM rally is sustainable in 2018. As the global economic and market context shifts, investors will start paying attention. Suddenly, political problems will enter into focus. Here we argue that Brazil and Mexico are likely to be the main targets of portfolio outflows, but a strong case could be made for South Africa and Turkey as well.20 Bottom Line: Political risk in Latin America will return. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, and "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Particularly vulnerable, in our view, will be Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). 7 U.S. Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs David Malpass recently claimed that high-level talks had "stalled" and re-emphasized the U.S.'s structural complaints: "We are concerned that China's economic liberalization seems to have slowed or reversed, with the role of the state increasing ... State-owned enterprises have not faced hard budget constraints and China's industrial policy has become more and more problematic for foreign firms. Huge export credits are flowing in non-economic ways that distort markets." The growing presence of Communist Party cells within corporations is another important structural concern that puts the administration at loggerheads with China's leaders. Please see Andrew Mayeda and Saleha Mohsin, "US Rebukes China For Backing Off Market Embrace," Bloomberg, November 30, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy, "A Timeline For The Next Five Years: Part II," dated December 1, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "North Korea: From Overstated To Understated" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. A notable coup attempt occurred in 1995-96 in North Hamgyong; something like a coup attempt may have occurred in 2013; and defectors from North Korea have reported various stories of plots and conspiracies against the regime. 12 After all, Peter predicted that Donald Trump would be a serious candidate for the U.S. presidency back in September 2015! 13 Still worried, that is, even after Kim Jong-un's supposed "consolidation of power" in 2013-14 when he executed his influential and China-aligned uncle, Jang Song Thaek, and purged the latter's faction. There were reports of rogue military operations at that time. With low troop morale reported by North Korean defectors, the possibility of insubordination cannot be ruled out. 14 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, and North Korean artillery shelled two islands killing South Korean civilians later that year, but these attacks were still within the norm of North Korean provocations. The two countries are still technically at war and have contested maritime as well as land borders. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 To help investors get ready for a Corbyn premiership, we thought his appearance on President Nicolás Maduro's weekly radio show would be a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eL8_wtS-0I 17 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades," dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, and "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights U.S. Treasury yields should continue to rise as investors price-out doomsday risk; Tensions surrounding North Korea will continue, but there are signs that negotiations have started and that China is playing ball on sanctions; Meanwhile, our view that tax cuts are coming is finally coming to fruition; Fade renewed European risks regarding Brexit and Catalan independence; But the independence push by Kurds in Iraq could have market impact. Feature Early in the second quarter, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy made two predictions. First, we said that summer would be a time to stay invested in U.S. equities and largely ignore domestic politics.1 Second, that North Korea would become an investment-relevant risk and buoy safe-haven plays but would not lead to a full-scale war (and hence not cause a global correction).2 The summer proved lucrative for both risk-on and risk-off trades, best emblemized by solid returns for both the S&P 500 and 10-year U.S. Treasury (Chart 1 A & B). Chart 1ARisk Assets Have Rallied... Chart 1B...At The Same Time As Safe Havens Can this continue? We do not think so. Geopolitics can influence the 10-year Treasury yield via two mechanisms: safe-haven flows and fiscal policy. On both fronts, we see movements that should support a pickup in yields over the rest of the year, a view corroborated by our colleagues on the fixed-income team. First, investors finally have progress on tax legislation that we have been forecasting since President Trump's election. Given the markets' collective pessimism on corporate tax reform (Chart 2), we expect any good news to change the current narrative. While it is still difficult to envision tax legislation that massively stimulates the economy, it is also difficult to imagine tax legislation that is revenue-neutral. As such, fiscal policy in the U.S. should be at least mildly stimulative in 2018, supporting higher yields. Second, we remain concerned that North Korea could escalate the ongoing tensions in East Asia.3 However, Pyongyang is constrained by its military capacity, which limits what it can realistically do to threaten its neighbors. As we discuss below, there are emerging signs of both diplomatic negotiations and Chinese pressure, key signposts that we have passed the peak on our "Arc of Diplomacy." As such, investors should prepare for the bond rally to reverse and the broader risk-on phase to extend through the end of the year. We expect the "Trump reflation trade" - USD appreciation, yield-curve steepening, and small-cap outperformance (Chart 3) - to restart if our views on the U.S. legislative agenda and North Korean tensions hold. Chart 2Investors Remain Pessimistic On Tax Reform... Chart 3...And On Trump's Policy In General U.S. Treasuries: Fade The Doomsday Trade Our colleagues at BCA's fixed-income desk have shown that flows into safe havens over the summer have widened the disconnect between global yields and economic fundamentals (Chart 4).4 Chief Fixed-Income Strategist Rob Robis points out that BCA's own valuation model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield indicates that "fair value" sits at 2.67%, nearly 55bps higher than current market levels (Chart 5).5 This is a level of overvaluation that even exceeds the extreme levels seen after the U.K. Brexit vote in July of 2016. Rob believes that the summer bond rally is about safe-haven demand, depressed investor sentiment, and underwhelming inflation, in that order. It is certainly not about growth expectations, which remain buoyant (Chart 6). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Save Haven Demand,##br## Not Slower Growth Chart 5U.S. Treasuries ##br##Are Overvalued Chart 6Global Growth##br## Remains Buoyant To prove that underwhelming inflation has not spurred the latest rally in Treasuries, Rob decomposes developed market bond yield changes since the July 7 peak in U.S. yields. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen 20bps off those September lows as investors have priced out doomsday risk. Table 1 shows that yields declined everywhere but Canada (where the central bank has been hiking interest rates). Yet the vast majority of the yield decline has come from falling real yields and not lower inflation expectations, which have actually stabilized over the summer. This has also occurred via a bull-flattening move in government bond yield curves, which suggests it is risk-aversion that has driven yields lower. Table 1Changes In DM Bond Yields Over The Summer (From July 7th Peak In U.S. Treasury Yields) The conclusion of our fixed-income team is that there is now considerable upside risk in global yields. We agree. While North Korea could retaliate against the just-imposed UN sanctions in various ways, it is difficult to see the market reacting with the same vigor as it did in July and August. Investors are becoming desensitized to North Korean provocations, especially as the latter remain confined to "expected and accepted" forms of belligerence, even in the current context of heightened tensions. Future North Korean safe-haven rallies will be of shorter amplitude and duration. The September 15 missile launch over Japan (the fourth time this has happened) has shown this to be the case. Chart 7Position For A Tactically Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: BCA's bond team remains short duration, a position that our political analysis supports. We will keep our 2-year/30-year Treasury curve-steepener trade open, despite it being in the red by 34.3bps. In addition, we are closing our short Fed Funds January 2018 futures position (for a gain of 0.51bps) and opening a new short Fed Funds December 2018 position. Any sign of emerging bipartisanship should also favor higher fiscal spending, as policymakers almost always come together to spend money rather than cut spending. In addition, we are recommending that our clients put on a U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade.6 Rob has pointed out that this is a way to profit directly from higher fiscal spending in the U.S., particularly since there is no sign that Germany will change its government spending following its unremarkable election campaign. The data also supports a tactical widening of the Treasury-Bund spread, which is correlated with the relative data surprises (Chart 7). U.S. Politics: From Impeachable To Ingenious The crucial moment for the Trump presidency was the White House purge of the "Breitbart clique" following the social unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11-12.7 That move has made headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio. While some investors saw the racially motivated rioting in Virginia as a harbinger of a major risk-off episode, we saw it essentially as a "Peak Stupid" moment in U.S. politics. We may not know precisely what goes on in President Trump's mind, but we know that he likes polls. And his polling with Republican voters suffered appreciably following the Charlottesville fiasco (Chart 8). Strong Republican support for President Trump is the main source of his political capital. He can use it to cajole and influence Republicans in Congress via the upcoming Republican primary process ahead of the midterm elections. If he loses that support, his political capital will erode and he could become the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. Worse, if support among Republicans were to fall below 70%, Trump could embark upon a Nixonian trajectory that could indeed lead to impeachment (Chart 9). Chart 8Trump's Support With GOP Voters Suffered... Chart 9... But Remains Well Above Nixonian Levels Many clients have asked us about the debt ceiling deal that President Trump made with Democrats and whether it signals a radical shift towards bipartisanship. We do not think so. In fact, we think the deal is mostly irrelevant. As we argued throughout the summer, the idea that there would be another debt ceiling crisis this year was always a figment of the media's imagination. There was never any evidence that a sufficient number of members of the House of Representatives wanted to play brinkmanship with the debt ceiling. First, Democrats in both houses of Congress have been clear throughout the year that they would not play politics with the debt ceiling. Second, investors and the media continuously overestimate the strength of the Freedom Caucus, the fiscally conservative grouping of Tea Party-linked representatives. There are 41 members of the Freedom Caucus, whereas 55 Republicans in the House sit in districts that are at least theoretically vulnerable to a Democratic challenge (Table 2).8 The danger for House Speaker Paul Ryan is not that the Freedom Caucus abandons the establishment line, but that the 55 Republicans listed in Table 2 abandon the Republican line. This, in fact, happened throughout the Obama presidency, with centrist Republicans voting with Democrats in the House on a number of key legislative bills (Chart 10). Table 2Plenty Of Vulnerable Republican Representatives Chart 10The Obama Years: A Governing 'Grand Coalition' This is why Speaker Paul Ryan largely ignored the Freedom Caucus and proposed an eighteen-month extension of the debt ceiling. He was never going to allow the Freedom Caucus to play brinkmanship. That President Trump picked the shorter Democrat version is significant only in so far as it signaled that he was willing to work with Democrats. In other words, the move was a "shot across the bow" of Republicans, a message that they had better get started on tax legislation, or else ... What should investors watch now? There are three main issues to follow: Tax legislation outline: House Speaker Paul Ryan has set the week of September 25 as the deadline for Republicans to outline their tax policy plan. The good news for investors is that the outline will supposedly include an already agreed-upon framework by both the House Ways and Means Committee - Chaired by Representative Kevin Brady (R, TX) - and the Senate Finance Committee - Chaired by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT). Brady and Hatch are serious players and their comments on tax policy should be followed closely. Both favor legislation that would be retroactively applied to FY 2017, even if the bill is actually passed in 2018. They are also part of the Republican "Big Six" group on tax policy, along with Speaker Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Reconciliation instructions: The House Budget Committee passed a FY 2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. These instructions allow Republicans to use the reconciliation procedure - a process that allows the Senate to pass legislation without needing 60 votes.9 However, the House version of the budget resolution also included over $200 billion of spending cuts, which is unlikely to pass in the Senate. As such, investors have to carefully watch for the House and Senate Republicans to pass a final budget resolution in order to kick off the reconciliation process. This process will likely happen in October, after the tax legislation package is presented by the Big Six. At that point, the Freedom Caucus will have the ability to extract concessions from establishment Republicans as their votes are needed to pass the budget resolution. We suspect that no Democrats will support the budget resolution given that they have not been involved in the tax policy process thus far. Trump's involvement: President Ronald Reagan's personal support and lobbying for the 1986 tax reform proved critical in getting the bill through Congress.10 President Trump's focus and energy will have to be on par with that of Reagan's if he plans to accomplish the same. A headwind for Trump is the lack of legislative experience in his White House (Chart 11). However, since the appointment of Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly, there has been a clear shift of focus on the legislative process. Chart 11Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Bottom Line: We expect investors to start gleaning the outlines of tax policy by late September, with the budget resolution containing reconciliation instructions being passed by both houses of Congress by the end of November. It may be too much to ask Congress to have an actual bill ready to pass by the end of the year, as we originally expected,11 particularly as there is now a potential immigration deal to negotiate with Democrats and last-minute effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. As such, we still think that it will take until the end of Q1 2018 for tax legislation to pass Congress (Q2 in the worst-case scenario for Republicans). Investors, however, will begin to price in a higher probability of tax policy as soon as the outline of the bill emerges in October. As such, we are reiterating our recommendation that investors go long U.S. small caps relative to large caps. Tax policy should overwhelmingly benefit small caps, which actually pay the 35% corporate tax rate. In addition, we would expect the USD to arrest its decline and rally by the end of the year. North Korea: At The Apogee Of "The Arc Of Diplomacy" To illustrate the current North Korean predicament to readers, we have referred to an "arc of diplomacy" (Chart 12), which we illustrate by referencing the rise and fall of U.S. tensions with Iran from 2010-15. The pattern is for the U.S. to increase tensions deliberately in order to convince its enemy that the military option is "on the table." Only once a "credible threat" of war has been established can the negotiations begin in earnest. Chart 12A Lesson From Iran: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin We are at or near the peak of this process. First: what is the worst-case scenario for markets if the North causes a crisis short of a devastating war? Using our short list of geopolitical crises (Table 3),12 our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, chief strategist of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that while the average peak-to-trough drop of a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis. To illustrate the trend, Anastasios has constructed an S&P 500 profile of the average geopolitical crisis, and the picture is encouraging (Chart 13). It shows that the market is likely to grind higher even if North Korea does something truly out of the box. Table 3Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Nor is a geopolitical incident (again, short of total war) likely to cause a U.S. or global recession. Aside from direct shocks to oil, such as in 1973 and 1990, only the U.S. Civil War (that is, a war waged on U.S. turf) caused a recession at the outset. Other major wars (WWI, WWII, the Korean War) caused recessions when they concluded because of the sharp drop in federal spending as a result of reduced military spending. What makes us think we are at or near the peak of North Korea's belligerent threats? China appears to be enforcing sanctions: at least according to China's official statistics (Chart 14). There is no doubt there are discrepancies and black market activity, but it makes sense for China to dial up the pressure (while never imposing crippling sanctions) and that appears to be occurring. China and Russia agreed to reduce fuel supplies. Both sides agreed to new UN sanctions on September 11 that would partially cut off North Korean fuel. This is a significant step, given that Chart 14 indicates China is already moving in this direction. The U.S. and North Korea have begun diplomatic talks. According to Japan's NHK press on September 14, former U.S. diplomat Evans Revere met with Choe Kang-Il, the deputy director general of the North American bureau of North Korea's foreign ministry in Switzerland over the past week. The U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert all but confirmed that some kind of communication is underway, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described his diplomatic initiative as highly active. The last efforts at negotiations, via the longstanding New York channel, were discontinued in June after the death of a U.S. prisoner in North Korea. Those were focused on retrieving U.S. citizens, whereas the new talks allegedly centered on the latest UN sanctions, i.e. a crux of the relationship. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. South Korea is offering aid. South Korea's new government is looking to give the North humanitarian aid, as expected, and will decide on September 21 about a special package for pregnant women and infants. It is suggesting that such aid has no conditionality on the North's behavior. At the same time, the U.S. administration is talking down Trump's recent threat to discontinue the U.S.-South Korean free trade agreement - meaning that the U.S. may even condone the South Korean administration's more diplomatic approach to the North. Chart 13Who Is Afraid Of Geopolitical Crises? Chart 14Is China Finally Playing Ball? At the same time, North Korea is running out of options for provocations that it can commit without provoking a costly response from the U.S. and its allies. The September 15 missile test over Japan was essentially the fourth of its kind, and the market shrugged it off. Here are some options, drawn from our list of scenarios and probabilities (Table 4): Table 4North Korean Scenarios Over The Next Year More of the same: Nuclear and missile tests could continue, or be conducted at higher frequencies or simultaneously. While technical advances may become apparent, they will not change the game. U.S. Territory: The North could create a bigger risk-off move than we saw in July-August if it shot ICBMs toward Guam, or other U.S. territories, as it has suggested it might do. This is especially risky because the U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has repeated Trump's warning to North Korea to not even threaten the United States. However, as long as no such missile actually strikes U.S. territory, the U.S. is unlikely to respond with an attack, and thus such a scare seems likely to fade like the others. Attacking South Koreans: The North has a history of state-backed terrorist actions and military actions. An attack limited to South Korea will cause a shock, in the current context, but the military consequences are still likely to be contained given the extensive history of such attacks. If it is an attack against South Korean civilians in a non-disputed territory, it will leave a bigger mark than it otherwise would, but the South is still likely either to retaliate in strict proportionality, or to refrain from action and use the event as a way of galvanizing international sanctions. Attacking Americans or U.S. allies: The true danger in the current climate is an attack that kills U.S. citizens, or U.S. allies who are not as, shall we say, understanding as the South Koreans (such as the Japanese). This could cause the U.S. or Japan or another ally to take a retaliatory action. Even if limited, this could cause a deep correction in the market. The U.S. response would likely still be limited and proportional. Then the question would be whether the North Koreans can afford to escalate. They can't. The military asymmetry is excessive. This is not the case of the Japanese in 1941, who believed they had the potential of defeating the U.S. if they acted quickly enough and the U.S. was distracted in Europe (Diagram 1). Diagram 1North Korea Crisis: A Decision Tree As the foregoing demonstrates, there could still be big ups and downs between now and the resumption of formal international negotiations, let alone a satisfactory diplomatic accord. The tensions could yet reach another peak. Nevertheless, our sense is that the pieces are falling into place for the North to moderate its behavior, sending the signal that it is ready to engage in real negotiations. Since the U.S. has consistently shown its readiness to talk directly with the North - coming from both Trump and Tillerson - we think we could see shuttle diplomacy taking place as early as this winter. Here are some dates and events to watch: Military exercises: Will the U.S., South Korea, and Japan stop or slow down the pace of military exercises? This could open space for North Korea to offer an olive branch in return. October 10 - anniversary of the Worker's Party of Korea: The North may take an extraordinary action, no action, or familiar actions like missile tests. October 11-25 - China's party congress: The North could fall silent ahead of the big event, or could attempt to disrupt it. China, in turn, could take action around this time (particularly afterwards) to send a signal to the North to tone down the belligerence. In previous periods of tension, China has reputedly drawn a harder line on North Korea in the month of December, when end-of-year quotas made certain trade measures more convenient. Late October - Japanese snap election? Rumor has it that Shinzo Abe is thinking of calling a snap election as early as this month. We normally dismiss such rumors but this time there is a certain logic: two North Korean missiles have flown over Hokkaido in as many months, while the Japanese opposition is in total disarray. If Abe calls early polls, it suggests that he thinks Korean fears are peaking. If he delays, and exploits these fears by pushing constitutional revisions through the Diet (our base case), then he may provoke a North Korean response, given that the revisions pave the way for Japan to "re-militarize." November 1 - APEC and Trump's visit to China: Trump is supposed to head to Vietnam for the APEC summit and to China to visit President Xi Jinping. Xi has recently shown his sensitivity to such summits by concluding the Doklam dispute with India just days ahead of the BRICS summit in Xiamen, China in order to ensure that Indian President Narendra Modi would attend. Xi may have also wanted to advertise his ability to negotiate solutions to international showdowns for the world (and U.S.) to see. Thus, progress on North Korea before or after Trump's arrival could improve Xi's authority both with Trump and the rest of the world. November 23 - U.S. Thanksgiving: North Korea likes to be "cute," so we cannot rule out attempts to unsettle the Americans on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day, as with the July 4 ICBM launch. Trump's visit is very consequential and it is more likely under the circumstances that China will receive him warmly, like Nixon, rather than coldly, like Obama last year. Trump is holding serious trade negotiations (via Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) and at the same time threatening to sanction Chinese companies and imports (via Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin). There are many reasons for Beijing to cooperate on North Korea in order to get advantageous treatment on the economic front. Bottom Line: The market is already discounting North Korea. We may be wrong temporarily if the North ups the ante yet again, but we are very near the peak of the latest round of tensions. The North is running out of options short of instigating a fight it would lose, while China is enforcing sanctions more seriously (including fuel), and Washington has apparently opened direct talks with Pyongyang. We will maintain our portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, for now. We are also re-opening our long CBOE China ETF volatility index to account for potential rising political uncertainty surrounding the coming October Party Congress and possibly for further North Korea related risks. However, we are closing our short KRW / THB trade for a gain of 5.33%. Europe: More Red Herrings Brexit is no longer market-relevant. Its economic effect was fully priced in when Prime Minister Theresa May announced on January 17 that the U.K. would not seek membership in the Common Market. Since then, the pound has effectively bottomed against both the dollar and the euro, as we argued it would (Chart 15).13 This does not mean that investors should necessarily go long the pound. Rather, we are pointing out that the moves in the U.K. currency have ceased to be Brexit-related since we called its bottom in January. Going forward, investors should make bets on the pound based on macroeconomic fundamentals, not on the U.K.-EU negotiations. The one political risk to the pound going forward is the potential for the Labour Party, headed by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, to come to power in the U.K. in the near term. Corbyn is the most left-of-center leader of a developed world economy since French president François Mitterrand in 1981. And he symbolizes a leftward shift on economic policy by the median voter. Nevertheless, the risks to PM May are overstated, for now. A key test for the Prime Minister, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, passed its first parliamentary hurdle in Westminster on September 12. No Conservatives rebelled, with seven Labour politicians defying Corbyn's instructions to vote against the bill. The bill still faces several days of amendments, but it largely gives May a free hand to negotiate with Europe going forward. Bremain-leaning Tory backbenchers could have posed problems for May had they decided to obstruct the bill. That they did not tells us that nobody wants to challenge May and that she will likely remain the prime minister until the eventual deal with the EU is reached. Our clients often balk at our dismissal of Brexit as an investment-relevant geopolitical event. However, the crucial question post-Brexit was whether any other EU member states would follow the U.K. out of the bloc. We answered this question in the negative, with high conviction, the day of the U.K. referendum.14 Not only did no country follow U.K.'s lead, but the effect of Brexit was in fact the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom, with a slew of defeats for populists around Europe following the referendum. For the U.K. economy and assets, the key two Brexit-related questions were whether the economy's service sector would have unfettered access to the European market via membership in the Common Market (Chart 16); and whether the labor market would have access to the European labor pool (Chart 17). Both questions were answered by May during her January 17 speech in the negative, which is why we continue to cite that moment as the date when U.K. assets fully priced in Brexit. Chart 15Is Brexit##br## Still Relevant? Chart 16U.K. Needs A Free Services Agreement##br## With The EU, Not An FTA! Chart 17Intra-EU Migration Boosts ##br##Labor Force Growth What could change our forecast? We would need to see the negotiations with Europe become a lot more acrimonious. Disputes over the amount of the "exit bill" or the status of the Irish border simply do not count as acrimony. We need to see the threat of a "Brexit cliff" - where the EU-U.K. trade relationship reverts to "WTO rules" - emerge due to a conflict between the two powers. However, this is unlikely to happen as the EU greatly values its trade relationship with the U.K. And London's demand for an FTA actually plays to the EU's strengths, since FTAs normally privilege trade in goods (where Europe is competitive) relative to trade in services (where the U.K. has an advantage). Bear in mind, as well, that the U.K. and EU are negotiating an FTA from a starting point of a high degree of economic integration: this is not the equivalent of two separate economies pursuing an FTA for the first time. Similarly overstated as a risk is the upcoming Catalan independence referendum. As we argued this February, the referendum is a non-event.15 Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 18). And as we argued in our net assessment of the issue in 2014, a surge in internal migration since the Second World War has diluted the Catalan share of the total population.16 In fact, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish.17 Another 10% identify non-Iberian languages as their first language, suggesting that migrants will further dilute support for sovereignty, as they have done in other places (most recently: Quebec). Chart 18Catalans Do Not Want Independence We expect the turnout of the upcoming referendum to be low. Given that Madrid will not recognize it, the only way for the Catalan referendum to be relevant is if the nationalist government is willing to enforce sovereignty. What does that mean precisely? The globally recognized definition of sovereignty is the "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a defined territory." To put it bluntly: the Catalan government has to be willing to take up arms in order for its referendum to be relevant to the markets. Without recognition from Spain, and with no support for independence from fellow EU and NATO peers, Catalonia cannot win independence at the ballot box. Bottom Line: Fade Brexit and Catalonia risks. Iraq: An Emergent Risk In 2014, we wrote the following about the future of Iraq:18 "Furthermore, the recent Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk - nominally to secure it from ISIS, in reality to (re)claim it for the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) - will not be acceptable to Baghdad. In our conversations with clients, too much optimism exists over the stability of Kurdistan and its expected oil output. While we are broadly positive on the KRG, there are many challenges. First, three-quarters of Iraqi production is, in fact, located in the Southern part of the country, far from Iraqi Kurdistan. Second, Kirkuk and its associated geography has the potential to boost production, but the Kurds (and their ally Turkey) will eventually have to face-off against Baghdad (and its ally Iran) for control over this territory. Just because the KRG secured Kirkuk today does not mean that it will stay in their control in the future. We are fairly certain that once ISIS is defeated, Baghdad will ask for Kirkuk back." In 2016, we followed up again on the situation in Iraq by pointing out that a series of defeats for the Islamic State were raising the probability that a reckoning was coming between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurds.19 Now that the Islamic State threat is in the rear-view mirror, our forecast is coming to fruition. On September 25, Kurds in Iraq will hold an independence referendum. Opposition to the referendum is uniform across the region, with the U.S. - Kurds' strongest ally - requesting that it not take place. Why should investors care? First, there is the issue of oil production. There are no reliable figures regarding KRG production, but it is thought to be around 550,000 bpd, although KRG officials have themselves downplayed their production. This figure includes production from the Kurdish-controlled Bai Hassan and Avana fields in the Kirkuk province, which is not formally part of the KRG territory but which Kurds nominally control due to their 2014 anti-ISIS intervention. A conflict over Kurdish independence could impact this production, particularly if war breaks out over Kirkuk. However, the bigger risk to global oil supply is what it would do to future efforts to boost Iraqi production. Iraq is the last major oil play on the planet that can cheaply and easily, with 1920s technologies, access significant new production. If a major war breaks out in the country, it is difficult to see how Iraq would sustain the necessary FDI inflows to develop its fields to boost production, even if the majority of production is far from the Kurdish region. Given steady global oil demand, the world is counting on Iraq to fill the gap with cheap oil. If it cannot, higher oil prices will have to incentivize tight-oil and off-shore production. Second, there are problematic regional dynamics. There are about six million Kurds in Iraq, about 20% of the total population. The Kurdish Regional Government controls the northeast corner of Iraq, but fighting against the Islamic State has allowed the Kurds to extend their control further south and almost double their territory (Map 1). Turkey has largely supported the KRG over the years, as the ruling party in the autonomous province is relatively hostile to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. However, Turkey is opposed to the independence of the KRG due to fears that it would start the ball rolling on the independence of Kurds in Syria and potentially one day in Turkey as well. Also opposed to KRG secession are Iran (Baghdad's closest ally) and Syria (which is dealing with its own Kurdish question). Map 1Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey On the other hand, the KRG does have international support. Russia just recently concluded a major oil deal with KRG, promising to buy Kurdish oil and refine it in Germany. Moscow will also invest US $3 billion in KRG territory. Russia also supplied the KRG Peshmerga - armed forces - with weapons during their fight against the Islamic State. From Russia's perspective, any conflict in the Middle East is a boon. It stalls investment in the region, curbs its oil production, and potentially adds a risk premium to oil prices. In addition, a close alliance with the KRG would allow Russia to gain another ally in the region. Bottom Line: While it is difficult to see how the independence referendum will play out in the short term, we have had a high-conviction view that Iraq's stability will not improve with the fall of the Islamic State. For investors, rising tensions in Iraq are significant because they could curb investment in the long term and potentially even impact production in the short term. Unlike the Islamic State, which never threatened oil production in the Middle East in any significant way, Iraq and the KRG are both oil producers. In fact, their main conflict is over an oil-producing region centered on Kirkuk. Tensions in the region support BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy's bullish view on oil prices.20 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017; "North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2017; and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy 10-year Treasury yield model only uses the global manufacturing PMI and sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as inputs. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Duration 'Hot Potato' Shifts Back To The U.S.," dated August 8, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The 'Trump Put' Over?" dated August 23, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We use the Cook Political Report for their assessment of how U.S. electoral districts lean. Charlie Cook is Washington's foremost election handicapper with a long record of accomplishment. Anyone interested in closely following the U.S. midterm elections should consider his research, which is found on http://www.cookpolitical.com/ 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see footnote 3 above. 13 The GBP/USD bottomed then and there. The GBP/EUR has recently hit a new low, for reasons other than Brexit. This bottom is only slightly below its previous lows in October 2016, when May confirmed that her government would seek to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum result, and in January 2017, when May admitted what the GBP/EUR had already reflected, that this meant leaving the Common Market. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming EXITentialist Crisis," dated June 24, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Language Use of the Population of Catalonia," Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'Estadustuca de Catalunya, dated 2013, available at web.gencat.cat 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance," dated September 14, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Even isolated North Korean attacks are unlikely to lead to a full-scale war; The USD sell-off will start to reverse once Trump makes Gary Cohn his official pick for Fed chairman; Europe is not a risk for investors ... even Italy is only a longer-term risk; France is reforming; stay long French industrials versus German. Feature Last week, in London, we were scheduled to give a talk on Sino-American tensions, East Asian geopolitical risks, and North Korea specifically. We submitted our topic of choice about a month ahead of the event, when tensions between Pyongyang and Washington were at their height. As tensions temporarily subsided following Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un's decision to delay the planned missile launch towards Guam, several colleagues wondered if the topic was still a pertinent one. We stressed in our research that tensions would not dissipate and would continue to be market-relevant, if not critical for S&P 500.1 Unfortunately, we have been proven right. Forecasting geopolitics requires insight, multi-disciplinary methodology, and a treasure trove of empirical knowledge. But sometimes it also just comes down to using Google and looking at a calendar. For example, given the present context of heightened tensions, the annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises - Key Resolve, which occurs normally in the spring, and Ulchi-Freedom Guardian, which occurs in August - are obvious dates to monitor. They are provocations that North Korea has to respond to for both foreign and domestic audiences. Pyongyang has chosen to do so by firing an ICBM across Japan and testing a sixth nuclear device, allegedly a miniaturized hydrogen bomb. While both these actions qualitatively expand on previous acts (missile and nuclear tests), neither cross a threshold. We are still in the realm of "territorial threat display." President Trump and Supreme Leader Kim are angling their "swords," but have not dared to cross them yet. Nonetheless, our clients have pointed out that our "arch of diplomacy" approach leaves a lot to imagination. Therefore, the first insight from the road of this week is that we need to put our thinking cap on and imagine a scenario where tensions do blow over into open conflict. How do we imagine such a scenario occurring and why would it not devolve into full out war that forces the U.S. to attack the North Korean mainland? Is North Korea About To Become A Praying Mantis? We can imagine a scenario where North Korea commits an act that takes us beyond the nuanced thresholds set by recent history (Chart 1). For example, we have cited to clients that an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.2 We could see the U.S. following the script from 1988 Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War - when the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines.3 Chart 1North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Such an increase in tensions is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than to an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula (which we still see as highly unlikely). How would the markets react to the sinking of North Korean submarines? How would Pyongyang react? The answer to the former (market's reaction) depends on the answer to the latter (what does Pyongyang do?). Our best guess is that Pyongyang would do nothing. In fact, we may never know that North Korean submarines were sunk. We would suspect that North Korean military strategists would chalk the subs as a loss and quietly move on to more missile tests. Leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. This part requires a bit of "order-of-battle" analysis, so bear with us for a few paragraphs. North Korea has around 6 million military personnel, about 25% of the total North Korean population, ready to fight. Which would be great if it were preparing to charge Verdun in WWI. Unfortunately for Pyongyang, it is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man. To burst through the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), its mammoth ground forces would have at their disposal about 2000 T-55s (designed in the 1950s) and an unknown number of T-72s (designed in the 1970s). The former are obsolete, but the latter are solid main battle tanks that could do damage ... that is, in a world where war was not airborne. The problem is that North Korea would lose air superiority within hours of any serious engagement leaving its tanks and ground troops vulnerable to death-from-above. Since North Korean troops would have to enter about 20 miles into South Korea to threaten Seoul with occupation, they would have to exit the range of most of their air defenses. Choosing to turn on the most powerful of their systems - such as the KN-06 with a 150km range - would leave them vulnerable to the U.S. AGM-88 HARM missiles that sniff out active radar antenna or transmitters. To protect its invading forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15 and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity and whether U.S. forces in Japan were deployed to counter the attack. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would likely quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Once the North Korean fighter jets were destroyed, the South Korean air force would turn the invasion into a massacre. The reality is that North Korea's ground forces are just for show. Its tanks and fighter jets will never see battle. North Korea really only has two gears: P & N. The first is for "Provocation" and the second is for "Nuclear Armageddon." This is why we highly doubt that we will see our Praying Mantis scenario play out, or lead to full-scale war if it does. North Korea is constrained by its technological inferiority. It does not have the ability to conduct war across a full spectrum of engagement. Neither did Iran in 1988, which is why it never retaliated for the loss of its navy, put all its revolutionary zeal and chest-thumping aside, and sued the U.S. at the International Court of Justice instead.4 The U.S. has a range of limited military engagements, particularly at sea, that could hurt Pyongyang's ability to project what little power it has. Given our constraint-based methodology, which requires one to have some understanding of military affairs, we have a fairly high conviction view that North Korea will continue to toe-the-line of the expected and thus accepted provocations along the lines of the history surveyed in Chart 1. Going beyond that list would threaten to expose the paucity of North Korea's military capabilities. Bottom Line: We are still in for a wild ride with North Korea. As we expected, regional safe haven assets continue to perform well. We will hold on to our safe haven basket of Swiss bonds and gold, up 2.6% since August 16. Nonetheless, we expect North Korea to steer clear of provoking a war. Gary Cohn Will Collapse The USD! (But What If He Already Did?) Several fast-money clients - both in the U.S. and Asia - have a theory for why the greenback continues to suffer: Gary Cohn. The theory goes that Cohn is an ultra-dove whose job as the next Fed Chair will be to stay "behind the curve" and drive down the USD. This would accomplish President Trump's lofty nominal GDP growth goals despite legislative hurdles to his fiscal policy. It would also keep risk assets well bid and help begin rebalancing the U.S. trade deficit. What do we know of Mr. Cohn's views on monetary policy? Not much: He defended the Trump administration goal of a 3% GDP growth target, suggesting that he has a far more optimistic view of U.S. growth than the current Fed projection;5 He believes that monetary policy is "globalized," intoning at a conference in Florida quickly after the election that the Fed policy of raising rates before the rest of the world is ready to do the same would be a mistake;6 In a January 2016 Bloomberg TV interview, he said that both the U.S. and Chinese currencies were overvalued and would both have to devalue.7 People who know and have worked with Gary Cohn (including one colleague at BCA!) speak highly of his pragmatism, work ethic, and focus. Most agree that he would likely be dove-ish, but there is not a single person we have spoken to who thinks that he will be Trump's puppet. As such, his disconnected statements largely say nothing about his potential style of leadership. His most ultra-dovish, USD-slaying comment comes from January 2016, with DXY 6.9% down since then (Chart 2). Mission Accomplished Mr. Cohn? The real reason for the USD slide, aside from a persistently disappointing inflation print, has been a realization by the market that President Trump's bark has no bite. On a slew of measures, President Trump's initial bravado has dissipated into flabby rhetoric. Chart 3 shows the initial surge in optimism regarding growth, tax reform, infrastructure spending, Mexico's comeuppance, and bi-partisanship (measured as support among independents). Each data point has not only fallen back to pre-election levels, but appears to have now been desensitized to any news that would have excited it in the past. For example, NAFTA negotiations are off to a poor start, President Trump continues to bash the trade deal, and yet the peso has rallied since Trump's inauguration! Chart 2Mission Accomplished, Mr. Cohn? Chart 3Trump's Bark Has No Bite? The Fed itself has lost faith in the president. The number of FOMC members who see upside risks to inflation and GDP growth, not unrelated to fiscal policy, has fallen after a brief surge after the election (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Also Doubts Trump What chances are there for the White House and Congress to re-write the fiscal narrative over the final quarter of 2017? As we wrote last week, Hurricane Harvey will ensure that a debt ceiling breach and government shutdown are avoided. However, Congress is likely to spend September making one last attempt at Obamacare repeal and replace, thus largely wasting the month before returning to tax reform in earnest in the new fiscal year. We expect some form of tax legislation to take shape by the end of December. Will it be comprehensive tax reform? Unlikely. It will now almost certainly be merely a tax-cutting exercise, with some revenue offsets attached to it. With the Republicans in Congress now leading the tax reform effort, it is unlikely that the budget deficit hole will be as wide as President Trump would have wanted. The problem is that both Trump's July tax reform proposal and the House GOP August plan come short of revenue-neutrality by around $3-3.5 trillion (over the decade-long period) (Table 1). Given that such a massive increase in the deficit would be unacceptable to fiscal hawks (or Democrats) in the House, we would expect tax rates to be cut by a much more modest degree. Table 1By How Much Will Republican Tax Cuts Widen The Deficit? Table 1 gives a detailed survey of the preferences (Tax Cuts) and constraints (Revenue Offsets). It is difficult to see how all the constraints are overcome through the legislative process. This will force Republicans to modify their preferences on the scale of tax cuts. We would expect that a corporate tax cut from 35% to around 27-28% could be possible, along with a minimal middle-class tax cut. Anything beyond that would be overly complicated. Therein lies the paradox for Chair Cohn. The only way that he can be "behind the curve" is if the curve gets "in front of him." But why would it if any coming tax legislation has very little stimulative effect on the economy? Currently, the expected change in the Fed Funds Rate over the next two years stands at a measly 40 bps (Chart 5). That is just barely two rate hikes until September 2019. How can Mr. Cohn get the expectations any lower at this point? Bottom Line: The appointment of Gary Cohn will be a classic "sell the (USD on the) rumor, buy (the USD) on the news." We expect his appointment in late November or early December, if President Trump goes by the lead time from the past two nominations (Chart 6). That may be the time to pare back USD shorts for those investors who have been bearish on the greenback. Chart 5Hard To Drive Expectations##BR##Lower For Rate Hikes Chart 6How Long Does It Take To##BR##Confirm The Fed Chair? Europe Is Not A Risk Chart 7Europe's Economy Zooming Along One clear insight from our five weeks on the road this summer is that Europe is no longer on anyone's radar. We had hardly any questions regarding the upcoming German or Italian elections. And while most investors were somewhat pessimistic regarding French structural reforms, none expressed any interest in betting against them either. The obvious reason is that Europe's economy has genuinely recovered (Chart 7). Consumer and business confidence are holding up while the manufacturing PMI and industrial production remain strong. That said, uniformity of view among clients across several geographies makes us nervous. On the future of the Euro Area, investors have swung wildly from morose to resigned that it is here to stay. Nonetheless, we generally agree with the consensus. Unlike at the beginning of this year, when we boldly claimed that European risks would turn out to be a "trophy red herring," we have no alpha to generate by disagreeing with the market.8 Here is why: German Election: We have a policy of not wasting our client's time by covering major geopolitical events that have no market-relevance. Germany is the world's fourth-largest economy and it will hold an election on September 24. However, we see no investment relevance in the election and therefore no reason to spend time covering it. Polls show that the center-left opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD) has arrested its decline and may force another Grand Coalition (Chart 8). The only moderately interesting question is whether Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will be able to get its favored coalition ally, the Free Democratic Party (FDP), into government instead. The FDP has turned towards soft Euroskepticism since 2009. Its parliamentarians voted against several bills dealing with the Euro Area crisis during their 2009-2013 coalition with the CDU. That said, Chancellor Merkel has turned much more forcefully pro-Europe since the dark days of Greek bailouts and bond market rioting. The Chancellor can read the polls: Germans support the common currency at 81%, compared to 66% average between 2009-2013 (Chart 9). We expect the FDP to play along with the Europhile conversion by the CDU. Chart 8Another Grand Coalition? Chart 9Merkel Knows Germans Support The Euro If there is any significance to the calm ahead of the German election, it is that the country is at "peak normal." Its policymakers have dealt with a massive migration crisis, geopolitical crises to the East, terrorist attacks, and severe political and economic stresses in its sphere of influence, all with a near-complete absence of internal drama. This looks like either "as good as it gets," or the start of a new Golden Age in Europe, with Berlin in the lead. It is probably neither, but given European asset prices, and gearing to the growing global economy, we would remain overweight Euro Area equities going forward. Italian Election: Polls remain too-close-to-call in the upcoming Italian election, with Euroskeptic parties continuing to poll well (Chart 10). However, we are not sure one can truly call these parties Euroskeptic anymore. Despite a high level of Euroskeptic sentiment in the country (Chart 11), its Euroskeptic parties have been scared off by the failures of peers in Austria, the Netherlands, and France. Chart 10Italy: Euroskeptic Parties Poll Well... Chart 11...Reflecting Broader Euroskepticism Luigi Di Maio, leader of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, and Matteo Salvini, head of the right-wing, populist Lega Nord, both reversed positions on the euro this month. Di Maio will be 5SM candidate for prime minister in the upcoming elections - which must be held by May and will likely take place in February or March. He reiterated a position, which 5SM hinted at in the past, that leaving the Euro Area would only be the "last resort" if Brussels refused to relax strict budget rules. Meanwhile, the firebrand, populist, Salvini hid behind Italy's constitution, claiming that a referendum on the euro would be illegal. In the short term, this means that the election in 2018 is no longer a risk. In the long term, it does not change the fact that Italy is ripe for a bout of Euroskeptic crisis at some later stage. Migration Crisis: Bad news for right-wing populists everywhere: the migration crisis is over and in quite a dramatic fashion. This is an empirical fact (Chart 12). Europe's enforcement efforts and collaboration with Libyan authorities (such as they are) have now forced even the humanitarian agencies to abandon the Mediterranean route. One of the largest such agencies - the Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) - recently announced that it was packing its mothership, the Phoenix, for Myanmar. The group is the fourth to stop patrols for migrants. Medecins sans Frontieres, Save the Children, and Germany's Sea Eye all cited hostile actions taken by Libyan authorities towards their vessels as the main reason to stop rescuing migrants in Libyan waters. Chart 12The 'Migration Crisis' Is Definitively Over To be clear, what is happening in the Mediterranean is a result of European enforcement efforts, not any sudden awakening of Libyan capacity or sovereignty. The European Union and Italy are training and funding the Libyan Coast Guard, which has started to intercept humanitarian vessels, threaten them with force (often right in front of the Italian Navy!), and force them to return migrants to Libya, where they are subjected to extremely cruel internment. Prior to this development, human smugglers would launch barely seaworthy "crafts" towards humanitarian ships waiting literally yards away in Libyan waters to "rescue" the "migrants" to Europe. As such, humanitarian agencies were aiding and abetting human smuggling, by making it a lucrative enterprise with no downside risk for the smugglers. We expect the step-up in enforcement in Libyan waters to severely impair the cost-benefit calculus of attempting a Mediterranean crossing for a would-be migrant. Instead of a welcoming NGO vessel many will find themselves in Libyan Internment camps. Word will spread fast and the migration crisis will abate further. We have now come full circle on the migration crisis, which we predicted back in September 2015 would end precisely in such an illiberal fashion.9 Europe has a vicious streak ... who knew? Structural Reforms In France: In February, we penned a bullish report on France, arguing with high conviction that Marine Le Pen would lose and that structural reforms would follow.10 What is the status of the latter forecast? Despite a decline in President Emmanuel Macron's popularity (Chart 13), he is expending his political capital early in his term. He understands our "J-curve of Structural Reform" (Diagram 1). Policymakers who understand how the reform J-curve works know that they have to spend their political capital while they have it, at the beginning of their term, in order to reap the benefits, if there are any, while they are still in power. Chart 13Macron's Popularity Slips Diagram 1The J-Curve Of Structural Reform How do Macron's reforms compare with previous efforts? Generally speaking, Macron's reforms (Table 2) compare favorably with both the 2012 Mariano Rajoy reforms in Spain and the 2003 Hartz reforms in Germany. The Hartz reforms were instrumental in expanding temporary work contracts and restructured generous unemployment benefits. Similarly, the Rajoy reforms in Spain clarified economic grounds for dismissal and created more flexible "entrepreneur contracts." Macron's reforms fit these efforts, especially the proposals to put in place "project contracts" - an open-ended contract lasting for the duration of a project - and to establish a floor and a ceiling for allowances in cases of unfair terminations, and make termination for economic reasons easier. Table 2French Labor Reforms: The Key Bits The two criticisms of the reform efforts we most often hear are that France has not had a crisis to spur reforms and that unions will launch vicious protests. The first criticism is dubious, given that France is itself emerging from the low-growth doldrums of the post-Great Financial Crisis. It is simply false to say that France has had no crisis. The French public is acutely aware that its real per-capita GDP growth has been closer to Greek levels than German ones over the last two decades (Chart 14) and that it has lost competitiveness in the global marketplace (Chart 15). One cannot have a conversation with a French friend, colleague, or client without wanting to order a strong drink!11 Chart 14France's Lost Millennium Chart 15France's Lost Competitiveness Besides, what monumental crisis was it that propelled Germany into reforms in the early 2000s? A vicious recession? A massive bank crisis? It was neither. Germany was simply weighed down for a decade by fiscal transfers to East Germany and sensing that its export-oriented industry was facing a massive challenge from the Asian move up the value chain. It was this acute sense of competitive pressure, of falling behind, that spurred Germany to reform. With France, the acute sense of falling behind Germany (Chart 16) is at the heart of today's effort. Chart 16German Competition Puts A Fire Under France The second criticism, that the unions will hold protests, misjudges the political capital arrayed behind Macron. Despite his sagging popularity, 85.9% of the seats in the National Assembly are of pro-reform orientation (Diagram 2). The second-largest party in the parliament is Les Republicains, an even more zealously pro-reform group. This is a unique situation in French history and will allow the government to ignore protests on the street. Diagram 2The Balance Of Power In France's National Assembly In fact, two of the largest unions in France - Force Ouvrière and CFDT - have both said they would not protest the labor reforms. This leaves only the more militant CGT to protest, along with the left-wing presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The reason investors will still fret about protests this month is because CGT retains a strong representation in heavy industry and infrastructure sectors like energy and railways. As such, their industrial action could grind the country to a halt. We suspect that a repeat of the 1995 general strike or the 2010 French pension reform unrest - both of which CGT spearheaded - will be the final nail in the coffin of "Old France." Unlike those previous reform efforts, President Macron's effort has been clearly signaled ahead of the election and thus retains considerable democratic legitimacy. As such, any repeat of the 1995 or especially 2010 unrest would delegitimize the unions and give President Macron even more political capital. Bottom Line: We agree with the now conventional view that all is well in Europe. Stability ahead of the German election reminds investors of what a healthy country is supposed to look like. Italian election risks have dissipated. And our French structural reforms call remains on track. This gives us an opportunity to do some house-cleaning regarding our calls. First, we are closing our long French 10-year bond / short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of only 1 bps. Second, we are closing our overweight Euro Area equities relative to U.S. equities call for a gain of 7.88%. Given our euro-bullishness, we never recommended that this call be currency hedged. We are now reinstating it with a currency hedge. We are also closing our long German 10-Year CPI Swap for a gain of 45.5 bps. We will stick with our long French industrial equities / short German industrials, which is currently up 9.25%. This is a way we have chosen to articulate our bullish view on the reforms, although clients with greater sophistication in European sectors could come up with a more direct way to articulate the view. Separately, we are also booking profits on our long China volatility trade (CBOE China ETF Volatility Index) for a gain of 16.82%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, but that was still within the norm of behavior for the two countries that are still effectively at war and have contested maritime borders. 3 Romeo-class submarines are nearly 70 years old. As much as we harken back to Yugoslav engineering with pride at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy, Belgrade was never much of a naval power. Nonetheless, diesel-powered submarines are quite proficient in staying undetected and could present a problem for the U.S. Navy. At least until they had to resurface or get back to base, where nuclear-powered U.S. Virginia-class attack-subs would lie in wait for them. 4 Tehran won the court case in 2003! And the ICJ forced the U.S. to compensate Iran for its lost ships or else face invasion by the United Nations army. (We are just kidding obviously. Iran did win, but it got nothing.) Please see Pieter H.F. Bekker, "The World Court Finds that U.S. Attacks on Iranian Oil Platforms in 1987-1988 Were Not Justifiable as Self-Defense, but the United States Did Not Violate the Applicable Treaty with Iran," American Society of International Law Volume 8, Issue 25, dated November 11, 2003, available at: asil.org. 5 Please see CNBC, "Tax reform is coming in September, Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn says," dated June 29, 2017, available at cnbc.com. 6 Please see Wall Street Journal, "How Donald Trump's New Top Economic Adviser Views the World," dated December 14, 2016, available at wjs.com. 7 Please see Business Insider, "Trump and his top economic adviser have had completely different views on China," dated January 3, 2017, available at businessinsider.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Thankfully for France, the choice would still be French wine!
Feature Shrugging Off The Political Noise All the political noise of August (White House resignations, Charlottesville, North Korean missile launches, the looming U.S. debt ceiling) could do no more than trigger a minor market wobble: at the worst point, global equities were off only 2% from their all-time high. The reason is that global cyclical growth remains strong, earnings are accelerating, and central banks have no immediate need to turn hawkish. In such an environment, risk assets should continue to outperform over the next 12 months. The political risks will not disappear (and will no doubt produce further hair-raising moments), but they are unlikely to have a decisive impact on markets. BCA's geopolitical strategists think eventually there will be a diplomatic solution to the North Korean situation - albeit only after a significant further rise in tension forces the two sides to the negotiating table.1 It is hard to imagine the debt ceiling not being raised, since Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, and they would be blamed for any disruption caused by a failure to raise it. Recent personnel changes in the White House have left - for now - a more pragmatic "Goldman Sachs clique" in charge. We believe there is still a reasonable likelihood of tax cuts, not least since the Republicans are on track to lose a lot of seats in next year's mid-term elections unless they can boost the administration's popularity (Chart 1). Recent growth data has been decent. U.S. Q2 GDP growth was revised up to 3% QoQ annualized, and the regional Fed NowCasts point to 1.9-3.4% growth in Q3. If anything, growth momentum in the euro area (2.4% in Q2) and Japan (4%) is even better. Corporate earnings growth continues to accelerate too, with S&P 500 EPS growth in the second quarter coming in at 10% YoY, compared to a forecast of just 6% before the results season started. BCA's models suggest that, in all regions, earnings growth is likely to continue to accelerate for a couple more quarters (Chart 2). Chart 1Republicans Need A Popularity Boost Chart 2Earnings Continue To Accelerate The outlook for the dollar remains the key to asset allocation. The market currently assumes that the dollar will weaken further, as U.S. inflation stays low and the Fed, therefore, stays on hold. Futures markets currently price only a 38% probability of a Fed hike in December, and only 25 BP of hikes over the next 12 months. If markets are right, this scenario would be positive for emerging market equities and commodity currencies, and would mean that long-term rates would be likely to stay low, around current levels. But we think that assumption is wrong. Diffusion indexes for core inflation have begun to pick up (Chart 3). The tight labor market should start to push up wages, dollar deprecation is already coming through in the form of rising import prices, and some transitory factors (pre-election drugs price rises, for example) will fall out of the data soon. The Fed is clearly nervous that it has fallen behind the curve, especially since financial conditions have recently eased significantly (Chart 4). A moderate stabilization of inflation by December would be enough to push the Fed to hike again - and to reiterate its plan to raise rates three times next year. Chart 3Inflation To Pick Up? Chart 4Financial Condition: Easy In The U.S., Tight In Europe Meanwhile, long-term interest rates in developed economies look too low given growth prospects (Chart 5). As inflation picks up, the Fed talks more hawkishly, and the dollar begins to appreciate again, rates are likely to move up in the U.S. and in the euro zone. Our view, then, is that the Fed will tighten faster than the market expects, long-term rates will rise and the dollar will appreciate. Equities might wobble initially as they price in the tighter monetary policy but, as long as growth continues to be strong, should outperform bonds on a 12-month basis. Our scenario would be positive for euro zone and Japanese equities, but somewhat negative for EM equities. Equities: We prefer DM equities over EM. Emerging equities have been boosted over the past 12 months by the weaker dollar and Chinese reflation. With the dollar likely to appreciate (for the reasons argued above), and a slowdown in Chinese money supply growth pointing to slower growth in that economy (Chart 6), we think EM equities will struggle over coming quarters. Meanwhile, there is little sign that domestic growth momentum is improving in emerging economies (Chart 7). Within DM, our underlying preference is for euro zone and Japanese equities. Our quants model now points to an underweight for the U.S. We haven't implemented this yet because 1) of our view that the USD will strengthen, and 2) we prefer not to make too frequent changes to recommendations. We will review this in our next Quarterly. Chart 5Rates Lag Behind Global Growth Chart 6Slowing Chinese Money Growth Is A Risk For EM Chart 7EM Domestic Growth Anemic Text below Fixed Income: BCA's model of fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (the model incorporates the Global Manufacturing PMI and USD bullish sentiment) points to 2.6%, almost 50 BP above the current level (Chart 8). We therefore expect G7 government bonds to produce a negative return over the next 12 months, as inflation expectations rise and monetary policy continues to "normalize". We still find some attraction in spread product, especially in the U.S. (Chart 9). While spreads are quite low compared to history, U.S. high-yield spreads remain 119 BP above historic lows, while euro area ones are only 65 BP above. Chart 8U.S. Rate Fair Value Is Around 2.6% Chart 9Credit Spreads Not At Record Lows Currencies: The euro has likely overshot. Long speculative positions are close to record levels (Chart 10) and the currency has returned to its Purchasing Power Parity level against the USD (Chart 11). An announcement of a "dovish" tapering of asset purchases by ECB President Draghi in September could persuade the market that the ECB will continue to be much more cautious about tightening than the Fed. The yen is also likely to weaken against the US dollar as global rates rise, since the BoJ will not change its yield curve control policy despite the better recent growth numbers, given how far inflation is still from its target. Chart 10There Are A Lot Of Euro Bulls Chart 11Euro Is No Longer Undervalued Commodities: Our forecast that a drawdown in crude inventories will push the WTI price back up is slowing coming about. U.S. crude inventories have fallen by 25.3 million barrels since the start of the year. The after-effects of Hurricane Harvey might affect the data for a while but, as long as global demand holds up, the crude oil price should rise further, with WTI moving over $55 a barrel by year-end. Metals prices have moved largely sideways year to date, and future movements depend mostly on the outlook for Chinese growth, which may begin to slow. In particular, the recent run-up in copper prices (which have risen by 20% since early June) seems unsustainable. The bullish sentiment was mostly due to short-term supply/demand imbalances caused by labor disruptions at some major mines. However, Chinese copper demand, especially for construction, is likely to weaken over coming months.2 Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market," dated 16 August 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated 24 August 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation