Commodities & Energy Sector

Overweight We upgraded the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index last month all the way from underweight to overweight based on the dramatic divergence between improving fundamentals and a zealously pessimistic sell-side. While the index has moved sideways since we made the change, our thesis has been reinforced by industry dynamics. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that domestic gasoline prices have been rising uninterrupted for the past 69 days, a 15-year record. This is confirmed by rapidly declining gasoline inventories (inventories shown inverted, second panel) and, in combination with higher prices, are driving a surge in refiner crack spreads (second panel). Refining margins have historically defined the direction of relative profit growth and the current message is positive. However, sell-side estimates continue to point to relative earnings underperformance despite the brightening outlook (bottom panel). Bottom Line: A gap between fundamentals and estimates has opened in the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index and has created a compelling buying opportunity. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR – PSX, MPC, VLO, HFC.

Highlights The political economy of oil will become even more complicated, following remarks by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov over the weekend, which suggested policymakers there are considering another market-share war to crash prices to limit the growth of U.S. shales. The logic appears to be that by abandoning OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal and pushing Brent prices below $40/bbl once again for a year or so, Russia will severely reduce investment flow to the U.S. shale-oil patch, allowing it to retake global market share ceded mostly to Texas oil producers.1 The threat of a market-share war was proffered on top of stepped-up rhetoric by senior government officials – ranging from Igor Sechin, head of state-owned Rosneft Oil, to Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) – indicating Russia will be pushing for higher production by OPEC 2.0 in 2H19 at the coalition’s upcoming June meeting. We agree with this assessment: The market will require OPEC 2.0 to lift production in 2H19, given our assessment of supply-demand balances. In our estimation, OPEC 2.0’s position has been strengthened considerably by policy-induced disruptions to the oil market.2 As such, we believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint, particularly since Russia has benefited greatly from higher prices (see below). Our balances and price forecasts this month are largely unchanged (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl. WTI will trade $7 and $5/bbl lower (Chart 2). The balance of price risk has shifted slightly to the left side of the distribution, driven by policy risk and potential miscalculation by the dramatis personae on the international stage, chiefly leaders in the U.S., Russia and China. Chart of the WeekMarkets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Chart 2...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts Highlights Energy: Overweight. Tensions in Libya could keep ~ 300k b/d of supply from reaching global markets via its Zawiya port near Tripoli. We closed our long June 2019 $70/bbl vs. short $75/bbl call spread last Thursday with a gain of 87.7%.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s latest credit data confirms our view the country’s credit cycle bottomed earlier this year: March Total Social Financing (TSF) increased CNY 2.8 trillion month-on-month vs. consensus expectation of CNY 1.7 trillion. This will support base metals in the coming months. We continue to expect Chinese authorities to expand credit in 2H19.Our long copper trade is up 0.7% since inception on March 7, 2019. We are closing out our tactical iron-ore trade – long 65% Fe vs. short 62% Fe at tonight’s close; it was up 22.9% at Monday’s close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell 4% from its February high on easing inflation concerns and as fears of an equity correction subsided. March U.S. PCE ex-food and -energy dropped to 1.79% yoy from 1.95% in February, while global equities rose 14% YTD. Our long gold recommendation is down 2.4% since last week, but is still up 3.6% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. U.S. corn and wheat farmers are behind schedule in their spring planting, according to USDA data. The top four American corn-producing states had not started planting by last week, while spring and winter wheat producing states are 11% and 3% behind schedule, mostly due to weather conditions. While delays in planting are always cause for concern, we are still early in the planting season, which gives farmers time to catch up. Feature Policy uncertainty vis-à-vis global oil supply was elevated by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov’s comments indicating policymakers are considering reviving an oil market-share war directed at U.S. shale-oil producers. Siluanov said prices could fall to $40/bbl or less, in the event. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now His remarks come on the back of statements from Russian government and oil company officials lobbying for higher output. These comments suggest there is a heavyweight Russian contingent fully supporting these demands for OPEC 2.0 to increase production in 2H19 when it meets in June. Otherwise, the threat implies, Russia will seriously consider leaving OPEC 2.0, and will launch its own market-share war against U.S. shale-oil production, led by the fast-growing Permian Basin in Texas. Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now – nicely above $70/bbl in the Brent market. He also wants to maintain cooperation with OPEC 2.0, particularly its other putative leader, KSA. We continue to believe, however, KSA and Russia become less comfortable with Brent prices moving sharply above $80/bbl.4 Nonetheless, the threat posed by the U.S. shales is non-trivial: In our latest balances estimates, we raised our 2H19 U.S. output estimates to 12.53mm b/d, and slightly decreased our 2020 estimates to 13.35mm b/d”, led by a 1.17mm b/d and 0.84mm b/d increase in shale output this year and next (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales However, Russia – and OPEC 2.0 generally – may be overestimating the rate of growth from U.S. shales going forward: In future research, we will be exploring the extent to which capital markets will restrain growth in the U.S. shales, as investors continue to demand higher returns. The days of growing shale production at any cost may be coming to an end. Russia’s Threat Is A Feint We believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint: A market-share war would damage the Rodina’s economy more than the balance sheets of U.S. shale producers, particularly those that hedge the first year or two of their production. The threat needs to be understood in the context of the deterioration of Russia’s position in Venezuela; the increasing tempo of U.S. military operations in its near abroad; and rapidly evolving global oil and gas trade flows, all of which are working against Russian interests and investments.5 The threat appears to be a not-too-subtle reminder of the havoc Russia still can create globally, should it choose to do so, as Vladimir Rouvinski noted recently re Russia’s Venezuela policy.6 Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. Russia’s GDP elasticity to oil prices is more than twice that of KSA’s, which we demonstrated last week.7 This means, from an economic standpoint, it benefits more from higher prices than the Kingdom, based on our modeling. Russia’s oil is exported to refiners and trading companies who pay whatever price is clearing the market, versus KSA, which relies more on direct investments in end-use markets to serve captive demand, and whose GDP has a higher sensitivity to EM economic growth. Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. The coalition’s production-cutting deal this year has reduced global supplies by 1.0mm b/d since the beginning of the year, lifting price from below $50/bbl to more than $70/bbl, in line with our forecast. These production cuts have been supported by strong global demand this year this, which, we expect, will persist in 2020. Of course, Russia could abandon the production-cutting deal with KSA, in the hope of severely reducing investment in U.S. shale-oil production. However, it also would accelerate the loss of foreign direct investment (FDI) in its own hydrocarbons sector, along with those of other OPEC 2.0 member states (Chart 4). Bottom Line: A Russian market-share war aimed at U.S. shale producers would run the very real risk of tanking Russia’s GDP and those of the rest of OPEC 2.0’s member states, as these economies lack the resilience and diversification of the U.S.’s GDP, particularly Texas’s. Even if its fiscal balances are in better shape now, Russia’s economy remains highly sensitive to Brent crude oil prices – moreso than KSA’s, and far moreso the U.S.’s (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Chart 5Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices BCA’s Balances Mostly Unchanged Our updated balances reflect the lower Venezuelan and Iranian output reported by OPEC’s survey of secondary sources (Table 1). As we have noted previously, we believe OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is sufficient to cover the loss of Venezuelan output, and the limited losses on Iranian exports imposed by U.S. sanctions (Chart 6). Beyond that, however, the market will be severely stretched if an unplanned outage removes significant production from global supply. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC and Russia to lift supply in 2H19, following the successful draining of global inventories (Chart 7). We expect OPEC ex-Iran, Libya and Venezuela, led by KSA, will lift 2H19 supply by ~ 400k b/d vs. 1H19 levels, while we expect Russia’s output to rise 200k b/d. Chart 7Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by the renewed easing of monetary policy globally, which will redound to the benefit of EM demand, which also will benefit from the bottoming of China’s credit cycle. Indeed, the EIA added 130k b/d to its estimate of non-OECD demand for this year, on the back of stronger expected growth. We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, with EM growth accounting for 1.1mm b/d of growth this year and 1.3mm b/d next year. In levels, global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. Waivers On U.S. Iran Sanctions Will Be Extended We continue to expect waivers on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil imports will be extended on May 2, owing to the still-tight supply conditions globally with Venezuela output collapsing and ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian oil already forced off the market. This has, as we’ve noted in our discussions of the New Political Economy of oil, strengthened OPEC 2.0’s hand. This will become apparent when the coalition meets in June to consider whether to increase production in 2H19, in line with our expectation. KSA, Russia and OPEC 2.0 member states will have sufficient data on hand to determine whether and by how much to lift output, in a manner that supports their GDPs. Indeed, on Wednesday, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said, “We should do what is more expedient for us.”9 KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not. We also expect U.S. President Donald Trump to try to jawbone OPEC 2.0 into increasing production again, as he did in 2H18. However, we expect those demands to fall on deaf ears, unless fundamental supply dislocations warrant such action. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s strategy is working – it will have maximum flexibility re how it handles its production in 2H19, following the U.S. decision on waivers to its Iran oil-export sanctions on May 2. As we noted last month, KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/Non-OPEC oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It agreed in November to remove 1.2mm b/d off the market, in order to balance global supply and demand and reduce inventories.  Please see “Russia, OPEC may ditch oil deal to fight for market share: Russian minister,” published April 13, 2019, for a re-cap of Siluanov’s remarks. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019; and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’s Price Fulcrum,” published March 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “Oil steadies as market focuses on supply risks,” published April 15 2019 by reuters.com 4      Please see “Putin Says No Imminent Decision on Oil Output Cuts,” published April 10, 2019, by The Moscow Times. 5      Please see for example, “Pentagon developing military options to deter Russian, Chinese influence in Venezuela,” published by cnn.com April 15, 2019; “Destroyer USS Ross Enters Black Sea, Fourth U.S. Warship Since 2019,” published by news.usni.org April 15, 2019; and “U.S. LNG exports pick up, with Europe a major buyer,” published by reuters.com March 7, 2019. 6      Please see “Russian-Venezuelan Relations at a Crossroads” by Vladimir Rouvinski, published by the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute in its February Latin American digest. 7      Please see “Sussing Out OPEC 2.0’s Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy April 11, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8      We discuss the impact of higher oil prices on Russia’s economy in last week’s report, which is cited in footnote 6 above.  Russia’s GDP in 2017 was ~ U.S. $1.6 trillion, according to the World Bank, while the GDP of Texas was ~ $1.7 trillion, American Enterprise Institute. 9      Please see “Russia’s Novak: early to speak about options for oil output deal,” published reuters.com April 17, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 ​​​​​​​ Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Overweight The S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) index received a much needed boost last week when the blockbuster acquisition of Anadarko by Chevron (at a 37% premium to the stock’s previous close) was announced, triggering a wave of M&A premia being added to stocks in the index. This valuation lift looks reasonably well deserved in our opinion, considering the degree to which the integrated oil majors are moving in to shale gas plays with a focus on the Permian basin. A narrowing of junk bond spreads is confirming the resurgent optimism in the sector (second panel). Our investment thesis is based on our sister publication, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, and their bullish WTI view, which is the fundamental growth driver in the sector (WTI shown advanced six months, bottom panel). We continue to expect a recovering energy price to drive a reversal of the recent moderation in oil & gas production, delivering a double dose of growth and margin improvement, goosing sector earnings and share prices. Bottom Line: We reiterate our overweight recommendation on the S&P oil & gas E&P index and our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the broader S&P energy index that we added this week.1 The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, CXO, HES, FANG, DVN, MRO, APA, NBL, COG, XEC.   1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “ Show Me The Profits” dated April 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Yield curve dynamics, higher oil prices, recovering balance sheets, and compelling valuations and technicals all suggest that energy stocks will burst higher in the coming months.  Melting medical cost inflation, BCA’s rising interest rate expectations along with an economy running at full steam, all suggest that managed health care margins and profits will overwhelm in the coming quarters. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P managed health care index to overweight today. Add the S&P energy index to the high-conviction overweight list today. Table 1 Feature On the eve of earnings season, the SPX ended last week higher as bank profits delivered and allayed fears of recession. All-time absolute highs in the S&P tech sector and in the Philly SOX index suggest that global growth will likely reaccelerate in the back half of the year, vaulting the broad market to new highs. In addition, the suppressed Treasury term premium1 signals that the path of least resistance for equities is higher on a cyclical time horizon (term premium shown inverted, Chart 1). Chart 1All Clear... Nevertheless, some caution is still warranted from a tactical perspective. Since March 4 when we first turned short-term cautious on the broad equity market,2 the SPX has moved roughly 100 points both ways. Internal market moves, financial conditions, fund flows, complacency and the current economic backdrop all signal that stocks are not out of the woods yet. Namely, the S&P high beta versus the S&P low volatility tilt has failed to confirm the slingshot in the SPX (Chart 2). Similar to the small cap underperformance, mega cap tech is trouncing small cap tech stocks (Chart 3). Not only do large cap technology stocks have pristine balance sheets, but they also have earnings. In contrast, from the 89 S&P 600 tech constituents 54 have no forward profits. The weak over strong balance sheet underperformance is emitting the same signal (top panel, Chart 3). Chart 2...But Some... Chart 3...Caution... The bond market is also sending a warning shot. High yield corporate bonds are underperforming long-dated Treasurys (middle panel, Chart 2). And, the junk bond option adjusted spread has not fallen to the 2018 lows, let alone all-time lows (not shown). While a lot has been said on easier financial conditions, they have yet to return to the early-2018 lows. In fact, similar to the non-confirmation of the all-time SPX highs in late-September, the GS financial conditions index (FCI) is tracing a higher low, warning that equities have room to fall (FCI shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2). Mutual fund flows on all equity related products are contracting on a net sales basis. Historically, fund flows and equity returns are joined at the hip and the current divergence suggests that equity prices will likely succumb to deficient demand (top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4...Is Warranted On the economic front, last Wednesday we highlighted in an Insight Report, that lumber – a hyper sensitive economic indicator – failed to corroborate the recent equity market euphoria. The weak Citi Economic Surprise Index, also warns that the economic data has yet to turn the corner and should weigh on equities (bottom panel, Chart 4). What ties everything together is SPX profits. The news on this front is mixed, at least for the next little while: EPS will most likely contract in the first half of the year, but equity investors are looking through this earnings recession. Last year’s U.S. dollar appreciation will dent both revenues and EPS, and Q1/2019 is the first quarter where such greenback strength will subtract from corporate P&Ls (Chart 5). Chart 5Dollar Trouble? What worries us most is the sectorial concentration of 2019 profit growth in one sector, financials. Another source of concern is the heavyweight tech sector’s negative profit path for calendar 2019. Such sudden internal profit moves both in magnitude and in a short time frame are far from reassuring, especially given that overall profit estimates are still trimmed. Chart 6A depicts the current sector profit contribution to 2019 growth, and compares it with the January 22nd iteration (Chart 6B). What a difference three months make. In sum, internal equity and bond market dynamics, financial conditions, the economic soft-patch and the looming profit recession all signal that short-term equity market caution is still warranted. This week we upgrade a health care subsector and reiterate our bullish stance on a deep cyclical sector. Catch Up Phase Looms For Energy Stocks Last week we broadened out our research on the yield curve (YC) inversion beyond the S&P 500 to the GICS1 sectors.3 As a reminder, the SPX peaks following the yield curve inversion and on average the S&P energy sector performs the best from the time the YC inverts until the S&P 500 peters out (please refer to Table 3 from the April 8, Special Report). While every cycle is different, if history at least rhymes, deep cyclical energy stocks will likely outperform as the SPX eventually breaks out to fresh all-time highs. Already, year-to-date the S&P energy sector is the third best performing sector, besting the SPX by over 200bps. More gains are in store, especially given the big dichotomy between the oil price recovery and the relative share price ratio (Chart 7). What is perplexing is the ingrained sell-side analyst pessimism (Chart 6A) and lack of belief that oil prices will remain near current levels or even continue their ascent as our sister Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) service publication predicts. Not only are EPS forecast to contract in every quarter this year, or 10% year-over-year according to IBES, but also revenues are slated to fall in every quarter in 2019. We would lean against this extreme analyst bearishness. While the $3.5/bbl backwardation in WTI oil futures prices one year out, and more than twice that 24-months out, underpins Wall Street’s gloomy energy sector outlook, U.S. oil extraction productivity reinforces sector profits. As U.S. crude oil production hits new all-time highs this is extracted by fewer oil rigs (bottom panel, Chart 7). If BCA’s CES constructive oil price expectation pans out, then energy stocks will easily surpass the profit and revenue bar that analysts have set extremely low for the sector. Delivering on the profit front will likely serve as a catalyst to rerate these deep cyclical stocks higher (Chart 8) and thus a catch up phase looms for energy stocks, at least up to the current level of WTI crude oil prices (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Catch Up Chart 8Bombed Out Valuation Granted, the U.S. dollar is a key determinant of oil prices and if BCA’s view proves accurate that global growth will return in the back half of the year (second panel, Chart 9), that is synonymous with a depreciating greenback, which in turn is bullish the broad commodity complex in general and oil prices (and thus energy stocks) in particular (middle panel, Chart 7). As a reminder, oil prices are an excellent global growth barometer, similar to their sibling Dr. Copper. Recovering global growth will boost energy stocks in an additional way: via a favorable supply/demand crude oil balance. Not only is OPEC rebalancing the global oil market through a reduction on the supply front, but a trio of potential supply shocks from Iranian sanctions, Venezuelan infrastructure and Libyan conflict are providing price support. Further, global growth has historically been tightly correlated with rising non-OECD oil demand (Chart 10). Chart 9Global Growth Beneficiary Chart 10Favorable Supply/Demand Dynamics Meanwhile, the broad energy sector is still licking its wounds from the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession and is stabilizing debt and increasing EBITDA (fifth panel, Chart 11), thus the net debt/EBITDA ratio for the index has collapsed from over 11 to around 2, a level similar to the broad market (second panel, Chart 11). Interest coverage (EBIT/interest expense) is also renormalizing higher and is no longer sending a default warning for the energy space as a whole (third panel, Chart 11). The junk energy bond market corroborates/reflects this balance sheet improvement and is no longer flashing red (bottom panel, Chart 9). Finally, bombed out technical conditions are contrarily positive, and such extreme negative readings have marked the start of playable and sizable relative outperformance periods (Chart 12). Chart 11No Red Flags Chart 12Contrary Alert: Depressed Technicals Netting it all out, YC dynamics, higher oil prices on the back of rising global growth and a favorable supply/demand crude oil backdrop, recovering balance sheets, and compelling valuations and technicals suggest that energy stocks will burst higher in the coming months. Bottom Line: We reiterate our above benchmark recommendation in the S&P energy sector and today we are adding it to our high-conviction overweight list. Buy Into Managed Health Care Weakness A little over a year ago we moved to the sidelines in the S&P managed health care index, crystalizing significant relative profits of 28% for our U.S. equity portfolio.4 Now the time has come anew to explore this niche health care index from the long side. While we left some money on the table since our late-May 2018 move, relative share prices have come full circle, valuations have fallen roughly 18% from the late-2018 peak and analysts’ euphoria has been reined in (Chart 13). Chart 13Reset The inter- and intra-industry M&A fever has died down from mid-2018 and the rising momentum of a “Medicare For All” bill has weighed negatively on HMO sentiment. With regard to the latter, our geopolitical strategists believe that passage is possible. If the Democrats can unseat an incumbent president in 2020, they will also likely take the Senate and keep the House. This means they will be in the position to pass a major piece of legislation. While Trump is favored to win, barring a recession, the risk of both a Democratic sweep and a push for “Medicare for All” could be as high as 27%, and this would have a dramatic impact on the health care sector.5 Tack on the near 90bps drop in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield since the November 2018 peak, and factors have fallen into place for a bearish raid in this pure play health insurance index. Thin managed health care margins and profits move in close lockstep with interest rates as roughly 10% of the industry’s operating income is tied to “investment income”. In other words, as insurers receive the premia they typically invest it in Treasurys and that explains the high EPS and margin sensitivity on interest rate moves (Chart 14). While at first sight, the outlook for profits appears grim, BCA’s bond strategists expect a selloff in the bond market to materialize in the back half of the year simultaneously with a pick-up in global growth which will prove a tonic to both margins and EPS. In addition, leading indicators of heath care insurance profit margins are flashing green. Not only are medical costs melting including drug price inflation (second & bottom panels, Chart 15), but also industry cost structures are kept at bay with wages climbing below a 2%/annum rate growth and trailing overall wage inflation (third panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Overdone Chart 15Melting Cost Inflation On the demand front, as the economy is running at full employment, with unemployment insurance claims probing 60-year lows and with wages representing a headache for small and medium business owners, enrollment should stay healthy (Chart 16). Most importantly, the combination of decreasing medical cost inflation and a healthy overall labor market herald a steep decline in the industry’s medical loss ratio. All of this is unambiguously bullish for margins and profits. Finally, relative valuations and technicals have both corrected from previously stretched levels and offer a compelling entry point for fresh capital (Chart 17). Chart 16Full Employment Is Bullish Chart 17Unloved And Under-Owned Netting it all out, despite the risks that “Medicare For All” pose, melting medical cost inflation, BCA’s rising interest rate expectations along with an economy running at full steam, all suggest that managed health care margins and profits will overwhelm in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P managed health care index to overweight today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, ANTH, HUM, CNC, WCG.