Global

Highlights We advocate implementing asset allocation not across EM assets, but rather relative to their DM counterparts. EM stocks should be part of a global equity portfolio. EM sovereign and corporate credit should be part of a global credit portfolio. EM local currency government bonds are a unique asset class with idiosyncratic features and a low correlation with other assets. Hence, their addition to any multi-asset class portfolio is beneficial. We continue recommending below benchmark allocation to EM equities, credit and local bonds. The rebound in various EM financial markets is reaching a critical technical level where it will either stop or, if broken, will carry on for some time. In Peru, further decline in industrial metals prices and ongoing involuntary monetary tightening bode ill for share prices; continue underweighting. Feature We frequently receive questions from our clients on how they should be positioning their portfolios within EM asset classes such as equities, EM U.S. dollar bonds (credit markets) and local currency government bonds – whether they should be overweight EM stocks versus EM credit markets and domestic bonds, or vice versa. While BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service covers EM stocks, credit and domestic bonds and exchange rates, we do not make asset allocation calls between EM equities, EM credit and local currency bonds. The reason is very simple: in a risk-on market, EM equities always outperform EM credit and local bonds, and in a risk-off environment, stocks always underperform fixed income (Chart I-1). Chart I-1EM Stocks Versus EM Credit And Local Bonds With respect to the relative performance of EM credit markets versus domestic bonds, the performance of EM currencies is key. A large portion of total returns on EM local currency bonds comes from exchange rates (Chart I-2). Hence, when EM currencies appreciate, domestic bonds outperform EM credit markets (U.S. dollar bonds), and vice versa (Chart I-3). Chart I-2EM Currencies Are Key To EM Local Bonds Returns Chart I-3EM Local Bonds Versus EM Credit: It Is A Currency Call For investors willing to allocate across EM asset classes, a directional view on financial markets should drive allocation between equities and fixed-income. In rallies, equities should be favored, while during risk-off periods, fixed income should be preferred. It follows that investors should overweight EM credit markets versus domestic bonds when EM currencies depreciate, and tilt allocation toward local currency bonds versus EM credit markets when EM exchange rates appreciate. Recommended Approach To Asset Allocation We advocate implementing asset allocation not across EM assets, but relative to their DM counterparts: EM stocks should be part of a global equity portfolio. A pertinent asset allocation decision should be whether to be overweight, neutral or underweight EM within a global equity portfolio. In short, EM stocks should not be compared with EM credit or local bonds, but rather versus their DM counterparts. Having mentioned that, we are maintaining our underweight recommendation on EM within a global equity portfolio for now. EM sovereign and corporate credit should be part of a global credit portfolio – i.e., asset allocators should compare them with other credit instruments such as U.S. and European corporate bonds. Total returns on EM U.S. dollar-denominated sovereign and corporate bonds can be deconstructed into the total return on U.S. Treasurys and the excess return of these EM bonds over U.S. Treasurys. Investors can obtain exposure to U.S. Treasurys by owning them outright. Hence, the unique feature of EM sovereign and corporate bonds is their spreads over U.S. government bonds. EM sovereign and corporate bond spreads over U.S. Treasurys reflect issuers' ability and willingness to pay. Thereby, investors should treat EM dollar-denominated bonds as a pure credit product and this asset class should be part of a global credit portfolio. At the moment, we recommend asset allocators underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S./DM corporate credit, in line with our short EM equities/long U.S./DM equities strategy (Chart I-4). Within credit markets, EM investment-grade and high-yield credit should be compared with their peers in U.S./DM, respectively. The reason we are negative on EM credit markets relative to the U.S. and DM universe is that the majority of EM sovereign and corporate bond issuers in Latin America and the EMEA are commodity producers. Hence, their revenues fluctuate with commodity prices, and their spreads should be under upward pressure as commodity prices drop further and EM currencies correspondingly depreciate (Chart I-5). Chart I-4EM Credit Versus U.S. Credit Chart I-5EM Credit Spreads Are Sensitive To Commodities And EM Currencies In the meantime, Chinese property companies, financials and industrials/materials remain the largest issuers of corporate debt in emerging Asia. Specifically, U.S. dollar bonds issued by Chinese companies account for 32% of the Barclay’s overall EM USD Credit index and 56% of the EM Asia USD Credit index. Crucially, Chinese corporate credit is essential to trends in emerging Asian credit markets. We are bearish on the fundamentals of Chinese corporate bond issuers due to our negative view on Chinese capital spending, particularly in the real estate sector. With respect to EM local-currency government bonds, this is an entirely different asset class with returns often uncorrelated with any other asset. Table 1 shows that EM local currency bond returns in U.S. dollars have a low correlation with most other asset classes. Therefore, adding EM local-currency bonds to a global multi-asset class portfolio will help achieve risk diversification provided an expectation of a positive return on this asset class in the long run. EM domestic bond returns are comprised of local yield carry and capital gains/losses, as well as currency appreciation/depreciation. Business cycles and monetary policies could from time to time be desynchronized across EM countries, and EM currencies could also at times diverge. In short, all of this will add idiosyncratic risk to any global multi-asset class portfolio and push out the portfolio’s efficient frontier – i.e., the portfolio could achieve higher returns for the same amount of risk (volatility). The exposure to EM local currency bonds should be altered according to the view on this asset’s absolute performance. Presently, we recommend below benchmark allocation to this asset class because we expect the majority of EM currencies to depreciate versus the U.S. dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen. The key driver of EM currencies is not U.S. interest rates but the global business cycle (Chart I-6). Odds are high that global trade will continue disappointing as China’s growth weakens further. This will lead to tumbling EM currencies and outflows from high-yielding EM domestic bonds. Chart I-6What Drive EM Currencies Within an EM local currency bond portfolio, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Thailand and Korea. The list of our overweights and underweight across EM stocks, credit markets, local bonds and currencies is always published at the end of our reports. Bottom Line: Global asset allocation should treat EM stocks as part of a global equity portfolio. EM sovereign and corporate credit should be part of a global credit portfolio. In turn, EM local currency government bonds are a unique asset class with idiosyncratic features and a low correlation with other assets. Hence, their addition to any multi-asset class portfolio is recommended given an expectation of a positive return in the long run. A Make It Or Break It Juncture The rebound in various EM financial market segments is reaching a critical technical level. At that point, it will either reverse, or will break through and carry on the upward momentum for some time: EM share prices have troughed at their three-year moving averages but are now facing resistance at their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-7). Failure to break above their 200-day moving averages would signal higher risks of a major breakdown. Conversely, a decisive break above their 200-day moving averages would suggest that the recent rebound has much farther to go. Our Risk-on versus Safe-Haven currency ratio has found support at its 6-year moving average but is now facing resistance at its 200-day moving average (Chart I-8, top panel). This ratio is highly correlated with EM share prices, and its breakout or breakdown will be an important signal for the direction of EM, commodities and global cyclical assets in general (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7EM Share Prices Are Between Support And Resistance Chart I-8This Currency Ratio Is Key To EM And Commodities Trend A relapse from this level would be a major bearish signal, as it would confirm the formation of a head-and-shoulders pattern in this currency ratio. The latter would entail a major breakdown. A number of EM currencies such as ZAR, MXN, KRW, TWD, MYR and CNY are at a critical juncture (Chart I-9). A breakout or failure to do so will entail a major move. Chart I-9AEM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture Chart I-9BEM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture Meanwhile, the BRL may be forming an inverted head-and-shoulders pattern (Chart I-10). Hence, continuous BRL strength would signal rising odds of an extension to the rally in Brazilian markets. Chart I-10The Brazilian Real: An Inverted Head-And-Shoulder? Finally, industrial metals prices have failed to rebound and appear to be forming a head-and-shoulders formation. This pattern foreshadows considerable downside from current levels (Chart I-11, top panel). In the meantime, oil prices have bounced off their long-term moving average and might have a bit more room to advance before hitting a major resistance between $65-$70 for Brent (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Our fundamental view on EM risk assets remains negative due to our expectations of further weakness in China’s growth. However, we are monitoring various signals and indicators to gauge whether the latest rebound can last much longer, which would cause us to change our stance tactically. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Peru: Involuntary Monetary Tightening Peru’s central bank is tightly managing the country’s exchange rate. As a result, it has little control over local interest rates. The Impossible Trinity thesis stipulates that in a country that has an open capital account, the central bank can control either interest rates or the exchange rate, not both simultaneously. Provided Peru has an open capital account, its central bank can have tight control over either the exchange rate or interest rates. So long as the central bank focuses on exchange rate stability, local interest rates will fluctuate with its balance of payments (BoP). Therefore, Peru’s credit cycle and hence domestic demand swings and bank share prices are driven by BoP (Chart II-1). Negative BoP dynamics – shrinking inflow of U.S. dollars – causes local interest rates to move higher while a positive BoP leads to lower borrowing costs (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Commodities Prices & Bank Stocks Are Correlated Chart II-2Trade Balance Drives Interbank Rates We expect negative BoP dynamics for Peru going forward – metals prices will drop as China’s growth continues to decelerate, and EM countries will likely experience a bout of portfolio capital outflows. If Peru’s central bank continues to favor limited currency depreciation, its interbank rates will march higher. Chart II-3 illustrates that the pace of net foreign exchange reserves accumulation often negatively correlates with interbank rates and leads loan growth by around 12 months (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Peruvian Local Rates Have Risen Chart II-4Peru: Bank Loan Growth Will Relapse When the monetary authorities purchase foreign exchange reserves, they inject local currency excess reserves (liquidity) into the banking system. More plentiful banking system liquidity drives down interbank rates and allows banks to expand credit, boosting domestic demand. The reverse also holds true. The Peruvian central bank was able to mitigate upside in local rates amid the negative terms-of-trade shock in 2014-‘15 by conducting foreign currency swaps with banks. This swap led to an injection of local currency reserves into the system. Currently these swaps are being unwound and banks’ excess reserves are dwindling, putting upward pressure on local rates. Hence, the rise in interbank rates in the past 12 months has not only been due to negative terms of trade but also due to the expiration of foreign currency swaps. As metals prices drop and exports contraction deepens, the currency will come under selling pressure (Chart II-5). To prevent the currency from depreciating considerably, the central bank has to tighten liquidity, producing higher interbank rates. The latter bodes ill for domestic demand. Chart II-5Money Growth Is Contingent On Trade Bottom Line: We continue to underweight the Peruvian bourse because of its exposure to mining companies and banks. The former is at risk from falling industrial metals prices, while the latter will suffer from rising interbank rates. Within the mining sector, gold and silver stocks should outperform copper producers because we foresee more downside in industrial metals than precious metals prices. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights We recently upgraded our recommended investment stance on global corporate bonds to overweight on a tactical (3 to 6 months) basis.1 Feature That change was mostly based on our view that global financial conditions had tightened enough in late 2018 – both through lower equity prices and wider corporate credit spreads – to force central banks (most notably, the Fed) to shift to a less hawkish policy bias. Our opinion that global growth expectations had grown too pessimistic, particularly in the U.S., also played a role in the upgrade (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Corporates: Too Much Bad News Now Discounted One other supporting factor for the upgrade to corporates: the prior bout of spread widening was not justified by a significant worsening of the underlying financial health of companies. With that in mind, this week we are presenting our latest update of the BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios (using both top-down and bottom-up data) that are designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the major developed economies. A brief overview of the methodology is presented in Appendix 1 on Pages 15-16. The broad conclusion from the latest readings on our CHMs is that global credit quality has been enjoying a cyclical improvement, but with divergences starting to open up among individual regions. The U.S. has delivered the biggest improvement in corporate health, thanks largely to the boost to profitability from the Trump corporate tax cuts. Euro area corporates still appear to be in decent health, but are now exposed to the sharp slowing of European growth and the end of the ECB’s buying of corporates through its Asset Purchase Program. Meanwhile, corporate health in the U.K. and Japan is showing some strain from weaker growth in both countries. Given those regional divergences, we continue to prefer U.S. corporates over non-U.S. equivalents, even within that tactical overweight recommendation on global corporate exposure. Beyond that tactical timeframe, however, there are growing risks for corporate bond performance. Our base case scenario is that resilient U.S. growth and inflation will prompt the Fed to restart the rate hike cycle later in the year, creating a more challenging backdrop for corporates from U.S. growth uncertainty and rising volatility. Yet if the U.S. (and global) economy surprises to the downside, that is even worse for corporate bond returns given how the only real improvements in our global CHMs have come from cyclical variables like profit margins and interest coverage. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Strong Profits “Trump” High Leverage Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has ever so slightly flipped into the “improving health” zone, after flashing “deteriorating health” since mid-2014 (Chart 2). The resilience of the U.S. economy, combined with the positive impact on U.S. profitability from the Trump corporate cuts, has put U.S. companies in a cyclically healthier position, even with relatively high leverage. Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM: Supported By Cyclically Strong Profits There are clear uptrends in the ratios that go into the top-down CHM that are directly related to corporate profits – return on capital, profit margins, interest coverage and debt coverage. From a fundamental perspective, the top-down U.S. CHM suggests that the U.S. credit cycle is being extended by the stubborn endurance of the U.S. business cycle. In other words, there are no immediate domestic pressures on U.S. corporate finances that should require significantly wider credit spreads to compensate for rising downgrade/default risk. The bottom-up versions of the U.S. CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 3) and HY companies (Chart 4) have also shown meaningful cyclical progress, with the HY indicator now firmly in “improving health” territory. This confirms that the signal from our top-down CHM is being reflected in both higher rated and lower quality companies. Yet the longer-term issues related to high leverage and low interest/debt coverage are not going away, suggesting that potential problems are being stored up for the next U.S. economic downturn. Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. IG CHM: Steady, But Have Margins Peaked?   Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM: Only A Cyclical Improvement Interest coverage remains the key ratio to watch in both the IG and HY bottom-up U.S. CHMs. For IG, the fact that interest coverage has fallen in recent years, despite high profit margins and historically low corporate borrowing rates, is worrisome. This indicates that the stock of U.S. corporate debt is now so large that the interest expense required to service that debt is eating up a greater share of corporate revenues, even at a time when profit growth is still quite strong. This will raise downgrade risk if corporate borrowing rates were to increase significantly or if U.S. earnings growth slows sharply – likely from rising labor costs eroding high profit margins. For HY, interest coverage remains depressed by historical standards, with the liquidity ratio down to levels last seen prior to the 2009 recession. This suggests that U.S. HY companies are at risk of a severe default cycle when the current U.S. economic expansion ends, with fewer liquid assets available to meet current liabilities. Given these more medium-term fundamental concerns, we do not plan on overstaying our current tactical overweight stance on U.S. IG and HY corporates versus both U.S. Treasuries and non-U.S. corporates (Chart 5). We anticipate cutting our recommended exposure once the Fed begins signaling a need to restart the rate hikes, likely around mid-year. For those with an investment horizon beyond the next six months, the more prudent decision may be to sell into the corporate bond outperformance that we are expecting. The medium-term outlook for U.S. corporates is far more challenging given the advanced age of the U.S. monetary, business and credit cycles. Chart 5U.S. Corporates: Stay Tactically Overweight IG & HY Euro Corporate Health Monitors: Stable, But Slowing Growth Is A Problem The CHMs remain a core part of our suite of bond market indicators, reliably proving their usefulness in helping evaluate the fundamental risks in owning corporate bonds. That does not, however, mean that there is no room for improvement in the CHM methodology from time to time. This is the case for our top-down CHM for the euro area, which has been behaving in a manner inconsistent with our bottom-up CHMs for the region – which are based on actual reported financial data from publicly traded companies – for some time. This is not the case in the U.S., where our bottom-up and top-down CHMs continue to move broadly in lockstep. Thus, we are taking our top-down euro area CHM “into the garage” for repairs. We will revisit all aspects of the methodology, from calculations to data sources, to try and improve the signal from the top-down euro area CHM. We plan on introducing a new and (hopefully) improved indicator sometime in the next few months. The message from our bottom-up CHMs for euro area IG and HY is still generally positive for overall European corporate health. Yet there are noticeable divergences within the sub-components of those individual CHMs that paint a more worrisome picture. For IG, the gap between domestic and foreign issuers in the euro area corporate bond market continues to widen, with the former worsening on the margin (Chart 6). While interest/debt coverage has improved for domestic issuers, operating margins and return on capital remain low and leverage has been inching higher. These trends have not been matched by foreign issuers. Perhaps most ominously, the short-term liquidity ratio has fallen quite sharply for domestic IG issuers in the euro area. Chart 6Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Stable, But Watch Liquidity Ratios For HY, the signal from the bottom-up CHM is more consistently positive between domestic and foreign issuers (Chart 7). Leverage has declined and operating margins have improved for both sets of issuers, but interest/debt coverage and liquidity are worse for domestic issuers. Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area High-Yield CHMs: Cyclically Healthier Within the euro area, our bottom-up IG CHMs for Core and Periphery countries show that both remain in the “improving health” zone (Chart 8). Yet the CHM for the Core now sits on the edge of the “deteriorating health” zone, led by higher leverage, lower debt coverage and a sharply falling liquidity ratio. Notably, there is no gap between the profitability metrics of the Core and Peripheral companies used in our bottom-up CHMs. Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Trending In Wrong Direction Peripheral European issuers continue to have much higher leverage and much lower interest coverage, the latter suggesting that Core issuers have benefitted more from the ECB’s super-easy monetary policies that have lowered borrowing costs (negative short-term interest rates, liquidity programs designed to prompt low-cost bank lending, and asset purchase programs that include buying of corporate bonds). Despite the lack of a major negative signal from the CHMs, we are concerned that the combination of slowing euro area economic growth and the end of ECB corporate bond buying will negatively impact the performance of euro area corporates (Chart 9). We are only maintaining a neutral allocation to euro area corporates, even within our current overweight stance on overall global corporates. In addition, we are sticking with our preference to favor U.S. corporates – both IG and HY – over euro area equivalents for two important reasons: stronger U.S. growth and better U.S. corporate health. Chart 9Euro Area Corporates: Stay Tactically Neutral IG & HY Euro area corporates have not enjoyed the same rally that U.S. corporates have seen so far in 2019, and for good reasons. In Chart 10, we show an overall bottom-up CHM for the U.S. and euro area, combining both IG and HY are combined into a single measure for each region.2 The obvious visible trend is that U.S. corporate health has been steadily improving, while it is starting to worsen in the euro area. The gap between those two CHMs is strongly correlated to the difference in credit spreads between European and U.S. issuers (middle panel), suggesting that relative corporate health is favoring U.S. names. At the same time, the relatively stronger U.S. economy continues to support U.S. corporate performance versus euro area equivalents (bottom panel). Chart 10Relative Bottom-Up CHMs: Continue To Favor U.S. Over Europe U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: A Brexit-Fueled Deterioration Our top-down U.K. CHM indicates that U.K. companies remain in the “improving health” zone, but just barely as the indicator has been drifting towards “deteriorating health” over the past two years. All the components of the U.K. CHM have contributed to this worsening trend (Chart 11). Even short-term liquidity, which has been in a powerful uptrend for almost a decade, has started to roll over. Chart 11U.K. Top-Down CHM: Cyclical Hit From Brexit Worries The cause for this deterioration can be reduced to six letters: B-R-E-X-I-T. Two years of political uncertainty over the details of the U.K.’s future relationship with the European Union have eroded confidence among U.K. businesses and consumers. The result is slowing economic growth and diminished corporate profitability that has hit all earnings-related ratios in the U.K. CHM. Perhaps most disturbingly for U.K. credit performance, even the interest coverage ratio has rolled over – at a historically low level – despite the Bank of England keeping U.K. interest rates at deeply depressed levels. The toxic combination of political uncertainty and weaker economic growth has resulted in a substantial widening of U.K. credit spreads. The spread on U.K. HY corporates has widened by 293bps since September 2017 and now sits at the widest level since September 2012. U.K. IG has not seen the same degree of spread widening, but has underperformed even more on an excess return basis versus duration-matched U.K. Gilts (Chart 12). Chart 12U.K. Corporates: Brexit Uncertainty = Stay Underweight We are currently recommending an underweight stance on U.K. corporates, even as we have become more tactically positive on overall global corporate exposure. While credit spreads have widened to levels that appear to offer value, U.K. economic momentum is fading steadily and leading economic indicators are pointing to even slower growth in 2019. With Conservative Prime Minster Theresa May now in a dramatically weakened position after losing the recent vote on her Brexit deal with the EU, there are no immediate options that will solve the Brexit uncertainty in a way that will provide a lasting boost to U.K. business confidence. In fact, the only realistic options – postponing Brexit, fresh U.K. elections, even a second Brexit referendum – all involve a period of even more uncertainty that will weigh on the performance of U.K. corporate debt.  Japan Corporate Health Monitor: A Negative Signal Our bottom-up Japan CHM3 has consistently stayed in the “Improving health” zone since 2010; however, the most recent data shows that the health of Japanese corporates has started to deteriorate as the last data point from Q3/2018 is just above the zero line (Chart 13). The overall Japanese economy has generally performed well (by Japanese standards) over the past few years, boosted by “Abenomics” economic stimulus combined with the extraordinarily easy monetary policies of the Bank of Japan. Yet the slowing of global growth momentum seen in 2018 has weighed on the performance of the Japanese corporate sector, which is still heavily geared to exports and global growth. Chart 13Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Looking at the components of the CHM, there was a modest deterioration of all the ratios last year, except for profit margins which have been virtually unchanged since 2015. On an absolute basis, the CHM components do not suggest any major problems with Japanese credit quality. Japanese companies are not highly levered and liquidity remains near the highest level seen since at least the mid-2000s. Interest coverage is still high on a historical basis and is much higher than the ratios seen in the other major developed markets. Yet at the same time, return on capital and profit margins remain very low compared to those same other major economies. Japanese companies remain cash-rich with low debt levels – a sharp contrast to the other countries show in this report. There are many potential cyclical risks for Japanese corporates in 2019: even weaker demand for Japanese exports, the drag on Japanese capital spending from firms worried about slowing global growth and the spillover effects from the U.S.-China trade war, even a possible hike in the consumption tax that the Abe government is still considering for October of this year. Yet these all would prevent any adjustment of the interest rate policy of the Bank of Japan, which remains the biggest factor to consider when looking at the investment prospects of Japanese corporate bonds. Japanese corporate spreads did not widen much compared to other countries’ corporate spreads in the 2018 selloff, due to their relative illiquidity and the extreme low level of interest rates in Japan. As the central bank is under no pressure to move off its current hyper-easy monetary policy settings, government bond yields and corporate spreads will remain low, even if the Japanese economy continues to slow. Therefore, for those investors who have access to the relatively small Japanese corporate debt market, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japanese corporates vs Japanese government bonds (Chart 14). Chart 14Japan Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs JGBs Canada Corporate Health Monitor: Now Even Healthier Both our top-down and bottom-up Canadian CHMs indicate an improving trend in Canadian corporate health (Chart 15). Steady above-trend economic growth, combined with some increases in realized inflation, have helped boost the profitability and interest/debt coverage ratios. Yet not all the news is good - leverage is high and rising, while the absolute levels of return on capital and debt/interest coverage are low. This may be building up risks for the next Canadian economic downturn but, for now, Canadian companies look in decent shape. Chart 15Canada CHMs: Supported By Solid Growth With so much of Canada’s economy (and its financial markets) geared to the performance of the energy sector, the recent recovery in global oil prices is a significant boost for the overall Canadian corporate market. Our commodity strategists see additional upside in oil prices over the next 6-9 months, which will further underpin the health of Canadian oil companies. Canadian corporates were not immune to the period of global spread widening seen at end of 2018, but the magnitude of the move was modest (Chart 16). This is a function of the still-low interest rate environment in Canada, where the Bank of Canada has not yet lifted policy rates to its own estimate of neutral (2.5-3.5%). Easy monetary conditions and relatively low Canadian interest rates will continue to make Canadian corporates relatively attractive, in an environment of decent growth and firm corporate health. Chart 16Canadian Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs Canadian Govt. Debt We continue recommending an overweight position in Canadian corporate debt relative to Canadian government bonds on a tactical basis. Spreads have been in a very stable range since the 2009 recession, ranging between 100-200bps even during periods when our CHMs were indicating worsening corporate health. To break out of that range to the upside, we would need to see a sharp deterioration of Canadian economic growth or several more rate hikes from the Bank of Canada – neither outcome is likely over at least the next six months. Yet given how closely the Bank of Canada has been tracking the Fed’s current tightening cycle, we anticipate downgrading Canadian corporates at the same time do the same for U.S. corporates, likely around mid-2019.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., euro area, the U.K. and Canada. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.4 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and euro area companies was used to construct individual “bottom-up” CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. In 2018, we introduced bottom-up CHMs for Japan and Canada. With the country expansion of our CHM universe, we now have coverage for 92% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Corporate Bond Index (Appendix Chart 1). Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We only use the CHMs for euro area domestic issuers in this aggregate bottom-up CHM, as this is most reflective of uniquely European corporate credits. This also eliminates double-counting from U.S. companies that issue in the euro area market that are part of our U.S. CHMs. 3 We do not currently have a top-down CHM for Japan given the lack of consistent government data sources for all the necessary components. 4 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, “U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade”, dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

