Commodities & Energy Sector
Highlights Washington must establish a "credible threat" if it is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer the superior outcome; The process of establishing such a credible threat is volatile; U.S. Treasurys, along with Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been consistent safe haven assets; The risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea is a red herring, while the crisis itself is not; We suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Feature Brinkmanship between Pyongyang and Washington, D.C. has roiled markets over the past week. The uptick in rhetoric has not come as a surprise. Since last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that souring Sino-American relations were the premier geopolitical risk to investors and that China's periphery, especially the Korean peninsula, would be the "decisive" factor for markets.1 North Korea's nuclear ambitions - which could be snuffed out immediately by a concerted and coordinated effort by China and the U.S. - are a derivative of the broader U.S.-China dynamic. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve its standoff with North Korea. There are long-standing constraints to war, ones that all of the interested parties know only too well from their experience in the Korean War of 1950-53. The first of these is that war is likely to bring a high death toll: Pyongyang can inflict massive civilian casualties in Seoul with a conventional artillery barrage; U.S. troops and Japanese troops and civilians would also likely suffer. Second, China is unlikely to remain neutral, given its behavior in the 1950s, its persistent strategic interest in the peninsula, and its huge increase in military strength relative to both the past and to the United States. However, the process by which the U.S. establishes a "credible threat" of military action is volatile.2 Such a credible threat is necessary if Washington is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer a superior outcome to the belligerent status quo. Viewed from this perspective - which is informed by game theory -President Donald Trump has not committed any grave mistakes so far, but has rather shrewdly manipulated the world's perception that he is mentally unhinged in order to enhance his negotiating leverage. It is unclear how long it will take Trump to convince North Korea that the threat of a U.S. preemptive strike is "credible." As such, it is unclear how long the current standoff will persist. From an investor perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military posturing are part of this "territorial threat display" or evidence of real preparations for an actual attack. As such, further volatility is likely. The ongoing crisis in North Korea is neither the first nor the last geopolitical crisis the world will face in today's era of paradigm shifts.3 We have long identified East Asia as the cauldron of investment-relevant geopolitical risks.4 This is a dynamic produced by the multipolar global context and the geopolitical disequilibrium in the Sino-American relationship. For now, investors have been able to ignore the rising global tensions (Chart 1) due to the ample liquidity emanating from central banks, but the day of reckoning is nigh (Chart 2). Chart 1Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 2Day Of Reckoning? Q&A On North Korea Back on April 19, we wrote a Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," which argued that North Korea had at last become a market-relevant geopolitical risk after decades of limited impact (Chart 3).5 Chart 3North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Looking to the next steps, we introduced the "arc of diplomacy," a framework comparable to the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations from 2010-15 (Chart 4). We predicted that the U.S. would ultimately ramp up threats for the purpose of achieving a diplomatic solution. The U.S. was constrained and would only go to war if an act of war were committed, or appeared imminent.6 Chart 4Arc Of Diplomacy: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin This assessment is now playing out. But not all clients are convinced of our logic, as we have found in our travels throughout Asia Pacific and elsewhere this month. Below we offer a short Q&A based on questions we have received from clients: Q: Diplomacy has already been tried, so why won't the U.S. attack? A: The U.S. public has less appetite for war, especially a preemptive strike, in the wake of the Iraq War, and has not suffered a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor-type catalyst. The U.S. will exhaust diplomatic options before joining a catastrophic second Korean War. And the diplomatic options are far from exhausted. The latest round of sanctions are tighter and more serious than past ones, but still leave categories untouched (like fuel supplies to the North) and are still very hard to enforce (like cutting illegal North Korean labor remittances). Enforcement is always difficult, and the U.S. is currently attempting to ensure that its allies enforce the sanctions strictly, not to mention its rivals (i.e. Russia and China). While we do not think China will ever impose crippling sanctions, we do think it can tighten them up considerably, which could be enough to change the North's behavior. Q: Why doesn't China just take North Korea out? A: China is a formal political, military, and ideological ally of North Korea, and has a strategic interest in maintaining a buffer space on the Korean peninsula - which it defended at enormous human cost in the Korean War. This interest remains in place. China is far more likely to aid and abet a nuclear-armed ally in North Korea than it is to endorse (much less participate in) regime change. The fallout from a new war, such as North Korean refugees flooding into China, is extremely undesirable for China, though it could handle the problem ruthlessly. China would also prefer not to have to occupy a collapsing North, which would be an extensive and dangerous entanglement. Therefore, expect China to twist Pyongyang's arm but not to break its legs. On a more topical note, China is consumed with domestic politics ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. It is perhaps more likely to take action after the congress in October-November. Q: Will U.S. allies cooperate with Trump? Why not bandwagon with China to gain economic benefit? A: South Korea is the best litmus test for whether Trump is causing U.S. allies to drift. The new South Korean President Moon Jae-In, who is politically left-of-center, has played his cards very carefully and started out on good footing with President Trump. A disagreement appears to be a likely consequence of Moon's agenda, which calls for extensive engagement with the North and a review of the U.S. THAAD missile defense deployment in Korea. So far, however, Moon is reaffirming the alliance, in his own way, and Trump has not (yet) expressed misgivings about him. If this changes significantly - as in, South Korea joining with China to give North Korea significant economic aid in defiance of U.S. sanctions efforts - then it would be a sign of division among the allies that would benefit North Korea and could even increase the risk of the U.S. taking unilateral action. The odds of that are still low, however. We have been short the Korean won versus the Thai baht since March 1, and the trade is up 6.03%. We also expect greater volatility and higher prices of credit default swaps to plague South Korea while the crisis continues over the coming months. We are closing our long Korean consumer stocks trade versus Taiwanese exporters for a loss of 4.24%. Q: What is Japan's role in the current crisis? What is the impact on Japan? A: Japan is one of the few countries whose relations with the U.S. have benefited under the Trump administration. The Japanese are in lock-step so far in reacting to North Korea. The government has been sounding louder alarms about North Korea for the past year, including by conducting evacuation drills in the case of attack. Japan has long been within range of North Korea's missiles, but its successes in nuclear miniaturization pose a much greater threat. Not only does North Korea pose a legitimate security risk, but Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also stands to benefit at least marginally in terms of popular support and support for his controversial constitutional revision. This will, in turn, feed into the region's insecurities. Yen strength as a result of the crisis, however, would be a headwind to Japan's economic growth. Thus Abe has a tightrope to walk. We expect him to take actions to ensure the economy continues to reflate. Q: Is Trump rational? How do we know he won't push the nuclear button? A: Ultimately this is unknowable. It also involves one's philosophical outlook. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong both committed atrocities by the tens of millions but did not use nuclear weapons. Nikita Khrushchev practically wrote the playbook that North Korea's Kim dynasty has used in making its belligerent nuclear threats. Yet Khrushchev ultimately agreed to détente. Kim Jong Un makes Trump look calm. The combination of Kim and Trump is worrisome; but so was the combination of Eisenhower and Khrushchev, one believing nuclear weapons should be used if needed, the other threatening wildly to use them. It may be the case that the threat of an atrocity, or (in Kim's case) of total annihilation, is enough to keep decisions restrained. As we go to press, Kim has ostensibly suspended his plan to fire missiles around Guam and U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that they would not attack unless attacked. Stairway To (Safe) Haven Revisited In expectation of increased frequency of geopolitical risks, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has produced two quantitative analyses of safe haven assets over the past two years. The first, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," unequivocally crowned gold as the ultimate safe haven (Table 1), while showing that the USD is not much of a defense against geopolitical events (Chart 5).7 Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises As such, investors should fade the narrative that the failure of the USD to appreciate amidst the latest North Korean imbroglio is a sign of some structural weakness. The greenback continues to underperform due to weak inflation in the U.S., a fleeting condition that our macro-economist colleagues expect to reverse. Mathieu Savary, BCA's currency strategist, believes that more upside exists for the USD regardless of the geopolitical outcome: Chart 5Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises Chart 6DXY Is Cheap... Chart 7...But The Euro Is Not First, the dollar is currently trading at its deepest discount to the BCA Foreign Exchange Service augmented interest rate parity model since 2010 (Chart 6). The euro, which accounts for 58% of the DXY index, is its mirror image, being now overvalued by two sigma, the most since 2010 (Chart 7). Second, bullish euro bets will dissipate as Europe's economic outperformance versus the U.S. fades. Financial conditions have massively eased in the U.S., while they have tightened in Europe, resulting in the biggest upswing on euro area growth relative to the U.S. in over two years (Chart 8). Such an economic outperformance by the U.S. should lead to a strengthening greenback (Chart 9).8 Chart 8Easing Versus Tightening FCI Chart 9PMIs Point To USD Rally Our second attempt to quantify safe-haven assets, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," concluded that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds, and Japanese bonds are the best performers in times of crisis.9 We considered 65 assets10 (Table 2) with five different methodologies and back-tested them empirically within the context of 25 financial and geopolitical events since January 1988. Some of these assets have been proven to perform as safe havens by previous academic research, some are commonly utilized in investment strategies, and others could provide alternatives (see Box 1 for further details). Table 2Scrutinizing The World For Safe Havens This report demystifies four key issues related to safe havens: Part I identifies what qualifies as a safe-haven asset. Unsurprisingly, the best performers are U.S. Treasurys along with Swiss and Japanese bonds due to their currency effects. Part II examines if safe havens change over time. We find that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens, and that JGBs and Swiss bonds have a long history as portfolio protectors. Part III breaks down safe havens through an event analysis. We look at the country of origin, the nature of the crisis, and whether the risk is a "black swan" or "red herring" - two classifications of events that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has established - all of which have an impact on their performance. But red herrings or black swans are only defined after the fact, thus requiring geopolitical analysis or market timing indicators to be able to act on them. Part IV demonstrates that timing plays a crucial part when investing in safe havens as their performance is coincident with that of equities. Box 1 Safe Havens - A Literature Review In a previous Geopolitical Strategy Special Report published in November 2015, it was established that shifts in economic and political regimes alter investors' preferences for safe-haven assets, and that Swiss bonds and U.S. 10-year Treasurys were at the top of that list.11 Also, statistical methods were used to demonstrate that gold had acted as a safe haven from the 1970s to the early 90s, but has since lost its status due in part to a new era of looming deflationary risks. Li and Lucey (2013) have identified a pattern in precious metals, through a series of quarterly rolling regressions testing the significance of the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements against safe-haven assets, catching extreme negative events. For instance, the 1st percentile captures the very worst corrections that have occurred, the one that represent the bottom 1% of the equity performances. The 5th and 10th percentiles represent the 5% and 10% lowest returns for equities, respectively. The authors demonstrated that silver, platinum and palladium act as safe havens when gold does not.12 Similarly, Bauer and McDermott (2013) examined the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements and proved that both gold and U.S. Treasurys can serve as safe havens, but that gold has the best record in times of extreme financial stress.13 Baele et al. (2015) concentrated on flight-to-safety episodes, which they characterized as events in which the VIX, TED spreads and a basket of CHF, JPY, and USD all increased drastically.14 They found that during flight-to-safety episodes, large cap stocks outperform small caps, precious metal and gold prices (measured in dollars) increase slightly, while bond returns exceed those of the equity market by 2.5-4 percentage points. Baur and Glover (2012) provide further evidence that gold can no longer be utilized as a safe haven due to increased speculation and hedging. Their main finding is that gold cannot be both an investment and a safe-haven asset. That is, gold can only be effective as a safe haven if the periods prior to the event had not generated significant investment demand for gold.15 Using high-frequency exchange rate data, Ranaldo and Soederlind (2010) conclude that the CHF, EUR and JPY have significant safe-haven characteristics, but not the GBP.16 The strongest safe havens are identified as the CHF and JPY, but the returns are partly reversed after a day of safe-haven protection. They also find that the nature of the crisis has a significant effect on safe-haven properties. For instance, a financial crisis and a natural disaster produced drastically different outcomes for the yen. Part I - Safety In Numbers Our first step in identifying safe-haven assets was to review each asset's performance against equities in times of crisis. As such, we conducted a series of threshold regressions to generate a list of true safe-haven assets - assets that have a statistically significant positive performance in times of turmoil. Our method is explained as follows: Step 1 - Percentile Dummies: Following methods from Li and Lucey (2013) and Bauer and McDermott (2013), we created dummy variables for the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns since 1988. We then multiplied each of these dummies by their corresponding stock returns (see Box 1 for further detail). Step 2 - Regressions: Using the 64 potential safe-haven assets, we ran a series of regressions both in USD and the local currency, testing each asset's returns explained by the three percentile dummies.17 Step 3 - Identifying Safe Havens: We then quantified strong safe-havens as assets having significant coefficients for all three return thresholds (1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns). Results - Seek Refuge In Currencies And Government Bonds: Our quantitative results are mainly consistent with what others have found in the past: the Japanese yen and most G10 government bonds are safe havens. Table 3 shows the safe-haven assets that generated negative coefficients versus equities for all three threshold percentiles. Table 3Seeking Protection Against Corrections In our threshold regressions expressed in USD terms, we found that the Japanese yen, Quality Stocks,18 and Japanese, Swiss and U.S. bonds acted as strong safe havens. Currencies play a crucial part in the performance of safe havens. In fact, in local-currency terms, a series of G10 government bonds (U.S., Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.) proved to be the most useful safe havens. In sum, true or strong safe havens are government bonds that have currencies that add to positive returns during times of crisis. Unsurprisingly, this select group of strong safe-haven assets is comprised of U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Quality Stocks did provide positive and statistically significant results, but the returns were very low - for this reason, we excluded them from our basket of strong safe havens. While gold, the Swiss franc, and the U.S. dollar did generate positive returns during times of crisis, they failed to generate statistically significant results at all three thresholds. Bottom Line: Based on our econometric work, most G10 government bonds can act as safe havens. But due to strong currency effects, our models favor what are already commonly known as safe havens: U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Simply put, the difference between this select group and other G10 bonds is that their currencies rise or are stable during turmoil, while the currencies of the other G10 bonds do not. Part II - Are Safe Havens Like Fine Wines? U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds were not always the top assets providing protection against the downside in equities, however. To determine whether safe-haven properties change, we examined the evolution of the relationship between safe havens and U.S. equity markets over time with the following model: Step 1 - Rolling Regressions: Considering the results obtained in Part I, we restricted our sample to G10 governments in USD and local-currency terms, Quality Stocks, gold, JPY, EUR, and USD for this statistical procedure. We put these remaining assets, both in USD and local-currency terms, through a series of 1-year rolling regressions.19 Step 2 - Identifying Trends: Each regression generated a coefficient that explained the relationship between equities and safe havens (B1). We created a new time series by collecting the coefficients for each data point and smoothing them using a five-year moving average, thus depicting a long-term pattern in the evolution of safe havens. Results - A Regime Shift In Gold And Treasurys: Our findings show that safe-haven assets fall in and out of favor through time (Charts 10A, B & C). Most striking are the changes in U.S. Treasurys and gold. Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge for equity corrections. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. That said, gold's coefficient has been falling closer to zero lately, illustrating that it could soon resurface as a proper safe haven, especially if deflation risks begin to dissipate. Given that this is precisely the conclusion stated by our colleague Peter Berezin - BCA's Chief Global Strategist - and our own political analysis, we suspect that gold may be resurrected as a safe haven very soon.20 Chart 10ASafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10BSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10CSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Another important finding is that the currency effect plays a key role during recent risk-off periods (Charts 11A & B). The best protector currencies are the ones that are negatively correlated with equity returns. According to our results, the CHF and the JPY have generally been risk-off currencies, while the USD has only been one since 2007, switching places with the euro. This reinforces the case for U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, which are supported by risk-off currencies. Chart 11ACurrencies Are Difference Makers Chart 11BCurrencies Are Difference Makers Bottom Line: Safe havens change over time. Gold fell out of favor due to global deflationary dynamics. With inflation on the horizon, we will keep monitoring the relationship between gold and equities for a possible return of the yellow metal as a safe haven. Since the July 4 North Korean ICBM test, for example, gold has rallied 4.8%. Part III - Red Herrings And Black Swans Since 1988, we identified 25 economic and (geo)political events that generated instant panic or acute uncertainty in the media and financial markets.21 We analyzed the short-term reactions of the safe-haven assets, both in USD and local-currency terms. This methodology allowed for the deconstruction of the impact of the events by the following factors: Country of origin of the crisis, the nature of the crisis, and whether the event was a "red herring" or a "black swan." Generally speaking, a red herring event is a crisis of some sort with little lasting financial impact. A black swan, on the other hand, is an event that has a very low probability of occurring but has a pronounced market impact if it does. Quantitatively, our definition of a black swan is an event that produces an immediate negative response in the S&P 500 below -1%, while creating a rise in either U.S., Japanese, or Swiss government bonds above 0% (Table 4). Of course, determining which event is a red herring or a black swan is only obvious post-facto and thus requires thorough geopolitical analysis. Table 4Understanding The Crises Results - Red Herrings And Black Swans Matter: Our event analysis solidifies our findings with regards to U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, but also builds a case for some European bonds as well as gold during black swan events. Our main findings can be summarized as follows. Fade The Red Herrings: Out of the sixteen geopolitical events, ten were identified as red herrings, in which safe havens underperformed the equity market. This, then, suggests that it is not always beneficial to buy safe-haven assets when tensions are rising. What is interpreted as a major geopolitical crisis - say, Ukraine in 2014 or Greece in 2015 - often ends up being a "red herring." Geopolitical Risk = Gold: Geopolitical black swan events, on the other hand, have a significant, negative impact on the market. During these events, gold emerges as the strongest hedge against a downturn in equities. U.S. Treasurys And The Swiss Franc Provide A Baseline: Under all black swan events considered - geopolitical and non-geopolitical - U.S. Treasurys and the Swiss franc had the strongest performance, generating positive returns on the day of the stock market crash in 85% of the cases. G10 Government Bonds Will Also Do: German, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish government bonds also provided protection during black swan events in local and common-currency terms, albeit to a lesser extent. U.S. And Swiss Bonds Outperform During Financial Episodes: During black swan financial crises, Swiss and U.S. government bonds stand out as the best safe havens due to their capacity to generate positive returns both in USD and local-currency terms in eight out of the nine examined crashes. Other findings that are interesting, yet less robust due to a limited sample size, include: When the crisis originated on U.S. soil, U.S. Treasurys and the dollar performed relatively poorly compared to other safe-haven assets. This is a somewhat surprising finding, as most investors believe that U.S. assets rally even at a time of U.S.-based crises, such as the 2011 budget crisis. We show that they may perform well, but in USD, non-U.S. based assets do better. When the crisis originated in Europe, European bonds performed very well both in USD and local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Europe, Swiss and U.K. government bonds performed poorly in USD terms, but offered strong protection in local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Russia, precious metals acted as a poor hedge. Bottom Line: It is crucial to gain an understanding of the nature of any potential crisis. Red herrings should always be faded, not hedged against, as they produce poor results in safe-haven assets. U.S. Treasurys, Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been very consistent safe-haven assets during previous periods of acute risk. Part IV: Timing Is Everything As a final step in our quantitative approach, we put our results through numerous timing exercises to test how the assets would perform in real time. Based on our Risk Asset Spectrum (Diagram 1), which summarizes our findings, one could argue that investing in times of crisis simply boils down to buying an equal-weighted basket of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds. Although this is technically true, such a strategy would require perfect foresight, unparalleled timing, or dumb luck - since black swan events are, by definition, very difficult to predict. Diagram 1Risk Asset Spectrum Proof Of The Ultimate Safe Haven: The first experiment we conducted was to illustrate how powerful safe havens can be when timed perfectly in a trading strategy. We started off by comparing two baskets. The first was a benchmark portfolio comprised of 60% U.S. equities and 40% U.S. bonds. The other contained the same two assets, but with 100% allocated to a basket comprised of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds during times of negative returns for equities. Of course, this strategy is not realistic and would be impossible to implement, since the trading rule depends on future events. But as Chart 12 shows, if one were able to predict every single period of negative returns for global equities and hold safe-haven assets instead, the trading rule would outperform almost 10-fold. Chart 12Safe Havens Work Wonders With Perfect Information... One-Month Lag Is Already Too Late: Repeating the same exercise, but with a one-month lag in the execution, produces drastically different results. More specifically, whenever the previous month's equity return is negative (t=0), the portfolio allocates 100% to a single safe-haven asset for the current month (t=1), otherwise it keeps the allocation identical to that of the benchmark. The rationale for using such a simple rule is that average investors are generally late in identifying a crisis and only react once they have validation that the market is in a correction. Chart 13 shows that being late by one month changes the performance of the safe haven basket from astronomically outperforming the benchmark to underperforming it. Chart 13... But Timing Is Everything Reaction Is Key: As a final timing exercise, we analyzed the reaction function of our assets to see how quickly they react after the correction in equities begins (Chart 14). Unsurprisingly, the top assets that we identified start appreciating as soon as the crisis hits (t=0). Gold is, on average, the quickest asset to react from investors seeking refuge. Swiss bonds come in as a close second, almost mirroring gold during the first few days of the correction. But both assets start to flatten out and even roll over after a few days. Japanese bonds react slightly later than gold and Swiss bonds, but keep increasing for a longer period of time and start plateauing around the 30th day after the crisis. U.S. Treasurys and Quality Stocks, on the other hand, remain rather flat and constant over the short term. These results attest to the importance of timing the crisis using the best safe-haven assets. Chart 14Safe Havens React Instantly Bottom Line: Timing plays a crucial part in investing in safe-haven assets, as their performance is coincident to that of equities. Investment Implications: Is Pyongyang A Red Herring Or A Black Swan? The results of our quantitative analysis are clear: hedging geopolitical risk depends on whether it is persistent or fleeting. So, is Pyongyang a red herring or a black swan? From our geopolitical analysis we make three key conclusions: The U.S. is not likely to preemptively attack North Korea; However, the U.S. has an interest in signaling that it may conduct precisely such an attack; Brinkmanship could last for a long time. Even if the risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea itself is a red herring, the crisis itself is not. In fact, between now and when a negotiated solution emerges, investors may face several new crises, which may include limited military attacks or skirmishes. While markets have faded such North Korean provocations in the past, the current context is clearly different. As such, we would suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Even though a "buy and hold" strategy with such a "Doomsday Basket" will likely underperform the market if tensions with North Korea subside, we are betting that it may take time for the U.S. and North Korea to get to the negotiating table. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 6, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. We upgraded North Korea to the status of a genuine market-relevant risk in "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017 available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0," dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. In particular, we argued, "the current saber-rattling is carefully orchestrated. But North Korea can no longer be consigned to the realm of satire. The very fact that the U.S. administration is adopting greater pressure tactics makes this year a heightened risk period. Investors should be especially wary of any missile tests that reveal North Korean long-range capabilities to be substantially better than is known to be the case today." Then, on May 13 and July 4, North Korea conducted its first ICBM launches; the UN Security Council agreed to a new round of even tighter economic sanctions on August 5; and the U.S. and North Korea engaged in an alarming war of words. 6 Specifically, we wrote: "Diplomacy is the only real option. And in fact it is already taking shape. The theatrics of the past few weeks mark the opening gestures. And theatrics are a crucial part of any foreign policy. The international context is looking remarkably similar to the lead-up to the new round of Iranian negotiations in 2012. The United States pounded the war drums and built up the potential for war before coordinating a large, multilateral sanctions-regime and then engaging in talks with real willingness to compromise." 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen," dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Forty-one assets were denominated in USD only, while G10 bonds, Credit Suisse Swiss Real Estate Fund, and European 600 real estate were used both in local-currency terms and USD, for a total of 65 assets. 11 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Sile Li and Brian M. Lucey, "What precious metals act as safe havens, and when? Some U.S. evidence," Applied Economic Letters, 2013. 13 Dirk G. Bauer and Thomas K.J. McDermott, "Financial Turmoil and Safe Haven Assets," 2013. 14 Lieven Baele, Geer Bekaert, Koen Inghelbrecht and Min Wei, "Flights to Safety," National Bank of Belgium Working Paper No. 230, 2015. 15 Dirk G. Baur and Kristoffer J. Glover, "The Destruction of Safe Haven Asset?,"2012. 16 Angelo Ranaldo and Paul Soederlind, "Safe Haven Currencies," Review of Finance, Vol. 10, pp. 385-407, 2010. 18 Quality stocks are defensive equity plays with high, steady earnings with an elevated return on investments. They are estimated by Deutsche Bank's Factor Index Equity Quality Excess Return in USD. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Since we were interested in the immediate, often unexpected, response to the event, we did not include economic recessions in our event analysis.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy We reiterate our recent overweight calls in banks/financials and energy. Chemicals/materials and telecom services no longer deserve a below benchmark allocation. Pharma/health care and utilities are now in the underweight column. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Equities poked higher early last week on the eve of a robust earnings season as quarterly EPS vaulted to all-time highs (Chart 1), only to give up those gains and then some as North Korea jitters spoiled the party and ignited a mini selloff later in the week. While geopolitical uncertainty is dominating the news flow and an escalation is possible, we doubt North Korea tensions in isolation can significantly derail the stock market. With regard to the SPX's future return composition, our view remains intact that the onus falls on earnings to do the heavy lifting. In other words, the multiple expansion phase has mostly run its course, and explains the bulk of the board market's return since the 2011 trough (Chart 2). Now it is time for profits to shine. Chart 1Earnings-Led Advance Chart 2EPS Has To Do The Heavy Lifting Low double-digit EPS growth is likely in calendar 2018. Three key factors drive our sanguine profit view. First, as we posited three weeks ago, financials and energy will command a larger slice of the earnings pie, a backdrop not yet discounted in sell-side analysts' estimates (please see Table 2 from the July 24th Weekly Report). Second, irrespective of where the U.S. dollar heads in the coming months, SPX earnings will benefit from positive FX translation gains in Q3 and Q4. Finally, as the corporate sector flexes its operating leverage muscle, even modest sales growth will go a long way in terms of profit growth generation. Operating profit margins are poised to expand especially given muted wage inflation (Chart 3). Nevertheless, lack of profit validation is a key risk to our bullish S&P 500 thesis. Considering the post-GFC period, global growth scares (and resulting anemic earnings follow through) were the primary catalysts for the 2010, 2011 and late-2015/early-2016 equity corrections. The SPX fell 16%, 19% and 14% in each of those episodes, respectively. As a reminder, early in 2010 the Fed's QE ended and the ECB was scrambling to contain the government debt crisis as the Eurozone and the IMF bailed out Greece, Portugal and Ireland. In 2011, recession fears gripped the world economy, when then ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet tightened monetary policy twice in the euro area, while in the U.S. QE2 ended (Chart 4) and the debt ceiling fiasco spiraled out of control in the late-summer. More recently, a global manufacturing recession took hold in late-2015/early-2016 and the commodity drubbing re-concentrated investor's minds. Chart 3Margin Expansion Phase Chart 4Liquidity Removal = Market Turmoil A persistent flare up in geopolitical risk (i.e. in addition to the possible escalation of North Korea tensions) may lead consumers and CEOs alike to pull in their horns and short circuit the synchronized global economic recovery. Putting this risk in perspective is instructive. Table 2 documents the historical precedent of geopolitical crises since the mid-1950s, the maximum SPX drawdowns, and bid up of safe haven assets courtesy of our Geopolitical Strategy Service.1 Under such a backdrop, low-double digit EPS growth would be at risk, also causing some equity market consternation. Table 2Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises Table 2Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises, Continued Importantly, the Chinese Congress is quickly approaching in October and the dual tightening in Chinese monetary conditions (rising currency and interest rates) is unnerving. A related Chinese/EM relapse represents a risk to our bullish overall equity market thesis. Commodity producers/sectors would suffer a setback, jeopardizing the broad-based earnings recovery. Chart 5Mini Capex Upcycle Second, lack of tax reform is another risk we are closely monitoring that could put our upbeat SPX view offside. Lack of traction on this front as the year draws to a close will likely sabotage business confidence and put capex plans on the backburner anew. Moreover, this would shatter the confidence of small and medium businesses, especially given their greatest bugbears: high taxes and big government. Finally, repatriation tax holiday blues would cast a double dark shadow primarily over the tech and health care sectors: not only would shareholder-friendly activities like dividends and buybacks get postponed, but so would capex plans (Chart 5). One final risk worth monitoring is the handoff of liquidity to growth. Historically, there has been significant turmoil every time the Fed has removed balance sheet accommodation in the post-GFC era. We are in uncharted territory and the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet, likely to be announced next month, may have unintended consequences. Unlike QE and QE2 ending, this time around the ECB is also on the cusp of removing balance sheet liquidity, at the margin. Chart 6A shows that the equity market may come under pressure if history at least rhymes. While we doubt that a larger than 10% correction is in the cards -- in line with the historical S&P 500 average drawdown during geopolitical crises (middle panel, Chart 6B)2 -- and our strategy will be to "buy the dip", the time to purchase portfolio insurance is now when the S&P 500 is near all-time highs, especially given the seasonally-weak and accident-prone months of September and October. Chart 6ADay Of Reckoning? Chart 6BAsset Class Returns During Crises We are comfortable with our overall early-cyclical portfolio exposure, while simultaneously maintaining a bit of defense in the form of our overweight consumer staples and underweight tech positions. This week we are recapping and reiterating all the major portfolio moves we have made since early May. Banking On Faster Growth Bank profit growth is supported by three main pillars: the quantity, price and quality of credit. All three are set to improve. Solid house price inflation and a tight labor market should ensure that consumer credit growth also firms (Chart 7A), pointing to the potential for a broad-based bank balance sheet expansion. Our U.S. bank loan growth model suggests that banks could enjoy the largest upswing in credit growth of the past 30 years (Chart 7B). Soaring consumer and business confidence, rising corporate profits and a potential capital spending revival are the key model drivers. BCA's view is that a better economy and rising inflation will materialize in the back half of the year, and serve as a catalyst to higher interest rates and a steeper yield curve. Banks profit from overall rising interest rates in two ways: reinvesting at higher yields and assets repricing at a faster pace than deposits. Thus, a steepening yield curve would signal that bank profit estimates should experience a re-rating, provided the yield lift at the long end of the curve was gradual and did not choke off growth via a sudden spike (Chart 7A). Chart 7ABanks Flexing Their Muscle Chart 7BBCA Bank Loans & Leases Growth Model In terms of credit quality, non-performing loans and charge-offs are sinking from already low levels. It would take a significant deterioration in the labor market to warn that credit quality was about to become a profit drag. Importantly, the reserve coverage ratio has climbed to near 100%, as non-current loans have fallen faster than banks have released reserves. Historically, credit quality improvement has been positively correlated with rising valuations (Chart 7A). Finally, even a modest easing in the regulatory backdrop along with a more shareholder friendly outlook now that the banks aced the Fed's stress test should help unlock excellent value in bank equities. Bottom Line: We reiterate our overweight stance in the S&P banks index that also lifted the S&P financials sector to overweight. Buy Energy Stocks Chart 8Energy EPS Model Says Buy Energy equities are down roughly 20% year-to-date versus the broad market, driven by rising U.S. shale oil production, inventory accumulation, and investor doubts about whether all nations will comply with OPEC's mandated production cuts. There are tentative signs that this relative performance bear phase is drawing to a close. Three main drivers support our modestly sanguine view of energy stocks. First, the long term inverse correlation between the U.S. dollar and the commodity complex has been reestablished; global growth suggests that a tightening interest rate cycle is brewing which should be supportive to energy stocks (top panel, Chart 8). Second, the steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing signs of fatigue with Baker Hughes reporting flattening growth in domestic oil rig count; At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely (Chart 8). Finally, our S&P energy sector Valuation Indicator has gravitated back to the neutral zone. Technicals are also washed out with our Technical Indicator breaching one standard deviation below its historical mean, a level that typically heralds a reversal. Recent anecdotes that the sell-side is throwing in the towel on their bullish oil forecasts for the remainder of the year are also contrarily positive. Bottom Line: Our newly introduced S&P energy sector relative EPS model encapsulates this cautiously optimistic industry backdrop (Chart 8), and gave us comfort to lift the S&P energy sector to a modest overweight position. DeREITing Chart 9Lighten Up On REITs REITs have marked time year-to-date, but recently operating conditions have downshifted a notch. Three key drivers argue for lightening up exposure on this newly formed S&P GICS1 sector. First, REITs had been unable to materially benefit from the 50bps fall in the 10-year Treasury yield from the mid-December peak to the mid-June trough. As the economy recovers from the first half lull, Treasury yields will resume their advance. This is a net negative for the fixed income proxy real estate sector (Chart 9). Second, real estate occupancy rates have crested and generationally high supply additions in the apartment space are all but certain to push vacancies higher still. The implication is that rental inflation will remain under intense downward pressure (Chart 9). Finally, according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey, bankers are less willing to extend CRE credit. If banks continue to close the credit taps, CRE prices will suffer a setback. Bottom Line: We reiterate our downgrade of the niche S&P real estate sector to a benchmark allocation. Positive Chemical Reaction? Chart 10Chemicals Are No Longer Toxic In the summer of 2014 we went underweight the S&P chemicals index, anticipating an earnings underperformance phase, driven by weak revenues as chemicals manufacturers were furiously adding capacity to benefit from lower domestic feedstocks. This view has largely panned out, and now three factors underpin our more neutral bias: synchronized global growth, receding global capacity and improving domestic operating conditions. The global manufacturing PMI has recently reaccelerated and jumped to a six year high. Similarly, the U.S. ISM manufacturing survey also vaulted higher. Synchronized global growth suggests that final demand is on the upswing and should bode well for chemical top- and bottom-line growth (Chart 10). This has driven a relative weakening of the U.S. dollar, much to the benefit of U.S. chemical producers, whose exports appear to be displacing German exports. Global chemicals M&A supports our expectation of demand-driven pricing power gains. We think the benefits of consolidation are twofold: First, reduced revenues of the past decade have left the industry with outsized cost structures; consolidation should sweep that away under the guise of synergy, driving margins higher. Second, industry overcapacity has historically impaired profitability due to soaring overhead and more competitive pricing; greater scale should impose greater capital discipline. Finally, domestic operating conditions have taken a turn for the better. This improving domestic final demand backdrop is reflected in higher resource utilization rates and solid pricing power gains have staying power (Chart 10). Bottom Line: Tentative evidence suggests that the bear market in chemicals producers is over. We reiterate our recent upgrade to neutral. Given that chemicals stocks comprise over 73% of the broad materials index, this bump also moved the S&P materials sector to a benchmark allocation. Utilities: Blackout Warning Chart 11Utilities Get Short Circuited While chemicals and materials are beneficiaries of an upgrading in global economic expectations, utilities sit at the opposite end of the table (global manufacturing PMI shown inverted, top panel, Chart 11), and therefore warrant a downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Now that the Fed is ready to start unwinding its balance sheet, the ECB is preparing the waters for QE tapering and a slew of CBs are on the cusp of a new tightening interest rate cycle, there are high odds that still overvalued fixed income proxies will continue to suffer. Synchronized global growth and coordinated tightening in monetary policy spells trouble for bonds. Our sister publication U.S. Bond Strategy expects a bond selloff for the remainder of the year. Given that utilities essentially trade as a proxy for bonds, this macro backdrop leaves them vulnerable to a significant underperformance phase (Treasury yield shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 11). Importantly, the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio and utilities sector relative performance also has a tight inverse correlation (S/B shown inverted, second panel, Chart 11). The implication is that downside risks remain acute. Without the support of continued declines in bond yields, or of indiscriminate capital flight from all riskier assets, utilities advances depend on improving fundamentals. The news on the domestic operating front is grim. Contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty. Tack on waning productivity, with labor additions handily outpacing electricity production, and the ingredients for a margin squeeze are in place. Bottom Line: We reiterate our recent downgrade to underweight. Pharma: Tough Pill To Swallow Chart 12Pharma Relapse Pharma stock profits have moved in lockstep with consumer spending on pharmaceuticals and both have roughly doubled over the past decade. However, relative pharma consumer outlays have crested recently, causing a significant pharma profit underperformance (Chart 12). If our cautious drug pricing power thesis pans out as we portrayed in the July 31st Weekly Report, then pharma earnings will suffer and exert downward pressure on relative share prices (Chart 12). Industry balance sheet deterioration represents another warning signal. Net debt/EBITDA is skyrocketing at a time when the broad non-financial corporate (NFC) sector has been in balance sheet rebuilding mode (bottom panel). While this metric does not suggest that pharma stocks are in deep financial trouble, the deterioration in finances is undeniable, and, at the margin, a rising interest rate backdrop will likely slow down debt issuance for equity retirement and dividend payout purposes. Bottom Line: We recently trimmed the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight, which also took the S&P health care index to underweight. Telecom Services: Signs Of Life Chart 13Telecom: Climbing Out Of Deflation2 Investors have shunned telecom services stocks vehemently year-to-date (YTD) on the back of an abysmal profit showing. We had been fortunate enough to underweight this niche sector since late January, adding alpha to our portfolio. Nevertheless, we did not want to overstay our welcome and recently booked profits of 12% and lifted the S&P telecom services sector to the neutral column. Our Cyclical Macro Indicator has arrested its fall giving us comfort that at least a lateral move in relative share prices is likely in coming months (Chart 13). The steep recalibration of cost structures to the new pricing reality is buttressing our CMI, offsetting the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet (Chart 13). Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely, and on a three month-rate of change basis, pricing power has staged a V-shaped recovery (Chart 13). Anecdotally, Verizon's first full quarter post the new pricing plans was solid and suggests that the peak deflationary impulse is likely behind the industry. Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, in line with our margin proxy reading. This will also stabilize relative profitability. In sum, the bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Green shoots on the industry's pricing power front and impressive management focus on cost structures argue against being bearish this niche sector. Bottom Line: We reiterate the recent bump to neutral in the S&P telecom services sector. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ibid. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.
Highlights The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is taking a well-timed tactical decision to make room for increased Libyan and Nigerian output, by reducing allocations to refiners by more than 500k b/d in September. The bulk of these reductions will be directed at U.S. refiners, which are running their units at close to record output, while reducing their crude imports and boosting product exports. This will keep the year-on-year (yoy) reductions in OECD commercial oil stocks now showing up in the data on track, driven by continued sharp draws in U.S. inventories. Most importantly, these reductions will occur in the highly visible, high-frequency data produced by the U.S. every week. Energy: Overweight. Reports of foreign workers being pulled from Venezuelan oil fields will keep markets on edge. We remain long Dec/17 $50/bbl calls and short $55/bbl calls in Brent and WTI, which are up 127% and 74% since inception on June 22 and June 15, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum rallied on the back of news reports China's Shandong province ordered more than 3.2mm MT/yr of capacity shuttered by end-July. While surprising, such actions are not inconsistent with the stricter enforcement of environmental regulations in China we expect going forward. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Recent geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and North Korea are supporting this position, which is up 2.1% since inception on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains were treading water ahead of today's WASDE. We remain bearish, but continue to avoid shorting the complex. Feature Chart of the WeekU.S. Refiners Running At Close To Record Rates KSA's decision to reduce crude oil allocations to refiners in September, particularly in the U.S., is a well-timed tactical move.1 U.S. refinery net crude inputs hit record levels in early June at 17.3mm b/d, and remain close to that level (Chart of the Week). U.S. product exports continue at near-record levels, while imports have been trending lower (Chart 2). Crude oil exports from the U.S. are running close to record levels, and imports are trending lower (Chart 3). U.S. exports of crude and products hit a record in January at 5.9mm b/d - 5.24mm b/d of products, and just under 650k b/d for crude exports. At the end of July, total exports of crude and products stood at 5.44mm b/d, or 7.4% below the record set in January. U.S. product exports fell to 4.6mm b/d, while crude exports stood at 845k b/d. It is worthwhile pointing out that, in terms of total oil and products exports, the U.S. ranks among the top exporters in the world: KSA exports ~ 7mm b/d of crude, while Russia exports ~ 5mm b/d of crude. Chart 2U.S. Product Export Remain Strong,##BR##While Imports Continue Trending Lower ... Chart 3... While U.S. Crude Exports Remain High,##BR##And Imports Are Moderating With net U.S. crude and product imports declining (Chart 4), we expect U.S. commercial oil inventories - crude and products - to continue to draw sharply, which, since they account for close to 45% of OECD inventories, will draw down total DM stock levels as well (Chart 5). Indeed, U.S. commercial inventories drew close to 4% yoy in July, based on EIA historical data, the second month in a row the yoy comparisons came in negative in America. For the OECD as a whole, July marked the first month this year that the yoy percent change in stock levels was negative (-1.8%). Thus, as the summer driving season - and peak refiner crude demand - reaches its denouement next month, KSA's well-timed move to reduce shipments to U.S. refiners will push inventories lower and advance OPEC 2.0's agenda to clear out surplus OECD commercial oil inventories over the short term (Chart 6). Chart 4U.S. Net Crude And##BR##Product Imports Are Falling ... Chart 5... Which Will Support Continued Draws In##BR##Commercial Oil Stocks (Crude And Products) Chart 6KSA Will Continue Reducing##BR##Shipments To U.S. Refiners The OPEC 2.0 Agreement Is Holding ... On Average ... KSA is following through on Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih's "whatever it takes" assertion and making room for Libya and Nigeria, which together have added some 750k b/d of production to the market vs. April's level - 470k b/d for Libya and 280k b/d for Nigeria. April happens to be the month during which OPEC's producers recorded their largest production cuts vs. October's levels (1.12mm b/d), based on the EIA's historical tallies. OPEC 2.0 benchmarks to October 2016 production levels. Among OPEC members, neither Libya nor Nigeria were bound by the historic OPEC 2.0 Production Agreement. However, for those states that did obligate themselves to the agreement, compliance has been fairly high on average. OPEC member states that are party to the 2.0 deal have overproduced relative to their agreed production volumes by some 20k b/d over the January - July period on average.2 So, relative to the deal the OPEC members agreed, they've managed to cut 800k b/d of crude production on average versus their October 2016 production levels.3 During this period, Iraq stands out for its overproduction, having pumped 100k b/d on average over its agreed OPEC 2.0 volume of 4.35mm b/d (Chart 7). Among the non-OPEC members of the OPEC 2.0 coalition, Russia's compliance appears to be holding up, at close to 300k b/d below its October levels of crude and liquids production in 2Q17 and July (Chart 8). Oman produced ~ 980k b/d, over the first seven months of the deal vs. 1.02mm b/d in October, while Kazakhstan has faltered, with production averaging 1.88mm b/d in Jan - July, versus 1.79mm b/d in October. Chart 7Iraq Stands Out For Overproduction;##BR##Libya, Nigeria Not Covered In OPEC 2.0 Deal Chart 8Russia And KSA##BR##Continue To Lead OPEC 2.0 ... But Markets Await Articulated Strategy We continue to expect compliance with the OPEC 2.0 deal to remain relatively high to March 2018, which will draw OECD storage down to five-year average levels. We also are maintaining our expectation Brent prices will trade to $60/bbl by year end, with WTI trading ~ $58/bbl. Nonetheless, when we update our balances this month, we will continue to model for "compliance fatigue" among the OPEC 2.0 coalition. The fact that KSA and Russia are able to keep their rapport strong and compliance levels among OPEC and non-OPEC states relatively high, is a necessary condition for keeping OPEC 2.0 a viable coalition. However, the sufficient condition remains articulating a position on managing production via OPEC 2.0 that all these states can buy into, and support with concrete action. If, once the deal expires, the parties to the OPEC 2.0 coalition are left to go their own way and resume a production free-for-all, prices almost surely will fall, as the battle for market share is resumed. The ironic outcome of all this likely would be further destruction of capex budgets, which will set up another violent price surge that kills demand. We have no doubt the principal negotiators in OPEC 2.0 continue to discuss this, and that they are working on guidance. Bottom Line: KSA's tactical move to reduce exports to the U.S. likely will accelerate the commercial oil storage drawdown now apparent in OECD inventories, if current U.S. trends hold up - i.e., refinery runs remain high, exports of crude and products remain strong, and imports continue to fall yoy. Strategically, OPEC 2.0 still needs to convince markets there is a longer-term game plan for managing its output, short of a production free-for-all. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 This tactical move was reported by Reuters earlier this week. Please see "Saudi Arabia cuts crude oil allocations in September by more than its OPEC pledge," which was published by reuters.com August 8, 2017. 2 We are using the production levels specified by the Cartel in its "OPEC Bulletin 11 - 12/16" on p. 35. 3 This likely overstates the actual production available for export by KSA, since the Kingdom typically consumes some 500 - 600k b/d of crude domestically over the June - September period as direct-burn fuel to power generation producing electricity for air conditioners. So the reported data likely are noisy at this time of year. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Feature Recommended Allocation When Central Banks Turn Hawkish It seems almost as though, when central bank governors gathered in Portugal for the ECB's annual confab in late June, they agreed to start sounding more hawkish. ECB President Mario Draghi's speech included the line: "The threat of deflation is gone and reflationary forces are at play." Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz went ahead and on July 12 announced Canada's first rate hike in seven years. Indeed, BCA's Central Bank Monitors (Chart 1) suggest that, with the exceptions of Japan and possibly the euro area, all major developed central banks need to tighten monetary policy. Does this matter for risk assets, such as equities? Historical evidence suggests not, as long as the central bank is tightening because it is confident about the outlook for growth and unconcerned about financial risks (rather than, for example, reacting to a sharp rise in inflation). Equity markets typically move up in the early stages of a tightening cycle (Chart 2); it is only when the central bank tightens excessively (usually later in the cycle) that risk assets start to anticipate that this will trigger a recession. Even in the U.S. which, after four rate hikes since December 2015, is the furthest advanced in tightening, the real effective Fed Funds Rate is still -0.3%, below the 0.3% that the Fed believes to be the neutral real rate at the moment (Chart 3). The Fed expects the neutral rate to rise to 1% in the longer run. Chart 1Most Central Banks Need To Tighten Chart 2Equities Usually Rise During Rate Hike Cycle Chart 3Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative But the order in which central banks tighten will be a major driver of currencies (as has been clear with the sharp appreciation of the CAD and AUD in recent weeks). Our current asset recommendations are based on the belief that the market has become too complacent about the speed at which the Fed will tighten (with futures pricing only 26 bp of hikes over the next 12 months), and too nervous about the ECB (Chart 4). As the market starts to understand that the Fed has fallen a little behind the curve, and that the ECB will remain cautious (given continuing weakness in peripheral economies, and a lack of underlying inflationary pressures), we expect to see the dollar begin to appreciate again. A key to all this is whether the recent softness in U.S. inflation data (core PCE inflation has fallen from 1.8% YoY to 1.4% since January) proves to be temporary. A rebound in inflation would allow the Fed to continue to hike without bringing the real rate close to the neutral level yet. It is worth remembering that inflation is a lagging indicator: the recent weakness is largely a reflection of last year's soggy GDP growth (Chart 5), as well as some transitory technical factors (particularly drug and wireless data prices). The recent dollar depreciation should also boost inflation via the import price channel over the coming months (Chart 6). Chart 4Markets Views On Fed And ECB Have Diverged Chart 5Inflation Lags GDP Growth Chart 6Dollar Deprecation Will Raise Prices However, with global equities having produced a total return of 35% since their recent bottom in February last year, and 17% year to date, valuations are unattractive and, on some measures, sentiment is quite optimistic (Chart 7). What catalysts are there left to give risk assets further upside? We see two. First, earnings. The Q2 U.S. results season has seen 77% of S&P 500 companies surprising on the upside at the sales line, with EPS rising 7% compared to the same quarter in 2016. Most of our indicators suggest that earnings have further to rise this year (Chart 8), yet the consensus EPS forecast for 2017 as a whole remains at just over 10%, where it has been since January. Strong earnings momentum is likely to remain a positive at least through the end of the year. Second, tax cuts. Our Geopolitical Strategy service1 remains optimistic that the U.S. Congress will pass tax legislation to come into effect in early 2018. The failure to repeal Obamacare means that the Republican Party will need a big legislative win going into the mid-term elections in November 2017. Tax cuts (which the market is no longer pricing in - Chart 9) is one policy on which there is little disagreement within the GOP. Chart 7Are Investors Getting Too Optimistic? Chart 8Earnings Can Still Surprise On Upside Chart 9No One Expects Tax Cuts Any More None of the recession indicators we highlighted in our most recent Quarterly 2 (global PMIs, the shape of the yield curve, or credit spreads) are pointing to a downturn in the next 12 months. So, given the environment described above, we are happy to remain overweight equities versus bonds, and to maintain our pro-risk and pro-cyclical tilts. But we continue to warn of the risk of a recession in 2019 - probably triggered by the Fed needing to tighten more aggressively - and might look to lower our risk profile in the first half of next year. Equities: We favor DM equities over EM. An appreciating dollar, rising interest rates, weak industrial metals prices this year and uncertain growth prospects for China all represent headwinds for EM equities. Our strong dollar view points to an overweight in U.S. equities in USD terms but, in local currencies, our preference is for euro area and Japanese equities. Both are relatively high-beta, have strongly cyclical earnings momentum, and central banks that are likely to stay dovish. In Japan, the falling popularity rating of the Abe administration might compel it to ramp up fiscal spending to boost the economy, which would help the Bank of Japan in its efforts to rekindle inflation. Chart 10Everyone Has Turned Bullish On The Euro Fixed Income: Our macro outlook, with faster rate hikes and rebounding inflation in the U.S., is very negative for rates. We are underweight government bonds, short duration and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. Valuations in credit are no longer particularly attractive but, with a 100 bp spread for U.S. investment grade bonds and a 230 bp default-adjusted spread for high-yield, returns are likely to be satisfactory as long as the economic cycle continues to improve. Currencies: Our fundamental view of the dollar is that relative monetary policy and interest rates point to further appreciation, especially against the yen and euro. The timing of the dollar's rebound, though, is harder to pinpoint. The euro could rise further over the next couple of months. However, given speculators' large net long positions in the euro - a big turnaround from the start of the year (Chart 10) - the likely announcement by the ECB in September or October of a reduction in its asset purchases might be the catalyst for a reversal (as a classic "buy the news, sell the rumor" event), particularly if Mario Draghi dresses it up as a "dovish tapering." Commodities: Oil inventories have begun to draw down in line with our expectations (Chart 11). Continued discipline by OPEC producers until next March, combined with a slowdown in the growth of U.S. shale production (reflecting the weaker crude price this year) should bring inventories down further (despite production increases in such countries as Libya and Iran), and push the price of WTI above $55 a barrel by year end. Industrial commodity prices have rebounded somewhat in the past six weeks, mainly on the back of moderately brighter economic data out of China (Chart 12). But, given uncertain prospects about the sustainability of this growth, especially beyond the Communist Party Congress in the fall, and amid some signs of weakness in Chinese monetary and credit aggregates,3 we remain cautious about the outlook for metals prices over the next 12 months. Chart 11Oil Inventories Will Draw Down Further in Chart 12Tick-Up In Chinese Data? Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bca.research.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly Portfolio Review," dated July 3, 2107, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd," dated July 26, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation
Highlights Strengthening income growth is apparent in DM and EM trade volumes, real wages in the U.S., and industrial commodity prices, chiefly oil and copper. This indicates inflation at the consumer level will move higher in the near future, most likely in 2H2018. We believe 10-year U.S. Treasury Inflation-Indexed securities (TIPS) trading below 0.52 do not reflect the risk of higher inflation and are, therefore, going long at tonight's close. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices rallied 4.6% this week, following the OPEC 2.0 meeting in St. Petersburg. Although ministers did not announce additional cuts to the 1.8mm b/d agreed at the end of last year, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the Kingdom would reduce August exports to 6.6mm b/d, which is more than 300k b/d below May's level, the latest month for which data are available from JODI. Given strong global demand, if this export reduction persists - and if others join the Kingdom - it would speed the drawdown in global inventories. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper pushed through $2.80/lb on the COMEX, a level not seen since May 2015. Underlying strength in EM economic activity - seen most recently in global trading activity (discussed below) - and a weaker USD are supporting base metals. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell below $1,257/oz earlier this week, and was trading ~ $1,250/oz going to press Wednesday. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge; the position is up 1.7% since it was initiated on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Harsh weather is impacting grains. The USDA rated 62% of the U.S. corn crop in the 18 states comprising 92% of total output good or excellent last week, down from 76% in 2016. For beans, the split was 58% last week vs. 71% last year. Feature The expansion in global trade that began toward the end of last year continues, which, based on our modeling, indicates inflation at the consumer level likely will move higher in the short run (Chart of the Week). Trade expansion, particularly in EM economies, is consistent with rising incomes, which, all else equal, will keep industrial commodities - oil and copper, in particular - well supported, given income and demand for these commodities are closely aligned.1 These fundamentals dovetail with other indications of stronger growth, particularly in DM economies, where trade volumes also are growing (Chart 2). In the U.S., for example, wage growth continues to outpace inflation, and monetary conditions remain benign (Chart 3). Our colleagues at BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy believe the Fed actually may be behind the curve in reacting to nascent inflationary pressures emerging in the U.S.2 Chart of the WeekRising EM Trade Volumes Consistent##BR##With Higher U.S. CPI Inflation Chart 2DM Trade Volumes Are Expanding##BR##At ~ 5% Pace ... Chart 3U.S. Labor Market Tightening,##BR##Financial Conditions Remain Loose Trade Growth Supports Higher Inflation U.S. CPI is highly correlated with EM trade volumes (imports and exports) as shown in the Chart of the Week. In recent research into inflation and trade, we also showed EM oil demand and world base metals demand are highly correlated with EM trade volumes.3 Chart 4EM Trade Volumes##BR##Continue To Strengthen Growth EM import growth continues to expand at a faster pace than DM growth (Chart 4). Year-on-year (yoy) EM import growth came in at 7.7%, a full 2 percentage points above DM growth. This is not to minimize DM growth - it finally broke out of its lethargy in May with a sharp advance of close to 6%, which will lift the trend rate of growth (the 12-month moving average, or 12mma) higher going forward. EM export growth in May was only slightly above DM growth for the month - 5.4% yoy vs. 5.2% yoy. These stout monthly trade performances will, in the next few months, offset the lethargic growth seen in EM and DM prior to the expansion begun at the end of 2016, as weaker monthly performance falls off the trend calculations. Over the year ended in May, within EM markets the annual trend in imports (the 12mma to May 2017) has barely grown more than 1% yoy, dragged down by a 6% contraction in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) and a 2.1% contraction in Latin American growth. The trend in EM - Asia's imports is up, rising 3.2% over the same period. For the year ended in May, imports into central and Eastern Europe were mostly flat; however, since November 2016, the trend turned sharply positive with 3.3% yoy growth. The trend in export volumes is expanding for in MEA and Latin America economies - 3.5% yoy trend growth (12mma) in MEA, and 4.4% growth in Latin America, which is slightly higher than the overall 2.2% rate of trend growth in EM exports. Still, lower oil and commodity prices, along with reduced volumes are curtailing an income recovery in these regions. Central and Eastern Europe's rate of export expansion leads EM generally at close to 4% yoy trend growth. Favor Gold And TIPS Ahead Of Higher Inflation As the labor market tightens and real-wage growth continues to outpace productivity growth, we expect U.S. inflation to pick up. Growth in trade volumes also will support growth in EM oil demand and world base metal demand, as noted above. This will feed into U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge (Chart 5). As we've highlighted in the past, there is very strong co-movement among these variables: We've found that, all else equal, a 1% increase in the non-OECD oil demand implies an increase in the core PCE of slightly less than 50bp. If the trend in overall EM trade volumes persists, the likelihood we will be increasing our estimate of non-OECD oil consumption for 2H17 and 2018 increases. U.S. CPI and EM trade volumes show similar co-movement properties, as the Chart of the Week shows. A 1% increase in EM import volumes translates into a 0.53% increase in the U.S. CPI, while a 1% increase in EM export volumes implies a 0.49% increase in the CPI. EM import volumes over the January - May 2017 interval have been growing at slightly more than 8% yoy, while exports have been growing at slightly more than 3%. Continued strength in the EM trade data implies U.S. CPI could grow well above what's currently being priced in inflation markets and by Fed policymakers. This leads us to favour gold and TIPS as inflation hedges. If we do get a larger-than-expected move in the U.S. CPI, gold should respond well. The modelling depicted in Chart 6 shows a 1% increase in the CPI translates into a 4.1% increase in gold. Chart 5Core PCE Will Pick Up##BR##As Commodity Demand Grows Chart 6Gold Will Pick Up##BR##Larger-Than-Expected CPI Moves For this reason we recommend getting long U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which will appreciate as the U.S. CPI moves higher.4 We will be getting long as of tonight's close. We remain long low-risk calls spreads in Dec/17 WTI and Brent - long $50/bbl strikes vs. short $55/bbl strikes. We are up 39.3% and 32.9% on the Brent and WTI positions, respectively, from last week, and 47.2% and 89.2% since inception. U.S. Monetary Policy Remains A Huge Risk To EM Trade As we've noted in the past, U.S. monetary policy can have an outsized effect on EM trade volumes. In an update of an earlier model using U.S. M2 and the broad trade-weighted USD (TWIB), we find a 1% increase in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a 1.1% drop in EM imports, while a 1% increase in U.S. M2 (broad money) implies an 85bp increase in EM imports (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Trade Volumes Highly Sensitive##BR##To U.S. Monetary Policy This demonstrates the feedback loop we've identified between U.S. monetary policy and EM trade. EM trade volumes affect inflation at a global level. We've found inflation in the U.S., EU and China to be co-integrated - i.e., these price gauges all follow the same long-term trend. Inflation and inflation expectations drive Fed policy, which drives the price formation of the USD - i.e., the FX rates included in the USD TWIB - and affect Fed policy on M2. These U.S. monetary variables, in turn, affect EM trade volumes. And so it goes ... Too-aggressive a tightening by the Fed as it normalizes its interest-rate policy regime could destabilize EM economies - either via too-sharp an appreciation in the USD TWIB, a larger-than-expected deceleration in M2 growth, or both - and negatively affect trade flows. At the end of the day, this would redound to the detriment of the U.S. economy, as the different feedback mechanisms kick in. This says the Fed's policy doesn't just affect the U.S. economy, or that EM economies essentially are on their own in the policy tools they deploy to adjust to Fed innovations. Like it or not, the Fed has to consider these types of feedback loops in its decision-making, since the Open Market Committee will be dealing with the fallout of its earlier policies. Bottom Line: EM trade volumes continue to grow yoy, continuing the trend that began at the end of last year. This performance, coupled with a tightening labor market in the U.S. and a still-loose financial backdrop, raises the odds inflation will exceed what's currently priced into market and Fed expectations. We are getting long U.S. 10-year TIPS at tonight's close, and remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The income elasticity for industrial commodities in EM economies is ~ 1.0, according to the OECD. Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). 2 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It?," published on July 21, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Among other things, the Global Investment Strategy team notes labor-market slack is dissipating, real wages are increasing, and easier financial conditions are spurring credit growth. Our colleagues note, "The prospect of stronger growth over the next few quarters implies that the unemployment rate is likely to fall below 4% early next year, possibly breaking through the 2000 low of 3.8%." BCA's Global Investment Strategy believes U.S. inflation could move higher by 2H18. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "EM Trade Volumes Continue Trending Higher, Supporting Metals" and "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 29, and June 8, 2017. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 U.S. TIPS increase in value as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rises, and fall in value as the index declines. Please see "TIPS: Rates & Terms" on the UST's TreasuryDirect web page (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips_rates.htm). 5 This model covers 2000 to the present, using monthly data. The R2 for the cointegrating regression is 0.96. These variables do not explain EM exports, which are not cointegrated with U.S. monetary variables. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights Reduced demand in oil-exporting countries and higher supplies from distressed states is whittling down the amount of oil being removed from the market this year, based on our latest supply-demand balances. As a result, even though OECD inventories will be drawn down to their five-year average levels by year end, this average will be a higher end-point than we projected last month. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) continues to reassure markets through anonymous media leaks it will cut production further to accommodate higher Libyan and Nigerian production. This is not unexpected, but it still is speculative. Ecuador's opting out of OPEC 2.0's production cuts raises the odds other financially distressed non-Gulf producers also will head for the exits. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices remain supported by actual production cuts, and the promise of further reductions by KSA and possibly other OPEC 2.0 members. Base Metals: Neutral. Labor and management at the ZaldÃvar copper mine in Chile are negotiating, according to Metal Bulletin. Separately, a three-year deal was agreed at the Centinela copper mine in Chile last week. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold rallied on the back of lower inflation readings in the U.S., which suggested the Fed will back off aggressively pursuing its rates normalization policy. This would leave real rates low. Our strategic long portfolio hedge is up 1.0% since it was initiated May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We maintain our bearish view on grains. Fears that extreme heat in the U.S. Midwest and Plains will not be sufficient to counter the still-high ending-stocks expectations published in the USDA's WASDE last week. Feature Higher oil production is seeping into global balances. Lower prices, which are stimulating demand in oil-importing markets, are reducing incomes and demand in oil-exporting provinces. As a result, the rate at which inventories will draw this year is slowing. Our latest supply - demand balances shown in Table 1 indicate the net 900k b/d physical deficit we expected for 2017 has been whittled down to just under 500k b/d, as a result of production increases in Libya and Nigeria, and slower demand growth in oil exporters generally (Chart of the Week). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply -##BR##Demand Balances (mm b/d) Chart of the WeekHigher Production And Lower Demand Reduce##BR##Physical Deficits Versus Last Month's Projections Ecuador, a small-ish OPEC member producing about 550k b/d, opted out of the Agreement negotiated by KSA and Russia to remove some 1.8mm b/d of production from the markets. This indicates weaker states that are party to the OPEC 2.0 Agreement are finding it impossible to maintain compliance with the cuts they've obliged themselves to undertake in the face of lower oil prices. As a result, they are compelled to increase production in an attempt to recover lost revenue (R), by increasing their quantity (Q) sold when prices (P) are weak, so as to maximize P*Q = R while they can. This only works if they are alone in increasing production while others - notably KSA, other Gulf states and Russia - restrict output to revive prices. Otherwise, if all the distressed states in the OPEC 2.0 coalition took the same action, markets would be flooded with oil. This was demonstrated in the mid-1980s during KSA's netback-pricing regime, when the Kingdom priced its oil as a function of prices received by refiners. This collapsed prices, and, eventually, reined in free-riding on KSA's production cuts.1 While few of these states, mostly outside the Gulf, are capable of significantly increasing production, at the margin, they can have an impact. Production Increases In OPEC, U.S. Partly Counter OPEC 2.0's Best Efforts Year-to-date to June, Iran and Libya have added 110k and 140k b/d of production to the market vs. their respective Oct/16 benchmark levels of 3.7mm and 550k b/d against which the OPEC 2.0 deal is being assessed. June production for these states was up 120k and 300k b/d for Iran and Libya, respectively, vs. October levels, while Nigeria's output was up 90k b/d (Chart 2). Libya and Nigeria are not parties to the OPEC 2.0 deal. Nonetheless, these states together with Iran added close to 500k b/d vs. their Oct/16 output levels in June, without an offsetting decline from members of the OPEC 2.0 coalition. Gulf OPEC ex Iran production is down some 850k b/d on average at 24.6mm b/d in 1H17 vs. Oct/16 levels, while non-Gulf OPEC production is down 215k b/d at 7.5mm b/d. We still see OPEC 2.0's production significantly below the EIA's estimate to March 2018 (Chart 3), which drives our view of inventory behavior. U.S. production also was higher in 1H17, as WTI prices rallied in response to the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal (Chart 4). For 1H17, U.S. crude oil production was up 230k b/d vs. 4Q16 levels, at 9.04mm b/d, led by higher shale-oil output. Chart 2Almost 500k b/d Added To Oct/16 Output##BR##By Iran, Libya, And Nigeria In June Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Cuts Drive##BR##Inventory Draws Chart 4U.S. Crude Production##BR##Grows In 1H17 Slower Demand Growth Reduces Storage Draw On the demand side, we've lowered our estimate of demand growth this year to close to 1.37mm b/d, down nearly 110k b/d vs. our earlier May estimate. This results from lower consumption in oil exporting states. The combination of stronger supply growth and weaker demand growth reduces our estimated physical deficit for this year to 470k b/d from close to 900k b/d in our May balances estimates. These revised supply - demand estimates still produce enough of a physical deficit to allow storage to fall to five-year average levels (Chart 5). However, with the drawdowns prolonged by slower supply losses and reduced demand, inventories are now projected to remain above 2.8 billion bbls versus our earlier estimate of inventories declining to ~2.75 billion barrels by end-2017 or early 2018. Chart 5OECD Storage Draws To Five-Year Average Levels, But Higher Supply And Lower Demand Keep This Level Higher Chart 5OECD Storage Draws To Five-Year Average Levels, But Higher Supply And Lower Demand Keep This Level Higher Net, at the end of this drawdown, storage will be higher than expected, even if it does make it to five-year average levels. This will leave less room for OPEC 2.0 members to implement a strategy to backwardate the forward WTI curve so as to slow the rate at which shale-oil rigs return to the field, which we've discussed in previous research.2 More Cuts Required By OPEC 2.0 Going into its St. Petersburg meetings next week, there are clearly defined issues to be addressed by OPEC 2.0. The foregoing suggests additional cuts will be needed to empty storage sufficiently by yearend for OPEC 2.0 to be able to move to the next phase of its plan to regain some influence over the evolution of oil prices, particularly the U.S. benchmark WTI price, which drives hedging and profitability of U.S. shale producers. Over the short term, this effort likely will be clearly supported by KSA's stated intention to reduce exports to the U.S. market (Chart 6). All else equal, this will result in sharper draws in the high-frequency U.S. weekly inventory data, by augmenting reduced shipments to the U.S. from OPEC overall (Chart 7). Chart 6KSA's To Reduce##BR##Exports To The U.S. Chart 7OPEC Exports To The U.S. To Fall Further##BR##When KSA Reduces Shipments More substantive price-support and inventory-draining measures, as noted at the top of this article, will have to involve further production cuts by OPEC 2.0. KSA again is signaling it is open to additional production cuts, in order to normalize oil inventories.3 We have no doubt the Kingdom's Gulf allies - particularly Kuwait and the UAE - will support KSA in this effort. We also expect Russia to be supportive of this effort. The size of the cuts likely will exceed 500k b/d, so as to offset the production gains of Libya and Nigeria. Iran's higher production discussed herein, and Iraq's recent assertiveness in claiming "the right" to increase its production given the size of its reserves, suggests a short and a long game for the leadership of OPEC 2.0. In the short-term, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria will be constrained by lack of funds to significantly increase production. Thus, OPEC 2.0 - mostly KSA and its allies - can cut production without triggering an immediate response from these states, which will allow storage to resume drawing at a faster rate. For OPEC 2.0 to have a meaningful effect on U.S. shale production, the stronger storage draws in the near term would have to be accompanied by forward guidance from KSA, Russia and their allies that production will be increased in the medium term - 6 months or so out - so that continued demand growth can be accommodated by higher supplies. This would require storage and production flexibility by OPEC 2.0's leaders. Should all of this fall in place, we would expect a backwardation to develop toward yearend, which would be the first step in a longer-term strategy by OPEC 2.0 to slow the rate at which horizontal rigs return to drilling in the shale fields. Bottom Line: Higher oil production from Libya, Iran and Nigeria, coupled with a slight downgrade in demand growth, will reduce the physical deficit we expected this year. This will, all else equal, reduce the rate at which OECD storage draws, and raise the level of five-year average inventory levels by yearend. We do not believe this is a favorable outcome for OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA and Russia, if they are intent on regaining some influence over the evolution of oil prices. For this reason, we believe KSA and its Gulf Arab allies will reduce production further to put the inventory draws back on track. We remain long low-risk calls spreads in Dec/17 WTI and Brent - long $50/bbl strikes vs. short $55/bbl strikes - and will look for opportunities to gain upside exposure once we get clear signaling from OPEC 2.0 leadership. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Sideshow In Vienna," published October 23, 2014, for a review of netback pricing by KSA. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports of April 6, 2017, entitled "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One," and March 30, 2017, entitled "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil" for a discussion of this strategy. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Saudi Arabia still aims to reduce supply; weighs Nigerian, Libyan barrels," published by reuters.com on July 18, 2017. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights The market will not give OPEC 2.0 until March to sort out a durable modus operandi to manage supply and maintain the discipline required to defend crude oil prices. While the odds of Libya and Nigeria being able to keep production at current levels - much less grow output - are less than 50:50 in our estimation, the fact remains the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia need to start communicating post-haste how OPEC 2.0 will manage higher Libyan and Nigerian production. Critically, these leaders will need to follow through on whatever they guide the market to expect. We think OPEC 2.0 will stand by its "whatever it takes" proclamations. Not acting in the face of more than 300k b/d of unexpected supply from a once-moribund Libya placed in the market since October will send a signal, as well: OPEC 2.0 will not defend its Agreement. Should this occur, it likely would result in a breakdown in production discipline within the coalition, sending crude oil prices lower. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices remain under pressure as markets price the likelihood of continued increases in production in Libya and the U.S. Spoiler alert: We think OPEC 2.0 will act to accommodate Libya's and Nigeria's return to export markets. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at the Zaldivar copper mine owned by Antofagasta and Barrick Gold voted to strike earlier this week. If government mediation fails to resolve the issues separating labor and management this week, workers will walk. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is recovering from last week's "flash crash" in silver, but markets continue to process recent hawkish guidance from systematically important central banks that could lift real rates and pressure precious metals. Ags/Softs: The USDA's WASDE was published just before our deadline. We will review it in next week's publication. Feature Markets may have tacitly assumed OPEC 2.0 would have until March to figure out how KSA, Russia, and their respective allies would work together to re-gain some control over oil prices. However, given almost-daily reductions in banks' oil-price forecasts in the wake of steadily increasing Libyan and U.S. production, belief in OPEC 2.0's strategy and commitment appears to be all but exhausted. Stronger-than-expected output from Libya and Nigeria - up some 400k b/d vs. the October production levels OPEC 2.0 benchmarks to (Chart of the Week) - is being offset by strong inventory draws in high-frequency data from the U.S. and Europe, as we expected. In addition, a reduction in 2018 U.S. shale-growth forecasts in the EIA's just-released estimates of global supply and demand boosted sentiment some. Even so, markets remain skeptical. Libya's production now is estimated at 850k b/d, and accounts for 300k b/d of newly arrived OPEC supply since October. Nigeria, at close to 1.6mm b/d, accounts for another 90k b/d of the unexpected supply on the market since October. OPEC's total crude output is running at just over 32.6mm b/d, down 470k b/d from October's levels, based on the EIA's tally.1 This was 300k b/d more than May's output. Taking Libyan and Nigerian output out of the tally leaves OPEC crude production at 30.21mm b/d, or 860k b/d below October's level. Close to 26mm b/d of OPEC's output is being exported, according to Thompson Reuters data, surpassing OPEC's 4Q16 export levels when Cartel members' output was surging ahead of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts that took effect in January.2 Although benchmark crude oil prices had recovered from their bear-market lows of late June, the steady increase in Libyan production, in particular, reversed this recovery, taking $2.70 and $2.80/bbl off the interim highs registered by WTI and Brent prompt contracts between July 3 and July 10 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekLibya, Nigeria Add Close ##br##To 400k b/d To OPEC 2.0 Production Chart 2Libya's Resurgence Clobbers ##br##Benchmark Prices Prices have since moved higher of the back on larger-than-expected draws in crude and products in the OECD, led by the U.S. On Wednesday, the EIA reported U.S. crude inventories declined by a whopping 10.7 million barrels, although product inventories grew by 3.7 million barrels for the week ended July 7. These sharp draws (over 17 million barrels of crude storage reduction in the past two weeks, including SPR withdrawals) are what we have been expecting, so we are not surprised, although this is the second week in a row in which the inventory draws exceeded market expectations for the EIA's reporting week. WTI was trading just above$45/bbl, while Brent was just over $47.60/bbl as we went to press. OPEC 2.0's Problem The problem for OPEC 2.0 is that Libya's unexpectedly strong return will retard the drawdown in OECD inventories around which the reformed Cartel is organized. This is compounded by higher U.S. production, which the EIA's latest estimates put at 9.2mm b/d. U.S. crude production in June was up 410k b/d vs. 4Q16 levels, and 510k b/d yoy, by the EIA's reckoning. The bulk of this increase comes from shale-oil production, which is running at ~ 5.1mm b/d (Chart 3). Lower prices will slow the growth of U.S. shale-oil output, but it won't reverse the absolute increase unless prices once again push below $40/bbl for an extended period. We do not expect such an evolution of prices, and continue to expect Brent will average $55/bbl and will reach $60/bbl by the end of the year, with WTI trading at ~ $58/bbl by then. OPEC 2.0's production is not as sensitive to price as the U.S. shales. The coalition banded together to remove some 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market, and, based on media reports, continues to maintain production discipline. We reckon actual cuts have been on the order of 1.4 to 1.5mm b/d from OPEC 2.0, favoring the lower end of that range, given the latest estimates of the EIA. Given demand growth of ~ 1.6mm b/d on average this year and next, we are expecting a net physical deficit this year of ~ 900k b/d (Chart 4). This will draw OECD inventories down by March below five-year average levels (Chart 5). Chart 3Higher Prices Lifted U.S. ##br##Shale-Oil Production, But Lower Prices Will Slow The Growth Chart 4Output Declines And Demand ##br##Gains Will Produce A Physical Deficit ... Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Has To Defend Its Strategy, ##br##If OECD Inventories Are To Fall It is worth remembering Libya and Nigeria are not parties to the OPEC 2.0 deal. Nor did the leaders of this coalition anticipate a sustained increase in production by these states when the OPEC 2.0 deal was agreed at the end of last year. This is particularly true for Libya, which is a failed state. The suggestion by Kuwait that Libya and Nigeria be brought into the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting agreement beggars belief: The Arab Spring destroyed Libya as a state, and its oil production. Since March 2011, when the state collapsed, Libya's oil production has averaged 650kb/d, versus 1.65mm b/d in 2010. Even if there were a government in place, it is unlikely it would agree to cap its production. Nigeria's production also has been hampered by civil unrest, particularly in the Niger Delta region, where insurgents periodically sabotage pipelines and loading platforms, which forces oil exports to be suspended until repairs can be made. Nigeria's production averaged over 2mm b/d until 2013, when it fell to 1.83mm b/d. Since then, it has averaged 1.66mm b/d, with 2017 production to June averaging 1.43mm b/d. Any increase in production resulting in export sales is "found money" for these states. And their need for this money is as great, if not greater, than that of the OPEC 2.0 coalition members. Who In OPEC 2.0 Is Likely To Cut Production? KSA, Kuwait and the UAE were producing close to 2.4mm b/d more in June than they were in 2010, the last year Libya was an intact state, even with the cuts agreed under the OPEC 2.0 deal accounted for. Even at its recent high of 850k b/d of production, Libya still is producing 800k b/d less than it did in 2010. We believe an accommodation involving KSA, and possibly Kuwait and the UAE, can and will be reached at the upcoming OPEC 2.0 technical committee meeting in St. Petersburg on July 24. Something on the order of 500k b/d from these Gulf Arab producers will allow Libya and Nigeria to flex into higher production without undermining the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal. The stakes are sufficiently high for the OPEC 2.0 members - KSA and Russia in particular - that an accommodation for Libya will be found. Libya's maximum production likely is no more than 1mm b/d, given the damage years of neglect has caused its fields and productive capital. Rebuilding this province will take years, if a way can be found to reconstitute the organs of a functioning state. Absent an accommodation, OPEC 2.0's leaders risk undermining the credibility of the coalition and causing production discipline to collapse as each state in the group rushes to increase output before prices take their inevitable dive. This would severely reduce the proceeds KSA could expect from IPO'ing Aramco, and would again put Russia's revenue under pressure, forcing it to draw down foreign reserves. OPEC 2.0's End Game Hasn't Changed Neither KSA nor Russia wants to re-visit the conditions that prevailed in 1Q16, when markets were pricing a global full-storage event that would require prices to push through $20/bbl to kill off supply so that storage could drain. For this reason, both have shown their commitment to the production-cutting pact they negotiated at the end of last year. Both, we are convinced, are working closely to map a strategy to allow U.S. shale production to co-exist - within limits - with OPEC and Russian production. In earlier research, we laid out a strategy that could work to achieve this result - draw storage down enough to backwardate the WTI forward curve so that deferred prices trade below prompt-delivery prices. This will moderate - but not stop - the rate at which horizontal rigs return to the shale fields.3 OPEC 2.0's leaders will have to find a way to use their production and storage - which is why it is critical to open some space now - to guide markets to expect higher production and crude availability in the future and tighter market conditions in the present. Bottom Line: We expect OPEC 2.0 to accommodate Libya's and Nigeria's increased production with further cuts in their own production, particularly from KSA, Kuwait and the UAE. This will allow Libya and Nigeria to flex into higher output, should they find a way to maintain it going forward. We continue to believe the odds of sustained higher production from these states is less than 50:50, but that does not matter. What matters is that markets see OPEC 2.0 defending their production-cutting strategy so that inventories continue to draw. OPEC 2.0's end-game has not changed. But the leaders of the coalition will have to adapt if they are to succeed in drawing storage to five-year averages or lower. Critically, they must begin to communicate their longer-term strategy to the market, or risk undermining their coalition. 2Q17 Trade Recommendations Re-Cap We closed out 2Q17 with an average loss of 77% on trades recommended and closed during the quarter (Table 1). The primary driver of this underperformance was a return to contango in the WTI and Brent forward curves, as inventories failed to draw as quickly as we expected. Directional trade recommendations anticipating higher prices also performed poorly. Table 1Trade Recommendation Performance In 2Q17 Open trades at the end of 2Q17 were up an average of 26%, led by good performances in option recommendations - i.e., long call spreads in WTI and Brent in Dec/17. Year to date, our trade recommendations are up 72.6%, on the back of strong 1Q17 results. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 This is adjusted for the inclusion of Equatorial Guinea and the recent opting out of Indonesia. We will be updating our global supply-demand balances next week. 2 Please see "Oil slides as OPEC exports rise, prices end 8 days of gains," published by reuters.com July 5, 2017. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy reports of April 6, 2017, entitled "The Game's Afoot in Oil, But Which One," and March 30, 2017, entitled "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil." Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trades Open And Closed In 2017 Summary Of Trades Closed In 2016 Trades Closed In 2017 Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table
Energy equities are down roughly 20% year-to-date versus the broad market, driven by rising U.S. shale oil production, inventory accumulation, and investor doubts about whether all nations will comply with OPEC's mandated production cuts. There are tentative signs that this relative performance bear phase is drawing to a close. Three main drivers support our modestly sanguine view of energy stocks. First, the long term inverse correlation between the U.S. dollar and the commodity complex has been re-established; global growth suggests that a tightening interest rate cycle is brewing which should be supportive to energy stocks (top panel). Second, the steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing signs of fatigue with Baker Hughes reporting flattening growth in domestic oil rig count; At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely (middle panel). Finally, our S&P energy sector Valuation Indicator has gravitated back to the neutral zone (bottom panel). Overall, we are upgrading to an above benchmark allocation in the S&P energy index.