Elections

Highlights 2019 was a good year for our constraint-based method of political analysis. Trump was impeached, the trade war escalated, and China (modestly) stimulated – all as predicted. Nevertheless Trump caught us by surprise in Q2, with sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China. Our best trades were long defense stocks, gold, and Swiss bonds. Our worst trade was long rare earth miners. Feature Jean Buridan’s donkey starved to death because, faced with equal bundles of grain on both sides, it could not decide which to eat. So the legend goes. Investors face indecision all the time. This is especially the case when a geopolitical sea change is disrupting the global economy. Two or more political outcomes may seem equally plausible, heightening uncertainty. What is needed is a method for eliminating the options that require the farthest stretch. That’s what we offer in these pages, but we obviously make mistakes. The purpose of our annual report card is to identify our biggest hits and misses so we can hone our ability to combine fundamental macro and market analysis with the “art of the possible,” delivering better research and greater returns for clients. This is our last report for 2019. Next week we will publish a joint report with Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy. We will resume publication in early January. We wish all our clients a merry Christmas, happy holidays, and a happy new year! American Politics: Unsurprising Surprises Chart 1Our 2019 Forecast Held Up On the whole our 2019 forecast held up very well. We argued that the global growth divergence that began in 2018 would extend into 2019 with the Fed hiking rates, a lack of massive stimulus from China, and an escalation in the US-China trade war. The biggest miss was that the Fed actually cut rates three times – addressed at length in our BCA Research annual outlook. But the bulk of the geopolitical story panned out: the US dollar, US equities, and developed market equities all outperformed as we expected (Chart 1). Geopolitical risk in the Trump era is centered on Trump himself. Beginning in 2017, we argued that the Democrats would take the House of Representatives in the midterm elections and impeach the president. Congress would not be totally gridlocked: while we argued for a government shutdown in late 2018, we expected a large bipartisan budget agreement in late 2019 and always favored the passage of the USMCA trade deal. Still, Congress would encourage Trump to go abroad in pursuit of policy victories, increasing geopolitical risks. We also argued that, barring “smoking gun” evidence of high crimes, the Republican-held Senate would acquit Trump – assuming his popularity held up among Republican voters themselves (Chart 2). These views either transpired or remain on track. The implication is that Trump-related risk continues and yet that Trump’s policies are ultimately constrained by the guardrails of the election. The latter factor helped propel the equity rally in the second half of the year. We largely sat out that rally, however. We overestimated the chances that Senator Bernie Sanders would falter and Senator Elizabeth Warren would swallow his votes, challenging former Vice President Joe Biden for the leading position in the early Democratic Party primary. We expected a significant bout of equity volatility via fears of a sharp progressive-populist turn in US policy (Chart 3). Instead, Sanders staged a recovery, Warren fell back, Biden maintained his lead, and markets rallied on other news. Chart 2Trump Will Be Acquitted Chart 3Fears Of A Progressive Turn Did Not Derail The H2 Rally Warren could still recover and win the nomination next year. But the Democratic Primary was not a reason to remain neutral toward equities, as we did in September and October. China’s Tepid Stimulus In recent years China first over-tightened and then under-stimulated the economy – as we predicted. But we misread the credit surge in the first quarter as a sign that policymakers had given up on containing leverage. In total this year’s credit surge amounts to 3.4% of GDP, about 1.2% short of what we expected (based on half of the 9.2% surge in 2015-16) (Chart 4). China’s credit surge was about 1.2% short of what we expected, but the direction was correct. While the government maintained easy monetary policy as expected, its actions combined with negative sentiment to snuff out the resurgence in shadow banking by mid-year (Chart 5). Chart 4China's Credit Surge Was Underwhelming Still, China’s policy direction is clear – and fiscal policy is indeed carrying a greater load. The authorities are extremely unlikely to reverse course next year, so global activity should turn upward (Chart 6). Our “China Play Index” – iron ore prices, Swedish industrials, Brazilian stocks, and EM junk bonds, all in USD terms – has appreciated steadily (Chart 7). Chart 5China's Shadow Banking Remained Under Pressure   Chart 6Global Activity Should Turn Upward In 2020 Chart 7Our 'China Play Index' Performed Well US-China: Underestimating Trump’s Risk Appetite We have held a pessimistic assessment of US-China relations since 2012. We rejected the trade truces agreed at the G20 summits in December 2018 and June 2019 as unsustainable. Our subjective probabilities of Trump achieving a bilateral trade agreement with China have never risen above 50%. Since September we have expected a ceasefire but not a full-fledged deal. Nevertheless we struggled with the timing of the trade war ups and downs (Chart 8). In particular we accepted China's new investment law as a sufficient concession and were surprised on May 5 when talks collapsed and Trump increased the tariffs. The lack of constraints on tariffs prevailed in 2019 but in 2020 the electoral constraint will prevail as long as Trump still has a chance of winning. Our worst trade recommendation of the year emerged from our correct view that the June G20 summit would lead to trade war escalation. We went long rare earth miners based outside of China. We expected China to follow through on threats to impose a rare earth embargo on the US in retaliation for sanctions against Chinese telecom giant Huawei. Not only did the US grant Huawei a reprieve, but China’s rare earth companies outperformed their overseas rivals. The trade went deeply into the red as global sentiment and growth fell (Chart 9). Only with global growth turning a corner have these high-beta stocks begun to turn around. Chart 8Expect A Ceasefire, Not A Full-Fledged Trade Agreement Chart 9Our Worst Call: Long Rare Earth Miners Chart 10North Korean Diplomacy Has Not Collapsed (Yet) Our sanguine view on North Korea was largely offside this year. Setbacks in US negotiations with North Korea have often preceded setbacks in US-China talks. This was the case with the failed Hanoi summit in February and the inconsequential summit at the demilitarized zone in June. This could also be the case in 2020, as Washington and Pyongyang are now on the verge of breaking off talks with the latter threatening a “Christmas surprise” such as a nuclear or missile test. It is not too late to return to talks. Beijing is the critical player and is still enforcing crippling sanctions on North Korea (Chart 10). Beijing would benefit if North Korea submitted to nuclear and missile controls while the US reduced its military presence on the peninsula. We view this year as a hiccup in North Korean diplomacy but if talks utterly collapse and military tensions break out then it would undermine our view on US-China talks, Trump’s reelection odds, and US Treasuries in 2020. Hong Kong, rather than Taiwan, became the site of the geopolitical “Black Swan” that we expected surrounding Xi Jinping’s aggressive approach to domestic dissent. We have never downplayed Hong Kong. The loss of faith in the governing arrangement with the mainland began with the Great Recession and shows no sign of abating (Chart 11). We shorted the Hang Seng after the protests began, but closed at the appropriate time (Chart 12). The problem is not resolved. Also, Taiwan can test its autonomy much farther than Hong Kong and we still expect Taiwan to become ground zero of Greater China political risk and the US-China conflict. Chart 11Hong Kong Discontent Is Structural Chart 12Our Hang Seng Short Is Done Chart 13Trump Needs A Trade Ceasefire Trump is unlikely to seek another trade war escalation given the negative impact it would have on sentiment and the economy (Chart 13). He could engage in another round of “fire and fury” saber-rattling against North Korea, as the economic impact is small, but he will prefer a diplomatic track. Taiwan, however, cannot be contained so easily if tempers flare. As we go to press it is not clear if Trump will hike the tariff on China on December 15. Some investors would point to his tendency to take aggressive action when the market gives him ammunition (Chart 14). We doubt he will, as this would be a policy mistake – possibly quickly reversed or possibly fatal for Trump. Trump’s electoral constraint is more powerful in 2020 than it was in 2019. Chart 14Trump Ceasefire Will Last As Long As Economy Is At Risk Chart 15Our 'Doomsday Basket' Captured Trump's First Three Years Our best tactical trade of the year stemmed from the geopolitical risk in Asia (and the Fed’s pause): we recommended a long gold position this summer that gained 16%. We also closed out our “Doomsday Basket” of gold and Swiss bonds, initiated in Trump’s first year, for a gain of 14% (Chart 15). Now that the market has digested Trump’s tactical retreat, we have reinitiated the gold trade as a long-term strategic hedge against both short-term geopolitical crises and the long-term theme of populism. Iran: Fool Me Once, Shame On You … This is the second year in a row that we are forced to explain our analysis of Iran – we were only half-right. Our long-held view is that grand strategy will push the US to pivot to Asia to counter China while scaling back its military activity in the Middle East. Two American administrations have confirmed this trend. That said, there is still a risk that President Trump will get entangled in Iran and that risk is growing. Global oil volatility – which spiked during the market share wars of 2014 – declined through the beginning of 2018, until the Trump administration took clearer steps toward a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. The constraints on Trump are obvious: the US economy is still affected by oil prices, which are set globally, and Iran can damage supply and push up prices. Therefore Trump should back down prior to the 2020 election. Yet Trump imposed sanctions, waivered on them, and then re-imposed them in May 2019 – catching us by surprise each time (Chart 16). Chart 16Trump Flip-Flopped On Iran Policy Chart 17Iran Tensions Backwardated Oil Markets This saga is not resolved – we are witnessing what could become a secular bull market in Iran tensions. True, a Democratic victory in 2020 could lead to an eventual restoration of the 2015 nuclear deal. True, the Trump administration could strike a deal with the Iranians (especially after reelection). But no, it cannot be assumed that the US will restore the historic 2015 détente with Iran. Within Iran the regime hardliners are likely to regain control in advance of the extremely uncertain succession from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and this will militate against reform and opening up. We went long Brent crude Q1 2020 futures relative to Q1 2021 to show that tensions were not resolved (Chart 17) – the attack on Saudi Arabia in September confirmed this view. And yet the oil price shock was fleeting as global supply was adequate and demand was weak. Our current long Brent spot trade is not only about Iran. Global growth is holding up and likely to rebound thanks to monetary stimulus and trade ceasefire, OPEC 2.0 has strong incentives to maintain production discipline (driven by both Saudi Arabian and Russian interests), and the Iranian conflict has led to instability in Iraq, as we expected. The UK: Not Dead In A Ditch British Prime Minister Boris Johnson proclaimed this year that he would "rather be dead in a ditch” than extend the deadline for the UK to leave the EU. The relevant constraint was that a disorderly “no deal” exit would have meant a recession, which we used as our visual illustration of why Johnson would not actually die in a ditch (Chart 18). The test was whether parliament could overcome its coordination problems when it reconvened in September, which it immediately did, prompting us to go long GBP-USD on September 6 (Chart 19). This trade was successful and we remain long GBP-JPY. Chart 18The Reason We Rejected Chart 19UK Parliament Voted Down No-Deal Brexit Populism faltered in Europe, as expected. As we go to press, the UK Christmas election is reported to have produced a whopping Conservative majority. This year Johnson mounted the most credible threat of a no-deal Brexit that we are ever likely to see and yet ultimately delayed Brexit. The Conservative victory will produce an orderly Brexit. The trade deal that needs to be negotiated next year will bring volatility but it does not have a firm deadline and is not harder to negotiate than Brexit itself. The UK has passed through the murkiest parts of Brexit uncertainty. Moreover, our high-conviction view that more dovish fiscal policy would be the end-result of the Brexit saga is now becoming consensus. Europe: Not The Crisis You Were Looking For The European Union was a geopolitical “red herring” in 2019 as we expected. Anti-establishment feeling remained contained. Italy remains the weakest link in the Euro Area, but the political “turmoil” of 2018-19 is the populist exception that mostly proves the rule: Europeans are not as a whole rebelling against the EU or the euro. On France, Italy, and Spain our views were fundamentally correct. Even in the European parliament, where anti-establishment players have a better chance of taking seats than in their home governments, the true Euroskeptics who want to exit the union only make up about 16% of the seats (Chart 20). This is up from 11% prior to the elections in May this year. Chart 20Euroskepticism Was Overstated Yet the European political establishment is losing precious time to prepare for the next wave of serious agitation, likely when a full-fledged recession comes. Chart 21Trump Did Not Pile Tariffs Onto Auto Sector Germany is experiencing a slow transition from the long reign of Angela Merkel, whose successor has plummeted in opinion polls. The shock of the global slowdown – particularly heavy in the auto sector (Chart 21) – hastened Germany’s succession crisis. Chart 22Overstated EU Political Risk, Understated Chinese Risk There is a silver lining: this shock is forcing the Germans to reckon with de-globalization. Attitudes across the country are shifting on the critical question of fiscal policy. Even the conservative Christian Democrats are loosening their belts in the face of the success of the Green Party and a simultaneous change in leadership among the Social Democrats to embrace bigger spending. The Trump administration refrained from piling car tariffs onto Europe amidst this slowdown in the automobile sector and overall economy. We expected this delay, as there is little support in the US for a trade war with Europe, contra China, and it is bad strategy to fight a two-front war. But if the US economy recovers robustly and Trump is emboldened by a China deal then this risk could reignite in future. With European political risk overstated, and Chinese mainland risk understated, we initiated a long European equities relative to Chinese equities trade (Chart 22), as recommended by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy. And now we are initiating the strategic long EUR/USD recommendation that we flagged in September with a stop at 1.18. Japan: Shinzo Abe Has Peaked Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is still in power and still very popular, whether judged by the average prime minister in modern memory or his popular predecessor Junichiro Koizumi. But he is at his peak and 2019 did indeed mark the turning point – it is all downhill from here. First, he lost his historic double super-majority in the Diet by falling to a mere majority in the upper house (Chart 23). He is still capable of revising the constitution, but now it is now harder – and the high water mark of his legislative power has been registered. Chart 23Abe Lost His Double Super Majority Chart 24Consumption Tax Hike Shows Limits Of Abenomics Second, he proceeded with a consumption tax from 8% to 10% that predictably sent the economy into a tailspin given the global slowdown (Chart 24). We thought the tax hike would be delayed, but Abe opted to hike the tax and then pass a stimulus package to compensate. This decision further supports the view that Abe’s power will decline going forward. It is now incontrovertible that the Liberal Democrats are eschewing a radical plan of debt monetization in which they coordinate ultra-dovish fiscal policy with ultra-dovish monetary policy. “Abenomics” has not necessarily failed but it is a fully known quantity. Abe will next preside over the 2020 summer Olympics and prepare to step down as Liberal Democratic party leader in September 2021. It is conceivable he will stay longer, but the likeliest successors have been put into cabinet positions, including Shinjiro Koizumi, son of the aforementioned, whom we would not rule out as a future prime minister. Constitutional revision or a Russian peace deal could mark the high point of his premiership, but the peak macro consequences have been felt. Japan suffered a literal and figurative earthquake in 2011. Over the long run Tokyo will resort to more unorthodox economic policies and redouble its efforts at reflation. But not until the external environment demands it. This suggests that the JPY-USD is a good hedge against risks to the cyclically bullish House View in 2020 and supports an overweight stance on Japanese government bonds. Emerging Markets: Notable Mentions India: We were correct that Narendra Modi would be reelected as prime minister, but we did not expect that he would win a single-party majority for a second time (Chart 25). The risk is that this result leads to hubris – particularly in foreign policy and domestic social policy – rather than accelerating structural reform. But for now we remain optimistic about reform. Chart 25 East Asia: We are optimistic on Southeast Asia in the context of US-China competition. But we proved overly optimistic on Malaysia and Indonesia this year, while we missed a chance to close our long Thai equity trade when it would have been very profitable to do so. Turkey: Domestic political challenges to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have led to a doubling down on unorthodox monetary policy and profligate fiscal policy, as expected. Early in the year we advised clients that Erdoğan would delay deployment of the Russian S-400 air defense system in deference to the US but it quickly became clear that this was not the case. Thus we correctly anticipated the sharp drop in the lira over the autumn (Chart 26). The US-Turkey relationship continues to fray and additional American sanctions are likely. Russia: President Vladimir Putin focused on maintaining domestic stability amid tight fiscal and monetary policy in 2019. This solidified our positive relative view of Russian currency and equities (Chart 27). But it also highlighted longer-term political risks. We expect this trend to continue, but by the same token Russia is a potential “Black Swan” risk in 2020. Chart 26The Lira's Autumn Relapse Chart 27Russia's Eerie Quiet In 2019 Venezuela: Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro eked out another year of regime survival in 2019 despite our high-conviction view since 2017 that he would be finished. However, the economy is still collapsing and Russian and Chinese assistance is still limited (Chart 28). Before long the military will need to renovate the regime, even if our global growth and oil outlook for next year is positive for the regime on the margin. Chart 28Maduro Clung To Power Chart 29Our 2019 Winner: Global Defense Stocks Brazil: We were late to the Brazilian equity rally. While we have given the Jair Bolsonaro administration the benefit of the doubt, a halt to structural reforms in 2020 would prove us wrong. Our worst trade of the year was long rare earth miners, mentioned above. Our best trade was long global defense stocks (Chart 29), a structural theme stemming from the struggle of multiple powerful nations in the twenty-first century. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Jingnan Liu Research Associate jingnan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com

The 2019 UK General Election result offers four possible medium-term outcomes for UK exposed investments: Conservatives win 340 seats or more: This comfortable majority for the Conservatives is medium-term positive for UK exposed investments, as prime minister Johnson would not be dependent on the 20 or so hard Brexit extremists to pass any free trade deal (FTA) through parliament. Albeit the markets are already pricing the Conservatives to win 337-343 seats. Conservatives win 320-340 seats: This marginal majority for the Conservatives is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, because the hard Brexit extremists would have disproportionate influence and leverage, keeping open the possibility of a hard Brexit on WTO terms after the standstill transition period ends on December 31 2020.         Conservatives win 310-320 seats: This ‘marginally hung’ parliament is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, as it is essentially no change from the current gridlocked parliament. Conservatives win less than 310 seats: This ‘comfortably hung’ parliament is medium-term positive for UK exposed investments, as it creates the possibility of the softest (or no) Brexit under a Labour-led minority government. At the same time, a minority government would be unable to pass its most contentious and supposedly ‘market unfriendly’ policies. If the result is 2. the marginal majority, and the market does not appreciate the risk, then it presents a sell opportunity. Conversely, if the result is 4. the comfortably hung parliament, and the market does not appreciate the upside, then it presents a buy opportunity. Fourth Time Lucky For The UK Pollsters? The 2019 UK General Election is the fourth major UK vote since 2015 in which the UK/EU relationship has featured front and centre. The first was the 2015 General Election, in which then prime minister David Cameron promised a referendum on EU membership, subject to the Conservative party winning an outright parliamentary majority, which it duly did. The second was the subsequent 2016 in/out EU referendum in which the UK voted to leave the EU. The third was the 2017 General Election called by prime minister May to bolster her Brexit negotiating position. But May’s plan backfired. She managed to lose the Conservative majority, her party’s Brexit negotiating position, and ultimately her job. So here we are at the fourth major UK vote in little over four years. Significantly, the pollsters got the 2015, 2016, and 2017 UK votes very wrong. In 2015, they predicted a hung parliament; but the actual outcome was a comfortable majority for the Conservatives, forcing Cameron to deliver his promise of an EU referendum. In the ensuing 2016 referendum, the pollsters predicted a narrow win for remain; the actual outcome was a narrow win for leave. Then in 2017, the pollsters predicted a very healthy vote share win for the Conservatives – and the spread betting markets priced the party to win 364-370 seats in the 650 seat UK parliament; but the actual outcome was 317 seats and a hung parliament – because the pollsters had underestimated the Labour vote by five percentage points. Today, just as in 2017, the pollsters are predicting a healthy vote share win and comfortable parliamentary majority for the Conservatives. At the time of writing (election eve) the spread betting markets are pricing the Conservative party to win 337-343 seats. When the election day exit poll comes out at 10pm UK time, we will get a good idea whether it is fourth time lucky for the pollsters. But irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, the immediate market reaction might still offer some medium-term investment opportunities. The Key Numbers… And Where The Immediate Market Reaction Could Be Wrong The Conservatives need a working majority – because having burnt their bridges with the DUP (Northern Ireland unionists), no other party is likely to support prime minister Johnson’s EU withdrawal agreement. Given that the speaker, deputy speakers, and Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland republicans) do not vote in the UK parliament, and depending on the number of seats that Sinn Fein win, the threshold for a working majority will be around 320 seats. This creates four potential outcomes for the markets: Conservatives win 340 seats or more: This comfortable majority for the Conservatives is medium-term positive for UK exposed investments, as Johnson would not be dependent on the 20 or so hard Brexit extremists to pass any free trade deal (FTA) through parliament. But as noted above, the markets are already pricing the Conservatives to win 337-343 seats. Conservatives win 320-340 seats: This marginal majority for the Conservatives is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, because the hard Brexit extremists would have disproportionate influence and leverage, keeping open the possibility of a hard Brexit on WTO terms after the standstill transition period ends on December 31 2020. Conservatives win 310-320 seats: This ‘marginally hung’ parliament is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, as it is essentially no change from the current gridlocked parliament. Conservatives win less than 310 seats: This ‘comfortably hung’ parliament is medium-term benign for UK exposed investments, as it creates the possibility of the softest (or no) Brexit under a Labour-led minority government. At the same time, a minority government would be unable to pass its most contentious and supposedly ‘market unfriendly’ policies. Of these four possibilities, if the immediate market reactions to 2. the marginal majority, or 4. the comfortably hung parliament do not appreciate the risk and upside respectively, then they will create sell and buy opportunities for UK exposed investments. What Are The UK Exposed Investments? The most obvious UK exposed investment is the pound, which is still trading at a near 10 percent discount versus the euro and the dollar, based on the pre-referendum relationship with real interest rate differentials (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). However, the extent to which that discount can narrow depends on how much worse off (if at all) the UK economy finds itself in its new trading relationships with the EU and the rest of the world compared with full membership of the EU. Chart I-1The Pound Is Cheap Versus The Euro Chart I-2The Pound Is Cheap Versus The Dollar In this regard, the best outcomes are a rapidly negotiated and maximally-aligned FTA with the EU, or the softest (or no) Brexit. Meaning that the aforementioned possibilities 1. or 4. – a comfortable Conservative win or a comfortably hung parliament – are the best outcomes for the UK economy, and therefore for the pound. To the extent that the Bank of England policymakers recognise this, the same conclusion applies to the direction of UK gilt yields, and therefore inversely to UK gilt prices. Turning to the stock market, the FTSE100 is categorically not a UK exposed investment – because it comprises multinationals with minimal exposure to the UK economy. If anything, the FTSE100 is an anti-UK exposed investment. This is because sales and profits are denominated in international currencies, and if these non-pound currencies weaken versus the pound (meaning the pound strengthens) it weighs down the pound-denominated FTSE100 versus other markets (Chart I-3). In fact, the ‘real’ UK stock market is the more UK focussed FTSE250 (Chart I-4), or the FTSE Small Cap index (Chart I-5). Chart I-3When The Pound Strengthens, The FTSE 100 Underperforms Chart I-4The 'Real' UK Stock Market Is The FTSE 250, Not The FTSE 100 Chart I-5Small Caps Are Exposed To The UK Economy In terms of equity sectors, the least exposed to the UK economy are the multinationals with international currency earnings. As well as the obvious oil and gas, resources, and healthcare sectors, it includes the global banks and clothing and apparel (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Clothing Is Not Exposed To The UK Economy The sectors most exposed to the UK economy are the homebuilders (Chart 7), real estate (Chart 8), and general retailers (Chart 9). All of these, plus the FTSE250 and FTSE Small Cap, and of course the pound, can outperform in the medium term in the aforementioned possibilities 1. and 4. – a comfortable win for the Conservatives or a comfortably hung parliament. But they will face pressure in possibilities 2. and 3. – a marginal win for the Conservatives or a marginally hung parliament. Chart I-7Homebuilders Are Exposed To The UK Economy Chart I-8Real Estate Is Exposed To The UK Economy Chart I-9General Retailers Are Exposed To The UK Economy Fractal Trading System* This week's recommended trade is long nickel / short gold, the reverse of the successful trade we recommended on October 3. Back then the nickel price had become technically extended due to scares about an Indonesian export ban. And as predicted, the price subsequently collapsed (by 30 percent) to the point where the price has now become technically depressed. Accordingly, this week's recommendation is long nickel / short gold setting a profit target of 10 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio stands at 64 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Our sister BCA Geopolitical Strategy Service has introduced a Presidential Election Model that uses political and economic variables to predict the Electoral College vote on the state-by-state level. The model would have predicted the past five elections correctly on an out-of-sample basis, and even the controversial win of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. As of the latest available data, the model predicts that the Republicans will lose Michigan and Wisconsin (critical victories in 2016). Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire become borderline or “toss-up” states: the probability of a Republican win in these states is 48.77%, 50.17%, and 46.90%, respectively. Even the smallest change in our model inputs can shift these states to either party. According to the model, President Trump is also at the lowest level of approval and weakest state-by-state economy that he can afford. If one of these factors stabilizes below today’s level, Trump will lose his reelection bid. Bottom Line: Quantitative modeling, entirely independent of our qualitative assessment, suggests that Trump is favored to win the 2020 election. However, he is skating on very thin ice with regard to key cyclical variables such as state-level economic performance and popular approval rating.

Special Report

Highlights US politics are the chief source of global geopolitical risk over the coming year – and likely beyond. President Trump’s reelection remains our base case – the sitting president rarely loses if the economy is expanding. Yet the risk of a Democratic victory is high – Trump’s low approval rating, impending impeachment trial, and various policy troubles threaten his reelection bid. Trump’s tactics and the Democrats’ turn to the progressive left pose threats to BCA Research’s cyclically bullish house equity view. Feature If a time-traveler had accosted you in the fall of 2014 and told you that Donald Trump, the host of the reality TV show The Apprentice, would be the next American president, would you have believed him? What if the time-traveler had gone on to say that President Trump’s unconventional behavior would get him into hot water and that in 2020 he would become the first president in US history to be impeached and removed from office? Granting the premise, the second proposition is easier to imagine. And yet Trump is highly unlikely to be removed from office. He is in fact favored to be reelected. Just as his victory in 2016 proved more likely than the consensus held at the time, so his reelection in 2020 is more likely than the consensus holds today. The reason comes down to political constraints. First, the bar for removal in the Senate is very high. Second, it is easier for a sitting president to get reelected than it is for the opposition to convince voters to start over with something entirely different. Especially if the economy is in decent shape. In what follows we present our quantitative 2020 election model and our qualitative, constraints-based analysis of the election and likely market responses. Trump's fate is only one factor. But US politics is the chief source of market-relevant global political risk over the next 12-24 months. Not A Lame Duck (Yet) After a harrowing year in which global manufacturing slumped due to China’s tight credit policy and Trump’s trade war, the probability of a US recession is now – tentatively – subsiding (Chart 1). This is good news for Trump, whose presidency is hanging by a thread. Chart 1Recession Averted? Or Trump's Death Knell? Chart 2Bookies Expect A Democrat Victory Betting markets like PredictIt.org suggest that Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to win the White House next November (Chart 2). The narrow spread is appropriate given that the balance of evidence is fairly even. However, if there is to be a tilt, it should go the opposite way, i.e. toward Republicans as the incumbent party. The history of US elections since 1860 shows a strong tendency for the incumbent party to hold the White House when the sitting president is running at the head of the ticket. This is especially true when there has not been a recession during the president’s four-year term. It is even true when the ruling party has lost seats in preceding congressional elections, as occurred in 2018 and as is often the case (Chart 3). Other than recession, the biggest exception to the sitting president’s victory – especially in modern times – is when a major scandal has occurred, as with Gerald Ford in 1976. This is clearly relevant to today. In these rare cases the incumbent president’s and incumbent party’s historic reelection rates are both 50/50. The implication of Chart 3 is that Trump’s odds, from a historical point of view, are slightly above 50%. Of course, history does not afford an example of a first-term president being impeached, acquitted, and running for election again.1 Yet this is the most likely outcome today, as there is not an overwhelming popular demand to remove Trump from office. Despite the revelations and public hearings in the impeachment inquiry so far, support for removal stands at 47%, while opposition to removal stands at 45% (Chart 4). In other words, there is no majority in favor of removal, but only a narrow plurality. Removal – nullifying an election result – requires more. Chart 3History Says Trump More Likely To Win Than Not Chart 4No Consensus On Removal From Office The spread is conspicuously close to the 46%-to-48% popular vote spread for Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively, in 2016. The impeachment is not a tsunami of public opposition to the administration. It is a bare-knuckle power struggle: Trump tried to have his top rival investigated and tarred with corruption allegations, the Democrats are retaliating by trying to remove Trump prior to the election. Support for removal will fluctuate, but it will take more than 47% of the population to generate a 67-vote supermajority against Trump in a Republican-held Senate. Republican senators would be taking a grave risk in voting against their base when they have the option of deferring to voters in just 11 months’ time. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were in their second terms when Congress began moving articles of impeachment: the public had no other recourse in the event that they committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Trump is in his first term and is due for the public’s verdict shortly. Nixon resigned when it became clear that grassroots Republicans had lost faith in him and the Senate would not acquit. Trump’s political base has not yet lost faith – his approval among Republicans is still 90%, higher than the average of Republican presidents and at the high end of his term in office (Chart 5). When it comes to the final vote, some Republican senators may defect, but it would take 20 to remove Trump from office. This will require a Nixon-like hemorrhage of support. Remarkably Trump’s general approval rating has not been affected by the impeachment inquiry (Chart 6). His approval rating is still comparable to President Barack Obama’s rating at this stage in his first term (as well as Ronald Reagan’s). While Trump is highly unlikely to break above 50%, he is emphatically not a lame duck … at least not yet. Presidential approval tends to rise as the opposition nomination is settled and the election approaches. If Trump’s approval revives to the 46% of the popular vote he won in 2016, then he remains competitive in the swing states where the election will be fought and won. Chart 5Trump’s Political Base Geared Up For Battle Chart 6A Precarious Approval Rating What about the Republicans’ heavy losses in the midterm elections and special elections since 2016? Haven’t national voting trends already condemned Trump and the Republicans to a loss in 2020? Not necessarily. Democrats lost elections more dramatically in 2009-11 than Republicans lost in 2017-19 – both in voter support and turnout (Table 1) – and yet President Obama secured the victory in 2012. Presidential elections are a different beast. Table 1Democrats Suffered More Post-2008 Than Republicans Post-2016 … Yet Obama Won Reelection Chart 7GOP Governorships At Low End Of Rising Trend The same goes for Republican losses in recent gubernatorial races. In Kentucky the incumbent governor was a Republican and lost; in Louisiana the incumbent governor was a Democrat and won. The catch is that the number of Republican governors was extremely elevated prior to 2018. Recent losses have merely brought the Republicans back to the bottom of their upward channel as a share of the nation’s 50 governors (Chart 7). Thus while the interim elections are a warning sign to Trump and the GOP, they are not a death knell – as long as the economy rebounds and President Trump’s approval rises as the election approaches. Bottom Line: Trump is not a lame duck yet. His administration is embattled and the impeachment process could permanently damage his standing. But so far his general approval rating and the specific impeachment polling suggest that he will stay in office and remain competitive in the 2020 race. If the election were today he would almost surely lose, but a lot can change in 12 months. If the economy avoids recession, then investors should take reelection as their base case. Cyclical Constraints Will Prevail A recession is the surest way to render a president a lame duck. It does not have to be a technical recession. The contraction in the manufacturing sector – and corresponding cutbacks in lending in the manufacturing-heavy and electorally vital Midwest – are extremely threatening to a president who promised to revive manufacturing and trade (Chart 8). Incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victory are enough to win the key swing states. Having declared that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” President Trump will not be able to hide from a deeper slowdown in the industrial heartland. State-level wage growth is positive, but swing states, particularly Trump swing states, are seeing a sharp drop-off from the highs prior to the trade war (Chart 9). The solution is the trade ceasefire being pursued with China. Trump is now in the position of the Federal Reserve Chairman: he can no longer afford to hike (tariff) rates, and the equity market may force him to cut, as long as he can reasonably hope to improve the economy. If the economy is lost, the trade war is back on. Chart 8An Urgent Need For A Trade Ceasefire Chart 9Trump Swing States Took A Hit From The Trade War Chart 10Buttigieg And Warren More Favorable Than Others Are incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victories enough to get Trump over the line in the key swing states?2 Subjectively, we think so. The Democrats have to win all of the states they won in 2016 plus Michigan and Florida (or two other states in place of Florida, such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania). President Trump can afford to lose Michigan and one other state (but not Florida). This assessment has little to do with the Democratic presidential nominee – as yet unknown – and everything to do with whether the incumbent president or party has been fundamentally discredited. Democratic candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg are generally more competitive than consensus holds. Warren, for instance, is one of the few candidates in recent elections who has a net positive favorability rating (Chart 10). But her favorability is not enough to overturn a sitting president – that will most likely require a shock that renders the status quo intolerable. The cyclical constraints on Trump and his opponents are thus clear. What of the structural constraints? Trump’s 2016 victory is often attributed to long-running structural trends in the US such as deindustrialization, immigration, and racial attitudes. The Democrats’ “blue wall” in the Rust Belt crumbled because Trump courted the working-class voter there and/or stoked racial anxieties. The implication, however, is that Trump still has an advantage in these swing states. Older voters and especially white voters have drifted toward Republicans for several years – the trend was interrupted only by the Great Recession, which saw a surge in Democratic support that has now subsided (Chart 11). Chart 11Old And White People Drifting To GOP Over Time ... Excepting The Great Recession While the white share of the swing states is falling over time, that trend is not sufficient to prevent Trump from winning the Electoral College in the year 2020. Instead the rapidly changing racial and ethnic composition of society should be seen as motivating the attitudes that Trump exploits. Trump’s electoral strategy of maximizing white turnout and support for the Republican Party, which we dubbed “White Hype” in 2016, is still the only way for him to achieve a popular vote victory in 2020, and hence the clearest pathway for him to achieve an Electoral College victory (Chart 12). Needless to say, tensions and controversies over race and immigration will swell in the coming year. Chart 12Electoral College Scenarios Show Trump Win Still Possible Chart 13Swing State Turnout Follows Unemployment By the same token, demographic change means that the Democrats can theoretically win by performing no better than they did in 2016 in terms of voter turnout and support rates (see the “Status Quo” scenario in Chart 12). This is a low hurdle for Democrats – suggesting once again that the election will be extremely close, that Trump can win only through the Electoral College (not the popular vote), and that the election outcome will ultimately swing on the cyclical factors outlined above, particularly the state of the economy. A final word about voter turnout. The greatest electoral risk to President Trump is an increase in voter turnout among traditionally low turnout groups that heavily favor the Democratic Party, such as young people and minorities. Given the surge in turnout for the 2018 midterm elections, and the extremely controversial and heated environment surrounding Trump’s presidency, there is considerable reason to suspect that 2020 will be a high-turnout election. Other things being equal, this would likely penalize Trump’s reelection prospects. However, it is important to recognize that voter turnout in swing states is fairly well correlated with the unemployment rate (Chart 13). Depending on the state, surges in turnout occurred in 1992, in the wake of recession; 2004, in the wake of recession, terrorism and war; and 2008, in the wake of the great financial crisis. The exception is Pennsylvania, where a surge in white voter turnout helped Trump pull off a surprise win in the state. Turnout is the hardest political variable to predict, so it is not clear whether Trump’s scandals and impeachment will do the trick. But an increase in the unemployment rate would virtually destroy Trump’s bid, being negatively correlated with presidential approval and positively correlated with voter turnout. Bottom Line: Trump’s executive powers give him the potential to achieve some additional policy victories that could boost his approval rating – namely a trade ceasefire with China that simultaneously improves the economic outlook. Meanwhile structural factors such as demographics do not forbid Trump from winning the Electoral College – on the contrary, aging and the decline in the white share of the population mean that Trump’s electoral strategy could succeed again in 2020, but will be much harder to pull off after 2020. Introducing … BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy 2020 US Presidential Election Model The BCA Geopolitical Strategy Presidential Election Model is a state-by-state model that uses political and economic variables to predict the Electoral College vote. What differentiates our model from that of others is that it attempts to predict the probability of the incumbent party winning the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states. The model would have predicted the past five elections correctly on an out-of-sample basis, even the controversial win of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Why do we predict the electoral vote rather than the popular vote? First, the winner of the presidential election is determined by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Second, in recent history, two candidates who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) won the election. It is possible that we will see a similar result in 2020, given President Trump’s low national popularity yet distinctive policy pitch for the Midwestern states (e.g. economic patriotism, hardline on immigration). With only minor exceptions, electoral votes are allocated based on a winner-take-all process, as opposed to proportionately to the popular vote. Hence the best way to forecast the presidential election winner is to predict the probability of winning each state, i.e. receiving all the electoral votes assigned to each state.3 Due to the data availability of our input variables, our sample size includes nine elections (1984 to 2016) across 50 states, making for a total of 450 observations. We designed the model to be as succinct as possible. It includes four explanatory variables: A weighted average of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index, from the beginning of the previous presidential term until September of the election year. The state leading indexes predict the 6-month growth rate of the state coincident indexes, which include nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average).4 Chart 14Voters Make Up Their Minds Ahead Of Time We use a weighted average of all the monthly forecasts in the presidential term preceding an election, where later months are weighted more heavily than earlier months. Our sample includes 6-month growth rates up to and including September of the election year, which means it includes a rough forecast of the direction of the state’s economy in Q1 of the new president’s term. Since we weigh recent months more heavily, our model assigns more importance to forward-looking factors. It is sufficient to end our calculations of the average state leading indexes in September of the election year. First, the October data comes out in early November, just days before the election, which would be an insufficient lead-time for our final forecast. Second, most voters make their decision at least one month in advance of the election and last-minute changes in economic forecasts will likely not influence their decision (Chart 14). The incumbent party’s margin of victory in the previous presidential election in each state. This is measured as the incumbent party vote share minus the non-incumbent party vote share. Simply put, if the incumbent party failed to secure a solid win in a given state in the previous election, the probability of securing a solid win in the current election is much smaller. Average national approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year. We tested the correlation between presidential approval in every month leading up to the election versus the election outcome and found that July approval levels have the second-highest correlation with the popular vote and Electoral College vote (Chart 15). Average October approval levels have slightly higher correlation with election outcomes, but not sufficiently so to sacrifice three months of lead-time. A “time for change” variable. This is a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has been in the White House for one or more terms. Academic literature shows that a party that has occupied the White House for two terms or more is much less likely to win an election than a party that is running for a second term.5 Chart 15Voters Mostly Decided By July The output of our model is the probability of an incumbent win in each state. There are two ways of aggregating these probabilities to produce a national-level outcome: Allocate the number of Electoral College votes won by the incumbent proportionally to their probability of victory in each state, and then sum them up across all states. This method would smooth out potential errors in our forecast. The Republican Party is expected to win with 279 Electoral College votes in 2020. Assume a probability threshold of 50%: any state with an incumbent win that is at least 50% likely is fully assigned to the incumbent. While this method could significantly sway our forecast towards one of the parties because of small changes in probability, it is closer to the political reality. Even the smallest majority in a given state will (usually) result in the winning candidate getting all of the state’s Electoral College votes. We therefore adopt this method in our aggregation.6 Our model performs well in back tests: it correctly predicted every election in in-sample tests and every election from 2000 to 2016 in out-of-sample tests (Chart 16). Chart 16BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Election Model: Back Tests Accurate Chart 17 shows our initial 2020 prediction. Overall, the Republican Party is expected to win 279 Electoral College votes, a 25-vote decrease from its 2016 result. Chart 17Trump Narrowly Slated To Win 2020 With 279 Electoral College Votes As of the latest available data, our model predicts that the Republicans will lose Michigan and Wisconsin (critical victories in 2016). Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire become borderline or “toss-up” states: the probability of a Republican win in these states is 48.77%, 50.17%, and 46.90%, respectively. Even the smallest change in our inputs can shift these states to either party. The two inputs that can affect our forecast are the state leading index and President Trump’s approval level, since the other two inputs – the time for change variable and last election’s margin of victory – are fixed. Table 2 shows the predicted Electoral College votes for the Republican Party for various scenarios of these two variables. According to the model, President Trump is currently at the lowest level of approval and weakest state-by-state economy that he can afford. If one of these factors stabilizes below today’s level, Trump will lose his reelection bid. Table 2Small Decline In State Economies Could Ruin Trump’s 2020 Bid In the worst-case scenario for Trump – if his approval and the state leading indexes drop to the lowest levels they have touched in Trump’s presidency – the Republican Party will only manage to secure 230 Electoral College votes. The opposite, optimistic scenario would see them winning with 329 votes. An interesting takeaway from our model is that it captures the increase in American political polarization that has been widely observed by scholars. The 2020 forecast shows that many states will be won or lost by the incumbent party with extreme certainty (0% or 100%). Results of in-sample predictions show that this trend has been increasing since 1992 (Chart 18, top panel), which is also in line with our own measure of polarization (Chart 18, bottom panel). Since the results are based on in-sample estimations, the coefficients remain constant, so the differences in the results can be attributed to the underlying data. The impression of ever-intensifying polarization in the US is correct. What does this mean for Trump? He cannot be written off simply because he has a relatively low approval rating. Structural political factors that propelled him to the White House are still in place. His approval and the economy must deteriorate to change this base case. The chief risk to our model is the accuracy and interpretation of presidential approval polling. While polling data always has a margin of error, it is possible that approval polling is underestimating Trump’s support, particularly on the state level, as was witnessed in 2016 (Chart 19). Chart 18Rising Polarization – It’s Empirical Chart 19State-Level Polling Still A Risk We have a high degree of confidence in professional pollsters, who have also made improvements since 2016.   But asking Americans whether they “approve” of the unorthodox Trump may be a different proposition than in the past, disguising voting intentions to some degree. By choosing the level of Trump’s approval in our model (see Appendix), we are guarding against overstating his support and not allowing much room for any dampening effects or self-censorship, which is thus a risk to our model. Bottom Line: Quantitative modeling, entirely independent of our qualitative assessment, suggests that Trump is favored to win the 2020 election. However, he is skating on very thin ice with regard to key cyclical variables such as state-level economic performance and popular approval rating. If his approval level suffers from a slowing economy, or scandal and impeachment, then he will lose the critical toss-up states and the White House. Investment Conclusions In this report we have outlined a case where President Trump, despite his extreme unorthodoxy in general, and acute vulnerability at this moment in time, is still the most likely winner of the 2020 election. Elections are a Bayesian process in which investors should establish a clear prior, or starting place, and update their probabilities according to reliable data streams. This report establishes our prior and our key data streams. So what? Does it matter if Trump is reelected? Is it relevant to investors? From a bird’s eye view, Trump has made a few decisions that clearly distinguish his term in office from that of previous presidents. First, Trump replaced Janet Yellen with Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve. It is debatable whether or how this affected the normalization of monetary policy. What is clear is that Trump made a change at the helm while pushing through highly stimulative fiscal policy. Fed hikes contributed to a rise in bond yields and an increase in market volatility, and the Fed was ultimately forced to adjust. Trump has vociferously criticized the Fed and demanded ever-lower rates. Second, by embracing sweeping Republican tax reform, Trump initiated pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus that widened the US’s monetary and economic divergence from the rest of the world, while exacerbating the US’s long-term fiscal woes. Third, by adopting protectionist trade policy to confront China’s mercantilism, Trump rattled global sentiment and contributed to a manufacturing recession. As long as our view remains correct, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish. Of these three macro developments, the only one that the election could substantially change is trade policy – and yet the Democrats are also taking a more hawkish approach to China. On the fiscal front, the Democrats will raise taxes, but they will not impose austerity – instead they propose large expansions of entitlements that the populace increasingly demands. Populist social spending combined with geopolitical struggle with China ensures that the deficit/GDP ratio will go up regardless of the party in power. From a market point of view, the historical record suggests that presidential elections – specifically elections that lead to gridlock between the White House and Congress, since we do not expect the Democrats to lose the House of Representatives – usually see a rising US stock market beforehand and a higher degree of volatility afterwards (Chart 20). Relative to developed market equities, US stocks typically underperform, and only resume their rise in the second half of the following year (i.e. 2021). Comparing Trump to other first-term presidents, it is clear that his “pluto-populism” (populism plus tax cuts for the rich) has exerted a reflationary effect on the equity market (Chart 21). As long as the data show that he has a fair chance of reelection, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish, despite the volatility to come from the Democrats’ taxation and regulation proposals. Chart 20Equity Outcomes Surrounding US Presidential Votes Chart 21Trump A Reason To Be Bullish What is most striking about Trump’s presidency is the low real total return on US Treasuries. This is despite his aggressive foreign and trade policy, which has motivated safe-haven flows into Treasuries this year (Chart 22). The bottom line is that the output gap is closed, the labor market is tight, and fiscal policy is expansive, putting upward pressure on yields. Given that Trump needs to cultivate a China ceasefire and economic improvement for reelection, this trend should continue until the next recession looms. Chart 22Trump Marks End Of Bull Market In Bonds The risk, however, is that Trump’s precarious China negotiations fall through, or that his scandals cause a permanent downshift in his approval rating, rendering him a lame duck. Not only would this free him of the election constraint that currently forces him to pursue pro-market policies, but it would also make a Democratic victory more likely. The Democratic nomination, meanwhile, could easily produce a progressive populist in the figure of Elizabeth Warren, who is still a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination. A bear market could develop quite easily if a normal equity market correction, which improves the odds of a Democratic victory becomes entangled in expectations that Warren is set to win the nomination. If the opposition can summon enough votes to unseat an incumbent president, chances are that the circumstances will include a “blue wave” that also sees the Democrats take the Senate. This would institute another sweeping change to American policy, this time in a direction that is unfriendly to corporate profits. As the probability of such a scenario rises, the equity market will have to discount it. Expectations of a Trump victory will spur the market upward – but investors should be wary. If this very long bull market has continued all the way to November 3, 2020, and President Trump is confirmed in office, the positive stock market reaction will likely provide an excellent time for booking profits and reducing risk. In a second term, Trump will be unshackled from his electoral constraints – very much unlike a first-term Democrat. This would free him to pursue his trade wars with fewer inhibitions – against China but also likely against Europe. A continuation of the trade war has important impacts across the full slate of global assets, as outlined in Chart 23, which depicts the movement of assets on days in which US equities reacted negatively to trade war developments. Chart 23A Trump Second Term Means Trade War With Fewer Constraints With 11 months to go, we are a world away from the election. The party nomination process, or third-party candidates, could overturn all expectations. But if there is one certainty, it is that polarization and political risk will rise in the coming 12-24 months. The losing side of the population will have deep heartburn. A crisis of legitimacy could easily haunt the next administration. There could be hanging chads, vote recounts, faithless electors, or contested results. The outcome of the election could turn upon unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, Supreme Court, or even in cyberspace. If the Democrats win, redistribution will amplify partisanship. If Trump wins, inequality will rise. There is no easy way forward for the United States.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: The Approval Question: Level Or Change? Chart 24Trump’s Historically Low Approval Rating The chief risk to our model is the interpretation of the presidential approval rating and its impact on the election. President Trump’s approval rating is notoriously low compared to the average president (Chart 24). While many authors use approval rating (or popularity) in their models, some argue that it is not the approval level, but the change in approval leading up to the election that matters.7 Consider the following: if President Trump’s approval increases from today’s level of 43% by 5%, he would be at the same level of approval as the average president if their approval were to drop by 5%. A model based on approval level would place these two presidents equally, while a model based on the change in approval would favor Trump. So which one is correct? We compare the incumbent’s popular vote in post-WWII elections with four different “variations” of incumbent president approval: the average level in July of the election year (as in our model); the deviation of the average October level from the election-year average, the change during the last two years of the term; and the range throughout the entire term. Directionally, the results are as expected. Level and change in approval are positively correlated with the popular vote, while a less stable approval (higher range) is negatively correlated (Chart 25A). We also find that approval level has the best fit with the election outcome, followed by the change in approval in the two years leading up to the election. However, if we restrict the sample size to the range of elections used in our model, 1984 to 2016, we find that the change in approval has a much better fit than the level (Chart 25B). In other words, in modern elections the presidential candidate’s momentum matters more in the final outcome. Chart 25AHigh, Rising, And Stable Approval Ratings … Chart 25B… Help Presidents Win Elections We tested each variation of approval as an input in our model instead of the July approval level. Table 3 summarizes the results. Trump wins in all four versions. Table 3All Measures Of Approval Favor Trump In 2020 Our current model penalizes Trump the most, while the model based on approval range favors him. This makes sense, given that President Trump’s approval is relatively low but very stable (Chart 26). Chart 26Trump Approval Very Low … And Very Stable We will continue to use approval level in our model to generate updated predictions, given that this measure has the best long-term historical fit with the election outcome. However, given that President Trump is performing relatively well on these other measures of approval, there is upside risk to his 2020 performance. Appendix 2: A Word About The Probit Model Table 4 presents the regression coefficients of our model. Since this is a probit model, the coefficients cannot be directly interpreted as they would in an ordinary regression. The coefficients in a probit regression model measure the change in the Z-score associated to each independent variable for a one-unit change in that variable. Table 4BCA 2020 US Presidential Election Model Statistics The sign of the coefficient corresponds to the direction of change in probability. So increases in the state leading index, presidential approval, or the incumbent’s margin of victory in the last election increase the probability of the incumbent winning a state. Of course, the latter variable is fixed and will not change until the election. At the same time, having occupied the White House for two terms or more decreases the probability of an incumbent win. But this is not the case in the current election. Footnotes 1 Andrew Johnson, the first to be impeached, did not run in 1868; Ulysses Grant bowed out after two terms in 1876, amid the “Great Barbecue” scandal; Warren Harding died before the election of 1924, amid the infamous “Teapot Dome” scandal; Harry Truman stepped down amid scandal after two terms in 1952; Richard Nixon resigned before the election of 1976; Bill Clinton was impeached and hit the two-term limit before the election of 2000. For these examples, and the electoral impact of great scandals in general, please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next Presidency: The Keys To The White House 2016 (Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 2 Trump’s policy record contains one major legislative victory, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, along with a number of works in progress. The Republicans’ failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) exacted an opportunity cost: it deprived Trump and the GOP Congress of time needed to legislate a southern border wall, while mobilizing the opposition for all subsequent elections. As for other policies, the renegotiation of NAFTA is only a partial success as the USMCA has not been ratified. The promised infrastructure package will become a campaign pledge for the second term. We expect some kind of North Korea deal. 3 To this end, we use a probit model, where the dependent variable is stated as 1 = incumbent party won all Electoral College votes in this state, or 0 = incumbent party did not win any Electoral College votes in this state. This model allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of these two categories. 4 “The leading index for each state predicts the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. In addition to the coincident index, the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill.” See the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, www.philadelphiafed.org. 5 Alan I. Abramowitz, “Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election with the Time-for-Change Model,” Political Science and Politics, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 691-695. 6 We also assume that the Democrats always win the District of Columbia. 7 Please see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien, “Forecasting presidential elections: When to change the model,” International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 24, Issue 2, April–June 2008, Pages 227-236, and Mark Zandi, Dan White, Bernard Yaros, “2020 Presidential Election Model,” Moody’s Analytics, September 2019.

Highlights The Fed is the usual culprit for killing business cycles — but the Fed is on hold. This makes geopolitics the likeliest candidate to kill the cycle. The key geopolitical risks are US political turmoil, China’s economic policy, and the US-Iran confrontation. Nevertheless, policymakers are adjusting to the threat of recession, which points to a continuation of this long-in-the-tooth expansion. The US-China talks will be driven by Trump’s need for an economic boost ahead of the US election. If the economy or Trump’s approval rating fails anyway, then all bets are off. Go long gold as a strategic hedge. Feature Great power struggle, or “multipolarity,” continues to be our mega-theme in 2020. The world does not operate like a normal society, with a single government that possesses a monopoly on the use of force and ensures stability. Nations are individualistic, armed, and dangerous, creating what scholar Hedley Bull once called “The Anarchical Society.” This is not pure chaos, but rather a community of nations that lacks a clear and undisputed leader. Hence, quarrels break out often. Updating our geopolitical power index shows that the rise of China remains the most disruptive trend in global politics (Chart 1). The gap between the US and China has closed until recently, with China’s downshift in growth rates, but American fear is just being awakened (Chart 2). Given that Beijing threatens the US’s military and technological dominance over the long run, Washington will continue to develop a containment policy. Chart 1China's Geopolitical Rise Is Disruptive Chart 2China-US Power Gap Is Narrowing China is too big to quarantine, especially for a relatively unpopular first-term American president who eschews international coalition-building. The European Union’s decline in relative power is more marked than that of the United States, but China does not pose as much of a security threat to Europe. This trend exacerbates the already serious divergence in the trans-Atlantic alliance – which will worsen if Trump wins on November 3, 2020. Hence, globalization faces persistent challenges, as indicated by the falling import share of global output (Chart 3). This multi-decade process has peaked, creating a headwind for trade-exposed firms over the long run. What about the next 12 months? Will geopolitics kill the bull market? Not necessarily. Just as central bankers have cut interest rates to guard against deflationary risks (Chart 4), so the key governments are adjusting policies to avoid recessionary risks, especially with the memory of 2008 still fresh. Simply put: The Fed is on pause, Trump wants to be reelected, and China cannot afford a hard landing. Chart 3Globalization Faces Challenges Chart 4Policymakers Are Reacting To Deflationary Risks Clearly the risks to this view are elevated. The chief ones: (1) President Trump becomes a lame duck, cannot run on an economic platform, and thus makes a desperate attempt to win as a “war president” (2) Xi Jinping overestimates his advantage, in domestic or foreign policy, and makes a policy mistake (3) the US-Iran conflict spirals out of control due to Iran’s economic vulnerability. Other risks, such as Brexit, pale by comparison. Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail It is too soon to declare that Trump’s presidency is finished. On the contrary he is slightly favored to win reelection: • The Senate is unlikely to remove him from office. Republican support for the president is well above average despite evidence that Trump tried to get Ukrainian officials to investigate his political rival (Chart 5). The implication is that a year from now Democrats will have suffered a policy failure while Trump will have been cleared of charges. Chart 5Trump Still Popular Among Republicans • The odds of recession in the coming year are low. The US voter is buffered by rising real incomes and wages and high net wealth (Chart 6). To unseat a sitting president requires a recessionary backdrop that fundamentally discredits him and his party – not just slowing growth. Chart 6Pocketbook Voter Theory To The Test • Trump’s low approval rating does not prohibit him from reelection. While historically low, it is also historically stable. Our quantitative election model – which predicts Trump will win the Electoral College with 279 votes by clinging onto Pennsylvania – shows that Trump’s victory margin would increase if we looked not at the average level of his approval but at its change, momentum, or low range (i.e. stability). Table 1 shows the results of all four variations of his approval rating, with ascending chances of winning key swing states. Table 1All Measures Of Trump’s Approval Rating Get Him 270 Electoral College Votes Trump’s odds of winning will affect the US equity market throughout the year. As long as he remains competitive, i.e. neither scandal nor the economy cause his approval rating to break down, he will have reason to temper his policies to cater to US financial markets. Foreign and trade policies are Trump’s only ways to improve the economy and voter support. Trump’s only remaining way to boost the economy and improve voter support lies in foreign policy and trade policy. Specifically, he will stop increasing tariffs on China – and maybe even roll back tariffs to August 2019 or even April 2019 levels (Chart 7) – at least as long as the manufacturing recession persists. Chart 7Some Tariff Rollback Is Possible China is unlikely to implement painful structural changes when Trump could be gone in 12 months’ time. Strategic tensions outside of trade will undermine any ceasefire. Hence economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated even though it will drop off from recent peaks. Assuming the electoral constraint prevents Trump from levying sweeping tariffs on China or Europe, he will be limited to other foreign and trade policies to try to boost his approval rating or fire up his base: • We expect a third summit with Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Trump is rumored to be considering some troop reduction in exchange for progress on denuclearization (neither of which would be irreversible). • Otherwise Trump could turn to saber-rattling, since Pyongyang is threatening to resume long-range tests and the economic consequences of another round of “fire and fury” would be limited. • Trump could also rattle the saber against Iran, Venezuela, or other rogue states. If Trump becomes uncompetitive in the election, then the market will sell off. The market will have to price not only policy discontinuity (e.g. higher taxes), but also the chance of a progressive-populist taking the White House. Moreover, if a Democrat is able to unseat an incumbent president, the Democrats will take the Senate as well. Trump is a known unknown; this scenario would be an unknown unknown. The Democratic Party’s primary election will consume the first half of the year. It culminates in the Democratic National Convention, strategically chosen to take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16. Wisconsin is one of three critical swing states. Will former Vice President Joe Biden win the nomination? A high conviction is not warranted. Biden is clearly the frontrunner, but we think a progressive can pull it off. A simulation of the Democratic Convention “pledged delegates,” based on November polling in the first four primary elections, shows Biden far short of a majority (Chart 8). He needs to outperform his polls, but this will be difficult given that he is well-known, has not performed well in debates, and will have Mayors Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg nipping at his heels in the Midwest and Northeast, respectively. Chart 8Do Not Discount A Progressive Win Over time, candidates will drop out, so it is more informative to look at the “centrist” candidates as a whole compared to the “progressives.” Here the early primary polling suggests that the progressives will come closest to victory (Chart 9). Chart 9Progressives Come Closest To Victory The trend within the party is to move to the left. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are tied as voters’ second choice – even Buttigieg supporters are split between Biden and Warren (Chart 10). What is unknown is whether Warren (or Sanders) can consolidate the progressive vote faster than Biden (or Buttigieg) consolidates the centrist vote. Chart 10If Biden Falters, Progressives Are Next In Line Chart 11Structural Imbalances Give Rise To Populism Trends pointing toward a progressive victory may not at first trouble the market, but any signs that a progressive is pulling ahead decisively will force investors to sharply upgrade the probability that he or she will win the White House. This will cause equity volatility, which could become self-reinforcing. A progressive nominee would force investors to recognize that populism and political risk are here to stay – which is our expectation given that they are motivated by polarization, inequality, and other structural imbalances in the United States (Chart 11). Left-wing or progressive populism is far more negative for corporate earnings than Trump’s right-wing or “pluto-populism.” Sanders or Warren present the worst case for investors because they favor trade protectionism in addition to higher taxes and minimum wages. Most presidents achieve their chief legislative priority in their first term and there is no reason to assume a progressive presidency would be any different. The implication is higher corporate taxes as well as individual taxes to pay for a sweeping expansion of the social safety net – positive for the economy perhaps but negative for corporate earnings. Chart 12A Progressive Win Threatens Key Sectors An extensive re-regulation of the US economy would occur regardless, since it falls under executive authority. It would affect the key equity sectors in the US bourse, technology and health (Chart 12), as well as energy and financials. The choice of a centrist Democrat like Biden (or Buttigieg) would be the least negative outcome for US equities of all the Democrats. The market would probably cheer a Trump versus Biden matchup for this reason. Biden favors higher taxes and regulation but is an establishment politician and known quantity. However, even Biden will be pulled to the left by the current within his party once in office; and Buttigieg will govern to the left of Biden. Trump’s reelection would spur a relief rally in US equities, but it would be short-lived. He would solidify low taxes and deregulation and would have a real chance of passing an infrastructure package. But he would also curtail labor force growth with his border wall and double down on trade protectionism – likely against Europe as well as China this time. His unpredictable and aggressive tendencies would be turbo-charged by a new popular mandate. We expect to cut back on risk exposure upon Trump’s reelection, assuming the bull market has survived to return him to office. A Democratic victory would mark another reversal in US policy orientation. Given our view that the White House call is also the Senate call, this would be the third time since 2008 that the country has witnessed a total reversal. Domestic American political risk will not end with the election: a legitimacy crisis could follow a narrow election, and institutional erosion continues regardless. It is too soon to call peak polarization, as the election will result in either a left-wing government bent on redistributing wealth or a right-wing Trump administration that exacerbates inequality. A centrist "return to normalcy" is possible with a Biden or Buttigieg victory. This reinforces our constructive cyclical view. Bottom Line: The chief risk from US politics in 2020 is Trump becoming a lame duck and resorting to belligerent foreign policy to try to win back voters through a rally around the flag. The chief risk of the Democratic nomination, and the general election, is a left-wing populist winning the White House. Any Democratic victory would likely bring the Senate, removing a key constraint. Over time the median voter is moving to the left. The Man Who Changed China Chart 13Xi Is Purging Misallocated Capital Xi Jinping undoubtedly represents a “new era” in China – a reassertion of Communist Party rule. The party faced a crisis of legitimacy amid the Great Recession and Arab Spring and was determined to regain political, economic, and social control. Xi had previously been anointed but was all too happy to take on the role of neo-Maoist strongman. Yet Xi’s playbook is close to that of President Jiang Zemin’s: centralize the party, repress dissent, modernize the military, restructure banks and the economy, upgrade the country’s science and technology, and expand China’s global influence. The difference is that while Jiang rode the high tide of globalization, Xi is riding the receding tide. Jiang culled two-thirds of the country’s state-owned enterprises, laying off over 40 million people, confident that a surge of new growth would ensue. Xi is also cracking down – allowing bankruptcies to purge misallocated capital (Chart 13) – but with a large debt load and shrinking labor force, he needs the state sector to put a floor under growth rates. The takeaway is that Xi will act pragmatically to boost growth when China’s stability is threatened, as he did in 2015-16. The trade war has already forced him to backtrack on the 2017-18 deleveraging campaign and stimulate the economy. The combined fiscal and credit impulse amounts to 6.6% of GDP from trough to now, and it hasn’t peaked. The implication is that Chinese growth – and global growth – will pick up from here (Chart 14). Chinese authorities are still trying to contain the growth in leverage, which has kept this year’s stimulus in check. But the chief banking regulator has also stated that as long as the macro-leverage ratio is not growing faster than 10%, this goal is met (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Growth Will Pick Up Chart 15China Says Leverage Already Contained The economy has not yet durably bottomed, so the state will continue adding support. The coming year is the third and final year of the “Three Battles” – against poverty, pollution, and systemic risk – as well as the final year of the thirteenth five-year plan. Beijing is falling short on its targets for real urban per capita income (Chart 16) and poverty elimination (Chart 17). A last-minute rush to meet these targets is likely and will require more fiscal stimulus. Chart 16Beijing Falls Short Of Urban Income Target... Chart 17...And Poverty Target This is not an argument for a blowout credit splurge. China is saving dry powder for a further escalation in the US containment strategy and a worse economic downturn. Do not expect a blowout Chinese credit splurge. The core constraint on policy is unemployment. Stimulus efforts have created a bottom in the employment component of the manufacturing PMI as well as a notable uptick in the demand for urban labor (Chart 18). To withdraw stimulus now – or tighten policy – would be to trigger a relapse in an economy that is ultimately at risk of a debt-deflation trap. Chart 18Chinese Stimulus Shows Up In Employment Chart 19A Banking Crisis Is A Risk To The Chinese Economy Tougher controls on credit and shadow banking have seen an uptick in corporate defaults and bank failures. With the government deliberately imposing pain on bloated sectors of the economy, financial turmoil could spread. Newspaper mentions of defaults, layoffs, and bankruptcies have only slightly subsided since stimulus efforts began (Chart 19). If bank failures spiral out of control, the economy will tank. The state will have to fight fires. Tariffs have accelerated the trend of firms relocating out of China, which began because of rising wages and a darkening business environment (Chart 20). A questionable trade ceasefire will not reverse the process as American and Asian companies are seeking a lasting solution, which requires them to set up shop elsewhere. China will want to mitigate the process, first by stabilizing domestic growth, and second by accepting Trump’s tactical trade retreat. Xi is also trying to avoid diplomatic isolation by courting trade partners other than the US, since the ceasefire is unreliable and the US containment strategy is presumed to continue. This involves outreach to the rest of Asia, Russia, and Europe, and even to distrustful neighbors like Japan and India. Europe is the swing player. China’s Asian neighbors, and Australia and New Zealand, have reason to fear Beijing’s growing clout and seek the US’s security umbrella. Russia and China are informal allies. But the European public is not interested in the new cold war – China does not threaten Europe from next door, like Russia does, and the Trump administration is threatening Europe with both trade war and Middle Eastern instability. European leaders are happy to take the market share that the US is leaving, as is clear from direct investment (Chart 21). Only a concentrated US diplomatic effort can address this divergence, which is not forthcoming in 2020. Chart 20Firms Are Relocating Out Of China Chart 21Europe Exploits US-China Rift A new Democratic administration, or a change in Trump strategy in the second term, could eventually produce a multilateral western coalition demanding that China open up and liberalize parts of its economy. But Europe will need to be convinced of the underlying reality that China is doubling down on the state-led industrial policies that provoked the Americans to begin with. Beijing is after economic self-sufficiency, indigenous innovation, and leadership in high-tech production and new frontiers. Its official research and development budget is not its only means for achieving this end (Chart 22) – it also has state-backed acquisitions and cyber campaigns. Germany and Europe have begun scrutinizing Chinese investment, separately from the United States. Chart 22Beijing Is After Economic Self-Sufficiency The danger to China – and the world – is that Xi Jinping might overplay his hand. He could overtighten money, credit, or property regulations and spoil the economy when global growth is vulnerable. His anti-corruption campaign is a telling reminder of his heavy hand in domestic affairs (Chart 23). Chart 23Xi Jinping Risks Overplaying His Hand Chart 24China Needs To Calm Things Down He could also suppress protesters in Hong Kong and rattle sabers over Taiwan or the South China Sea in a way that undermines the trade ceasefire. Or he could fail to bring the North Koreans to heel. These strategic tensions are significant only insofar as they undermine the trade ceasefire or provoke US-China saber-rattling. Failing to act as an honest broker in the Iran crisis would also irk Europeans and give them an excuse to side with the US. Bottom Line: China will continue modestly stimulating the economy next year to achieve a durable stabilization in growth. The risk of debt-deflation and rising unemployment ultimately necessitates this policy. Beijing can accept Trump’s tariff rollback for the sake of stability – China’s policy uncertainty relative to the rest of the world is off the charts and Beijing has an interest in calming things down (Chart 24). Yet Beijing will double down on indigenous innovation, while courting the rest of the world so as to preempt criticism and isolate the Americans. The risk is that Xi proves too heavy-handed when it comes to domestic leverage, the tech grab, strategic disputes, or trade talks with Washington. The Strait Of Hormuz Risk Chart 25US-Iran Conflict Still Unresolved In a special report earlier this year entitled “The Polybius Solution” we argued that while the US-China conflict is the major long-term geopolitical conflict, the US-Iran showdown could supersede it in the short term. This remains a risk for 2020, as the Trump administration’s confrontation with Iran is fundamentally unresolved (Chart 25). The Trump administration is still enforcing “maximum pressure” sanctions, which have reduced Iranian oil exports from 1.8 million barrels per day at their recent peak to 100,000 barrels per day in November (Chart 26). These are crippling sanctions that have sent Iran’s economy reeling. Chart 26Iran Remains Under Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ruled out negotiations with Trump. They would be unpopular at home without a major reversal on sanctions from Trump (Chart 27). Chart 27Major US Reversal Prerequisite For Iran Talks Trump presumably aims to avoid an oil shock ahead of the election. The US and its allies have visibly shied away from conflict in the wake of Iran’s provocations, including the spectacular attack on eastern Saudi Arabia that knocked 5.7 million barrels of oil per day offline in September. However, this does not mean the odds of war are zero. The Americans or the Iranians could miscalculate. Both sides might think they can improve their standing at home by flexing their muscles abroad. Iran is a rational actor and would not normally court American airstrikes or antagonize a potentially lame duck president. Yet it is under extreme pressure due to the sanctions. It faces significant unrest both at home and in its sphere of influence (Iraq and Lebanon). Opinion polls show that the public primarily blames the government for the collapsing economy, and yet that American sanctions are siphoning off some of this anger (Chart 28). This could tempt the leaders to continue staging provocations in the Strait of Hormuz or elsewhere in the region. Chart 28Iranians Blame Tehran, Tehran Blames America Hardline military leaders and politicians currently receive the most favor in polling, while the reformist President Rouhani – undercut by the American withdrawal from the 2015 deal – is among the least popular (Chart 29). The Majlis (parliament) elections in February will likely reverse the reformist turn in Iranian politics that began in 2012. The regime stalwarts are gearing up for the supreme leader’s succession in the coming years. While a Democratic White House could restore the 2015 deal, that ship may have sailed. Chart 29Rouhani And Reformists In Trouble A historic oil supply disruption is a fatter tail risk than investors realize. Chart 30The Iranians May Take Excessive Risk Trump, under impeachment, could seek to distract the public. This was Bill Clinton’s tactic with Operations Infinite Reach, Desert Fox, and Allied Force in 1998-99. These operations were minor and not comparable to a conflict with Iran. However, Trump may be emboldened. On paper the US strategic petroleum reserve (along with OPEC and other petroleum reserves) could cover most major oil shock scenarios. According to Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy, a supply outage the size of the Abqaiq attack in September would have to persist for four months to cause enough price pressure to harm the US economy and decrease Trump’s chances of winning reelection. The simulations in Chart 30 overstate the gasoline price impact by assuming that global oil reserves remain untapped. Thus while the Iranians may take excessive risks, the Trump administration may not refrain this time from airstrikes. Bottom Line: While the Middle East is always full of risks to oil supply, Iran’s vulnerability and Trump’s status at home make the situation unusually precarious. A historic oil supply disruption is a fatter tail risk than investors realize. Europe Is A Price Taker, Not A Price Maker Just as the US and China have a shared incentive to avoid tariff-induced recession, so the UK and EU have a shared incentive to prevent a shock reversion to basic WTO tariffs. The December 31, 2020 deadline for the UK-EU trade deal, like the various deadlines for Brexit itself, can be delayed. Even Prime Minister Boris Johnson has proved unwilling to exit without a deal and even a hung parliament has proved capable of preventing him from doing so. The negotiation of a trade deal – which is never easy and always drags on – will be a lower-order risk in the wake of the past two years’ Brexit-induced volatility. Johnson will not be held hostage by hardline Brexiters given that Brexit itself will be complete. If our view on Chinese growth is correct, then Europe’s economy can recover and European political risk will be a “red herring” in 2020, as it was in 2019. Instead the EU presents an opportunity. Chart 31Euro Area Breakup Risk Has Subsided Euro Area break-up risk has subsided after a series of challenges in the wake of the sovereign debt crisis (Chart 31). There is not a basis for a reversal of this trend, at least not until a full-blown recession afflicts the continent. The rise in anti-establishment parties coincided with a one-off surge in migration that is finished – and successful populists from Greece to Italy have moderated on euro membership once in power. Germany is entering a profound transition driven by de-globalization and tensions with the United States. It is more likely to have an early election than the consensus holds. But it is fundamentally stable and supportive of European integration. In fact the great debate about fiscal policy poses an upside risk over the long run both for European equities and the European project. We remain optimistic on French structural reforms even though President Emmanuel Macron must overcome significant public opposition. An eerie quiet hangs over Russia, making it one of our “Black Swan” risks for 2020. Oil prices are not very high, which discourages foreign adventures, and President Vladimir Putin has spent his fourth term trying to consolidate international gains and improve domestic stability. But approval of the government is weak, the job market is deteriorating, and social unrest is cropping up. There is plenty of room to ease monetary and fiscal policy, but a sharp downturn could provide the basis for an aggressive foreign policy action to shore up regime support. The US election also presents the risk of renewed US-Russian tensions, whether over election interference or a Democratic victory. Investment Conclusions Geopolitics is the likeliest candidate to derail the global bull market in 2020. Nevertheless, policymakers are adjusting to their constraints. Trump and Xi are negotiating a ceasefire and a disorderly Brexit is off the table. Even Trump’s impeachment shows that the US system of checks and balances remains intact. After all, there is nothing to prevent removal from office if Trump further antagonizes public opinion and the Republican Senate. This means that policy uncertainty will decline on the margin in 2020, even as it remains elevated due to the danger of the underlying events. The nature of US economic imbalances suggests that the policy discontinuity of a Democratic victory on November 3, 2020 would be better for the economy (via household consumption) than it would be for corporate earnings. Policy continuity with the Trump administration suggests the opposite. On a sectoral basis we recommend going long US energy large cap stocks and short info-tech and communications. Energy has limited downside even if a progressive wins whereas tech has limited upside even if Trump wins. The BCA Research House View expects the US dollar to weaken as global growth rebounds, stocks to outperform bonds and cash, and developed market equities to outperform those of the United States. But a Republican victory in November would push against these trends as it is more bullish for the greenback and for US equities relative to global. As a play on the global growth rebound we expect, we recommend going long industrial metals. Like our colleagues at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy, we are initiating this as a tactical trade but it may become strategic. We are reinitiating a tactical long Korea / short Taiwan equity trade. Taiwanese political risk is understated ahead of January’s election and the island is the epicenter of the US-China cold war. We are restoring our long gold trade as a strategic hedge. Populism and de-globalization are potentially inflationary, but they are also linked with great power competition which will increase the frequency of geopolitical crises. In either case, gold is the right safe haven to own.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The US-China trade talks will continue despite Hong Kong. The UK election will not reintroduce no-deal Brexit risk – either in the short run or the long run. European political risk is set to rise from low levels, but Euro Area break-up risk will not. There is no single thread uniting emerging market social unrest. We remain constructive on Brazil. Feature Chart 1Taiwan Indicator To Rise Despite Ceasefire President Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law on November 27. The signing was by now expected – Trump was not going to veto the bill and invite the Senate to override him with a 67-vote at a time when he is being impeached. He does not want to familiarize the Senate with voting against him in supermajorities. The Hong Kong bill will not wreck the US-China trade talks, but it is a clear example of our argument that strategic tensions will persist and cast doubt on the durability of the “phase one trade deal” being negotiated. It is better to think of it as a ceasefire, as Trump’s electoral constraint is the clear motivation. Trump is embattled at home and will contend an election in 11 months. He will not impose the tariff rate hike scheduled for December 15. A relapse into trade war would kill the green shoots in US and global growth, which partly stem from the perception of easing trade risk. Only if Trump’s approval rating collapses, or China stops cooperating, will he become insensitive to his electoral constraint. Will China abandon the talks and leave Trump in the lurch? This is not our base case but it is a major global risk. So far China is reciprocating. Xi Jinping’s political and financial crackdown at home, combined with the trade war abroad, has led to an economic slowdown and an explosion in China’s policy uncertainty relative to America’s. A trade ceasefire – on top of fiscal easing – is a way to improve the economy without engaging in another credit splurge. The US and China will continue moving toward a trade ceasefire, despite the Hong Kong bill. The move toward a trade ceasefire will probably keep our China GeoRisk Indicator from rising sharply over the next few months. However, our Taiwan indicator, which we have used as a trade war proxy at times, may diverge as it starts pricing in the heightened political risk surrounding Taiwan’s presidential election on January 11, 2020 (Chart 1). Sanctions, tech controls, Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, Iran, the South China Sea, and Xinjiang are all strategic tensions that can flare up. Yes, uncertainty will fall and sentiment will improve on a ceasefire, but only up to a point. China’s domestic policy decisions are ultimately more important than its handling of the trade war. At the upcoming Central Economic Work Conference authorities are expected to stay focused on “deepening supply-side structural reform” and avoiding the use of “irrigation-style” stimulus (blowout credit growth). But this does not mean they will not add more stimulus. Since the third quarter, a more broad-based easing of financial controls and industry regulations is apparent, leading our China Investment Strategy to expect a turning point in the Chinese economy in early 2020. This “China view” – on stimulus and trade – is critical to the outlook for the two regions on which we focus for the rest of this report: Europe and emerging markets. Assuming that China stabilizes, these are the regions where risk assets stand to benefit the most. Europe is a political opportunity; the picture in emerging markets is, as always, mixed. United Kingdom: Will Santa Bring A Lump Of Coal? The Brits will hold their first winter election since 1974 on December 12. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party has seen a tremendous rally in opinion polls, although it has stalled at a level comparable to its peak ahead of the last election in June 2017 (Chart 2). Another hung parliament or weak Tory coalition is possible. Yet the Tories are better positioned this time given that the opposition Labour Party is less popular than two years ago, while the Liberal Democrats are more capable of stealing Labour votes. The Tories stand to lose in Scotland, but the Brexit Party of Nigel Farage is not contesting seats with them and is thus undercutting Labour in certain Brexit-leaning constituencies. Markets would enjoy a brief relief rally on a single-party Tory majority. This would enable Johnson to get his withdrawal deal over the line and take the UK out of the EU in an orderly manner by January 31. The question would then shift to whether Johnson feels overconfident in negotiating the post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU, which is supposed to be done by December 31, 2020. This date will become the new deadline for tariff increases, but it can be extended. Johnson is as unlikely to fly off the cliff edge next year as he was this year, and this year he demurred. Negotiating a trade agreement is easier when the two economies are already integrated, have a clear (yet flexible) deadline, and face exogenous economic risks. Our political risk indicator will rise but it will not revisit the highs of 2018-19 (Chart 3). The pound’s floor is higher than it was prior to September 2019. Chart 2Tories Look To Be Better Positioned For A Single Party Majority Chart 3UK Risk Will Rise, But Not To Previous Highs Bottom Line: A hung parliament is the only situation where a no-deal Brexit risk reemerges in advance of the new Brexit day of January 31. The market is underestimating this outcome based on our risk indicator. But Johnson himself prefers the deal he negotiated and wishes to avoid the recession that would likely ensue from crashing out of the EU. And a headless parliament can prevent Johnson from forcing a no-deal exit, as investors witnessed this fall. We remain long GBP-JPY. Germany: The Risk Of An Early Election Germany is wading deeper into a period of political risk surrounding Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “lame duck” phase, doubts over her chosen successor, and uncertainty about Germany’s future in the world. The federal election of 2021 already looms large. Our indicator is only beginning to price this trend which can last for the next two years (Chart 4). On October 27 Germany’s main centrist parties suffered a crushing defeat in the state election of Thuringia. For the first time, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) not only lost its leadership position, but also secured less vote share than both the Left Party and the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Germany Is Heading Toward A Period Of Greater Political Risk The AfD successfully positioned itself with the right wing of the electorate and managed to capture more undecided voters than any other party (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5The Right-Wing AfD Outperformed In Thuringia … While the rise of the AfD (and its outperformance over its national polling) may seem alarming, Germany is not being taken over by Euroskeptics. Both support for the euro and German feeling of being “European” is near all-time highs (Chart 6). The question is how the centrist parties respond. Merkel’s approval rating is at its lower range. Support for Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (AKK), Merkel’s chosen successor, is plummeting (Chart 7). Since AKK was confirmed as party chief, the CDU suffered big losses in the European Parliament election and in state elections. Several of her foreign policy initiatives were not well received in the party.1 In October 2019, the CDU youth wing openly rejected her nomination as Merkel’s successor. At the annual CDU party conference on November 22-23, she only narrowly managed to avoid rebellion. She is walking on thin ice and will need to recover her approval ratings if she wants to secure the chancellorship. Meanwhile the CDU will lose its united front, increasing Germany’s policy uncertainty. Chart 6... But Euroskeptics Will Not Take Over Germany Germany’s other major party – the Social Democratic Party (SPD) – is also going through a leadership struggle. Chart 7The CDU Party Leader Is Walking On Thin Ice Chart 8A Return To The Polls Would Result In A CDU-Green Coalition In the first round of the leadership vote, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz and Klara Geywitz (member of the Brandenburg Landtag) secured a small plurality of votes with 22.7%, just 1.6% more than Bundestag member Saskia Esken and Norbert Walter-Borjans (finance minister of North Rhine-Westphalia from 2010-17). The latest polling, and Scholz’s backing by the establishment, implies that he will win but this is uncertain. The results of the second round will be published on November 30, after we go to press. What does the SPD’s leadership contest mean for the CDU-SPD coalition? More likely than not, the status quo will continue. Scholz is an establishment candidate and supports remaining in the ruling coalition until 2021. Esken is calling for the SPD to leave the coalition, but Walter-Borjans has not explicitly supported this. An SPD exit from the Grand Coalition would likely lead to a snap election, not a favorable outcome for stability-loving Germans. A return to the polls would benefit the Greens and AfD at the expense of the mainstream parties, and would likely see a CDU-Green coalition emerge (Chart 8). Given that a majority of voters want the SPD to remain in government (Chart 9), and that new elections would damage the SPD’s prospects, we believe that the SPD is likely to stay in government until 2021, even if the less established Esken and Walter-Borjans win. The risk is the uncertainty around Merkel’s exit. October 2021 is a long time for Merkel to drag the coalition along, so the odds of an early election are probably higher than expected. Chart 9Germans Prefer The SPD Remains In Government Chart 10Climate Spending Closest Germany Gets To Fiscal Stimulus (For Now) Chart 11There Is Room For More Fiscal Stimulus In Germany, If Needed What would a Scholz win mean for the great debate over whether Germany will step up its fiscal policy? If the establishment duo wins the SPD leadership, the Grand Coalition remains in place, and the economy does not relapse, we are unlikely to see additional fiscal stimulus in the near future. Scholz argues that additional stimulus would not be productive, as the slowdown is due to external factors (i.e. trade war).2 The recently released Climate Action Program 2030 is the closest to fiscal stimulus that we will see. This package will deliver additional spending worth 9bn euro in 2020 and 54bn euro until 2023 (Chart 10). We are unlikely to see additional fiscal stimulus from Germany in the near future. Bottom Line: Germany is wading into a period of rising political uncertainty. In the event of a downward surprise in growth, there is room to add more fiscal stimulus (Chart 11). But there is no change in fiscal policy in the meantime, e.g. no positive surprise. France: Macron Takes Center Stage While Merkel exits, President Emmanuel Macron continues to position himself as Europe’s leader – with a vision for European integration, reform, and political centrism. But in the near term he will remain tied down with his ambitious domestic agenda. France is trudging down the path of fiscal consolidation. After exiting the Excessive Deficit Procedure in 2018, and decreasing real government expenditures by 0.3% of GDP, France’s budget deficit is forecasted to decline further (Chart 12). Macron’s government is moving towards balancing its budget primarily by reducing government expenditures to finance tax cuts and decrease the deficit. Macron’s reform efforts following the Great National Debate – tax cuts for the middle class, bonus exemptions from income tax and social security contributions, and adjustment of pensions for inflation – have paid off.3 His approval rating is beginning to recover from the lows hit during the Yellow Vest protests (Chart 13). These reforms will be financed by lower government expenditures and reduced debt burden as a result of accommodative monetary policy. Chart 12Fiscal Consolidation In France Chart 13Macron's Reform Efforts Have Paid Off Overall, France has proven to a very resilient country in light of a general economic slowdown (Chart 14, top panel). Business investment and foreign direct investment, propped up by gradual cuts in the corporate income tax rate, have remained steady, and confidence remains strong (Chart 14, bottom panels). France is consumer driven and hence somewhat protected from storms in global trade. Chart 14French Economy Resilient Despite Global Slowdown Chart 15Ongoing Strikes Will Register In French Risk Indicator Bottom Line: France stands out for remaining generally stable despite pursuing structural reforms. Strikes and opposition to reforms will continue, and will register in our risk indicator (Chart 15), but it is Germany where global trends threaten the growth model and political trends threaten greater uncertainty. On the fiscal front France is consolidating rather than stimulating.   Italy: Muddling Through This fall’s budget talks caused very little political trouble, as expected. The new Finance Minister Roberto Gualtieri is an establishment Democratic Party figure and will not seek excessive conflict with Brussels over fiscal policy. Italy’s budget deficit is projected to stay flat over 2019 and 2020. The key development since the mid-year budget revision was the repeal of the Value Added Tax hike scheduled for 2020, a repeal financed primarily by lower interest spending.4 Equity markets have celebrated Italy’s avoidance of political crisis this year with a 5.6% increase. Our own measure of geopolitical risk has dropped off sharply (Chart 16). But of course we expect it to rise next year given that Italy remains the weakest link in the Euro Area over the long run. The left-leaning alliance between the established Democratic Party and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement hurt both parties’ approval ratings. In fact, the only parties that have seen an increase in approval in the last month are the League, the far-right Brothers of Italy, and the new centrist party of former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Italia Viva (Chart 17). We expect to see cracks form next year, particularly over immigration, but mutual fear of a new election can motivate cooperation for a time. Chart 16Decline In Italian Risk Will Be Short Lived Chart 17The M5S-PD Alliance Damaged Their Approval Bottom Line: Italy’s new government is running orthodox fiscal policy, which means no boost to growth, but no clashing with Brussels either. Spain: Election Post Mortem Chart 18A Gridlocked Parliament In Spain The Spanish election produced another gridlocked parliament, as expected, with no party gaining a majority and no clear coalition options. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) emerged as the clear leader but still lost three seats. The People’s Party recovered somewhat from its April 2019 defeat, gaining 23 seats. The biggest loser of the election was Ciudadanos, which lost 47 seats after its highly criticized shift to the right, forcing its leader Alberto Rivera to resign. The party’s seats were largely captured by the far-right Vox party, which won 15.1% of the popular vote and more than doubled its seats (Chart 18). Socialist leader Pedro Sanchez has arranged a preliminary governing agreement with Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias, but it is unstable. Even with Podemos, Sanchez falls far short of the 176 seats he needs to govern. In fact, there are only three possible scenarios in which the Socialists can reach the required 176 seats and none of these scenarios are easy to negotiate (Chart 19). The first – a coalition with the People’s Party – can already be ruled out. The other two require the support of the smaller pro-independence party, which will be difficult for Sanchez to secure, given that he hardened his stance on Catalonia in the days leading up to the election. Chart 19No Simple Way To A Majority Government The next step for Sanchez is to be confirmed as prime minister in an “investiture” vote, likely on December 16.5 He would need 176 votes in the first round (or a simple majority in the second round) to gain the confidence of Congress. He looks to fall short (Chart 20).6 If he fails to be confirmed, Sanchez will have another two months to form a government or face the possibility of yet another election. Chart 20Sanchez Set To Fall Short In Investiture Vote Spain’s indecision is leading to small conflicts with Brussels. Last week, the European Commission placed Spain under the preventative arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, stating that the country had not done enough to reach its medium-term budget objective.7 The European Commission’s outlook on Spain is slightly more pessimistic than that of the Spanish government (Chart 21). Deficit projections could worsen if a left-wing government takes power that includes the anti-austerity Podemos – which means that Spain is the only candidate for a substantial fiscal policy surprise. Chart 21A Fiscal Policy Surprise In Spain? Chart 22Spanish Risk Will Keep Rising We expect our Spanish risk indicator to keep rising (Chart 22). The silver lining is that Spain’s turmoil – like Germany’s – poses no systemic risk to the Euro Area. Spain could also see an increase in fiscal thrust. Stay long Italian government bonds and short Spanish bonos. Bottom Line: We remain tactically long Italian government bonds and short Spanish bonos. Italian bonds will sell off less in a risk-on phase and rally more in a risk-off phase, and relative political trends reinforce this trade. Emerging Markets: Global Unrest Civil unrest is unfolding across the world, grabbing the attention of the global news media (Chart 23). The proximate causes vary – ranging from corruption, inequality, governance, and austerity – but the fear of contagion is gaining ground. Chart 23Pickup In Civil Unrest Raising Fear Of Contagion A country’s vulnerability to unrest can be gauged by two main factors: political voice and underlying economic conditions. • Political Voice: The Worldwide Governance Indicators, specifically voice and accountability, corruption, and rule of law, provide proxies for political participation (Chart 24). The aim is to assess whether there is a legitimate channel for discontent to lead to change. Countries with low rankings are especially at risk of experiencing unrest when the economy is unable to deliver. Chart 24Greater Risk Of Unrest Where Political Voice Is Absent • Economic Conditions: Last year’s tightening monetary conditions, the manufacturing and trade slowdown, the US-China trade war, and a strong US dollar have weighed on global growth this year. This is challenging, especially for economies struggling to pick up the pace of growth (Chart 25). It translates to increased job insecurity, in some cases where insecurity is already rife (Chart 26). The likelihood that economic deterioration spurs widespread unrest depends on both the level and change in these variables. The former political factor is a structural condition that becomes more relevant when economic conditions deteriorate. Chart 25The Global Slowdown Weighed On Growth In Regions Already Struggling … Chart 26… And Raise Job Insecurity Chart 27Brazilian Risk Unlikely To Reach Previous Highs BCA Research is optimistic on global growth as we enter the end game of this business cycle. Nevertheless risks to this view are elevated and emerging market economies are still reeling from the past year’s slowdown. This makes them especially sensitive to failures on the part of policymakers. As a result, policymakers will be more inclined to ease monetary and fiscal policy and less inclined to execute structural reforms. Brazil is a case in point. Our indicator is flagging a sharp rise in political risk (Chart 27). This reflects the recent breakdown in the real – which can go further as the finance ministry has signaled it is willing to depreciate to revive growth. Meanwhile the administration has postponed its proposals to overhaul the country’s public sector, including measures to freeze wages and reduce public sectors jobs. On the political front, President Jair Bolsonaro’s recent break from the Social Liberal Party and launch of a new party, the Alliance for Brazil, threatens to reduce his ability to get things done. This move comes at a time when Brazil’s political landscape is being shaken up by former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s release from jail, pending an appeal against his corruption conviction. The former leader of the Worker’s Party lost no time in vowing to revive Brazil’s left. Our risk indicator might overshoot due to currency policy, but we doubt that underlying domestic political instability will reach late-2015 and mid-2018 levels. Brazil has emerged from a deep recession, an epic corruption scandal, and an impeachment that led to the removal of former president Dilma Rousseff. It is not likely to see a crisis of similar stature so soon. Bolsonaro’s approval rating is the lowest of Brazil’s recent leaders, save Michel Temer, but it has not yet collapsed (Chart 28). An opinion poll held in October – prior to Lula’s release – indicates that Bolsonaro is favored to win in a scenario in which he goes head to head against Lula (Chart 29). Justice Minister Sergio Moro, who oversaw the corruption investigation, is the only candidate that would gain more votes when pitted against Bolsonaro. He is working with Bolsonaro at present and is an important pillar of the administration. So it is premature to pronounce Bolsonaro’s presidency finished. Chart 28Bolsonaro’s Approval, While Relatively Low, Has Not Collapsed Chart 29Bolsonaro Not Yet Finished The problem, as illustrated in Charts 25 and 26, is that Brazil still suffers from slow growth and an uninspiring job market – longstanding economic grievances. This will induce the administration to take a precautionary stance and slow the reform process. The result should be reflationary in the short run but negative for Brazil’s sustainability over the long run. There is still a positive path forward. Unlike the recently passed pension cuts and the public sector cuts that were just postponed – both of which zap entitlements from Brazilians – the other items on the reform agenda are less controversial. Privatization and tax reform are less politically onerous and will keep the government and economy on a positive trajectory. Meanwhile the pension cuts are unlikely to be a source of discontent as they will be phased in over 12-14 years. Thus, while the recent political events justify a higher level of risk, speculation regarding the likelihood of mass unrest in Brazil – apart from the mobilization of Worker’s Party supporters ahead of the municipal elections next fall – is overdone. Bottom Line: The growth environment in emerging markets is set to improve in 2020. US-China trade risk is falling and China will do at least enough stimulus to be stable. Moreover emerging markets will use monetary and fiscal tools to mitigate social unrest. This will not prevent unrest from continuing to flare. But not every country that has unrest is globally significant. Brazil is a major market that has recently emerged from extreme political turmoil, so a relapse is not our base case. Otherwise one should monitor Hong Kong’s impact on the trade deal, Russia’s internal stability, and the danger that Iranian and Iraqi unrest could cause oil supply disruptions. In the event that the global growth rebound does not materialize we expect Mexico and Thailand – which have better fundamentals – to outperform. Our long Thai equity relative trade is a strategic defensive trade.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “Merkel’s Successor Splits German Coalition With Rogue Syria Plan,” dated October 22, 2019 and “Merkel's Own Party Wants Outright Huawei Ban From 5G Networks,” dated November 15, 2019, available at bloomberg.com. 2 Please see “Scholz Says No Need for German Stimulus After Dodging Recession,” dated November 14, 2019, available at bloomberg.com. 3 Please see “France: Draft Budgetary Plan For 2020,” dated October 15, 2019, available at ec.europa.eu. 4 Please see “Analysis of the Draft Budgetary Plan of Italy,” dated November 20, 2019, available at ec.europa.eu. 5 Please see “Investiture calendar | Can a government be formed before Christmas?” dated November 14, 2019, available at elpais.com. 6 If Sanchez convinces PNV, BNG, and Teruel Exists to vote in his favor for both rounds of the vote, he would need ERC and Eh Bildu to abstain in order to win. However, given that the PSOE has stated that it will not even negotiate with Eh Bildu, it is likely that this party will vote against Sanchez, giving the opposition 168 votes. In this case, Sanchez would not only need PNV, BNG, and Teruel in his favor, but also the support of either CC or ERC, both unlikely scenarios. 7 Please see “Commission Opinion on the Draft Budgetary Plan of Spain,” dated November 20, 2019, available at ec.europa.eu. Appendix Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator  Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Section III: Geopolitical Calendar