In a report published early last August, I wrote that: “The perfect time for equity investing is when markets are cheap, earnings expectations are overly pessimistic and the monetary environment is highly accommodative. Currently, the opposite conditions exist: valuations are stretched, earnings expectations are euphoric and the Fed is in tightening mode. It does not seem a propitious time to be aggressive.” By the end of the year, the MSCI All-Country Index had declined by around 12%, with the S&P 500 down by a similar amount. Against that background, valuations improved, earnings expectations moderated and the Fed adopted a less hawkish tone. And, not surprisingly, investors and traders became much less bullish about the outlook, a positive development from a contrary perspective. As a result, BCA’s equity stance was upgraded to overweight from both a 3- and 12-month perspective. With no recession imminent and the Fed likely to raise rates by less than previously feared, we took the view that the path of least resistance for equities was up. There is no requirement at BCA for strategists to agree on the outlook. In fact, the opposite is true in that we encourage independent thinking and diverse ways of looking at the world. I have no strong reasons to disagree with the view that equities will end this year higher, and thus outperform bonds and cash. However, my concerns about the longer-run outlook, coupled with the potential for further late-cycle volatility, temper my comfort with an overweight position. Of course, this merely cements my reputation amongst colleagues as the resident BCA bear! What Troubles Me There rarely is a shortage of economic, financial or political issues to worry about. Even in the best of times, one can always find some problems and potential threats to the outlook. Contrary to my current reputation within BCA, I am not always bearish – I turned more positive on equities in the spring of 2009 and embraced the rally for most of the subsequent decade. However, notwithstanding the potential for equity prices to move higher this year, I perceive three particular challenges to an optimistic view of the outlook: The outlook for U.S. corporate earnings given the likelihood that labor’s share of income will rise from current unusually low levels. The financial markets’ addiction to easy money and low interest rates that may delay the normalization of monetary policy and encourage financial imbalances and excessive risk-taking. The unprecedented rise in U.S. federal deficits at a time of strong economic growth. There will be a price to pay down the road. Notably absent from this list is any mention of trade wars, Brexit, China, U.S. political dysfunction, recession risks and the many other issues that feature in news headlines. I do care about these things, but the three topics mentioned above are enough reason to be concerned, without piling on other problems. The Extraordinary Performance Of U.S. Profits, But… One of the most remarkable features of the past decade’s economic environment has been the impressive performance of U.S. corporate earnings. Despite the weakest economic recovery on record, profit margins have soared to an all-time peak (Chart 1). How on earth did companies manage that? Let’s start by noting what strong earnings growth did NOT reflect. Chart 1An Impressive Margin Performance First, there has not been above-trend growth in top-line revenues. The top panel of Chart 2 shows that S&P 500 sales have grown broadly in line with nominal U.S. corporate GDP over the past two decades. Second, related to the above point, there has not been a great environment for corporate pricing power. The corporate sector inflation rate has averaged a measly 1.2% during the past decade. Third, despite ongoing technological innovations, earnings have not benefited from a revival in productivity growth. Corporate sector productivity has grown at only a moderate 1.1% pace during the past 10 years, far below its historical average (third panel of Chart 2). Chart 2No Major Improvements Here! Finally, one other popular explanation – low interest rates - also can be ruled out as a major driver of the profit cycle. The large decline in interest rates since the Great Recession has clearly benefited some companies, but interest payments as a share of pre-tax profits have not shown much net change in the decade (final panel of Chart 2). In recent years, the lower level of rates has been offset by an increase in outstanding debt. We are left with two major drivers of the rise in margins: lower tax rates and, more importantly, tight control over labor costs. The effective tax rate paid by domestic non-financial companies averaged 21.7% between 2010 and 2017 compared with 26.7% between 2000 and 2007 (Chart 3). And the rate plunged further in 2018 in response to the large cut in the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Had the effective tax rate continued to average 26.7% after 2010, after-tax profits of domestic non-financial companies would have grown at a much-reduced pace during the past eight years. Chart 3Corporate Tax Burdens Have Declined We finally come to the main explanation of remarkable earnings growth: the corporate sector’s success in capturing much of the benefits of higher productivity, rather than sharing it with labor. Historically, real employee compensation in the corporate sector rose in line with productivity, allowing both employees and the employers to enjoy the rewards of increased efficiencies. As a result, the shares of income going to capital and labor were among the most mean-reverting series in the economy (Chart 4). Chart 4A Major Divergence in Income Shares Everything changed around 2000 when real compensation began to stagnate, even as productivity continued to rise (Chart 5). Labor’s bargaining power was eroded by the combination of globalization and technological innovations, allowing companies to keep a tight grip on wage costs. The returns to capital soared while those to labor collapsed, with both moving to more than four standard deviations away from historical averages – an extraordinary divergence. If real employee compensation had continued to rise in line with productivity after 2000, then EBITD margins1 would be at their historical mean, rather than at a high extreme. Chart 5Labor Gets Left Behind The corporate sector’s ability to expand at the expense of labor has now come to an end. Wage growth has started to rise against the backdrop of an increasingly tight labor market. As a result, the labor share of income bottomed at the end of 2017 and the capital share peaked. Populist pressures against globalization also argue for an increased labor share.  The payoff to earnings growth from the drop in the corporate tax rate also will end this year. It was a one-off event with no further cuts in prospect. The bottom line is that the major tailwind (weak wage growth) behind strong U.S. earnings has turned into a headwind, while the secondary one (lower taxes) is ending. When it comes to S&P earnings (as opposed to the national income measure of profits), an additional supporting factor has been the decline in outstanding share balances that has boosted earnings per share. Many companies have taken advantage of low interest rates to raise debt and use the proceeds to buy back shares. However, with leverage now high and interest rates off their lows, the incentive for such financial engineering is diminishing. Debt growth has slowed and so should the pace of share buybacks (Chart 6). Chart 6Lots Of Financial Engineering The ever-optimistic analyst community remains unfazed about the above trends. According to IBES data, analysts’ individual company estimates imply long-run earnings growth of more than 16% a year for the S&P 500 universe (Chart 7). That is more than double average historical earnings growth. It was exceeded only by the insane optimism at the peak of the tech bubble in the late 1990s/early 2000, and we know how that ended! There can only be disappointment and an eventual marked downgrading of these earnings expectations. In my view, earnings will be lucky to grow at 3% a year over the long run from current elevated levels. Chart 7Euphoric Long-Run Earnings Estimates Some may argue that these long-term earnings estimates are irrelevant because investors pay them little attention. But there is a loose correlation between valuations and these earnings estimates, and while the price-earnings ratio (PER) has declined from its peak, it remains above its historical average. If long-term earnings estimates come down that should undermine the PER. Perhaps the causality is the other way: high valuations encourage analysts to inflate their earnings projections, but that would not be any more encouraging. Either way, it is a bearish chart. The Addiction To Easy Money The Fed’s gradual retreat from its hyper-easy policy stance was well telegraphed, but still unsettled the markets. That is the problem with addictions – the withdrawal period is always difficult. That has put the Fed in a tricky position as it must balance the need to prevent an overheated economy with the need to maintain financial stability. History suggests that the odds of the Fed getting it just right are slim. Adopting a cautious approach to tightening risks the worst of both worlds: falling behind the curve on inflation while encouraging financial speculation and imbalances. The Fed embraced an extended period of easy policy in the first half of the 2000s after the tech bubble burst, with the fed funds rate kept far below the growth in nominal GDP (Chart 8). If money is unusually cheap, then speculation and financial excesses are inevitable. The easy money period of the 1990s helped fuel the tech bubbles and the more extended period of easy money in the 2000s fueled the housing bubble. Once again, we have interest rates far below the growth in GDP and, not surprisingly, this has fed financial euphoria. Chart 8Monetary Policy Still Looks Accomodative The Fed has raised the federal funds rate by 225 basis points over the past three years, with nine increases of 25 basis points each. Four of the moves occurred in 2018 and have been blamed for financial problems in emerging economies and volatility in developed equity markets. Yet, all the Fed has done is bring the real fed funds rate out of negative territory. If a real funds rate of only 0.5% is enough to trigger extreme market volatility and threaten the economic expansion, then the system is much more vulnerable than generally assumed. There is much discussion in economic circles about the level of the real equilibrium interest rate – the rate consistent with the economy growing at trend, currently estimated to be around 2% a year. In the past, a simple rule of thumb was that real rates, over time, would have some approximation to the real growth in the economy. However, some studies (including by the Fed) argue that the real equilibrium rate may now be close to zero, far below the trend growth of the economy. If real rates close to zero are all that the economy can tolerate then that raises interesting questions. Does it mean that the economy’s growth potential could be much lower than 2%? Does it mean that if real rates have to be kept close to zero, then speculative activities in the markets will continue to build, ultimately threatening financial stability? Either way, it does not seem to be a positive story. Some worry that the Fed is making a mistake in both raising rates and unwinding its bloated balance sheet (aka QT or quantitative tightening). I believe this concern is hugely overstated. Contrary to popular opinion, the expansion in the Fed’s balance sheet did not lead to a surge of liquidity that drove asset prices sharply higher. Of course, the Fed’s bond purchases lowered yields and that forced money into riskier assets. However, there was no increased flood of money in the broader financial system. Quantitative easing (QE) led to a dramatic rise in bank reserves at the Fed, but there was no corresponding sustained surge in M2 – the measure of money supply that is more reflective of money available for economic and/or financial transactions. In other words, the money multiplier (the ratio of M2 to the narrow money) collapsed (Chart 9). This is because the credit system was impaired after the 2007-09 meltdown and the Fed was largely pushing on a string in its attempts to bring it back to life. The main way that Fed policy drove asset prices higher was keeping short rates close to zero because that gave investors a massive reason to take on more risk. Chart 9The Monetary Plumbing Has Blockages If QE was not the driving factor behind the bull market in stocks, then we should not be overly concerned about QT. Yes, investors will be forced to absorb more bond issuance as the Fed ceases to be a buyer. However, it is interesting to note that the current 10-year Treasury yield of 2.7% is no higher than five years ago, even though the Fed’s balance sheet has begun to shrink and the Fed has hiked rates nine times over the period (Chart 10). Chart 10Monetary Policy And Bond Yields The bottom line is that the Fed should continue on its path of reducing its balance sheet and not be timid about raising rates if the economy continues to grow in excess of a 2% pace. At some point there will be another recession and the Fed may well be blamed. But that is a lesser evil than feeding the addiction to easy money by prolonging the period of excessively low rates. Fiscal Profligacy The federal deficit is expected to reach around $1 trillion this year, around 5% of GDP. There is no precedent for such a large peacetime deficit during the late stage of an economic expansion (Chart 11). And, assuming current policies remain in place, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the deficit to rise rather than fall over the next few decades given the aging population’s impact on entitlement programs. Chart 11Fiscal Policy Has Become Pro-Cyclical There is no strong support for fiscal discipline in Congress. Neither party has the stomach to tackle the problem of entitlements, those on the right want more spending on defense, while those on the left want more spending on social programs. One should never be surprised that politicians prefer fiscal profligacy to austerity. It is no fun and is injurious to re-election prospects to advocate spending cuts and tax increases. When things start to get of hand, the burden of imposing fiscal discipline falls on the markets. Currently, markets do not appear fazed by fiscal trends. The 10-year Treasury bond yield remains below 3% and the gap between 30- and 10-year yields is low. If markets are worried about government finances, that gap tends to widen as investors demand a fiscal premium to hold longer-duration bonds (Chart 12). Chart 12Bond Investors Unfazed By The Deficit...For Now Presumably, investor complacency about the grim fiscal picture reflects a list of other more important economic and financial concerns that are suppressing yields. There will be a limit to this fiscal tolerance, but we just don’t know exactly where it is. Japan’s gross government debt has exceeded 200% of GDP throughout the past decade without a financial crisis, but that is a poor model for what the U.S. can manage. Japan does not need to borrow from abroad and thus finances its deficits internally. In contrast, the U.S. current account deficit is still running at around $500 billion a year and the country is, by far, the world’s largest international debtor. Yes, the dollar is the international reserve currency of choice and the U.S. receives the exorbitant privilege from that. However, that will not protect the U.S. currency or markets from an eventual loss of investor confidence. I accept that a fiscal-related bond/currency market crisis could be years away, and timing is everything! Nonetheless, the current lack of fiscal discipline does pose a threat to markets because it could limit the authorities’ room to enact stimulus in the next recession. How I Could Be Wrong I have strong convictions about the views I expressed, but that does not mean I will be proved right. Let’s examine some counter arguments. On earnings, my pessimism will be unfounded if the corporate sector manages to keep a tight grip on wages and/or there is a sustained marked improvement in productivity. Of course, we need to exclude subdued wages that arise because of an economic slowdown as that would undermine sales growth. It would be remarkable if the nascent upturn in wage growth suddenly reverses without a renewed rise in unemployment so I would put low odds on that. As far as productivity is concerned, there are lots of interesting innovations these days, but none seem to be game changers within a five-year horizon. Autonomous vehicles will certainly be huge for several sectors but widespread adoption is still some time away. However, it is important to keep an open mind on this and I will certainly change my view if the data improve meaningfully. Turning to monetary policy, I suppose it is possible that the Fed will miraculously calibrate policy to achieve a soft economic landing and maintain financial stability. They have never been able to do this in the past but there is a first time for everything. Needless to say, I am hugely skeptical but time will tell. Finally, on fiscal policy, you would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that politicians will suddenly enact the politically painful measures required to restore order to government finances. The current Administration has shown no signs of fiscal responsibility and the opposition have not raised this as an issue. If anything, there are calls for even more spending. History shows that governments generally skirt to the edge of a severe crisis before they reluctantly embrace austerity. In other words, I do not see much case to be optimistic here. Concluding Thoughts On average, the stock market is more likely to rise than fall. Since 1950, the S&P has recorded monthly gains 60% of the time. In other words, it generally has paid to be bullish. This was particularly true between end-1982 and end-2018 with the S&P 500 delivering above-average compound annual returns of around 11% a year (8% a year in real terms), despite two 50%+ market declines during the period. This was the greatest 36-year period for financial assets in history, driven by falling inflation and interest rates, major corporate restructuring that boosted profit margins, rising equity multiples and a huge expansion in credit growth. Looking ahead, the environment will be very different. Inflation and interest rates are more likely to rise than fall, profit margins will be under pressure, it would imprudent to expect sustained gains in multiples, and broad credit growth will not return to its earlier rapid pace. Thus, future returns will be a pale shadow of the past performance. Against the above background, I don’t think I am being overly pessimistic. However, I understand that many investors do not have the luxury of taking a long-term view. For those who are in a competition to beat their peers, it can be disastrous to stand on the sidelines while the market marches higher. Moreover, if returns are going to be modest by past standards, it puts a premium on market timing, as difficult as that may be. So I do not recommend ignoring the BCA view that equities will outperform bonds and cash this year. My concerns are for the long run. The obvious question is: how should one invest in a world of low returns? I doubt that piling into alternative investments will be the solution as these assets will be affected by the same macro forces as conventional assets. The answer is a rather boring and obvious one. In the absence of being a market-timing and stock/sector-selection genius or investing with such a person, capital preservation has become more important. When returns are low, it takes longer to recover from market losses. This means one should maintain a conservative portfolio bias with higher-than-normal levels of cash.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 EBITD = earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation. This measure best reflects the performance of earnings as it relates to output, wages, prices and productivity.

Highlights Excess dollar liquidity is still deteriorating. The U.S. economy’s robustness suggests this trend will continue. Elevated EM-dollar debt and declining dollar liquidity point to lower global growth and a stronger dollar. Despite these cyclical forces, a tactical dollar correction is unfolding. Slowdowns do not evolve in straight lines, and deep investor pessimism is setting the stage for a temporary bout of positive surprises. DXY could correct to 93, EUR/USD could rebound to 1.17-1.18, and USD/CAD could fall to 1.27. Buy NOK/SEK. Feature Investment legend Stanley Druckenmiller often refers to the primacy of liquidity trends when making investment decisions. BCA is highly sympathetic to this view, as our DNA is rooted in the analysis of global liquidity trends. Under this lens, a peculiar trend has caught our attention: U.S. commercial and industrial (C&I) loans are currently accelerating, and easing lending standards point to further gains (Chart I-1). This is in sharp contrast with the 2015-2016 market riots and subsequent slowdown – an episode where banks tightened lending standards and loan growth decelerated sharply. While this represents a good omen for the U.S. economy, it is a dangerous evolution for the rest of the world. Chart I-1Resilient Corporate Sector Credit Growth Growing credit is good for the U.S. because it points to robust domestic demand. However, it is problematic for the rest of the world for two reasons. First, if U.S. credit growth is more robust today than in 2016, it also implies that the Federal Reserve is unlikely to pause its rate-hike campaign as much as it did back then. Thus, U.S. rates, the key determinant of the global cost of capital, may have additional upside as interest rate markets anticipate a year-long pause. This is not yet a problem for the U.S. economy, but it is one for rest of the world, which is exhibiting poorer growth trends. Second, U.S. credit growth is already outpacing the expansion of U.S. money supply by 7%, pointing towards a decline in dollar liquidity available for international financial markets. The reduction in the Fed’s balance sheet will contribute to a continuation of this trend. The fall in the amount of dollars available for the international financial system creates a brake on growth. Over the past 10 years, each time money supply growth fell below the loan uptake of the U.S. corporate sector, our Global Industrial Activity Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, Korean exports, and global export prices all deteriorated considerably (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth The large dollar debt of emerging markets lies behind this relationship. If less dollars are available outside the U.S. financial system, EM borrowers have to bid more for these greenbacks, raising their cost of capital. Additionally, borrowers are likely to hoard any dollars they access in order to repay their liabilities instead of using these greenbacks to finance economic transactions. As Chart I-3 shows this problem is particularly acute today: relative to EM GDP and various measures of U.S. money supply, EM dollar debt stands at record highs, highlighting deep vulnerabilities if liquidity conditions deteriorate. Chart I-3The Sensitivity To Dollar Liquidity Stems From The Large Stock Of Dollar Debt The problem extends beyond the capacity of the U.S. economy to generate deposits in excess of non-bank liabilities. Despite a meaningful slowdown in non-U.S. industrial production, official reserves are contracting relative to global industrial activity (Chart I-4). This further suggests that the global economy is experiencing some form of liquidity crunch, where the growth of monetary aggregates is insufficient to support economic activity. This is a deflationary environment. Chart I-4High-Powered Money Lagging Sagging Activity Another factor is at play: We have often argued in these pages that carry trades are a key component of global liquidity, as they allocate funds from economies where savings are excessive (i.e. borrowing in funding currencies) to economies that need those savings to generate growth (i.e. carry currencies).1 This is why the performance of high-octane carry trades is often a very reliable leading indicator of global economic activity. However, as Chart I-5 demonstrates, EM carry trades funded in yen continue to perform execrably, a poor signal for global liquidity and growth. Chart I-5Underperforming Carry Trades Add To The Global Liquidity Woes The impact of the deterioration in dollar liquidity, in FX reserves growth and in carry trade liquidity is evident in EM monetary aggregates. EM M1 growth has sharply decelerated. Since decelerating EM money supply presages weaker growth, it also points to stronger counter cyclical currencies like the dollar and the yen, especially against the very growth-sensitive commodity currencies (Chart I-6). The dollar bull market is unlikely to be over this year. Chart I-6Ominious Signal From EM Money Supply This risk is reinforced by the tight inverse correlation between the dollar and U.S. commercial banks’ liquidity. When U.S. banks curtail their holdings of securities, a key source of dollar liquidity in international markets, a dollar rally follows (Chart I-7). Not only does last year’s fall in securities in bank assets point to a firming greenback, but if banks also expand their loan books they will also further curtail their securities holdings. Chart I-7Contracting Liquidity On U.S. Commercial Banks Balance Sheets Support The Dollar The much-higher real rates offered by U.S. Treasurys relative to other DM bonds magnifies these dollar positive trends (Chart I-8). Hence, not only will global growth and money quantity considerations prove tailwinds for the greenback, but so will more well-known drivers of exchange rates. Chart I-8Real Rates Differentials Still Favor The Dollar Bottom Line: The deterioration in global liquidity conditions continues to argue in favor of the dollar. Since U.S. credit growth is still managing to accelerate, the Fed is unlikely to pause on the rate-hike front for too long, implying that excess dollars will further vanish from the international financial system. Consequently, global monetary conditions will tighten again, and global growth has not hit its nadir this cycle. On a 9 to 12 month basis, the dollar will benefit in this environment, especially against cyclical commodity currencies. How Fast Can Investors Price In Bad News? Due to the tightening in global liquidity conditions, global growth has suffered. However, the global and U.S. stock-to-bond ratios, two financial market metrics finely tuned to global economic gyrations, have already fallen in line with our Global Economic and Financial Diffusion Index that tallies the improvement and deterioration among more than 100 key global variables (Chart I-9). This implies that asset prices already reflect much of the deterioration in the economic outlook. Chart I-9The Global Economy Is Soft, But Financial Markets Already Reflect This Reality The problem for bears is that economic cycles rarely play out in a straight line. Now that asset prices are incorporating poor expectations, any positive surprises, even if modest, could lift asset prices. And there is room for improvement in global economic surprises (Chart I-10), particularly as Sino-U.S. trade relations are improving, global financial conditions are easing and China is trying to manage its slowdown. In fact, China’s fiscal and monetary stimulus already points to a rebound in growth-sensitive currencies, and to a correction in the dollar (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Scope For A Rebound In Economic Surprises   Chart I-11Chinese Reflation Points To A Dollar Correction, Even If Only A Small One EM breadth confirms this message. Chart I-12 shows that the breadth of EM equities has not been this poor since early 2009. However, it has begun to rebound. Rebounds in EM breadth from such levels are historically associated with a weaker dollar, stronger commodity currencies and a weaker yen. Chart I-12Deep Oversold Conditions In EM Stocks Further Support The Case For A Dollar Correction Flows paint a similar picture. Global investors tend to buy Japanese bonds when global growth conditions deteriorate. Foreigners buying of Japanese fixed-income products now stands near record levels – something normally witnessed when credit spreads widen. However, positive economic surprises and the recent easing in global financial conditions suggest that these flows will reverse. When they do, the dollar will suffer (Chart I-13) and very pro-cyclical pairs like AUD/JPY will appreciate, even if only temporarily. Chart I-13Elevated Flows Into Japanese Bonds Suggest Overdone Pessimism, And Scope For A Dollar Correction It’s not just the commodity currencies that have upside: so does the euro. German bunds’ hedged yields have been rising relative to the U.S., which in recent years has often led to a rally in EUR/USD (Chart I-14). Chart I-14European Hedged Yields Imply A Euro Rebound How deep will this dollar down leg be? Our Intermediate-Term Timing Model suggests that the greenback’s weakness is likely to be limited. The dollar already trades below our fair-value estimate, but during corrective episodes it tends to trough at a 5% discount, implying that the DXY at 93 is a buy (Chart I-15). The euro, the dollar’s mirror image, could rebound to a roughly 5% overvaluation, implying that a countertrend move to 1.17-1.18 is also likely. Finally, the CAD may be able to rebound to USD/CAD 1.27. Chart I-15Gauging The Extent Of The Countertrend Moves At these levels, we would expect the countertrend moves to end. Ultimately, the aforementioned deterioration in global liquidity conditions means that positive surprises are likely to be transitory phenomena. Moreover, we doubt that Chinese stimulus, a key catalyst for a weaker dollar, will be very deep. Ultimately, our view remains that China is only trying to prevent a collapse of its economy and Beijing is extremely reluctant to stimulate enough to generate yet another boom – something needed to genuinely boost global growth if the Fed resumes its tightening campaign. Finally, while a trade deal between China and the U.S. is likely, investors should not get overly exuberant on its ramifications. Disagreements over intellectual property transfers will not be resolved anytime soon, and China remains the U.S.’s largest geopolitical challenger. Bottom Line: Global liquidity conditions may have deteriorated, suggesting a trough in global growth is not yet in the cards, but slowdowns do not evolve in straight lines. This means that oversold risk assets are likely to respond well to positive economic surprises. As a result, the countercyclical dollar will correct, probably to 93. The commodity currency complex should be the main beneficiary of this move, with downside in USD/CAD to 1.27. The euro could rebound toward 1.17-1.18. Buy NOK/SEK In June 29th, we closed our long NOK/SEK trade, expecting corrective action in this cross.  A serious selloff ensued, and we are now buying this pair again.2 First, NOK/SEK is very sensitive to oil prices (Chart I-16), and BCA’s Commodity and Energy service anticipates a rebound in oil prices this year on the back of tightening supply conditions. Chart I-16BCA's Oil View Points To A NOK/SEK Rebound Second, the Norwegian economy is outperforming Sweden’s. As Chart I-17 shows, the Norwegian LEI continues to rise relative to Sweden’s, which historically implies a much stronger NOK/SEK. Beyond the LEIs, Norway’s PMIs and economic surprises have not only rebounded, but are also outpacing Sweden’s equivalent metrics. The Norwegian consumer is also participating in the good times. The three-month moving average of employment growth, retail sales and consumer confidence are stronger in Norway than in Sweden. Chart I-17Norwegian Growth Is Superior To Sweden's Third, after a long period of underperformance, Norwegian core inflation stands above that of Sweden, pointing to a potentially more hawkish Norges Bank than Riksbank. Fourth, NOK/SEK trades at a 5% discount to its fair value implied by our Intermediate-Term Timing model. Historically, a rebound in this cross follows such discounts Chart I-18). Chart I-18The ITTM Highlights An Attractive Entry Point To Buy NOK/SEK Finally, NOK/SEK is at a technically attractive spot. Our momentum oscillator shows deeply oversold conditions in the pair (Chart I-19). However, momentum has begun to roll over, suggesting that a reversal of those oversold conditions is starting. Moreover, the uptrend that began in the first quarter of 2016 has been confirmed. Had NOK/SEK not rebounded from where it did, that uptrend would have been seriously challenged, with potential greater downside ahead. Chart I-19Favorable Technical Setup To Buy NOK/SEK Bottom Line: We are re-opening our long NOK/SEK trade. We avoided the serious correction in this pair at the end of last year, but rebounding oil prices, an outperforming Norwegian economy, a potentially more-hawkish Norges Bank, a favorable valuation backdrop and positive technical developments argue in favor of buying this cross. Set a stop at 1.037 and a target at 1.120.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Canaries In the Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades", dated December 1, 2017, and Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth", dated December 15, 2017. Both are available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World", dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Capacity utilization outperformed expectations, coming in at 78.7%. However, the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index surprised to the downside, coming in at 90.7. Finally, existing home sales month-on-month grow also surprised negatively, coming in at 4.99 million. DXY has risen 0.2% this week. While we believe that DXY could experience some weakness in the next couple of months, we remain bullish on the DXY on a cyclical basis, as the strength in the U.S. economy will prompt the Fed to deliver more rate hikes than expected by market participants. Moreover, the sharp focus of Chinese policymakers on limiting indebtedness should continue to put downward pressure on global growth, helping the dollar in the process. Report Links: So Donald Trump Cares About Stocks, Eh? - January 9, 2019 Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro has been negative: Both headline and core inflation came in line with expectations, coming in at 1.6% and 1% respectively. However, Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 50.8. Moreover, the Markit Manufacturing PMI also surprised negatively, coming in at 50.7. EUR/USD fell 0.4% this week. Thursday, ECB President Mario Draghi highlighted that downside risks to the European economy are building up. Overall, we agree with his assessment, and thus remain bearish on the euro on a cyclical basis. We believe that the Fed will eventually raise rates more than the market expects, widening the rate differentials between Europe and the U.S, which will hurt EUR/USD. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Evaluating The ECB’s Options In December - November 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Import growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.9%. Moreover, driven by weak shipments to China, export growth also surprised to the downside, coming in at a 3.8% contraction. USD/JPY fell 0.1% this week. We remain bearish on the yen on a short-term basis, as the recent easing in global financial conditions and the improvement in sentiment towards risk assets will likely weigh on safe havens like the yen. Moreover, we believe that bond yields will start rising again. In light of the positive relationship between yields and USD/JPY, we remain bullish on this cross. Report Links: Yen Fireworks - January 4, 2019 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Retail sales yearly growth and retail sales excluding fuel yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 3% and 2.6%, respectively. Moreover, the claimant count change also surprised to the downside, coming in at 20.8 thousand. However, average hourly earnings growth also outperformed, coming in at 3.4%. GBP/USD has rose 1.5% this week, lifted by motion by MPs to delay the implementation of Article 50, and news that Jeremy Corbyn may be moving more clearly in favor of a new referendum if Labour takes hold of Westminster. We are closing our short EUR/GBP trade today, after reaching our target of 0.87. At this point, we think that plenty of good news have been discounted by the pound.  While it is true that GBP could go up on the back of positive political developments, we believe that the risk reward ratio of selling EUR/GBP is not as attractive anymore, especially if EUR/USD can rebound. That being said, we remain bullish on cable on a long-term basis due to its cheap valuation. Report Links: Deadlock In Westminster - January 18, 019 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in the Australia has been mixed: The participation rate surprised to the downside, coming in at 65.6%. However, the unemployment rate surprised positively, coming in at 5%. Moreover, the change in employment also outperformed expectations, coming in at 21.6 thousand, however, this improvement was driven by part-time positions, not full-time ones. AUD/USD has fallen by 1% this week. We remain bearish on the AUD versus the USD on a cyclical basis given that we expect that Chinese authorities will remain reluctant to over-stimulate their economy while global dollar liquidity deteriorates. Thus, in light of the tight economic links between Australia and  Chinese industrial activity, the Australian economy is likely to suffer, dragging the AUD down in the process. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The Q4 New Zealand inflation on a year–over-year basis remains at 1.9%, slightly surprised to the upside. December business NZ PMI has increased to 55.1. December credit card spending year over year growth dropped to 4.5%. NZD/USD appreciated by 0.3% this week. On a structural basis, we are negative on the kiwi. The new government is looking to lower immigration, and implement an unemployment mandate. Both of these developments would likely lower the neutral rate of interest for the RBNZ, which would imply a lower NZD/USD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been mixed: Consumer price index year over year growth in December surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.0%. Core inflation year over year measure also increased to 1.7%, from the previous 1.5%. Retail sales in November month on month growth is lower than expected, dropping to -0.9% from the previous 0.2% in October. Year-on-year growth hit levels not seen since 2012. USD/CAD is now trading above 1.3354, after a small rebound by 0.5% this week following weak data releases. We are bearish on Canadian dollar in the long run, but are bullish on a tactical basis. Financial condition will stay easy, as suggested by Stephen S. Poloz’s interview with Bloomberg this Wednesday. Given the recent trade tensions, housing market and oil price plunge, there is less urgency for BoC to push for higher rate at this moment. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has fallen 0.3% this week. We are bullish on this cross, given that the surge of the franc against the euro has caused a significant slowdown in Swiss inflation. The strong relationship between inflation and the currency means that any additional currency strength could severely impair the central bank’s objective of achieving 2% inflation. The SNB is very well aware of this developments, which means that it will likely intervene in the currency market in order to put a floor on EUR/CHF. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Norges Bank kept the key interest rate unchanged at 0.75%. Overall, we remain bullish on USD/NOK on a cyclical basis, given that this cross is very sensitive to real rate differentials. We expect the Fed to continue hiking rates this year at a faster pace than the Norges Bank, a development which will widen rate differentials and provide a tailwind for USD/NOK. That being said, we are positive on NOK/SEK. Not only is this cross attractive from a technical perspective, but also the expected rise in oil prices should help the Norwegian economy outperform the Swedish one. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 USD/SEK has risen by 0.6% this week. We are bullish on the krona on a long-term basis, as we believe that the Riksbank’s monetary policy is too accommodative considering the strong inflationary pressures brewing in the Scandinavian country. The cyclical outlook for the SEK remains poor, as the krona displays the highest sensitivity to the dollar’s strength of any G10 currencies. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

OPEC 2.0 is building physical optionality, to deal with different possible moves the U.S. can make on Iranian oil export sanctions and waivers. This comes despite an apparent break in the sense of urgency Saudi Arabia and Russia feel re production cuts. The coalition’s market monitoring committee meets in April, followed by a full gathering in May, when U.S. waivers expire. If the U.S. extends waivers, OPEC 2.0 can extend production cuts; if it doesn’t, it can add supply as needed.1 On the demand side, markets appear to be overly concerned about a sharper-than-expected slowdown in China, which, if borne out, would restrain EM growth. We believe these fears are overdone, and expect a slight improvement in EM demand generally this year and next. In our new balances estimates, we see the OECD commercial oil inventory overhang clearing in 1H19, on the back of resilient demand, OPEC 2.0 discipline, and a more moderate level of growth in U.S. shale oil output. This keeps Brent on track to average $80/bbl this year and $85/bbl next year, with WTI trading $74/bbl this year, and $82/bbl next year. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Mandatory cuts of 325k b/d, coupled with additional exports of ~ 190k b/d due to additional train and pipeline capacity out of Canada, will drain the 35mm barrels of excess crude oil inventories targeted by the Alberta government in December by 1H19. The WCS – WTI spread narrowed to -$10/bbl from -$50/bbl on these mandatory cuts. By 2H19, we expect Canadian production cuts to average 95k b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum output in China surged 11.3% y/y in December, hitting 3.05mm MT, according to Metal Bulletin. Total output for 2018 was 35.8mm MT, a 7.4% y/y increase. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is holding its recent gains, as markets become more comfortable with the Fed pausing on its rates-normalization policy until 2H19. Agriculture: Underweight. Hot and dry weather in Brazil is threatening crop yields there. The unfavorable weather is expected to affect three-quarters of cotton-growing regions, half of sugar areas, a third of first-crop corn acreage, and a quarter of soy regions. Feature The first signs of fraying in the relationship between the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0 – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which cut production ~ 450k b/d m/m in December, and Russia, which raised output – are emerging, as world leaders meet in Davos. While this casts doubt on the leadership’s carefully cultivated amity, and their shared willingness to abide by the recently agreed output cuts, we do not believe it signals the end of the historic cooperation between these states. Total OPEC output – estimated by production-tracking sources outside the Cartel – stood at 31.6mm b/d in December, a prodigious 751k b/d reduction m/m. We expect continued oil production cuts from core OPEC states and decline-curve losses among non-Gulf OPEC and non-OPEC states within the coalition this year to remove at least 1.2mm b/d from the market, per the quotas agreed by members in December (Chart of the Week, Table 1). On top of this, mandatory Canadian production cuts of 325k b/d in 1H19 and 95k b/d in 2H19 will keep average production cuts at ~ 1.4mm b/d this year. Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0 Will Resume Production CutsTable 1OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Could Exceed Quotas OPEC 2.0’s cuts could persist into 2020, depending on how the U.S. deals with Iranian oil-export sanctions and waivers. Even though KSA and Russia apparently do not share the same sense of urgency re production cuts right now, we believe OPEC 2.0 is committed to draining oil inventories, particularly in the OECD.2 To do so, they’re increasing their operational flexibility – creating physical options, in a manner of speaking – to deal with a range of uncertain outcomes when U.S. waivers on Iranian export sanctions expire in May. Sanctions And OPEC 2.0’s Physical Options Despite the waivers granted to its eight top consumers shortly after U.S. sanctions took effect in November, Iranian exports plunged below 0.5mm b/d in December. As of December, China had substituted almost all of its Iranian imports for alternative barrels.3 This coincided with a production surge by OPEC 2.0 at the behest of the U.S. leading up to the November sanctions deadline of November 4, 2018, which swelled OECD inventories and took them above their rolling 5-year average level (Chart 2). India retained 30% of its May import levels from Iran, while Europe complied at 100% with U.S. sanctions (Table 2). Chart 3 shows the decrease in exports in preparation for the sanctions over the course of 2018. Chart 2OECD Inventory Overhang Will Draw As OPEC 2.0 Cuts and Losses Kick InTable 2Iran Exports By Destination 2018 (‘000 b/d) Whether or not the waivers are extended is anyone’s guess. It is possible waivers will be extended for 90 or 180 days, as a way to counter OPEC 2.0 production cuts, and to offset the lag between filling new pipeline takeaway capacity in the Permian. We expect importers to queue up for Iranian barrels as the market tightens in 1H19. OPEC 2.0’s market monitoring committee will meet in April, followed by a ministerial meeting in May, just ahead of the expiration of the waivers.4 If the U.S. extends them, OPEC 2.0 can extend production cuts after it meets in May; if waivers are not extended, the Cartel can calibrate an appropriate supply response. Either way, we expect OPEC 2.0 will closely align its production schedule with any U.S. action on the sanctions and waivers. This will, we believe, keep change in the overall market’s supply side relatively constant, except for the month or two required to adjust OPEC 2.0 output. Permian Will Drive OPEC 2.0 Policy The larger issue for OPEC 2.0 comes in 4Q19, when ~ 2mm b/d of new pipeline takeaway capacity comes on line in the Permian Basin in West Texas. With additional takeaway capacity due to come on in 2020, the Cartel will have its work cut out for it next year.5 Our models show a slight decrease then flattening in U.S. rig counts over the coming months, as a result of the 4Q18 sell-off in WTI, with a rebound around mid-year (Chart 4). This is because rig count lags oil prices by ~4 months. Chart 4U.S. Shales Continue to Drive Lower 48 Production Growth (ex GOM) We are expecting production in the Big 5 shale basins to average 8.4mm b/d in 2019 and 9.0mm b/d next year, a somewhat higher level than projected by the EIA. Growth in the shales accounts for close to 80% of the 2.3mm b/d of growth in the U.S. over 2019 – 2020. Globally, U.S. shales will continue to provide the bulk of y/y crude oil production growth, accounting for 73% of the 2.5mm b/d of growth we will see over the next two years. Given the near-death experience OPEC 2.0 member states had in the price collapse of 2014 – 2016, we remain convinced OPEC 2.0 member states will once again have to embark on a strategy to backwardate the Brent forward curve as they did in 1H18, to moderate the growth of shale-oil production in the U.S. (Chart 5). Reducing production in the short term will force refiners to draw inventories to supply their units and produce products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and a wide range of petrochemicals. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Needs Backwardated Brent Forwards This will backwardate the Brent forward curve – i.e., prompt-delivery barrels will be more expensive than deferred-delivery barrels. A backwardated forward curve means OPEC 2.0 member states with term contracts indexed to spot prices receive higher prices for their oil than shale producers hedging 2 years forward, all else equal. The trick for OPEC 2.0 will be to keep the Brent forwards backwardated when the Permian takeaway capacity starts to fill, and exports from the U.S. rise in the early 2020s, as deep-water harbors are brought on line. If OPEC 2.0 is successful in keeping the Brent forwards in backwardation, this will, over time, moderate the growth of shale production: Hedgers’ revenue is constrained by lower forward prices.6 We would not be surprised if OPEC 2.0 states started announcing final investment decisions on select investments in spare capacity to augment existing resources, so they are able to quickly bring production to market in the event of unplanned outages that could lift the entire forward curve and incentivize hedging at higher prices. Demand Still Looks Good Oil markets continue to fret over a possible hard landing in China – resulting either from an internal policy error or a ratcheting up of tensions in the Sino – U.S. trade war. This is causing markets to extrapolate into the wider EM space, and take oil-demand projections lower on an almost-daily basis. In a word, markets are overwrought. Chinese policymakers are sensitive to the tight financial conditions that prevailed in 2H18, which, along with the trade war with the U.S., slowed growth and fostered uncertainty among households and firms in China. We agree with our Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy groups that presidents Trump and Xi are pragmatists dealing with restive populations, and want to deliver a deal ahead of U.S. elections and the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021.7 We’ve been expecting the government to deploy a modest amount of stimulus in 1H19, which will begin having an effect on the Chinese economy in the second half of this year. Toward the end of the year and into 2020, we expect the larger stimulus to be deployed in the run-up to put a bid under industrial commodities – oil, base metals and bulks in particular. Overall, we are seeing signs global growth may be reviving over the next few months via an apparent bottoming in our Global LEI Diffusion index (Chart 6). The diffusion index measures the proportion of countries where Leading Economic Indicators (LEIs) are rising relative to those in which LEIs are falling. As is apparent in Chart 6, the diffusion index suggests the downturn in the global LEI has bottomed. The index leads the global LEI by a few months. Chart 6BCA's Global LEI Likely Bottoming In our latest supply-demand balances, we are expecting Chinese oil demand to average 14.3mm b/d this year, and 14.8mm b/d next year. Along with India – expected to consume 5.0mm b/d this year, and 5.2mm b/d next year – these two states account for 36% of the total 54.3mm b/d of EM demand we expect in 2019 and 2020 (Table 3).8 Table 3BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Overall EM demand, the powerhouse of global oil-demand growth led by China and India, is expected to increase 1.1mm b/d this year – slightly more than we estimated last month – and 1.3mm b/d in 2020. DM demand growth, as always, comes in lower, at 390k b/d this year and 280k b/d next year. Oil Supply-Demand Balances Will Tighten We expect global oil production to average 100.9mm b/d this year and 102.9mm b/d in 2020. Consumption is expected to average 101.8mm b/d this year and 103.4mm b/d next year, respectively (Chart 7). This puts OECD inventories back on a downward trajectory, as storage draws resume (Chart 2). Chart 7Global Oil Balances Will Resume Tightening On the back of these estimates, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl this year and $85/bbl next year, with WTI averaging $74/bbl and $82/bbl, respectively. Given our expectation for higher prices in Brent and WTI, we continue to favor being long crude oil exposure. We are long outright WTI spot futures; long July 2019 Brent vs. short July 2020 Brent; long call spreads along the 2019 forward Brent curve, and long the S&P GSCI. Bottom Line: Markets will continue to tighten as a combination of lower supply growth and rising consumption allows OECD commercial oil inventories to resume their downward trajectory. The apparent lack of a shared sense of urgency by OPEC 2.0’s leaders – KSA and Russia – will be resolved, in our view. OPEC 2.0 will once again focus on backwardating the Brent forward curve, in order to gain some control over the rate at which U.S. shale oil production grows. We continue to favor long exposures to the crude oil futures.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy PavelB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      In last week’s Commodity & Energy Strategy we noted these upcoming meetings, and OPEC 2.0’s resolve to drain the market.  Please see “Fed’s Capitulation Will Boost Oil,” published by BCA Research January 17, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Bloomberg reported this week KSA’s and Russia’s oil ministers cancelled a planned meeting in Davos, following al-Falih’s criticism of the pace at which Russian oil production is being cut.  Please see “Saudi, Russian Energy Ministers Cancel Planned Davos Meeting,” published by bloomberg.com January 22, 2019.  KSA cut its crude oil output 450k b/d m/m in December to 10.64mm b/d from 11.09mm b/d in November.  Russia increased crude and liquids production to a record 11.65mm b/d in December, an 80k b/d increase m/m, according to OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report published January 17, 2019.  OPEC expects Russian oil output to average 11.47mm b/d in 1H19, and 11.49mm b/d in 2019.  We are carrying something close to this in our balances (11.51mm b/d) for 2019 and 2020. 3      China imported 10.3mm b/d of crude oil in December after posting a record 10.4mm b/d of imports in November 2018, just as sanctions were kicking in. 4      In our base case estimate, we assume Iran’s crude oil output will average ~ 2.8mm b/d, down ~ 1.0mm b/d from its 3.8mm b/d production level in 1H18, which was prior to the U.S.’s announcement it intended to re-impose export sanctions.  One way or another, we expect OPEC 2.0 to adjust production to compensate for whatever production is lost due to sanctions.  5      Please see “Permian tracker: Production growth slowing as pipeline race still on,” published by S&P Global Platts July 2, 2018, for a discussion of the new takeaway capacity planned for the Permian Basin by midstream companies in 2019 and 2020. 6      The Permian basin is closely tied to hedging activity in the WTI futures market.  It is the only basin for which WTI commercial short open interest is an explanatory variable for rig counts in our modeling.  Commercial short open interest in the WTI futures also Granger causes Permian rig counts. 7      Please see the Special Report entitled “Is China Already Isolated,” published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy January 23, 2019.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. 8      Our EM demand assumptions are driven by the IMF and World Bank EM GDP forecasts. This week the IMF lowered its global growth forecast for 2019 and 2020 by 0.2 and 0.1 percentage points to 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively. This is only slightly down from our lower estimate last month, but still above the World Bank’s expectation. We are using these variables directly in regressions to estimate prices and EM consumption. This replaced our earlier income-elasticity models used to calculate EM oil consumption.  We proxy EM demand with non-OECD oil consumption. We discuss this in “Fed’s Capitulation Will Boost Oil,” published by BCA Research January 17, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 4q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Summary Of Trades Closed In 2018