Oil

Highlights Falling Oil Prices & Bond Yields: Murky trends in global growth data, at a time of tight labor markets and gently rising inflation, are preventing a full recovery of risk assets after the October correction. A new concern is the falling price of oil, although this looks more corrective than a true change in trend. For now, maintain a cautious stance within global fixed income portfolios - neutral on corporate credit, below-benchmark on duration exposure. ECB Corporate Bond Purchases: The ECB is set to end the new buying phase of its Asset Purchase Program next month. This suggests that the best days in this cycle for European corporate credit are behind us, as the ECB will not treat its corporate bond purchases any differently than its government bond purchases. Both are going to stop. Remain underweight euro area corporate debt, both investment grade & high-yield. Feature Are Falling Oil Prices Telling Us Something About Global Growth? Thus far in November, global financial markets have reversed some of the steep losses incurred during the "Red October" correction. This has occurred for U.S. equities (the S&P 500 fell -8% last month but has risen +4% so far this month), U.S. corporate bonds (high-yield spreads widened +71bps last month and have tightened -19bps this month) and emerging market hard currency debt (USD-denominated sovereign spreads widened +27bps last month and have tightened -9bps this month). One market that has not rebounded, however, is oil. The benchmark Brent oil price fell -11% in October, but has fallen another -7% in November. This has been enough to nearly wipe out the entire +20% run-up seen in August and September. Global government bond yields have been very sensitive to swings in oil markets in recent years. Such a large decline in the oil price as has been seen of late would typically result in sharp drop in government bond yields, driven by falling inflation expectations. That correlation has been holding up in the major economies outside the U.S., where nominal yields and inflation expectations are lower than the levels seen before the October peak in oil prices. Nominal U.S. Treasury yields, by contrast, remain resilient, despite the fall in TIPS breakevens (Chart of the Week). This is because real Treasury yields have been climbing higher as investors acquiesce to the steady hawkish message from the Fed by making upward revisions to the expected path of U.S. policy rates. Chart of the WeekShifting Correlations The biggest impediment holding back a full recovery of the October losses for global risk assets is uncertainty over the global growth outlook. While the U.S. economy continues to churn along at an above-trend pace, there are signs that tighter monetary policy is starting to have an impact. Both housing and capital spending have cooled, although not yet by enough to pose a terminal threat to the current long business cycle expansion. The outlook for growth outside the U.S. is far more muddled, adding to investor confusion. China has seen a clear growth deceleration throughout 2018, but the recent reads from imports and the Li Keqiang index suggest that growth may be stabilizing or even modestly re-accelerating (Chart 2). Our China strategists are not convinced that this is anything more than a ramping up of imports and production in advance of the full imposition of U.S. trade tariffs, especially with Chinese policymakers reluctant to deploy significant fiscal or monetary stimulus to boost growth. Chart 2Mixed Messages On Growth A similar mixed read is evident in overall global trade data. World import growth has also slowed throughout 2018, but has shown some stabilization of late (second panel). A similar pattern can be seen in capital goods imports within the major developed economies. Our global leading economic indicator (LEI) continues to contract, but the pace of the decline has been moderating and our global LEI diffusion index - which measures the number of countries with a rising LEI versus those with a falling LEI - may be bottoming out (third panel). There are also large, and growing, divergences within the major developed economies. The manufacturing purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) for the euro area and the U.K. have been falling steadily since the start of the year, but the PMIs have recently ticked up in the U.S. and Japan (Chart 3). A similar pattern can be seen in the OECD LEIs, which have retreated from the latest cyclical peaks by far more in the U.K. (-1.6%) and euro area (-1.2%) than in the U.S. (-0.3%) and Japan (-0.6%). Chart 3Diverging Growth, Diverging Bond Yields With such mixed messages from the macro data, investors understandably lack conviction. The backdrop does not look soft enough yet to threaten global profit growth and justify sharply lower equity prices and wider corporate bond spreads. Yet the growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world are intensifying, creating a backdrop of rising U.S. real interest rates and a stronger U.S. dollar. That combination is typically toxic for emerging markets, but the impact of that would be muted this time if China were to indeed see a genuine growth reacceleration. This macro backdrop lines up with our current major fixed income investment recommendations. We suggest only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds given the uncertainty over growth, but favoring the U.S. over Europe and emerging markets given the clearer evidence of a strong U.S. economy. At the same time, we continue to recommend below-benchmark overall portfolio duration exposure, but with regional allocations favoring countries where central banks will have difficulty raising interest rates (Japan, Australia, core Europe, the U.K.) versus nations where policymakers are likely to tighten monetary policy (U.S., Canada). However, the latest dip in oil should not be ignored. A more sustained breakdown of oil prices could force us to downgrade corporate bonds and raise duration exposure - if it were a sign that global growth was slowing and inflation expectations had peaked. The current pullback in oil has occurred alongside a decelerating trend in global economic data surprises, after speculators had ramped up long positions in oil and prices were stretched relative to the 200-day moving average (Chart 4). This suggests that the latest move has been corrective, and not a change in trend, although the burden of proof now falls on the evolution of global growth, both in absolute terms and relative to investor expectations. Chart 4Oil Correction Or Growth Scare? Bottom Line: Murky trends in global growth data, at a time of tight labor markets and gently rising inflation, are preventing a full recovery of risk assets after the October correction. A new concern is the falling price of oil, although this looks more corrective than a true change in trend. For now, maintain a cautious stance within global fixed income portfolios - neutral on corporate credit, below-benchmark on duration exposure. European Corporates Are About To Lose A Major Buyer Last week, we published a Special Report discussing the ECB's options at next month's critical monetary policy meeting.1 One of our conclusions was that the central bank will deliver on its commitment to end the new purchases phase of its Asset Purchase Program (APP) at year-end. The bulk of the assets in the APP are government bonds, but the ECB has also been buying corporate debt in the APP since June 2016. The ECB is set to end those purchases at the end of December, to the likely detriment of euro area corporate bond returns. The Corporate Sector Purchase Program (CSPP), as it is formally known, has been a targeted tool used by the ECB to ease financial conditions for euro area companies. This has occurred through three main channels: tighter corporate bond spreads, greater access for companies to issue debt in the corporate primary market, and increased bank lending to non-financial corporations. The CSPP was intended to complement the ECB's other monetary stimulus measures, like negative interest rates and the buying of government debt. The first CSPP purchases were made on June 8, 2016. The euro area corporate bond market responded as expected, with investment grade spreads tightening from 128bps to 86bps by the end of 2017. There were spillovers into high-yield bonds, as well, with spreads falling -129bps over the same period (Chart 5). Since then, however, spreads have steadily widened and European corporates have underperformed their U.S. equivalents. This suggests that some of the relative performance of euro area credit may have simply reflected the relative strength of the euro area economy compared to the U.S. The greater acceleration of euro area growth in 2017 helped euro area corporates outperform U.S. equivalents, while the opposite has held true in 2018. Chart 5ECB Buying Does Not Control European Credit Spreads The CSPP has operated with a defined set of rules governing the purchases. Bank debt was excluded, as were bonds rated below investment grade. Only debt issued by corporations established in the euro area were eligible for the CSPP, although bonds from euro-based companies with parents who were not based in the euro area were also eligible. The latest update on the holdings data from the ECB shows that there are just under 1,200 bonds in the CSPP portfolio. Yet despite the ECB's best efforts to maintain some degree of portfolio diversification, the impact of the CSPP on euro area corporate bond markets was fairly consistent across countries and sectors (Chart 6). Italy is the notable diverging country this year, as the rising risk premiums on all Italian financial assets have pushed corporate bond yields and spreads well above the levels seen in core Europe, even with the ECB owning some Italian names in the CSPP. Chart 6Spread Convergence During CSPP There was also convergence of yields and spreads among credit tiers during the first eighteen months of the CSPP, with valuations on BBB-rated debt falling towards the levels on AA-rated and A-rated bonds (Chart 7). That convergence has gone into reverse in 2018, with BBB-rated spreads widening by +55bps year-to-date (this compares to a smaller +25bps increase in U.S. BBB-rated corporate spreads). A surge in the available supply of BBB-rated euro area bonds is a likely factor in that spread widening, as evidenced by the sharp rise in the market capitalization of the BBB segment of the Bloomberg Barclays euro area corporate bond index (top panel). Chart 7A Worsening Supply/Demand Balance For European BBBs? More broadly, the CSPP has helped the ECB's goal of boosting the ability of European companies to issue debt in primary bond markets. Traditionally, European firms have used bank loans as their main source of borrowed funds, with only the largest firms being able to issue debt in credit markets. That has changed during the CSPP era. According to data from the ECB, gross debt issuance by euro area non-financial companies (NFCs) has risen by €104bn since the start of the CSPP, taking issuance back to levels not seen since 2014 (Chart 8). The bulk of the issuance has been in shorter-maturity bonds, but there has been a notable increase in the issuance of longer-dated debt since the CSPP began. Chart 8Bank Funding Versus Bond Funding The ECB's role as a marginal buyer of bonds in the primary, or newly-issued, market has helped boost that gross issuance figure. The share of bonds that the ECB owns in the CSPP that was issued in the primary market has gone from 6% soon after the CSPP started to the current 18% (Chart 9). The growth in euro area non-financial corporate debt went from 6% to over 10% during the peak of the CSPP buying between mid-2016 and end-2017, but has since decelerated to 7%. At the same time, the annual growth in loans to NFCs, which was essentially zero during the first eighteen months of the CSPP, has accelerated to 2% over the course of 2018. Chart 9More Bank Loans, Less Debt Issuance In other words, euro area companies had been substituting bank financing for bond financing in the CSPP "era", but have since shifted back towards bank loans in 2018. That shift in financing was most notable among CSPP-eligible companies, particularly those smaller firms that had not be able to issue debt in the primary market pre-CSPP, according to an ECB analysis conducted earlier this year.2 From the point of view of the investible euro area corporate bond market, however, even larger companies that have done that shift in bank financing to bond financing have seen no noticeable increase in aggregate corporate leverage. In Chart 10, we show our bottom-up version of our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the euro area. This indicator is designed to measure the aggregate financial health of euro area companies using financial ratios incorporating actual data from individual companies. We separated out the list of companies used in that CHM that are currently held in the CSPP portfolio and created a "CSPP-only" version of the CHM (the blue lines in all panels). All issuers that were eligible for inclusion in the CSPP, but whose bonds were not actually purchased by the ECB, are used to create a "non-CSPP" CHM (the black dotted lines). Chart 10No Fundamental Changes From CSPP As can be seen in the chart, there is no material difference in any of the ratios for bonds within or outside the CSPP. The one notable exception is short-term liquidity, where the ratios were much lower for names purchased by the ECB than for those that were not. This lends credence to the idea that the CSPP most helped firms that were more liquidity-constrained, likely smaller companies. The biggest change in any of the ratios has been in interest coverage, but that has been for both CSPP and non-CSPP issuers, suggesting a common factor outside of ECB buying - zero/negative ECB policy rates, ECB purchases of government bonds that helped reduce all European borrowing rates - has been the main driver of lowering interest costs. Looking ahead, the ECB is likely to stop the net new purchases of its CSPP program when it does the same for the full APP next month. All of which is occurring for the same reason - the euro area economy is deemed by the central bank to no longer need the support of large-scale asset purchases given a full employment labor market and gently rising inflation. As we discussed in our Special Report last week, the ECB has other options available to them if there is a reduction in euro area banks' capacity or willingness to lend, such as introducing a new Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation (TLTRO). Continuing with unconventional measures involving direct ECB involvement in financial markets, like buying corporate debt, is no longer necessary. Our euro area CHM suggests that there are no major problems with European corporate health that require a wider credit risk premium. We still have our reservations, however, about recommending significant euro area corporate bond exposure while the ECB is set to end its asset purchase program. New buyers will certainly come in to replace the lost demand from the elimination of CSPP purchases, but private investors will likely require higher yields and spreads than the central bank - especially if the current period of slowing euro area growth were to continue. Bottom Line: The ECB is set to end the new buying phase of its Asset Purchase Program next month. This suggests that the best days for European corporate debt for the current cycle are behind us, as the ECB will not treat its corporate bond purchases any different than its government bond purchases. Both are going to stop. Remain underweight euro area corporate debt, both investment grade and high-yield. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Evaluating The ECB's Options In December", dated November 6th 2018, available at gfis.bcareserach.com and fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 The ECB report on its CSPP program was published in the March 2018 edition of the ECB Economic Bulletin, which can be found here. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/html/eb201804.en.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Gold's performance during the "Red October" equities sell-off, coupled with that of the most widely followed gold ratios (copper- and oil-to-gold), indicates investors and commodity traders are not pricing in a sharp contraction in global growth. These ratios are, however, picking up divergent trends in EM and DM growth (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields In the oil markets, the Trump Administration appears to have blinked on its Iran oil-export sanctions. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days (Chart 2).1 The higher-than-expected number of waivers indicates the Trump Administration is aligned with our view that the global oil market is extremely tight, despite the recent production increases from OPEC 2.0 and the U.S.2 The U.S. State Department, in particular, apparently did not want to test the ability of OPEC spare capacity - mostly held by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) - to cover the combined losses of Iranian exports, Venezuela's collapse, and unplanned random production outages. No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Chart 2Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days Energy: Overweight. Iran's exports are reportedly down ~ 1mm b/d from April's pre-sanction levels of ~ 2.5mm b/d. We assume Iran's exports will fall 1.25mm b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. Close to 45k MT of copper was delivered to LME warehouses last week, according to Metal Bulletin's Fastmarkets. This was the largest delivery into LME-approved warehouses since April 7, 1989. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is trading close to fair value, while the most widely followed gold ratios - copper- and oil-to-gold - indicate global demand is holding up. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's crop report shows the corn harvest accelerated at the start of November, reaching 76% vs. 68% a year ago. Feature Gold Ratios Suggest Continued Growth Gold is trading mostly in line with our fair-value model, based on estimates using the broad trade-weighted USD and U.S. real rates (Chart 3).3 Safe-haven demand - e.g., buying prompted by the fear of a global slowdown or a deepening of the global equity rout dubbed "Red October" in the press - does not appear to be driving gold's price away from fair value. Neither is rising volatility in the equity markets. Chart 3Gold Trading Close To Fair Value This assessment also is supported by the behavior of the widely followed gold ratios - copper-to-gold and oil-to-gold - which have become useful leading indicators of global bond yields and DM equity levels following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). From 1995 up to the GFC, the gold ratios tracked changes in the nominal yields of 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds fairly closely. During this period, bond yields led the ratios as they expanded and contracted with global growth, as seen in Chart 4. Post-GFC, this relationship has reversed, and the gold ratios now lead global bond yields. Chart 4Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC To understand this better, we construct two variables to isolate the common growth-related and idiosyncratic factors driving these ratios over the long term, particularly following the GFC.4 The common factor is labeled growth vs. safe-haven in the accompanying charts. It consistently tracks changes in global bond yields and DM equities, which also follow global GDP growth closely. If investors were fleeing economically sensitive assets and buying the safe haven of gold, the correlation between these variables would fall. As it happens, the strong correlation held up well following the "Red October" equities rout, indicating investors have not become overly risk-averse or fearful global growth is taking a downturn. When regressing our proxy for global 10-year yields and the U.S. 10-year yields on the growth vs. safe-haven factor, we found this factor explains a significantly larger part of the variation in global yields than U.S. bond yields alone (Chart 5).5 This common factor also is highly correlated with DM equity variability (Chart 6). Chart 5Gold Ratios' Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields ... Chart 6... And DM Equities The second, or idiosyncratic, factor we constructed, captures the fundamental drivers that impact each of the gold ratios through supply-demand fundamentals in the copper and oil markets, and EM vs. DM economic performance. The latter is proxied using EM equity returns relative to DM returns.6 This analysis shows oil outperforms copper in periods of rising DM and slowing EM economic growth (Chart 7). Our analysis also indicates this idiosyncratic factor explains the divergence of the gold ratios seen in 2018: Copper demand is heavily influenced by EM demand, particularly China, which accounts for ~ 50% of global copper demand, but less than 15% of global oil demand. Oil demand - some 100mm b/d - is much more affected by the evolution of global GDP. Chart 7Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors At the moment, this idiosyncratic factor is driving both ratios apart because of: Relative economic underperformance of EM vs. DM, which favors oil over copper; and Persistent fears of escalating Sino-U.S. trade tensions, which are weighing on copper. Price-supportive supply-shocks in the oil market (sanctions on Iranian oil exports, falling Venezuelan production) and still-strong demand continue to drive oil prices. These dynamics likely will remain in place for the foreseeable future (1H19), which will favor oil over copper. Gold Ratios As Leading Indicators To round out our analysis, we looked at causal relationships between the performance of financial assets - EM and DM stocks and bonds - and the gold ratios.7 From 1995 to 2008, the causality ran from stocks and bond yields to our growth vs. safe-haven factor for the gold ratios. However, since 2009, causality has gone from the common factor to bond yields (Table 1). Table 1Granger-Causality Results In our view, this suggests that the widely traded industrial commodities - copper and oil being the premier examples of such commodities - convey important economic information on the state of the global economy, as a result of their respective price-formation processes.8 It also suggests that in the post-GFC world, commodity markets assumed a larger role in discounting the impacts on the real economy of the numerous monetary experiments of central banks in the post-GFC era. Bottom Line: Our analysis of the factors driving the copper- and oil-to-gold ratios supports our view that demand for cyclical commodities - mainly oil and metals - is still strong. The behavior of our idiosyncratic factor leads us to favor oil over copper due to the rising EM vs. DM divergence, and the price-supportive supply dynamics in the oil market.   Waivers On U.S. Sanctions Roil Oil Markets A week ago, we cautioned clients to "expect more volatility" on the back of news leaks the Trump administration was considering granting waivers to importers of Iranian crude oil, just before the sanctions kicked in this week. We certainly got it. Since hitting $86.1/bbl in early October, Brent crude oil prices have fallen $15.4/bbl (18%), as markets attempt to price in how much Iranian oil is covered by the sanctions and when importers can expect to see it arrive. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days. This was a higher-than-expected number of waivers than we - and, given the volatility in prices - the market was expecting. This pushed down the elevated risk premium, which had been supporting prices over the past few months.9 The combined imports of these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d, according to Bloomberg estimates. The loss of these volumes in a market that was progressively tightening as OPEC 2.0 brought more of its spare capacity on line - while the USD continued to strengthen - likely would have driven the local-currency cost of fuel steadily higher (Chart 8). Because they are a de facto supply increase - albeit temporary, based on Trump Administration statements - they also will restrain price hikes in EM generally, barring an unplanned outage in 1H19 (Chart 9). Chart 8Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms\ Chart 9Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Although it is obvious Iranian sales will recover some of the ~ 1mm b/d of exports lost in the run-up to the re-imposition of sanctions, it is not clear how much will be recovered. We believe the 180-day effective period for the waivers most likely was sought by KSA and Russia to give them time to bring on additional capacity to cover Iranian export losses. Markets will find out just how much spare capacity these states have in 1H19. By 2H19, additional production out of the U.S. from the Permian Basin will hit the market, as transportation bottlenecks are alleviated. This will allow U.S. exports to increase as well. However, it's not clear how much of this can get to export markets, given most of the dredging work needed to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs) in the U.S. Gulf Coast has yet to be done. This could explain why the WTI - Cushing vs. WTI - Midland differentials are narrowing, while WTI spreads vs. Brent remain wide (Chart 10). Chart 10WTI Spreads Diverge It is important to note the market still is exposed to greater-than-expected declines in Venezuela's production, and to any unplanned outage anywhere in the world. OPEC spare capacity is 1.3mm b/d, according to the EIA and IEA, and most of that is in KSA. Russia probably has another 200k b/d or so it can bring on line. These production increases both are undertaking are cutting deeply into spare capacity, as the Paris-based International Energy Agency noted in its October 2018 Oil Market Report: Looking ahead, more supply might be forthcoming. Saudi Arabia has stated it already raised output to 10.7 mb/d in October, although at the cost of reducing spare capacity to 1.3 mb/d. Russia has also signaled it could increase production further if the market needs more oil. Their anticipated response, along with continued growth from the US, might be enough to meet demand in the fourth quarter. However, spare capacity would fall to extremely low levels as a percentage of global demand, leaving the oil market vulnerable to major disruptions elsewhere (p. 17). Bottom Line: We expected continued crude-oil price volatility, as markets sort out the U.S. waivers on Iranian oil imports. The supply side of the market remains tight, and spare capacity is being eroded by production increases. We believe OPEC 2.0 will use the 180 days contained in the waivers to mobilize additional production. How much of this becomes available is yet to be determined. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "As U.S. starts oil sanctions against Iran, major buyers get waivers," published by reuters.com November 5, 2018. 2 OPEC 2.0 is a name we coined for the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia. Please see "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity" for our most recent supply-demand balances and price assessments, published October 25 by Commodity & Energy Strategy, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 We use the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) and U.S. inflation-adjusted real rates as explanatory variables in these models. As Chart 3 indicates, actual gold prices are in line with these variables. 4 The first factor accounts for ~ 80% of the variation in the gold ratios. The second idiosyncratic factor, which captures (1) supply-demand fundamentals in the oil and copper markets, and (2) divergences in global growth using EM vs. DM equities as proxies, accounts for the remaining ~ 20% of the variation. 5 Throughout this report, we proxy global yield by summing the yield on the 10-year German Bunds, Japanese Government Bonds and U.S. Treasurys. Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds," dated August 2, 2018. Available at eis.bcaresearch.com. The adjusted R2 in the global yield model is 0.94 compared to 0.88 for the U.S. Treasury model. 6 Using MSCI Emerging Market Index and MSCI Word Index price index. 7 To conduct this analysis, we use a statistical technique developed by the 2003 Nobel laureate, Clive Granger. The eponymous Granger-causality test is used to see whether one variable (i.e., time series) can be said to precede the other in terms of occurrence in time. This test measures information in the variables, particularly the effect of information from the preceding variable on the following variable. Please see Granger, C.W.J. (1980). "Testing for Causality, Personal Viewpoint,"Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2 (pp. 329 - 352). 8 This assessment is consistent with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, the literature on which is countably infinite at this point. Sewell notes: "A market is said to be efficient with respect to an information set if the price 'fully reflects' that information set (Fama, 1970), i.e. if the price would be unaffected by revealing the information set to all market participants (Malkiel, 1992). The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are efficient." The EMH has been debated and tested for decades. Please see Sewell, Martin (2011). "History of the Efficient Market Hypothesis," Research Note RN/11/04, published by University College London (UCL) Department of Computer Science. 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity," published October 25, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Special Report

Highlights So What? Donald Trump's reelection depends on the timing of the next recession. Why? The midterm elections will not determine Trump's reelection chances. Rather, the timing of the next recession will. BCA's House View expects it by 2020. Otherwise, President Trump is favored to win. Trump may be downgrading "maximum pressure" on Iran, reducing the risk of a 2019 recession. Trade war with China, gridlock, and budget deficits are the most investment-relevant outcomes of U.S. politics in 2018-20. Feature The preliminary results of the U.S. midterm elections are in, with the Democrats gaining the House and failing to gain the Senate, as expected. Our view remains that the implications for investors are minimal. The policy status quo is now locked in - a gridlocked government is unlikely to produce a major change in economic policy over the next two years. While the election is to some extent a rebuke to Trump, this report argues that he remains the favored candidate for the 2020 presidential election - unless a recession occurs. A Preliminary Look At The Midterms First, the preliminary takeaways from the midterms, as the results come in: The Democrats took the House of Representatives, with a preliminary net gain of 27 seats, resulting in a 51%-plus majority, and this is projected to rise to 34 seats as we go to press Wednesday morning. This is above the average for midterm election gains by the opposition party, especially given that Republicans have held the advantage in electoral districting. Performance in the Midwest, other swing states, and suburban areas poses a threat to Trump and Republicans in 2020. Republicans held the Senate, with a net gain of at least two seats, for a 51%-plus majority. Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump won in 2016. While Democrats did well in the Midwest, these candidates had the advantage of incumbency. On the state level, the Democrats gained a net seven governorships, two of them in key Midwestern states. The gubernatorial races were partly cyclical, as the Republicans had hit a historic high-water mark in governors' seats and were bound to fall back a bit. However, the Democratic victory in Michigan and Wisconsin, key Midwestern Trump states, is a very positive sign for the Democrats, since they were not incumbents in either state and had to unseat incumbent Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. (Their victory in Maine could also help them in the electoral college in 2020.) The governors' races also suggest that moderate Democrats are more appealing to voters than activist Democrats. Candidate Andrew Gillum's loss in Florida is a disappointment for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.1 With the House alone, Democrats will not be able to push major legislation through. In the current partisan environment it will be nigh-impossible to reach the 60 votes needed to end debate in the Senate ("cloture"), and even then House Democrats will face a presidential veto. They will not be able to repeal Trump's tax cuts, re-regulate the economy, abandon the trade wars, resurrect Obamacare, or revive the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Like the Republicans after 2010, they will be trapped in the position of controlling only one half of one of the three constitutional branches. The most they can do is hold hearings and bring forth witnesses in an attempt to tarnish Trump's 2020 reelection chances. They may eventually bring impeachment articles against him, but without two-thirds of the Senate they cannot remove him from office (unless the GOP grassroots abandons him, giving senators permission to do so). U.S. equities generally move upward after midterm elections - including midterms that produce gridlock (Chart 1A & Chart 1B). However, the October selloff could drag into November. More worryingly, as Chart 1B shows, the post-election rally tends to peter out only six months after a gridlock midterm, unlike midterms that reinforce the ruling party. Chart 1AMidterm U.S. Elections Tend To Be Bullish... Chart 1B... But Markets Lose Steam Six Months Post-Gridlock However, the 2018 midterms could be mildly positive for the markets, as they do not portend any major new policies or uncertainty. Trump's proposed additional tax cuts would have threatened higher inflation and more Fed rate hikes, whereas House Democrats will not be able to raise taxes or cut spending alone. Bipartisan entitlement reform seems unlikely in 2018-20 given the acrimony of the two parties and structural factors such as inequality and populism. An outstanding question is health care, which Republicans left unresolved after failing to repeal Obamacare, and which exit polls show was a driving factor behind Democratic victories. Separately, as an additional marginal positive for risk assets, the Trump administration has reportedly granted eight waivers to countries that import Iranian oil. We have signaled that Trump's "maximum pressure" doctrine poses a key risk for markets due to the danger of an Iran-induced oil price shock. A shift toward more lax enforcement reduces the tail-risk of a recession in 2019 (Chart 2). Of course, the waivers will expire in 180 days and may be a mere ploy to ensure smooth markets ahead of the midterm election, so the jury is still out on this issue. Chart 2Rapid Increases In Oil Prices Tend To Precede Recessions This brings us to the main focus of this report: what do the midterms suggest about the 2020 election? Bottom Line: The midterm elections have produced a gridlocked Congress. Trump can continue with his foreign policy, most of his trade policy, his deregulatory decrees, and his appointment of court judges with limited interference from House Democrats. The only thing the Democrats can prevent him from doing is cutting taxes further. He tends to agree with Democrats on the need for more spending! While the U.S. market could rally on the back of this result, we do not see U.S. politics being a critical catalyst for markets going forward. On balance, a gridlocked result brings less uncertainty than would otherwise be the case, which is positive for markets in the short term. The Midterms And The 2020 Election There is a weak relationship at best between an opposition party's gains in the midterms and its performance in the presidential election two years later. Given that the president's party almost always loses the midterms - and yet that incumbent presidents tend to be reelected - the midterm has little diagnostic value for the presidential vote, as can be seen in recent elections (Chart 3A & Chart 3B). Chart 3AMidterm Has Little Predictive Power For Presidential Popular Vote ... Chart 3B... Nor For Presidential Electoral College Vote Nevertheless, historian Allan Lichtman has shown that since 1860, a midterm loss is marginally negative for a president's reelection chances.2 And for Republicans in recent years, losses in midterm elections are very weakly correlated with Republican losses of seats in the electoral college two years later (Chart 4). Chart 4Republican Midterm Loss Could Foreshadow Electoral College Losses Still, this midterm election does not give any reason to believe that Trump's reelection chances have been damaged any more than Ronald Reagan's were after 1982, or Bill Clinton's after 1994, or Barack Obama's after 2010. All three of these presidents went on to a second term. A midterm loss simply does not stack the odds against reelection. Why are midterm elections of limited consequence for the president? They are fundamentally different from presidential elections. For instance, "the buck stops here" applies to the president alone, whereas in the midterms voters often seek to keep the president in check by voting against his party in Congress.3 Despite the consensus media narrative, the president is not that unpopular. Trump's approval rating today is about the same as that of Clinton and Obama at this stage in their first term (Chart 5). This week's midterm was not a wave of "resistance" to Trump so much as a run-of-the-mill midterm in which the president's party lost seats. Its outcome should not be overstated. Bottom Line: There is not much correlation between midterms and presidential elections. The best historians view it as a marginal negative for the incumbent. This result is not a mortal wound for Trump. Chart 5President Trump Is Hardly Losing The Popularity Contest 2020: The Recession Call Is The Election Call The incumbent party has lost the White House every single time that a recession occurred during the campaign proper (Chart 6).4 The incumbent party has lost 50%-60% of the time if recession occurred in the calendar year before the election or in the first half of the election year. Chart 6A 2020 Recession Is Trump's Biggest Threat This is a problem for President Trump because the current economic expansion is long in the tooth. In July 2019, it will become the longest running economic expansion in U.S. history, following the 1991-2001 expansion. The 2020 election will occur sixteen months after the record is broken, which means that averting a recession over this entire period will be remarkable. BCA's House View holds that 2020 is the most likely year for a recession to occur. The economy is at full employment, inflation is trending upwards, and the Fed's interest rate hikes will become restrictive sometime in 2019. The yield curve could invert in the second half of 2019 - and inversion tends to precede recession by anywhere from 5-to-16 months (Table 1). No wonder Trump has called the Fed his "biggest threat."5 Table 1Inverted Yield Curve Is An Ominous Sign The risks to this 2020 recession call are probably skewed toward 2021 instead of 2019. The still-positive U.S. fiscal thrust in 2019 and possibly 2020 and the Trump administration's newly flexible approach to Iran sanctions, if maintained, reduce the tail-risk of a recession in 2019. If there is not a recession by 2020, Trump is the favored candidate to win. First, incumbents win 69% of all U.S. presidential elections. Second, incumbents win 80% of the time when the economy is not in recession, and 76% of the time when real annual per capita GDP growth over the course of the term exceeds the average of the previous two terms, which will likely be the case in 2020 unless there is a recession (Chart 7). Chart 7Relative Economic Performance Could Give Trump Firepower The above probabilities are drawn from the aforementioned Professor Allan Lichtman, at American University in Washington D.C., who has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1984 (except the disputed 2000 election). Lichtman views presidential elections as a referendum on the party that controls the White House. He presents "13 Keys to the Presidency," which are true or false statements based on historically derived indicators of presidential performance. If six or more of the 13 keys are false, the incumbent will lose. On our own reading of Lichtman's keys, Trump is currently lined up to lose a maximum of four keys - two shy of the six needed to unseat him (Table 2). This is a generous reading for the Democrats: Trump's party has lost seats in the midterm election relative to 2014; his term has seen sustained social unrest; he is tainted by major scandal; and he is lacking in charisma. Yet on a stricter reading Trump only has one key against him (the midterm). Table 2Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* What would it take to push Trump over the edge? Aside from a recession (which would trigger one or both of the economic keys against him), he would need to see two-to-four of the following factors take shape: a serious foreign policy or military failure, a charismatic Democratic opponent in 2020, a significant challenge to his nomination within the Republican Party, or a robust third party candidacy emerge. In our view, none of these developments are on the horizon yet, though they are probable enough. For instance, it is easy to see Trump's audacious foreign policy on China, Iran, and North Korea leading to a failure that counts against him. Thus, as things currently stand, Trump is the candidate to beat as long as the economy holds up. What about impeachment and removal from office prior to 2020? As long as Trump remains popular among Republican voters he will prevent the Senate from turning against him (Chart 8). What could cause public opinion to change? Clear, irrefutable, accessible, "smoking gun" evidence of personal wrongdoing that affected Trump's campaigns or duties in office. Nixon was not brought down until the Watergate tapes became public - and that required a Supreme Court order. Only then did Republican opinion turn against him and expose him to impeachment and removal - prompting him to resign. Chart 8Trump Cannot Be Removed From Office All that being said, Trump tends to trail his likeliest 2020 adversaries in one-on-one opinion polling. Given our recession call, we would not dispute online betting markets giving Trump a less-than-50% chance of reelection at present (Chart 9). The Democratic selection process has hardly begun: e.g. Joe Biden could have health problems, and Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, or other surprise candidates could decide to run. The world will be a different place in 2020. Bottom Line: The recession call is the election call. If BCA is right about a recession by 2020, then Trump will lose. If we are wrong, then Trump is favored to win. Chart 9A Strong Opponent Has Yet To Emerge Is It Even Possible For Trump To Win Again? Election Scenarios Is it demographically possible for Trump to win? Yes. In 2016 BCA dubbed Trump's electoral strategy "White Hype," based on his apparent attempt to increase the support and turnout of white voters, primarily in "Rust Belt" battleground states. While Republican policy wonks might have envisioned a "big tent" Republican Party for the future, demographic trends in 2016 suggested that this strategy was premature. Indeed, drawing from a major demographic study by the Center for American Progress and other Washington think tanks,6 we found that a big increase in white turnout and support was the only 2016 election scenario in which a victory in both the popular vote and electoral college vote was possible. In other words, while "Minority Outreach" have worked as a GOP strategy in the future, Donald Trump's team was mathematically correct in realizing that only White Hype would work in the actual election at hand. This strategy did not win Trump the popular vote, but it did secure him the requisite electoral college seats, notably from the formerly blue of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Comparing the 2016 results with our pre-election projections confirms this point: Trump won the very swing states where he increased white GOP support and lost the swing states where he did not. Pennsylvania is the notable exception, but he won there by increasing white turnout instead of white GOP support.7 Can Trump do this again? Yes, but not easily. Map 1 depicts the 2016 election results with red and blue states, plus the percentage swing in white party support that would have been necessary to turn the state to the opposite party (white support for the GOP is the independent variable). In Michigan, a 0.3% shift in the white vote away from Republicans would have deprived Trump of victory; in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a 0.8% shift would have done the same; in Florida, a 1.5% change would have done so. Map 1The 'White Hype' Strategy Narrowly Worked In 2016 Critically, the country's demographics have changed significantly since 2016 - to Trump's detriment. The white eligible voting population in swing states will have fallen sharply from 81% of the population to 76% of the population by 2020 (Chart 10). Chart 10Demographic Shift Does Not Favor Trump Thus, to determine whether Trump still has a pathway to victory, we looked at eight scenarios, drawing on the updated Center for American Progress study. The assumptions behind the scenarios in Table 3 are as follows: Status Quo - This replicates the 2016 result and projects it forward with 2020 demographics. 2016 Sans Third Party - Replicates the 2016 result but normalizes the third party vote, which was elevated that year. Minority Revolt - In this scenario, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities turn out in large numbers to support Democrats, even with white non-college educated voters supporting Republicans at a decent rate. The Kanye West Strategy - Trump performs a miracle and generates a swing of minority voters in favor of Republicans. Blue Collar Democrats - White non-college-educated support returns to 2012 norms, meaning back to Democrats. Romney's Ghost - White college-educated support returns to 2012 levels. White Hype - White non-college-educated support swings to Republicans. Obama versus Trump - White college-educated voters ally with minorities in opposition to a surge in white non-college-educated voters for Republicans. Table 3Assumptions For Key Electoral Scenarios In 2020 The results show that Trump's best chance at remaining in the White House is still White Hype, as it is still the only scenario in which Trump can statistically win a victory in the popular vote (Chart 11). Another pathway to victory is the "2016 Sans Third Party" scenario. But this scenario still calls for White Hype, since a third party challenger is out of his hands (Chart 12).8 Chart 11'White Hype' May Be Only Way To Secure Both Popular And Electoral College Vote...   Chart 12... Although Moving To The Center Could Still Yield Electoral College Vote However, the data show that Trump cannot win merely by replicating his white turnout and support from 2016, due to demographic changes wiping away the thin margins in key swing states. He needs some additional increases in support. These increases will ultimately have to be culled from his record in office - which reinforces the all-important question of the timing of recession, but also raises the question of whether Trump will move to the center to woo the median voter. In the "Kanye West" and "Romney's Ghost" scenarios, Trump wins the electoral college by broadening his appeal to minorities and college-educated white voters. This may sound far-fetched, but President Clinton reinvented himself after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 by compromising with Republicans in Congress. The slim margins in the Midwest suggest that the probability of Trump shifting to the middle is not as low as one might think. Especially if there is no recession. Independents remain the largest voting block - and they have not lost much steam, if any, since 2016. Moreover, the number of independents who lean Republican is in an uptrend (Chart 13). Without a recession, or a failure on Lichtman's keys, Trump will likely broaden his base. Chart 13Trump Shows Promise Among Independents Bottom Line: Trump needs to increase white turnout and GOP support beyond 2016 levels in order to win 2020. Demographics will not allow a simple repeat of his 2016 performance. However, he may be able to generate the requisite turnout and support by moving to the center, courting college-educated whites and even minorities. His success will depend on his record in office. Investment Implications What are the implications of the above findings for 2018-20 and beyond? The Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will become pseudo-apocalyptic battlegrounds in 2020. The Democrats must aim to take back all three to win the White House, as they cannot win with just two alone.9 They are likely to focus on these states because they are erstwhile blue states and the vote margin is so slim that the slightest factors could shift the balance - meaning that Democrats could win here without a general pro-Democratic shift in opinion that hurts Trump in other key swing states such as Florida, North Carolina, or Arizona. The "Blue Collar Democrat" scenario, for instance, merely requires that white non-college-educated voters return to their 2012 level of support for Democrats. Joe Biden is the logical candidate, health permitting, as he is from Pennsylvania and was literally on the ballot in 2012! Moreover, these states are the easiest to flip to the Democratic side via the woman vote. In Michigan, a 0.5% swing of women to the Democrats would have turned the state blue again; in Pennsylvania that number is 1.6% and in Wisconsin it is 1.7% (Table 4). These are the lowest of any state. Women from the Midwest or with a base in the Midwest - such as Michelle Obama or Oprah Winfrey - would also be logical candidates. Table 4Women Voters May Hold The Balance The Democrats could also pursue a separate or complementary strategy by courting African American turnout and support, especially in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. But it is more difficult to flip these states than the Midwestern ones. With the Rust Belt as the fulcrum of his electoral strategy and reelection, Trump has a major incentive to maintain economic nationalism over the coming two years. Trump may be more pragmatic in the use of tariffs, and will certainly engage in talks with China and others, but he ultimately must remain "tough" on trade. He has fewer constraints in pursuing trade war with China than with Europe. For the same Rust Belt reason, the Democrats, if they get into the Oval Office, will not be overly kind to the "butchers of Beijing," as President Clinton called the Chinese leadership in the 1992 presidential campaign (after the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident). Hence we are structurally bearish U.S.-China relations and related assets. Interestingly, if Trump moves to the middle, and tones down "white nationalism" in pursuit of college-educated whites and minorities, then he would have an incentive to dampen the flames of social division ahead of 2020. The key is that in an environment without recession, Trump has the option of courting voters on the basis of his economic and policy performance alone. Whereas if he is seen fanning social divisions, it could backfire, as Democrats could benefit from a sense of national crisis and instability in a presidential election. Either way, culture wars, controversial rhetoric, identity politics, unrest, and violence will continue in the United States as the fringes of the political spectrum use identity politics and wedge issues to rile up voters.The question is how the leading parties and their candidates handle it. What about after 2020? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn regardless of which party controls the White House? The two biggest policy certainties are that fiscal spending will go up and that generational conflict will rise. On fiscal spending, Trump was a game changer by removing fiscal hawkishness from the Republican agenda. Democrats are not proposing fiscal responsibility either. The most likely areas of bipartisan legislation in 2018-20 are health care and infrastructure - returning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned infrastructure several times in her election-night speech - which would add to the deficit. The deficit is already set to widen sharply, judging by the fact that it has been widening at a time when unemployment is falling. This aberration has only occurred during the economic boom of the 1950s and the inflation and subsequent stagflation beginning in the late 1960s (Chart 14). The current outlook implies a return of the stagflationary scenario. In the late 1960s, the World War I generation was retiring, lifting the dependent-to-worker ratio and increasing consumption relative to savings. Today, as Peter Berezin of BCA's Global Investment Strategy has shown, the Baby Boomers are retiring with a similar impact. Chart 14The Deficit Is Blowing Out Even Without A Recession Trump made an appeal to elderly voters in the midterms by warning that unfettered immigration and Democratic entitlement expansions would take away from existing senior benefits. By contrast, Democrats will argue that Republicans want to cut benefits for all to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and will try to activate Millennial voters on a range of progressive issues that antagonize older voters. The result is that policy debates will focus more on generational differences. Mammoth budget deficits - not to mention trade war - will be good for inflation, good for gold, and a headwind for U.S. government bonds and the USD as long as the environment is not recessionary. The greatest policy uncertainties are health care and immigration. These are the two major outstanding policy issues that Republicans and Democrats will vie over in 2018 and beyond. While President Trump could achieve something with the Democrats on either of these issues with some painful compromises, it is too soon to have a high conviction on the outcome. But assuming that over the coming years some immigration restrictions come into play and that some kind of public health care option becomes more widely available, there are two more reasons to expect inflation to trend upward on a secular basis. Also on a secular basis, defense stocks stand to benefit from geopolitical multipolarity, especially U.S.-China antagonism. Tech stocks stand to suffer due to the trade war and an increasingly bipartisan consensus that this sector needs to be regulated.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   1 Furthermore, victories on the state level, if built upon in the 2020 election, could give the Democrats an advantage in gerrymandering, i.e. electoral redistricting, which is an important political process in the United States. 2 Please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next President: The Keys To The White House 2016 (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 3 Please see Joseph Bafumi, Robert S. Erikson, and Christopher Wlezien, "Balancing, Generic Polls and Midterm Congressional Elections," The Journal of Politics 72:3 (2010), pp. 705-19. 4 Please see footnote 2 above. 5 Please see Sylvan Lane, “Trump says Fed is his ‘biggest threat,’ blasting own appointees,” The Hill, October 16, 2018, available at thehill.com. 6 Please see Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and William H. Frey, "America's Electoral Future: Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition," Center for American Progress, dated April 14, 2018, available at www.americanprogress.org. 7 In several cases, he did not have to lift white support by as much as we projected because minority support for the Democrats dropped off after Obama left the stage. 8 Interestingly, however, this scenario would result in an electoral college tie! Since the House would then vote on a state delegation basis, it would likely hand Trump the victory (and Pence would also win the Senate). 9 However, if they win Pennsylvania plus one electoral vote in Maine, they can win the electoral college with either Michigan or Wisconsin.

Mounting supply-side uncertainty will keep the risk premium in oil prices - and volatility - elevated after U.S. export sanctions against Iran kick in November 4 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekOil-Price Risk Premium Will Continue To Increase These sanctions likely will remove 1.0 - 1.5mm b/d of Iranian exports, and absorb the combined spare capacity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia (Chart 2) in the process. Export capacity expansions on KSA's West coast - intended to keep oil flowing if the Strait of Hormuz is closed - put the supply-side risks sharply in focus. Chart 2Lost Iranian Exports Could Exceed KSA's and Russia's Spare Capacity OPEC 2.0's production increases last month calmed markets.1 All the same, it is worth noting they occurred just before a widely expected U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) release coinciding with refinery turnarounds, and one-off Asian demand shocks. On the back of these supply boosts, and an upward revision to U.S. shale output (see below), and a slight decrease in our expected demand growth next year, we lowered our 2019 Brent forecast to $92/bbl from $95/bbl. We now expect Brent prices to peak in April 2019. WTI will trade $6/bbl lower (Chart 3). Our forecasts are conditioned on Iranian export losses of 1.25mm b/d, and Venezuelan losses of just over 450k b/d. A loss of 1.7mm+ b/d of Iran exports, as Platts Analytics expects, or a Venezuela collapse, means an unplanned outage anywhere will take prices above $100/bbl. Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Production Hike Pushes Price Spike To 2Q19 Highlights Energy: Overweight. The IMF downgraded global GDP growth expectations from 3.9% to 3.7% p.a. this year and next. This reduced our base case demand growth for 2019 slightly, to 1.5mm b/d from 1.6mm b/d previously. Base Metals: Neutral. Global copper stocks stand at half their late April peak - the lowest level since late 2016, on the back of restrictions on Chinese scrap imports. Precious Metals: Neutral. Palladium traded to record levels above $1,140/oz this week, as persistent physical deficits into 2020 are priced into the market. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's Crop Progress Report showed soybean harvests accelerating: 53% of the crop was harvested as of last week, below the 2013 - 17 average of 69%, but well above the previous week's 38% level. Feature U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is convinced global oil markets have fully priced in the loss of Iranian crude oil exports arising from the re-imposition of export sanctions by the U.S. November 4. Speaking with Reuters over the weekend, he said, "Oil prices have already gone up, so my expectation is that the oil market has anticipated what's going on in the reductions. I believe the information is already reflected in the price of oil."2 We are not so sure. The price-decomposition model shown in the Chart of the Week is a bottom-up fundamental model that assesses how changes in OPEC and non-OPEC supplies, global demand and inventories contribute to overall price changes, as new information becomes available regarding these variables. These variables are shown in Chart 4 and Table 1.3 Chart 4BCA Global Oil Supply-Demand Balances The "residual" term in the model covers everything not explained by these fundamental variables.4 We believe the unexplained effect on prices in the residuals reflects market participants' perception of riskiness - either to supply or demand - given the big fundamental drivers of price are accounted for in the other variables. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) Close inspection reveals the residual term has been increasing as we approach the deadline for the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. And the fact is, estimates of the loss in Iranian exports are widely dispersed - from less than 1mm b/d to 1.7mm b/d by tanker trackers like Platts Analytics. As Chart 2 shows, export losses at the high end of this range would absorb almost all of the world's spare capacity - the 1.3mm b/d the U.S. EIA estimates for OPEC (most of it held by KSA, plus whatever other Gulf Arab producers can muster). Russia, which is producing at a record of ~ 11.4mm b/d, likely has ~ 250k b/d of spare capacity at its disposal. With the increase in global demand largely being covered by U.S. shales, which are constrained to ~ 1.3mm b/d of growth p.a. until 2H19, when we expect production to increase at a 1.44mm b/d annual rate, this leaves the global market perilously exposed to any and all unplanned production outages. Any deterioration in Venezuela's production, which we expect to fall to 865k b/d on average in 2019 (versus 1.3mm b/d on average this year), or an unplanned loss in exports from historically unstable states like Nigeria and Libya - where we raised our production estimates to 1.75mm b/d and 1.05mm b/d in line with OPEC survey data - almost surely will spike prices above $100/bbl.5 OPEC 2.0 Got Lucky OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia - picked a fortuitous moment to increase production this past month. OPEC, led by KSA, lifted crude and liquids production 140k b/d in September, while Russia's production rose 150k b/d. It is worth noting these output increases occurred just before a widely expected U.S. SPR release in October - November, which overlapped with refinery maintenance (turnaround) season in the U.S. Midwest refiners were expected to take 300k to 460k b/d of capacity offline in September and October, a relatively high level of maintenance, while Gulf Coast refiners were expected to take 430k to 535k b/d down.6 Both events raise the supply of crude relative to demand, and reduce inventory drawdowns. In addition, one-off Asian demand shocks - an earthquake and typhoon in Japan - dented demand. KSA lifted its production to 10.5mm b/d in September, bringing average 3Q18 production to 10.4mm b/d versus a bit more than 10mm b/d in 1H18. Russia's crude and liquids output rose to 11.45mm b/d in 3Q18 versus 11.2mm b/d in 1H18. The higher production calmed markets somewhat. OPEC 2.0 effectively got a two-month assist from the U.S. refinery turnarounds and a U.S. SPR release, just as markets were fretting prices would breach $90/bbl earlier this month.7 These production boosts will allow OECD inventories to rebuild somewhat going in to the Northern Hemisphere's winter (Chart 5). Nonetheless, OPEC 2.0 has begun tearing into spare capacity with these output increases. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Production Boost Allows OECD Stocks To Rebuild KSA Talks Markets Lower... While the U.S. SPR release and inventory builds associated with U.S. turnarounds progressed, KSA's Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih was reassuring markets the Kingdom can ramp production to 11mm b/d, and even 12mm b/d if needs be. KSA has been increasing rig counts in 2H18 as Brent prices rise, but we remain highly dubious KSA can ramp production to 11mm b/d - let alone 12mm b/d - and sustain it for any meaningful length of time (Chart 6). Chart 6KSA Increasing Rig Counts, After Price-Induced Slowdown The likelihood KSA can significantly boost production before the end of 1H19 became even more doubtful, following reports the Kingdom and Kuwait were having difficulty agreeing on restarting Neutral Zone production. We've downgraded our assessment that 350k b/d of Neutral Zone production will be returned to the market beginning in 2Q19 to a 50% likelihood, following reports KSA and Kuwaiti officials are diverging on operational control of the production. Apparently, the two states also differ on geopolitical issues in the Gulf, as well - e.g., the Qatar blockade lead by KSA, and Iran policy.8 While core Gulf Arab producers are raising output, we expect the non-Gulf members of the Cartel continue to see output decline (Chart 7). Indeed, with the exception of the core OPEC Gulf Arab producers, U.S. shale operators and Russia, the rest of the world is barely keeping its output level (Chart 8). Chart 7Non-Gulf OPEC Output Continues to Decline Chart 8Global Production Growth Stalls Outside U.S. Onshore, GCC And Russia ...And Shores Up Export Capacity Export capacity expansions on KSA's West coast - intended to keep oil flowing if the Strait of Hormuz is closed - put global supply-side risks sharply in focus. KSA has added 3 mm b/d of oil export capacity to the Red Sea coast of the Kingdom, with an upgrade to its Yanbu crude oil terminal. Prior to the expansion, Yanbu terminal's export capacity was 1.3mm b/d; it was used mainly for refined products and petrochemicals shipments, due to its relative proximity to refineries in Yanbu, Rabigh, Yasref, Jeddah and Jazan. Shipping via the Red Sea port allows KSA to move crude to Asia through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to the south, which at times is threatened by Yemen's Houthi militia, and the north to Western markets through the Suez Canal. In addition, KSA's national oil company, Aramco, says it intends to restore operations at al-Muajjiz crude oil terminal, which has been out of operation since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Aramco intends to integrate the Muajjiz terminal into the Yanbu facilities to expand Red Sea export capacity from ~ 8 mm b/d to some 11.5 mm b/d. KSA's total export capacity is scheduled to reach 15mm b/d by year-end. These expansions give KSA the option to reroute all of its ~ 7mm b/d exports through the Red Sea, in the event the Strait of Hormuz is closed by Iran. However, this option could be limited by pipeline infrastructure. The current capacity of the East - West crude pipeline is 5mm b/d, although Aramco signalled its intention to boost capacity to 7mm b/d by end-2018. No announcements indicating this was on schedule or completed could be found. Global Demand Holds Up The IMF downgraded its global GDP growth expectation from 3.9% p.a. to 3.7% this year and next. This reduced our base case demand growth for 2019 to 1.5mm b/d from 1.6mm b/d. Even so, we note that oil prices for EM consumers in local-currency terms are at or close to post-GFC highs (Charts 9A and9B). A number of EM governments relaxed or removed subsidies on fuel prices following the oil-price collapse of 2014 - 16, which means consumers in these states are feeling most or all of the effect of higher prices directly for the first time in the modern era (beginning in the 1960s, when OPEC became the dominant producer cartel in the market).9 Chart 9ALocal-Currency Cost Of Oil In Select EM Economies Chart 9BLocal-Currency Cost Of Oil In Select EM Economies As we've noted previously, high fuel costs (in local-currency terms) coupled with high absolute prices deliver a double-whammy to EM consumers, which are the driving force in global oil-demand growth. In fact, 1.1mm b/d of the 1.5mm b/d of demand growth we expect next year in our base case is accounted for by EM growth. In our scenarios analysis, we assume every $10/bbl jump in prices above $90/bbl destroys 100k b/d of EM demand. This lowers the unconstrained oil-price trajectory, and reduces our base case growth estimate of 1.5mm b/d next year to 1.3mm b/d (Chart 10). Chart 10An Oil-Supply Shock Would Lower Demand An oil-supply shock that seriously erodes EM demand would - in the course of months, we believe - translate into a disinflationary impulse into DM markets. This could force the Fed to change course and dial its rates-normalization policy back, as we recently noted.10 Bottom Line: Volatility will remain elevated following the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran's oil exports next month. OPEC 2.0's fortuitously timed production increases - coincident with a scheduled U.S. SPR release and refinery turnarounds - will be absorbed by markets once turnaround season ends in the U.S. Global spare capacity is insufficient to cover Iranian export losses at the high end of market expectations, if Venezuelan production falls more than expected or that state collapses. Any unplanned outage anywhere will quickly push prices through $100/bbl, necessitating further U.S. SPR releases. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition led by KSA and Russia. This coalition likely will be formalized at the December 7 OPEC meeting in Vienna via treaty. This has been alluded to over the past year, most recently in an interview given to Tass, the Russian state-owned news agency. Please see "Saudi energy minister Al-Falih speaks to TASS on OPEC+, oil prices and Khashoggi," published by TASS, October 22, 2018. 2 Please see "Mnuchin says it will be harder for Iran oil importers to get waivers," published by uk.reuters.com October 21, 2018. 3 The Federal Reserve Bank of New York publishes a similar price-decomposition model weekly in its "Oil Price Dynamics Report," which is available online. 4 We can assume USD effects will be reflected in demand and supply at the margin - i.e., a stronger USD reduces demand by raising the local-currency costs of oil, and increases supply by lowering the local-currency costs of production, and vice versa. Uncertainty as to the USD's trajectory adds to overall uncertainty in the model. 5 This likely would trigger withdrawals from the U.S. SPR, or the EU's strategic petroleum reserves, but that will take time to implement. Both Libya and Nigeria likely will hold elections next year: Nigeria in February, Libya possibly on December 10, but more likely next year following passage of a UN resolution to extend the mandate of its political mission there to September 15, 2019. Civil unrest in Libya has been increasing, as ISIS fighters increase the tempo of operations on the ground. 6 Please see "Falling into refiner Turnaround Season & Maintenance outlook," published by Genscape August 23, 2018. 7 This occurs at a fortuitous time in the U.S. election cycle, as mid-terms will be held November 6, two days after Iran sanctions kick in. We expected an SPR draw ahead of midterms; please see "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy August 23, 2018. It is available at: ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "Oil output from Saudi, Kuwait shared zone on hold as relations sour," published by uk.reuters.com October 18, 2018. 9 The U.S. Federal Reserve is in the process of a rates-normalization cycle, which likely will keep the USD appreciating against EM currencies into next year. Our House view calls for five additional hikes between December and the end of 2019. Please see "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy August 23, 2018, for further discussion. ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 We discuss this at length in a Special Report published last week with BCA Research's entitled "Man Bites Dog: Could Sharply Rising Oil Prices Lead To Lower Global Bond Yields in 2019?" It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q18 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Summary Of Trades Closed In 2017

Highlights Policy easing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a bottom in the business cycle. For monetary easing to become effective, there should be loan demand, banks should be willing to lend, and businesses and consumers should be keen to spend more. In China, risks to both the money multiplier and the velocity of money are to the downside. This will hinder the effectiveness of monetary policy easing in generating economic growth. Eroding business and consumer confidence in China will - for now - negate the budding improvement in its broad money impulse. Emerging markets risk assets and currencies are set to drop further. Stay put. Feature The selloff in EM and Chinese stocks has begun to weigh heavily on DM share prices. The global equity index has broken below its January lows, entailing further downside. Importantly, global cyclical equity sectors such as global industrials, materials and semiconductors are underperforming, and are breaking down in absolute terms. This confirms global trade is in a full downturn swing (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Global Trade Is Decelerating What is required to turn around this global trade slowdown? Our bias is that this growth slump has roots in China/EM and trade tensions are dampening business and investor sentiment on top of that. Consequently, a reversal in the equity selloff is largely contingent on an improvement in China's economy. It is in this context that we devote this week's report to an extensive discussion surrounding the issues of policy stimulus, deleveraging and growth in China. In this report, we answer the questions we think are most pertinent to investors at this moment. Question: Why are financial markets rioting, even though China has announced stimulus? Answer: The market's interpretation is that these stimuli are insufficient to turn around China's business cycle immediately. We agree with this assessment. Policy easing does not always immediately translate into higher share prices and improving growth. For example, amid China's 2015 stock market crash, the Chinese authorities began aggressively stimulating in the middle of 2015, yet Chinese and global markets continued to riot until February 2016 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2China In 2015: Money Growth Preceded Bottom In Markets By Seven Months Indeed, there was a period of seven months when EM and DM stocks plummeted, despite on-going and very aggressive policy easing in China. In short, these stimulus measures did not preclude a considerable drawdown in global and EM share prices. Outside China, there have been other examples where policy easing did not preclude a full-fledged bear market. For instance, in 2001-'02 and 2007-'08, the Federal Reserve was cutting interest rates aggressively, yet the bear market in U.S. equities did not reverse (Chart I-3). Chart I-3AFed's Easing Did Not Prevent Equity Bear Market Chart I-3BFed's Easing Did Not Prevent Equity Bear Market Similarly, the ECB was expanding its balance sheet from the onset of the euro area debt crisis in 2011, yet the region's share prices did not bottom until the middle of 2012, 12 months later (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ECB Balance Sheet Expansion Did Not Prevent Equity Bear Market Question: It is clear there could be a time lag between policymakers stimulating and financial markets and the business cycle turning the corner. What is causing these time lags, and how should one handicap them? Answer: Indeed, monetary and fiscal policies affect the economy with time lags. These lags vary from cycle to cycle. In China, the broad money impulse has improved of late (Chart I-5). Historically, this has led the mainland's business cycle by about nine months on average. Hence, it signifies a tentative bottom early next year. Chart I-5China: Money Impulse Has Bottomed The credit impulse, however, has not improved at all (Chart I-6). The current divergence between credit and money impulses is due to a plunge in shadow (non-bank) credit (Chart I-7). The distinction between broad money and credit is as follows: money is originated by commercial banks when they lend to or acquire an asset from non-banks. Meanwhile, total credit also includes lending and bond purchases by non-banks. Chart I-6China: Credit Impulse Has Not Yet Bottomed Chart I-7Bank And Non-Bank Credit Have Diverged Importantly, money/credit fluctuations are not the sole factors that generate swings in economic activity. Companies' and households' willingness to consume and invest matter too. We have written extensively in the past that changes in the velocity of money mirror fluctuations in the marginal propensity to consume and invest.1 Technically speaking, nominal GDP growth is a product of money growth and change in the velocity of money. Nominal GDP = Money Growth x Velocity Of Money When a decline in the velocity of money - stemming from eroding business and consumer confidence - overwhelms an acceleration in money growth, economic growth weakens, despite improvement in the money impulse. Notably, money and credit have led previous business cycles in China by varying time periods. In other words, the velocity of money has not been constant on the mainland. In particular, both the money and credit impulses were early - by about 12 months - in forecasting a growth slowdown in China and global trade at the beginning of 2017. The reason why a growth slowdown did not commence at that time was due to the surge in the velocity of money. The latter is akin to confidence among economic agents. In short, companies and households turned their money balances faster, which offset the impact of weak money/credit impulses on economic activity. Concerning fiscal policy, time lags differ because of implementation delays and varying fiscal multipliers. In China, aggregate fiscal spending, including central, local governments and managed funds, has not yet accelerated (Chart I-8). Chart I-8China: No Rebound In Broad Fiscal Spending While special bond issuance by local governments spiked in August and September, overall credit flows in the economy have not yet improved - please refer to Chart I-6. As an aside, there are reports that 42% of the amount raised via special bond issuance will be used to purchase land rather than for infrastructure spending.2 This will not benefit economic growth much. Question: Do you think the time lag between the bottom in China's money/credit impulses and the business cycle will be longer or shorter this time around? Answer: Our bias is that the time lag between the bottom in money/credit impulses and the resultant pickup in growth will be longer than before. Presently, there is some evidence that both business and consumer sentiment in China are beginning to whither at the hands of the trade wars, tanking domestic share prices and budding deflation in real estate prices. Eroding business and consumer confidence in China will - for now - negate the improvement in the broad money impulse. Chart I-9 depicts the velocity of money in China. After rising over the past two years, our bias is that it will drop again. It is critical to realize that forecasting the direction and magnitude of swings in the velocity of money - the marginal propensity to spend - is a dismal science. It reflects business and consumer sentiment, and any assessment on this is very subjective. This is why economic forecasting and investment calls are more of an art. Chart I-9China: The Velocity Of Money Among many variables we are monitoring to gauge the turn in the mainland's business cycle is the marginal propensity to invest among mainland industrial companies. This indicator is falling, suggesting that monetary policy easing is facing formidable hurdles in re-igniting investment appetite among Chinese companies (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Companies' Marginal Propensity To Spend The BCA Emerging Markets Strategy team's assessment is that China-related financial markets are in an air pocket. Investors should not try to catch falling knives. On the contrary, there is still meaningful downside. Question: But the People's Bank of China has been injecting a lot of liquidity into the system via various facilities. Would this liquidity not find its way into financial markets and the real economy? Answer: When a central bank injects liquidity into the banking system, it creates excess reserves. Excess reserves also rise when a central bank cuts the required reserve ratio (RRR). It is essential to differentiate money that households and business use to conduct transactions from reserves of commercial banks at the central bank. Required and excess reserves are not a part of narrow and broad monetary aggregates. Excess reserves are the banking system's liquidity held at the central bank. Importantly, banks do not lend reserves, and do not use reserves to pay for assets they purchase from non-banks. Banks use reserves to settle transactions/payments among themselves. Reserves are "manufactured" solely by central banks. Commercial banks cannot create reserves. They do, however, create the overwhelming majority of money when they lend to or purchase an asset from non-banks. Central banks create broad money - that circulates in the economy - only when they lend to or buy assets from non-banks. Given central banks typically do few transactions with non-banks, central banks originate a very small portion of the broad money supply. For example, as a part of quantitative easing efforts, new money is originated only when a central bank buys bonds from a non-bank (say, an insurance company). In contrast, no money is created when a central bank buys bonds from a bank. In brief, there is no automatic leakage of reserves into the real economy and financial markets. Banks need to be willing to lend to and purchase assets from non-banks for the money supply to expand. Question: But won't expanding excess reserves - banking system liquidity - eventually encourage banks to lend and purchase financial assets? Answer: It will at some point, but it is not imminent. The mainland banking system's excess reserves ratio is depicted in Chart I-11. A few observations are in order: Chart I-11China: Excess Reserves Not Are Growing First, the excess reserve ratio - excess reserves (ER) as a share of total deposits - is currently rather low (Chart I-11, top panel). The absolute level of ER is not elevated either (Chart I-11, middle panel). To adjust the absolute level of ER for seasonality, we show the annual change of this measure - it has dropped to zero in September (Chart I-11, bottom panel). This is in contrast to the prevailing market narrative that the PBoC is injecting a lot of liquidity into the system. While they have been injecting liquidity via RRR cuts, at the same time many lending facilities have been maturing without renewal. Does the low level of ER ratio mean the PBoC has been tightening? No, it has not been tightening. Shrinking excess reserves that lead to higher money market rates would qualify as tightening. Provided money market rates are low and are not rising in China, there has been no de-facto tightening, despite the low level of reserves (Chart I-12). Chart I-12China: Excess Reserves And Interest Rates Second, any central bank can simultaneously target either quantity of reserves or short-term interest rates, but not both. Before 2014, the PBoC was targeting the level of ER. As a result, short-term interest rates fluctuated a lot to equilibrate demand and supply for ER. Since early 2014, the PBoC has switched to targeting interest rates. Therefore, the level of ER is no longer a policy objective, but rather a tool to navigate interest rates. Chart I-13 illustrates what drives PBoC policy in terms of interest rates and liquidity management. The PBoC sets interest rates based on the strength in the economy - i.e., interest rates rise when loan demand is improving and fall when loan demand is weakening (Chart I-13, top panel). Chart I-13China: What Drives Interest Rates? Then, the central bank adjusts the amount of ER to achieve its desired level of short-term interest rates. Hence, the amount of ER is a function of demand for reserves by banks at the current level of interest rates. The current low level of ER is indicative of weak demand for ER by banks. As loan origination has diminished, economic activity has cooled off and the number of transactions by companies and consumers has dwindled, demand for reserves among banks has declined. Third, declining/expanding ER do not always cause a slowdown/acceleration in money/credit growth, as demonstrated on Chart I-14. There is another variable that stands between ER and money/credit: the money multiplier (MM). The latter is defined as how much broad money/credit banks create per one unit of ER. A rising money multiplier reflects banks' willingness and ability to expand their balance sheets aggressively. A falling multiplier signifies growing risk aversion among banks, or their inability to expand their balance sheets. Chart I-14China: Excess Reserves And Money/Credit Impulses Notably, the credit boom in China since 2009 has been driven not by rapidly expanding ER but primarily by a surging MM. The MM has skyrocketed from 40 in 2008 to 65 presently (Chart I-15). This was the manifestation of excessive risk taking by banks. Chart I-15China: Money Multiplier Why is it sensible to expect the MM in China to decline? With ongoing regulatory tightening, falling asset prices and rising defaults, the odds are non-trivial that mainland banks will be reluctant to expand their balance sheets aggressively. We are not implying they will not boost lending forever, but they may be slower to do so compared to previous downturns. Following the peak in their respective credit bubbles and experiencing deteriorating asset quality, banks in Japan, the U.S., the U.K. and euro area shrunk their balance sheets - even though their respective central banks provided enormous amount of excess reserves, and interest rates were at zero. We do not expect bank credit growth to contract in China like it did in those countries. In fact, bank assets and broad credit are still growing at an annual rate of 7% and 12%, respectively (Chart I-16 and Chart I-7 above). Our point is that deleveraging in China has barely begun, and it still remains a policy priority. Consequently, money and credit growth will languish longer in this downturn than in previous ones. Chart I-16China: Bank Asset Growth To Stay Tame Question: So, how would you summarize the key known unknowns to gauge whether and when monetary policy easing will translate into stronger economic growth? Answer: For monetary policy easing to translate effectively into economic growth, the MM and the velocity of money should rise. Both are driven by sentiment and marginal propensity to lend, borrow and spend. Hence, variations in the MM as well as the velocity of money are contingent on sentiment and behavior among bankers, companies and households. The regulatory clampdown on banks and non-bank financial institutions will hamper their willingness and ability to lend, despite sufficient liquidity and low interest rates. Hence, the MM could surprise on the downside. A combination of the ongoing crackdown on leverage, the starting point of high indebtedness, falling asset prices and trade confrontations, will likely weigh on corporate and consumer sentiment, curb their spending and, thereby, dampen the velocity of money. All in all, risks to both the MM and the velocity of money are to the downside rather than upside at the moment. This will hinder the transmission mechanism from policy easing to economic growth. Question: What is your take on financial markets? Are we close to the bottom in EMs and China-related plays? Answer: EMs and China-plays are in a genuine bear market as we have argued in past.3 BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service reckons there is still meaningful downside in EM risk assets and currencies. The EM/China bear market will continue. The Fed is not about to come to markets' rescue, because U.S. growth is very robust and inflation is rising. A very important market to watch is the RMB exchange rate. If the RMB depreciates further - which is our baseline scenario - Asian and other EM financial markets will continue plunging. The RMB/USD exchange rate has been closely tracking the interest rate differential between China and the U.S. (Chart I-17). As the Fed continues to raise rates and China maintains rates at their current level or reduces them to stimulate, the RMB will depreciate. Chart I-17RMB/USD And Interest Rate Differentials Yuan depreciation will lead to a decline in other Asian currencies. In fact, the Korean won is at a critical technical juncture, and a major move is in the cards. Our bias is it will likely break down, consistent with our bearish view on EM risk assets and currencies. As the RMB depreciates, the amount of U.S. dollars that China emits to emerging economies via imports will decline. This will hurt EM exports to China, their currencies and commodities prices. Overall, the U.S. dollar has more upside. The growth disparity between the U.S. and the rest of world warrants a stronger greenback. The latter and a slowdown in EM/China herald a considerable drop in commodities prices. Question: One commodity that has defied the dollar rally and slowdown in China is oil. Will crude continue to float higher? Answer: Oil prices have risen much further and for far longer than we expected.That said, it appears that oil prices are finally beginning to crack, and we see considerable downside.4 China's imports of oil and petroleum products has decelerated substantially (Chart I-18, top panel). This is occurring at a time when Chinese oil strategic and commercial inventories are very elevated (Chart I-18, bottom panel). Chart I-18China's Oil Imports To Weaken Further Oil prices in local currency terms are at record highs in many developing countries. Given oil and fuel subsidies have been removed or reduced in recent years, high oil prices are curbing oil demand in many emerging economies. Global oil production has been outpacing global oil demand since May (Chart I-19, top panel). Typically, this heralds a rollover in oil prices (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Chart I-19A Risk To Oil Prices Finally, oil output has been surging in the U.S. and strong in Russia (Chart I-20); further, Saudi Arabia could boost its crude output as per its recent pledge. Chart I-20Global Oil Output Has Been Surging While geopolitics remains a supportive factor for crude prices, it seems a lot of good news is already priced in the oil market and investors are very long. In short, oil prices are probably heading south. This will contribute to the negative investment sentiment toward EM financial markets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Questions For Emerging Markets," dated November 29, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-21/china-s-195-billion-debt-splurge-has-less-bang-than-you-think 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 18, 2018; the link is available on page 17. 4 This is BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team's view and differs from the BCA house view on oil. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights A supply-driven spike in oil prices in early 2019 is now a highly likely scenario. This represents a potential risk to our current high-conviction view that global bond yields will continue to rise over the next year. Oil prices north of $100/bbl would have negative implications for global growth, especially with a rising U.S. dollar likely to magnify the inflationary impact outside the U.S. A spike in oil prices could alter the recent positive correlation between global bond yields and oil (through higher inflation expectations), even turning into a negative correlation (through weaker expected economic growth). The most reliable historical correlations suggests that more volatile oil prices will lead to greater volatility for both bond yields and corporate credit spreads. Feature The BCA house view remains unequivocally bond bearish, led by additional upside potential for U.S. Treasury yields. The Fed will continue to deliver a steady pace of rate hikes over at least the next year in response to a strong U.S. economy that is fueled by fiscal stimulus and operating well beyond full employment. U.S. bond markets are not discounting enough potential tightening and inflation expectations remain below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, so Treasury yields have room to rise further. While we are comfortable with our high-conviction bearish view on government bonds, we recognize that it is prudent to look for potential scenarios that could derail our base-case scenario. Especially since our once out-of-consensus expectation of higher global yields is now a widely-held view among investors, with Treasury yields breaking out to new cyclical highs in recent weeks. One such risk could come from a spike in oil prices in early 2019, and its potential aftermath. A confluence of geopolitical (Iran, Venezuela) and monetary policy risks (Fed tightening, rising U.S. dollar) will likely stoke oil price volatility next year. This will eventually lead to higher bond market volatility both in developed markets (DM) and emerging markets (EM) - a relationship that has had a far more reliable correlation over time than the direct relationship between oil prices and yields (Chart 1). Chart 1Oil Vol & Bond Vol Are Linked In this joint Special Report, BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services explore how a changing relationship between oil and interest rates could affect the future behavior of global bond markets and, by association, returns to fixed income portfolios. Growing Odds Of A 2019 Oil Price Spike Global oil markets are tightening. While oil demand growth is slowing somewhat, exports from two of OPEC's largest producers - Iran and Venezuela - are falling precipitously. U.S. sanctions against the former, and the unabated collapse in the latter's economy will together remove some 2mm barrels/day (b/d) of supply from an already tight market next year. Global oil inventories are drawing down, while spare capacity is perilously low, leaving little in the way of readily available backup supply to deal with an unplanned production outage even in a minor oil-exporting state. The confluence of these factors is setting the global oil market up for a supply shock, which could take prices to $100/bbl in 1Q19 (Chart 2).1 Those high prices are likely to be sustained, and we expect Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, to trade at $95/bbl on average over the course of next year. Chart 2Get Ready For $100/bbl Oil In Q1 2019 Against this physical reality, the Fed remains set to continue normalizing interest rates. With other major central banks remaining relatively accommodative, widening rate differentials (Chart 3) will continue to support the U.S. dollar (USD). This will, all else equal, increase the cost of oil in local currency terms outside the U.S., hitting EM economies particularly hard if the price move is both as large, and as rapid, as we expect. Chart 3Rate Differentials Will Remain USD-Supportive It is important here to differentiate between a steady demand-driven rise in the price of oil and a rapid supply-driven oil price spike. The former can be bond-bearish by pushing up the inflation expectations components of global bond yields at a time when strong economic growth is also pushing up real bond yields. An oil price spike, however, can eventually produce a DIS-inflationary impulse by depressing real economic growth and destroying oil demand, which ultimately lowers oil prices, inflation expectations and real yields. The IMF, in its most recent World Economic Outlook, highlighted a scenario for 2019 where a big enough rise in oil prices could even cause the Fed to reverse its rates-normalization policies.2 While this is not BCA's base case view, a period of sharply higher oil prices in 1Q19 followed by lower prices in 2H19 would whipsaw global oil markets and raise oil price volatility. History suggests that bond price volatility is likely to also increase in the process, both for government bonds (through more uncertainty over the future path of inflation and policy rates) and corporate bonds (though more uncertainty over future economic growth). Expect Higher Bond Volatility As Oil Volatility Rises Since the end of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), oil volatility has strongly influenced volatility in DM and EM bond markets. Indeed, we find all grades of corporate and junk bonds grouped together are highly correlated with oil volatility in the post-GFC period. We expect this to continue going forward, as oil inventories are drawn down globally to meet consumer demand for refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel fuel, chemicals and plastics. The drawdown in global inventories shows up in a backwardated oil-price forward curve, which reflects the increasing inelasticity of supply.3 This means prices have to adjust more frequently and sharply to equilibrate available supply with demand, producing higher volatility in oil prices (Chart 4). Chart 4Implied Volatilities Will Rise As OECD Storage Falls Using principal components analysis (PCA), we find a high pairwise correlation between oil and bond volatility since 2010. The first principal component (PC) of all grades of corporate and junk bonds grouped together varies strongly with oil volatility, with a correlation of 0.80. Importantly, this component explains 91% of the variability in the group (Chart 5).4 EM bond spreads for smaller issuers like Chile, Peru, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Colombia, and Malaysia are also heavily influenced by greater variability of oil prices, with the first PC of this group highly correlated with oil volatility. Chart 5Oil Volatility Leads To Bond Volatility It comes as no surprise that our U.S. Bond Strategy group, headed by Ryan Swift, has found that lower-quality corporate bonds (i.e., junk) have a high correlation with oil volatility, as do lower-quality corporate spreads (Chart 6). As Ryan noted in a recent report: "there is no consistent correlation between the level of oil prices and junk spreads. However, there is a correlation between implied volatility in the crude oil market and junk spreads, with higher implied vol coinciding with wider spreads and vice-versa. ... The bottom line for junk investors is that a supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to a steep backwardation in the futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads."5 Chart 6Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Oil Volatility Leads To Credit Spread Widening Thus, the oil price spike that we are expecting in 2019 should make corporate bond investors more cautious on the outlook for credit spread and expected returns. BCA's bond strategists have already been expecting to shift to an underweight stance on U.S. corporate debt sometime in 2019 as the Fed moves to a restrictive monetary stance and investors begin to cut U.S. growth expectations and anticipate increased future credit downgrades and defaults. A sharp upward move in oil prices in 1Q19 may prove to be the trigger for that shift to a more bearish outlook on credit. Could An Oil Price Spike Change The Fed's Current Thinking? The combination of an oil price spike and a stronger USD that we anticipate would present a considerable headwind to EM economic growth. Econometric modelling work done by BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy shows that there is a strong correlation between EM growth and U.S. inflation (see Box 1).6 Correlation is not causation, of course, but there is a plausible mechanism for that correlation through the USD, which impacts both EM growth and U.S. inflation. Box 1 Modeling The Links Between The USD, EM & Inflation The two risks we highlight in this Special Report - an oil-price shock in 1Q19 that occurs while the Fed is tightening - have profound implications for EM economies, which makes them particularly important for fixed-income markets globally.7 The near-term effects of an oil-supply shock that quickly sent prices above $100/bbl will hit EM consumers particularly hard. Many governments relaxed or removed fuel subsidies shielding consumers from high oil prices following the OPEC-engineered oil-price collapse of 2014 - 16, which saw Brent crude oil prices - the global benchmark - fall from more than $110/bbl in 1H14 to close to $25/bbl in early 2016.8 An oil-price spike would consume a far larger share of EM households' disposable income now, and would reduce aggregate demand. The second risk - tightening of the Fed's monetary policy - is more complicated. The U.S. economy separated itself from the rest of the world with strong growth this year, partly aided by fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. economy is operating beyond full employment, and wages are growing smartly. This growth allows the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which likely produces four policy-rate rate hikes this year, and, per our House view, four next year. On the back of the Fed's rates-normalization policy, the U.S. trade-weighted dollar appreciated ~ 8% this year. We expect continued strength next year. As the dollar strengthens, EM trade volumes slow. This is partly a result of rising local-currency costs ex U.S., as most commodities are priced in USD. Trade volumes - particularly imports - are closely tied to EM incomes: The World Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade in EM economies averaged 1.5% from 2000-07 p.a., and 1.2% from 2010-17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period.9 Falling trade volumes correspond with weakening or falling income in EM economies. Part of this likely is explained by the expansion and deepening of Global Supply Chains (GSCs) over the past two decades, which fueled the rapid rise in trade of intermediate goods globally, and EM incomes in the process.10 To examine the impact of a rising dollar on EM income, we estimated a regression for the level of EM import volumes using an ensemble of models for the broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) USD as an explanatory variable.11 Our modeling indicates that a 1% increase in our USD TWIB ensemble translates into a 0.33% decline in EM import volumes (Chart 7).12 Chart 7Strong Dollar Dampens EM Trade Volumes Downward Trend In EM Trade Will Continue As USD Strengthens ... Next, we wanted to take these results and have a closer look at inflation, since, as noted above, wage and price pressures have been transmitted globally through GSCs for the better part of the 21st century. This is a phenomenon that accelerates as GSCs are broadened and deepened. More precisely, we wanted to examine the global aspects of local inflation in DM and EM economies.13 To do this, we look at the level of the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a function of EM import volumes. Our modeling indicates that a 1% change in the level of EM import volumes as a function of the USD TWIB translates to a change (in the same direction) in the level of U.S. CPI of between 0.15% and 0.25% - estimated over the post-GFC period (2010 to now). This reflects both the direct and indirect effects of EM incomes on domestic inflation in the U.S. (Chart 8): Chart 8U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes A stronger USD lowers expected U.S. inflation by reducing the cost of imports. EM disposable income growth slows as the USD rises, because the local-currency costs of imports rise and consumes more of available household budgets. Our modeling isolates the common deterministic trend between the U.S. CPI and EM import volumes from the cyclical variations. In fact, these two variables expressed in levels exhibit a strong and stable common trend.14 The U.S. trade-weighted dollar index has already appreciated 8% this year, with more upside likely in the next 6-12 months (Chart 9).15 This would widen the existing sharp divergence between a strong U.S. economy and weaker non-U.S. growth, putting even more upward pressure on the USD. This would represent an additional tightening of U.S. monetary conditions on top of the Fed rate hikes that have already occurred since late 2015. Chart 9Expect Continued USD Appreciation BCA's bond strategy services have described a concept known as the "Fed Policy Loop" to explain the link between global growth divergences, a rising USD, financial market volatility and eventual shifts in the Fed's hawkish bias. Such a move occurred in late 2015/early 2016, when the Fed had to delay additional increases beyond the initial 25bp rate hike of the current tightening cycle because of a soaring USD and global financial market instability (Chart 10). Chart 10Is The Fed Policy Loop: Watch U.S. Credit Spreads The current backdrop shares some characteristics with that episode, in terms of growth divergences (top panel), USD strength and wider EM credit spreads (second panel). The missing piece today is a large widening of U.S. credit spreads, and U.S. credit market underperformance versus Treasuries (third panel). The U.S. economy is in a much healthier place now compared to three years ago, which is why credit spreads have remained much better behaved in 2018. The global backdrop is also far less disinflationary, with the global output gap now closed and inflation expectations drifting back towards pre-crisis levels consistent with central bank inflation targets (Chart 11). Investors should focus on U.S. corporate bond spreads for signs that a stronger USD is starting to impact U.S. corporate profits and future U.S. growth expectations. This would be the most likely potential trigger for the Fed to pause on its current tightening path, as occurred in early 2016 (bottom panel). Importantly, we firmly believe that the Fed's hurdle for backing off the rate hikes from a tightening of financial conditions is much higher now because the U.S. economy is stronger today. A "garden variety" equity market correction, without much widening of corporate spreads, will not be enough. Investment Implications What we have laid out in this report is a risk to the current BCA house views on global duration exposure (stay below-benchmark) and global credit exposure (stay neutral, but favoring the U.S. over Europe and EM) - a supply-driven spike in oil prices, combined with additional increases in the USD fueled by Fed tightening. The potential trigger for that oil spike is largely geopolitical, stemming from the likely loss of oil supply from Iran via U.S. sanctions and Venezuela through economic collapse. The timing of either outcome is difficult to pin down precisely, but sometime in the first quarter of 2019 is our current best guess for when oil prices reach $100/bbl. The key variables to watch will be the U.S. dollar. If it stays stable, then the impacts on global growth and U.S. inflation from the oil spike could be more modest. If the USD surges higher, then the negative impact on non-U.S. growth will eventually spill back into the U.S. economy. The combination of more volatile oil prices and a stronger USD would be a likely trigger for a surge in U.S. bond volatility and wider corporate bond spreads. Eventually, this could move the Fed to pause on its rate hike cycle and, at least temporarily, end the current bond bear market. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Our full oil-price forecast is available in the September 20, 2018, issue of BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, in a report titled "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We will be updating our oil-price forecast next week. 2 Please see the IMF's World Economic Outlook for October 2018, which can be found here https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/ 3 Backwardation is a term of art in commodity markets used to describe an inverted forward curve - i.e., prompt prices for commodities delivered in the very near future trade higher than prices for commodities delivered further out in time. This is the market's way of signaling supplies are tight; storage holders are being incentivized to release oil in inventory via higher prices for prompt delivery. The opposite of this is referred to as a contango market (prompt prices are lower than deferred prices). Contango markets reflect well-supplied markets, as supply that cannot be immediately used must be stored for later use. In recent research, we were able to extend findings from academic studies that showed a non-linear relationship between oil volatility and the slope of the forward curve - highly backwardated and contango forward curves are accompanied by higher volatility in oil prices, due to the physical constraints on storage in such markets. 4 Principal components analysis (PCA) is a statistical technique used to reduce the most important information contained in a large number of correlated variables into a smaller number of common factors that explains the larger set. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk," dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 EM trade volumes - particularly imports - are a key variable we use to track EM income levels. The World Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. Please see "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets," in the June 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 10 of the 11 post-WW2 recessions in the U.S. were preceded by an oil-price spike. Since 1970, the combination of an oil-price spike and a Fed rate-hiking cycle resulted in recession. Please see "Oil-Supply Shock, Risking U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy on September 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the Special Focus in the World Bank's January 2018 Global Economic Prospects entitled "With The Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014 - 16 Oil Price Collapse." 9 We discuss this in "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets," in the June 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see "Global value chains and the increasingly global nature of inflation," by Raphael Auer, Claudio Borio, Andrew Filardo, published online April 28, 2017, by VOX, the CEPR Policy Portal. 11 We average estimates from five different USD regressions using monetary policy variables, commodity prices and momentum indicators. The period covered is the post-GFC (2010 to now). 12 The regression we estimate includes a trend variable, which allows us to separate out the cyclical aspects of trade (i.e., imports) alone. 13 Please see "The globalisation of inflation: the growing importance of global value chains," by Raphael Auer, Claudio Borio and Andrew Filardo, which was published by the Bank For International Settlements in January 2017. 14 We believe this reflects "hidden variables" that simultaneously drive U.S. inflation and EM incomes such as global growth and global money/credit growth. The coefficient range we report - 0.15% to 0.25% - controls for this. For a discussion of "hidden variables," please see Clive Granger's 2003 Nobel Lecture entitled "Time Series Analysis, Cointegration, and Applications." 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ...Assessing Downside Risk," dated August 23, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. High-Yield: A supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to steep backwardation in the oil futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. Emerging Market Sovereigns: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Feature Bond Breakout Chart 1The Long End Breaks Out Bond markets sold off sharply last week and long-dated Treasury yields took out some noteworthy technical levels in the process. The 10-year Treasury yield broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.11% and settled at 3.23% as of last Friday. The next big test for the 10-year's cyclical uptrend is the 2011 peak of 3.75% (Chart 1). The 30-year yield similarly broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.25%, settling at 3.39% as of last Friday. The next resistance for the 30-year occurs at the early-2014 peak of 3.96%. Removing our, admittedly uncomfortable, technical analysis hat, it is instructive to note which macro factors were responsible for last week's large bear-steepening of the Treasury curve and which weren't. Strong U.S. economic data - the non-manufacturing ISM survey hit its highest level since 1997 (Chart 2) - and Fed Chairman Powell commenting that the fed funds rate is "a long way from neutral at this point, probably" were the key drivers of the move.1 Taken together, these two developments suggest that the Fed is further behind the curve than was previously thought. This is consistent with an upward revision to the market's assessment of the neutral fed funds rate, which explains why the yield curve steepened and the price of gold edged higher.2 But it's equally important to note the factors that didn't drive the increase in yields. In this case, yields weren't driven by a rebound in growth outside of the U.S., which continues to flag (Chart 2, panel 2). The Global Manufacturing PMI fell for the fifth consecutive month in September. While our diffusion index based on the number of countries with PMIs above versus below the 50 boom/bust line ticked higher (Chart 2, panel 3), our diffusion index based on the number of countries with rising versus falling PMIs remained deeply negative (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Growth Divergences Deepen Chart 3Global PMIs Taken together, our diffusion indexes are consistent with an environment where most countries are experiencing decelerating growth from high levels. This message is confirmed by looking at the PMIs from the five largest economic blocs (Chart 3). The Eurozone PMI continues to fall rapidly, though it remains well above 50. The Emerging Markets (ex. China) PMI is also trending lower from a relatively high level, while the Chinese PMI is threatening to break below 50. Only the U.S. and Japan have healthy looking PMIs. The precariousness of non-U.S. growth leads us to reiterate the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration view. The risk is that weak foreign growth eventually migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar and forces the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. If current trends continue, it is highly likely that U.S. growth will slow in the first half of next year, though it is unclear whether such a slowdown would be severe enough for the Fed to pause rate hikes.3 In any event, the bond market is only priced for the Fed to maintain its quarterly rate hike pace until June of next year (3 more hikes) before going on hold (Chart 4). Essentially, the market already discounts a rate hike pause, even after last week's large increase in yields. Chart 4Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low For this reason, we prefer to maintain our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, and to hedge the risk of weakening foreign growth by owning curve steepeners,4 and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. Bottom Line: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. In Case You Needed Another Reason To Be Nervous About Junk As Treasury yields broke higher last week, the average high-yield index option-adjusted spread tightened to a fresh cyclical low of 303 bps. It has since rebounded to 316 bps (Chart 5). Our measure of the excess spread available in the high-yield index after adjusting for expected default losses is now at 196 bps, well below its historical average of 247 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). We have previously pointed out that even this below-average excess spread embeds a very low 12-month default loss expectation of 1.07%.5 Rarely have default losses been below that level. With job cut announcements forming a tentative bottom (Chart 5, bottom panel), we see high odds that default losses surprise to the upside during the next 12 months. In the absence of further spread tightening, that would translate to 12-month excess junk returns of 196 bps or less. But this week we want to highlight an additional risk to junk spreads. That risk being our Commodity & Energy Strategy service's view that crude oil prices could experience a positive supply shock in the first quarter of next year. At present, our strategists see high odds of $100 per barrel Brent crude oil in the first quarter of next year, and are forecasting an average price of $95 per barrel for 2019. At publication time, the Brent crude oil price was $85.6 At first blush it isn't obvious why high oil prices would pose a risk to junk spreads, and in fact there is no consistent correlation between the level of oil prices and junk spreads. However, there is a correlation between implied volatility in the crude oil market and junk spreads, with higher implied vol coinciding with wider spreads and vice-versa (Chart 6). Chart 5Default Loss Expectations Too Low Chart 6Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Would higher oil prices necessarily induce a spike in implied volatility? Not necessarily. It turns out that what matters for implied oil volatility is the slope of the futures curve.7 A contangoed futures curve where long-dated futures trade at a higher price than short-dated futures tends to be associated with high implied volatility. A steeply backwardated futures curve where long-dated futures trade well below short-dated futures is equally associated with elevated implied vol (Chart 7). Implied volatility tends to be lowest when the futures curve is in mild backwardation. A mild backwardation is typical when crude prices are in a gradual uptrend, as is the case at present. All in all, the following features provide a reasonable description of the current environment: Gradual uptrend in crude oil price Mild oil futures curve backwardation Low implied crude volatility Tight junk spreads However, as we head into next year, our commodity strategists anticipate that supply constraints will bite in the oil market. The U.S. is poised to implement an oil embargo against Iran in November, and Venezuela - another important oil exporter - remains on the brink of collapse. With global oil inventories already tight, and the loss of further production from Venezuela and Iran looming, our strategists anticipate that the number of days of demand covered by crude oil inventories will decline sharply. This decline will lead to a steep backwardation of the futures curve (Chart 8). Chart 7Brent Crude Oil Volatility Vs. Forward Slope Chart 8Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation The bottom line for junk investors is that a supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to a steep backwardation in the futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. We continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield in U.S. bond portfolios. We will await a signal that profit growth is set to deteriorate before advocating for a further reduction in exposure. Still No Buying Opportunity In EM Sovereigns Chart 9EM Index Spread Looks Cheap As growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world increase, we are on high alert for an opportunity to shift some allocation out of U.S. corporate credit and into USD-denominated emerging market (EM) sovereign debt. However, so far EM spreads are simply not wide enough to merit attention from U.S. bond investors. This is not apparent from the average index spreads. In fact, a quick glance at the indexes shows that EM sovereign spreads have widened a lot relative to duration- and quality-matched U.S. corporates, and actually offer a healthy spread pick-up (Chart 9). However, a more detailed look at the spreads from individual countries shows that the spread advantage in EM is only available in a select few markets (Charts 10A & 10B). At the lower-end of the credit spectrum: Turkey, Argentina, Ukraine and Lebanon all offer higher breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. In the upper credit tiers: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates (UAE) look attractive. All other EM countries off lower breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. Chart 10ABreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates Chart 10BBreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates We would be very reluctant to shift any allocation out of U.S. corporates and into either Turkey or Argentina. Both of those countries are highly exposed to the tightening in global liquidity conditions that occurs alongside a strengthening U.S. dollar. Our Foreign Exchange and Global Investment Strategy teams created a Vulnerability Heat Map to identify which EM countries are likely to struggle as the U.S. dollar appreciates (Chart 11).8 These tend to be countries with large current account deficits and high external debt balances, though several other factors are also considered. The results show that Argentina and Turkey are the two most exposed nations. Chart 11Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, the USD bonds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE are more interesting. Our geopolitical strategists anticipate an escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the U.S. midterm elections, and such tensions could increase the political risk premium embedded in all Middle Eastern debt. But for longer-term U.S. fixed income investors, it is worth noting that extra spread is available in the hard currency sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE compared to A-rated U.S. corporates. Bottom Line: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Powell's full interview can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CqaBSSl6ok 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com, where we note that every time the Global (ex. US) LEI has dipped below zero since 1993, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Calm Before The Storm In Oil Markets", dated August 2, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification