Middle East

Special Report

Highlights So What? Go long Brent / short S&P 500. The risk of a recession in 2019 is underappreciated. Why? The likelihood is increasing of a geopolitically-induced supply-side shock that pushes crude prices above $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months. Oil supply disruptions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela represent the primary source of risk. Historically, the combination of Fed rates hike and an oil price spike has preceded 8 out of the last 9 recessions. Also... A recession in 2019, ahead of the 2020 election, would set the stage for a confrontation between Trump and the Fed, adding fuel to market volatility. Feature Geopolitical tensions are brewing from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. As we go to press, news is breaking that a Chinese naval vessel almost collided with the USS Decatur as the latter conducted "freedom of navigation" operations within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson reefs in the Spratly Islands. Given the trade tensions between China and the U.S., this alleged maneuver by the Chinese vessel suggests that Beijing is not backing off from a confrontation. Our view remains that Sino-American trade tensions can get a lot worse before they get better. The latest incident, which builds on a series of negative gestures recently in the South China Sea, suggests that both sides are combining longstanding geopolitical tensions with the trade war. This will likely encourage brinkmanship and further degrade U.S.-China relations. Yet China-U.S. tensions are not the only concern for investors in 2019. Another crisis is brewing in the Middle East, with the potential to significantly increase oil prices over the next 12 months. U.S. households may have to deal with a double-whammy next year: higher costs of imported goods as the U.S.-China trade war rages on and a significant increase in gasoline prices. In this report, we discuss this dire outlook. The Folly Of Recession Forecasting In mid-2017, BCA Research published two reports, one titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession" and another titled "The Timing Of The Next Recession."1 Both argued that if the Federal Reserve kept raising rates in line with the FOMC dots, then monetary policy would move into restrictive territory by early 2019 and increase the likelihood of recession thereafter. We subsequently adjusted the timing of our recession forecast to 2020 or beyond, based on a more positive assessment of the U.S. economy. In this report, we explore a risk to the BCA House View on the timing of the next recession. As BCA's long-time Chief Economist Martin Barnes has said, predicting recessions is a mug's game. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (excluding the brief 1980-81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast all of them (Table 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes The Atlanta Fed produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of recession based on trends in recent GDP data. At the moment, the indicator is at a historically sanguine 2.4%. Unfortunately, low readings are not a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82, and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the Atlanta Fed's recession indicator had a low reading of 10%, 1.6%, and 7.7%, respectively - just as the recession was about to begin (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The 1974-75 recession is instructive, given the numerous parallels with the current environment: Energy Geopolitics: The 1973 oil crisis caused a massive spike in crude prices. This point is especially pertinent since the 1973 oil embargo is widely viewed as an important contributor to the 1974-75 recession. Real short rates had risen and the yield curve had inverted long before oil prices spiked, so recession was almost inevitable even without the oil price move. But the oil spike made the recession much deeper than otherwise. Protectionism: President Nixon imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports into the U.S. in 1971 to try to force trade partners to devalue the U.S. dollar. Dislocation: Competition from newly industrialized countries - Japan and the East Asian tigers in particular - laid waste to the steel industry in the developed world. Polarization: President Nixon polarized the nation with both his policies and behavior, leading to his resignation in 1974. Given the exogenous and geopolitical nature of oil supply shocks, today's recession indicators are missing a critical potential headwind to the economy. A geopolitically induced oil-price shock could create more pain than the economy is able to handle. Why An Oil Price Shock? America's renewed foray into the politics of the Middle East will unravel the tenuous equilibrium that was just recently established between Iran and its regional rivals. The U.S.-Iran détente that produced the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) created conditions for a precarious balance of power between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and its allies on the other side. This equilibrium led to a meaningful change in Tehran's behavior, particularly on the following fronts: The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran ceased to rhetorically threaten the Strait as soon as negotiations began with the U.S. (Chart 2). Since then, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities remain unchanged.2 Iraq: Iran directly participated in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Tehran changed tack after 2013 and cooperated closely with the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State. In 2014, Iran acquiesced to the removal of the deeply sectarian, and pro-Iranian, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahrain and the Saudi Eastern Province: Iran's material and rhetorical support was instrumental in the Shia uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011 (Map 1). Saudi Arabia had to resort to military force to quell both. Since the détente with the U.S. in 2015, Iranian support for Shia uprisings in these critical areas of the Persian Gulf has stopped. Chart 2Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Put simply, the 2015 nuclear deal traded American acquiescence toward Iranian nuclear development in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. By unraveling that détente, President Trump is upending the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing the probability that Iran retaliates. Since penning our latest net assessment of the U.S.-Iran tensions in May, Iran has already retaliated.3 Our checklist for "kinetic" conflict has now risen from zero to at least 15%, if not higher (Table 2). We expect the probability to rise once the U.S. starts implementing the oil embargo in November. This will dovetail our Iran-U.S. decision tree, which sets the subjective probability of kinetic action by the U.S. against Iran at a baseline of 20% (Diagram 1). Table 2Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Bottom Line: The premier geopolitical risk to investors in 2019 is that President Trump's maximum pressure tactic on Iran spills over into Iraq, causing a loss of supply from the world's fifth-largest crude producer.4 We expect the U.S. oil embargo against Iran to remove between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the market. In addition, the loss of Iraqi production due to sabotage could be anywhere between 500,000 and 3.5 million barrels per day. Added to this total is the potential loss of Venezuelan exports due to the deteriorating situation there. When our commodity team combines all of these factors, they generate a worst-case scenario where the price of crude rises to $110 per barrel in 2019 or higher (Chart 3). And this scenario assumes that EMs do not reinstitute energy subsidies (and therefore their consumption falls faster than if they do reinstitute them). Chart 3Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward 0/Barrel The Ayatollah Recession We believe that the midterm election is a dud from an investment perspective, no matter the outcome. However, the election does matter as a hurdle that, once cleared, will allow President Trump to renew his "maximum pressure" tactic against China, Iran, and perhaps domestic tech corporations.5 Iran is a critical risk in this strategy. If President Trump applies maximum pressure on Iran, then a reduction in crude exports from Iran, Iranian retaliation in Iraq, and the simultaneous loss of Venezuelan supplies could combine to increase the likelihood of U.S. recession in 2019. Readers might recall that no sitting president has gotten re-elected during a recession. Why would Trump pursue a policy that risks his re-election chances in 2020? Surely he would deviate from his maximum pressure tactic if faced with the prospect of a recession. However, it is folly to assume that policymakers are perfectly rational, or fully informed. American presidents are some of the most unconstrained policymakers in the world, given both the hard power of the United States and the constitutional lack of constraints on the president when it comes to national security. Trump may believe, for instance, that the 660 million barrels of crude in America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve can offset the impact of sanctions against Iran.6 Or he may believe that he can force OPEC to supply enough oil to offset the Iranian losses. The problem for President Trump is that Iran is not led by idiots. Iranian policymakers understand that the best way to reduce American pressure is to induce an oil price spike in the summer of 2019 that hurts President Trump's re-election chances, forcing him to back off. As such, sabotaging Iraqi oil exports, which mainly transit through the port of Basra - a city highly vulnerable to Shia-on-Shia violence that is already a risk to the country's stability - would be an obvious target. An oil price spike would serve as a negotiating tool against the U.S., and the additional revenue would help replace what Iran loses due to the embargo. Tehran and Washington will therefore play a game of chicken throughout 2019, and there is a fair probability that neither side will swerve. President Trump may be making the same mistake as many predecessors have made, assuming that the Iranian regime is teetering at a precipice and that a mere nudge will force the leadership to negotiate. Oil price shocks and recessions have a historical connection. In a recent report, our commodity strategists highlighted that a spike in oil prices preceded 10 out of the past 11 recessions in the U.S. since 1945 (Table 3). Admittedly, not all spikes were followed by recession. The combination of an oil price spike and Fed rate hikes has produced a recession 8 out of 9 times.7 If oil prices rose to $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months, there will be several negative macro consequences. In particular, gasoline prices will rise back toward $4 per gallon (Chart 4). Retail gasoline prices have already increased by more than 50% since they bottomed in February 2016. So how much more upside can the U.S. private sector take? Table 3History Of Oil Supply Shocks Chart 4A Source Of Pressure For Consumers The Household Sector Consumer confidence is currently near all-time highs, which tends to signal that the path of least resistance is flat or down (Chart 5). Household gasoline consumption has already declined in response to higher oil prices since the middle of 2017. Given that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic, consumers may already be near their minimum consumption level. Chart 5Nearing All-Time Highs Instead, households will experience a decline in their disposable income. This will come on the back of both higher gasoline prices and an increase in the prices of other goods and services, as the oil spike spills across sectors. U.S. households - and most likely those in other markets - are stretched to the limit already. A recent Fed survey found that 40% of U.S. households do not have the funds needed to meet an unexpected $400 cost in any given month.8 Such an unexpected expense would require them to either sell possessions, borrow, or cut back on other purchases. Chart 6Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Left with few other options, households would react to their lower disposable income by reducing demand for other goods and services. This dent in consumer spending would bring down aggregate demand, leading to slower employment growth and even less income and spending. Households could save less to maintain their current purchasing levels, given the recent rise in the savings rate (Chart 6). But this is unlikely. Although the household savings rate has increased in recent years, we have previously argued that a material part of the increase was driven by small business-owner profits. These owners have much higher levels of income than the median consumer. For Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, it would be difficult to reduce a savings rate that is already close to, or below, zero. Higher oil prices will also hurt growth in Europe and Japan, economies that are already struggling to gain economic momentum after grappling with a weaker growth impulse from China. In addition, EM economies that took the opportunity to reform their oil subsidies amid lower oil prices post-2014 will have to grapple with a much larger shock to consumers than usual. The Corporate Sector In theory, what consumers lose from rising oil prices, producers of crude can gain in stronger revenue. This is especially important in the U.S. as domestic energy production has increased significantly over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for just 1.1% of GDP and 0.1% of total employment. The marginal propensity to spend out of every dollar of income is lower for producers than consumers. Moreover, if consumer confidence fell and consumer spending weakened, non-energy capex would decline as businesses reassessed household demand and held off from making investment decisions. Small business confidence is at record highs, and as with consumer confidence, vulnerable to downward revisions (Chart 7). Chart 7Dizzying Heights Chart 8Only One Way To Go (Down) Profit margins remain at a highly elevated level and also have only one way to go (Chart 8). If high oil prices should combine with rising borrowing costs and upward pressure on wages (which could develop in this macro environment) the result would be a triple hit to margins (Chart 9). Of course, rising wages would give consumers some offset to higher oil prices, so the question will be the net effect of all variables. And if the dollar bull market continues, as our FX team believes it will, the combination of higher oil prices and a strong USD would hurt U.S. companies with international exposure. The debt load held by the U.S. corporate sector would turn this bad dream into a nightmare. Many American companies have spent the past 10 years increasing leverage to buy back equity (Chart 10). Companies with high debt would need to revise down their profit expectations, with potentially devastating consequences. Elevated debt levels also increase the likelihood of financial market stress if bond investors get worried and spreads begin to widen significantly. Chart 9Rising Pressures On Earnings? Chart 10Large Corporate Debts According to all measures, U.S. stocks are at or near their all-time valuation peaks. Investors have also priced in a significant amount of optimism for profit growth (Chart 11). These expectations would be subject to quick revision if our oil shock scenario plays out. In other words, investor expectations for profit margins are not sufficiently factoring the triple hit of higher oil prices, higher interest rates, and higher wages. Chart 11The Market Has High Hopes An additional geopolitical risk on the horizon for 2019 is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. This is unrelated to an oil price spike (other than that it would be an effect of U.S. policy) but could nonetheless combine with rising energy prices to sour investors' mood.9 Bottom Line: An oil price spike above $100 would produce negative consequences for the U.S. household and corporate sectors. Given the supply-side nature of the price shock, it would not be accompanied by the usual decline in USD, and could therefore hurt the foreign profits of U.S. corporations as well. If investors must also deal with mounting regulatory pressures on FAANG stocks, they could face a perfect storm. Given the high probability of such an oil price shock, why isn't a 2019 recession BCA's House View, rather than merely a risk to it? Because it is difficult to say how high oil prices need to rise to cause a recession. For example, 1973 both marked a permanent move up in oil prices and saw oil prices triple. In 2019 terms, that would mean an oil price above $200, a far less probable scenario than $100-$110. Nevertheless, the combination of elevated oil prices and the price impact on consumer goods of the U.S.-China trade war could combine to create a nightmare scenario for consumers. But it is impossible to gauge the level of both required to push the U.S. into a recession. Second, there are many ways in which today's macro environment is different from that in 1974. In the 1970s the inventory cycle was a key factor in the business cycle, with excesses building up ahead of recessions, forcing output cutbacks as demand weakened. That is no longer the case in today's world of just-in-time inventory management. Also, inflation was a much bigger problem back then, requiring tougher Fed action. On the other hand, debt burdens were much lower. Investment Implications To be clear, none of the usual recession indicators that BCA Research uses are flashing red at this time. The point of this analysis is to illustrate a credible, exogenous scenario that cannot be revealed through the usual data-driven recession forecasting methods. What happens if a recession does occur ahead of the 2020 election? How would President Trump react to a recession induced by his foreign policy adventurism in the Middle East? By doing what every other president would do: finding someone else to blame. In this case, we would put high odds on the Federal Reserve becoming the target of President Trump's fury. Ahead of 2020, the Fed and its independence may very well become an election issue.10 This could spell serious trouble for the Fed, which is at a massive disadvantage when it comes to explaining to voters why central bank independence is so important. The Fed had great difficulty managing public opinion regarding its extraordinary measures to combat the Great Recession - its attempts at public outreach largely failed. Compare the number of Trump's Twitter followers to that of the Fed's (Chart 12). Chart 12The Fed's PR Abilities Are Limited Though most of our clients and colleagues will probably disagree, we do not see central bank independence as a static quality. It was bestowed upon central banks by politicians following widespread inflation fears throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although in the U.S. the current tradition goes back to the 1951 Treasury Accord that restored the independence of the Fed. Our colleague Martin Barnes penned a report on the politicization of monetary policy in 2013.11 His conclusion is that political meddling in monetary affairs is less pernicious than economic performance. The Fed will incur Trump's ire, in other words, but it will be its failure to generate economic growth that causes a break in independence. We are not so sure. The next recession is likely to be a mild one for Main Street given the lack of real economic bubbles. But given the slow recovery in real wages over the past decade and the general angst of the populace towards governing elites, even a mild recession that merely reminds voters of 2008-2009 could produce deep anxiety and significant public reactions. Further, the idea of "independent," non-politically accountable institutions is going out of style. President Trump - and other policymakers in the developed world - have specifically targeted the "so-called experts" and "institutions." President Trump has attacked America's foreign policy architecture, NATO, the WTO, and a slew of supposedly outdated norms and practices for being "out of touch" with the electorate. This policy has served him well thus far. If our nightmare scenario of an oil price-induced recession plays out, the immediate implication for investors will be a sharp downturn in risk assets. As such, we are recommending that investors hedge their portfolios with a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade. Alternatively we would recommend going long U.S. energy / short technology stocks. A longer-term, and perhaps even more pernicious implication, would be the end of the era of central bank independence and a full politicization of the economy. Laissez-faire capitalist system would give way to dirigisme. In the process, the U.S. dollar and Treasuries would be doomed. Jim Mylonas, Global Strategist Daily Insights & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018 and "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently covers 100 days of net crude imports, or 200 days of net petroleum imports, and can be tapped for reasons of political timing as well as international emergencies. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," dated September 13, 2018, available at bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017," May 2018, available at federalreserve.gov. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "Politics And Monetary Policy," dated August 22, 2018, and "The Battle Of The Press Conferences: Trump Versus Powell," dated September 27, 2018, available at dailyinsights.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?" dated April 15, 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The U.S. midterm elections are far less investment-relevant than consensus holds; Trump will increase the pressure on China and Iran regardless of the likely negative election results for the GOP; The Iranian sanctions, civil conflict in Iraq, and other oil supply issues are the real geopolitical risk; Despite the tentative good news on Brexit, political uncertainty in the U.K. makes now a bad time to buy the pound; Go long Brent crude / short S&P 500; long U.S. energy / tech equities; long JPY / short GBP. Feature The U.S. political cycle begins in earnest after Labor Day. Understandably, we have noticed an uptick in client interest, with a steady stream of questions and conference call requests about U.S. politics. Generally, our forecast remains unchanged since our April net assessment of the upcoming midterm election.1 Democrats have a slightly better than 60% probability of winning the House of Representatives, with a solid 45% probability of taking the Senate, and rising. The latter is astounding, given that the "math" of the Senate rotation is against the Democrats. Our bias toward a Democratic victory is based on current polling (Chart 1) and President Trump's woeful approval rating (Chart 2). There are a lot of other moving parts, however, and we will update them next week in detail. Chart 1GOP Trails In Polls, But It Is Still Close Chart 2Trump's Approval Rating Lines The GOP Up For Steep Losses But why, dear client, should you care? Do the midterms really matter for investors? History suggests that they tend to be a bullish catalyst for the stock market (Chart 3). Will this time be any different? The two bearish narratives hanging over markets have to do with the Democrats foiling President Trump's pro-business policy and impeaching him. The former would purportedly have a direct impact on earnings by stymieing Trump's pluto-populist agenda, while the latter would presumably force Trump to seek relevance abroad - through an aggressive foreign policy or trade policy. We think both concerns are without merit. First, by taking over the House of Representatives, the Democrats will not be able to stop or reverse the president's economic agenda. Trump's deregulation will continue, given that regulatory affairs are the sole prerogative of the executive branch of government. Tax cuts will not be reversed, given that Democrats have no chance of gaining a 60-seat, filibuster-proof, majority in the Senate, and would not have a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override Trump's veto. As for fiscal stimulus, it is highly unlikely that the party of the $15 minimum wage and "Medicare for all" would seek to impose fiscal discipline on the nation. As far as the market is concerned, President Trump has accomplished all he needed to accomplish. Gridlock is perfectly fine, which is why a divided Congress has not stopped bull markets in the past (Chart 4). And should the Republicans somehow retain Congress, the result would be a "more of the same" rally. Chart 3Midterm U.S. Elections Tend To Be Bullish... Chart 4... Even Those That Produce Gridlock What about impeachment? Well, what about it? As we have illustrated in our net assessment of the impeachment risk, the Senate is not likely to convict Trump, so markets can look through it, albeit with bouts of volatility (Chart 5A & 5B).2 Chart 5AMarkets Can Rally Through Impeachment... Chart 5B...Despite Volatility To this our clients counter: "But Trump is different!" According to this theory, President Trump would respond to the threat of impeachment by becoming unhinged and seeking relevance abroad through an aggressive foreign and trade policy. But can he be more aggressive than ... Threatening nuclear war with North Korea; Re-imposing an oil embargo against Iran - and thus unraveling the already shaky equilibrium in the Middle East; Imposing tariffs on half, possibly all, U.S. imports from China; Threatening additional tariffs on U.S. allies like Canada, the EU, and Japan? More aggressive than that? We are agnostic towards the upcoming midterm elections. We already have a deeply alarmist view towards U.S. foreign policy posture vis-à-vis Iran3 and U.S. trade policy vis-à-vis China,4 both of which we have articulated at length. The midterm elections factor very little in our analysis of either. As such, they are a non-diagnostic variable. The outcome of the vote is a red herring. President Trump will seek relevance abroad whether or not his Republican Party holds the House and Senate. In fact, we believe that the midterms are a distraction. Investors have already forgotten about Iran (Chart 6), at a time when global oil spare capacity is falling (Chart 7). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is forecasting Brent to average $80/bbl in 2019, but prices would easily reach $120/bbl in a case where all three pernicious scenarios occur (shale production bottlenecks, Venezuela export collapse, and Iran sanctions).5 Chart 6Nobody Is Paying Attention To Iranian Supply Risk! Chart 7Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin These figures are alarming. But they could become even worse if our Q4 Black Swan - a Shia-on-Shia civil war in Iraq - manifests. The end of the U.S.-Iran détente has put the tenuous geopolitical equilibrium in Iraq on thin ice.6 Since our missive on this topic last week, the violence in Basra has intensified, with rioters setting the Iranian consulate alight. Investors were largely able to ignore the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq because it occurred in areas of the country that do not produce oil. A Shia-on-Shia conflict, however, would take place in Basra. This vital port exports 3.5 bpd. Any damage to its facilities, which is highly likely if Iran gets involved in the conflict, would instantly become the world's largest supply loss since the first Gulf War (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Our message to clients is that midterm elections are far less investment-relevant than is assumed. President Trump has already initiated aggressive foreign and trade policy. We expect the White House to intensify the pressure on Iran and China regardless of the outcome of the midterm election. And we also expect the Democratic Party to be unable to stop President Trump on either front, should it gain a majority in the House of Representatives. The truly underappreciated risk for investors is a massive oil supply shock in 2019 that comes from a combination of instability in Venezuela, aggressive U.S. enforcement of the oil embargo against Iran, and Iran's retaliation against such sanctions via chaos in Iraq. We are initializing a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade, as well as a long energy stocks / short tech trade, as hedges against this risk (Chart 9). Chart 8Civil Unrest In Basra Would Be Big Chart 9Two Hedges We Recommend Government Shutdown Is The One True Midterm-Related Risk There is a declining possibility of a government shutdown before the midterm - and a much larger possibility afterwards. It is well known that the election odds favor the Democrats, but if there were ever a president who would do something drastic to try to turn the tables, it would be Trump. A majority in the House gives Democrats the ability to impeach. While we think the Senate would acquit Trump of any impeachment articles, this view is based on stout Republican support. A "smoking gun" from Special Counsel Robert Mueller - comparable to Nixon's Watergate tapes - could still change things. Trump would rather avoid impeachment altogether. Trump could still conceivably try to upset the election by insisting on funding his promised "Wall" on the border. The Republicans want to delay the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which would include any border security funding increases, until after the election (but before the new House sits in January). Trump has repeatedly threatened to reject his own party's plan, though he has recently backed off these threats. A shutdown ahead of an election would conventionally be political suicide - especially given the likely need for a federal response to Hurricane Florence. Moreover Trump's border wall is opposed by over half the populace. But Trump could reason that the greatest game changer would be a spike in turnout when his supporters hear that he is willing to stake the entire election on this key issue. Turnout is everything. The success of such a kamikaze run would hinge on the Senate. Assuming that Trump retained full Republican support to push through wall funding, as GOP incumbents frantically sought to end the shutdown, there would be 12 Democratic senators, in the broadest measure, who could conceivably be intimidated into voting with them (Table 1). These senators would have to decide on the spot whether they are safer running for office during a government shutdown or after having given Trump his wall. They may decide on the latter. Table 1A Government Shutdown Could Conceivably Intimidate Trump-State Democrats This would total 63 votes in the Senate, enough to invoke "cloture," ending debate, and hence break any Democratic filibuster against proposed wall funding. But this calculation is also extremely generous to Trump. More likely, at least four of the twelve senators would refuse to break rank: Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Robert Menéndez of New Jersey, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. They would be averse to defecting from their party on such a consequential vote, even if eight of their colleagues were willing to do so.7 This is presumably why Mick Mulvaney, Trump's budget director, has already gone to Capitol Hill and "personally assured" the leading Republicans that Trump is not going to pursue a government shutdown.8 The legislative math doesn't really work. Nevertheless, there is still some chance that Trump - as opposed to any other president - will try this gambit. Especially as the loss of the House and potentially the Senate begins to appear "inevitable." After the midterm, of course, all bets are off. A lame duck Congress, or worse a Democratic Congress, will give President Trump all the reason he needs to grind things to a halt over his wall, with a view to 2020. The odds of a shutdown will shoot up. Do shutdowns matter for investors? Not really. S&P 500 returns tend to be flat for the first two weeks after a shutdown. Looking at eight past shutdowns, the average return was 1% fifteen days later, and 4.5% two months later. Bottom Line: We give a pre-election shutdown 10% odds due to Trump's unorthodoxy and desperate need to boost turnout among his voter base. Post-midterm election, a government shutdown is inevitable, unless congressional Republicans manage to convince President Trump to sign long-term appropriation bills before the election. Brexit: Is The Pound Pricing In Uncertainty? The U.K.-EU negotiations are entering their final, and thus most uncertain, phase. Our Brexit decision-tree looks messy and complicated (Diagram 1). While we believe that Prime Minister Theresa May has increased the probability of the sanguine "soft Brexit" outcome, there are plenty of pathways that lead to risk-off events. Diagram 1Brexit: Decision Tree And Conditional Probabilities Is the pound sufficiently pricing in this uncertainty? According to BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, which recently penned a special report on the subject, the answer is no.9 According to their long-term fair value model, the trade-weighted pound exhibits only a 3% discount - well within its historical norm (Chart 10). Chart 10Pound: A Much Smaller Discount On A Trade-Weighted Basis In order to assess the degree of political risk priced into the pound, one needs to isolate the risk of the U.K. leaving the EU. This is because all fair value models - including that of our FX team - are based on a potentially unrepresentative sample, one where the U.K. is part of the EU! The problem is that the traditional variables used to explain exchange rate movements were also greatly affected by the shock following the Brexit vote in June 2016. For example, looking at the behavior of British gilts, the FTSE, consumer confidence, and business confidence, one can see very abnormal moves occurring in conjunction with large fluctuations in the pound during the summer of 2016 (Chart 11A & 11B). Thus, if one were to regress the pound on these variables, one would not have observed a risk premium, even though the market was clearly very concerned with the geopolitical outlook for the U.K. Chart 11AAbnormal Moves Around The Brexit Vote... Chart 11B...Make It Hard To Spot Geopolitical Risk Our FX team therefore decided to try to explain the pound's normal behavior using variables that did not experience large abnormal moves in the direct aftermath of the British referendum. For GBP/USD (cable), the currency pair was regressed versus the dollar index and the British leading economic indicator (LEI). For EUR/USD, the currency pair was regressed against the trade-weighted euro and U.K. LEI. The reason for using the trade-weighted dollar and euro as explanatory variables is simple: it helps isolate the pound's movements from the impact of fluctuations in the other leg of the pair. Using the U.K. LEI helps incorporate the immediate outlook for U.K. growth and U.K. monetary policy into the pound's movement. The remaining error term was mostly a reflection of geopolitical risk.10 The results of the models are shown in Chart 12A & 12B. While the pound did show a geopolitical discount in the second half of 2016 (as evidenced by the abnormally large discount from the fundamental-based model), today the pound's pricing shows no geopolitical risk premium, whether against the dollar or the euro. This corroborates the message from the economic policy uncertainty index computed by Baker, Bloom, and Davis, which shows a very low level of economic policy uncertainty based on news articles (Chart 13). Chart 12ANo Geopolitical Risk Embedded... Chart 12B...In Today's Pound Sterling Chart 13Policy Uncertainty Index Muted Considering the thin risk premium embedded in the pound against both the dollar and the euro, GBP does not have much maneuvering room through the upcoming busy calendar. The problem for the pound is that the 5% net disapproval of Brexit among the British public remains smaller than the cohort of British voters who remain undecided (Chart 14). This means that domestic politics in the U.K. could remain a source of surprise, especially as Prime Minister Theresa May's polling remains tenuous (Chart 15). This raises the risk that Hard Brexiters end up controlling 10 Downing Street - despite their status as a minority within the ranks of Conservative MPs (Chart 16). Chart 14A Liability For Sterling Chart 15Theresa May's Tenuous Grip Chart 16Hard Brexiters Are A Minority With the global economic outlook already justifying a lower pound, especially versus the dollar, the pound seems to be too risky of an investment at this moment. It is true that positioning and sentiment towards cable are currently very depressed, raising the risk of a short-term rebound (Chart 17). This could particularly occur if the EU meeting in Salzburg in two weeks results in some breakthrough. Such an event would still not resolve May's domestic conundrum, which is why we would be inclined to fade any such rebound. Bottom Line: On a six-to-nine-month basis, it makes sense to short the pound against the dollar and the yen. Slowing global growth hurts the pound but also hurts the euro while benefiting the greenback and the yen. The political environment in Japan, in particular, supports this reasoning. As we have maintained, Shinzo Abe is not going to lose the September 20 leadership election for the ruling party (Chart 18).11 And the Trump administration is not going to wage a full-scale trade war against Japan. However, after the leadership poll, Abe will press ahead with his agenda to revise the constitution, which will initiate a controversial process and stake his fate on a popular referendum that is likely to be held next year. Chart 17Fade Any Short-Term Rebound Chart 18Abe Lives, But Yen Will Rise At the same time, Trump might try throwing some threats or jabs against Japan before his defense secretary and admirals are able to convince him that such actions subvert U.S. strategy against China. Therefore Japan-specific political risks are on the horizon, in addition to the ongoing trade war with China, which is already a boon for the yen. We are therefore initiating a long yen / short pound tactical trade. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Associate ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," dated July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," dated August 23, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Burgess Everett, "Key red-state Democrat sides with Trump on wall funding," Politico, August 8, 2018, available at www.politico.com, and Ali Vitali, "Vulnerable Senate Democrats embrace Trump's wall," NBC News, August 13, 2018, available at www.nbcnews.com. 8 Please see Niv Elis and Scott Wong, "Trump again threatens shutdown," The Hill, September 5, 2018, available at thehill.com. 9 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing The Geopolitical Risk Premium In The Pound," dated September 7, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 10 To make sure the exercise was robust, Foreign Exchange Strategy tested the out-of-sample performance of the model. Reassuringly, the GBP/USD and EUR/GBP models showed great predictive power out-of-sample (see Appendix), while remaining significant and explaining 80% and 65% of the pairs' variations respectively. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix: Traditional Variables Are Of Little Use To Isolate A Geopolitical Risk Premium Chart 19 Chart 20 Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights Iraq remains vital for the security of the Middle East and global oil supply; Sectarian tensions in Iraq have peaked, but risk of Shia-on-Shia violence is rising, which could imperil the all-important export facilities in Basra; With the Islamic State defeated, Iran's military support is no longer needed; This opens a window of opportunity for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies to make diplomatic inroads in the country; Stability and security are positive for investments in Iraq's energy sector, but official targets are overly ambitious. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy expects oil prices to push higher ahead of the likely loss of 2 million bbl/day of exports on the back of U.S.-imposed sanctions against Iran and the all-but-certain collapse of Venezuela's economy. Feature "Divisiveness is not good for the people ... the policy of exclusion and the policy of marginalization must end in Iraq ... All Iraqis should live under one roof and for one goal." Muqtada Al Sadr, April 2012 "Competition between parties and election candidates must center on economic, educational, and social service programs that can be realistically implemented; to be avoided are narcissism [and] inflammatory sectarian and nationalist rhetoric" Ayatollah Al Sistani, May 4, 2018 "Say no to sectarianism, no to corruption, no to division of shares, no to terrorism and no to occupation" Muqtada Al Sadr's call for a peaceful million man "Day of Rage," September 2018 Moqtada Al Sadr's Sairuun party's unlikely victory in Iraq's May elections came as a surprise. The former leader of the Mahdi Army - a militia that terrorized U.S. forces - has reinvented himself into a champion of reform and a counterweight against foreign influence in the country, particularly Iranian. His political success is due to his ability to recognize that Iraq is at a crossroads. Attitudes and priorities are shifting on several levels: Iraq is turning away from sectarian politics after a decade and a half of internal strife. The security threat from the Islamic State has been eliminated, with nationalism replacing sectarianism. Iran-Saudi tensions are ramping up again at the same time that the U.S. is putting pressure on Iran by reimposing a global oil embargo. Iraq, a buffer state between Iran and Saudi Arabia, will become a battlefield between the two regional powers, but the battlefield may be shifting from the military theatre to the economic one. These junctures provide both opportunities to transition the country to a new stage, as well as challenges in cleansing the system of its old demons. The composition of Iraq's new government matters. It will ultimately determine whether these impulses will pave the way for a stronger, more unified country, or whether Iraq will remain consumed with internal battles. Unity is required for Baghdad to boost its oil output in the way it hopes. The Iraqi economy's relationship with oil markets is two-sided. Not only is its income dependent on oil, but global oil markets are also reliant on Iraqi supplies at a time when global spare capacity is razor-thin. Given that Iraq is currently the fifth-largest crude oil producer in the world - the second-largest within OPEC - and accounts for 5% of global crude oil supply, Iraq's production ambitions are important for global oil markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Iraqi Upstream Production Matters As such, when Baghdad announced its ambitions to raise capacity to 6.5 million bbl/day by 2022, the energy markets were paying attention. If this capacity increase translates to a rise in actual production, additional Iraqi oil by the end of the four-year period would roughly equal 2 million bbl/day. This is equivalent to BCA's Commodity and Energy Strategy's expectation of a loss of exports from the two main risks to energy markets today: the Iranian oil embargo and the internal strife in Venezuela (Chart 2).1 (Of course, the Iraqi production would not come in time to prevent the run-up in prices that we expect as a result of the latter two risks, given that they are immediate risks whereas Iraq will take four years to ramp up.) Chart 2Losses From Venezuela and Iran Will Push Prices Higher The doubling of Iraq's production over the past decade occurred despite constant sabotage of its oilfields, pumping stations, and pipelines by insurgents. It would seem that the restoration of security offers an optimistic outlook for Iraq's production plan, especially given Iraq's naturally competitive conditions (Table 1). But there is no certainty in Baghdad's ability to reach these targets. Iraqi output is now operating near full capacity (Chart 3). The past decade and a half have wreaked havoc on its infrastructure and discouraged investments needed to develop its fertile oilfields. Table 1Operating Costs Are Competitive Chart 3Not Much Idle Capacity In this report, we assess whether political conditions will support stability in Iraq. The alternative scenario, one where Iraq becomes a physical battlefield between Iran and Saudi Arabia, would not only snuff out any hope of an oil export boom, but could also become yet another risk to global oil supply. Political Will Is Not Enough To Boost Oil Output An expansion of oil production capacity would bring much needed revenue to aid in Iraq's rebuilding efforts. Iraq's economy is highly dependent on the energy sector, even relative to other major oil-producing Middle Eastern peers (Chart 4). The rebound in oil prices over the past couple of years has therefore helped support Iraq's budget, with a surplus expected this year for the first time since 2012 (Chart 5). Extra revenue has, in turn, helped grease the wheels of stability and reconciliation in the country. Chart 4Addicted to Petrodollars Chart 5Higher Prices Will Help Flip the Deficit However, political will is not a sufficient condition. Rather, the success of the plan to expand capacity is contingent on Baghdad overcoming several key constraints: While the threat from Islamic State has for the most part subsided, security and the potential for sabotage remain risks to Iraq's current oil infrastructure. Ongoing disputes over the status of Kurds in northern Iraq - risks that contains almost 20% of proven reserves - raise the potential for conflict. Additionally, oil infrastructure may become vulnerable to sabotage from Iran, or Iranian-backed militants, if there is a souring of relationships (see more on that below). Discontent among Iraqis in the southern oil-rich region also raises the probability of disruptions. Over the weekend, protesters upset with corruption and poor services gathered near the Nahr Bin Omar oilfield. Clashes between Basna protesters and security forces have already led to six deaths over the past three days. Iraq's current network of pipelines, pumping stations, and storage facilities - many of which are damaged beyond repair - are not capable of handling greater volumes. An expansion of the export capacity is required for Iraq to be able to benefit from future increases in production. Such an expansion will require FDI, which in turn will require stability and a political climate conducive to large-scale, long-term investments. There are currently two main functioning oil export hubs - the northern network of pipelines, and the southern shipping route (Map 1). Map 1Iraq's Oil Infrastructure On Shaky Ground In northern Iraq, the Iraq-Ceyhan pipeline is connected to Kurdish lines at the city of Fishkabur and carries northern oil to the Turkish port (Table 2). Table 2Defunct Pipelines Leave Room For Improvement Northern exports account for ~15% of Iraq's total crude exports (Chart 6). While the Fishkabur-Ceyhan pipeline has a nameplate capacity of 1.5 million bbl/day, usable capacity is reportedly significantly lower, constraining Iraq's northern exports. Chart 6Southern Crude Accounts For Bulk Of Iraqi Exports Although the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has its own network of pipelines transporting crude from fields in the Khurmala Dome and Tawke fields to Ceyhan via Fishkabur, the main infrastructure on the Baghdad-controlled side - the Kirkuk-Fishkabur pipeline - has been targeted by insurgents and has slowly been losing capacity. Its pre-2003 0.9 million bbl/day capacity was reduced to 0.25 million bbl/ day in 2013. Finally, it was closed down in March 2014 rendering it inoperable. Exports from Kirkuk have been on hold following Iraq's takeover of the oilfield in October 2017, as the Iraqi government does not have the infrastructure to bypass Kurdish pipelines. As a result, exports through Ceyhan have collapsed to almost half their pre-October levels.2 The closure of the Kirkuk pipeline undercuts Iraq's ambitions to increase Kirkuk's oil production to 1 million bbl/day. This has been partially mitigated by an agreement for Iraq to truck 0.03-0.06 million bbl/day of Kirkuk oil to Iran in exchange for oil in the south. Ultimately, the vulnerability of northern exports highlights the need for more reliable transportation channels. As such, the Iraqi government announced plans late last year to build a new pipeline from Baiji to Fishkabur, replacing the defunct Kirkuk pipeline in transporting oil to Ceyhan. Furthermore, the idea of using KRG pipelines to export Kirkuk's oil was floated during meetings between current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and former President of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) Masoud Barzani, and thus could be a possibility going forward. A positive outcome would require a thaw in Iraqi-Kurdish relations and ultimately hinges on the outcome of government formation in Baghdad. Thus, the northern infrastructure - which currently has a nameplate export capacity of 1.5 million bbl/day - underlines the vulnerability of Iraq's exports, not only to sabotage, but also to internal strife. Export capacity from southern Iraq, which accounts for 85% of oil exports, will also require expansion. Pipelines between the oilfields, storage facilities, and export terminals on the Persian Gulf are also susceptible to damage. However, authorities have been expanding export capacity there. The authorities currently operate five single point moorings, bringing total export capacity from the Persian Gulf to 4.6 million bbl/day. The Iraqi Pipeline to Saudi Arabia (IPSA), which could support export capacity from the south, runs through the Arabian Peninsula to the Red Sea. However, it has not been operating since the first Gulf War, and the Saudis have converted their section of the pipeline to transport natural gas. Talks of a revival of this line have recently surfaced. An improvement in Saudi-Iraqi relations would certainly be a positive sign for southern export capacity, providing another outlet for any potential supply increase. Currently there are no operating export pipelines going westward.3 The Kirkuk-Baniyas pipelines were damaged in 2003, and while Iraq and Syria agreed to replace these pipelines with two new ones in 2010, no progress has been made yet. Given instability in Syria, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. However, there is a plan in place to create a new line between Basra and Aqaba in Jordan with an export capacity of 1 million bbl/day. This would allow Iraq to transport just under a quarter of its total exports via the Red Sea, rather than the Persian Gulf. In terms of internal transportation, the Iraq Strategic Pipeline is a pair of bi-directional lines that run vertically between the country's most important oil-producing regions. However, it has been damaged and currently operates only northward, from Basra to Karbala. Since there are no operational pipelines to the north under Iraqi control, it is currently of limited use. In other words, the oil is stuck in Iraq. Increases in water injection facilities are also required to maintain pressures in the reservoir and boost oil production. Natural gas, which Iraq currently flares, could technically be used as an alternative to water injection. Iraq is working towards reducing gas flaring and hopes to use the captured gas for electricity. The Common Seawater Supply Project (CSSP) aims to treat and transport 5-7.5 million bbl/day of seawater from the Persian Gulf to oil production facilities. 1.5 bbl of water injected are required to produce 1 bbl of oil in the major southern oilfields. However, since the termination of talks with Exxon Mobil Corp on the construction of the facility in June (after two years of negotiations!) there has been no progress on this project. It will likely be awarded to another company, but the lack of clarity regarding CSSP's completion date adds uncertainty to Iraq's expansion plans. Electricity shortages also put expansion plans in peril. Iraq needs significant upgrades to its electricity grid. Given that the oil and gas industry is the top industrial customer of electricity, a stable connection is required to boost output. The World Bank reports that in 2011, an average of 40 outages occurred each month, affecting 77% of firms in Iraq. Bottom Line: Export capacity of Iraq's northern pipeline to Ceyhan currently stands at 1.5 million bbl/day, while its southern ports allow for 4.6 million bbl/day to be shipped through the Persian Gulf. These figures are generous. Usable capacity is reportedly much lower. Iraq has plans to increase its western export capacity to 1 million bbl/day through a new pipeline to Aqaba. Nevertheless, this infrastructure is vulnerable to sabotage by residual insurgents, as well as to Iraq-Kurdish and Iraq-Iran disputes. Iraq's Shifting Interests... Policymakers in Baghdad face the challenge of ensuring sufficient water and electricity not only for the country's oilfields but also for the population. Electricity shortages triggered the recent protests in Basra. Demonstrators have been calling for improved access to these essentials, along with job opportunities and a crackdown on corruption. Furthermore, there is increased evidence that Iraqis have become disillusioned with the political elite and are losing confidence in the political "establishment," such as it is (Chart 7). Transparency International rates Iraq as "highly corrupt" and ranked it 169 out of the 180 countries in its 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index. It stands out even among its highly corrupt Middle Eastern peers (Chart 8). Chart 7Iraqis Lack Confidence In Their Leaders Chart 8Corruption Is Rampant Iraqis fear that even as their country exploits its oil, they will remain destitute. Although the southern region contains three-quarters of Iraq's oil reserves (Table 3), it has the highest poverty rate (Chart 9). Table 3Southern Oilfields Are Iraq's Crown Jewel... Chart 9...Yet Poverty Is Widespread There Anti-establishment sentiment is rising, as reflected in the most recent parliamentary elections in May 2018. Voter turnout was reported at 44%, down from 60% in the previous two elections. The success of Moqtada Al Sadr's Sairuun coalition in winning the majority of seats highlights this shift in allegiance (Box 1). While Iraq's demographic makeup remains heterogeneous, voters are no longer instinctively looking for sectarian parties to represent them. Rather, they want policymakers to resolve basic needs like electricity, water, and corruption. Protesters in Basra are therefore not chanting sectarian slogans, but rather demanding basic services and jobs (Chart 10). Box 1 Ma'a Salama Sectarianism? In surprising results from the May parliamentary elections, the Sairuun coalition - an unlikely combination of communists, leftists, and centrist groups, led by firebrand Shia cleric Moqtada Al Sadr - attained the largest number of votes (Table 4). Nevertheless, it was not able to garner enough seats to secure an outright majority necessary to form the government on its own. Instead, alliances are now being forged as parties scramble to establish the largest coalition group. Of the 329 seats in Iraq's Council of Representatives, just over half are represented by the main Shia parties. The challenge for them this time around is that the five main Shia blocs, which were previously united, have split into two opposing camps. Table 4Politicians Are Picking Up On Shifting Trends The Sadr-backed Sairuun coalition, along with (1) Prime Minister Abadi's Nasr al Iraq, (2) the conservative Hikma bloc, and (3) the Ayad Allawi, centrist Wataniyya bloc have already announced a preliminary agreement to form a coalition as well as a commitment to take an anti-sectarian approach. Several smaller Sunni, Christian, Turkmen, and Yazidi parties have pledged that they would support the non-sectarian, nationalist, bloc of parties. This brings their seats to 187. At the other end are the pro-Iranian Fateh and Dawlet al Qanun blocs, which recently announced that they had formed the largest bloc. The two main Kurdish parties are not included in either alliance. Together they hold 43 seats, giving them the power to be the tie-breakers. They have drafted a list of demands and stated their willingness to join whichever bloc is able to guarantee their fulfillment. Given Maliki's previously divisive rule, we assign a greater probability to the scenario in which they join the core coalition headed by Sadr, as several Sunnis have already done so. The danger of a nationalist, cross-sectarian movement is that it would signal the rebirth of an independent Iraq, which is not necessarily in the interest of its two powerful neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iran, in particular, would feel its dominant position weaken and might want to instigate sectarian conflict in order to arrest the nationalist, Sadr-led movement. This would definitely matter to global investors as a Shia-on-Shia conflict in Iraq would geographically take place around Basra, the main shipment route for 85% of the country's oil exports. Chart 10Iraqis Want Better Services Prime Minister al-Abadi has also become more responsive to people's needs. He recently sacked the electricity minister and promised to fund electricity and water projects. Furthermore, amid demands for employment opportunities in the oil sector and accusations of corruption, the Iraqi cabinet recently announced a regulation requiring that at least 50% of foreign oil company employees be Iraqi citizens. Given that the voice of discontent in Iraq is getting louder, we expect the government to uphold these promises. Pacifying protesters will increase stability, reduce risks of violence and disruptions, and build support for the government. Nevertheless, many voters still see the prime minister as part of the corrupt political elite. Bottom Line: Iraqis are demanding their basic rights, and this is taking the form of increased pro¬tests, especially in the south where key oilfields are located. The schism among the main Shia parties along the nationalist/Iran axis suggests that Iraq has evolved beyond the purely sectarian political system. This is a positive in the long term as it means that the country can focus on material issues that matter to Iraqis. However, in the short term, the Iran-aligned Shia groups could spur violence, especially if they realize that the sectarian model of politics is waning. ...And Shifting Allegiance? Apart from the shift in focus toward issues-based politics, the election also highlights a pivot in allegiance away from Iran. Sadr's Sairuun bloc is critical of Iranian interference, and while it was initially open to joining forces with Amiri's Iran-backed Fateh coalition, it ultimately allied with the more secular Shia parties. Iran's recent role in Iraq has been mainly through military aid. It proved vital in driving the Islamic State militants out of Iraq - training, equipping, and funding Iraqi militias who fought against the terrorist group. Iran-backed militias united in 2014 to form the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and eventually defeated Islamic State. The PMF, estimated to be between 100,000-150,000 strong, was officially recognized as part of the Iraqi army earlier this year. However, the loyalty of the Shia militias to Baghdad remains unclear. Furthermore, when Washington expressed reluctance in arming Iraq with U.S. military equipment to fight terrorist groups in early 2014, Iran stepped up and signed a deal to sell arms and ammunition worth $195 million (Table 5). Iran also sent its own troops to support in fights against insurgencies - dispatching 2,000 troops to Central Iraq in June 2014. This military collaboration culminated in the signing of a July 23, 2017 agreement between Iran and Iraq for military cooperation in the fight against terrorism and extremism. Table 5Iran's Military Support Was Needed In The Past... Yet with the curbing of Islamic State, Iraq is preparing to begin a new chapter - rebuilding its war-torn cities. In doing so, its needs will shift from military support to financial support, potentially shifting its allegiance from Iran to Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Iran's current economic situation - especially with the anticipated impact of U.S. sanctions - will leave fewer funds available for it to direct towards Iraq. The electricity crisis earlier this summer symbolizes the shifting dynamic. Iran, which has been supplying southern Iraq with electricity, announced it would no longer provide Iraq with power, citing its dissatisfaction with the accumulation of unpaid bills. Iran itself is experiencing electricity shortages and is no longer willing or able to sacrifice for Iraq, which it fears is drifting outside its sphere of control. Iran eventually took back this move and restarted its electricity exports. However, this occurred only after the Iraqi government sent a delegation to Saudi Arabia to negotiate an agreement to supply electricity to southern Iraq. The Saudis also offered to build a solar power plant to provide electricity to Iraq at a quarter of the Iranian price. Baghdad therefore used the crisis to signal to Tehran that it has other options, including a closer economic relationship with Iran's chief rival, Saudi Arabia. This emerging rift was also apparent during the International Conference for Iraq's Reconstruction, hosted in Kuwait, where Iraq hoped to secure $88 billion worth of funds. There, Iraq obtained $30 billion in pledges toward rebuilding its economy (Chart 11). While Iraq's Arab neighbors jointly pledged over $10 billion, Iran - despite being present at the conference - failed to guarantee any funds. Later it offered Iraq a $3 billion credit line. Chart 11...But Now Iraq Needs Monetary Support Iran is not only limited by the dire state of its economy. Protests in Iran earlier this year partly focused on Tehran's foreign policy expenses, i.e. its support of various loyal regimes around the region. This "loyalty" costs money that Iranians believe could be better spent on their domestic needs. As such, Iranian policymakers will be wary of committing more funding to Iraq, as it could be seen as wasteful by restless voters at home. What's more, Iraq's Arab GCC neighbors have both the willingness and the ability to ally with Iraq and, in turn, to curb Iran's influence in the region. Bottom Line: Stronger ties with its Arab neighbors - and the accompanying funds - are what Iraq needs right now. Iraq requires another $58 billion towards its reconstruction efforts. Its southern neighbors can help it get there. Whether this will transpire hinges on Iran's ability to infiltrate Iraq's political elite. Given that Iraqi people have become disillusioned with many of these leaders, Iran will likely face a bigger challenge this time around. Investment Implications: Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Since 2011, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed the emerging Saudi-Iranian proxy war as the main regional dynamic.4 With the U.S. "deleveraging" out of the Middle East, the field is open for regional power dynamics. The result is a "security dilemma," in which Saudi and Iranian attempts to improve their defenses appear offensive to the other side, resulting in a vicious cycle of distrust. The Trump administration has deepened the tensions by ending the Obama administration détente with Iran. Lower oil revenue will limit Iran's ability to influence the Middle East through its proxies, including in Iraq. Iran may decide that Iraq is lost. At that point, it may conclude that if it cannot own Iraq, it must break it. Recently, Reuters reported that Iran has moved short-range ballistic missiles into Iraq in order to threaten Saudi Arabia and Israel, in case it needs to retaliate against a U.S. attack against its nuclear facilities.5 While the report was strongly denied by Iran, it suggests that Tehran could be trying to sow discord in Iraq, or even that its operatives are working with impunity in Iraq. Iran's pain is ultimately Saudi Arabia's gain. An Iranian economy battered by the imposition of sanctions will give way to increased Saudi influence in Iraq. The oil-rich GCC countries certainly have the coffers to incentivize such a switch. In offering to fill the funding gaps of its less fortunate neighbors, Saudi Arabia has already won the allegiance of other strategic regional partners such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Sudan. In 2016, amid economic turmoil in Egypt, Saudi Arabia signed agreements worth over $40 billion to support Egypt (Table 6). This does not include financing from other GCC allies. The UAE and Kuwait also support Egypt's economy in a significant fashion. Table 6Saudi Arabia Is No Stranger To Purchasing Allies Similar financial backing in Iraq would go a long way towards filling the $58 billion funding gap for its reconstruction. The quid pro quo would be the backing of Saudi Arabia's regional political agenda, which includes curbing Iranian influence. Not only would such investment accelerate the eventual increase in Iraqi oil production. It would also curb Iran's ability to retaliate through the region, both by removing an important ally and by cutting off Syria and Lebanese Hezbollah geographically from Tehran. Domestic Iraqi politics are therefore critical for global investors. If Iraq forms a nationalist, non-sectarian government over the next several months, it will degrade Iran's ability to influence the country. At that point, Iran may either lash out against the new Baghdad government and try to create domestic strife through its proxies - the battle-hardened Shia militias - or it may be pressed into negotiations with the U.S., lest it lose more allies in the region. If Iran choses to lash out against Iraq, we suspect that it will do so through attacks and sabotage against Iraqi infrastructure. This could present an additional tailwind to oil prices over the next several months. Any additional risk premium on the cost of a barrel of oil would be a boon for Iran as it deals with a loss of exports due to sanctions. Such a campaign of sabotage, however, would ensure that Baghdad firmly moves outside the Iranian sphere in the long term, which could open up the potential for Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies to invest in the country. In the short term, therefore, there is further risk to global oil supply as the shifting political dynamics in Iraq will put the country squarely in the middle of the ongoing Saudi-Iranian proxy war, right where it has always been. In the long term, we believe that Iranian influence in Iraq has peaked and will wane going forward. This opens up the opportunity for Baghdad to rely on Saudi Arabia and GCC countries for funding. This could be a boon for global oil supply over the next decade. Of course, much will hinge on whether Saudi Arabia is willing to finance the development of Iraqi oil fields. Oil produced in those fields would compete directly for market access with Saudi's own production. If Saudi Arabia decides to look out for its own, short-term, economic interests, then Iraq may be limited in terms of funding its development, or even be thrust back into Iran's orbit. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Re Oil Demand: Fed Policy Trumps Tariffs," August 30, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Prior to the takeover, Kirkuk oil was being transported to Fishkabur via KRG pipelines, which the Iraqi government can no longer access. 3 The Kirkuk-Haifa line has been defunct since 1948. 4 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Riyadh's Oil Gambit," dated October 11, 2011, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see John Irish and Ahmed Rasheed, "Exclusive: Iran moves missiles to Iraq in warning to enemies," Reuters, dated August 31, 2018, available at reuters.com.

Highlights President Trump has little to do with the ongoing EM selloff; The macro backdrop is the real culprit behind Turkey's woes, particularly the strong dollar... ... Which is a product of global policy divergence, with the U.S. stimulating while China pursues growth-constraining reforms; Chinese stimulus is important to watch, as it could change the game, but we do not expect China to save EM as it did in 2015; Turkey's troubles are a product of its late-stage populist cycle and will not end with Trump's magnanimity; The positive spin on the EM bloodbath is that it may force the Fed to slow its rate hikes, prolonging the business cycle. Feature Chart 1EM: Bloodbath Markets are selling off in Turkey and the wider EM economies (Chart 1), with the financial media focusing on the actions taken by the U.S. President Donald Trump in the escalating diplomatic spat between the two countries. Investors should be very clear what it means to ascribe the ongoing selloff to President Trump's aggressive posture with Ankara in particular and trade in general. If President Trump started EM's troubles with his tweets, he can then end them with another late-night missive. This is not our view. Turkey is enveloped in a deep morass of populism and weak fundamentals since at least 2013. What is worse, the ongoing selloff is likely going to ensnare at least the other fragile EM economies and potentially take down EM as an asset class. In this Report, we recount the pernicious macro backdrop - both geopolitical and economic - that EM economies face today. We then focus on Turkey itself and show that President Trump has little to do with the current selloff. The Bloodbath Is Afoot, Again Every financial bubble, and every financial bust, begins with a compelling story grounded in solid fundamentals. The now by-gone EM "Goldilocks Era" (2001-2011) was primarily driven by exogenous factors: a generational debt-fueled consumption binge in DM; an investment-fueled double-digit growth rate in China that kicked off a structural commodity bull market; and the unleashing of pent-up EM consumption/credit demand (Chart 2).1 These EM tailwinds petered out by 2011. Subsequently, China and EM economies entered a major downtrend that culminated in a massive commodity rout that began in 2014. But before the bloodbath could motivate policymakers to initiate painful structural reforms, Chinese policymakers stimulated in earnest. In the second half of 2015, Beijing became unnerved and injected enormous amount of credit and fiscal stimulus into the mainland economy (Chart 3). The intervention, however, did not change the pernicious fundamentals driving EM economies but merely caused "a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend," as our EM strategists have recently pointed out (Chart 4).2 Chart 2Goldilocks Era##BR##Is Over For EM Chart 3Is China About To Cause Another##BR##EM Mid-Cycle Recovery? Take Brazil, for example. Instead of using the 2014-2015 generational downturn to double-down on painful fiscal and pension reforms, the country's politicians declared President Dilma Rousseff to be the root-cause of all evil that befell the nation, impeached her in April 2016, and then proceeded to unceremoniously punt all painful reforms until after this year's election (if ever). They were enabled to do so by the "mid-cycle recovery" spurred by Chinese stimulus. In other words, Brazil's policymakers did nothing to actually deserve the recovery in asset prices but got one anyway. The country now will experience "faceoff time" with the markets, with no public support for painful reforms (Chart 5) and hardly an orthodox candidate in sight ahead of the October general election.3 Chart 4Where Are China/EM In The Cycle? Chart 5Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Could Brazilian and Turkish policymakers be in luck, as Chinese policymakers have blinked again?4 Our assessment is that the coming stimulus will not be as stimulative as in 2015. First, President Xi's monetary and fiscal policy, since coming into office in 2012, has been biased towards tightening (Chart 6). Second, Chinese leverage has plateaued (Chart 7). In fact, "debt servicing" is now the third-fastest category of fiscal spending growth since Xi came to power (Table 1). Third, the July 31 Politburo statement pledged to make fiscal policy "more proactive" and "supportive," but also reaffirmed the commitment to continue the campaign against systemic risk. Chart 6Xi Jinping Caps##BR##Government Spending And Credit Chart 7The Rise And Plateau##BR##Of Macro Leverage Whether China's mid-year stimulus will be globally stimulative is now the question for global investors. The key data to watch out of China will be August credit numbers, to be released September 9th through 15th. Is President Trump not to be blamed at all for the EM selloff? What about the trade war against China? If anything, tariffs against China have caused Beijing to "blink" and implement some stimulative measures this summer. If one must find fault in U.S. policy, it is the double dose of fiscal stimulus that has endangered EM economies. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the idea that global policy divergence would replace the global growth convergence.5 Populist economic stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China would imperil growth in the latter and accelerate it in the former, forming a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). Table 1Total Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's General Control) Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD As such, the White House is partly responsible for the EM selloff, but not in any way that can be changed with a tweet or a handshake. Furthermore, we do not see the upcoming U.S. midterm election as somehow capable of altering the global growth dynamics.6 It is highly unlikely that Democrats will seek to spend less, and they cannot raise taxes under Trump. Bottom Line: EM economies have never adjusted to the end of their Goldilocks era. A surge in global liquidity pushed investors further down the risk-curve, propping up EM assets despite poor macro fundamentals. China's massive 2015-2016 stimulus arrested the bear market, giving investors a perception that EM economies had recovered. This mid-cycle hiatus, however, has now been overtaken by the global policy divergence between Washington and Beijing, which is bullish USD. President Trump's trade tariffs and aggressive pressure on Turkey do not help. However, they are merely the catalyst, not the cause, of the selloff. As such, investors should not "buy" EM on a resolution of China-U.S. trade tensions or of the Washington-Ankara diplomatic dispute. Contagion Risk BCA's Emerging Market Strategy is clear: in all episodes of a major EM selloff, the de-coupling between different regions proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside (Chart 9).7 One reason to expect contagion risk among all EM markets is that the primary export market for China and other East Asian exporters are other EM economies, particularly the commodity producers (Chart 10). As such, it is highly unlikely that East Asian EM economies will be able to avoid a downturn. In fact, leading indicators of exports and manufacturing, such as Korea's manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio and Taiwan's semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio herald further deceleration in their respective export sectors (Chart 11). Chart 9Asian And Latin American Equities:##BR##Unsustainable Divergences Chart 10EM Trades##BR##With EM Chart 11Asia Export##BR##Slowdown Is Afoot In respect of foreign funding requirements of EM economies, our EM strategists have pointed out that there is a substantive amount of foreign currency debt coming due in 2018 (Table 2), with majority EM economies facing much higher foreign debt burdens than in 1996 (Table 3).8 Investors should not, however, rely merely on debt as percent of GDP ratios for their vulnerability assessment. For example, Malaysia's private sector FX debt load stands at 63.7% of GDP, the second highest level after Turkey. But relative to total exports (a source of revenue for its indebted corporates) and FX reserves (which the central bank can use to plug the gap in the balance of payments), Malaysia actually scores fairly well. Table 2EM: Short-Term (Due In 2018) FX Debt Table 3EM Private Sector FX Debt: 1996 Versus Today Chart 12 shows the most vulnerable EM economies in terms of foreign currency private sector debt exposure relative to FX reserves and total exports. Unsurprisingly, Turkey stands as the most vulnerable economy, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. Chart 12BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Has Already Pinned Turkey As The Most Vulnerable EM Economy Will the EM selloff eventually ensnare DM economies as well, particularly the U.S.? We think yes. The drawdown in EM will bid up safe-haven assets like the U.S. dollar. The dollar can be thought of as America's second central bank, along with the Fed. If both the greenback and the Fed are tightening monetary conditions, eventually the U.S. economy will feel the burn. As such, it is dangerous to dismiss the ongoing crisis in Turkey as a merely localized problem that could, at its worst, spread to other EM economies. In 1997, Thailand played a similar role to that of Turkey. The Fed tightened rates in early 1997 and largely remained aloof of the developing East Asia crisis that eventually spread to Brazil and Russia, ignoring the tumult abroad until September 1998 when it finally cut rates three times. Fed policy easing at the end of 1998 ushered in the stock market overshoot and dot-com bubble, whose burst caused the end of the economic cycle. The same playbook may be occurring today. The Fed, motivated by the strong U.S. economy and fears of being too close to the zero-bound ahead of the next recession, is proceeding apace with its tightening cycle. It is likely to ignore troubles in the rest of the world until the USD overshoots or U.S. equities are impacted directly. At that point, perhaps later this year or early next year, the Fed will back off from tightening, ushering the one last overshoot phase ahead of the recession in 2020 - or beyond. Bottom Line: Research by BCA's EM strategists shows that EM contagion is almost never contained in just a few vulnerable economies. For investors who have to remain invested in EM economies, we would recommend that they go long Chinese equities relative to EM, given that Beijing policymakers are stimulating the economy to ensure that Chinese growth is stabilized. While this will be positive for China, it is likely to fall short of the 2015 stimulus that also stimulated non-China EM. An alternative play is to go long energy producers vs. the rest of EM - given our fundamentally bullish oil view combined with rising geopolitical risks regarding sanctions against Iran.9 We eventually expect EM risks to spur an appreciation in the USD that the Fed has to lean against by either pausing its tightening cycle, or eventually reversing it as it did in the 1997-1998 scenario. This decision will usher in the final blow-off stage in U.S. equities that investors will not want to miss. What About Turkey? Chart 13Turkey: Volatile Politics, Volatile Stocks In 2013, we called Turkey a "canary in the EM coal mine" arguing that its historically volatile financial markets would mean-revert as domestic politics became turbulent (Chart 13).10 Turkey is a deeply divided society equally split between the secularist cities, which are primarily located on the Mediterranean (Istanbul, Izmir, Bursa, Adana, etc.), and the religiously conservative Anatolian interior. This split dates back to the founding of the modern Turkish Republic in the post-World War I era (and in truth, even before that). The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a religiously conservative but initially pro-free-market party, managed to appeal to the conservative Anatolia while neutering the most powerful secularist institution in Turkey, its military. Investors hailed AKP's dominance because it reduced political volatility and initially promised both pro-market policies and even accession to the EU. However, the AKP has struggled to win more than 50% of the popular vote in a slew of elections and referendums since coming to power (Chart 14), a fact that belies its supposed iron-grip hold on Turkish politics since it came to power in 2002. The vulnerability behind AKP's hold on office has largely motivated President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempt to consolidate political power. While we disagree with the consensus view that Erdogan's constitutional changes have turned Turkey into a dictatorship, some of his actions do suggest a deep fear of losing power.11 Populist leadership is characterized by a strategy of "giving people what they want" so that the policymakers in charge remain in office. Erdogan's perpetually slim hold on power has motivated several populist policy decisions that have stretched Turkey's macro fundamentals. First, Turkey's central bank has essentially been conducting quantitative easing since 2013 via net liquidity injections into the banking system (Chart 15). Notably, these injections began at the same time as the May 2013 Gezi Park protests, which saw a huge outpouring of anti-government sentiment across Turkey's large cities. Essentially, politics has been motivating Ankara's monetary policy over the past five years. Chart 14AKP's Stranglehold On Power Is Overstated Chart 15Turkey's Populist Policies Began##BR##With Gezi Park Protests Second, Turkey's current account balance has suffered under the weight of rising energy costs, with no attempt to improve the fiscal balance (Chart 16). The government has done little in terms of structural reforms or fiscal austerity, instead President Erdogan has continued to challenge central bank independence on interest rates, despite a clear sign that the country is experiencing a genuine inflationary breakout (Chart 17). Chart 16Populism Means No Austerity Is In Sight Chart 17Genuine Inflation Breakout Overall, Turkey is a classic example of how populism in a highly divided and polarized country can get out of control. Foreign investors have long assumed that Erdogan's populism was benign, if not even positive, given the presumably ample political capital at the president's disposal. However, with every election or referendum, the government did not double-down on pro-market structural reforms. Instead, the pressure on the central bank only increased while Turkey's expensive and extravagant geopolitical adventures in neighboring Syria accelerated. In this pernicious macro context, it has not taken much to knock Turkey's assets off balance. President Trump's threats to expand sanctions to Turkish trade are largely irrelevant, given that the vast majority of Turkey's exports and FDI sources are non-American (Chart 18). However, given past behavior - such as after the shadowy Gülen "plot" to take over power or the 2016 coup d'état - markets are by now conditioned to expect that Turkish policymakers will double-down on populist policies in the face of renewed pressure. Chart 18Turkey-U.S. Relationship Is Not Economic What of Turkey's membership in NATO? Should investors fear broader geopolitical instability due to the domestic crisis? No. Ankara has used its membership in NATO, and particularly the U.S. reliance on its Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, as levers in previous negotiations and diplomatic spats with Europe and the U.S. If Ankara were to renege on its commitments to the Western military alliance, it would likely face a united front from Europe and the U.S. As such, we would expect Turkey neither to threaten exit from NATO, which it has not done in the past, nor even to threaten U.S. operations in Incirlik, which Erdogan's government has threatened before. The most likely outcome of the ongoing diplomatic spat, in fact, would be to see Ankara give in to U.S. demands, given the accelerating financial and economic crisis. Such an outcome, however, will not arrest the downturn. Turkey's economy and assets are fundamentally under pressure due to the realization by investors that this year's main macro theme is not the resynchronized global growth recovery, but rather the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China, which has appreciated the U.S. dollar. No amount of kowtowing by Ankara will change this macro trend. Bottom Line: The list of Turkish policy sins is long. Erdogan's reign has been characterized by deep polarization and populism, leading to suboptimal policy choices since at least 2013. The latest U.S.-Turkey spat is therefore merely one of many problems plaguing the country. As such, its resolution will not be a buying opportunity for investors. Investment Implications Our main investment theme in 2018 was that the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China - emblematized by fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China - would end the global growth resynchronization. As the U.S. economy outperformed the rest of the world, the U.S. greenback would appreciate, imperiling EM economies. The best cognitive roadmap for today is the late 1990s, when the U.S. economy continued to grow apace as the rest of the world suffered from an EM crisis. The problems eventually washed onto American shores in the form of a stronger dollar, forcing the Fed to back off from tightening in mid-1998. Policy easing then led to the overshoot phase in U.S. equities in 1999. Investors should prepare for a similar roadmap by being long DXY relative to EM currencies, long DM equities (particularly U.S.) relative to EM equities, and tactically cautious on all global risk assets. Strategically, however, it makes sense to remain overweight equities as a Fed capitulation would be a boon for risk assets. If the current selloff in EM gets worse, we would expect that the Fed would again back off from tightening as it did in 1998, ushering in a blow-off stage in equities ahead of the next recession. Once the dollar peaks and EM assets bottom, U.S. equities will become the laggard, with global cyclicals outperforming. A secondary conclusion is that President Trump's trade rhetoric in general, and aggressive policies towards Turkey in particular, are merely a catalyst for the selloff. As such, if President Trump changes his mind, we would fade any rally in EM assets. The fundamental policy decisions that have led to the greenback rally have already been taken in 2017 and early 2018. The profligate tax cuts and the two-year stimulative appropriations bill, combined with Chinese policymakers' focus on controlling financial leverage, are the seeds of the current EM imbroglio. Finally, a small bit of housekeeping. We are booking gains on our long Malaysian ringgit / short Turkish lira trade for a gain of 51.2% since May. We are also closing our speculative long Russian equities relative to EM trade for a loss of -0.9% as a result of the persistent headwind from U.S. sanctions. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time," dated July 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" dated August 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, and Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Primer On EM External Debt," dated June 7, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Turkey: Canary In The EM Coal Mine?" in "The Coming Political Recapitalization Rally," dated June 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Turkey: Deceitful Stability," in "EM: The Beginning Of The End," dated April 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Appendix 2B Appendix 2B (Cont.) Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Average Brent and WTI oil prices should rise to $80/bbl and $72/bbl in 2019 even without adding the full range of events that will drive up the geopolitical risk premium. Risks lie to the upside. Feature Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 To put some numbers on the difference between our view and the market's view, we rely on the implied option volatilities for crude oil futures.4 As Chart 2 illustrates, the oil markets are currently pricing in just under 30% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end, and merely 14% that they will touch $90/bbl in the same timeframe. We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Chart 2The Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.5 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.7 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."8 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).9 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.10 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.11 Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.12 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.14 In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Chart 6Great Power Competition Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.15 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.16 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. BOX 1 Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1 Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.17 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##br## Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##br## Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##br## 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" ##br##Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy therefore projects that the combination of stable global demand, steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output, and the loss of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions in 2019 will lift the average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl respectively (Chart 14).18 This forecast, however, represents our baseline based on fundamentals of global oil supply and demand (Chart 15) and does not include our potential scenarios outlined in Diagram 2, which would obviously add additional geopolitical risk premium. Chart 13Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 14Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 15Balances Tighter As Supply Falls For investors looking for equity-market exposure in this scenario, BCA's Energy Sector Strategy recommends overweighing U.S. shale producers and shale-focused service companies for investors looking for equity-market exposure to oil prices. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has broken down this recommendation into specific equity calls, which we encourage our clients to peruse.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We use Brent implied volatility - of at-the-money options of the selected futures contract - as an input to construct the cumulative normal density of future prices. Thus, the probability obtained is one where the terminal futures price, at the selected months, exceeds the strike price quoted. In order to derive this probability, we need the current market price of the selected future contract, the number of days to expiration, the strike price, and a measure of the volatility of this contract. 5 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 6 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 7 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 11 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 12 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019," dated May 24, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)

Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 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. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Our constraints-based methodology does not rely on human intelligence or the "rumor mill" to analyze political risks; Yet insights from our travels across the U.S., including inside the Beltway, offer interesting background information and a sense of the general pulse; Anecdotal information suggests that Trump is not "normalizing" in office; that U.S.-China relations will get worse before they get better; and that Trump will walk away from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Stick to our current trades: energy over industrial metals; South Korean bull steepener; long DXY; long DM equities versus EM; long JPY/EUR; short Chinese tech stocks and U.S. S&P500 China-exposed stocks. Feature With the third inter-Korean summit demonstrating our view that "diplomacy is on track,"1 we remind investors of the key geopolitical risks we have been emphasizing - souring U.S.-China relations and rising geopolitical risks over Iran's role in the Middle East.2 We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy do not base our analysis on information from human "intelligence" sources. No private enterprise can obtain the volume of intelligence that would make the sample statistically significant. Private political analysts relying on such intelligence are at best using flawed reasoning devoid of an analytical framework, and at worst are hucksters. Government intelligence agencies obviously collect a wide swath of not only human but also electronic and signals intelligence. Their sample can be statistically significant. However, the cost of such an effort is prohibitive to the private sector. Nonetheless, we may use human intelligence for background information, insight into how to improve our framework, and to take the subjective pulse of any particular situation. The latter is sometimes the most useful. It is not what a policymaker says that matters so much as how they say it, or the fact that they mention the subject at all. Given that we live in an era of political paradigm shifts, and that "charismatic leadership" is rising in influence relative to more predictable, established institutions and systems,3 we have decided to do something we have not done in the past: share some insights from our recent trips to Washington, DC and elsewhere in the U.S. Caveat emptor: the rumor mill is often wildly misleading, which is why we do not base our research on it. Exhibit A: Donald Trump's tax cuts, which our constraints-based methodology enabled us to predict in spite of the prognostications of in-the-know people throughout the year.4 Trump Is Not Normalizing U.S. domestic politics is the top concern of investors, policymakers, and policy wonks almost everywhere we go. It routinely ranks above concerns about Russia, China, the Middle East, or emerging markets (EM). We frequently heard that the U.S. is entering a period of political turmoil worse than anything since President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Some old Washington hands even claim that the Trump era will cause even greater uncertainty than the Nixon era did because Congress is allegedly less willing to keep the president in check. Economic policy uncertainty, based on newspaper word count, is at least comparable today to the tumultuous 1973-74 period, which culminated with Nixon's resignation in August 1974, and is trending upward (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump Uncertainty Approaching Nixon Levels? Of course, there is a big difference between Trump's and Nixon's context: today the economy is not going through a recession but rip-roaring ahead, charged with Trump's tax cuts and a bipartisan spending splurge. And the nation is not in the midst of a large-scale and deeply divisive war (not yet, anyway). There is little chance of major new legislation this year, yet deregulation, particularly financial deregulation, will continue to pad corporate earnings and grease the wheels of the economy. The booming economy is lifting Trump's approval ratings, which are trying to converge to the average of previous presidents at this stage in their terms (Chart 2). This development poses the single biggest risk to the unanimous opinion in DC that Republicans face a "Blue Wave" (Democratic Party sweep) in the midterm elections on November 6. However, a key support of the "Blue Wave" theory is that Republicans are split among themselves - and no one in the Washington swamp will deny it. Pro-business, establishment Republicans have never trusted Trump. They are retiring in droves rather than face up to either populist challengers in the Republican primary elections this summer or enthusiastic "anti-Trump" Democrats and independents in the general election (Chart 3).5 Chart 2Is Trump's Stimulus Bump Over? Chart 3GOP Retirements Are Unprecedented Trump is expected to ignite a constitutional crisis by firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. Republicans are widely against firing Mueller, but they are not united in legislating against it, leaving Trump unconstrained. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) says he will not allow consideration on the Senate floor of a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would protect Mueller from firing.6 If Trump fires Mueller, Democrats expect a political earthquake. Some think that mass protests, and mass counter-protests encouraged by Trump himself, will culminate in violence. (We would expect protests to be mostly limited to activists, but obviously violent incidents are probable at mass rallies with opposing sides.) The Democrats are widely expected to take the House of Representatives; most observers are on the fence about the Senate. The House is enough to impeach Trump, which is widely expected to occur, by hook or by crook. But the impact on the country's political polarization will be much worse if there is impeachment without "smoking gun" evidence against Trump's person. Nixon, recall, refused to hand over evidence (the Watergate tapes) under a court order. When he handed some tapes over, they emitted a suspicious buzzing sound at critical points in the recording. Public opinion turned against him, prompting his party to abandon ship. He resigned because the loss of party support made him unlikely to survive impeachment. By contrast, there is not yet any comparable missing or doctored evidence in Trump's case, nor any sinkhole in Republican opinion that would presage a 67-vote conviction in the Senate (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Not Yet In Nixon's Shoes Still, clouds are on the horizon. When people raise concerns about geopolitical issues - the U.S.-Russia confrontation, or the potential for a trade war with China - their starting point is uncertainty about President Donald Trump and his administration's policies. The United States is seen as the chief source of political risk in the world. Bottom Line: People in the Beltway who were once willing to believe that Trump would learn on the job and become "normalized" in office now seem to be shifting to the view that he is truly an unorthodox, and potentially reckless, president. The New (Aggressive) Consensus On China China is in the air like never before in D.C. In policy circles, the striking thing is the near unanimity of the disenchantment with China. Republicans are angry with China over trade and national security. Democrats are not to be outdone, having long been angry with China over trade, and also labor issues and human rights violations. It seems that everyone in the government and bureaucracy, liberal or conservative, is either demanding a tougher policy on China or resigned to its inevitability. American officials flatly reject the view that the Trump administration is instigating a conflict with China that destabilizes the world economy. Rather they insist that China has already instigated the conflict and caused destabilizing global imbalances through its mercantilist policies. They firmly believe that the U.S. can and should disrupt the status quo in order to change China's behavior, but that no one wants a trade war. They believe that the U.S. can be aggressive without causing things to spiral out of control. This could be a problem, as we detect a similar hardening of sentiment in China. On our travels there, the attitude was one of defiance toward Trump and Washington. We have received assurances that Beijing will not simply fold, no matter how much pain is incurred from trade measures. Of course, it is in China's interest to bluster in order to deter the U.S. from tariffs. But Chinese policymakers may be ready to sustain greater damage than Washington or the investment community expects. Tech companies are particularly out of the loop with Washington. They are said to have been unprepared for the president's actions upon receiving the Section 301 investigation results. They may also be underestimating the product list that the U.S. Trade Representative has drawn up pursuant to Section 301.7 Even products on that list that are not imported directly from China could have their trade disrupted. While China is demanding that the U.S. ease restrictions on high-tech exports, to reduce the trade imbalance (Chart 5), the U.S. believes that export controls allow for plenty of waivers and exceptions. They do not see export controls as a major risk. Chart 5U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Rather, they see rising U.S. restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. as the real risk. The U.S. wants reciprocity in investment as well as trade. The emphasis lies on fair and equal access, which will require massive compromises from China, given its practice of walling off "strategic" sectors (including aviation, energy, electricity, shipping, and communications) from foreign interests. China's recent pledges to allow foreigners majority stakes in financial companies may not be enough to pacify the U.S. negotiators, especially if the promises hinge on long-term implementation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin will cause a stir when he releases his guidelines for investment restrictions, as expected by May 21 under the president's declaration on the Section 301 probe (Table 1).8 Both the House of Representatives and Senate are expected, within a couple of months, to pass the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R, TX) and Representative Robert Pittenger (R, NC). This bill would grant greater powers to the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in conducting investigations into foreign investment deals with national security ramifications. Under the new law CFIUS will be able to review proposed investment deals on grounds that go beyond a strict reading of national security. They will now include economic security, and potential sectoral impacts as well as individual corporate impacts, and previously neglected issues like intellectual property.9 Trump is unlikely to veto the bill, as previous presidents have done when laws cracking down on China have passed Congress, given his desire to shake up the China relationship. Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Will CFIUS enforcement truly intensify? Treasury's actions may preempt the bill, and CFIUS has already been subjecting China to greater scrutiny for years (Chart 6). Moreover, American presidents have always canceled investment deals if CFIUS advised against them.10 Presumably broadening CFIUS's powers will result in a wider range of deals struck down. The government already stopped Broadcom, a Singaporean company, from taking over the U.S. firm Qualcomm, in March, for reasons that have more to do with R&D and competitiveness (economic security) than with any military applications of its technologies (national security). Separately, U.S. policy elites are starting to turn their sights toward China's global propaganda and psychological operations. The scandal over the Communist Party's subversive institutional and political influence in Australia has heightened concerns in other Western, especially Anglo-Saxon, countries.11 This is a new trend that will have bigger implications going forward in Western civil society and the business community, with state efforts to create firewalls against Chinese state intrusion exacerbating political and trade tensions. Australians have the most favorable view of China in the West, and on the whole they continue to see China in a positive light. However, this view will likely sour this year. The recent attempt by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pass legislation guarding against Communist Party interference in Australian politics has already led to a series of diplomatic incidents, including tensions over the South China Sea and Pacific Islands. These can get worse in the near future. Consistently, over 40% of Australians view China as "likely" to become a military threat over the next 20 years (Chart 7), and this number will worsen if attempts to safeguard democratic institutions from state-backed influence operations cause China to retaliate with punitive measures toward Australia. China is offering some concessions to counteract the new, aggressive consensus in Washington. Enforcing UN sanctions against North Korea was the big turn. But it is also allowing the RMB to appreciate against the USD (Chart 8), which is an issue close to Trump's heart. The change in temperature in Washington can be measured by the fact that these concessions seem to be taken for granted while the discussion moves onto other demands like trade and investment reciprocity. Chart 6U.S. To Restrict Chinese Investment Chart 7Australian Fears About China To Rise Chart 8Is This Enough To Stay Trump's Hand On Tariffs? Simultaneously, China is courting Europe. European policymakers say that they share U.S. concerns about China's trade practices but wish to resolve disputes through the World Trade Organization and reject unilateral American actions or aggressive punitive measures that could harm global stability. Meanwhile China hopes that American policy toward Iran and the Middle East will alienate the Europeans while distracting Washington from formulating a coherent pivot to Asia. Bottom Line: Investors are underestimating the potential for a full-blown trade war. Policymakers - in China as well as the U.S. - have greater appetite for confrontation. Iran: Reversing Obama's Legacy The financial news media continue to underrate the importance of geopolitical risk tied to Iran this year (Chart 9). Our sense is that the Trump administration, when in doubt, is still biased towards reversing Obama-era policy on any given issue. Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 appears to be no exception. Chart 9Iranian Geopolitical Risk About to Shoot Up Signs have emerged for months that Trump is likely to refuse to waive Iranian sanctions (Table 2) when the renewal comes due on May 12. He has fired his national security adviser and secretary of state, as well as lesser officials, in preference for Iran hawks.12 French President Emmanuel Macron, having tried to convince Trump to retain the deal on his recent state visit to Washington, is apparently convinced Trump will scrap it.13 Table 2U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach Moreover, discussions of Iran mark the one exception to the hardening consensus on China. A number of people we spoke with were not convinced that the Trump administration will truly devote the main thrust of its foreign policy to countering China. Some believed U.S. voters did not have the stomach for a trade fight that would affect their pocketbooks. Others believed that the Trump administration would simply revert to a more traditional Republican foreign policy, accepting a "quick win" on China trade while pursuing a confrontational military posture in the Persian Gulf. Still others believed that Trump has unique reasons, such as political weakness at home and the desire to be respected abroad, for wanting to be in lock-step with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman against Iran. All agreed that while a shift to China makes strategic sense, it may not overrule Republican policy preferences or inertia. The stakes are high. Allowing sanctions to snap back into place would affect a substantial portion of the one million barrels per day of oil that Iran has brought onto global markets since sanctions were eased in January 2016 (Chart 10). Chart 10Re-Imposing Iranian Sanctions Threatens Oil Supply And Middle East Stability As BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy notes, global oil supply is tight and the critical driver - emerging market demand - remains strong. Meanwhile the "OPEC 2.0" cartel plans to extend production cuts throughout 2018 and likely into 2019, further draining global inventories. Inventories are now on track to fall beneath their 2010-14 average level by next year. In this context, the geopolitical risk premium will add to upside oil price risks this year. Our commodity strategists still expect oil prices to average $70-$74 per barrel this year (WTI and Brent respectively), but they can see it shooting above $80 per barrel on occasion, and warn that even small supply disruptions (whether from Iran, Venezuela, Libya, or elsewhere) could send prices even higher (Chart 11).14 Chart 11Oil Prices Can Make Runs Into /Barrel Range If the U.S. re-imposes sanctions on Iran, we doubt that the full one million barrels per day of post-sanctions Iranian production will be taken offline. Global compliance with sanctions will be ineffective this time around. The Trump administration's sanctions will not have the legitimacy or buy-in that the Obama administration's sanctions did. Trump may even intend to impose the sanctions for domestic political consumption while giving Europe, Japan, and others a free pass. Still, the geopolitical and production impact will be significant. As for oil, price overshoots are even more likely when one considers Venezuela, where our oil analysts estimate that state collapse will remove around 500,000 barrel per day from last year's average by the end of this year.15 Bottom Line: We continue to expect energy commodities to outperform metals in an environment where energy prices benefit from a rising geopolitical risk premium, while metals could suffer from ongoing risks to Chinese growth. Investment Conclusions Independently of the above anecdotes, Geopolitical Strategy has laid out a case urging clients to sell in May and go away.16 Last year we were confident recommending that clients forget this old adage because we had clarity on the geopolitical risks and their constraints. This year, with both China and Iran, we lack that clarity. The U.S.'s European allies could perhaps convince Trump to maintain the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, and Trump could perhaps accept China's concessions (such as they are) to get a "quick win" on the trade front before the midterm elections. But we have no basis for assessing that he will do either with any degree of conviction. How long will it take to resolve the raft of outstanding U.S.-Iran and U.S.-China tensions? Our uncertainty here gives us a high conviction view that this summer will be turbulent. Geopolitical tensions will likely get worse before they get better. We would reiterate our recommendation that clients be long DXY and hold a "geopolitical protector portfolio" of Swiss bonds and gold. We remain long developed market equities relative to emerging markets and long JPY/EUR. We are also maintaining our shorts on Chinese tech stocks and U.S. stocks exposed to China. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 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. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Jordain Carney, "McConnell: Senate won't take up Mueller protection bill," April 17, 2018, available at thehill.com. 7 Please see U.S. Trade Representative, "Under Section 301 Action, USTR Releases Proposed Tariff List on Chinese Products," and "USTR Robert Lighthizer Statement on the President's Additional Section 301 Action," dated April 3 and April 5, 2018, available at ustr.gov. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Senator Jon Cornyn, "S.2098 - Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017," dated Nov. 8, 2017, available at www.congress.gov. For the argument behind the bill, see Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, "FIRRMA Act will give Committee on Foreign Investment a needed update," The Hill, dated March 21, 2018, available at thehill.com. 10 Please see Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, "CFIUS In 2017: A Momentous Year," 2018, available at www.wsgr.com. 11 Australian Senator Sam Dastyari (Labor Party) resigned on December 11, 2017 after it was exposed that he accepted cash donations from a Chinese property developer that he used to repay his own debts. He had also supported China's position in the South China Sea. The scandal prompted revelations of a range of Chinese state-linked political donations. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has introduced legislation banning foreign political donations and forcing lobbyists for foreign countries to register. 12 Mike Pompeo replaced Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, John Bolton replaced H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser, and Chief of Staff John Kelly has been sidelined; Bolton has appointed Mira Ricardel as his deputy, who has been said to clash with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in trying to staff the Pentagon with Trump loyalists. Please see Niall Stanage, "The Memo: Nationalists gain upper hand in Trump's White House," The Hill, April 25, 2018, available at thehill.com. 13 Macron has presented a framework that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May have accepted that would call for improvements to outstanding issues with Iran while keeping the 2015 deal intact. Macron has also spoken with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about retaining the deal while addressing the Trump administration's grievances. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," dated April 19, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see footnote 14, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The current U.S.-China trade skirmish is essentially the beginning of a new cold war. The U.S. and China are engaged in a struggle for supremacy, so trade conflicts will persist. The conflict could evolve into a "game of chicken" - the most dangerous type of game. The U.S. needs Europe's help against China - but an adventure in Iran could cost it that help. Geopolitical risks will cap the rise in bond yields over the next six months, push up oil, and give a tailwind to global defense stocks. Feature The opening salvo of the U.S.-China trade war has caught the investment community by surprise as the market is quickly repricing the odds of a global trade war.1 Nervousness over the breakdown of globalization comes at the same time as our key China view - that Beijing's structural reforms will constrain growth - are beginning to have an impact on global growth (Chart 1).2 Chart 1China Reforms Dragging On Global Growth Fortuitously, we found ourselves in Asia at the onset of "hostilities" and were thus able to see regional investors' reactions in real time. Our clients focused their questions on the economic impact of the announced tariffs (yet to be determined, in our view), constraints facing President Trump (minimal as well), and potential Chinese retaliation (understated). The focus, however, should be on the big picture. The March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on around $50 billion worth of Chinese imports is not just the opening salvo of a trade war. Rather the emerging trade war is the opening salvo of a new cold war, a global superpower competition between the U.S. and China that will define the twenty-first century. Put simply, the U.S. and China are now enemies. Not rivals, competitors, or sparing partners. Enemies. It will take the market some time for investors to internalize this idea and price it properly. Meanwhile, in the short term, fears of a full-born global trade war are overblown. The trade tensions are really only about two countries, with uncertain global implications. Investors are right to be cautious, but risks to global earnings are overstated at this time. How Did We Get Here? The ongoing trade tensions are not merely a product of a nationalist Trump administration that decided to call out China for decades of unfair trade practices. They are also the product of the geopolitical context, which we have defined through three "big picture" themes. These three themes allowed us to correctly forecast that the defining feature of the twenty-first century would be a Sino-American conflict. We would be thrilled to see this culminate merely in a trade war. The themes are: Multipolarity (Chart 2)3 Apex of globalization (Chart 3)4 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics (Chart 4)5 Chart 2Multipolarity Is Messy And Volatile Chart 3When Hegemony Declines, Globalization Declines Chart 2 elucidates a key lesson of history: the collapse of British hegemony at the end of the nineteenth century ushered in two world wars. Political science, game theory, and history teach us that periods of multipolarity are rarely peaceful.6 Today's world is not exactly multipolar, as the U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, regional powers - such as China, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and perhaps Turkey and Brazil - have a lot more room to maneuver within their spheres of influence. This means that global rules written by the U.S. at the conclusion of the Second World War are being rewritten for regional contexts. Normatively there is nothing wrong with this process. But practically, multipolarity means that "challenger powers" - such as China today or the German empire in the late nineteenth century - seek to undermine rules and norms of behavior that they had little or no say in setting up. And such rules are necessary to underpin geopolitical stability and grease the wheels of globalization. As Chart 3 shows, trade globalization peaked in the past when the hegemon could no longer enforce global rules. We have therefore emphasized to clients since 2014 that, if we are right that the world is multipolar, then we are essentially at the apex of globalization. A parallel process has seen the breakdown of the laissez-faire consensus, which underpinned the expansion of trade in goods, labor, and capital across sovereign borders. Economic globalization has lifted many boats around the world, but outsourcing - combined with technological innovation - has seen the lower middle class in developed nations face diminishing returns (Chart 4). Chart 4Globalization: No Friend To Developed-Market Middle Class That said, a revolt against globalization and "globalists" is thus far mainly an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, and particularly an American one. Why? Because the particularities of the U.S. laissez-faire economic model, with its scant social protections, laid its middle class bare to the vagaries of globalization and technological change (Chart 5). However, there is no guarantee that other DM countries will not succumb to the same pressures down the line. Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve: Or, How Anglo-Saxons Turned Against Laissez Faire This background is important for investors because merely blaming a nationalist Trump administration or a mercantilist Beijing for today's tensions ignores the underlying context. President Trump can change his mind on a dime, but the geopolitical context can only evolve slowly.7 Mercantilism is here to stay; it is a feature, not a bug, of a multipolar world. Contrast today's tensions with those of the 1970s and 1980s between the U.S. and its major trade partners. The 1971 Smithsonian Agreement and the 1985 Plaza Accord ended overt trade protectionism by the U.S. (in 1971), and threats thereof (in 1985), by securing the compliance of these trade partners with Washington's currency and trade demands. Japan further conceded to U.S. demands in 1989 after a two-year trade war. Today, the U.S. and China are not geopolitical allies huddled under the same nuclear umbrella for protection against an ideologically fueled rival. They are ideological rivals. The reason it took a decade for the conflict to erupt is two-fold. First, the U.S. became entangled in the global war on terror after 9/11, which took its focus off of its emerging competitor in Asia. Second, the consensus view - that China would asymptotically approach a Western democracy as it embraced capitalism - has proven to be folly.8 Bottom Line: The China-U.S. trade conflict is a product of today's particular geopolitical context. At heart, it is a conflict for geopolitical primacy in the twenty-first century and thus unlikely to end quickly. Sino-American Conflict Is Intractable The current U.S.-China trade tensions are more of a skirmish than a war. We think that there is considerable room for a step-down in tensions over the next 12 months. First, the Trump administration has not launched an economic war against China. Not only has the U.S. restricted its list of Chinese goods under tariff consideration to just $50 billion of imports - roughly 12% of total Chinese exports to the U.S. - but it has decided to bring a case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter is hardly a move by a mercantilist administration dead-set on across-the-board economic nationalism. Second, China has responded almost immediately by offering several concessions, including renewing pledges to open its economy to inward investment and to protect intellectual property (IP) rights. While these may seem like boilerplate concessions that Beijing has floated before, the current context of trade tensions and domestic structural reforms makes it more likely that Chinese policymakers will follow through on their promises. As such, we can see the current round of tensions tapering off, especially after the U.S. midterm elections. However, we doubt that the structural trajectory of Sino-American relations will be significantly altered even if current tensions subside. First, from China's perspective, its extraordinary economic ascent (Chart 6) is merely the return of the millennium's status quo (Chart 7). The last 180 years - roughly from the beginning of the First Opium War in 1839 to today - were the aberration. During this short period of Chinese weakness, the West - with Britain and then the U.S. at the helm - conspired to restructure global rules and norms of geopolitical and economic behavior without input from the Middle Kingdom. Chart 6China's Economic Rise Has Been Extraordinarily Fast... Chart 7China Sees Its Success As A Return To The Status Quo As such, China's influence in key post-WWII economic institutions like the WTO and the IMF is limited while its military has second-class status even in its own "Caribbean Sea," the South China and East China Seas. From the U.S. perspective, China's growth over the past two decades was made possible by U.S. hegemony. The U.S. secured the global rules and norms that enabled China to integrate seamlessly into the global marketplace and then compete its way to the top. Not only did the U.S. allow China to access its credit-fueled markets, but the U.S. Navy protected China's maritime trade, including vital energy supplies transiting from the Middle East. As a thank you for these efforts, China reneged on its WTO commitments, periodically suppressed its currency, stole American intellectual property, and withheld market access from U.S. corporations via tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Washington policymakers, and not only Trump's hawkish advisors, are turning against China. There is an emerging consensus among the U.S. foreign policy, defense, intelligence, and economic policy elites that: Sino-American economic symbiosis is over (Chart 8); Chart 8U.S.-China ##br##Symbiosis Is Dead Chart 9The U.S. Is Least##br## Exposed To Trade Chart 10China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed The U.S. can afford to confront China over trade because it is the least exposed major economy to global trade (Chart 9); The Chinese have acquired a massive share of global exports without a commensurate opening of their domestic market (Chart 10); Arresting Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft is a national security issue (Chart 11); The U.S. can confront China because it has emerged victorious from every global conflagration in the past (Chart 12). Chart 11China Imports Conspicuously Little U.S. IP Chart 12America Is Chaos-Proof Fundamentally, American policymakers want to see China's rapid economic growth slow, they want to see China's capital markets and companies constrained by openness to global competition, and they want to put a leash on China's catch-up in the technological and manufacturing value chain (Chart 13). This is not their stated objective as it would imply that the U.S. wants to see China weakened, and the Chinese leadership miss its decade and century economic development goals. But this is precisely what the U.S. establishment wants. As such, the political and economic visions of American and Chinese policymakers are directly at odds with one another. What does this mean for investors? Over the past several years we have developed a reputation of being sanguine about geopolitics. While many of our peers in the political analysis industry overstate the probability of geopolitical risk, we have (successfully) bet against the worst-case scenario in several prominent crises.9 We like to think that this is because we combine game theory with an understanding of the underlying power dynamics. By emphasizing constraints, we have successfully identified how power dynamics constrain the worst-case outcome.10 When it comes to Sino-American tensions, however, we have always been alarmists. This is because we believe the constraints to conflict are overstated, not understated. Furthermore, the potential market impact of a new cold war is unclear and potentially very large. Both the U.S. and China fundamentally think they can win a trade war. This means that they are engaged in a "regular game of chicken," named after the 1950s practice of racing hot rods head-on in order to prove one's manhood.11 Game theory teaches us that a game of chicken is the most unpredictable game because it can create an equilibrium in which all rational actors have an incentive to keep driving head on - to stick to their guns - despite the risks. In Diagram 1, we can see that continuing to drive carries the greatest risk, but also the greatest reward, provided that your opponent swerves. Chart 13China's Steady Climb Up##br## The Value Ladder Continues Diagram 1A Regular ##br##Game Of Chicken Since all actors in a game of chicken assume the rationality of their opponents, they also expect them to eventually swerve. In the current context, this means that the U.S. assumes that China is driven by economic rationality and will not dare face off against the U.S., which has far less to lose given its modest exposure to global trade. Chinese policymakers, however, also think they can win. They look over the Pacific and see a country riven by political polarization (Chart 14) where half of the country thinks the other is "a threat to the nation's well-being" (Chart 15).12 China, meanwhile, has just consolidated its political leadership and feels confident enough in its domestic stability to dabble with growth-constraining economic reforms. Beijing can use any trade tensions with the U.S. to further justify painful reforms. Chart 14Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 15Live And Let Die Who is right? We do not know. And that scares us as it means that the most sub-optimal equilibrium - the bottom-right quadrant of Diagram 1 - is more probable than people think. An important difference maker, one that would alter Beijing's risk calculus considerably, is Europe. Despite being highly leveraged to China's growth, the EU still exports nearly double the value of goods to the U.S. than China (Chart 16). In addition, Europe's trade surplus with the U.S. mostly pays for its deficit with China (Chart 17). Chart 16The EU Exports More To U.S. Than China Chart 17EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China Over the next several months, investors will be able to gauge whether the Trump administration is filled with ideological nationalists who believe in Fortress America or wily realists who know how to get things done. The key question is whether Trump will embrace America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harness it for the trade war with China. If he embraces it, we will predict that the combined forces of U.S. and Europe will successfully force China to concede to the pressure. If Trump fails, however, we could have a prolonged U.S.-China trade war. Early indications are optimistic. The U.S. gave the EU an exemption from tariffs on steel and aluminum imports on March 22, a delay that will end on May 1. This followed a March 21 meeting between EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. We suspect, but have no evidence, that the U.S. asked the EU to join in its effort to force China to change its trade practices at the WTO. As an exporting bloc, the EU has a lot more to lose from attacking China than the U.S. But it also has much to lose from unabated Chinese mercantilism and technological theft, and much to gain if China opens its doors wider. As such, we posit that Europe will, in the end, join the U.S. and Japan in a concerted effort to pressure China. This will increase the probability that Beijing ultimately gives in to trade pressure. In the long term, it will also ensure that President Trump does not break the critical transatlantic alliance with Europe, which would be paradigm shifting. But, on the other hand, it will set China and the West on a collision course. China's and the West's suspicions of each other will ossify. Bottom Line: In the short term, trade tensions are likely overstated as U.S. actions against China are largely muted and restrained. In the long term, the U.S.-China trade war could potentially devolve into a "game of chicken," the most dangerous type of conflict. The key variable will be whether the U.S. administration is savvy enough to arrange European collaboration against China. If the U.S. treats the EU harshly and ignores its transatlantic ally on other issues - such as conflict with Iran, discussed below - we could be in for a wild ride in the coming months and years. Either way, Europe stands to gain from a conflict between China and the U.S. Both sides are likely going to try to enlist the EU on their side. As such, we are opening a long Europe industrials / short U.S. industrials trade. Meanwhile, growing trade tensions, policy-induced slowdown in China, and repricing of geopolitical risks in East Asia and the Middle East should cap global bond yields over the next six months. We take 50.4bps and 54.4bps profits on our short U.S. 10-year government bond vs. German bund and short Fed Funds December 2018 futures trades. Iran: The Next Target Of Trump's "Maximum Pressure" Policy President Trump's North Korea policy worked brilliantly in 2017. The policy of "maximum pressure" combined military maneuvers, economic sanctions, and extremely bellicose rhetoric to convince Pyongyang and regional powers that the U.S. has lowered its threshold for full-scale war on the Korean peninsula. China reacted swiftly, starving North Korea of hard currency through economic sanctions (Chart 18). The result was a declaration by Pyongyang in late November that it had finally completed its quest to obtain a nuclear deterrent (an exaggeration at best), an olive branch for the Olympics, and an offer by Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un to meet with President Trump. Chart 18China Gives Kim To Trump The policy of "maximum pressure" yielded such extraordinary results with North Korea that President Trump is now eager to trademark the process and apply it to Iran and potentially other global issues. Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has replaced two establishment advisors with hawks. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been replaced with CIA Director and noted Iran-hawk Mike Pompeo. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has been replaced by conservative pundit (and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN) John Bolton. Bolton is on record arguing that the U.S. should bomb Iran. The role of the national security advisor varies with the president. Some presidents rely on the position more than others. However, given this administration's inexperience with foreign policy, the role is critical in shaping the White House worldview. The national security advisor manages the staff of the National Security Council (NSC), whose role is to coordinate with the vast network of U.S. intelligence agencies and filter information to the president. Given how large America's foreign, defense, and intelligence establishment is, and given the nature of human and signals intelligence, U.S. presidents often have to act upon diametrically opposing pieces of intelligence. As such, the national security advisor and the NSC can play a critical role in deciding what intelligence makes it to the president's desk and in what context. Staffers in the National Security Council (NSC) are often apolitical. We have been told that several current experts are leftovers from the Obama administration. It is likely that an ideological pundit like John Bolton, who served briefly in the George W. Bush administration, will set out to quickly eliminate non-partisan staffers on the NSC and tilt the information flow away from the empirical to the conspiratorial. With Bolton and Pompeo effectively in charge of U.S. foreign policy it is possible that the U.S. will misapply "maximum pressure" policy to Iran and bungle the complicated coordination with geopolitical allies on China. In particular, the U.S. has to endear itself to the EU if it wants a global economic alliance against China. But the EU also does not want to renegotiate Iran sanctions. Abrogating the 2015 nuclear deal - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - would throw the tentative Middle East equilibrium into chaos. While Iran has played a role in preserving the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it has largely kept its vast network of Shia militias and allies in check, particularly in Lebanon and Iraq. Ironically, it was the Obama administration's "flawed" JCPA that has allowed Trump to focus on China in the first place. As we argued when the deal was signed, the conservative critics of the deal itself were correct. The JCPA did not degrade Iran's nuclear capability but merely arrested it.13 The point of the deal was implicitly to give Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East so that the U.S. could extricate itself and focus on China. The Obama administration assessed, in our view non-ideologically, that the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time. If the Trump administration decides not to waive sanctions on May 12, it will be in abrogation of the deal. Unlike North Korea, however, Iran has multiple levers it can deploy against the U.S. and its allies' interests in the region. As such, the policy of "maximum pressure" will create much greater risks when applied to Iran. At the very end, it could be as successful as when applied to North Korea, but our conviction view is much lower (and to remind clients, we were optimists about the strategy when applied to North Korea!).14 Furthermore, and again unlike North Korea, Iran is beset with domestic risks. This actually makes it less likely that Tehran will cooperate with the U.S. North Korea is a simple domestic political system where Kim Jong Un can alter policy on a whim without much domestic pushback. In Iran, the dovish and moderate President Hassan Rouhani has to contend for power with hawks who have been critical of the JCPA. Meanwhile, the restive youth population could rise up at the first sign of elite division or weakness. This complicated domestic dynamic is why we cautioned clients back in January that Iran would likely add geopolitical risk premium to the oil markets.15 Bottom Line: It appears that President Trump, motivated by the success of his "maximum pressure" strategy against North Korea, now thinks he can apply it as successfully to Iran. This raises the prospect that Trump will discontinue the waiver of economic sanctions on May 12, effectively re-imposing a slew of economic sanctions against Iran and foreign companies looking to conduct business with it. Geopolitical risks are likely to rise in the Middle East as a result of U.S.-Iran tensions. As we go to publication, Saudi authorities have intercepted another Houthi missile heading towards Riyadh just days after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman visited Washington, D.C. The White House appears to relish the opportunity to fight a war on two fronts, a trade war with China and a geopolitical war with Iran. Expect volatility and an elevated geopolitical risk premium in oil markets. Stay overweight global defense companies across markets. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001). 7 Would President Hillary Clinton have avoided a trade war with China? We do not think so. Secretary Clinton was considered a "China Hawk" while at the State Department and pushed for the "Pivot to Asia." Jennifer Harris, the lead architect of Clinton's economic statecraft agenda in the U.S. State Department, recently penned a book that called for greater use of economic tools for geopolitical ends. The book, War By Other Means, introduces the term geoeconomics and calls for the U.S. to use economic instruments to promote and defend national interests. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Blog, "We Read (And Liked)... War By Other Means," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 In 2000, while campaigning on behalf of China's WTO entry, President Bill Clinton remarked, "economically, this agreement (China's WTO entry) is the equivalent of a one-way street. It requires China to open its markets ... to both our products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to maintain the present access which China enjoys ..." Please see "Full Text of Clinton's Speech On China Trade Bill," dated March 9, 2009, available at nytimes.com. 9 To name just a few: the risk of an Israeli attack against Iran, the risk of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the risk of Euro Area collapse, the risk of Saudi-Iranian war, the risk of Russian-Turkish war, etc. 10 For the best example of how game theory is combined with our constraint-based paradigm, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 See James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 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. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, and "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

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.