War/Conflict
Investors should go long US treasuries and stay overweight defensive versus cyclical sectors, large caps versus small caps, and aerospace/defense stocks. Regionally we favor the US, India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, while disfavoring China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, eastern Europe, and the Middle East.
Executive Summary The US inflation surprise increases the odds of both congressional gridlock and recession, which increases uncertainty over US leadership past 2024 and reduces the US’s ability to lower tensions with China and Iran. Despite the mainstream media narrative, the Xi-Putin summit reinforces our view that China cannot reject Russia’s strategic partnership. The potential for conflict in Taiwan forces China to accept Russia’s overture. For the same reason the US and China cannot re-engage their economies sustainably, even if Biden and Xi somehow manage to reduce tensions after the midterm elections and twentieth national party congress. Russia could reduce oil exports as well as natural gas, intensifying the global energy shock. Ukraine’s counter-offensive and Europe’s energy diversification increase the risk of Russian military and economic failure. The Middle East will destabilize anew and create a new source of global energy supply disruptions. US-Iran talks are faltering as expected. Russian Oil Embargo Could Deliver Global Shock Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 19.1% Bottom Line: Stay long US stocks, defensive sectors, and large caps. Avoid China, Taiwan, eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Feature Several notable geopolitical developments occurred over the past week while we met with clients at the annual BCA Research Investment Conference in New York. In this report we analyze these developments using our geopolitical method, which emphasizes constraints over preferences, capabilities over intentions, reality over narrative. We also draw freely from the many valuable insights gleaned from our guest speakers at the conference. China Cannot Reject Russia: The Xi-Putin Summit In Uzbekistan Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are meeting in Uzbekistan as we go to press and Putin has acknowledged China’s “questions and concern” about the war in Ukraine.1 They last met on February 4 when Xi gave Putin his blessing for the Ukraine invasion, promising to buy more Russian natural gas and to pursue a “no limits” strategic partnership (meaning one that includes extensive military cooperation). The meeting’s importance is clear from both leaders’ efforts to make it happen. Putin is leaving Russia despite rising domestic criticism over his handling of the Ukraine war and European energy war. Ukraine is making surprising gains in the battlefield, particularly around Kharkiv, threatening Russia’s ability to complete the conquest of Donetsk and the Donbas region. Meanwhile Xi is leaving China for the first time since the Covid-19 outbreak, despite the fact that he is only one month away from the most important political event of his life: the October 16 twentieth national party congress, where he hopes to clinch another five, ten, or fifteen years in power, expand his faction’s grip over the political system, and take over Mao Zedong’s unique title as chairman of the Communist Party. We do not yet know the full outcome of the Uzbek summit but we do not see it as a turning point in which China turns on Russia. Instead the summit reinforces our key point to investors all year: China cannot reject Russia. Russia broke energy ties with Europe and is fighting a proxy war with NATO. The Putin regime has lashed Russia to China’s side for the foreseeable future. China may not have wanted to move so quickly toward an exclusive relationship but it is not in a position to reject Russia’s diplomatic overture and leave Putin out to dry. The reason is that China is constrained by the US-led world order and like Russia is attempting to change that order and carve a sphere of influence to improve its national security. Beijing’s immediate goal is to consolidate power across the critical buffer territories susceptible to foreign interests. It has already consolidated Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and to some extent the South China Sea, the critical approach to Taiwan. Taiwan is the outstanding buffer space that needs to be subjugated. Xi Jinping has taken it upon himself to unify China and Taiwan within his extended rule. But Taiwanese public opinion has decisively shifted in favor of either an indefinite status quo or independence. Hence China and Taiwan are on a collision course. Regardless of one’s view on the likelihood of war, it is a high enough chance that China, Taiwan, the US, and others will be preparing for it in the coming years. Chart 1US Arms Sales To Taiwan The US is attempting to increase its ability to deter China from attacking Taiwan. It believes it failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine – and Taiwan is far more important to US economy and security than Ukraine. The US is already entering discussions with Taiwan and other allies about a package of severe economic sanctions in the event that China attacks – sanctions comparable to those imposed on Russia. The US Congress is also moving forward with the Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, which will solidify US support for the island as well as increase arms sales (Chart 1).2 Aside from China's military preparation – which needs to be carefully reviewed in light of Russia’s troubles in Ukraine and the much greater difficulty of invading Taiwan – China must prepare to deal with the following three factors in the event of war: 1. Energy: China is overly exposed to sea lines of communication that can be disrupted by the United States Navy. Beijing will have to partner with Russia to import Russian and Central Asian resources and attempt to forge an overland path to the Middle East (Chart 2). Unlike Russia, China cannot supply its own energy during a war and its warfighting capacity will suffer if shortages occur or prices spike. 2. Computer Chips: China has committed at least $200 billion on a crash course to build its own semiconductors since 2013 due to the need to modernize its military and economy and compete with the US on the global stage. But China is still dependent on imports, especially for the most advanced chips, and its dependency is rising not falling despite domestic investments (Chart 3). The US is imposing export controls on advanced microchips and starting to enforce these controls on third parties. The US and its allies have cut off Russia’s access to computer chips, leading to Russian shortages that are impeding their war effort. Chart 2China’s Commodity Import Vulnerability Chart 3China's Imports Of Semiconductors 3. US Dollar Reserves: China is still heavily exposed to US dollar assets but its access will be cut off in the event of war, just as the US has frozen Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan, and Cuban assets over the years. China is already diversifying away from the dollar but will have to move more quickly given that Russia had dramatically reduced its exposure and still suffered severely when its access to dollar reserves was frozen this year (Chart 4). Where will China reallocate its reserves? To developing and importing natural resources from Russia, Central Asia, and other overland routes. Chart 4China's US Dollar Exposure Russia may be the junior partner in a new Russo-Chinese alliance but it will not be a vassal. Russia has resources, military power, and regional control in Central Asia that China needs. Of course, China will maintain a certain diplomatic distance from Russia because it needs to maintain economic relations with Europe and other democracies as it breaks up with the United States. Europe is far more important to Chinese exports than Russia. China will play both sides and its companies will develop parallel supply chains. China will also make gestures to countries that feel threatened by Russia, including the Central Asian members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). But the crucial point is that China cannot reject Russia. If the Putin regime fails, China will be diplomatically isolated, it will lose an ally in any Taiwan war, and the US will have a much greater advantage in attempting to contain China in the coming years and decades. Russo-Chinese Alliance And The US Dollar Many investors speculate that China’s diversification away from the US dollar will mark a severe downturn for the currency. This is of course possible, given that Russia and China will form a substantial anti-dollar bloc. Certainly there can be a cyclical downturn in the greenback, especially after the looming recession troughs. But it is harder to see a structural collapse of the dollar as the leading global reserve currency. The past 14 years have shown how global investors react to US dysfunction, Russian aggression, and Chinese slowdown: they buy the dollar! The implication is that a US wage-price spiral, a Russian détente with Europe, and a Chinese economic recovery would be negative for the dollar – but those stars have not yet aligned. Related Report Geopolitical StrategyThe Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The reason China needs to diversify is because it fears US sanctions when it invades Taiwan. Hence reducing its holdings of US treasuries and the dollar signals that it expects war in future. But will other countries rush into the yuan and yuan-denominated bonds if Xi is following in Putin’s footsteps and launching a war of choice, with damaging consequences for the economy? A war over Taiwan would be a global catastrophe and would send other countries plunging into the safe-haven assets, including US assets. Nevertheless China will diversify and other countries will probably increase their yuan trade over time, just as Russia has done. This will be a cyclical headwind for the dollar at some point. But it will not knock the US off the premier position. That would require a historic downgrade in the US’s economic and strategic capability, as was the case with the United Kingdom after the world wars. China will continue to stimulate the economy after the party congress. A successful Chinese and global economic rebound next year – and a decision to pursue “jaw jaw” with the US and Taiwan rather than “war war” – would be negative for the dollar. Hence we may downgrade our bullish dollar view to neutral on a cyclical basis before long … but not yet and not on a structural basis. Bottom Line: Favor the US dollar and the euro over the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Underweight Chinese and Taiwanese assets on a structural basis. Ukraine’s Counter-Offensive And A Russian Oil Embargo Ukraine launched a counter-offensive against Russia in September and achieved significant early victories. Russians fell back away from Kharkiv, putting Izyum in Ukrainian hands and jeopardizing Russia’s ability to achieve its war aim of conquering the remaining half of Donetsk province and thus controlling the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Russian positions also crumbled west of the Dnieper river, which was always an important limit on Russian capabilities (Map 1). Map 1Status Of Russia-Ukraine War: The Ukrainian Counter-Offensive (September 15, 2022) Some commentators, such as Francis Fukuyama in the Washington Post, have taken the Ukrainian counter-offensive as a sign that the Ukrainians will reconquer lost territory and Russia will suffer an outright defeat in this war.3 If Russia cannot conquer the Donbas, its control of the “land bridge” to Crimea will be unsustainable, and it may have to admit defeat. But we are very skeptical. It will be extremely difficult for Ukrainians to drive the Russians out of all of their entrenched positions. US military officials applauded Ukraine’s counter-offensive but sounded a cautious note. The chief problem is that neither President Putin nor the Russian military can afford such a defeat. They will have to double down on the Donbas and land bridge. The war will be prolonged. Ultimately we expect stalemate, which will be a prelude to ceasefire negotiations. But first the fighting will intensify and the repercussions for global economy and markets will get worse. Russia’s war effort is also flagging because Europe is making headway in finding alternatives for Russian natural gas. Russia has cut off flows through the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, the Yamal pipeline to Poland, and partially to the Ukraine pipeline system, leaving only Turkstream operating normally. Yet EU gas storage is in the middle of its normal range and trending higher (Chart 5). Chart 5Europe Handling Natural Gas Crisis Well … So Far Of course, Europe’s energy supply is still not secure. Cold weather could require more heating than expected. Russia has an incentive to tighten the gas flow further. Flows from Algeria or Azerbaijan could be sabotaged or disrupted (Chart 6). Chart 6Europe’s NatGas Supply Still Not Secure Chart 7Europe Tipping Into Recession Anyway Russia’s intention is to inflict a recession on Europe so that it begins to rethink its willingness to maintain a long-term proxy war. Recession will force European households to pay the full cost of the energy breakup with Russia all at once. Popular support for war will moderate and politicians will adopt more pragmatic diplomacy. After all they do not have an interest in prolonging the war to the point that it spirals out of control. Clearly the economic pain is being felt, as manufacturing expectations and consumer confidence weaken (Chart 7). Europe’s resolve will not collapse overnight. But the energy crisis can get worse from here. The deeper the recession, the more likely European capitals will try to convince Ukraine to negotiate a ceasefire. However, given Ukraine’s successes in the field and Europe’s successes in diversification, it is entirely possible that Russia faces further humiliating setbacks. While this outcome may be good for liberal democracies, it is not good for global financial markets, at least not in the short run. If Russia is backed into a corner on both the military and economic fronts, then Putin’s personal security and regime security will be threatened. Russia could attempt to turn the tables or lash out even more aggressively. Already Moscow has declared a new “red line” if the US provides longer-range missiles to Ukraine. A US-Russia showdown, complete with nuclear threats, is not out of the realm of possibility. Russia could also start halting oil exports, as it has threatened to do, to inflict a major oil shock on the European economy. Investors will need to be prepared for that outcome. Bottom Line: Petro-states have geopolitical leverage as long as global commodity supplies remain tight. Investors should be prepared for the European embargo of Russian oil to provoke a Russian reaction. A larger than expected oil shock is possible given the risk of defeat that Russia faces (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Oil Embargo Could Deliver Global Shock US-Iran Talks Falter Again This trend of petro-state geopolitical leverage was one of our three key views for 2022 and it also extends to the US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which are faltering as expected. Tit-for-tat military action between Iran and its enemies in the Persian Gulf will pick up immediately – i.e. a new source of oil disruption will emerge. If global demand is collapsing then this trend may only create additional volatility for oil markets at first, but it further constrains the supply side for the foreseeable future. It is not yet certain that the talks are dead but a deal before the US midterm looks unlikely. Biden could continue working on a deal in 2023-24. The Democratic Party is likely to lose at least the House of Representatives, leaving him unable to pass legislation and more likely to pursue foreign policy objectives. The Biden administration wants the Iran deal to tamp down inflation and avoid a third foreign policy crisis at a time when it is already juggling Russia and China. The overriding constraints in this situation are that Iran needs a nuclear weapon for regime survival, while Israel will attack Iran as a last resort before it obtains a nuclear weapon. Yes, the US is reluctant to initiate another war in the Middle East. But public war-weariness is probably overrated today (unlike in 2008 or even 2016) and the US has drawn a hard red line against nuclear weaponization. Iran will retaliate to any US-Israeli aggression ferociously. But conflict and oil disruptions will emerge even before the US or Israel decide to launch air strikes, as Iran will face sabotage and cyber-attacks and will need to deter the US and Israel by signaling that it can trigger a region-wide war. Chart 9If US-Iran Talks Fail, Iraq Will Destabilize Further Recent social unrest in Iraq, where the nationalist coalition of Muqtada al-Sadr is pushing back against Iranian influence, is only an inkling of what can occur if the US-Iran talks are truly dead, Iran pushes forward with its nuclear program, and Israel and the US begin openly entertaining military options. The potential oil disruption from Iraq presents a much larger supply constraint than the failure to remove sanctions on Iran (Chart 9). A new wave of Middle Eastern instability would push up oil prices and strengthen Russia’s hand, distracting the US and imposing further pain on Europe. It would not strengthen China’s hand, but the risk itself would reinforce China’s Eurasian strategy, as Beijing would need to prepare for oil cutoffs in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s attempts to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization should be seen in this context. Ultimately the only factor that could still possibly convince Iran not to make a dash for the bomb – the military might of the US and its allies – is the same factor that forces China and Russia to strengthen their strategic bond. The emerging Russo-Chinese behemoth, in turn, acts as a hard constraint on any substantial reengagement of the US and Chinese economies. The US cannot afford to feed another decade of Chinese economic growth and modernization if China is allied with Russia and Central Asia. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Xi and Biden administrations will try to prevent a total collapse of US-China relations in 2023. If China is not yet ready to invade Taiwan then there is a brief space for diplomacy to try to work. But there is no room for long-lasting reengagement – because the US cannot simply cede Taiwan to China, and hence China cannot reject Russia, and Russia no longer has any options. Bottom Line: Expect further oil volatility and price shocks. Sell Middle Eastern equities. Favor North American, Latin American, and Australian energy producers. Investment Takeaways Recession Risks Rising: The inflation surprise in the US in August necessitates more aggressive Fed rate hikes in the near term, which increases the odds of rising unemployment and recession. US Policy Uncertainty Rising: A recession will greatly increase the odds of US political instability over the 2022-24 cycle and reduce the incentive for foreign powers like Iran or China to make concessions or agreements with the US. European Policy Uncertainty Rising: We already expected a European recession. Russia’s setbacks make it more likely that it will adopt more aggressive military tactics and economic warfare. Chinese Policy Uncertainty Rising: China will continue stimulating next year but its economy will suffer from energy shocks and its stimulus is less effective than in the past. It will likely increase economic and military pressure on Taiwan, while the US will increase punitive measures against China. It is not clear that it will launch a full scale invasion of Taiwan – that is not our base case – but it is possible so investors need to be prepared. Long US and Defensives: Stay long US stocks over global stocks, defensive sectors over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Buy safe-havens like the oversold Japanese yen. Long Arms Manufacturers: Buy defense stocks and cyber-security firms. Short China and Taiwan: Favor the USD and EUR over the CNY. Favor US semiconductor stocks over Taiwanese equities. Favor Korean over Taiwanese equities. Favor Indian tech over Chinese tech. Favor Singaporean over Hong Kong stocks. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Tessa Wong and Simon Fraser, “Putin-Xi talks: Russian leader reveals China's 'concern' over Ukraine,” BBC, September 15, 2022, bbc.com. 2 US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “The Taiwan Policy Act of 2022,” foreign.senate.gov. 3 Greg Sargent, “Is Putin facing defeat? The ‘End of History’ author remains confident,” Washington Post, September 12, 2022, washingtonpost.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix
Executive Summary US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz A US-Iran deal would make for a notable improvement in the geopolitical backdrop during an otherwise gloomy year. It would remove the risk of a major new oil shock. We maintain our 40% subjective odds of a deal, which is well below consensus. The risk of failure is underrated. Our conviction level is only moderate because President Biden can make concessions to clinch a deal – and Supreme Leader Khamenei may want to earn some money and time. Yet we have high conviction in our view that the US will ultimately fail to provide Iran with sufficient security guarantees while Iran will pursue a nuclear deterrent. Hence the Middle East will present a long-term energy supply constraint. In the short term, global growth and recession risk will drive oil prices, not any Iran deal. Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / BROAD MARKET EQUITIES 2020-11-27 9.3% Bottom Line: Any US-Iran deal will be marginally positive for risky assets. However, the failure of a deal would sharply increase the odds of oil supply disruptions in the short run. Feature Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program remain in a critical phase. Rumors suggest Iran has agreed to rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) with the United States. But these rumors are unconfirmed, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just announced that Iran has started operating more advanced centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear site.1 In this report we provide a tactical update on the topic. A US-Iran nuclear deal is one item on our checklist for global macro and geopolitical stability (Table 1). We are pessimistic about a deal but it would be a positive outcome for markets. Table 1Not A Lot Of Positive Catalysts In H2 2022 A decision could come at any moment so investors should bear in mind our key conclusions about a deal: Chart 1Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga 1. Any deal will be a short-term, stop-gap measure to delay a crisis until 2024 or beyond. This is not a small point because a crisis could lead to a large military conflict. 2. The short-run implication of any deal is oil volatility, not a drop in oil prices (Chart 1). Global demand is wobbly and OPEC could cut oil production in reaction to a deal. 3. Over the long run, global supply and demand balances will remain tight even if a deal is agreed. 4. If there is no deal, then a major new source of global supply constraint will emerge immediately due to a new spiral of conflict in the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear program will continue which will prompt threats from Israel and the Gulf Arab states and Iranian counter-threats. We are sticking with our subjective 40/60 odds that a deal will occur – i.e. our conviction level is medium, not high. The Biden administration wants a deal and has the executive authority to conclude a deal. Iran wants sanctions lifted and can buy time with a short-term deal. Our pessimism stems from the fact that neither side can trust the other, the US can no longer give credible security guarantees, and Iran has a strategic interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. A deal can happen but its durability depends on the 2024 US election. Status Of Negotiations Table 2Iran’s Three Demands Of US For Rejoining 2015 Nuclear Deal Ostensibly there were three outstanding Iranian demands over the month of August that needed to be met to secure a deal (Table 2). Iran reportedly dropped the first demand: that the US remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the US State Department’s list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This concession prompted the news media to become more optimistic about a deal. This leaves two outstanding demands. Iran wants the IAEA conclude a “safeguards” investigation into unexplained uranium traces found at unauthorized sites in Iran, indicating nuclear activity that has not been accounted for. The IAEA will be very reluctant to halt such a probe on a political, not technical, basis. But it could happen under US pressure. Related Report Geopolitical StrategyRoulette With A Five-Shooter Iran also wants the US to provide a “guarantee” that future presidents will not renege on the nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions like President Trump did in 2019. President Biden cannot give any credible guarantee because the JCPA is an executive action, not a formal treaty, so a different president could reverse it. (The deal always lacked sufficient support in the Senate, even from top Democrats.) Iran is demanding certain diplomatic concessions and/or an economic indemnity in the event of another American reversal. Aside from attempting to incarcerate former President Trump, Biden can only offer empty promises on this front. In what follows we review the critical constraints facing the US and Iran. The US’s Constraints The first constraint on the US is the stagflationary economy. High inflation and oil prices pose a threat to President Biden and the Democrats not only in this year’s midterm elections but also in the 2024 presidential election. A recession is not at all unlikely by that time, given the inverted yield curve (Chart 2). If the US can help maintain stability in the Middle East, then the odds of another major oil supply shock (on top of Russia) will be reduced. Lifting sanctions on Iran will free up around 1 million barrels of oil to feed global demand. With Europe and the US imposing an oil and oil shipping embargo on Russia, the world is likely to lose around two million barrels of crude per day that the Gulf Arab states can only partially make up for, according to our Chief Commodity Strategist Bob Ryan (Table 3). This is a notable material constraint – and the main reason that Bob is more optimistic about an Iran deal than we are. Chart 2US Economic Constraint: Stagflation Table 3The Oil Math Behind Any Iran Deal However, Saudi Arabia would be alienated by a US-Iran détente. The American view is that Iranian production would threaten Saudi market share and force the Saudis to produce more. But the Saudis are seeing weakening global demand and have signaled that they will cut production. There is still an economic basis for an Iran deal but it is not clear that it will lower prices, especially in the short run. Over the long run the Saudis are a more reliable oil producer than Iran for both economic and geopolitical reasons. The second constraint is political. The US public is primarily concerned about the economy. Stagflation or recession could ultimately bring down the Biden administration. However, in the short run, American voters are much more concerned about domestic social issues (such as abortion access) than they are about foreign policy. In the long run, American voters are likely to maintain their long-held negative view of Iran (Chart 3). So the Biden administration has an incentive to prevent geopolitical events from hurting the economy but not to join arms with Iran in a major diplomatic agreement. The third constraint is military. Americans are not as war-weary today as they were in 2008 or 2016 but they are still averse to any new military conflicts in the Middle East. An Iranian nuclear bomb could change that view – but until a bomb is tested it will persist. Chart 3US Political Constraint: Americans Ignore Foreign Policy, Dislike Iran Chart 4US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz If Iran freezes its nuclear program then it will reduce the odds of a Middle Eastern war and large-scale oil supply disruptions. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, then Israel will have to demonstrate a credible military threat against nuclear weaponization, and then Iran will have to demonstrate its region-wide militant capabilities, including the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz (Chart 4). The Biden administration wants to delay this downward spiral or avoid it altogether. Chart 5US Strategic Constraint: Avoid Mideast Quagmires The fourth constraint is strategic. The Biden administration wants to avoid conflict if possible because it is attempting to reduce America’s burden in the Middle East so that it can focus on emerging great power competition in Eastern Europe and East Asia. The original motivation for the Iran deal was to enable the US to “pivot to Asia” and counter China. Iranian hegemony in the Middle East is less of a threat than Chinese hegemony in East Asia (Chart 5). This logic is sound if Iran can really be brought to halt its nuclear program. The Europeans need to stabilize and open up the Middle East to create an alternative energy supply to Russia. The Americans need to avoid a nuclear arms race and war in the Middle East that distracts them from China. However, if Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon, then the US suffers strategically for doing a short-term deal that provides Iran with time and access to funds. Ultimately the only thing that can dissuade Iran from going nuclear is American power projection in the Middle East – and this capability is also one of the US’s greatest advantages over China. Bottom Line: The US has a strategic, military, and economic interest in concluding a deal that freezes Iran’s nuclear program. It arguably has an interest in a deal even if Iran violates the deal and pursues nuclear weaponization, since that will provide a legitimate basis for what would then become a necessary military intervention. The Biden administration faces some political blowback for a deal but will suffer more if failure to get a deal leads to a Middle Eastern oil shock. For all these reasons Biden administration is attempting to clinch a deal. But Iran is the sticking point. Iran’s Constraints Our reasons for pessimism regarding the nuclear talks hinge on Iran, not the United States. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s goal is to secure the regime and arrange for a stable succession in the coming years. A deal with the Americans made sense in that context. But going forward, if dealing with the Americans does not bring credible security guarantees and yet makes the economy vulnerable again to a future snapback of sanctions, then the justification for the deal falls apart. We cannot read Khamenei’s mind any more than we can read Biden’s mind, so we will look at the material limitations. Chart 6Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation First, the economic constraint: The Iranian economy suffered a huge negative shock from the reimposition of sanctions in 2019 (Chart 6). However, the economy has sputtered through this shock and the Covid-19 shock without collapsing. Social unrest is an ever-present risk but it has not spiraled out of control. There has not been an attempted democratic revolution like in 2009. The upswing in the global commodity cycle has reinforced the regime. Sanctions do not prevent exports entirely. There is still a huge monetary incentive to let the Biden administration lift sanctions if it wants to do so: a deal is estimated to free up $100 billion dollars per year in revenue for the regime for ten years.2 Realistically this should be understood as more than $275 billion for two years since the longevity of the deal is in question. The problem is that Iran’s economy would be fully exposed to sanctions again if the US changed its mind. The bottom line is that the economic constraint does not force Iran to accept a deal but it is enticing. Second comes the political constraint. President Ebrahim Raisi hopes to become supreme leader someday and is loath to put his name on a deal with weak foundations. He originally opposed the deal, was vindicated, and does not now want to jeopardize his political future by making the same mistake as his hapless predecessor, Hassan Rouhani. Opinion polls may not be reliable in putting Raisi as the most popular politician in Iran but they probably are reliable in showing Rouhani at the bottom of the heap (Chart 7). There is a significant political constraint against rejoining the deal. Chart 7Iran’s Political Constraint: Risk Of American Betrayal Chart 8Iran’s Military Constraint: Outgunned, Unsure Of Allies Third comes the military constraint. While Iran is extremely vulnerable to Israeli and American military attack, it is also a fortress of a country, nestled in mountains, and airstrikes may not succeed in destroying the entire nuclear program or bringing down the regime. An attack by Israel could convert an entirely new generation to the Islamic revolution. And Iran may believe that the US lacks the popular support for military action in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may also believe that China and Russia will provide military and economic support (Chart 8). Ultimately, America has demonstrated a willingness to attack rogue states and Iran will try to avoid that outcome, since it could succeed in toppling the regime. But if Iran believes it can acquire a deliverable nuclear weapon in a few short years, then it may make a dash for it, since this solution would be a permanent solution: a nuclear deterrent against western attack, as opposed to temporary diplomatic promises. We often compare Iran’s strategic predicament to that of Ukraine, Libya, and North Korea. Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons after the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which promised that Russia, the US, the UK, France, and China would guarantee its security. Yet Russia ended up invading 20 years later – and none of the others prevented it or sent troops to halt the Russian advance. Separately Libya gave up its nuclear program in 2003 but NATO attacked and toppled the regime in 2011 anyway. Meanwhile North Korea played the diplomatic game with the US, ever inching along on the path toward nuclear weapons, and today has achieved nuclear-armed status and greater regime security. The outflow of refugees from the various regimes shows why Iran will emulate North Korea (Chart 9). Chart 9Iran’s Strategic Constraint: The Need For A Nuclear Deterrent Bottom Line: Iran has a short-term economic incentive to agree to a deal and a long-term military incentive. But ultimately the US cannot provide ironclad security guarantees that would justify halting the quest for a nuclear deterrent. A nuclear deterrent would overcome the military constraint. Therefore Iran will continue on that path. Any deal will be a ruse to buy time. Final Assessment The 2015 deal occurred in a context of Iranian strategic isolation, when American implementation was credible, oil prices were weak, and Iran had not achieved nuclear breakout capacity. Today Iran is not isolated (thanks to US quarrels with Russia and China), American guarantees are not credible (thanks to the polarization of foreign policy), oil prices are not weak (thanks to Russia), and Iran has already achieved nuclear breakout (Table 4). Table 4Iran’s Nuclear Program Status Check, Aug. 31, 2022 The US’s strategic aim is to create a balance of power in the region but Iran’s strategic aim is to ensure regime survival. The US’s emerging balancing coalition (Israel and the Gulf Arab states) increases the strategic threat to Iran and hence its need for a nuclear deterrent. While Russia and China formally support the 2015 deal, they each see Iran as a valuable asset in a great power struggle with the United States. Iran sees them the same way. Russia needs Iran as a partner to bypass western sanctions. Regardless, it benefits from Middle Eastern instability, which could entangle the United States. China must develop a deep long-term partnership with Iran for its own strategic reasons and does not look forward to a time when the US divests from that region to impose tougher strategic containment on China. China can survive a US conflict with Iran – and such a conflict could reduce the US ability to defend Taiwan. While neither Russia nor China positively desire Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, neither power stopped North Korea from obtaining the bomb – far from it. Russia assumes that Israel and the US will take military action to prevent weaponization, which would be catastrophic for the region but positive for Russia. China also assumes Israel and the US will act, which reinforces its need to diversify energy options so that it can access Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern oil via pipeline. Investment Takeaways Our negative view on the global economy and geopolitical backdrop is once again being priced into global financial markets as equities fall anew. An Iran deal would delay a notable geopolitical risk for roughly the next 24 months and hence remove a major upside risk for oil prices. This would be marginally positive for global equities, although it will not be the driver. Europe’s and China’s economic woes are the drivers. The failure of a deal would bring major upside risks for oil into the near term and as such would be negative for equities – and could even become the global driver, as Middle Eastern oil disruptions will follow promptly from any failure of the deal. We continue to recommend that investors overweight US equities relative to global, defensive sectors relative to cyclicals, and large caps relative to small caps. We are overweight aerospace and defense stocks, India and Southeast Asia within emerging markets, and underweight China and Taiwan. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Iran International, “Exclusive: Ex-IAEA Official Says US And Iran To Sign Deal Soon,” August 30, 2022, iranintl.com. See also Francois Murphy, “Iran enriching uranium with more IR-6 centrifuges at Natanz -IAEA,” Reuters, August 31, 2022, reuters.com. 2 See Saeed Ghasseminejad, “Tehran’s $1 Trillion Deal: An Updated Forecast of Iran’s Financial Windfall From a New Nuclear Agreement,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, August 19, 2022, fdd.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix
Executive Summary Our negative view on the summer rally is coming to fruition, with equities falling back on the negative geopolitical, macro, and monetary environment. China is easing policy ahead of its full return to autocratic government this fall. Yet the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis has only just begun. Tensions can still deal nasty surprises to global investors. It is essential to verify that relations will thaw after the US midterm and Chinese party congress is critical. Russia continues to tighten energy supply as predicted. Ukraine’s counter-offensive is pushing back the time frame of a ceasefire deeper into next year. Putin may declare victory and quit while he is ahead – but Russia will not be forced to halt its invasion until commodity prices fall significantly. Sweden’s election will not interfere with its NATO bid; Australia’s new government will not re-engage with China; Malaysia’s election will be a positive catalyst; South Africa’s political risks are reawakening; Brazil’s risks are peaking; Turkey remains a leading candidate for a negative “black swan” event. China’s Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Political Risk Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 17.4% Bottom Line: Investors should stay defensive in the short run until recession risks and geopolitical tensions abate. Feature Last week we visited clients across South Africa and discussed a broad range of global macro and geopolitical issues. In this month’s GeoRisk Update we relate some of the key points in the context of our market-based quantitative risk indicators. While we were traveling, US-Iran negotiations reached a critical phase. A deal is said to be “closer” but we remain pessimistic (we still give 40/60 odds of a deal). The important point for investors is that the supply side of global oil markets will remain tight even if a deal is somehow agreed, whereas it will get much tighter if a deal is not agreed. China’s rollout of 1 trillion yuan ($146 billion) in new fiscal stimulus and rate cuts (5 bps cut to 1-year Loan Prime Rate and 15 bps cut to 5-year LPR) is positive on the demand side and supports our key view in our 2022 annual outlook that China would ease policy ahead of the twentieth national party congress. However, it is still the case that China is not providing enough stimulus to generate a new cyclical rally. Second quarter US GDP growth was revised slightly upwards but was still negative. Russia tightened control of European energy, as expected, increasing the odds of a European recession. Europeans are getting squeezed by rising energy prices, rising interest rates, and weak external demand. China Eases Policy Ahead Of Return To Autocracy China is facing acute political risk in the short term but it is also delivering more stimulus to try to stabilize the economy ahead of the twentieth national party congress this fall (Chart 1). The People’s Bank of China cut the benchmark lending rate by (1-year LPR) by 5 basis points, while authorities unveiled fiscal spending worth 1 trillion renminbi. Chart 1China's Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Political Risk After the party congress, the regime is likely to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. continue with a broad-based policy easing to secure the recovery from the Covid-19 shock. This will include loosening social restrictions and aggressive regulations against industrial sectors like the tech sector. It should also include some diplomatic improvements, especially with Europe. But it is only a short term (12-month) trend, not a long-term theme. Related Report Geopolitical StrategyRoulette With A Five-Shooter China’s return to autocratic government under General Secretary Xi Jinping is a new, negative, structural factor and is nearly complete. Xi is highly likely to secure another decade in power and promote his faction of Communist Party stalwarts and national security hawks. The period around the party congress will be uncertain and dangerous. The exact makeup of the next Politburo could bring some surprises but there is very little chance that Xi and his faction will fail to consolidate power. The nomination of an heir-apparent is possible but of limited significance since Xi will not step down anytime soon or in a regular, predictable manner. Larger stimulus combined with power consolidation could spur greater risk appetite around the world, as it would portend a stabilization of growth and policy continuity. However, China’s underlying problems are structural. The manufacturing and property bust can be delayed but not reversed. China’s foreign policy will continue to get more aggressive due to domestic vulnerability, prompting foreign protectionism, export controls, sanctions, saber-rattling, and the potential for military conflict. Bottom Line: Investors should use any rally in Chinese assets over the coming 12 months as an opportunity to sell and reduce exposure to China’s historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk. Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Only Beginning The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis has only just begun. The previous three crises ranged from four to nine months in duration. The current crisis cannot possibly abate until November at earliest. Taiwan’s political risk will stay high and we would not buy any relief rally until there is a firm basis for believing tensions have fallen (Chart 2). Chart 2Taiwan: The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis If this year’s crisis were driven by US and Chinese domestic politics – the US midterm election and China’s party congress – then both Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping would already have achieved what they want and could proceed to de-escalate tensions by the end of the year – i.e. before somebody really gets hurt. The two leaders could hold a bilateral summit in Asia in November and agree to uphold the one China policy and status quo in the Taiwan Strait. We have given a 40% chance to this scenario, though we would still remain pessimistic about the long-term outlook for Taiwan. But if this year’s crisis is driven by a change in US and Chinese strategic thinking as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s rising domestic instability, then there will not be a quick resolution on Taiwan. The crisis would grow next year, increasing the risk of aggression or miscalculation. We have given a 60% probability to this scenario, of which full-scale war comprises 20 percentage points. Bottom Line: Our geopolitical risk indicator for Taiwan spiked and Taiwanese equities rolled over relative to global equities as we expected. However, our oldest trade to capture the high long-term risk of a war in the strait – long Korea / short Taiwan – has performed badly despite the crisis. South Korea: China Stimulus A Boon But Not Geopolitics US-China rivalry – and the thawing of Asia’s once-frozen conflicts – is also manifest on the Korean peninsula, where the limited détente between the US and North Korea negotiated by President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un has fallen apart. South Korea’s situation is not as risky as Taiwan’s but it is nevertheless less stable than it appears (Chart 3). Chart 3South Korea: Lower Geopolitical Risk Than Taiwan South Korea resumed its full-scale joint military exercise with the US, the Ulchi Freedom Shield, from August 22 to September 1. The drills involve amphibious operations and a carrier strike group. Full-scale drills were scaled down or cancelled under the Trump and Moon Jae-In administrations with the hopes of facilitating diplomacy and reducing tensions on the peninsula. North Korea was to discontinue ballistic missile tests and threats to the United States. But after the 2020 election neither Washington nor Pyongyang considered itself bound by this agreement. This year the US went forward with Ulchi Freedom even though regional tensions were sky-high because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan and the De-Militarized Zone in Korea. The US is flagging its regional interests and power bases. North Korea is increasing the frequency of missile tests this year and is likely to conduct an eighth nuclear test. On August 17, it fired two cruise missiles towards the Yellow Sea. Pyongyang does not want to be ignored amid so many other geopolitical crises. It is emboldened by the fact that Russia and China will not be voting with the US for another round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council due to the war in Ukraine and tensions over Taiwan. On August 11, South Korea responded to China’s insistence that the new government should abide by the “Three No’s,” i.e. three negatives that the Moon administration allegedly promised China: no additional deployments of the US’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, no Korean integration into US-led missile defense, and no trilateral military alliance with the US and Japan. Korea’s Foreign Minister Park Jin told reporters upon his return from China that the three no’s were “neither an agreement nor a promise.” South Korea’s new and conservative President Yoon Suk-yeol is unpopular and gridlocked at home but he is using the opportunity to reassert Korean national interests, including the US military alliance. Tension with the North and cold relations with China are coming at a time when the economy is slowing down. Korean GDP grew by 0.7% in Q2 2022 on a quarter-on-quarter basis, supported by household and government spending, while exports and investments shrank. Roughly a quarter of Korean exports go to China, its biggest trading partner. Korean exports to China have suffered due to China’s economic woes but cold relations could bring new economic sanctions, as China has hit South Korea before over THAAD. With the Yoon administration planning to bring the fiscal deficit back to below 3% of GDP next year, and a broader backdrop of weak Chinese and global demand, it is hard to find bright corners in the Korean economy in the near term. With Yoon’s basement level approval rating, he will resort to foreign policy to try to revive his political capital. Saber rattling and tough talk with North Korea and China will increase tensions in an already hot region – geopolitical risk is bound to stay high on the back of the Taiwan crisis. Bottom Line: On a relative basis, due to the ironclad US security guarantee, South Korea is safer than Taiwan. Investors wanting exposure to Chinese economic stimulus, electric vehicles, and semiconductors should go long South Korea. But some volatility is likely because the North’s eighth nuclear test will occur in the context of high and rising regional tensions. Australia: Stimulus Is Positive But No “Thaw” With China Australia is blessed with strong geopolitical fundamentals but it is seeing a drop in national security and economic security due to the deterioration of China relations. Domestic political turmoil is one of the consequences (Chart 4). Most recently Australia has been roiled by the revelation that former Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly ran five ministries during the pandemic: the ministries of Home, Treasury, Finance, Resources, and Health. Chart 4Australian Geopolitical Risk Limited After an investigation and review by the Solicitor General Stephen Donaghue, Morrison’s action was determined to be legal, although highly inappropriate and inconsistent with the principles of responsible governance. Morrison’s appointments to these ministries were approved by the Governor General but the announcement or publication of appointments has always been the prerogative of the government of the day. One might think that this investigation is merely politically motivated but the Solicitor General is an apolitical position unlike the Attorney General, and Donaghue had been serving with Morrison, guiding him about the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate during the pandemic. The new Labor Party government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has vowed to be more transparent and will seek to enshrine a transparency measure into the law. Its political capital will improve, which is helpful for its ability to achieve its chief election promises. With the change of the government, it was hoped that there would be a thaw in the Australia-China relationship. China is Australia’s largest export destination and it erected boycotts against certain Australian exports in 2020 in response to Prime Minister Morrison’s inquiry into the origin of Covid-19. Hence Australia’s new defense minister, Richard Marles, met with his Chinese counterpart, General Wei Fenghe, on the sideline of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in June, which rekindled the hope that a thaw might happen. Yet a thaw is unlikely for strategic reasons, as highlighted by the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Biden administration’s retention of former President Trump’s tariffs, and Australia’s fears of China’s rising influence in the Pacific Islands. The US and Australia are preparing for a long-term policy of containing China’s ambitions. A few days after his election, Prime Minister Albanese flew to Tokyo to attend a meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad), sending a signal that there will be policy continuity with respect to Australian foreign policy. On May 26, Chinese fighter jets flew closely to an Australian surveillance plane on its routine operation and released aluminum chaffs that were ingested by the P8’s engines. An Australian warship, the HMAS Parramatta, was tracked by a People’s Liberation Army nuclear power submarine and multiple aircrafts on its way back from Vietnam, Korea, and Japan as part of its regional presence deployment in June. Currently Australia is hosting the Pitch-Black military exercise, with 17 countries participating. This exercise will last for three weeks – focusing on air defense and aerial refueling. It will also see the German air force with 13 military aircrafts deployed to the Indo-Pacific region for the very first time. They will be stopping in Japan after the exercise. As Australia’s policy towards China is unlikely to change, geopolitical risk will remain elevated. On the economic front, Australia’s misery index is at the highest point since 2000, with an unemployment rate at 3% and inflation at 6%. GDP growth in the first quarter was 0.8% compared to 3.6% in Q4 2021, propped up by government and household consumption while investment and exports contracted. The good news for the government is that it is inheriting this negative backdrop and can benefit from cyclical improvements in the next few years. Since the Labor government lacks a single-party majority in the Senate (where it must rely on the Greens and independents), it will be difficult for the government to raise new taxes. So far, Albanese has indicated that the budget to be tabled in October will focus on pre-election promises, which includes childcare, healthcare, and energy reforms. At worst, Australian government spending will stay flat, but it is unlikely to shrink considering Labor’s narrow control of the House of Representatives. Australian equities have not outperformed those of developed market peers despite high industrial metal prices. The stock market’s weak performance is attributable to the stumbling Chinese economy (Chart 5). Australian exports to China in June are still down 14% from June of last year. Chinese economic woes will be a headwind to Aussie growth and equity markets until next year, when Chinese stimulus efforts reach their full effect. Chart 5Australian Equities Have Yet to Benefit from Industrial Metal Prices On the other hand, the value of Australian natural gas and oil exports in June grew by 118% and 211% respectively (Chart 6), compared to June of last year. Chart 6Geopolitics: A Boon and Bane to Aussie Growth Bottom Line: As China will continue stimulating the economy and global energy markets will remain tight, investors should look for opportunities in Aussie energy and materials stocks. Malaysia Closes A Chapter … And Opens A Better One? Rarely do we get to revisit our positive outlook on Malaysia – a Southeast Asian state with an ability to capitalize on the US break-up with China. On August 23, the embattled ex-prime minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, lost his final appeal at the Federal Court in Putrajaya after being found guilty in 2020 for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering tied to Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB. The high court instructed that he serves his 12-years prison sentence immediately, becoming the first prime minister to be imprisoned in the country’s 60-years plus of history. Political risk has weighed on the Malaysian economy for almost a decade starting with the contentious 2013 general election, which saw the collapse of non-Malay voter support for the ruling party. Then came the 2015 Wall Street Journal bombshell about 1MDB, and then the 2018 general election that resulted in Malaysia’s first change of government since independence. The pandemic also led to political crisis in 2020. Each crisis resulted in a successive weakening of animal spirits and ever lower investments, resulting in Malaysia’s loss of competitiveness (Chart 7). Malaysia’s cheap currency was unable to increase its competitiveness, due to the low investments in the economy, and reflected higher political risks in the country (Chart 8). Chart 7Political Risk Undermines Competitiveness Chart 8Cheap Currency Reflects Political Risk Nonetheless this entire saga has proved that Malaysia’s legal system is independent and that its political system is capable of holding policymakers accountable. The next general election will come in a matter of months and recent state elections bodes well for the institutional ruling party, the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), and its coalition, Barisan Nasional. The coalition is managing to claw back support from the Malay and non-Malay voters. The opposition had the bad luck of ruling during the pandemic and its rocky aftermath, which has helped to rehabilitate the traditional ruling party. We have long seen Malaysia as a potential opportunity. But we would advise investors to wait until the new election is held and a new government takes power before buying Malaysian equities. With the conclusion of its decade-long 1MDB saga, we would turn more bullish if the next election produces a sizeable and enduring majority, if the use of racial and sectarian rhetoric tones down, and if the governing coalition pursues pro-competitiveness policies. Bottom Line: Structurally, Malaysia is one of the largest exporters of semiconductors and will benefit from the US’s shift away from China and attempt to reconstruct supply chains so they run through the economies of allies and partners. Russia: Escalating To De-Escalate? Russia increased the number of active military personnel in a move that points to an escalation of the conflict with Ukraine and the West, even as Ukraine wages a counter-offensive against Russia in Crimea and elsewhere. The time frame for a ceasefire has been pushed further into next year. As long as the war escalates, European energy relief will be elusive. Our risk indicators will rise again (Chart 9). Chart 9Russia: Geopolitical Risk To Rise Again, Ceasefire Pushed Back Into Next Year Ukraine will not be able to drive Russians out of territory in which they are entrenched. It would need a coalition of western powers willing to go on the offense, which will not happen. Russia is also threatening to cut off the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, ostensibly removing one-fifth of Ukraine’s electricity. Once the Ukrainian counter-offensive grinds to a halt, a stalemate will ensue, incentivizing ceasefire talks – but not until then. The Europeans will have to support Ukraine now but will become less and less inclined to extend the war as they get hit with recession. Russia says it is prepared for a long war but that kind of rhetoric is necessary for propaganda purposes. The truth is that Russia does not have great success with offensive wars. Russia usually suffers social instability in the aftermath. The best indicator for the duration of the war is probably the global oil price: If it collapses for any reason then Russia’s war machine will fall short of funds and the Kremlin will probably have to accept a ceasefire. This what happened in 2014-15 with the Minsk Protocols. Putin will presumably try to quit while he is ahead, i.e. complete the conquest and shift to ceasefire talks, while commodity prices are still supportive and Europe is economically weak. If commodity prices fall, Russia’s treasury dries up while Europe regains strength. So while military setbacks can delay a ceasefire, Russia should be seen as starting to move in that direction. The deal negotiated with Turkey and the United Nations to ship some grain from Odessa is not reliable in the short run but does show the potential for future negotiations. However, a high conviction on the timing is not warranted. Also, the US and Russia could enter a standoff over the US role in the war, or NATO enlargement, at any moment, especially ahead of the US midterm election. Bottom Line: Ukraine’s counteroffensive and Russia’s tightening of natural gas exports increases the risk to global stability and economic growth in the short run, even if it is a case of “escalating tensions in order to de-escalate” later when ceasefire talks begin. Italy: Election Means Pragmatism Toward Russia Italy’s election is the first large crack in the European wall as a result of Russia’s cutoff of energy. The party best positioned for the election – the right-wing, anti-establishment party called the Brothers of Italy – will have to focus on rebooting Italy’s economy once in power. This will require pragmatism toward Russian and its natural gas. Regardless of whether a right-wing coalition obtains a majority or the parliament is hung, Italian political risk will stay high in the short run (Chart 10). Chart 10Italy: Election Brings Uncertainty, Then Economic Stimulus Although the center-left Democratic Party (PD) is narrowing the gap with the Brothers of Italy in voting intentions, it is struggling to put together an effective front against the right-wing bloc. After its alliance with the centrist Azione party and +Europa party broke down, PD’s chance of winning has become even slimmer. Even if the alliance revives, the center-left bloc still falls short of the conservative parties. Together, the right-wing parties account for just 33% of voting intentions (Democrats at 23%, Greens and Left Alliance at 3%, Azione and +Europa at 7%). By contrast, the right-wing bloc has a significant lead, with 46% of the votes (Brothers of Italy at 24%, Lega at 14%, Forza Italia at 8%). They also have the advantage of anti-incumbency sentiment amid a negative economic backdrop. Unless some sudden surprises occur, a right-wing victory is expected, with Giorgia Meloni becoming the first female prime minister in Italy’s history. This has been our base case scenario for the past several months. But what does a right-wing government mean for the financial markets? In an early election manifesto published in recent weeks, the conservative alliance pledged full adhesion to EU solidarity and dropped their previous euroskepticism. This helps them get elected and is positive for investors. However, there are also clouds on the horizon: In the same manifesto, the right-wing parties pledged to lower taxes for families and firms, increase welfare, and crack down on immigration. These programs will add to Italy’s huge debt pile and eventually lead to conflicts with the ECB and other EU institutions. In the manifesto, they stated that if elected, they would seek to amend conditions of Italy’s entitlement to the EU Recovery Fund, as the Russia-Ukraine war has changed the context and priorities significantly. This could potentially put the EU’s grants and cheap loans at risk. Under the Draghi government, Italy has secured about 67 billion euros of EU funds. According to the schedule, Italy will receive a further 19 billion Euros recovery funds in the second half of 2022, if it meets previously agreed upon targets. The new government will try to accept the funds and then make any controversial policy changes. On Russia, the conservative parties claimed that Italy would not be the weak link within EU. They pledged respect for NATO commitments, including increasing defense spending. Both Meloni and her Brothers of Italy have endorsed sending weapons to support Ukraine. Still, we think that due to Italy’s historical link with Russia and the need to secure energy supplies, the new government would be more pragmatic toward Russia. On China, Meloni has stressed that Italy will look to limit China’s economic expansion if the right-wing alliance wins. She stated that “Russia is louder at present and China is quieter, but [China’s] penetration is reaching everywhere.” China will want to use diplomacy to curb this kind of thinking in Europe. Meloni also stated that she would not seek to pursue the Belt and Road Initiative pact that Italy signed with China in 2019. In short, we stand firm on our recommendation of underweighting Italian assets at least until a new government is formed. Europe Gets Its Arm Twisted Further The United Kingdom is going through a severe energy, water, and inflation crisis – on top of the long backlog at the National Health Service – as it stumbles through the aftermath of Covid-19 and Brexit. The Conservative Party’s leadership contest is a distraction – political risk will not subside after it is resolved. The new Tory leader will lack a direct popular mandate but the party will want to avoid an early election in the current economic context, creating instability. The looming attempt at a second Scottish independence referendum will also keep risks high, as the outcome this time may be too close to call (Chart 11). Chart 11UK: Tory Leaders A Sideshow, Risks Will Stay High Germany saw Russia halt natural gas flows through Nord Stream 1 as the great energy cutoff continues. As we have argued since April, Russia’s purpose is to pressure the European economies so that they are more conducive to a ceasefire in Ukraine. Germany will evolve quickly and will improve its energy security faster than many skeptics expect but it cannot do it in a single year. The ruling coalition is also fragile, even though elections are not due anytime soon (Chart 12). Chart 12Germany: Geopolitical Risk Still Rising France’s political risk will also remain high (Chart 13), as domestic politics will be reckless while President Emmanuel Macron and his allies only control 43% of the National Assembly in the aftermath of this year’s election (Chart 14). Chart 13France: Lower Geopolitical Risk Than Germany Chart 14Macron Will Focus On Foreign Policy Spain is likely to see its coalition destabilized and early elections, much like Italy this year (Chart 15). Chart 15Spain: Early Elections Likely Sweden, along with Finland, will be joining NATO, which became clear back in April. In this sense it is at the center of Russia’s conflict with the West over NATO enlargement, so we should take a quick look at the Swedish general election on September 11. Currently the left-wing and right-wing blocs are neck and neck in the polls. While the current Social Democrat-led government may well fall from power, Sweden’s new pursuit of NATO membership is unlikely to change. The right-wing parties in Sweden are in favor of joining NATO. The two parties that oppose NATO membership are the left-wing Green and Left Party. The Social Democrats were pro-neutrality until the invasion of Ukraine and since May have spearheaded Swedish accession to NATO. The pro-neutrality bloc currently holds 43 seats in the 349-seats Riksdag. It has a supply-and-confidence arrangement with the current government and is currently polling at 13%. If it was willing and able to derail Sweden’s NATO bid, it would already have happened. So the general election in Sweden is unlikely to stop Sweden from joining. However, Russia does not want Sweden to join and the entire pre- and post-election period is ripe for “black swan” risks and negative surprises. One thing that could change with the election is Sweden’s immigration policy. The Social Democrats are pro-immigration (albeit pro-integration), while the right-wing bloc is less so. Sweden has received a great many asylum seekers since the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 and will be receiving more from Ukraine and Russia (Chart 16). Chart 16Asylum Seekers to Surpass 2015 Refugee Crisis Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor points out that the increase in asylum seekers could augment Swedish labor force and increase its potential growth in the long run, while in the short run it could increase demand in the domestic economy. But an increase in demand could also exacerbate inflation in Sweden, especially considering how much the Riksbank is behind the curve vis-à-vis the ECB. Our European Investment Strategy recommends shorting EUR/SEK as Sweden is less vulnerable to Russian energy sanctions. Sweden produces most of its energy from renewable sources. Relative to Europe, Canada faces a much more benign political and geopolitical environment (Chart 17). However, within its own context, it will continue to see more contentious domestic politics as interest rates rise on a society with high household debt and property prices. The post-Covid-19 period will undermine the Justin Trudeau government over time, though it is not facing an election anytime soon. Canada continues to benefit from North America’s geopolitical advantage, though quarrels with China will continue, including over Taiwan, and should be taken seriously. Aside from any China shocks we expect Canadian equities to continue to outperform most global bourses. Chart 17Canada: Low Geopolitical Risk But Not Happy South Africa: The Calm Before The Storm South Africa’s economy remains in a low growth trap, which is contributing to rising political risk (Chart 18). Electricity shortages continue to dampen economic activity. Other structural issues like 33.9% unemployment, worsening social imbalances, and a split in the ruling party threaten to cause negative policy surprises. Chart 18South Africa: Institutional Ruling Party At Risk The South African economy has failed to translate growth outcomes into meaningful economic development, leaving low-income households (the median voter) increasingly disenfranchised, burdened, and constrained. Last year’s civil unrest was fueled by economic hardships that persist today. Without a significant and consistent bump to growth, social and political risks will continue to rise. Low-income households remain largely state dependent. Fiscal austerity has already begun to unwind, well before the 2024 election, in a bid to shore up support and quell rising social pressures (Chart 19). Chart 19South Africa: Fiscal Easing Ahead Of 2024 Vote The fact that the social scene is relatively quiet for now should not be seen as a sign of underlying stability. For example, two of the largest trade unions led a nationwide labor strike last week – while we visited clients in the country! – but failed to “shut down” the country as advertised. Labor union constituents noted the ANC’s economic failures, demanded immediate economic reform, and advocated for a universal basic income grant. This action blew over but the election cycle is only just beginning. Looking forward to the election, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s ANC is still viewed more favorably than the faction led by ex-President Jacob Zuma, but Ramaphosa has suffered from corruption allegations recently that have detracted attention from his anti-corruption and reform agenda and highlighted the party’s shortcomings once again. The ANC’s true political rival, the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), have so far failed to capitalize on the weak economic backdrop. The EFF is struggling with leadership battles, thus failing to attract as many soured ANC voters as otherwise possible. If the Economic Freedom Fighters refocus and install new leadership, namely a leader that better reflects the tribal composition of the country, the party will become a greater threat to the ANC. But the overall macro backdrop is a powerful headwind for the ANC’s ability to retain a parliamentary majority. Global macro tailwinds that supported local assets in the first half of the year are experiencing volatility due to China’s sluggish growth and now stimulus efforts. Cooling metals prices and slowing global growth have weighed on the rand and local equity returns. But now China is enacting more stimulus. China is South Africa’s largest trading partner, so the decision to ease policy is positive for next year, even though China’s underlying structural impediments will return in subsequent years. This makes it hard to predict whether South Africa’s economic context will be stable in the lead-up to the 2024 election. As long as China can at least stabilize in the post-pandemic environment in 2023, the ANC will not face as negative of a macro environment in 2024 as would otherwise be the case. Investors will need to watch the risk of political influence on the central bank. Recently the ANC resolved to nationalize the central bank. Nationalization is mostly about official ownership but a change in the bank’s mandate was also discussed. However, to change the bank’s mandate from an inflation target to an unemployment target, the ANC would need to change the constitution. Constitutional change requires a two-thirds vote in parliament, a margin the ANC does not hold. Constitutional change will become increasingly difficult if the ANC sheds more support in the 2024 general election, as expected. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on South Africa until global and Chinese growth stabilize. Political risk is rising ahead of the 2024 election but it is not necessarily at a tipping point. Brazil And Turkey: Election Uncertainty Prevails We conclude with two brief points on Brazil and Turkey, which both face important elections – Brazil immediately and Turkey by June 2023. Both countries have experienced different forms of instability as emerging middle classes face economic disappointment, which has led to political challenges to liberal democracy. Brazil – President Jair Bolsonaro’s popular support is rallying into the election, as expected, but it would require a large unexpected shift to knock former President Lula da Silva off course for re-election this October (Chart 20). Brazil’s first round vote will be held on October 2. If Lula falls short of the 50% majority threshold, then a second round will be held on October 30. Bolsonaro faces an uphill battle because his general popularity is weak – his support among prospective voters stands at 35% compared to Lula at 44% today and Lula at 47% when he left office in 2010. Meanwhile the macroeconomic backdrop has worsened over the course of his four-year term. Bolsonaro will contest the election if it is close so Brazil could face significant upheaval in the short run. Chart 20Brazil: Risk Will Peak Around The Election Turkey – President Recep Erdogan’s approval rating has fallen to 41%, while his disapproval has risen to 54%. It is a wonder his ratings did not collapse sooner given that the misery index is reaching 88%, with headline inflation at 78%. Having altered the constitution to take on greater presidential powers, Erdogan will do whatever it takes to stay in power, but the tide of public opinion is shifting and his Justice and Development Party is suffering from 21 years in power. Erdogan could interfere with NATO enlargement, the EU, Syria and refugees, Greece and Cyprus, North Africa and Libya, or Israel in a way that causes negative surprises for Turkish or even global investors. Turkey will be a source of “black swan” risks at least until after the general election slated for June 2023 (Chart 21). Chart 21Turkey: A Source Of 'Black Swans' We will revisit each these markets in greater detail soon. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Geopolitical Calendar
Executive Summary Biden Can Take Risks Ahead Of Midterms News reports suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will travel to Taiwan and meet with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in the coming days. China has promised military counter-measures if she visits. Structural factors suggest US-China tensions over Taiwan could explode: China’s reversion to autocracy and hawkish foreign policy, Taiwan’s assertion of autonomy, and the US’s political instability and foreign policy reactiveness. Cyclical factors also suggest that tensions could escalate: China’s instability in the wake of Covid-19, the ramifications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the budding Russo-Chinese alliance, the Biden administration’s domestic political vulnerability, and the Xi administration’s domestic political vulnerability. In particular, Xi cannot back down. A diplomatic crisis or military showdown is likely in the short run but not yet a full-scale war. Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine, the US is not attempting a radical boost to Taiwan’s military, Taiwan is not moving toward formal independence, and the Chinese economy is not yet collapsing beyond all hope. However, over the long run we fear that a Taiwan war is more likely than not. Tactically investors should prefer government bonds to equities, US equities to global, defensive sectors to cyclicals, and safe havens to risky assets. Investors should short Chinese and Taiwanese currencies and assets. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG US SEMICONDUCTOR & SEMI EQUIPMENT / TAIWAN EQUITIES 2022-06-23 14.6% LONG KOREA/ SHORT TAIWAN EQUITIES 2020-03-27 -23.5% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should buy safe-haven assets and await a resolution of the US-China confrontation over Taiwan, which could cause a dramatic escalation in strategic tensions. Feature A fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is likely upon us. Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi will visit Taiwan during her travel around Asia Pacific this week, according to the Wall Street Journal on August 1. Chinese President Xi Jinping warned US President Joe Biden in a phone conversation on July 28 that “those who play with fire will eventually get burned,” referring specifically to US relations with Taiwan. Chinese foreign ministry officials have threatened “forceful” countermeasures if Pelosi visits the island, explicitly saying that the People’s Liberation Army would respond in some way. There is still some uncertainty over whether Pelosi will go. She delayed the trip in April. Rumors emerged over July that she would resume but President Joe Biden suggested on July 20 that US military officials opposed the trip, believed the timing to be inappropriate. Taiwan was not mentioned in Pelosi’s official itinerary published on July 31, which includes Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia. But the Wall Street Journal report has been corroborated by US and Taiwanese officials. Assuming Pelosi goes, China will respond with some military show of force. The US may pretend that one hand (the White House, the Department of Defense) does not know what the other hand is doing (the House of Representatives). But China will not be convinced. There are three major reasons that we have predicted a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis: 1. China’s reversion to autocracy and foreign policy hawkishness: After the Great Recession, China was forced into a painful downshift in potential economic growth, stemming from a contracting labor force, excessive debt, and changes in the international economy (Chart 1). As economic growth has slowed, China has pursued political centralization, economic mercantilism, military modernization, and foreign policy assertiveness, offering nationalism as a distraction from the disappointments of the new middle class. While China may not be ready to launch a full-scale invasion of Taiwan, it is willing to do so if the Communist Party regime’s survival is at stake. Chart 1China's Slowdown Leads To Hawkishness 2. Taiwan’s reassertion of autonomy: Taiwanese people began to sour on mainland China with the Great Recession and increasingly developed an independent identity (Chart 2). China’s growing economic influence, combined with Xi Jinping’s re-centralization of power across Greater China, provoked a backlash in Taiwan beginning in 2013 that culminated in the nominally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party gaining full control of the island in 2016. The US-China trade war, China’s imposition of control over critical buffer spaces (including the South China Sea and Hong Kong), and US export controls on advanced technologies thrust Taiwan into the middle of a strategic confrontation. While Taiwan is not seeking war or formal political independence, it is seeking closer ties with the US and democratic allies to protect against Beijing’s encroachment. 3. US political instability and foreign policy reaction: The Great Recession brought the US’s latent political instability from a simmer to a boil. The Washington establishment withdrew from the war on terrorism only to face discontent at home and strategic competition from China and Russia. China intensified its acquisition of US technology while North Korea obtained a nuclear arsenal under China’s watch. A surge in populism led the US to initiate a trade war against China and to impose restrictions on critical technologies to slow China’s modernization. While the US political factions bickered over domestic policy, they both tapped into a popular consensus on economic nationalism and hawkishness toward China (Chart 3). While the US is struggling to curb Russia and Iran, its greatest long-term challenge stems from China and it is increasingly focused on containing China’s economy and strategic ambitions. Chart 2Taiwanese Souring On China Chart 3US Hawkish Consensus On China In addition, there are important cyclical reasons why investors should take very seriously the risk of a major geopolitical crisis emanating from Taiwan in the short run: The Covid-19 pandemic intensified US (and global) distrust of China and accelerated the divorce of the US and Chinese economies. It also threw the Chinese economy into a downward spin, threatening Xi Jinping’s personal security and the Communist Party’s regime security. Hypo-globalization reduces critical economic constraints on military conflict. The Ukraine war highlighted the willingness of ambitious strongman regimes to go to war to prevent neighboring countries from allying with the United States. Taiwan is critical to Chinese security just as Ukraine is critical to Russian. Taiwan, like Ukraine, lacks a mutual defense treaty with the US and yet is attempting to create a de facto treaty through political, economic, and military cooperation – a scenario that will incentivize Chinese military action if it ever believes the US will take irrevocable steps to increase its commitment to defend Taiwan. At the same time, the US will try to deter China more effectively, since its deterrence failed in the case of Ukraine, which entails upgrading the Taiwanese relationship. Hence China will feel threatened and accuse the US of altering the status quo. Russo-Chinese alliance prevents US-China reengagement. Russia threw itself into China’s arms by cutting off natural gas to Europe. China cannot reject Russia’s overture because it needs Russia’s alliance to break through American strategic containment in the coming years. China needs Russia’s natural resources and its cooperation in gaining economic access to Central Asia and the Middle East. The US cannot pursue strategic détente with China if China is allying with Russia, since a Russo-Chinese alliance poses an unprecedented threat to American global influence and security (Chart 4). The Democratic Party is desperate to mitigate looming election losses. President Biden’s approval rating has fallen to 39%, while headline inflation hits 9% and the economy slips into a technical recession. The Republican Party is lined up for a victory in the midterm elections, yet Democrats view the populist Republicans as an existential threat. Hence Biden and Democratic leaders like Pelosi are willing to take significant risks to salvage the election, including provoking foreign rivals. The administration is contemplating tougher export controls on China’s access to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and Congress is passing bipartisan legislation to make the US more competitive against China. Any major confrontation abroad would generate a patriotic rally among voters, as did the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which saved the Democrats from heavy losses in the midterms that year (Chart 5). China’s domestic politics support a foreign confrontation. As Xi attempts to cement another five-to-ten years in power at the twentieth national party congress this fall, the pandemic restrictions, political repression, property bust, and economic slowdown ensure that he has little good news to celebrate at home. He could benefit from taking an aggressive stance against the imperialist Americans over Taiwan – and he cannot afford to back down or lose face. Ultimately China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in Taiwan so it is willing to take greater risks than the United States. Chart 4US Cannot Engage With Russo-Chinese Behemoth Chart 5Biden Can Take Risks Ahead Of Midterms All of the above demonstrates that investors should not be complacent but should take risk off the table until the Pelosi trip blows over. A major diplomatic or geopolitical crisis will occur if Pelosi indeed visits Taiwan, for China will be required to react to uphold the credibility of its warnings, and Beijing will have a national and political interest in overreacting rather than underreacting. The Americans will then have a national and political interest in preserving their own credibility. This dynamic could lead to a major escalation in strategic tensions. Could a crisis lead to full-scale war? Yes it could but most likely it will not – at least not yet. Here are some important limitations, which investors should monitor closely. If these are reduced or overcome, then a larger conflict becomes more probable: Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine. Taiwan is an island and islands that are politically unified can only be subdued with enormous cost of blood and treasure even by the most powerful armies. Taiwan is critical to the global economy, unlike Ukraine. While it lacks defense treaties, it has stronger strategic partnerships than Ukraine did. The Chinese military has not fought an expeditionary war since Vietnam in 1979. The US sent aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Strait in each of the previous three crises since the 1950s, signaling that it is willing to defend Taiwan, and currently has at least two aircraft carriers in Asia Pacific (Map 1). China needs to be prepared for potential American and Japanese intervention if it is to attack Taiwan, which requires an advanced triad of nuclear arms. Map 1US Aircraft Carriers Suggest Taiwan Risk Is Substantial The US is not sending any game-changing offensive weapon systems. Instead the US is sending a mere politician. China opposes anything resembling state-to-state relations but Taiwan’s defensive capability would not be improved. Hence China would not be forced to take aggressive military action. Instead China is attempting to set a very low bar for intervening in US-Taiwan political relations. Beijing can intervene in a way that enforces the new line but remains beneath the threshold of war. Going forward, US arms sales to Taiwan will be a much riskier affair and the delivery of a weapons system could trigger conflict (Chart 6). Chinese economy is not (yet) beyond help. China still has authoritarian powers to manipulate the domestic economy, suggesting that policy makers will intervene to slow down the property bust and stimulate activity. After Xi Jinping consolidates power, we expect a pro-growth strategy to be unveiled that will lead to a stabilization of growth in 2023. This is necessary for Xi to maintain domestic stability, which is existential to the regime and its long-term security. If stimulus and interventions fail utterly and China collapses into a full-blown financial crisis, then China will lose the ability to improve its security over the long run and the risk of conflict with foreign powers will rise. But as long as China’s economy is not collapsing, China maintains the prospect of building its influence and power over time and conquering Taiwan through absorption rather than extremely risky armed conflict (Chart 7). Chart 6US Arms Sales Could Trigger A Real Conflict Chart 7More Economic Stimulus Is Coming Taiwan is not moving toward formal independence. The Tsai Ing-wen administration is nominally in favor of independence but has chosen rhetorical sleight of hand over any formal change to Taiwan’s status. Taiwanese people support the status quo knowing that they will live in a war zone if they declare independence. The long-term problem stems from the fact that a clear majority opposes unification with the mainland (Chart 8). Taiwan and the US face elections in 2022 and 2024. If the Kuomintang stages a comeback in Taiwanese politics, or the Democrats win reelection in 2024, then China still has the ability to pursue its aims through diplomacy. Whereas if the Democratic Progressive Party remains in full control of Taiwan, and the Republicans regain the White House, Beijing may conclude that little can be gained through diplomacy. Especially if these US and Taiwanese parties proceed to press their interests aggressively. Chart 8Taiwanese Not Declaring Independence Hence the most likely outcome if Pelosi visits Taiwan is a US-China geopolitical crisis of some sort but not a full-scale war. A crisis short of war could establish a new set of red lines over Taiwan that could govern the US-China relationship in the medium term with reduced uncertainty. But it would bring very bad news in the short run and lead to a permanent deterioration in US-China relations and global stability over the long run, which markets must price first. Bottom Line: Tactically investors should prefer government bonds to equities, US equities to global, defensive sectors to cyclicals, and safe havens to risky assets. Stay short Chinese and Taiwanese currencies and assets. While semiconductor stocks stand at risk, investors should favor US semiconductor companies over Chinese and Taiwanese (Chart 9). Chart 9Investors Should Seek Safe Havens Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix
Executive Summary China's Unemployment Over the past week we have been visiting clients along the US west coast. In this report we hit some of the highlights from the most important and frequently asked questions. Xi Jinping is seizing absolute power just as the country’s decades-long property boom turns to bust. He will stimulate the economy but Chinese stimulus is less effective than it used to be. The US and Israel are underscoring their red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, the Middle East will begin to unravel again. The UK’s domestic instability is returning, with Scotland threatening to leave the union. Brexit, the pandemic, and inflation make a Scottish referendum a more serious risk than in the past. Shinzo Abe’s assassination makes him a martyr for a vision of Japan as a “normal country” – i.e. one that is not pacifist but capable of defending itself. Japan’s rearmament, like Germany’s, points to the decline of the WWII peace settlement and the return of great power competition. Bottom Line: Investors need a new global balance to be achieved through US diplomacy with Russia, China, and Iran. That is not forthcoming, as the chief nations face instability at home and a stagflationary global economy. Feature The world is becoming less stable as stagflation combines with great power competition. Global uncertainty is through the roof. From a macroeconomic perspective, investors need to know whether central banks can whip inflation without triggering a recession. From a geopolitical perspective, investors need to know whether Russia’s conflict with the West will expand, whether US-China and US-Iran tensions will escalate in a damaging way, and whether domestic political rotations in the US and China this fall will lead to more stable and productive economies. China: What Will Happen At The Communist Party Reshuffle? General Secretary Xi Jinping will cement another five-to-10 years in power while promoting members of his faction into key positions on the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee. By December Xi will roll out a pro-growth strategy for 2023 and the government will signal that it will start relaxing Covid-19 restrictions. But China’s structural problems ensure that this good news for global growth will only have a fleeting effect. China’s governance is shifting from single-party rule to single-person rule. It is also shifting from commercially focused decentralization to national security focused centralization. Xi has concentrated power in himself, in the party, and in Beijing at the expense of political opponents, the private economy, and outlying regions like Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Xinjiang. The subordination of Taiwan is the next major project, ensuring that China will ally with Russia and that the US and China cannot repair or deepen their economic partnership. Related Report Geopolitical StrategyWill China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Xi and the Communist Party began centralizing political power and economic control shortly after the Great Recession. At that time it became clear that a painful transition away from export manufacturing and close relations with the United States was necessary. The transition would jeopardize China’s long-term economic, social, political, and geopolitical stability. The Communist Party believed it needed to revive strongman leadership (autocracy) rather than pursuing greater liberalization that would ultimately increase the odds of political revolution (democratization). The Xi administration has struggled to manage the country’s vast debt bubble, given that total debt standing has surged to 287% of GDP. The global pandemic forced the government to launch another large stimulus package, which it then attempted to contain. Corporate and household deleveraging ensued. The property and infrastructure boom of the past three decades has stalled, as the regime has imposed liquidity and capital requirements on banks and property developers to try to avoid a financial crisis. Regulatory tightening occurred in other sectors to try to steer investment into government-approved sectors and reduce the odds of technological advancement fanning social dissent. China’s draconian “zero Covid” policy sought to limit the disease’s toll, improve China’s economic self-reliance, and eliminate the threat of social protest during the year of the twentieth party congress. But it also slammed the brakes on growth. China is highly vulnerable to social instability for both structural and cyclical reasons. Chinese social unrest was our number one “Black Swan” for this year and it is now starting to take shape in the form of angry mortgage owners across the country refusing to make mortgage payments on houses that were pre-purchased but not yet built and delivered (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Mortgage Payment Boycott The mortgage payment boycott is important because it is stemming from the outstanding economic and financial imbalance – the property sector – and because it is a form of cross-regional social organization, which the Communist Party will disapprove. There are other social protests emerging, including low-level bank runs, which must be monitored very closely. Local authorities will act quickly to stop the spread of the mortgage boycott. But unhappy homeowners will be a persistent problem due to the decline of the property sector and industry. China’s property sector looks uncomfortably like the American property sector ahead of the 2006-08 bust. Prices for existing homes are falling while new house prices are on the verge of falling (Chart 2). While mortgages only make up 15% of bank assets, and household debt is only 62% of GDP, households are no longer taking on new debt (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Falling Property Prices Chart 3China's Property Crisis Chart 4China's Unemployment Most likely China’s property sector is entering the bust phase that we have long expected – if not, then the reason will be a rapid and aggressive move by authorities to expand monetary and fiscal stimulus and loosen economic restrictions. That process of broad-based easing – “letting 100 flowers bloom” – will not fully get under way until after the party congress, say in December. Unemployment is rising across China as the economy slows, another point of comparison with the United States ahead of the 2008 property collapse (Chart 4). Unemployment is a manipulated statistic so real conditions are likely worse. There is no more important indicator. China’s government will be forced to ease policy, creating a positive impact on global growth in 2023, but the impact will be fleeting. Bottom Line: The underlying debt-deflationary context will prevail before long in China, weighing on global growth and inflation expectations on a cyclical basis. Middle East: Why Did Biden Go And What Will He Get? President Biden traveled to Israel and now Saudi Arabia because he wants Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab members of OPEC to increase oil production to reduce gasoline prices at the pump for Americans ahead of the midterm elections (Chart 5). Chart 5Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia True, fears of recession are already weighing on prices, but Biden embarked on this mission before the growth slowdown was fully appreciated and he is not going to lightly abandon the anti-inflation fight before the midterm election. Biden also went because one of his top foreign policy priorities – the renegotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran – is falling apart. The Iranians do not want to freeze their nuclear program because they want regime survival and security. While Biden is offering a return to the 2015 deal, the conditions that produced the deal are no longer applicable: Russia and China are not cooperating with the US and EU to isolate Iran. Russia is courting Iran, oil prices are high and sanction enforcement is weak (unlike 2015). The Iranians now know, after the Trump administration, that they cannot trust the Americans to give credible security guarantees that will last across parties and administrations. The war in Ukraine also underscores the weakness of diplomatic security guarantees as opposed to a nuclear deterrent. Hence the joint US and Israeli declaration that Iran will never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The good news is that this kind of joint statement is precisely what needed to occur – the underscoring of the red line – to try to change Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s calculus regarding his drive to achieve nuclear breakout. In 2015 Khamenei gave diplomacy a chance to try to improve the economy, stave off social unrest, prepare the way for his eventual leadership succession process, and secure the Islamic Republic. The bad news is that Khamenei probably cannot make the same decision this time, as the hawkish faction now runs his government, the Americans are unreliable, and Russia and China are offering an alternative strategic orientation. The Saudis will pump more oil if necessary to save the global business cycle but not at the beck and call of a US president. The drop in oil prices reduces their urgency. The Americans can reassure the Saudis and Israel as long as the deal with Iran is not going forward. That looks to be the case. But then the US and Israel will have to undertake joint actions to underline their threat to Iran – and Iran will have to threaten to stage attacks across the region so as to deter any attack. Bottom Line: If a US-Iran deal does not materialize at the last minute, Middle Eastern instability will revive and a new source of oil supply constraint will plague the global economy. We continue to believe a US-Iran deal is unlikely, with only 40% odds of happening. Europe: Will Russia Turn Back On The Natural Gas? Russia’s objective in cutting off European natural gas is to inflict a recession on Europe. It wants a better bargaining position on strategic matters. Therefore we assume Russia will continue to squeeze supplies from now through the winter, when European demand rises and Russian leverage will peak. If Russia allows some flow to return, then it will be part of the negotiating process and will not preclude another cutoff before winter. It is possible that Russia is merely giving Europe a warning and will revert back to supplying natural gas. The problem is that Russia’s purpose is to achieve a strategic victory in Ukraine and in negotiations over NATO’s role in the Nordic countries. Russia has not achieved these goals, so natural gas cutoff will likely continue. Russia also hopes that by utilizing its energy leverage – while it still has it – it will bring forward the economic pain of Europe’s transition away from reliance on Russian energy. In that case European countries will experience recession and households will begin to change their view of the situation. European governments will be more likely to change their policies, to become more pragmatic and less confrontational toward Russia. Or European governments will be voted out of power and do the same thing. Other states could join Hungary in saying that Europe should never impose a full natural gas embargo on Russia. Russia would be able to salvage some of its energy trade with Europe over the long run, despite the war in Ukraine and the inevitable European energy diversification. In recent months we highlighted Italy as the weakest link in the European chain and the country most likely to see such a shift in policy occur. Italy’s national unity coalition had lost its reason for being, while the combination of rising bond yields and natural gas prices weighed on the economy. The Italian bond spread over German bunds has long served as our indicator of European political stress – and it is spiking now, forcing the European Central Bank to rush to plan an anti-fragmentation strategy that would theoretically enable it to tighten monetary policy while preventing an Italian debt crisis (Chart 6). The European Union remains unlikely to break up – Russian aggression was always one of our chief arguments for why the EU would stick together. But Italy will undergo a recession and an election (due by June 2023 but that could easily happen this fall), likely producing a new government that is more pragmatic with regard to Russia so as to reduce the energy strain. Chart 6Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy’s political turmoil shows that European states are feeling the energy crisis and will begin to shift policies to reduce the burden on households. Households will lose their appetite for conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukrainians, especially if Russia begins offering a ceasefire after completing its conquest of the Donetsk area. If Russia expands its invasion, then Europe will expand sanctions and the risk of further strategic instability will go up. But most likely Russia will seek to quit while it is ahead and twist Europe’s arm into foisting a ceasefire onto Ukraine. Bottom Line: A change of government in Italy will increase the odds that the EU will engage in diplomacy with Russia in the coming year, if Russia offers, so as to reach a new understanding, restore natural gas flows, and salvage the economy. This would leave NATO enlargement unresolved but a shift in favor of a ceasefire in Ukraine in 2023 would be less negative for European assets and the euro. UK: Who Will Replace Boris Johnson? Last week UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson fell from power and now the Conservative Party is engaging in a leadership competition to replace him. We gave up on Johnson after he survived his no-confidence vote and yet it became clear that he could not recover in popular opinion. The inflation outburst destroyed his premiership and wiped away whatever support he had gained from executing Brexit. In fact it reinforced the faction that believed Brexit was the wrong decision. Going forward the UK will be consumed with domestic political turmoil as the cost of stagflation mounts, and geopolitical turmoil as Scotland attempts to hold a second independence referendum, possibly by October 2023. Global investors should focus primarily on Scotland’s attempt to secede, since the breakup of the United Kingdom would be a momentous historical event and a huge negative shock for pound sterling. While only 44.7% of Scots voted for independence in 2014, now they have witnessed Brexit, Covid-19, and stagflation, producing tailwinds for the Scots nationalist vote (Chart 7). Chart 7Forget Bojo's Exit, Watch Scotland There are still major limitations on Scotland exiting, since its national capabilities are limited, it would need to join the European Union, and Spain and possibly others will threaten to veto its membership in the European Union for fear of feeding their own secessionist movements. But any new referendum – including one done without the approval of Westminster – should be taken very seriously by investors. Bottom Line: Johnson’s removal will only marginally improve the Tories’ ability to manage the rebellion brewing in the north. A snap election that brings the Labour Party back into power would have a greater chance of keeping Scotland in the union, although it is not clear that such a snap election will happen in time to affect any Scottish decision. The UK faces economic and political turmoil between now and any referendum and investors should steer clear of the pound. (Though we still favor GBP over eastern European currencies). Britain will remain aggressive toward Russia but its ability to affect the Russian dynamic will fall, leaving the US and EU to decide the fate of Russian relations. Japan: What Is The Significance Of Shinzo Abe’s Assassination? Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a lone fanatic with a handmade gun. The significance of the incident is that Abe will become a martyr for a certain vision of Japan – his vision of Japan, which is that Japan can become a “normal country” that moves beyond the shackles of the guilt of its imperial aggression in World War II. A normal country is one that is economically stable and militarily capable of defending itself – not a pacifist country mired in debt-deflation. Abe stood for domestic reflation and a proactive foreign policy, along with the normalization of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). True, economic policy can become less dovish if necessary to deal with inflation. Some changes at the Bank of Japan may usher in a less dovish shift in monetary policy in particular. But monetary policy cannot become outright hawkish like it was before Abe. And Abe’s fiscal policy was never as loose as it was made out to be, given that he executed several hikes to the consumption tax. Japan’s structural demographic decline and large debt burden will continue to weigh on economic activity whenever real rates and the yen rise. The government will be forced to reflate using monetary and fiscal policy whenever deflation threatens to return. Debt monetization will remain an option for future Japanese governments, even if it is restrained during times of high inflation. Chart 8Shinzo Abe's Legacy This is not only because Japanese households will become depressed if deflation is left unchecked but also because economic growth must be maintained in order to sustain the nation’s new and growing national defense budgets. Japan’s growing need for self defense stems from China’s strategic rise, Russia’s aggression, and North Korea’s nuclearization, plus uncertainty about the future of American foreign policy. These trends will not change anytime soon. Indeed the Liberal Democratic Party’s popularity has increased under Abe’s successor, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who will largely sustain Abe’s vision. The Diet still has a supermajority in favor of constitutional revision so as to enshrine the self-defense forces (Chart 8). And the de facto policy of rearmament continues even without formal revision. Bottom Line: Any Japanese leader who attempts to promote a hawkish BoJ, and a dovish JSDF, will fail sooner rather than later. The revolving door of prime ministers will accelerate. As Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe opened up the reliable pathway, which is that of a dovish BoJ and a hawkish foreign policy. This is important for the world, as well as Japan, because a more hawkish Japan will increase China’s fears of strategic containment. The frozen conflicts in Asia will continue to thaw, perpetuating the secular rise in geopolitical risk. We remain long JPY-KRW, since the BoJ may adjust in the short term and Chinese stimulus is still compromised, but that trade is on downgrade watch. Investment Takeaways Russia’s energy cutoff is aimed at pushing Europe into recession so as to force policy changes or government changes in Europe that will improve Russia’s position at the negotiating table over Ukraine, NATO, and other strategic disputes. Hence Russia is unlikely to increase the natural gas flow until it believes it has achieved its strategic aims and multiple veto players in the EU will prevent the EU from ever implementing a full-blown natural gas embargo. Chinese stimulus cannot be fully effective until it relaxes Covid-19 restrictions, likely beginning in December or next year when Xi Jinping uses his renewed political capital to try to stabilize the economy. However, China’s government powers alone are insufficient to prevent the debt-deflationary tendency of the property bust. The Middle East faces rising geopolitical tensions that will take markets by surprise with additional energy supply constraints. The implication is continued oil volatility given that global growth is faltering. Once global demand stabilizes, the Middle East’s turmoil will add to existing oil supply constraints to create new price pressures. The odds are not very high of the Federal Reserve achieving a “soft landing” in the context of a global energy shock and a stagflationary Europe and China. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar