Geopolitics
Executive Summary Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Ukraine crisis is escalating as predicted. We maintain our odds: 65% limited incursion, 10% full-scale invasion, 25% diplomatic de-escalation. Russia says it will take “military-technical” measures as its demands remain unmet, while the US says an invasion is imminent. Fighting has picked up in the Donbas region. Our Ukraine decision tree highlights that the key to a last-minute diplomatic resolution is a western renunciation of defense cooperation with Ukraine after a verified Russian troop withdrawal. The opposite is occurring as we go to press. Stay long gold, defensives over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (STRATEGIC) 2019-12-06 27.6% Bottom Line: Our 75% subjective odds of a partial Russian re-invasion of Ukraine appear to be materializing. At the same time, we are not as optimistic about an imminent solution to the US-Iran nuclear problem. A near-term energy price spike is negative for global growth so we recommend sticking with our defensive tactical trades. Feature Chart 1Ukraine: Don't Be Complacent Fears about a heightened war in Ukraine fell back briefly this week before redoubling. Russian President Vladimir Putin showed a willingness to pursue diplomacy but then western officials refuted Russian claims that it was reducing troops around Ukraine. US President Biden said Russia is highly likely to invade Ukraine in the next few days. The Russian foreign ministry sent a letter reiterating Russia’s earlier threat that it will take unspecified “military-technical” actions given that its chief demands have not been met by the United States. A worsening security outlook as we go to press will push the dollar up against the euro, the euro up against the ruble, will lead to global equities falling (with US not falling as much as ex-US), and global bond yields falling (Chart 1). To assess the situation we need to weigh the signs of escalation against those of de-escalation. What were the signs of de-escalation? First, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it is reducing troop levels near Ukraine, although NATO and the western powers have not verified any drawdown. An unspecified number of troops were said to return to their barracks in the Western and Southern Military Regions, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov. A video showed military units and hardware pulling back from Crimea. Officials claimed all troops would leave Belarus after military drills ended on February 20.1 Second, the Kremlin signaled that diplomacy has not been exhausted. In a video released to the public, Putin met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He asked whether there was still a chance “to reach an agreement with our partners on key issues that cause our concern?” Lavrov replied, “there is always a chance.” Putin replied, “Okay.” Then, after speaking with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Moscow, Putin said: "We are ready to work further together. We are ready to go down the negotiations track.”2 Third, the Ukrainians are supposedly restarting efforts to implement the 2015 Russia-imposed ceasefire, under pressure from Germany and France. Ukraine’s ruling party is expected to introduce three bills to the Rada (parliament) that would result in implementing the terms of the Russian-imposed 2015 ceasefire, the so-called Minsk II Protocols. Ukraine is supposed to change its constitution to adopt a more federal system that grants autonomy to the two Russian separatist regions in the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine is also supposed to hold elections.3 The caveats to these three points are already clear: The US said Russia actually added 7,000 troops to the buildup on the Ukrainian border. Without Russia’s reducing troops, the US and its allies cannot offer major concessions. The US cannot allow itself to be blackmailed as that would encourage future hostage-taking and blackmail. Putin’s offer of talks is apparently separate from its “military-technical” response to the West’s failure to meet its three core demands on NATO. Russia’s three core demands are no further NATO enlargement, no intermediate-range missiles within threatening range, and withdrawal of NATO forces from eastern Europe to pre-1997 status. Putin reiterated that these three demands are inseparable from any negotiation and that Russia will not engage endlessly without resolution. Yet the West has consistently rejected these demands. Then came the Foreign Ministry statement pledging Russia’s military-technical response. So talks that focus on other issues – like missile defense and military transparency – are a sideshow. Ukraine is reiterating its desire to join NATO and will struggle to implement the Minsk Protocol. The Minsk format is not popular in Ukraine as it grants influence and recognition to the breakaway ethnic Russian regions. Ostensibly President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has sufficient strength in the Rada to change the constitution, given the possibility of assistance from opposition parties that oppose war or favor Russia. But passage or implementation could fail. The Russian Duma has also advised Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent countries, which Putin is not yet ready to do, but could do if Ukraine balks, and would nullify the Minsk format.4 Of Russia’s three core demands, investors should bear in mind the following points: Ukraine is never going to join NATO. One of the thirty NATO members will veto its membership to prevent war with Russia. Therefore Russia is either making this demand knowing it will fail to justify military action, or driving at something else, such as NATO defense cooperation with Ukraine. Even if NATO membership is practically unrealistic, the US and NATO are providing Ukraine with arms and training, making it a de facto member. The quality and quantity of western defense cooperation is not sufficient to threaten Russia’s military balance so far but it could grow over time and Russia is insisting that it stop. While there is also a broader negotiation over Europe’s entire security system, immediate progress depends on whether the US and its allies stop trying to turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO ally. NATO is not going to sacrifice all of the strategic, territorial, and military-logistical gains it has made since 1997. Especially not when Russia is attempting to achieve such a dramatic pullback by military blackmail. But NATO could reduce some of the most threatening aspects of its stance if Russia reciprocates and there is more military transparency. Similarly, the US and Russia have a track record of negotiating missile defense deals so this kind of agreement is possible over time. The problem, again, hinges on whether agreement can be found over Ukraine. The opposite looks to be the case. Based on the above points, Diagram 1 provides a “Decision Tree” that outlines the various courses of action, our subjective probabilities, and the sum of the conditional probabilities for each final scenario. Diagram 1Russia-Ukraine Decision Tree, February 9, 2022 We start with the view that there is a 55% chance that the status quo continues: the West will not rule out Ukraine’s right to join NATO and will not halt defense cooperation. If this is true, then the new round of talks will fail because Russia’s core security interests will not be met. However, we also give a 25% chance to the scenario in which Ukraine is effectively barred from NATO but not defense cooperation. This may be the emerging scenario, given Chancellor Scholz’s point that Ukrainian NATO membership is not on the agenda and the White House’s claim that it will not pressure states to join NATO. Basically, western leaders could provide informal assurances that Ukraine will never join. But then the matter of defense cooperation must be resolved in the next round of talks. Given that the US and others have increased arms transfers to Ukraine in recent months and years (with US providing lethal arms for the first time in 2018), it seems more likely (60/40) that they will continue with arms transfers. After all, if they halt arms, Russia can invade anyway, but Ukraine will have less ability to resist. We allot a 15% chance to a scenario in which the US and its allies halt defense cooperation, even if they officially maintain NATO’s “open door” policy. If the Russians withdraw troops in this scenario, then a lasting reduction of tensions will occur. Again, while allied defense cooperation has been limited so far, it is up to Russia whether it poses a long-term threat. Finally, we give a 5% chance that the US and NATO will bar Ukraine from membership and halt defense cooperation. This path would mark a total capitulation to Russia’s demands. So far the allies have done nothing like this. They have insisted on NATO’s open door policy and have continued to transfer arms. No one should be surprised that tensions are escalating. De-escalation could still conceivably occur if Russia verifiably withdraws troops, if Ukraine moves to implement the Minsk II protocol, and if the US and its allies pledge to halt defense cooperation with Ukraine. The first step is for Russia to reduce troops, since that enables the US and allies to make major concessions when they are not under duress. If the US and NATO guarantee they will halt defense cooperation, given that Ukraine is practically unlikely to join NATO, then Russia may not be as concerned with Ukraine’s implementation of Minsk. As we go to press, none of these conditions are falling into place. The security situation is deteriorating rapidly. Bottom Line: Russia is likely to stage a limited military intervention into Ukraine (75%). The odds of a diplomatic resolution at the last minute are the same (25%). A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine remains unlikely (10%). Market Reaction To Re-Escalation Chart 2 highlights the global equity market response to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, which should serve as the baseline for assessing the market reaction to any renewed attack today. Stocks fell and moved sideways relative to bonds for several months, cyclicals (except energy) underperformed defensives, small caps briefly rose then collapsed against large caps, and value stocks rose relative to growth stocks. The takeaway was to stay invested over the cyclical time frame, prefer large caps, and prefer value. The difference today is that cyclicals and small caps are already performing worse against defensives and large caps than in 2014, while value has vastly outstripped growth (Chart 3). The implication is that once war breaks out, cyclicals and small caps have less room to fall whereas value has limited near-term upside. Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014 Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014 If we look closely at global equity gyrations over the past week – when the Ukraine story moved to front and center – we see that stocks are falling relative to bonds, cyclicals are flat relative to defensives, small caps are rising relative to large caps, and value is flat relative to growth but may have peaked (Chart 4). In the short term the geopolitical dynamic will move markets so we expect cyclicals, small caps, and value to underperform. Commodity prices and the energy sector are initially benefiting from tensions as expected – oil prices and energy equities spiked amid the tensions (Chart 5). But assuming war materializes, Russia will at least cut off natural gas flowing through Ukraine, cutting off about 20% of Europe’s natural gas supply and triggering a bigger price shock. Ultimately, however, this price shock will incentivize production, destroy global demand, and drive energy prices down. Chart 4Global Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine Chart 5Global Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine Thus we expect energy price volatility. Russia will keep shipping energy to Europe to finance its military adventures. Europe will be loath to slap sanctions on critical energy supplies, assuming Russia’s military action is limited. The Saudis may or may not increase production to prevent demand destruction – in past Russian invasions they have actually reduced production once prices started to fall. A temporary US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market, though that is not what we expect in the short run (discussed below). Bottom Line: Tactically investors should favor bonds over stocks, the US dollar and US equities over global currencies and equities (especially European), defensive sectors over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and growth over value stocks. Is Ukraine Already Priced? Not Yet. Chart 6Crisis Events And Peak-To-Trough Market Drawdown The peak-to-trough equity drawdown – in geopolitical crises that are comparable to a Russian invasion of Ukraine – range from 11%-14% going back to 1931. The following research findings are derived from a list of select events, from the Japanese invasion of China to the German invasion of Poland to lesser invasions, all the way down to Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. We used the S&P 500 as it is the most representative stock index over this long period of time. The fully updated and broader list of geopolitical crises can be found in Appendix 1. Geopolitical crises tend to trigger an average 10% equity decline, smaller than economic crises or major terrorist attacks (Chart 6). The biggest geopolitical shocks to the equity market occur when an event is a truly global event, as opposed to regional shocks. Interestingly Europe-only shocks have seen some of the smallest average drawdowns at around 8% (Chart 7). An expanded Ukraine war would be limited to Europe. The average equity selloff is largest, at 14%, if both the US and its allies are directly involved in the geopolitical event. But the range is 11%-14% regardless of whether the US or its allies are involved (Chart 8). Ukraine is not an official ally, which is one reason the markets will tend to play down a larger war there. However, the market is underrating the fact that Ukraine’s neighbors are NATO members and will have a powerful interest in supporting the Ukrainian militant insurgency, which could lead to unexpected conflicts that involve NATO member-state’s citizens. Chart 7Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Where Is The Crisis? Chart 8Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Who Are The Players? Chart 9Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Russians have as many as 150,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, according to President Biden’s latest speech. The Ukrainian active military numbers 215,000. This ratio is not at all favorable for a full-scale invasion. The Russians are contemplating a limited action directed at teaching Ukraine a lesson or encroaching further onto Ukrainian territory, especially coastal territory. History suggests that a limited incursion will produce a 10% total equity drawdown, whereas a full-scale invasion would produce 13% or more (Chart 9). Still, investors should view 11%-14% as the appropriate range for a geopolitically induced crisis. The S&P has fallen by 9% since its peak on January 3, 2022. But Russia has not invaded yet. If war breaks out, there is more downside, given high uncertainty. Markets could still be surprised by the initial force of any Russian military action. The US will impose sweeping sanctions immediately. The Europeans will modify their sanctions according to Russia’s actions, a key source of uncertainty. If a diplomatic resolution is confirmed – with Russia withdrawing troops and the US and its allies cutting defense cooperation with Ukraine – then the market may continue to rally. However, there are other reasons to be cautious: especially inflation and monetary policy normalization, with the Federal Reserve potentially lifting rates by 50 basis points in March. Bottom Line: Stocks can fall further given that investors do not yet know the magnitude of the Russian military action or the US and European sanctions response. However, a buying opportunity is around the corner once this significant source of global uncertainty is clarified. New Iran Deal Is Neither Guaranteed Nor Durable A short note is necessary on the situation with Iran, another major risk this year, which falls under our third 2022 key view: oil-producing states gain geopolitical leverage. The implication is that the Iran risk will not be resolved quickly or easily. The global economy could suffer a double whammy of energy supply shock from Ukraine and energy supply risk in the Middle East this year. The US-Russia showdown is connected to the US-Iran nuclear negotiation. Russia took Crimea in 2014 in part because it saw an opportunity to exact a price from the United States, which sought Russia’s assistance in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Today a similar dynamic is playing out, in which Russian diplomats cooperate on Iranian talks while encroaching on Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon and thus will offer some limited cooperation to this end. Their pound of flesh is Ukraine. According to media reports, the Iranian negotiations have seen some positive developments over the past month. US interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Biden administration has an interest in preventing Iran from reaching “breakout” levels of uranium enrichment and triggering a conflict in the region that would drive up oil prices ahead of the midterm election. It is going to be hard for Biden to remove sanctions in the context of Russian aggression but it is likely he would do it if the Iranians recommit to complying with the 2015 restrictions on their nuclear program. Iranian interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Iranians have an interest in convincing President Biden to remove sanctions to improve their economy and reduce the risk of social unrest. They are demanding the removal of all sanctions, not only those levied by President Trump. They also know that rejoining the 2015 deal itself is not so bad, since it starts expiring in 2025 and does not limit their missile production or support of militant proxies in the region. However, note that the Iranian regime has suppressed domestic instability since Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions, and the economy is improving on oil prices, so the threat of social unrest is not forcing Iran to accept a deal today. Also note that Iran is making demands that cannot be met: Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian is asking the US to provide guarantees that the US will not renege on the deal again, for example if the Republicans return to the White House in 2025. President Biden cannot provide these guarantees. The voting margins are too thin for a “political statement,” promising that the US will not renege on a deal, to pass Congress. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be willing to provide such a statement to the Iranians, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer probably will not – he opposed the originally 2015 deal. Even if Congress gave Iran guarantees, the fact remains that the GOP could win the White House in 2025, so the current, hawkish Iranian leadership cannot be satisfied on this front. Furthermore, even if Biden pulls back sanctions and Iran complies with the 2015 deal for a brief reprieve, Iran’s underlying interest is to obtain a deliverable nuclear weapon to achieve regime survival in the future. Iran faces a clear distinction between Ukraine, which gave up nukes and is now being dismembered (like Libya and Iraq), and North Korea, which now has a deliverable nuclear arsenal and commands respect from the US on the national stage. Moreover if the Republicans take back power in 2025, Iran will want to have achieved or be close to achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon. The Biden administration is weak at home and facing a crisis with Russia, which may present a window of opportunity for Iran to make a dash for the nuclear deterrent. Still, we acknowledge the short-term risk to our pessimistic view: It is possible that Iran will rejoin the deal to gain sanctions relief. In this case about 1-1.2 million barrels per day of Iranian crude will hit the global market. The implication, depending on the size of the energy shock, is that Brent crude prices will fall back to the $80 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects. We also agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategist that global oil production will pick up in the face of supply risks that threaten to destroy demand. Bottom Line: We doubt Iran will rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal quickly. We expect energy prices to continue spiking in the short term due to Ukraine and any setbacks in the Iran negotiations. Yet we also expect oil producers around the world to increase production, which will sow the seeds for an oil price drop. Our tactical trade recommendations rest on falling oil prices and bond yields in the short run. Investment Takeaways Stay long gold. Stay long global defensive equity sectors over cyclicals. Favor global large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Stay long Japanese industrials relative to German and long yen. Stay long British stocks relative to other developed markets excluding the US, and long GBP-CZK. Favor Latin American equities within emerging markets, namely Mexican stocks and Brazilian financials relative to Indian stocks. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See "Russia Announces Troop Withdrawal," Russia Today, February 15, 2022, rt.com; "Ukraine crisis: Russian claim of troop withdrawal false, says US," BBC, February 17, 2022, bbc.com. 2 David M. Herszenhorn, “On stage at the Kremlin: Putin and Lavrov’s de-escalation dance,” Politico, February 14, 2022, politico.eu. 3 "Scholz says Zelensky promised to submit bills on Donbass to Contact Group," Tass, February 15, 2022, tass.com; "Scholz in Kyiv confirms Germany won’t arm Ukraine, stays mum on Nord Stream 2," February 15, 2022, euromaidanpress.com. 4 "Kiev makes no secret Minsk-2 is not on its agenda — Russian Foreign Ministry," Tass, February 17, 2022, tass.com; Felix Light, "Russian Parliament Backs Plan To Recognize Breakaway Ukrainian Regions," Moscow Times, February 15, 2022, themoscowtimes.com. Appendix 1: Geopolitical Events And Equity Market Impact Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
BCA Research’s US Political Strategy service concludes that it is too soon to buy the dip in the S&P 500. The Ukraine crisis is not yet resolved. The peak-to-trough equity drawdown amid major geopolitical crises ranges from 11%-15%, depending on the…
Executive Summary A Floor In Biden’s Approval? Biden’s approval rating is forming a bottom. Democrats will pivot away from Covid-19 to boost the economy and consumer sentiment. While Democrats face a dismal midterm election, Republican infighting could conceivably cost the GOP control of the Senate. Policy uncertainty will rise as the election approaches. Republican infighting is unlikely to affect the outcome in the House of Representatives, although Republicans could lose three-to-nine seats that they might otherwise hold if the party establishment fails to coordinate effectively with former President Trump as we expect. Our tactical trades hinge on Biden’s near-term external risks: the risk of an energy shock that weighs on Treasury yields and pushes up the dollar. Defensives like health care should benefit. Our cyclical recommendations continue to favor cyclical equities such as small cap energy stocks. Bottom Line: Investors should be tactically prepared for geopolitical risks to push up the dollar and push down Treasury yields in the short run, contrary to the cyclical BCA House View. Feature Has Biden’s Approval Hit The Floor? Probably. President Biden’s net approval rating is still under water at -9%, only slightly better than President Trump’s at this stage in the approach to the 2018 midterm elections. Biden’s handling of the economy receives a lower approval rating, which is dangerous for his party because the economy is likely to be the most important issue in the midterm election, given that the Covid-19 pandemic is waning. If Biden follows the path of his predecessors then his approval rating will trend upward as the midterm approaches. That will not prevent a Republican victory in the House but it could affect the Senate and the size of the Republican majority (Chart of the Week). The latest jobs report saw 467, 000 new jobs created. The labor participation rate grew from 81.9% to 82%, while women’s participation rose from 56.5% to 56.8%. The unemployment rate ticked up from 3.9% to 4%, with the broader U6 measure rising from 7.2% to 7.9%, but the reason was that more workers joined the workforce, which is a good thing for the economy (Chart 1). The Omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus is having little impact so the labor market is continuing to heal, a positive for the Biden administration, which is otherwise struggling. Chart 1A Solid Jobs Report American sentiment about the economy will hinge on inflation. If inflation abates along with the virus then the Democratic Party will be able to pare some losses in the midterms. At the moment the polarization of economic sentiment – divergence based on partisan affiliation – is declining, but for reasons that will give the administration a headache. Democratic sentiment is falling while Republican sentiment is improving (Chart 2). If inflation stays high, Republican sentiment will tick back down and the public will be increasingly united in a negative view of the president’s economic management. If inflation peaks and rolls over, Democratic sentiment will recover as the election approaches and Republican sentiment will at least not get much worse. Chart 2Economic Sentiment Polarization In Decline For this reason Biden and the Democrats are rapidly pivoting away from Covid-19 and social restrictions and trying to create the “return to normalcy” that failed last year. While they were in the opposition they had an interest in hyping the virus but now they are the incumbents and it is important to show that the pandemic is in the rear-view mirror. With 64% of Americans now vaccinated, and 40% having received booster shots, government social restrictions are likely to become less stringent (Chart 3). The latest data from the service sector will motivate this policy pivot away from the virus. The manufacturing sector improved again last month but the non-manufacturing sector was less upbeat in January. Services activity declined by a whopping 12% in January. It is still above its November 2020 level, when Biden got elected, but only by around 2.2%. The non-manufacturing employment index declined by 4.3% and only stands 0.8% above its November 2020 level. The ratio of new orders to inventories declined by 0.6% in January (Chart 4). Chart 3Democrats To Pivot Away From Covid-19These statistics suggest that the non-manufacturing sector slowed down sharply in January, probably due to omicron and post-Christmas belt tightening. But employers did not let go of a lot of workers, as seen by the discrepancies between business activity and employment. The mostly positive jobs report reinforces this point. The weakness is seen as temporary and employers expect higher demand in coming months. Now that consumer durable spending is running out of steam (at least, excluding cars), consumers are likely to switch to consuming services, as long as services are open for them to consume. There is little reason to think restrictions will stay tight, given the political points cited above. Even in Europe the Covid “hawks” are loosening controls. Chart 4Democrats Want To Boost Service Sector All that being said, the Biden administration has limited ability to control inflation that emanates from foreign supply shocks (e.g. Asia, Russia, Iran). Also voter perceptions of inflation will lag, even if inflation starts to abate. Crime and immigration will also weigh on the administration this fall. And the political clockwork favoring the opposition in midterm elections is remorseless. Bottom Line: Biden and the Democrats are likely to shift policy focus away from emphasis on the pandemic, which weighs on the service sector and employment, and instead pursue other policy options in preparation for the midterm election. The outlook is not positive but if Biden’s approval rating bottoms then Democrats’ chances of performing better in the midterm elections will rise and policy uncertainty will also rise. Will GOP Infighting Affect The Midterms? Maybe In The Senate Former President Trump clashed with former Vice President Mike Pence and others in the Republican Party over whether Pence had the right “to change the Presidential Election results” in 2020 by refusing to validate electoral college votes from states in which electoral fraud was alleged. Pence called the idea “un-American” and reiterated his position that the vice president has no “unilateral authority” to discard a state’s electoral votes while certifying the electoral count.1 Trump lashed out because moderate Republicans are flirting with Democrats over how to pass a bipartisan revision to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which left a number of ambiguities in the US electoral process, including about the vice president’s role in election certification. It is conceivable that the law will be revised in time for the 2024 election but odds are against a quick solution: the original law took 10 years to pass. Throughout the 2022-24 election cycle, Trump will continue to clash with his party, which raises the single greatest risk to Republicans: that they will be too divided to capitalize fully on the Democrats’ weaknesses. We do not expect Trump to coordinate effectively with Republicans. His interest in revolutionizing the political establishment and winning a second term in 2024 diverges from the interest of the traditional Republicans, who want to preserve the political establishment with themselves on top, and want a fresh face to contend for eight years in the White House in 2024. However, Trump controls a plurality of the party’s grassroots voters (about 54%2 according to opinion polls) so that the Republican Party cannot afford to spurn him. If Trump were willing to cooperate with party leaders, then he would have cooperated when it mattered most: ahead of the Georgia special elections on January 5, 2020. If he had recognized the constitutional supremacy of the electoral college vote, he might have saved Republican control of the Senate. He did not, so the burden of proof falls on those who say that Trump can coordinate effectively with the Republican Party at critical junctures. Most likely the party will continue to play both sides, keeping Trump in the party but seeking a post-Trump future. Trump will continue to pursue the Republican nomination in 2024 and the party will have to acquiesce to him as long as he retains the support of a majority of the party’s grassroots. Trump’s conflict with the party will flare up in the primary elections this spring because Trump will endorse his own favorite candidates regardless of whether the Republican establishment agrees and views them as the most likely to win. Any success of Trump-backed populists in the primaries may become a liability for Republicans in the general election if the seat is competitive and the Democrats put up a moderate candidate. This point is primarily relevant in the Senate: Five Senate Republicans are stepping down, leaving an open competition in Alabama, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (Table 1). The last three of these (NC, OH, PA) are competitive seats, especially if the Republican candidate is weak and Biden’s approval revives by the time of the vote. Trump has only made an endorsement in North Carolina, where his candidate is far from assured to win. Given that control of the Senate could hang on a single seat, it is at least possible that Trump’s split with the GOP could affect the Senate balance of power in 2023-24. Table 1Senate Incumbents Not Seeking Re-Election, 2022 Trump will also have an impact on the House of Representatives but he is less likely to affect the outcome of the midterm there, given that Republicans are likely to win 40 seats when they only need five to take control. There are a lot more Democrats retiring from the House than Republicans in this cycle, a positive indication for Republicans (Chart 5). In total there are 48 competitive seats (13 Republican-leaning, 22 Democrat-leaning, and 13 toss-up).3 Of these 48 competitive seats, 12 seats are “open” (no incumbent), divided evenly among Republicans and Democrats. In most of these competitive seats, but especially in Democrat-leaning seats and toss-up seats, a Trump-backed Republican will have a harder time winning than a traditional Republican. All ten Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump after the January 6 rebellion are vulnerable to Trump challengers (Table 2). Three are already retiring. Given that Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney won her seat by a 44% margin, and yet is polling poorly relative to her Trump-backed challenger, it is fair to say that all seven of the remaining Republican impeachers are vulnerable to a Trumpist challenge. Of these, the general election could be competitive in five seats, i.e. those held by John Katko (R, NY-24), David Valadao (R, CA-21), Peter Meijer (R, MI-3), Fred Upton (R, MI-6), and Jaime Herrera Beutler (R, WA-3). However, given that the national tide does not favor the Democrats, five seats is the maximum that Democrats could poach from this group of lawmakers due to Republican infighting (three is a more likely number). Chart 5House Members Not Seeking Re-Election, 2022 Table 2House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach President Trump More broadly there are 21 moderate Republicans in the House whose seats could be vulnerable to intra-party struggle (Table 3): So far President Trump has only endorsed candidates in seats which Republicans are highly likely to win anyway: namely Beth Van Duyne (R, TX-24), Mario Diaz-Balart (R, FL-25), and Carlos Gimenez (R, FL-26). But as the primary heats up, Trump’s endorsements could cause more tension with the Republican Party machinery. The following six moderate Republicans’ seats could be at risk: Maria Elvira Salazar (R, FL-27), Rodney Davis (R, IL-13), Jeff Van Drew (R, NJ-2), Andrew Garbarino (R, NY-2), Mike Turner (R, OH-10), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R, PA-1). Of these, Fitzpatrick and Garbarino do not face any challengers yet, and only Davis faces a Trump-backed challenger. So six is the maximum Democrats could steal while one-to-three vulnerable seats is more likely. Table 3Republican Moderates Vulnerable To Populist Challengers Summing up, the Republican Party could fail to retain three-to-nine Republican seats that they might otherwise win in this cycle. Previously we put the number at five-to-nine seats. These numbers do not include any Democratic-leaning seats that Republicans could fail to poach if they choose a populist candidate who is not competitive in a “purple” state or district. In conclusion, Republican infighting will not prevent Republicans from retaking the House of Representatives this fall. Cyclical factors in favor of Republicans will overwhelm their internal differences. But infighting could leave them with a smaller majority than consensus expects. In 2024 Republican internal divisions will become much more important than in 2022. A competitive Republican primary election for president will reduce Republican odds in the general election. If President Trump fails to win the nomination, he could defect and form his party. If he wins the nomination, Liz Cheney or another traditional Republican could defect and run as a third party, acting as a spoiler. Given the tight margins of victory in presidential elections, even a splinter group could steal enough votes to determine the outcome. The midterms will shed light on the depth of GOP divisions but in general these divisions reinforce our view that while Democrats will perform poorly in the midterms, they are still favored to retain the White House in 2024. Bottom Line: While the odds are stacked against Democrats in the midterms, Republican infighting could affect several Senate seats and will subtract anywhere from three-to-nine seats from expected seat gains in the House. While control of the House will not be affected, it is conceivable that control of the Senate could hang in the balance. Policy uncertainty will rise if Republican infighting makes Senate races more competitive later this year. Housekeeping To conclude we offer a few remarks on our outstanding investment recommendations: Cyclically Long Energy Small Caps: US energy production is rising in keeping with global oil and commodity prices. West Texas Intermediate crude sells for $89 per barrel on the spot market, inventories are drawing, OPEC 2.0 is intact, and there are plenty of supply risks on the horizon. American natural gas exports are picking up but not enough to meet demand if conflict in Ukraine causes a European shortage, while US oil exports are falling (Chart 6). Chart 6US Energy Production Picking Up Evidence from initial unemployment claims in O&G-dependent states like North Dakota and Wyoming suggests that shale producers need more time to ramp up production (Chart 7), as highlighted by our Commodity Strategist Bob Ryan. Small cap energy stocks have not benefited much from the sharp spike in energy prices this year. We see this as an opportunity, given that US small caps are insulated from geopolitical troubles and will become key players if shortages occur (Chart 8). The risk comes if the supply response overwhelms the supply disruptions, as occurred in 2014 – but oil companies were in a much better position to surge production at that time. The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran also appeared more durable at that time than it will this year if it is rejoined, and there is no guarantee it will be rejoined. Cyclically Long Infrastructure Stocks: Infrastructure stocks peaked along with the equity market and in the wake of the Biden administration’s $550 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is now being implemented. Indicators of infrastructure construction peaked in late 2020 and early 2021 and are slipping of late. But as long as the economy does not relapse into recession they should stabilize, especially as the virus wanes and global demand recovers (Chart 9). Cyclically Long Cyber-Security Stocks: Global threats, proxied by the Canadian dollar’s exchange rate with the Russian ruble, suggest that cyber security stocks will rebound after getting caught up in the current tech selloff (Chart 10). Tech stocks are also likely to bounce if inflation expectations peak as the Federal Reserve kicks into action. Chart 7It Takes Time To Boost Shale Output Chart 8US Small Caps Yet To Benefit From Oil Price Chart 9Buy The Dip In Infrastructure Stocks Chart 10Cyber Stocks A 'Buy' In Tech Selloff Investment Takeaways Chart 11A Floor In Biden’s Approval? US financial markets do not care about the midterm elections in the near term but that will change as policy uncertainty will rise over the course of the year. A bottom in Biden’s approval rating (Chart 11) and Republican primary election infighting both suggest that the Democratic Party’s odds in the midterms will improve going forward, raising policy uncertainty, especially over the Senate. Midterm uncertainty typically works in favor of the US dollar, Treasuries, defensive equity sectors, and growth stocks. As such it poses a risk to current market trends. The recent selloff in Big Tech confirms what we have argued since we launched the US Political Strategy: the tech sector faces a slow boil from inflation and rising interest, which are more immediate threats than government regulation. Having said that, we favor growth versus value on a tactical basis as we expect the dollar to rise and Treasury yields to fall on the back of geopolitical risks in the near term (Chart 12). Chart 12A Tactical Bounce For Tech Stocks? Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Vice President Michael R. Pence’s letter, dated January 6, 2021, available at “Read Pence’s full letter saying he can’t claim ‘unilateral authority’ to reject electoral votes,” PBS, pbs.org. See also Mychael Schnell, “Trump says he wanted Pence to overturn election, eyes effort to reform law,” January 31, 2022, and Brett Samuels, “Pence breaks with Trump: ‘I had no right to overturn the election,’” February 4, 2022, thehill.com. 2 Please see “Over half of Americans believe the country's economy is headed in the wrong direction,” Ipsos, December 29, 2021, Ipsos.com 3 See Cook Political Report, “2022 House Race Ratings,” February 8, 2022, cookpolitical.com. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets
As expected, the Bank of England raised the Bank Rate by 25 bps to 0.5% on Thursday. Notably, of the nine voting MPC members, four voted to increase the Bank Rate by 50 bps to 0.75%. Meanwhile, the ECB kept policy unchanged. Instead, it announced that net…
BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices Regardless of whether Russia invades all, part of or none of Ukraine again, its current standoff with the West will force the EU to reconfigure its gas markets to assure reliability of supplies, and remove geopolitical supply disruptions. We expect the EU's renewable energy taxonomy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel, which will help build more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets. Success here will increase market share of natgas in EU power generation. In the short run (1-2 years), neither the EU nor Russia can afford Gazprom's pipeline supplies to be significantly curtailed. Over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply. Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses. High and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation – particularly food prices, because of higher fertilizer costs, and base metals' prices. Shortages in these markets will slow the energy transition, and raise its price tag. Bottom Line: The Russian standoff with the West over Ukraine puts a higher risk premium in EU gas prices. We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI, and COMT ETF), and the XME ETF. We are getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP) at tonight's close. Feature We expect the EU's financial taxonomy for renewable energy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel. This will help in building out more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets. Success here will increase the market share of natgas in the EU's power generation (Chart of the Week). This coincides with natural gas supply uncertainty, arising from geopolitical tensions. On the back of already-low inventory levels, European natural gas markets are forced to handicap the odds of a major curtailment of Russian pipeline gas supplies resulting from another invasion of Ukraine (Chart 2). This is keeping a significantly increased risk premium embedded in natgas prices: Russian exports to the EU account for 40% of total gas supplies. Germany is particularly exposed, as ~65% of its gas comes from Russia (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekEU Natgas Generation Will Rise In Energy Transition BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy desk upgraded the odds of Russia invading Ukraine to 75% from 50% in its latest research report.1 Our colleagues, however, keep the probability of Russia invading all of Ukraine low. Their analysis concludes Russia will only invade a part of Ukraine, so as to argue for lighter sanctions being imposed on it by the West, as opposed to having to incur the full wrath of US and EU sanctions. The other 25% of the probability space includes a diplomatic settlement between the West and Russia. Chart 2Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices While Russia has been trying to diversify its customer base – by increasing natgas exports to China, e.g. – data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows ~ 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020.2 Chart 3EU Highly Dependent On Russian Gas In light of the fact that Russia likely will face watered-down sanctions, and the EU’s gargantuan share of total Russian exports, we do not believe Europe’s largest natural gas exporter will stop all supply to the EU now or in the near future. In case Russia does go through with its invasion, it likely will cut off natural gas supply to Ukraine, implying Europe will loose slightly more than 6% of total natgas imports as opposed to 40% in the event of a halt to all natgas exports to Europe (Chart 4). Gas consumption of the EU-27 in 2021 was ~ 500 Bcm, according to the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies (OIES). Some 85% of EU gas consumption was met by imports. Chart 4Imports Cover Most EU Gas Consumption Can The EU Mitigate The Loss Of Russian Gas? The EU and the US have entered discussions with other countries to plug the potential 6% reduction in imports from Russia. While in theory, there is enough spare pipeline capacity to import natural gas from existing and new sources (Chart 5), practical limitations may prevent this from occurring.3 The US is working with the EU to ensure energy supply security in case Russia cuts off natural gas supply. However, as can be seen in Chart 6, Panel 1, the US currently is and likely will continue to export nearly at capacity until end-2023. Panel 2 shows global liquefaction also is nearly at capacity. Chart 5EU Gas Import Capacity Exists, But Filling It Will Be Problematic Chart 6US LNG Export Capacity Maxed Out While an increase in gas production at the earthquake-prone Groningen field in the Netherlands is theoretically viable, it will induce a public backlash, as was evidenced when the Dutch government announced plans to double output from the field earlier this year. In the short run, facing few sources of alternate gas supply, the EU will need to focus on curtailing demand. Fossil fuels will need to be considered as an alternative for electricity and heating, since nuclear is not used in all EU countries. The depth of this crisis and the Dutch TTF price rise will be capped by the fact that we expect the EU to lose a relatively small fraction of total imports. Further, while we expect Dutch TTF prices to be volatile and face upward pressure, any price increases also will be capped by the fact that the colder-than-expected Northern Hemisphere winter has not yet materialized, and the warmer Spring and Summer months will be approaching soon. Medium-, Long-Term EU Gas Supply On the supply side, over the medium- and long-term, the EU will need to deepen and stabilize its gas supply, so that firms and households can rationally forecast and allocate spending and investment. This would include finding back-up or alternative supplies to Russian imports, which carry with them uncertain geopolitical risk. If Brussels includes natural gas as a sustainable fuel in its energy taxonomy, over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply. Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses. Natgas will be a critical component of this transition, until utility-scale battery storage is able to support renewable generation and grid stability. We believe over the remainder of this decade, high and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation, as pricing pressures spill into oil and coal markets at the margin, as happened over the course of last year. This will work in the other direction as well – e.g., higher coal prices will spill over into gas and oil markets as price pressures incentivize fuel switching at the margin. Food prices will be right in the inflationary cross-hairs, given the fertilizer required to produce the grains and beans consumed globally consists mostly of natgas in urea and ammonia fertilizers (Chart 7). This will feed into higher food prices (Chart 8). Chart 7High Natgas Prices Will Show Up In High Fertilizer Prices Chart 8… And Higher Food Prices Base metals' prices also will be upwardly biased as natgas price volatility remains elevated. Supply shortages in natgas markets will, at the margin, slow the energy transition by reducing reliable energy supplies in the EU, forcing states to compete for back-up and replacement supply in the global LNG markets. Fuel-switching into oil, gas and coal will transmit EU gas volatility to markets globally. Tight energy and base metals markets also will feed directly into higher inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher Investment Implications The standoff between the West and Russia over the latter's amassing of troops on the Ukraine border, plus the marked increase in the tempo of Russian naval operations, will keep the risk premium in EU natgas prices high. This is not a sustainable equilibrium over the medium- to long-term. We expect little if any curtailment of Russian natgas exports over the short term; however, prudence suggests EU member states will be forced to find back-up and alternative gas supplies over the medium- to longer-term, as the global renewable-energy transition gains traction. The knock-on effects from the current European geopolitical standoff are keeping EU natgas prices elevated via a higher risk premium to cover possible supply losses. This will feed into other markets – particularly metals and ags – which will feed directly into inflation and inflation expectations. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – and metals producers via the XME ETF. At tonight's close, we will be getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP). Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0's decision to stay with its policy of returning 400k b/d every month appeared to be a foregone conclusion in the markets. In our January 2022 balances and price forecasts, we anticipated a larger increase, given the producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia has fallen significantly behind its goal of returning 400k b/d to the market monthly due to declining production among OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Gulf GCC member states, chiefly KSA, UAE and Kuwait (Iraq's exports fell in December and January; production data have not been released). In the past, KSA has said it will not make up for production shortfalls of OPEC 2.0 member states, and would abide by its production allocation. The upside risk to prices remains, in our estimation, and we continue to expect KSA and its GCC allies to increase output if production from the price-taking cohort led by the US shale-oil producers fails to materialize in over the coming months. Failure to cover production shortfalls among OPEC 2.0 member states would lift Brent prices by $6/bbl above our baseline forecast, which assumed higher production from the GCC states would be forthcoming at Wednesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting (Chart 10, brown curve). Base Metals: Bullish An environmental committee in Chile's Senate voted out a proposed bill that would, among other things, reportedly make it easier for the government to seize mines developed and operated by private companies. The proposed legislation still has a long road ahead of it, but copper prices rallied earlier in the week as this news broke. Even if the odds of the bill's passage are slim, a watered down version of the proposed legislation would markedly change the economic proposition of developing and maintaining copper mines in Chile (Chart 11). We continue to follow this closely. Chart 10 Chart 11 Footnotes 1 Please see All Bets Are Off ... Well, Some (A GeoRisk Update), published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service 27 January 2022. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see bp's Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 | 70th edition. 3 Norway, the EU’s second largest gas exporter after Russia stated that its natural gas production is at the limit. Apart from the issue of production, current LNG flows will need to be redirected from Asia and the Americas. Defaulting on long-term contracts to redirect fuel to Europe could mire exporters’ relationships with importing countries. Finally, infrastructure in the Eastern and Central section of the EU may not be equipped to receive supplies from the West, thus increasing costs and time associated with putting these systems in place. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021
According to BCA Research’s US Political Strategy service, the most likely outcome of the US midterm elections is a GOP victory in the House and Senate. This outlook is consensus in online betting odds. However, the consensus may be underestimating…
BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The US midterm elections will bring another round of intense polarization and policy uncertainty this year, though the overall stock market today appears well prepared for the most likely result: a GOP victory in House and Senate. Yet our quantitative Senate election model is “too close to call.” It expects Democrats to retain 50 seats in the Senate and hence the thinnest possible majority. We doubt it, subjectively, but the important point is that the Senate will be stymied either way. Indeed, the only way investors could truly be surprised would be if Democrats made a comeback and retained control of both chambers, but this outcome is very unlikely. Voters make up their minds early in the year during midterm elections, so Democrats may not benefit from any softening of inflation later this year. Still, gridlock ensures that domestic policy uncertainty will rise as well as foreign policy uncertainty. The dollar will be resilient, favoring a tactically defensive positioning. Quant Model For US Senate Election Bottom Line: While we expect Republicans to win both the House and the Senate in 2022, our quant model says the Senate is too close to call. Value has bottomed on a structural time frame but the coming months will be challenging and we recommend growth stocks tactically. Feature This report updates our quantitative models for the 2022 Senate and 2024 presidential elections (Chart of the Week). As always, we use the quantitative modeling as a complement to our qualitative analysis. Formal modeling helps to question our assumptions and views. It is not a substitute for empirical analysis and good judgment, whether in economics or politics. Our qualitative analysis utilizes the geopolitical method, a method based on realist political theory, in which we analyze the concrete checks and balances (constraints) that prevent policymakers from achieving their objectives. We then assign scenario probabilities and compare with BCA Research macro and market views to identify investment risks and opportunities. Advantage Republicans In Midterm Elections Our base case for the midterm election is a Republican victory in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This outlook is consensus in online betting odds (Chart 1). However, the consensus may be underestimating the Democrats in the Senate election. The Senate is still in play and that is where investors should focus this year. However, the only true risk to expectations would be Democrats keeping the House and Senate. Every other scenario involves different shades of gridlock. Democrats can only hold onto both chambers if a shock event occurs that massively upsets expectations. Such a shock would have to be devastating for the Republicans, as it would go against long-established political cycles and current trends. The implication would be a rare chance to pass major legislation on partisan lines: corporate tax hikes and social programs cut out of the current “Build Back Better” planning. Online betters currently give this Democratic scenario a 10% probability: it is essentially a “black swan” and would be inflationary on the margin. Chart 1Midterm Election Odds Favor Republicans Other scenarios are more or less disinflationary as Republicans in the opposition will attempt to rein in government spending: If Republicans win both chambers, then they will have an impetus to pass legislation and it is more likely that they will do so, as President Biden could find common ground (a la Bill Clinton after 1994). But if Republicans win only the House, then they will only be capable of obstruction and brinksmanship, a la the “Tea Party” Republicans of 2010-16. This scenario would be disinflationary and would heighten political risks such as the risk of a national debt default over a refusal to raise the debt ceiling in 2023. Bottom Line: The only midterm election outcome that could surprise US markets in a major way in 2022 would be a Democratic victory in both houses of Congress. But the consensus is right to put the odds of that at 10%. Otherwise the midterm scenarios are just different shades of gridlock, albeit with higher policy uncertainty under a split Congress. Republicans Highly Likely To Take The House We have not yet unveiled our House Election model but here we can make some preliminary predictions. The opposition party has gained seats in the House in 90% of the midterm elections since 1862 (incumbent party gained seats four out of 40 times). Exceptions are rare (e.g. 1902, 1934, 1998, and 2002) and not applicable to the 2022 context so far.1 About 47 seats in the House are thought to be competitive this year, compared to around 75 in 2018, 81 in 2010, and 38 in 2002. Of the 47 competitive seats, 30 are especially competitive, with 18 Democratic and 12 Republican. Four Democratic seats are wide open to competition, i.e. lacking an incumbent, the same as four Republican seats. However, more Democrats (29) are stepping down than Republicans (13), a sign that Democratic incumbents recognize cyclical patterns turning against them.2 President Biden has a net negative approval rating (53% disapprove while 42% approve), similar to President Trump in 2018, when Republicans lost 42 seats in the House. Presidential approval has a significant correlation with House losses for the president’s party since the end of World War II. This is especially true when taking the average of presidential approval and his party’s support in the generic congressional ballot. By this measure Democrats are lined up to lose 40 House seats, whereas they only need to lose a net of five to lose control. The nation’s woes are unlikely to improve significantly in time for the election: Inflation is surging and real wages are collapsing (Chart 2). Even if economists observe inflation rolling over before the election, voter inflation expectations will lag, and will be brought into the ballot box. Americans are the unhappiest they have been since the 1970s, as a consequence of the pandemic, the economy, toxic society and politics, and other factors (Chart 3). Chart 2Consumers Facing Rising Prices Amid Declining Incomes Chart 3Unhappiness Reaches New High A rebound in consumer confidence is not enough to save Biden’s party from losses at the ballot box, as President Obama learned in 2010 and 2014 (Chart 4). Similarly a big drop in confidence can hurt the president in the midterms even if confidence recovers in time for the vote, as happened to Republicans in 2018. Biden has another foreign policy crisis on his hands (Russia), after losing trust on his handling of Afghanistan, and may have more crises to deal with by November (Iran, Latin America). If a crisis hits the oil price, as with Russia or Iran, then prices at the pump will go higher, as we discussed in “Biden’s External Risks.” As for the immigration surge, while it will not concern the business community during a time of labor shortage and inflation, it will concern voters, especially in border states like Arizona (Chart 5). The current surge is historic and may come back to haunt the Democrats. Chart 4Lackluster Consumer Confidence Won't Help Democrats Chart 5Immigration Crisis Looms On Southern Border Republicans will benefit slightly from the post-2020 congressional redistricting. Democrats will probably not make substantial gains as a result of Republican infighting in the primaries, though it could make a big difference in the Senate. We will revisit the latter two issues in future reports (redistricting and Republican primaries) but they only matter if Democrats make a significant comeback in opinion. Otherwise the general swing of public opinion will swamp these marginal effects in the House elections. Worst of all for Democrats, evidence shows that voters tend to make up their minds early in the year. That is when the correlation is strongest between the generic congressional opinion poll and the vote share of elections, though for Democrats in particular late-year polling is equally significant (Chart 6). Chart 6AMidterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year Chart 6BMidterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year What could lift the Democrats’ odds? The following factors: The relevance of the Covid-19 pandemic will wane. The economy, while slowing, will continue expanding and unemployment will be very low (Chart 7). Democrats are still somewhat likely to pass a reconciliation bill with the most popular parts of their “Build Back Better” agenda. Democrats will use social “wedge issues” to mobilize their political base. A racialized battle over the Supreme Court nomination and any conservative Supreme Court ruling on abortion may mobilize African Americans and women. It is possible, not likely, that a foreign policy crisis could generate a lasting patriotic backlash against foreign insults, as we discussed last week. This dynamic is relevant given our Geopolitical Strategy’s 75% odds of new Russian military action in Ukraine. A lot can change in nine months during rapidly changing and highly polarized contests in which every marginal vote matters. Bottom Line: While Republicans are highly likely to retake control of the House, the Senate is still in competition. Chart 7Economy Will Slow, Unemployment To Remain Low The Senate Leans GOP But Still In Play The Senate is more competitive than the House in this year’s election, as 20 Republican seats are up for grabs versus only 14 Democratic seats. About nine of these seats are truly competitive, compared to 13 in 2018, 11 in 2010, and 15 in 2002.3 Only one Democrat is stepping down, in the very blue state of Vermont, whereas five Republicans are stepping down, three of which from competitive states. Hence Democrats have a better chance of picking up Republican seats in North Carolina and Pennsylvania than otherwise. However, even here, Democrats only have a one-seat margin of safety. A net loss of a single seat will yield control of the chamber. Our quantitative model relies on the following six variables: State-level economic health Incumbent party margin of victory in state’s previous Senate race (i.e. 2020) The incumbent president’s net average approval rating Average net support rate of incumbent party in generic congressional ballot A dummy variable for the generic ballot, for statistical purposes A “time for change” penalty for any party that has controlled the Senate for six or more years The model’s results are shown in Chart 8. Currently the model says the status quo will hold, with a 50/50 split in the Senate. Democrats lose Georgia but gain Pennsylvania and hence the balance of power stays the same, as Vice President Kamala Harris casts any tie-breaking vote. Chart 8Senate Quant Election Model Points To Even Split Specifically the model says: Arizona is a toss-up but leans Democratic, with 55% odds. Pennsylvania is a toss-up but switches to the Democrats with 54% odds. North Carolina is a toss-up but leans Republican with 47% odds. Georgia switches to the Republican side and is no longer viewed as a toss-up at 43% odds. Looking at the change in these election probabilities since November 2020, North Carolina has seen the biggest drop for the Democrats, followed by Arizona (Chart 9). Democratic odds are worsening in four states, while Republican odds are worsening in three states. Since North Carolina and Pennsylvania are losing their Republican incumbents, this change in odds is a problem for the GOP. By contrast, Democrats are running incumbents in the four states where they are vulnerable. The problem for Democrats, again, is that voters make up their minds early. The closest correlation between the generic party polling and the incumbent party’s performance in the Senate in a midterm election occurs in February at 94% (Chart 10). Chart 9Senate Model: Change In Predicted Probability Senate elections, like all American elections, are increasingly nationalized.4 This is evident in the 75% correlation we find between the generic polls and the performance of the incumbent party in the Senate (Chart 10 again). So, for example, while one might view Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona as likely to win given the incumbent advantage and the fact that he is a former astronaut and US Navy captain, and he may indeed win, nevertheless a national wave of anti-incumbent feeling could overwhelm his re-election bid. Still, state effects could matter. To examine these from a macro perspective we look at each state’s Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment) compared to the national average in Chart 11. Here are the notable takeaways: Chart 10Midterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year Chart 11AState Level Miseries Point To Risks For Democrats In GA And AZ… Chart 11B… And To Republicans In PA And WI Misery in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania is higher than average and rising – negative news for Democrat Kelly, Democrat Raphael Warnock, and the yet-to-be-decided Republican candidate in Pennsylvania. Misery in Florida is also slightly above the national average and rising, though Senator Marco Rubio is likely secure. Wisconsin misery is lower than national average and rising (possibly hurting Republican incumbent Senator Ron Johnson). North Carolina misery is lower than national average and falling (helping the yet-to-be-decided Republican candidate). In other words, Misery Indexes support our model’s findings, yet suggest that Democrats face a headwind in Arizona – where our model is also flagging an important risk for Democrats. In sum, our model’s direction of change suggests Democrats will lose another seat and thus the Senate. Going forward, the key moving parts are the economy and the president’s and his party’s approval ratings. There is a chance that these variables will bottom early in the year and improve later, which underscores that the Senate will remain competitive. What investors can be certain about is that Democrats are extremely unlikely to make significant seat gains in the Senate. So even if they retain control, it will be with the thinnest of possible majorities, and hence the Senate will only be capable of passing bipartisan Republican-authored House bills – or vetoing Republican House bills to save the president from having to veto them. It is also certain that Republicans will fall far short of the 67 votes they would need to remove Biden from office, if House Republicans find or invent a reason to impeach him. Bottom Line: The Senate outcome is too close to call but subjectively we doubt Democrats will pull it off given the negative macro trends cited above. Our Senate election model gives 51% odds that Democrats will retain a de facto majority with 50 seats. 2024 Presidential Vote: Odds Favor Democrats For Now The US presidential election is 34 months away. Investors need to be prepared for any outcome, including another contested election. But it is important to have a base case – especially because a Republican (or Democratic) victory in both House and Senate in 2022 would open up the prospect of single-party control in 2025, which has much bigger policy implications than various shades of gridlock. As a rule of thumb, investors should think of presidential elections as a referendum on the incumbent party, not the president’s person, for the prior four years of material performance. Thus Democrats are currently favored to keep the White House. Voters will feel better than they did in 2020, which suffered a triple crisis of pandemic, recession, and unrest. Significant changes must occur to alter this trajectory – such as a recession, Biden’s stepping down, or a humiliating foreign policy defeat.5 Our quantitative model supports this view: it currently gives a 55.2% chance of Democratic victory in the Electoral College (Chart 12). Chart 12US Election 2024: Quant Model Tips Dems Our model relies on the following four variables: State economic health Incumbent party margin of victory in the previous election A penalty for parties that have held the White House for two terms (not applicable in 2024) The president’s approval rating (level) Interestingly our model produces 308 electoral votes for Biden, compared to his actual 306 in 2020, except that some states trade places: Democrats win Florida while Republicans take back Arizona and Georgia. Specifically the model says: North Carolina is a toss-up state but leans Republican. Wisconsin is a toss-up state but just slightly leans Democratic. Florida and Pennsylvania have moved above toss-up range into the Democratic camp. Arizona and Georgia have slipped beneath the toss-up range into the Republican camp. Looking at the change in each state’s odds of voting for the incumbent, Democrats’ chances are falling in eight states while Republicans chances are falling in three states (Chart 13). Wisconsin and Arizona are seeing the most substantial drops, followed by Pennsylvania. Thus the current direction of change is negative for Democrats as one would expect. Biden’s thin margin of victory in 2020 and weak approval ratings make him vulnerable, so the economic performance will largely determine the model’s results going forward. If Biden avoids a recession, that may be enough to retain the White House according to the model. Florida is an interesting case. The model gives a 59% chance it will go to the Democrats. We are suspicious of this outcome but it suggests investors should not take a Republican victory there for granted. Consider: Chart 13Presidential Model: Change In Predicted Probability While we gave President Trump 45% odds of winning in 2020, we predicted he would win Florida due to the state’s partisan leaning.6 That leaning has probably not changed much, although Governor Ron DeSantis’s latest approval rating is only at 45%. However, the six-month change in Florida’s coincident economic indicator has fallen 0.6% since November 2020 and the Misery Index is rising above the national average, as noted above. If Biden loses Florida but the rest of our model is correct, Democrats will retain the White House with 279 electoral college votes. That would leave Wisconsin as the decisive battleground. Yet Wisconsin is very tenuously in their camp today, so any change in the model that gives Florida back to the Republicans would likely give them Wisconsin as well … The result of Biden losing Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin (among other combinations) would be a 269-269 tie in the electoral college, in which each state’s delegation to the House of Representatives would have a single vote. A Republican win in the House in 2022 would thus result in a Republican White House in another explosive contested election. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, 2024 is more than two years away. Bottom Line: Our presidential model gives a 55% chance that Democrats will retain the White House in 2024. Subjectively we agree. A Democratic defeat in 2022 will not rule out a Democratic victory in 2024, especially if Biden is alive and kicking, given the incumbent advantage. But economic factors will largely determine how the model evolves over the next 34 months. Our model also suggests the Electoral College math will be close and that another contested election is possible. Investment Takeaways Based on the current stock market correction, financial markets have priced a fair amount of policy uncertainty already. And this report suggests the midterms merely offer different shades of gridlock. However, Biden’s external risks – namely conflict with Russia – could cause further risk-off moves. And uncertainty will increase as midterms get closer. US policy uncertainty is falling relative to the rest of the world (Chart 14). This is positive for King Dollar, at least over a tactical time frame. The Fed’s interest rate liftoff is also positive for the dollar. Chart 14Lower US Uncertainty In The Near Future Supports The DXY Hence on a short-term basis, the stock-to-bond ratio can fall further and cyclicals can fall further relative to defensives. Tactically we recommend going long growth versus value stocks (Chart 15). Value has surged in the New Year and the dollar and rate hikes will counteract that, as well as any global energy shock that kills demand. Chart 15Tactically Go Long Growth Versus Value However, this is a tactical call. Otherwise, we remain in line with the BCA House View, which favors stocks over bonds and a weaker dollar over the next 12 months. Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Brookings Institution, “Losses by the President’s Party in Midterm Elections, 1862-2014,” Vital Statistics on Congress, February 8, 2021, www.brookings.edu. 2 For the number of competitive seats, see Cook Political Report, cookpolitical.com, and Fair Vote, fairvote.org. 3 See footnotes 1 and 2 above. In addition see the Green Papers, “General Election 2002 – Contests to Watch,” October 25, 2002, thegreenpapers.com, and Ken Rudin, “2010 Senate Ratings: 11 Seats Seen As Tossups; GOP With At Least 3 Pickups,” NPR, July 9, 2010, npr.org. 4 See Joel Sievert and Seth C. McKee, “Nationalization in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections,” American Politics Research 47:5 (2019), pp. 1036-1054. 5 Our qualitative presidential election framework relies heavily on the work of Professor Allan Lichtman, American University. See our updated Lichtman-style checklist in BCA US Political Strategy, “Biden Is Underwater But His Legislation Will Float,” September 8, 2021, bcaresearch.com. 6 See BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Upgrading Trump’s Odds of Re-Election,” October 26, 2020, bcaresearch.com. See also my interview on Bloomberg’s The Tape Podcast, “Full Blue Sweep Will Push Biden To Left,” July 13, 2020, Bloomberg.com. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets
BCA Research’s European Investment Strategy service concludes that the ECB response to a Ukrainian conflict will depend on the nature of the war. In our colleagues’ base case scenario involving a limited assault focused on Eastern Ukraine, the ECB will…