Developed Countries

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

Underweight While year-to-date chip equipment stocks are the best performing index in the SPX, we deem them a mania, and include them in our high-conviction underweight basket for 2020. The top panel shows this irrational exuberance that has permeated the semi equipment universe is similar to the dotcom era excesses. Back in the late-1990s relative profit growth was sky high, but today it is flirting with the zero line, warning that gravity will pull these stocks back down to earth. The contracting ISM manufacturing survey signals that relative share price momentum running at a breakneck pace is unwarranted. The same holds true for relative forward profit and revenue growth expectations, especially given the ongoing contraction in global semi sales. This deficient demand for semis and therefore semi equipment manufacturers is also apparent in deflating DRAM prices, our industry pricing power proxy. Historically, relative profit expectations and pricing power have moved in lockstep and the current message is to fade sell-side analysts’ buoyancy. Net earnings revisions have slingshot from extreme pessimism to extreme optimism during the past quarter and are vulnerable to disappointment. In sum, lack of profit growth, deficient industry demand, perky valuations and extremely overbought conditions all suggest that the mania in the S&P chip equipment index will likely turn into a panic next year. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC.​​​​​​​

Highlights A 400k b/d addition to OPEC 2.0’s official production cut of 1.2mm b/d will have little effect on actual supplies. The market already has seen ~ 2.0mm to 2.5mm b/d of output removed from the market via excess voluntary cuts (e.g., from Saudi Arabia and others) and involuntary cuts (e.g., from Iran and Venezuela). The incremental 400k b/d would just be another target for free-rider states to ignore. However, if Iraq and other states with on-and-off compliance at the margin can be persuaded to follow through on producing at lower quotas following OPEC 2.0’s meetings today and tomorrow, markets could rally as actual output falls (Chart of the Week). A rally on the back of lower OPEC 2.0 production would support the IPO of Saudi Aramco, which is expected to price while the producer coalition is meeting in Vienna. Production from the “Other Guys” – our moniker for all producers excluding Gulf OPEC, US shale and Russia – will account for a lesser and lesser share of global output. New production – much of it from the last of the big conventional projects sanctioned prior to the 2014 price collapse – from Norway, Brazil, Guyana and the US Gulf of Mexico will come on strong in 2020 – but most of this has been priced in already. The rate of growth of US shale-oil production will slow. Feature Brent crude oil prices could get a boost from OPEC 2.0, if free-rider states – specifically Iraq and states with marginal quota compliance shown in the Chart of the Week – actually were to abide by production cuts they agree to. This would be amplified if cuts are extended to end-June, from end-March. The impact would be marginal, to be sure, given most of the production cuts that matter to the market already are in place – i.e., Saudi Arabia’s overcompliance of ~ 400k b/d, and Iran and Venezuela’s involuntary production cuts of ~ 1.8mm b/d resulting from US sanctions, as of October 2019. Ahead of the Vienna meetings today and tomorrow, the putative leaders of the producer coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have been lobbying at cross purposes. KSA is seeking support for deeper cuts and an extension to mid-year of the deal. Russia is lobbying to keep the original deal’s expiry at end-March, and also is seeking to have its ultra-light crude (i.e., condensates) production excluded from its quota, as it is from OPEC members’ production calculations. Russia is creating additional volumes of condensate – ~ 800k b/d this year of its total 11.2mm b/d output – to dispose of as it ramps natural gas production to new feed markets, particularly China.1 Our expectation is the production-cutting deal will be extended to end-June with an official target of 1.6mm b/d removed from the market. Whether the new deal matters to the market will depend on the actions of heretofore free-rider OPEC 2.0 states. Prices could go up, but market share for the producer coalition will remain under pressure (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekAdditional OPEC 2.0 Cuts Could Be Bullish For Crude Oil Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Market Share Under Pressure Saudi Aramco IPO Due To Price Follow-through by all OPEC 2.0 members on additional production cuts would benefit Saudi Arabia, as it is expected to price the Saudi Aramco IPO while the producer coalition is meeting in Vienna. The Aramco IPO price is expected to value the company between $1.5 and $1.8 trillion. We recently looked at the IPO and believe Aramco will be valued closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion, the literal range in which the offering was being valued by banks and analysts.2 To briefly recap, in the first six months of this year, Aramco produced 10.0mm b/d of crude oil and condensates. Aramco accounted for 12.5% of global crude output in 2016 - 18 and reported in its red herring that its proved liquids reserves were ~ five times larger than the combined proved liquids reserves of the five major independent oil companies. Aramco’s 3.1mm b/d of refining capacity makes it the fourth largest integrated refiner in the world. In 2018, Aramco’s free cash flow amounted to almost $86 billion. Net income last year was $111 billion, more than the combined profits of the next six largest oil companies in the world. For its first year as a public company, Aramco has indicated it will pay an annual dividend of $75 billion. Improving compliance with the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal is of obvious importance for the Aramco IPO. The member states are quick to stress they support the deal and will do their part, but free riding has been a problem in terms of compliance. As we noted above, full compliance will lower OPEC 2.0 crude oil production from current levels, but Saudi Arabia’s voluntary over-compliance, coupled with the involuntary production losses from Iran and Venezuela already are doing most of the work in restraining production. The “Other Guys” Continue Treading Water Since 2010, most of the growth in world oil production came from three regions: US onshore shale-oil producers, Gulf OPEC and Russia. These regions added 14mm b/d of supply between 2010 and 2019. The “Other Guys” often are overlooked in the oil market, but they still accounted for 45% of global oil production this year on average. Production from the “Other Guys” – our moniker for all producers excluding Gulf OPEC, US shale and Russia – has been falling as a share of global production for years, due to a lack of domestic and foreign direct investment in their energy sectors. We expect their production will remain flat next year and could start falling in 2021. The “Other Guys” often are overlooked in the oil market, but they still accounted for 45% of global oil production this year on average: Their combined output was ~ 45mm b/d of crude and liquids (Chart 3). The “Other Guys’” production is mostly long-cycle projects and these countries do not possess spare capacity. Thus, they are reacting to oil prices and maximizing production now, if they can. Even so, their share of global production continues to fall (Chart 4). Chart 3The "Other Guys" Production Is Stagnant Chart 4The "Other Guys" Market Share Plummets The 3- to 5-year lag between final investment decisions and first production for projects in these states strongly suggests the global oil market is entering a period of lower supply additions from the “Other Guys,” given the last mega-projects were probably sanctioned in 2014 while prices still were above $100/bbl for both Brent and WTI. The "Other Guys’" rig count recovered, along with oil prices, since the 2016 downturn. However, this is still a low level of rigs vs. the 2010-2014 period – a period during which production from this group barely grew despite prices averaging more than $100/bbl. We expect their rig count to remain weak next year (Chart 5). Conventional production takes time to ramp up, therefore we should not expect a large increase in production over the next few years. Chart 5The "Other Guys" Rig Counts Will Remain Under Pressure Oil Supply Looks Tighter Toward 2021 Globally, the last of the big projects sanctioned prior to the oil-price collapse beginning in 2H14 and lasting to 1H16 are coming online in Norway, Brazil, Guyana and the US Gulf. Up to this year, US onshore production was the sole growing region globally. If capital discipline caps growth prospects in key US shale basins, global oil supply will grow only modestly in 2020 and 2021. For the most part, the “Other Guys” haven't been attracting the capital needed to sustain and grow their production. Given the ongoing drive by E&P companies globally to return capital to shareholders via buybacks or dividends, and the insistence of capital markets to fund only solid, profitable projects, capital likely will remain constrained for the “Other Guys.” States that were able to attract capital prior to the 2014 oil price collapse – Canada, Brazil, Norway, Guyana and the US – are expected to increase production next year; however, we believe much of this production increase already has been priced in by the market, as it has been by BCA (Chart 6). In our balances, we have oil production for Canada up 50k b/d next year vs 2019; Brazil +330k b/d and Norway +360k b/d. This is 740k b/d ex-Guyana in 2020. Guyana is still doing exploratory drilling and recently announced they expect to have their first commercial flows online this month. Oil markets are expecting initial commercial flows of ~ 120k b/d between December and 1Q20, and a ramp to 750k b/d by 2025, which would be significant. We will be updating our balances in two weeks, in our final publication of the year. Up to this year, US onshore production was the sole growing region globally. If capital discipline caps growth prospects in key US shale basins, global oil supply will grow only modestly in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 7). US shale output reaches ~ 9.35mm b/d on average next year in the Big Five basins (Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, Niobrara and Anadarko), in our modeling. This amounts to an 800k b/d increase in our US lower 48 production estimate for the US, vs. a 900k b/d increase we expected earlier.3 Chart 6"The New Guys" Production vs. The "Other Guys" Production Chart 7US Shale Oil Production Growth Will Slow Going forward, it is important to re-emphasize that even the prolific shales in the US are being constrained by investors demanding the shale guys either return capital to shareholders via share buybacks or steady dividends and dividend increases. If they don’t accommodate investor interests, these shale producers – and all oil producers for that matter – will simply be denied access to funding markets. Capital is, finally, the binding constraint on the growth of global oil supplies. This has not always been the case, as we’ve noted. 2020 Could See Stronger Prices Markets generally are responding as expected to more accommodative financial conditions globally, which will allow oil demand growth, particularly in the EM economies, to revive in 2020. As a result, we are maintaining our expectation for growth of 1.4mm b/d next year, which is up 300k b/d from our expectation for growth this year. The rebound in demand we expect next year will force prices higher to incentivize additional supply and the release of inventories – mostly in 2H20. This will push the entire futures curve up, especially nearby futures, which will steepen the backwardation in Brent and WTI futures. Bottom Line: Further actual production cuts by OPEC 2.0, emerging threats to US shale growth, and stagnant output from the “Other Guys” facing off against higher demand growth next year could result in higher prices than we currently expect for 2020 – i.e., $67/bbl for Brent and $63/bbl for WTI.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Market Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices remain stuck between $60/bbl and $65/bbl awaiting clear signals about the US-China trade negotiations and OPEC 2.0’s decisions on its supply management beyond March 2020. Money managers are increasing their net long position, expecting bullish news on both these developments. They are increasing their Brent exposure to 414k long contracts vs. 64k short. Base Metals: Neutral SHFE copper inventories fell 11% on a week on week basis to 120k MT as of last Friday. Combined, the LME, COMEX and SHFE fell by 6%. The larger decline in Chinese inventory is partly attributed to the reduced import quotas on copper scraps, which limited the total available supply to meet domestic demand. As discussed in last week’s report, fundamentals in the two largest components of the LMEX – i.e. copper and aluminum – are tight and the rebound in demand showing up in our proprietary indicators will support prices. We remain long the LMEX tactically. Last week, we recommended getting long the LMEX index. We have subsequently learned the LME ceases trading the index. We will, nonetheless, continue to track the reported level of the index, as if it were tradeable. Precious Metals: Neutral Closing at $1479/bbl on Tuesday, gold prices broke out of the narrow range in which the metal has traded over the past month. Gold’s daily-return 1-year rolling correlation with the U.S. dollar is at its weakest level since 2011 and is below the 5th percentile of its distribution since 2004. On the other hand, the correlation with U.S. 10-year TIPS yields is strengthening and is now above the 95th percentile of its distribution. As safe-haven demand dissipates – alongside the rebound in global growth we expect – we believe these correlations will move back to their historical relationships, supporting gold as the U.S. dollar depreciates. Ags/Softs: Underweight CBOT Corn March Futures Contracts rallied at the beginning of the week on the back of a blizzard in the Midwest that stalled the already delayed corn harvest, which the USDA reported to be 89% complete as of Dec. 1, well behind the five-year average of 98%. After reaching multi-months highs last week, wheat futures fell due to profit taking and weaker than expected export figures. Soybean fell for the eighth straight day on Monday, with the most active contract closing at $8.73/Bu, the lowest in six months. A possible delay in the US-China trade deal together with expectations of a bumper crop in Brazil remain headwinds to prices.   Footnotes 1     Please see Russia to press OPEC+ to change its oil output calculations published by reuters.com November 27, 2019. 2     Please see our Special Report Aramco’s IPO: The Tie That Binds KSA And China, published November 15, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    We discuss further risks to shale oil production growth in Lingering Oil-Demand Weakness Will Fade, including the high levels of flaring in the Permian and Bakken basins.  This report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Underweight We downgraded homebuilders to underweight in late-October, and we are adding it to our high-conviction underweight call list. Most, if not all, positive profit drivers are already reflected in relative share prices. Specifically, the drubbing in interest rates has been more than accounted for by the year-to-date outperformance in homebuilders. Now that interest rates are moving in reverse, more pain lies ahead for the S&P homebuilding index. Worrisomely, consumers’ expectations to purchase a new home plunged anew last month according to The Conference Board’s survey, and that demand softness will weigh on housing starts and ultimately homebuilding revenues. Adding insult to injury, new house selling prices are losing ground to existing home prices, but such discounting is no longer boosting volumes as new home sales market share gains have stalled. Already, S&P homebuilding sales are contracting and the risk is that deflation gets entrenched in this construction industry. Simultaneously, lumber prices are gaining steam and coupled with contracting new home prices signal that homebuilding profits will suffer a setback. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HOME – DHI, LEN, PHM, NVR. ​​​​​​​

Highlights Structurally overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Our preferred expression is long T-bonds versus Swiss bonds. US yields can fall a lot more than European yields, and European yields can rise a lot more than US yields. Structurally underweight the overvalued dollar versus undervalued European currencies. Our preferred expression is long SEK/USD. Structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. But structurally overweight soft luxuries. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Fractal trade: The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Feature Chart of the WeekLike-For-Like, Structural Inflation Is Lower In the US Than In Europe A seemingly trivial disagreement between Europeans and Americans on how to measure inflation turns out to be the culprit for three major distortions in the world right now: Deeply divergent monetary policies across the developed economies. Huge valuation anomalies in the foreign exchange markets. President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade surpluses that Europe and China are running against the US. The inflation measurement disagreement wouldn’t really matter if inflation were running in the mid-single digits. But when inflation is near zero, the seemingly trivial difference in inflation measurement methodologies has ended up generating massive distortions. European And American Inflation Are Not The Same European inflation excludes the maintenance and upkeep costs associated with owning your home, whereas US inflation includes these costs at a hefty 25 percent weighting, making owner occupied housing by far the largest single item in the US inflation basket. By omitting the largest item in the US inflation basket, European inflation is subtly yet crucially different to American inflation. The European statisticians argue that unlike all the other items in the inflation basket, there is no independent market price for the ongoing cost of home ownership, and therefore this cost should be excluded. The American statisticians argue that the ongoing cost of home ownership is the single largest expense for most people and, as such, it should be ‘imputed’ from a concept known as ‘owner equivalent rent’ – essentially, asking homeowners how much it would cost to rent their own home. Different definitions of inflation will trigger very different policy responses from central banks. Both the European and American approaches have their merits and drawbacks, and it is not our intention to endorse one approach over the other. Our intention is simply to point out that the two approaches can give very different results for inflation – and therefore trigger very different policy responses from inflation-targeting central banks, with their consequent economic and political repercussions. If Americans used the European definition of inflation, then headline inflation in the US today would be running at the same sub-par rate as in the euro area, 1 percent, and well below the Fed’s 2 percent target (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). More important, the five year annualised rate of inflation – let’s call it US structural inflation – would have been stuck below 1 percent since 2016 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4). Under these circumstances, it would have been impossible for the Fed to hike the funds rate eight times, as it did through 2017-18. Chart I-2Like-For-Like, Headline Inflation Is Identical In The US And The Euro Area... Chart I-3...And Core Inflation Is ##br##Very Similar   Chart I-4Using The European Definition Of Inflation, The Fed Couldn't Have Hiked Rates Instead, what if Europeans used the American definition of inflation? European inflation does not include owner equivalent rent, but it does include housing rent for those that do rent their homes. In the US, these two items tend to move in lockstep (Chart I-5). If we assume the same for Europe, we can deduce that a US type weighting for owner equivalent rent would have boosted the headline inflation rate in the euro area by 0.3-0.4 percent through 2014-16, and by a possible 0.5 percent in Sweden through 2013-15 (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Under these circumstances, it would have been very difficult for the ECB and Riksbank to take and maintain policy rates deeply in negative territory, as they did through 2015-19. Chart I-5Owner Equivalent Rent Tracks ##br##Housing Rent Chart I-6Using The American Definition Of inflation, Euro Area Inflation Would Have Been Higher... Chart I-7...And Swedish Inflation Would Have Been Much Higher The Different Definitions Of Inflation Have Created Dangerous Distortions If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then, one way or the other, their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now. One important implication is that European currencies would not be as undervalued as they are now. If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now.  Based on the ECB’s own analysis, the euro area is over-competitive versus its top 19 trading partners – meaning the euro is undervalued – by at least 10 percent. Moreover, the ECB admits that this sizable undervaluation only appeared after the ECB and Fed started taking their monetary policies in opposite directions in 2015 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Euro Is Undervalued By More Than 10 Percent Put the other way, the dollar would not be as overvalued as it is now. In turn, the stronger dollar has created its own dangerous spill-overs. As we explained last week in The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015… And Why It Matters Now, the surging dollar in 2015 could not have come at a worse time for China. Given that the Chinese economy was already slowing sharply, and the yuan was pegged to the dollar, the resulting loss of Chinese competitiveness just exacerbated the slump. Forcing China to loosen the dollar peg in August 2015. All of which brings us neatly to the hot topic of 2019, and likely 2020 too – President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade imbalances that Europe and China are running against the US. As it happens, President Trump has a good point. Trade wars almost always stem from trade imbalances; and trade imbalances almost always stem from exchange rate manipulations or, at least, exchange rate distortions that advantage one economy to the detriment of another. The euro's undervaluation only happened after monetary policies diverged in 2015. Most of the euro area’s €150 billion trade surplus with the US appeared after 2015, so it cannot be a structural issue. In fact, the evolution of the trade imbalance has tracked relative monetary policy between the Fed and ECB almost tick for tick (Chart I-9), via the exchange rate channel and the over-competitiveness of the euro which the ECB fully admits. Chart I-9Excessively Divergent Monetary Policies Caused The Euro Area's Huge Trade Surplus With The US Of course, neither the ECB nor the Fed are deliberately targeting trade or the exchange rate; they are targeting inflation. But to repeat, they are targeting different definitions of inflation. Crucially, with a backdrop of near zero inflation, small definitional differences in inflation can generate huge economic and financial distortions, with dangerous political consequences. The Compelling Structural Opportunities The definitional difference between European and American inflation explain many of the economic and financial distortions we are witnessing now, as well as the dangerous political consequences. The main counterargument is that the inflation definitions are what they are; neither the ECB nor the Fed are likely to change them anytime soon. Nevertheless, there are compelling structural opportunities. Since 2015, American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). The historic evidence suggests that such a pace of outperformance is unsustainable structurally and, absent this tailwind, US and European headline inflation rates have to converge, one way or the other. Chart I-10An Unsustainable Surge In US Owner Equivalent Rent... Chart I-11...Has Lifted US Headline ##br##Inflation In this inevitable convergence, the asymmetric starting point of bond yields favours a long US T-bonds, short core European bonds structural position. Because, if the inflation convergence is downwards, T-bond yields will fall much further than European yields; whereas if the inflation convergence is upwards, European yields will likely rise more than T-bond yields. Our preferred structural expression is: long US T-bonds, short Swiss bonds. For currencies it is the opposite message. The overvalued dollar is likely to underperform, at least versus other developed market currencies. Given that Swedish inflation has been the most understated by the exclusion of owner equivalent rents, combined with the Riksbank’s intention to exit negative interest rate policy imminently, our preferred structural expression is: long SEK/USD. American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices. Lastly, European export growth – even in Germany – has been heavily reliant on a cheapening euro (Chart I-12). Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. Even those multinationals that sell their products in dollars will lose out in the accounting translation back into a strengthening domestic currency. Hence, structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Chart I-12Without A Weaker Euro, Most European Exporters Will Struggle To Outperform The one exception to this is the soft luxuries sector. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Stay structurally overweight soft luxuries. Fractal Trading System* The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short the MSCI All Country World versus the global 10-year bond (simple average of US, euro area, and China), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.5 percent. In other trades, long NZD/JPY and long SEK/JPY both achieved their profit targets of 3 percent and 1.5 percent respectively. Against this, long Poland versus World reached its 4 percent stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 65 percent. Chart I-13MSCI All-Country World Vs. Global 10-Year Bond 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 System   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