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      According to the NY Fed: “Treasury yields can be decomposed into two components: expectations of the future path of short-term Treasury yields and the Treasury term premium. The term premium is the compensation that investors require for bearing the risk that short-term Treasury yields do not evolve as they expected.” https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/treasury-term-premia-1961-present.html 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly” dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, “10 Most FAQs From The Road” dated April 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Seeing The Light” dated May 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5      If there is a 60% chance the Democrats nominate a left-wing candidate, and a 45% chance they win the election, then there is a 27% chance that they are in a position to push for “Medicare for All” with fair odds of passage. Everything will depend on the specific outcomes of the Democratic primary, presidential campaign, general election, post-election government policy priorities, and congressional passage. Stay tuned as in the coming months we will be publishing a Special Report on “Medicare For All” and health care sector implications co-authored with our sister Geopolitical Strategy service. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights OPEC 2.0 will meet in June to decide whether to continue its production cuts into 2H19. Once again, the leaders are sending conflicting signals – KSA is subtly indicating OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts will need to be extended to year-end. Russia, not so much. Much will depend on whether the U.S. extends waivers on Iran oil-export sanctions when they expire May 2. Not surprisingly, Trump administration officials also are not providing much in the way of forward guidance to markets, other than to insist they want Iran’s exports at zero. Our modeling indicates OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – will need to raise production in 2H19, as markets tighten on the back of Venezuela’s collapse, continued unplanned outages (most recently in Libya) and still-strong demand. This aligns our view somewhat with that of Russia. That said, OPEC 2.0’s leaders – and member states – all benefit from higher prices, as we show below. Some, like Russia, more so than others – e.g., KSA, hard as that is to reconcile with their respective stances on production cuts. But none benefits if EM demand is crushed by high prices. It’s a delicate balancing act, given the aggregate GDP of EM commodity-importing countries exceeds that of commodity-exporting countries (Chart of the Week).1 Chart of the WeekEM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand We continue to expect Brent to trade at $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, given our expectation for global supply and demand. KSA and Russia remain the fulcrum of the oil market, as we argued recently, and anticipating their decision-making process remains the critical task for understanding the new political economy of oil.2 Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded opposing forces in Libya cease fighting this week. The country recently lifted oil production over 1mm b/d, but renewed fighting threatens this output. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) earlier this week tee’d up markets to expect higher infrastructure and transportation spending, which lifted steel and iron ore markets. Markets continue to tighten on the back of the Vale high-grade iron-ore supply losses, which could lift prices above $100/MT in the short term. Precious Metals: Neutral. Central banks continued buying gold in February, the World Gold Council reported this week. Central-bank holdings rose a net 51 tonnes in February bringing total additions to 90 tonnes in the first two months of the year. Agriculture: Underweight. The USDA lifted its estimate of global ending stocks for corn by 5.5mm tons for the 2018/19 crop year. With total use estimates unchanged at 1.13 billion tons, this raises ending stocks-to-use estimates, which will continue to exert downward pressure on prices. Feature KSA and Russia share a common feature in that both are petro states, and thus heavily dependent on crude and product exports to fund their governments and economies. Both suffered a near-death experience during the 2014-16 oil-market-share war launched by OPEC, and both have seen their GDPs slowly recover, following the successful production-cutting agreements they jointly engineered to drain excess inventories and restore balance to the market beginning in 2017 and renewed this year (Chart 2). Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. At first blush, it would be logical to assume KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs are driven by the same economic forces of oil supply and demand. In broad terms, they are. Both benefit from higher oil prices, given they are predominantly petro-economies, although Russia tends to benefit more as prices rise (Chart 3). In the post-GFC era, we find that a 1% increase in Brent prices lifts Russia’s GDP ~ 0.07%, while KSA’s goes up ~ 0.03%. Another way of saying this is Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. Chart 2KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Chart 3Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Looking a bit deeper into KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs’ sensitivities to Brent prices, we modeled income growth for both using our Brent forecast (Table 1), the futures markets’ forward curve and compare both to the World Bank’s expectation (Chart 4, bottom panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Given our expectation for EM GDP growth (Chart of the Week), we expect KSA’s GDP to show relatively strong growth with GDP up ~ 5.4% this year and ~ 3.5% next year, propelled partly by higher oil prices (Chart 4, top panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Russia’s GDP goes up ~ 0.25% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. We expect Russia’s GDP to dip then recover in 4Q19, then rise 3.5% by the end of 3Q20 before tapering off toward the end of 2020. This is not surprising given the trajectory for Brent prices in our forecasts and in the futures curves, and the sensitivity of Russia’s GDP to oil prices.We found a similar impact of EM oil demand on Russia and KSA GDPs when controlling for EM FX rates instead of Brent prices (Chart 5).3 Chart 4Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Chart 5While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand U.S. Waivers Dictate OPEC 2.0’s Decision On Production KSA has indicated it sees a need to extend OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal into 2H19, when the coalition’s ministers meet in June. Of late, Khalid al-Falih, KSA’s oil minister, is indicating no further cuts in the Kingdom’s output are needed, however. Russia’s a bit of a cipher. President Vladimir Putin this week stated Russia will continue to cooperate with KSA vis-à-vis managing production, although his energy minister, Alexander Novak, has indicated he sees no reason for extending OPEC 2.0’s production deal. Both sides are waiting on fundamental data, and the decision of the U.S. on its waivers on Iranian oil-export sanctions. There’s also the ever-likely collapse of Venezuela to consider, and renewed violence in Libya, both of which argue against letting the waivers expire. The Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. The countries granted waivers on U.S. sanctions against Iranian crude oil imports appear to be exercising their option to lift additional barrels, based on data showing loadings out of Iran increased for the fourth consecutive month (Chart 6 and Table 2).4 Loadings out of Iran rose to 1.30mm b/d in March, from 1.24mm b/d in February. Table 2Iran Exports By Country 2018-2019 (‘000 b/d) Bottom Line: We continue to expect U.S. waivers on Iranian oil sanctions will be extended to year end in some form. The collapse of Venezuela and renewed violence in Libya show how tenuously balanced oil markets are at present. Going into a general election in the U.S. next year, the Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. When they meet in June, ministers from OPEC 2.0 member states will be ideally set up to respond to the Trump administration’s decision on waivers for Iranian oil imports, which expire May 2. We are closing our June 2019 $70 vs. $75/bbl call spread, as the position is close to expiry.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      In the post-GFC world, we find total EM oil demand rises ~ 0.4% for each 1% rise in EM commodity-importers’ GDP, while it only rises ~ 0.3% for each 1% rise in EM commodity exporters’ GDP, based on our modeling. According to World Banks’ constant 2010 USD series, EM commodity importers’ GDP represented 66% of total EM GDP in 2018, up from 56% in 2010. The EM income elasticity of oil demand has remained at roughly ~ 0.60 from 2000 to now, meaning a 1% increase in EM GDP – hence EM income – lifts oil demand by ~ 0.6%. This has been remarkably stable pre-GFC, post-GFC and from 2000 to now. 2      The new political economy of oil is a continuing theme in our research. For an extended discussion of this theme, please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy on February 21 and March 21, 2019. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      When using EM FX rates instead of Brent prices as an explanatory variable, we find KSA’s GDP still increases a little more than 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand, but Russia’s rises closer to 0.6%. NB: All GDP measures use historical World Bank data, and BCA Research estimates using the Bank’s projections in constant 2010 USD.  We proxy EM oil demand using non-OECD oil consumption.  KSA’s production is crude oil only, while Russia’s production is crude and liquids. 4      For a discussion of the waivers’ optionality, please see our BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published on March 21, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades