Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights The eye of the storm is passing over the oil market. OPEC 2.0's recent production increase will temporarily halt the sharp decline in OECD commercial oil inventories, allowing stocks of crude oil and refined products in member states to level off ahead of the sharp drawdowns we expect next year (Chart of the Week).1 This will keep the front of Brent's forward curve in a modest contango going into 4Q18, and suppress short-term price volatility. Thereafter, reduced OPEC 2.0 output post-U.S. midterm elections, and lower Iranian and Venezuelan exports will force OECD inventories to resume drawing sharply, backwardating Brent's forward curve and raising oil price volatility (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekOECD Inventories Rebuild Slightly,##BR##Then Resume Falling Next Year Chart 2Brent, WTI Implied Volatility Vs. Curve Shape:##BR##Implied Vol Is Higher At Storage Extremes Chart 3Physical Oil Deficit Returns##BR##To Oil Market Next Year Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA revised its estimate of OPEC spare capacity down slightly for this year - to 1.7mm b/d from 1.8mm b/d. Spare capacity for next year was raised to 1.3mm b/d from just over 1mm b/d previously. At ~1.5% of global consumption this year and next, spare capacity is chronically low. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese policymakers could sanction new infrastructure spending and easier credit to counter slower growth related to trade tensions, Reuters reported.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. We were stopped out of our tactical long silver position with a 10% loss. Ags/Softs: Underweight. There is more evidence that U.S. ags are finding new markets. EU imports of U.S. soybeans almost quadrupled in recent weeks. This comes amid the June plunge in prices and a thawing in trade tensions, following talks between EU Commission President Juncker and President Trump late last week.4 Feature The oil market sits in the eye of a pricing storm we expect to hit later this year. Following highly vocal - and twitter-textual - jawboning by U.S. President Donald Trump, OPEC's Gulf Arab producers lifted production in June and again in July.5 Reuters survey data indicate the OPEC Cartel (including new member Congo) lifted production by 70k b/d in July, bringing output to its highest level this year (32.64mm b/d).6 KSA boosted its output to 10.6mm b/d in June, up from less than 10mm b/d in the January - May period. This likely was a combination of higher production and inventory draws. OPEC's compliance level fell to 111% of the 1.2mm b/d of cuts agreed in November 2016, versus compliance levels exceeding 150% earlier this year. This is attributed to sharp declines in Venezuela's output, sporadic losses from Libya and Nigeria, and ongoing declines in non-Gulf OPEC states. We expect Russia, the putative co-head of the OPEC 2.0 coalition, will increase production by 200k b/d in 2H18 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Global Oil Market Will Tighten Again Post-U.S. mid-term elections in November - just when the U.S. sanctions are re-imposed against Iranian crude exports - we expect OPEC 2.0 to dial back production increases made at the behest of President Trump. Continued declines in non-Gulf OPEC output, led by ongoing and deep losses in Venezuelan output, and random unplanned production outages also will contribute to a tightening on the supply side going into 2019. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Gulf will keep markets on edge, with a predisposition to push higher. This supply-side tightness will once again come up against strong global oil demand, which we estimate will grow at a 1.7mm b/d rate this year and next. We are not expecting a repeat of the evolution of prices observed following OPEC 2.0's January 2017 agreement, which cut production to reverse the massive accumulation of inventories brought about by the original cartel's market-share war launched in November 2014. This evolution is depicted in the price-decomposition model for Brent shown in Chart 4. We segmented the fundamental price drivers - i.e. demand, supply and inventories - into distinct factors, and estimated an econometric model that allows us to track whether the evolution of prices is consistent with our expectations for these factors. Chart 4Factor Decomposition For Brent Prices Our modeling indicates the 2014 - 15 decline in oil prices was driven by a not-often-seen combination of every single factor, with our OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor accounting for the largest negative contribution to the evolution of prices during this period. Since 2017, our factor model shows Brent prices have been supported by two factors acting simultaneously together: (1) the strong compliance of OPEC 2.0 members to the coalition's production-cutting agreement, which reduced the OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor's role, and (2) the pickup in global oil demand, particularly in EM economies, which pushed our Global Demand factor up. These effects were partly counterbalanced by the rise in our Non-OPEC Supply factor, which became the largest negative contributor to price movements, driven by strong U.S. shale production growth. Return Of Backwardation Will Spur Volatility Our ensemble forecasts for Brent in 2H18 and 2019 are $70 and $75/bbl, with WTI expected to trade $6/bbl below these levels (Chart 5). The supply-side tightening we expect, coupled with continued demand growth, will once again lead to sharp draws in OECD inventories beginning in 4Q18 and continuing into 2019, as seen in the Chart of the Week. This will steepen the backwardations in the Brent and WTI forward curves (Chart 6). Chart 5BCA Brent And##BR##WTI Forecasts Chart 6Backwardation Will Return##BR##To Brent's Forward Curve Our research shows that as the slope of the Brent and WTI forward curves steepen - i.e., backwardations become more positive in percentage terms (or contangoes become more negative) - the implied volatility of options written on these crude oil futures increases, as can be seen in Chart 2.7 All else equal, higher volatility makes options written on these crude futures more valuable. Higher Vol ... Higher Prices ... In the different scenarios we use to produce our ensemble forecast, we view the balance of risks to be on the upside. This can be seen in the different paths our scenarios cover over the next year and a half, which include physical and geopolitical variables affecting price expectations (Chart 7).8 Chart 7Higher Volatility = Wider Expected Price Range Our base case assumes the supply and demand estimates shown in Table 1, which include the loss of 500k b/d due to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iran. However, we also model the loss of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports. Furthermore, we account for the loss of ~ 800k b/d of Venezuelan exports in the event that country collapses and nothing but the 250k b/d of output required to produce refined products for the local market remains online. Lastly, we account for the Permian transportation bottlenecks preventing all of the crude produced in the Basin from getting to refiners or to export markets. In this week's publication, we also include an estimate of the 95% confidence interval derived from Brent and WTI options' implied volatilities, so that our scenarios can be placed in the context of market-derived assessments of the range in which prices will trade. ... Lower Prices ... ? In modeling these risks, we also must account for downside price risks. Most prominent among these is a resolution of the long-simmering U.S. - Iran conflict, which, from time to time, results in physical confrontation. This is an outcome markets were forced to consider earlier this week when President Trump offered to meet Iranian President Rouhani without any preconditions. Among other things, Trump suggested he would have interest in working on a nuclear-arms deal to replace the one negotiated under President Obama's watch, which he scuppered in May. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo walked this remark back later. We believe the odds of such a meeting are extremely low. The odds such meeting would lead to a resolution of animosities - or at least a working understanding between the two sides - are even lower. Even so, investors need to account for this tail risk, which, if realized could take $5 to $10/bbl out of the current oil price structure. That is, until KSA and Russia muster the OPEC 2.0 member states to again reduce production to keep prices at levels that work best for their economies. Bottom Line: Our modeling and the forecasts point to higher prices and a steepening of the backwardation in Brent and WTI forward curves. This will lead to an increase in implied volatilities for options written on these crude oil futures. For this reason, we suggest investors remain long call spreads further out the Brent forward curve in 2019, which can be found in the Strategic Recommendations table on page 10 of this publication. That said, downside risks have emerged, even if, at present, the likelihood of a diplomatic breakthrough that triggers them is remote. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. At the end of June, the coalition's member states agreed to increase production, which we estimate will raise its output ~ 275k b/d in 2H18 (vs. 1H18). We expect a physical deficit of ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 (vs 1H18, Chart 3). 2 "Contango" and "backwardation" are terms of art in commodity markets. In oil trading, when prompt-delivery crude is priced below deferred-delivery material markets are in contango; vice versa for backwardation. 3 Please see "Exclusive: China eyes infrastructure boost to cushion growth as trade war escalates - sources," published by uk.reuters.com July 27, 2018. 4 We discussed this possibility under Option 1 in our July 26, 2018, Commodity & Energy Strategy lead article entitled "Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals." It is published by BCA Research, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see our Special Report entitled "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," published jointly July 19, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "OPEC July oil output hits 2018 peak, but outages weigh: Reuters survey," published July 30, 2018, by uk.reuters.com. 7 Chart 2 shows the V-shaped mapping of implied volatility as a function of the slope of the forward curve - , i.e., the difference between the 1st- and 12th-nearby futures divided by the 1st -nearby future (to get the number in %) - against the at-the-money Implied Volatilities of 3rd-nearby Brent and WTI options (also in %). Our findings extend results published in Kogan et al (2009), who show realized volatilities calculated using historical settlements of crude oil futures have a similar V-shaped mapping with the slope of crude oil futures conditioned on 6th- vs. 3rd-nearby futures returns (in %). Please see Kogan, L., Livdan, D., & Yaron, A. (2009). "Oil Futures Prices in a Production Economy With Investment Constraints." The Journal of Finance, 64 (3), 1345-1375. Strictly speaking, volatility is the standard deviation of percent returns, usually measured on a per annum basis. Realized volatility uses futures prices to calculate returns and standard deviations; options' implied volatility is a parameter of an option-pricing model that is solved for once an option's premium, or price, is known (i.e., clears the market). This makes implied volatility a forward-looking market-cleared parameter, provided market participants agree the model used to calculate its value. Research shows implied volatilities do a better job of forecasting actual volatility than historical volatilities constructed using futures prices. See Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009). "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty." U.S. Energy Information Administration. 8 We do not try to model a closure of the Strait of Hormuz or its prices implications. We do, however, consider this in our Special Report published July 19, 2018, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," referenced above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Feature Downside Risks Haven't Gone Away We downgraded risk assets to neutral in last month's Quarterly Portfolio Outlook,1 citing an increasing number of risks to the equity bull market. Specifically, we warned about the slowdown and desynchronization of global growth, rising U.S. inflation, further deterioration in the trade war, and the ongoing slowdown in China. Markets - particularly in the U.S. - have stabilized somewhat over the past few weeks on the expectation that these risks are not particularly grave, that global growth remains robust, and that central banks will be slow to tighten. We accept that there remain upside risks (which is why we are neutral, not underweight, equities) but think many investors remain too sanguine about the downside risks. On desynchronized growth, it is true that the slowdown in the euro zone seems to have bottomed. The Citi Economic Surprise Indexes (Chart 1) suggest that downward surprises to euro zone and Japanese growth have ended, and that the U.S. is no longer surprising significantly to the upside. However, the likely path of inflation in the two regions looks very different, with U.S. core PCE inflation likely headed towards 2.5% over the next few quarters, while euro zone core inflation is stuck around 1% (Chart 2). Table 1Recommended Allocation Chart 1A Resynchronization Of Growth? Chart 2Core Inflation: Higher In The U.S. Than In The Euro Zone In particular, we think it is only a matter of time before U.S. wages start to accelerate. Unemployment has not been this low since the late 1960s. As happened then, there is typically a lag between the labor market becoming tight and inflation emerging (Chart 3). With the employment/population ratio for the key working-age demographic now back close to its 2007 level (Chart 4), and 601,000 new entrants to the labor force last month alone, that point is probably not far away. Note, too, that people switching jobs are now seeing large wage rises; those staying are not (Chart 5). With strong corporate profit growth, companies will soon start to raise wages to keep staff and fill vacancies. Chart 3Just A Matter Of Time Before Inflation Accelerates Chart 4Little Slack Left In The Labor Market Chart 5Switchers Getting Wage Rises; Stayers Not This all suggests that markets are too nonchalant about the risk of further Fed tightening. The futures market is pricing in only four rate hikes from the Fed over the next 24 months (Chart 6). We think it likely that the Fed will continue to hike by 25 basis points a quarter until something gives. By contrast, the ECB has clearly signaled that it will wait until at least September next year before raising rates; when it does so, it may hike by only 10 basis points. The futures market is close to pricing this correctly (Chart 6, panel 2). We remain concerned about further exacerbation of the retaliatory tariff war. In late July, the European Union and President Trump seemed to agree a truce, especially with regard to auto tariffs. But, even if this proves more than transitory, it is unlikely to be repeated between the U.S. and China. Both sides have raised the stakes so much that it will be politically difficult for either to back down. Further aggressive moves are likely, including a 10% tariff on all USD500 billion of Chinese imports into the U.S, and the Chinese authorities engineering a further depreciation of the Chinese yuan, and making life difficult for U.S. companies that manufacture and sell in China (where their sales total USD350 billion). Businesses around the world have woken up to this risk: capex intentions among U.S. companies have slipped recently and, in the Global ZEW survey, future expectations are now the lowest relative to current conditions since 2007, a bearish indicator (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Is Likely To Hike more Than This Chart 7Businesses Expect Things To Get Worse Moreover, we don't see China launching a massive reflationary stimulus, as it did in 2009 and 2015. In the past few weeks, it has announced some minor easing of monetary policy, targeted tax cuts, and an acceleration of this year's fiscal spending. This will be enough to cushion the downside. But interest rates have not fallen anything like as much as in previous episodes (Chart 8). The authorities have reiterated that structural reform remains the priority. Given the significant slowdown in credit growth over the past year, we expect a further deceleration in the Chinese industrial economy (and, therefore, in imports) through the end of the year. If our macro outlook is correct, it is likely to have the following consequences for financial markets: further rises in long-term interest rates (we forecast 3.3-3.5% for the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield by early 2019), a further appreciation of the U.S. dollar (as monetary policy divergences with the euro area and Japan widen further), and negative performance for emerging market assets (hurt by higher U.S. rates, the rising USD, and the slowdown in China). This points to small negative returns from global government bonds over the next 12 months. Equities are more complicated. Earnings growth remains strong. If S&P500 companies really achieve the 20% EPS growth this year and 10% next year that analysts (and BCA's models) are forecasting, the forward multiple will fall from 16.5x now to 14.0x by end-2019. We would expect to see low single-digit positive returns from global equities over the rest of the year. We accordingly remain neutral on equities, where we can see both upside and downside risks. One key is the timing of the peak in profit margins. This has typically come a few quarters before the start of a recession. Currently margins continue to improve (Chart 9). They are likely to peak around the end of this year, when wages (and input prices, partly because of higher import tariffs) begin to rise faster than sales. We expect to move underweight equities around that time, when this and other recession indicators start to flash warning signals. Chart 8Not 2015 Redux In China Chart 9Watch For The Peak In Profit Margins Currencies: The outlook for the USD remains the key to the performance of other asset classes, particularly emerging markets and commodities. We see the risk of a short-term pullback, since long speculative positions in the dollar have recently built up (Chart 10). But differences in growth, inflation, monetary policy, and long-term rates between the U.S. and other developed economies suggest further moderate dollar appreciation over the coming 12 months. We remain very negative on EM currencies. Central banks in many emerging markets have been forced to raise rates sharply in recent weeks to defend their currencies. This is likely to slow growth over coming quarters. Those central banks that have resisted hiking (for example, Turkey and Brazil) are likely to see sharp rises in inflation. Equities: We prefer developed market equities over emerging ones. Our two overweights are the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. is a defensive market, with a beta to global equities of only 0.9 over the past 20 years. But, if there were to be a last-year equity market melt-up (along the lines of 1999), it is likely to be led by internet stocks, in which the U.S. is particularly overweight, and so the U.S. overweight also acts as a hedge against this upside risk. Our overweight in Japan is based on our view that the Bank of Japan will continue its ultra-accommodative monetary policy (bolstered by the recent tweaks to the operation of the policy), even while other DM central banks are moving towards tightening. There are also some signs of wage growth picking up, which should be positive for consumer sectors. Fixed Income: We remain underweight bonds and, within the asset class, are neutral between government bonds and spread product. U.S. junk bonds continue to have some attraction as long as economic growth remains strong (and the oil price does not fall). But junk bonds typically peak one or two quarters before equities. And, in this cycle, U.S. corporate leverage began to rise rather early, which suggests that at the start of the next recession leverage will be worryingly high (Chart 11) and that junk bonds will, therefore, perform particularly poorly. Chart 10Dollar Long Positions Building Up Again Chart 11Leverage Is High For This Stage Of The Cycle Commodities: Oil has become much harder to forecast in recent weeks, with downside risk to the price of crude coming from the recently announced OPEC production increases, but upside risk from Iran (which is threatening to close the straits of Hormuz in the face of renewed U.S. sanctions) and the collapse in Venezuelan production. BCA's energy strategists see Brent falling a little to average USD70 a barrel in 2H, and at USD75 on average next year, with greater risk of upside surprises than downside.2 Industrial metals prices are likely to remain under pressure if the USD appreciates and China slows further, as evidenced by significant downside moves in copper, iron ore and other metals over the past few weeks. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Review, "Lowering Risk Assets To Neutral," dated 2 July 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated 19 July 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Chart of the WeekTrade Fears Weighing On Ag Complex Bearish sentiment in ag markets is overdone. We believe prices have bottomed. But we are not yet ready to get bullish, given the elevated trade-policy uncertainty dominating markets at present. The evolution of grains and bean prices from here will depend on whether ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and some of its largest ag markets are transitory or permanent (Chart of the Week). Highlights Energy: Overweight. We closed our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread last week with a net gain of 80%. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve in 2019, which are down an average 2.7%, and the SP GSCI, which is up 12.1%. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum prices are down ~ 1.6% in the past week, following indications from U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sanctions against Russian aluminum supplier Rusal could be removed. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices recovered slightly over the past week, but remain under pressure, given continued strength in the broad trade-weighted USD and real U.S. interest rates. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge, nonetheless. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Fundamentals support higher grain and bean prices. However, trade-policy uncertainty - particularly re Sino - U.S. relations - will keep them under pressure (see below). Feature Weather-related uncertainty typically is center stage when it comes to forecasting ag prices during the growing season. This year, trade-policy uncertainty emanating from Washington will contend with weather risk as the dominant influence on prices. We do not expect ag-related trade policies to become more hostile. This means the path of ag prices will be contingent on whether the current trade disputes - primarily between the U.S. and China - are transient or permanent features of international trade. Given what we've seen already, we can expect American farmers will fare poorly in the ongoing trade spats. U.S. agricultural exports have been disproportionately hard hit by tariffs from their most important foreign consumer markets, levied in retaliation against U.S. tariffs (Chart 2). BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy analysts assign a high probability to the escalation of current tensions into a full-blown trade war.1 Nevertheless, we believe the negative sentiment in ag markets is overdone, and that there is not much further downside from here. It is unsurprising that agriculture is a natural first target in this trade dispute. More than a quarter of U.S. crops are exported, with the share rising above 50% in many cases (Chart 3). This provides foreign consumers with ammunition in the dispute. Furthermore, these exports account for a large chunk of global ag trade, in some cases making American exports price makers in the global market. Importantly, many farmers and farm-belt voters cast ballots for Donald Trump. Chart 2American Ags Hit Hard##BR##By Trade Barriers... Chart 3...Because They Are Exposed##BR##To Foreign Markets The USDA's plans announced earlier this week to spend as much as $12 billion between September and end of harvest to help soften the impact of tariff retaliations against U.S. farm states loyal to Trump are not unexpected. The measures will entail (1) direct payments to soybean, sorghum, cotton, corn, wheat, dairy and pork farmers, (2) the procurement and subsequent re-distribution of ag products to nutrition programs, and (3) working with the private sector to promote trade and develop new export markets.2 Trade Spats Hit Grain Markets Hard Grain markets have been especially hard hit in the cross-fire between the U.S. and some of its key trade partners (Table 1). China's retaliatory tariffs are especially consequential, due to its outsized role as a main ag demand market. Table 1Ags Caught In The Crossfire All in all, the Thomson Reuters Equal Weight Grains & Oilseeds Index is down ~ 10% since end-May on the back of these tariffs. Soybeans lead the decline with a 17% loss. We have been foreshadowing this since the beginning of the year.3 Now that it's played out consistent with our previous expectations, it leaves us wondering "now what?" We see three potential scenarios unfolding in the ongoing trade skirmish: Scenario 1: The current tariffs remain in place with no significant increase in ag-relevant trade barriers.4 Scenario 2: The disputes peak soon, and de-escalate. In this scenario, tariffs imposed since the beginning of the year are reversed, ultimately leading to a free and now-fairer global trade order. Scenario 3: A complete breakdown in global trade. This scenario can take on a soft outcome whereby tariffs are increased, or to a more aggressive scenario, resulting in a seismic collapse in world trade agreements. The first two scenarios are clearly more optimistic. In Scenario 1, near-term downside to prices would be restrained, contingent on the responses of major ag consumers. We discuss their four main options and potential courses of action below. Scenario 2 is the most bullish, with price formation once again a function of supply-demand-inventory fundamentals. In this scenario, exogenous risks primarily stem from weather and U.S. financial variables. However, Scenario 3, in which a prolonged trade war pushes the global economy into a recession, would intensify the pain. This would lead to a contraction in the global flow of goods and services, reducing access to foreign markets. Additionally, it would hurt ag demand through the income channel. Consumption growth of ags is correlated with income growth. If the trade war bears down on incomes, it will reduce per-capita demand for ag commodities, which ultimately depresses prices. This is especially true in the case of lower income and emerging economies, where demand is more elastic. Impact Of Tariffs In face of higher costs brought on by U.S. tariffs, foreign buyers are essentially faced with four options: Reduce imports from the U.S., and opt to purchase more from other major producers; Reduce consumption of particular crops by substituting with others; Consume out of inventory, or Continue purchasing U.S. crops, but at a higher price. Chart 4Soybean Farmers Are Most Vulnerable Given the heightened risks surrounding the Sino-American trade dispute, we analyze these possibilities with reference to China. In addition, since soybeans are the most vulnerable of the crops hit by the trade dispute, we focus on beans, arguing that in most cases similar courses of action can be taken for other crops (Chart 4). Chinese authorities have already communicated that they plan to use options 1 - 3, and, as such, have assessed the impact of these restrictions on Chinese buyers to be minimal. Furthermore, according to a comment earlier this month by Lu Xiaodong, deputy general manager of state stockpile Sinograin, China is capable of fully meeting its needs without importing soybeans from the U.S.5 The extent to which buyers are successful in doing so will ultimately determine the overall impact of the trade dispute on U.S. ag markets. We expect China's solution will be a mélange of these four options. Below we assess these possibilities. Option 1: Chinese Buyers Are Turning To Other Major Producers An oft-noted change in Chinese purchasing behavior in reference to U.S. soybeans has been cited as the rationale for the negative sentiment towards U.S. ags. While it is true that Chinese buyers have been shunning American beans, the conclusion fails to recognize a few key points (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Soybean Exports Down On Weak Sales To China First, due to the difference in crop calendars - South American beans are harvested in spring while the U.S. crop is harvested in the fall - there is a clear seasonal pattern in China's purchasing behavior (Chart 6). Thus, greater Chinese imports of Brazilian soybeans are typical for this time of year. In addition, agricultural commodities are fungible, which means a reduction of China's imports of U.S. crops does not mean the U.S. crops will go to waste. While American crops are clearly trading at a disadvantage from the perspective of a Chinese buyer, there are still other foreign markets open to American ag exports. Now that these crops are selling at a discount, they have become much more competitive, incentivizing a shift in trade flows. This has already started - the U.S. has increased exports to consumers such as Egypt and Mexico, and even found soybeans buyers in Argentina and Brazil, both major producers of soybeans (Chart 7)! Chart 6Seasonality Is Partly To Blame Chart 7New Markets Opening Up For American Beans Option 2: China Will Adjust Its Feed Recipe China's decision to remove import tariffs on animal feed ingredients from Asian suppliers also highlights another policy route. To the extent possible, Chinese consumers will attempt to find substitutes for the now-more-costly U.S. imports. This includes supplies from alternative producers, and imports of substitute products. The potential from this option depends on the availability of close substitutes to replace ags exports affected by the Sino - U.S. trade dispute. In the case of soybeans, Chinese bean imports are crushed to produce meal and oil. The former is then used as a primary protein in livestock feed, while the latter is refined to be used in foods. Similarly, the majority of corn is also used as a critical ingredient in animal feed. As such, in face of higher costs, bean crushers will likely turn to meal from other protein substitutes such as rapeseed, peanuts and sunflower seeds. Nevertheless, soybean meal remains the optimal source of protein for livestock. Thus, while China will attempt to reduce its consumption of the tariff-laden U.S. ags, alternatives are not perfect substitutes. Consequently, this option does not completely eliminate the need for soybean imports. Option 3: Eat Into Ag Inventories Chart 8Chinese Stocks Will - Partially -##BR##Cushion The Blow Chinese ag inventories are relatively high and can cushion the blow to supply, at least temporarily (Chart 8). This means we may see a decline in Chinese stocks, on the back of drawdowns to fill in the gap left by lower imports from the U.S. While Beijing's stocks are notoriously large, there are reports that, in some cases, they are of low quality, and are unfit for human and animal consumption. Thus, this policy may appear more feasible on paper than in reality. Without accurate information regarding the size and quality of China's ag inventories, it is impossible to determine the potential of this option. Option 4: Absorb the Price Hike: Continue Importing - Now Pricier - U.S. Ags Chinese buyers likely will attempt to exhaust options 1 - 3 above, before resorting to purchasing now-pricier U.S. grains and beans. Nevertheless, it is inevitable - some U.S. ags will continue to flow to China. The relevant question - admittedly extremely difficult to quantify - is with regards to the magnitude of the impact. This essentially will depend on China's ability to use options 1 - 3, to avoid the now-higher import costs. While in the case of soybeans, U.S. exports have been shunned for now, the true test will come in the fall after the Brazilian harvest is over, and the market is flooded with the American crops. Furthermore, the 25% increase in costs due to the tariffs will, to some extent, be offset by the discount in the price of the American crops. Fundamentals Imply Higher Ag Prices While ag markets have taken several direct hits recently, we believe global fundamentals are not as bearish as current pricing conditions suggest. In the event there is a de-escalation of trade disputes - Scenario 2 above - prices will rebound to levels implied by fundamentals. While soybeans are expected to record a small surplus in the 2018 - 19 crop year, wheat and corn will be in a global deficit (Chart 9). Furthermore, global inventories - measured in stocks-to-use terms - are expected to come down. In the case of corn and soybeans, this will be the second consecutive annual decline (Chart 10). Chart 9Bullish Fundamentals On Back##BR##Of Corn And Wheat Deficits... Chart 10...And Falling##BR##Inventories In the corn market, the inventory drawdown is , to a large extent, driven by Chinese policy which is incentivizing the consumption of stocks by offering lower subsidies to corn farmers vs. soybeans, and through measures to encourage corn use for ethanol. This is expected to bring stocks down to levels last witnessed in the 1960s! On the other hand, U.S. soybean stocks are expected to continue increasing in line with lower demand for American beans by the world's largest soybean consumer (China). As always, weather is the biggest source of near term supply-side uncertainty. Wheat prices are supported by weather concerns in Europe - particularly the Black Sea region - which is damaging crops there. This is especially important given the expectation of a smaller crop there this year. Some Final Notes A couple of distinctions within the ags space reveals some ags are more vulnerable to the ongoing dispute than others. These are the number of sellers and the number of buyers in these markets. For instance, U.S. soybean exports have fewer foreign markets than corn, making them relatively more susceptible to downward price movements as supplies back up and are forced to find alternative markets. This is especially true since China is the single largest consumer of soybeans (Chart 11). Chart 11Global Wheat Market Relatively Insulated From Trade Frictions On the other hand, the global wheat market resembles a perfectly competitive market. This means that there are many buyers and sellers, each with limited ability to influence prices. Given that both the U.S. and China are price takers in this market, wheat prices will be relatively more insulated from trade headwinds. As such, we favor wheat in the current environment. Bottom Line: American farmers will be the losers in the still-evolving Sino - American trade disputes, as barriers are imposed on their exports, rendering them uncompetitive for their most significant foreign consumer. However, this will open markets for other global producers - most notably Brazil, Argentina, and the Black Sea region - making farmers there the winners in this dispute. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," dated July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Factbox: USDA's $12 billion farmer relief package," dated July 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, page 9 from "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, and "Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up," dated May 3, 2018. 4 Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team expect the trade dispute to intensify, especially before the mid-terms. However, tariffs already have been placed on most ag commodities we follow. This leaves little room for further risk from this direct channel, unless tariff rates are increased. 5 Please see "China does not need U.S. soybeans for state reserves: Sinograin official," dated June 12, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights President Trump has taken the next step in the trade war by charging some of America's major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. However, we are not headed for Plaza Accord 2.0, because neither the ECB nor the PBOC will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it. Moreover, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. With the labor market showing signs of overheating, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. The worsening trade dispute is the key risk that investors face and there are growing signs that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that most risk assets will outperform bonds and other defensive sectors in the near term. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. The flattening U.S. yield curve is also worrying. We would not ignore the signal if the curve inverts, although there are reasons to believe that it is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. We wish to see corroborating evidence from our other favorite indicators before trimming risk asset exposure to underweight. A peak in the S&P 500 operating margin would be a strong sign that the end of the cycle is drawing close. Even if trade tensions soon die down and global growth holds up, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. High-quality bonds will of course outperform in the next recession, but yields are likely to rise in the meantime. We believe that U.S. Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields. We also like Agency CMBS. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. Feature We warned in last month's Overview that investors had not yet seen "peak pessimism" on the global trade front. Right on cue, President Trump raised the stakes again in July by threatening to impose tariffs on virtually all imports of Chinese goods. Congress is pushing the President to be tough on China because American voters have soured on trade. China will not easily back down with the authorities responding in kind to the U.S. President's trade threats. They have also allowed the RMB to depreciate to cushion the trade blow (Chart I-1). It is not clear whether the authorities purposely depressed the RMB or whether they simply failed to lean against market pressures. Either way, it is a dangerous approach because it has clearly raised the U.S. President's ire. Chart I-1RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board President Trump has taken the next step in the broader trade war by charging some major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. The script appears to be following previous times that the U.S. sought trade adjustment via tariffs and currency re-alignment: the early 1970s and the 1985 Plaza Accord. Adjusting currencies on a sustained basis requires much more than simply "talking down" the dollar. There must be major changes in relative monetary and/or fiscal policies vis-à-vis U.S. trading partners. On the fiscal front, expansionary U.S. policy is working at cross purposes with the desire to have a weaker dollar and a smaller trade gap. We do not foresee the U.S. President having any success in changing the broad thrust of monetary policy either. Europe and Japan enjoyed booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and thus had the luxury of placating the U.S. by adjusting monetary policy and thereby appreciating their currencies. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that generates major bull markets in their currencies. Neither the ECB nor the People's Bank of China (PBOC) will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it.1 It is also unlikely that the Bank of Japan will raise the 10-year yield target to either strengthen the yen or to help bank profits. This is not Plaza Accord 2.0. Powell Isn't Arthur Burns As for the Fed, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. The Fed is more open and independent today than in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if Fed Chair Powell were amenable, any hint that he is being politically manipulated to change course would result in a bond market riot that would rattle investors to their core. More likely, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. Powell could not be any clearer in his July Congressional Testimony: "With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that-for now-the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the federal funds rate." Investors should not be fooled by the uptick in the U.S. unemployment rate in June. The rise reflected a pop in the labor force participation rate. However, the labor force figures are volatile and there is no upward trend evident in the participation rate. The real story is that the labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. The Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers shows that wage growth is accelerating. Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which leads core CPI inflation by 18 months, has already jumped to almost 3 ½% (Chart I-2). Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on cost increases to consumers (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Inflation Is Percolating Chart I-3U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise The Minutes from the mid-June FOMC meeting included a lengthy discussion of the growing signs of inflation pressure and labor shortage. Firms are responding to the lack of qualified labor by offering training, automating, and boosting wages. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bottlenecks and other cost pressures are boiling over in the transportation sector. Despite an acute shortage of truck drivers, the average hourly earnings data do not show any acceleration in their wages (Chart I-4, second panel). However, these data do not include bonuses, which have been on the rise. The PPI for truck transportation services was up 7.7% year-over-year in June, while the Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices rose 15.9% year-over-year. The latter does not even include fuel costs. These pipeline cost pressures have implications not only for the Fed, but for corporate profit margins as well (see below). Chart I-4U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over The U.S. Yield Curve: A Red Flag? The FOMC expects that the fed funds rate will continue to rise and will temporarily exceed its 2.9% estimate of the neutral rate. If the true neutral rate is higher than the Fed's estimate, then the FOMC could find itself hiking too slowly and the economy could severely overheat. And vice versa if the true neutral rate is below 2.9%. We are keeping a close eye on the yield curve as an indication of policy tightness. If the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would signal that the market believes that policy is turning restrictive. It is possible that the yield curve is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. First, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate in the post-GFC world. The collective market wisdom on this could be wrong. Indeed, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes the case that the neutral rate is rising faster than most investors believe.2 Structural factors have depressed the neutral rate, including population aging and low productivity growth. However, these structural tailwinds for bond prices are now slowly turning into headwinds. Moreover, as Peter argues, cyclical pressures are acting to lift the neutral rate. Private credit growth is rising faster than nominal GDP growth again. The same is true for housing and equity wealth, at a time when the personal saving rate is falling. All this implies strong desired spending which, in turn, suggests a higher neutral rate of interest. It will be important to watch the housing market; if it remains healthy in the face of rate hikes, it means that the neutral rate is still north of the actual fed funds rate. Chart I-5 presents today's market expectation for the real fed funds rate, based on the forward OIS curve and the forward CPI swaps curve. Technical issues may be distorting forward rates in 2019, but we are more interested in expectations further into the future. The real fed funds rate is expected to hover in the 55-75 basis point range until 2024. It then rises to about 1%, but not until almost the end of the next decade. This appears overly complacent to us, suggesting that the risks are to the upside for market expectations of the terminal, or neutral, short-term interest rate. If the neutral rate is indeed higher than the market is currently discounting, then an inverted curve may be premature in signaling that policy is too tight and that an economic slowdown is on the horizon. Moreover, the term premium on long-term bonds may still be depressed by asset purchases by the Fed and the other major central banks, again suggesting that the curve will more easily invert than in the past. There is much disagreement on this issue, even among FOMC members and among BCA strategists. This publication is sympathetic to the work done by the Fed Staff which suggests that the term premium has been substantially depressed by quantitative easing. Chart I-6 shows the annual change in the size of G4 central bank balance sheets (inverted), along with an estimate of the term premium in the 10-year government bonds of the major countries. The chart is far from conclusive, but it is consistent with the view that QE has depressed term premia worldwide. Moreover, forward guidance and the low level of inflation since the GFC have undoubtedly dampened interest-rate volatility, which theory suggests is a key driver of the term premium. Chart I-5Policy Rate Expectations Chart I-6Depressed Term Premiums ##br##Distort Yield Curves The factors that have depressed the term premium are beginning to reverse, including G4 central bank balance sheets. Still, the premium will trend higher from a low starting point, suggesting that an inverted curve today may not necessarily signal a recession. That said, it would be wrong to completely dismiss a U.S. curve inversion, given its excellent track record. Historically, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has worked better than the 2/10 yield slope in terms of calling recessions. An inversion of the 3-month/10-year curve has successfully heralded all seven recessions in the past 50 years with one false positive signal. Nonetheless, the curve tends to be very early, inverting an average of almost 12 months before the recession. And, given the possible distortion to the term premium, we would want to see corroborating evidence before jumping to the conclusion that an inverted curve is sending a correct recession signal. For example, the U.S. and/or global Leading Economic Indicator would need to turn negative. The bottom line is that a curve inversion would not be enough on its own to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, we are not dismissing the message from the yield curve either, especially in the context of a trade war that could prematurely end the expansion. Trade War Hitting Economy? Estimates based on macro models suggest that the damage to global GDP growth from higher tariffs would be quite small. Nonetheless, these models do not incorporate the indirect, or second-round, effects of rising tariff walls. Business leaders abhor uncertainty, and will no doubt hold off on major capital expenditure plans until the trade dust settles. The uncertainty can then ripple through the economy to industries that are not directly affected by the trade action. The extensive use of global supply chains reinforces this ripple effect. Labor is not free to move between countries or between industries to facilitate shifts in production that are required by changing tariffs. Capital is more mobile, but it is still expensive to shift machinery. Some of the world's capital stock could become "stranded", raising the cost of the tariffs to the world economy. Finally, important economies-of-scale are lost when firms no longer have access to a single large global market. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, sorts out the U.S. equity sector winners and the losers from a trade war with China. Spoiler alert: there are not many winners! The bottom line is that the trade threat for the global economy and risk assets is far from trivial. The negative trade headlines have not had a meaningful economic impact so far, but there are some worrying signs. A number of indicators suggest that global growth continues to slow, including the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index, the Global ZEW sentiment index and the BCA Global Credit Impulse index (Chart I-7). The softness in these indicators predates the latest flaring of trade tensions. Nonetheless, business confidence outside the U.S. has dipped (fourth panel). Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies (production related to energy, consumer products and IT remain strong; Chart I-8). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Chart I-8...In Part Due To Capital Spending None of these data are flagging a disaster, but they all support the view that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Even if trade tensions soon die down, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Late Cycle Investing Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods. Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment). This month we look at asset class returns during late cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart I-9). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM manufacturing index. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table I-1 presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the following recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in the margin to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart I-9Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Table I-1Late-Cycle Asset Returns We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cases the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a six month horizon. Similar to Treasurys, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasurys after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative absolute returns after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but relative performance was mixed after margins peaked. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value stocks before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend Aristocrats performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recessions on average, but the performance was not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge Funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns were a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured Product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns were attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during one of the recessions. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The historical return analysis underscores that it is dangerous to remain aggressively positioned late in an economic cycle because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears prudent. Based on this approach, investors should generally remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investors should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak. For fixed income, investors should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. There are some assets other than government bonds that generated a positive average return late in the cycle and during the recession periods, suggesting that they are good late-cycle assets to hold. However, this is misleading because in some cases they experienced a significant correction either during or slightly before the recession (see the maximum drawdown columns in Table I-1; blank cells indicate that the asset did not experience a correction). These include IG credit, CMBS, ABS, Gold and Dividend Aristocrats. The only assets in our list that provided both a positive return across all the phases in Table I-1 and avoided a correction during the recessions, were mortgage-backed securities, Timberland and Farmland. A Special Report from BCA's Global Asset Allocation service found that Timberland is a superior inflation hedge to Farmland, but the latter is a superior hedge against recessions and equity bear markets.3 We believe that Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields (as long as the Treasury selloff is not extreme). Our fixed income team also likes Agency CMBS.4 When Will U.S. Margins Peak? It is impressive that S&P 500 after-tax operating margins are extremely elevated and still rising. The trend has been aided by tax cuts, but corporate pricing power has improved and wage growth has not yet accelerated enough to damage margins. Chart I-10 presents some indicators to monitor as we await the cyclical peak in profit margins. These are generally not leading indicators, but they do provide some warning when they roll over late in the cycle. The first is the BCA Margin Proxy, which is the ratio of selling prices for the non-financial corporate sector to unit labor costs. Margins have tended to fall historically when the growth rate of this ratio is below zero. The same is true for nominal GDP growth minus aggregate wages. The aggregate wage bill incorporates both changes in wages/hour and in total hours worked. We are also watching a diffusion index of the changes in margins for the industrial components of the S&P 500, as well as BCA's Corporate Pricing Power indicator. The latter takes into consideration price changes at the detailed industry level. Chart I-10U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch None of these indicators are signaling an imminent top in margins, but all appear to have peaked except the Corporate Pricing Power indicator. An equally-weighted average of these four indicators, labelled the U.S. Composite Margin Indicator in Chart I-10, is falling but is still above the zero line. We would not be surprised to see S&P 500 margins peak for the cycle late early in 2019. Conclusions: The S&P 500 has so far been largely immune to shocking trade headlines with the help of a solid start to the U.S. Q2 earning season. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that investors should remain fully-exposed to most risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. These risks include a possible hard economic landing in China, crises in one or more EM countries, and an escalation in the trade war among others. Some investors appear to believe that the U.S. can "win" the trade war, but there are no winners when tariff walls are rising. We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. This includes equities, corporate bonds, EM assets and other risky sectors. An inversion of the yield curve could trigger a shift to underweight, although this signal would have to be corroborated by our other favorite U.S. and global indicators. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. The first statements by Jay Powell as FOMC Chair underscored that it is too early to hide in Treasurys. Market expectations for real short-term interest rates are overly benign out to the middle of the next decade. Moreover, the Fed is not in a position to be proactive in leaning against the negative impact of rising tariffs because inflation is near target and the labor market is showing signs of overheating. This means that bond yields are headed higher until economic pain is clearly evident. Keep duration short of benchmark. Long-term rate expectations for the Eurozone appear even more complacent than they do for the U.S. The real ECB policy rate is expected to remain in negative territory until 2028 (Chart I-5)! At some point there will be a convergence of real rate expectations with the U.S., which will boost the value of the euro. Nonetheless, we believe that it is too early to position for rate convergence. Core inflation is still well below target and Eurozone economic growth has softened recently, suggesting that the ECB will be in no hurry to lift rates once asset purchases have ended. ECB policymakers will be disinclined to cater to President's Trump's desire for tighter monetary policy in Europe, which means that the U.S. dollar has more upside versus the euro and in broad trade-weighted terms. An escalation in the trade war would augment upward pressure on the greenback. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. Emerging market assets are particularly vulnerable to another upleg in the dollar because of the high level of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. Favor DM to EM equity markets and currencies. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 26, 2018 Next Report: August 30, 2018 1 For more information on why a replay of the 1985 Plaza Accord is unlikely, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem," dated July 25, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Housing Will Drive the Global Business Cycle...Again," dated July 6, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation Service Special Report "U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer," dated October 24, 2017, available on gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem," dated July 17, 2018, available on usbs.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity-related indicators flashed caution again in July, despite robust U.S. corporate earnings indicators. Forward earnings estimates continued to surge in July. The net revisions ratio and the earnings surprises index remained well above average, suggesting that forward earnings still have upside potential in the coming months. However, several of our indicators suggest that it is getting late in the bull market. Our Monetary Indicator is approaching very low levels by historical standards. Equities are still close to our threshold of overvaluation, at a time when our Composite Technical Indicator appears poised to break down. An overvalued reading is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Equity sentiment is close to neutral according to our composite indicator, but the low level of implied volatility suggests that investors are somewhat complacent. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator has fallen significantly this year, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a ‘sell’ signal in July. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. This month’s Overview section discusses the upside potential for the term premium in the yield curve and for market expectations of the terminal fed funds rate. This year’s dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but we still believe it has some upside while market expectations for the terminal fed funds rate adjust upward. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Global Yields: Flattening government yield curves in the developed world have raised concerns about a potential future growth slowdown. Yet real policy rates will need to move into positive territory before monetary policy becomes truly restrictive and curves invert. This means global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. UST-Bund Spread: The U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). UST Technicals: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains bearish. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Feature In most years, investment professionals can look forward to taking some well-deserved time off in July to hit the beach and read a good book. This year, those same investors are forced to keep an eye on their Bloombergs while responding to the public musings of Donald Trump. The president made comments late last week that threatened the independence of the Federal Reserve, while also accusing China and Europe of currency manipulation. While those headlines can briefly move markets on a sunny summer day, they represent more Trump-ian bluster than any potential change in the conduct of U.S. monetary or currency policy. Chart of the WeekCan Policy Be Truly "Tight"##BR##With Negative Real Rates? The underlying dynamic remains one of mixed global growth (strong in the U.S., slowing almost everywhere else) but with low unemployment and rising inflation in most major economies. That means that independent, inflation-fighting central bankers must focus on their inflation mandates. In the U.S., that means more Fed rate hikes and a firm U.S. dollar, regardless of the desires of President Trump - the author of the large fiscal stimulus, at full employment, which is forcing the Fed to continue hiking rates. In other countries, however, the economic backdrop is leading to varying degrees of central banker hawkishness. That ranges from actual rate hikes (Canada) to tapering of bond buying (Europe, Japan) to merely talking up the potential for rate increases (U.K., Sweden, Australia). The aggregate monetary policy stance of the major developed market central banks is now tilted more hawkishly. So it is no surprise that global government bond yield curves have been flattening and returns on risk assets have been underwhelming (Chart of the Week). Yet the reality is that all major global curves still have a positive slope, even in the U.S. and Canada where central banks have been most actively tightening, while real policy interest rates remain below zero. It would be highly unusual for yield curves to invert before real rates turned positive, especially if central bankers must move to an outright restrictive stance given tight labor markets and rising realized inflation. This implies that there is more scope for global bond yields to rise over the next 6-12 months. We continue to recommend that investors maintain a defensive overall duration stance ... and to focus more on that good book on the beach and less on Trump's Twitter feed. Where To Next For The Treasury-Bund Spread? Chart 2A Pause In The Rising Yield Trend,##BR##Not A Reversal The rise in bond yields in both the U.S. and euro area seen in the first quarter of 2018 has been partly reversed since then. One of the culprits has been a stalling of the rally in oil markets, which has prompted a pause in the rise of inflation expectations on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 2). Yet another factor has been the larger decline in real bond yields, which have fallen around 20bps in the both the U.S. and euro area since the peak in mid-May (bottom two panels). A potential driver of those lower real yields is the growing concern over the potential hit to global growth from rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China (and Europe, Canada, Mexico, etc). This comes at a time when China's economic growth was already slowing and acting as a drag on global trade activity and commodity prices. There has been significant weakness in China's currency and equity market of late, which raises the specter of another broader global selloff as occurred during the Chinese turbulence of 2015/16. Yet the declines in industrial metals prices and emerging market corporate debt have been far more modest so far in 2018 (Chart 3). A big reason for that has been the more subdued performance of the U.S. dollar this year, unlike the massive surge in 2015/16 that crushed risk assets worldwide (Chart 4). A more likely driver of the recent drop in real yields in the U.S. and core Europe was the slump in euro area economic data earlier in 2018. That move not only drove yields lower, but also pushed out the market-implied timing of the first ECB rate hike (Chart 5) and drove the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds to new wides. In our last Weekly Report, we updated our list of indicators in the U.S. and euro area that we have been monitoring to assess if our below-benchmark duration stance was still appropriate.1 The conclusion was that the underlying trends in growth and inflation on both sides of the Atlantic still supported higher bond yields on a cyclical basis, although the pressures were greater in the U.S. Yet at the same time, the gap between U.S. and euro area government bond yields has remained historically wide, with the 10-year Treasury-German Bund spread now sitting at 255bps - the highest level since the late 1980s. Chart 3Slowing Growth##BR##In China... Chart 4...But Not Yet Enough To Threaten##BR##Global Financial Stability Monetary policy differences have historically been the biggest driver of that spread. Today, the Fed is well into an interest rate hiking cycle that began nearly three years ago, and is now in the process of unwinding its balance sheet. Meanwhile, the ECB has been keeping policy rates at or below 0% while engaging in large-scale bond buying (Chart 6). Chart 5A Turn In European Yields##BR##On The Horizon? Chart 6Wide UST-Bund Spread Reflects##BR##Monetary Policy Divergences When looking at more typical fundamental drivers of the Treasury-Bund spread, many of the cross-regional differences are already "in the price". The spread appears to have overshot relative to the three main factors that go into our Treasury-Bund spread valuation model (Chart 7): The gap between Fed and ECB policy rate The ratio of the U.S. unemployment rate to the euro area equivalent The gap between headline inflation in the U.S. and euro area The Fed's rate hikes have now widened the policy rate differential versus the ECB equivalent (the short-term repo rate) to 200bps. At the same time, the rapidly improving situation in the euro area labor market now means that the unemployment ratio has been constant over the past couple of years, while euro area inflation has also caught up a bit toward U.S. levels in recent months. Adding it all up together in our Treasury-Bund valuation model - which also includes the sizes of the Fed and ECB balance sheets to quantify the impact on yields of bond-buying programs - and the conclusion is that the current spread level of 255bps is 50bps above "fair value" (Chart 8). Chart 7UST-Bund Spread Overshooting Fundamentals Chart 8UST-Bund Spread Looks Wide On Our Model Importantly, fair value is still rising, primarily because of the widening policy rate differential. We have consistently argued that the true cyclical peak in the Treasury-Bund spread will occur when the Fed is done with its rate hike cycle. Yet there are opportunities to play that spread more tactically, based on shorter-term indicators. For example, the gap between the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area has been a correlated to the momentum of the Treasury-Bund spread, measured as the 13-week change of the level of the spread (Chart 9). Data surprises are now bottoming out in the euro area while they continue to drift lower in the U.S. As a result, the Treasury-Bund spread momentum has begun to fade, right in line with the narrowing of the data surprise differential. Also from a more technical perspective, the deviation of the Treasury-Bund spread from its 200-day moving average is at one of the more stretched levels of the past decade. Combined with the extended spread momentum, this suggests that the Treasury-Bund spread should expect to see a period of consolidation in the next few months (Chart 10). Chart 9Relative Data Surprises No Longer##BR##Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 10UST-Bund Spread Momentum##BR##Got To Stretched Extremes We have been recommending both a structural short U.S./long core Europe position in our model bond portfolio for over a year now. We also entered into a trade that directly played for a wider 10-year Treasury-Bund spread in our Tactical Trade portfolio. We initiated that recommendation on August 8th, 2017 when the spread was at 162bps. With the spread now at 255bps, we are now closing out that recommendation this week, taking a profit of 7% (inclusive of the gains from hedging the Bund exposure into U.S. dollars).2 At the same time, we feel that it is too early to position for a narrowing of the Treasury-Bund spread. The large U.S. fiscal stimulus will continue to put upward pressure on U.S. bond yields over the next year, both through higher U.S. inflation and the associated need for tighter Fed policy. Already, the Treasury-Bund spread reflects both the relatively larger dearth of spare capacity in the U.S. economy (Chart 11) and the expected widening of the U.S. federal budget deficit compared to reduced deficits in the euro area (Chart 12). Much like the rise in the fair value of the Treasury-Bund spread, this suggests that there is limited downside for the spread on a more medium-term basis. Chart 11UST-Bund Spread Narrowing Will Be##BR##Limited By Faster U.S. Growth... Chart 12...The Result Of Looser##BR##U.S. Fiscal Policy We are taking profits on our tactical spread based on our read of all of our relevant indicators. There is a good chance, however, that we could consider re-entering a spread widening trade on any meaningful narrowing of the spread or adjustment in our indicators. Bottom Line: The fundamental drivers of the 10-year U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread continue to point to the spread staying wide over the next 6-12 months. Yet the spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). A Quick Update On U.S. Treasury Market Technicals One of the overriding aspects of the U.S. Treasury market over the past few months has been the stretched technical backdrop. The combination of oversold price momentum, bearish sentiment and aggressive short positioning have helped keep yields in check, even as U.S. growth and inflation accelerate and the Fed continues to signal more future rate hikes. Back in March, we presented a study of previous episodes of an oversold U.S. Treasury market since the year 2000.3 Our goal was to determine how long it typically took for a resolution of oversold Treasury market conditions. Unsurprisingly, we concluded that the longest episodes of oversold Treasuries occurred when U.S. economic growth and core inflation were both accelerating, and vice versa. At the time of that report, all of the technical indicators that we looked at were signaling that Treasury bearishness was deeply entrenched (Chart 13). Now, four months later, there has been some change in those indicators: Chart 13UST Technical Indicators##BR##Are More Mixed Now The 10-year Treasury yield relative to its 200-day moving average: then, +43bps; now, +18bps The trailing 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index: then, -4.3%; now, -0.6% The J.P. Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders: then, very large underweight duration positioning; now, positioning is neutral The Market Vane index of bullish sentiment for Treasuries: then, near the bottom of the range since 2000; now, still near that same level The CFTC data on speculator positioning in 10-year U.S. Treasury futures: then, a large net short of -8% (scaled by open interest); now, still a large net short of -11%. Therefore, the message from the technical indicators is more mixed now than in March. Price momentum and duration positioning is now neutral, while sentiment and speculative positions remain stretched. The former suggests that there is scope for Treasury yields to begin climbing again, while the latter implies that there may still be room for some counter-trend short-covering Treasury rallies in the near term. In our March study, we defined the duration of each episode of an oversold Treasury market by the following conditions: The start date was when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 30bps above its 200-day moving average and the Market Vane Treasury bullish sentiment index dipped below 50; The end-date was when the yield declined below its 200-day moving average. The details of each of those episodes can be found in Table 1. This is the same table that we presented back in March, but we have now added the current episode. At 150 days in length, this is already the fourth longest period of an oversold Treasury market since 2000. Yet perhaps most surprising is the fact that Treasury yields are essentially unchanged since the start date of the current episode (March 20th, 2018). There is no other period in our study that where yields did not decline while the oversold market resolved itself. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold U.S. Treasury Market Perhaps this can be interpreted as a sign that there is still scope for a final short-covering Treasury rally before this current oversold episode can truly end. Yet as we concluded in our March study, it took an average of 156 days for an oversold market to be fully corrected if U.S. growth was accelerating (i.e. the ISM manufacturing index was rising) and core PCE inflation were both rising at the same time - as is currently the case (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S. Growth/Inflation Backdrop Points To Yields Consolidating, Not Reversing The longest such episode in 2003/04 lasted for 203 days before the 10-year yield fell below its 200-day moving average. Yet the second longest episode (196 days) occurred in 2013/14, and Treasury yields ended up climbing to a new cyclical high before eventually peaking. Given the underlying positive momentum in both U.S. economic growth and inflation, but with a mixed message from the technical indicators, we suspect that this current oversold episode may have further to run. Yet as we concluded back in March, and still believe today, it will prove difficult to earn meaningful returns betting on a counter-trend decline in yields this time, as any such move will likely be modest in size and lengthy in duration. Bottom Line: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains very bearish and there are large speculative short positions. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market", dated July 17th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The return on this trade is calculated using the Bloomberg Barclays 7-10-year government bond indices for the U.S. and Germany, adjusted for duration differences between the indices. The German return is hedged into U.S. dollars, as this trade was done on a currency-hedged basis. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering From Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20th 2018, available at gfis.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

Please note that our next publication will be a joint special report with BCA’s Geopolitical Service that will be published on Wednesday, August 1st instead of our usual Monday publishing schedule. Further, there will be no publication on Monday, August 6th. We will be returning to our normal publishing schedule thereafter. Highlights We continue to explore a cyclical over defensive portfolio bent, and the capex upcycle along with higher interest rates are our key investment themes for the remainder of the year. A number of sentiment indicators have broken out (Chart 1), and our sense is that the SPX will also hit fresh all-time highs in the coming quarters. While buybacks vaulted to uncharted territory in Q1/2018 (Chart 2), our profit growth model suggests that EPS will continue to expand at a healthy clip for the rest of the year (Chart 3) and 10% EPS growth is achievable in calendar 2019. Positive macro forces remain in place with the ISM - manufacturing and non-manufacturing - surveys reaccelerating. Beneath the surface, the new-orders-to-inventories ratio is gaining traction and even the trade-related subcomponents (new export orders and imports) are ticking higher. High backlogs also suggest that SPX revenue growth will remain upbeat (Chart 4). Non-farm payrolls are expanding on a month-over-month basis for 93 consecutive months, a record (Chart 5), at a time when the real fed funds rate remains near the zero line (Chart 6). As a result, the economy is overheating. Corporate selling price inflation is skyrocketing, according to our gauge, with our diffusion index catapulting to multi-decade highs. This represents a positive margin backdrop as wage inflation remains muted (Chart 7). While at first sight, valuations appear dear, a simple thought experiment suggests that soon they will deflate1 (Chart 8). And, on a forward price-to-earnings-to-growth (PEG) basis, valuations have sunk to one standard deviation below the historical mean (Chart 9). Two key risks that we are closely monitoring that can put our cyclically positive equity market view offside are: a sustained rise in the U.S. dollar infiltrating profit growth (Chart 10), and corporate balance sheet degradation short-circuiting the broad equity market (Chart 11). Chart 1Sentiment Is Breaking Out Chart 2Buybacks Are Soaring Chart 3Earnings Growth Hasnt Slowed... Chart 4...And Backlogs Suggest They Wont Chart 5Record Jobs Growth... Chart 6...And Still-Loose Monetary Policy Chart 7Wage Growth Is Trailing Chart 8The Market Is Not That Expensive... Chart 9...By Several Measures Chart 10A Strong Dollar Is A Risk Chart 11Corporate Sector Leverage Is Too High Feature S&P Industrials (Overweight) While our industrials CMI remains very near 20-year highs, it has lost its upward momentum this year due almost entirely to the strength of the U.S. dollar, though sliding global PMI surveys have also started to weigh (second panel, Chart 13). Combined with heightened fears of a trade war, the internationally geared S&P industrials have come under pressure. Chart 12S&P Industrials (Overweight) Chart 13Positive Industrial Growth Backdrop Still, demand growth has been resilient and continues to soar as the capex upcycle has not yet run its course and the implications for top line and profit growth are unambiguously positive (third and bottom panels, Chart 13). Should some let up emerge from the current break down of international trade, we would expect earnings to resume their role as the fundamental driver for industrials. Our valuation gauge has rapidly declined this year as extreme bearishness is not reflected by the strong profit backdrop. From a technical perspective, S&P industrials have been the most oversold since the Great Recession. S&P Energy (Overweight, High-Conviction) Our energy CMI has continued to push higher from the extremely depressed levels of 2016 and 2017. Still, the much better cyclical environment has started to get reflected in relative share prices with the S&P energy index besting all other GICS1 sectors in Q2. We recently refined our energy sector sub-surface positioning that sustains the broad energy complex in the overweight column, and we reiterated its high-conviction status. We believe the steep recovery in underlying commodity prices, which the market has thus far failed to show much confidence in, has started to restore some semblance of normality in the exploration & production (E&P) stocks space (top panel, Chart 15). Chart 14S&P Energy (Overweight, High Conviction) Chart 15A Capex Boom As Oil Reignites Similar to the broad energy complex that integrateds dominate, oil & gas E&P producers are a capital expenditure upcycle play, which remains a key BCA theme for the year (second panel, Chart 15). Accordingly, we raised the S&P oil & gas E&P index to an overweight stance. Simultaneously, weakening crack spreads (third panel, Chart 15) and rising gasoline inventories (bottom panel, Chart 15) have given us cause for concern for refiners. As a result, we trimmed the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to underweight, though this did not shake our high-conviction overweight position on the broad S&P energy index. Our Valuation Indicator (VI) remains near deeply undervalued territory, and indicates an attractive entry point for fresh capital. Our Technical Indicator (TI) has fully recovered from oversold levels and now sends a neutral message. S&P Financials (Overweight) The pace of improvement in our financials cyclical macro indicator (CMI) has not abated. However, the usual tight correlation between the CMI and the relative performance of the S&P financials index has broken down. An important culprit has been the heavyweight S&P banks sub-index and its transition from a correlation with the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve slope earlier this year (top and second panels, Chart 17). While the former is still up year-over-year, the latter has continued to flatten and the result is likely a squeeze on banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver; we recently booked gains of 6% and removed it from the high-conviction overweight list, and the S&P banks index is currently on downgrade watch. Chart 16S&P Financials (Overweight) Chart 17Growth And Credit Quality Offset A Flat Yield Curve Still, our key three reasons for being overweight the S&P financials index remain unchanged. Rising yields and the accompanying higher price of credit are a boon to financials and a core BCA theme for 2018 remains higher interest rates. The global capex upcycle, another of BCA's key themes for 2018, has paused for breath, though it has been replaced by soaring U.S. demand. This exceptional willingness of U.S. CEOs to expand their balance sheets should mean capital formation will proceed at well above-trend pace, and further underpin C&I loan growth (third panel, Chart 17). Lastly, a low unemployment rate drives both expanding consumer credit and much better credit quality. At present, the unemployment rate is testing all-time lows, sending an unambiguously positive message for financials profitability (bottom panel, Chart 17). Market bearishness has more than offset the positive fundamentals and the S&P financials index has underperformed in 2018; the result has been a steep fall in our VI to nearly one standard deviation below normal. The bearishness is also reflected in our TI which has recently collapsed into oversold territory. S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Our consumer staples CMI has moved sideways since our last update, near a depressed level. This is reflected in the share price performance; defensives in general and staples in particular have been woefully unloved this year. However, we believe positive macro undercurrents have made bargain basement prices in consumer staples an exceptional deal, particularly for investors willing to withstand short term volatility for a long-term investment gain. We recently pointed out that, while non-discretionary demand is losing share versus overall outlays, spending on essentials as a percentage of disposable income is gaining steam. The bearish read on this would be that this could be a pre-cursor to recession, but our interpretation is that latent staples-related buying power may make a comeback from a still very depressed level and kick-start industry sales growth (top panel, Chart 19). Chart 18S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Chart 19Staples Are Poised For A Recovery Meanwhile consumer staples exports are flying in the face of a rising U.S. dollar, which has typically presaged relative earnings gains (second panel, Chart 19). Considering the already-strong industry return on equity, any relative earnings gains should result in a valuation rerating (third panel, Chart 19). Both our VI and TI concur; as they are both more than a standard deviation below fair value. S&P Health Care (Neutral) Earlier this month, we lifted the S&P pharma and biotech indexes to neutral and, given that these sectors command roughly a 50% weighting in the S&P health care sector, these upgrades also lifted the health care sector to a neutral portfolio weighting. Sentiment has moved squarely against the sector and the bar for upward surprises has been lowered enough to create fertile ground for upside surprises. As shown in the second panel of Chart 21, health care long-term EPS growth expectations have never been lower in the history of the I/B/E/S/ data. This is contrarily positive, particularly given how our VI has remained under pressure and our TI has sunk. Chart 20S&P Health Care (Neutral) Chart 21Peak Pessimism In Health Care Still, our health care CMI has been treading water at relatively low levels, but our S&P health care earnings model suggests that at least a bottom in profit growth has formed (bottom panel, Chart 21). S&P Technology (Neutral) We lifted the S&P technology index to neutral earlier this year to capitalize on one of BCA's key themes for 2018: synchronized global capex upcycle, of which the broad tech sector is a core beneficiary (second panel, Chart 23).2 Software and tech hardware & peripherals are the two key sub-indexes we prefer and have also put on our high-conviction overweight list. Chart 22S&P Technology (Neutral) Chart 23A Capex Upcycle Should Sustain High Valuations There is still pent up demand for tech spending that is being unleashed following over a decade of severe underinvestment. In addition, consumer spending on tech goods is also at the highest level since the history of the data, underscoring that end demand is upbeat (third panel, Chart 23). On the global demand front, EM Asian exports are climbing at the fastest clip in ten years; tech sales and EM Asian exports are historically joined at the hip and the current message is positive (bottom panel, Chart 23). The technology CMI has also turned positive this year after falling for the previous three, though an appreciating dollar and higher interest rates continue to suppress an otherwise exceptionally robust macro environment. Valuations, while still in the neutral zone, have reached their highest level in a decade. This may prove risky should inflation mount faster than expected; a de-rating phase in technology would likely follow. Our TI is in overbought territory, though it has been at this high level for several years. S&P Utilities (Neutral) Our utilities CMI appears to have found a bottom, arresting the linear downtrend of the previous decade. Declining earnings have steadied out as the industry has found some discipline; new investment has declined and turbine & generator inventories have ticked up (second panel, Chart 25). The result of declining investment has been a slight improvement in capacity utilization, albeit still at a relatively low level (third panel, Chart 25). Chart 24S&P Utilities (Neutral) Chart 25Earnings Are Looking For A Bottom The uptick in capacity utilization has driven a surge in industry pricing power, despite flat natural gas prices which have historically been the industry price setter; this could be the precursor to a recovery in sector earnings (bottom panel, Chart 25). Still, as with other defensive sectors, utilities have underperformed cyclical sectors in the last year; this has been exacerbated by utilities trading as fixed income proxies. Our VI does not provide much direction as it has been in the neutral zone for the past year, underscoring our benchmark allocation recommendation. Our TI fell steeply earlier this year, though it has recovered and offers a neutral reading. S&P Materials (Neutral) The materials CMI has come under pressure as the Fed has continued to tighten monetary policy. A further selloff in bonds remains the BCA view for 2018, implying rising real rates will weigh on the sector for at least the remainder of the year. The heavyweight chemicals component of the materials index typically sees earnings (and hence stock prices) underperform as real interest rates are moving higher (real rates shown inverted, top panel, Chart 27). Chart 26S&P Materials (Neutral) Chart 27This Time Is Different For Chemicals On the operating front, chemicals sector productivity has made solid gains over the past year and the sell-side bearishness for much of the past decade has finally reversed (second panel, Chart 27). Further, overcapacity, the usual death knell of the chemicals cycle, seems to be a thing of the past as the industry has massively scaled back on capital deployment on the heels of a mega global M&A cycle (third panel, Chart 27). Net, operating improvements might offset macro headwinds. Our VI echoes this neutral message and sits on the fair value line. Our TI is somewhat more bullish and is edging toward an oversold position. S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Our real estate CMI looks to have found a bottom earlier this year, though the only time it has been worse was during the Great Financial Crisis. Real estate stocks are continuing to behave like fixed income proxies, as they have since the overhang from the GFC gave way to a yield focus (top panel, Chart 29). In the context of a tightening monetary backdrop, we would need compelling operating or valuation reasons to maintain even a benchmark allocation in the sector; these are both absent. Chart 28S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Chart 29Dark Clouds Forming On the operating front, the commercial real estate (CRE) sector is waving a red flag. The occupancy rate has clearly crested and rents are headed down with it, warning of declining sector cash flows (second panel, Chart 29). While CRE credit quality shows no signs of deterioration, at this stage of the cycle and given weak industry profit fundamentals we would caution against extrapolating such good times far into the future (third panel, Chart 29). We recently initiated a trade to capitalize on relative CRE weakness by going long the S&P homebuilding index/short the S&P REITs index.3 Such overwhelming bearishness would suggest the sector would be relatively cheap, but our VI suggests that REITs are fairly valued. Our TI is has been unwinding an oversold position and is now in neutral territory. S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) In early March, we identified three key factors that we expected to weigh on the consumer discretionary sector: a rising fed funds rate, quantitative tightening and higher prices at the pump. As highlighted in Chart 31, all of these factors remain intact and underlie the two-year decline in the consumer discretionary CMI. Chart 30S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Chart 31The Amazon Effect Further, were we to exclude AMZN from the day the S&P included it in the SPX and the S&P 500 consumer discretionary index (November 21st, 2005), then the vast majority of consumer discretionary stocks are actually following the typical historical relationship with the Fed's tightening cycle (fed funds rates shown inverted, top panel, Chart 31). Put differently, the equal weighted S&P consumer discretionary relative share price ratio is indeed following the Fed's historical tightening path (bottom panel, Chart 31). Meanwhile, our VI has broken out to nearly its highest level ever which we believe is largely a function of the decreasing diversification of the S&P consumer discretionary index as AMZN now represents nearly a quarter of its market value, and about to get even larger in the upcoming introduction of the Communications Services GICS1 sector, but only comprises 3% of this sector's net income. Our TI agrees with our VI and is well into overbought territory. S&P Telecommunication Services (Underweight) Our telecom services CMI, bounced off its 30-year low earlier this year, but not nearly enough for a bullish position to be established. Rather, our bearish thesis remains unchanged: A combination of still-tepid pricing power weighing on earnings (second panel, Chart 33), weak consumer spending (bottom panel, Chart 33) and higher Treasury yields (which are negatively correlated with high-dividend yielding telecom services stocks, top panel, Chart 33), should all keep relative performance suppressed. Chart 32S&P Telecommunication Services (Underweight) Chart 33Pricing Power Is Still On Hold Valuations have fallen significantly - our VI continues to touch new lows - and our TI has been indicating a persistently oversold position, but we think the industry is in a de-rating phase, implying the new valuation paradigm has a degree of permanence. Size Indicator (Favor Large Vs. Small Caps) Our size CMI has fallen back to the boom/bust line. Keep in mind that this CMI is not designed as a directional trend predictor, but rather as a buy/sell oscillator; the current message is neutral. Despite the neutral CMI reading, we downgraded small caps earlier this year,4 and moved to a large cap preference, based on the diverging (and unsustainable) debt levels of small caps vs. their large cap peers (top and second panels, Chart 35). We expect the divergence in leverage and stock price to be rationalized as it usually has: via a fall in the latter. Chart 34Size Indicator (Favor Large Vs. Small Caps) Chart 35Small Cap Leverage Is Critical Our call has thus far been slightly offside as small caps have been outperforming: investors have sought the trade-friction free shelter that small caps offer compared with internationally exposed large caps. Extreme optimism also reigns throughout the small cap world (third panel, Chart 35). However, we continue to think a turn is merely a matter of time; the NFIB's "good time to expand" reading is at its highest level in the history of the survey (bottom panel, Chart 35) which means small cap CEOs are more likely to push their already-stretched balance sheets closer to the breaking point. Our TI is telling us that small caps are overbought, but the VI continues to offer a neutral message. Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, "How Expensive Is The SPX?" dated July 6, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Buying Opportunity," dated April 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "UnReal Estate Opportunity," dated July 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "UnReal Estate Opportunity," dated July 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Rising non-OPEC production and the Trump administration's successful efforts at jawboning OPEC into increasing oil production - including a not-so-subtle threat that American protection of the Cartel's Gulf Arab producers would be withheld if production weren't ramped - will keep oil prices under pressure in 2H18. Markets could become chaotic in 2019: Iran's capacity to close the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below in this Special Report written jointly by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy - cannot be dismissed. An extended closure of the Strait - our most dire scenario - could send prices on exponential trajectories: In one simulation, above $1,000/bbl. We are keeping our forecast for 2H18 Brent at $70/bbl, unchanged from June, and lowering our 2019 expectation by $2 to $75/bbl. We expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent. Rising geopolitical uncertainty will widen the range in which oil prices trade - i.e., it will lift volatility. Energy: Overweight. We are moving to a tactically neutral weighting, while maintaining our strategic overweight recommendation. We are closing our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread but are retaining long call-spread exposures in 2019 along the Brent forward curve. Base Metals: Neutral. Contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida copper mine are yet to be resolved. The union rejected BHP's proposal late last week, and threatened to vote for a strike unless substantial changes were made. Failure to reach a labor deal at the Escondida mine led to a 44-day strike last year, and an extension of the contract. This agreement expires at the end of this month. Precious Metals: Neutral. Increasing real rates in the U.S. and a stronger USD are offsetting safe-haven demand for gold, which is down 10% from its 2018 highs of $1360/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The Chinese agriculture ministry lowered its forecast for 2018/19 soybean imports late last week to 93.85 mm MT from 95.65 mm MT. This is in line with its adjustment to consumption this year, now forecast at 109.23 from 111.19 mm MT. Tariffs are expected to incentivize Chinese consumers to prefer alternative proteins - e.g., rapeseed - and to replace U.S. soybean imports with those from South America. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump jawboned OPEC Cartel members - particularly its Gulf Arab members - into raising production. This was accompanied with a none-too-subtle threat implying continued U.S. protection of the Gulf Arab states was at risk if oil production were not lifted.1 OPEC, particularly KSA, responded by lifting production and pledging to keep it at an elevated level. In addition, non-OPEC production growth has been particularly strong this year, and will remain so. These combined production increases will contribute to a modest rebuilding of inventories in 2H18, as markets prepare for the loss of as much as 1 MMb/d of Iranian oil exports beginning in November (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekOECD Inventory##BR##Depletion Will Slow Chart 2Global Balances Will Loosen,##BR##As Higher Supply Meets Steady Demand Estimated 2H18 total OPEC production rose a net 130k b/d, led by a 180k b/d increase on the part of KSA, which will average just under 10.6 MMb/d in the second half of the year. Non-OPEC production for 2H18 was revised upward by 180k b/d in our balances models - based on historical data from the U.S. EIA and OPEC - led by the U.S. shales, which were up close to 700k b/d over 1Q18 levels. This led to a combined increase in global production of 310k b/d in 2H18. With demand growth remaining at 1.7 MMb/d y/y for 2018 and 2019, we expect the higher output from OPEC and non-OPEC sources to loosen physical balances in 2H18 (Chart 2 and Table 1).2 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) In and of itself, increased production will reverse some of the depletion of OECD inventories targeted by OPEC 2.0 in its effort to rebalance the market. All else equal, this would be bearish for prices. However, we are keeping our price forecast for 2H18 unchanged from last month - $70/bbl for Brent in 2H18 - and lowering our expectation for Brent to $75/bbl in 2019. This adjustment in next year's expectation reflects our belief that this round of increased production by OPEC 2.0 arguably is being undertaken specifically to rebuild storage ahead of the re-imposition of export sanctions by the U.S. against Iran. Re-imposing sanctions unwinds a deal negotiated by the U.S. and its allies in 2015, which relaxed nuclear-related sanctions against Iran in exchange for commitments to scale back its involvement across the Middle East in the affairs of Arab states with restive Shia populations.3 The re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. against Iran has set off a round of diplomatic barbs and thrusts on both sides. President Trump declared he wanted Iran's oil exports to go to zero, which was followed by Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. This set oil markets on edge, given that close to 20% of the world's oil flows through the Strait on any given day.4 Geopolitics Reasserts Itself In The Gulf Oil prices will become increasingly sensitive to geopolitical developments, particularly in the Gulf, now that the U.S. and its allies - chiefly KSA - and Iran and its allies are preparing to square off diplomatically, and possibly militarily. This will lead to a wider range in which oil will trade - i.e., we expect more significant deviations from fundamentally implied values, as markets attempt to price in highly uncertain outcomes to political events.5 Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below - will remain elevated post-sanctions being re-imposed, even if we only see threats to traffic through this most-important oil transit. Chart 3 shows that in periods when the error term of our fundamental econometric model increases, it typically coincides with higher implied volatilities. Specifically, the confidence interval around our fundamental-based price forecast widens in times of heightened uncertainty and volatility. The larger the volatility, the larger the squared deviation between our fitted Brent prices against actual prices.6 This indicates the probability of ending 2H18 exactly at our $70/bbl target is reduced as mounting upside - e.g. faster-than-expected collapse in Venezuelan crude exports, rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz or larger-than-expected Permian pipeline/production bottlenecks - and downside - e.g. escalating U.S.-Sino trade war tensions, increasing Libyan and Nigerian production - risks push the upper and lower bounds around our forecast further apart. Chart 3Increasing Sensitivity To Geopolitics Will Widen Crude's Price Range This directly translates into a wider range in which prices will trade - uncertainty is high, and, while it is being resolved, markets will remain extremely sensitive to any information that could send prices on an alternative path (Chart 4). Chart 4Greater Geopolitical Uncertainty Widens Oil Price Trading Range Risks related to a closure of the Strait are not accounted for in our forecasts. However, given the magnitude of the risks implied by even the remote possibility of a closure, we expect markets will put a risk premium into prices. In an attempt to frame out price estimates from a short (10-day) and long (100-day) closure, we provide some cursory simulation results below.7 Can Iran Close The Strait Of Hormuz? The Strait of Hormuz, through which some 20% of global oil supply transits daily, is the principal risk that will keep markets hyper-vigilant going forward.8 A complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) would be the greatest disruption of oil production in history, three times more significant than the supply loss following the Islamic Revolution in 1979 (Chart 5). By our estimate, a 10-day closure at the beginning of 2H19 could pop prices by ~ $25/bbl. A 100-day closure could send prices above $1,000/bbl in our estimates. Map 1Iran Threatens Gulf Shipments Again Chart 5Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses So, the question naturally arises, can Iran's forces close the Strait? Iran's ability is limited by structural and military factors, but it could definitely impede traffic through the globe's most crucial energy chokepoint. There are two scenarios for the closure of the Strait: (i) Iran does so preemptively in retaliation to crippling economic sanctions; or (ii) Iran does so in retaliation to an attack against its nuclear facilities. Either scenario is possible in 2019, as the U.S. intends to re-impose sanctions against Iranian oil exports on November 9, a move that could lead to armed conflict if Iran were to retaliate (Diagram 1).9 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree SCENARIO I - Preemptive Closure In the past, Tehran has threatened to preemptively close the Strait of Hormuz whenever tensions regarding its nuclear program arose. The threats stopped in mid-2012, as U.S. and Iranian officials engaged in negotiations over the country's nuclear program. However, on July 4 of this year, Iran's nominally moderate President Hassan Rouhani pledged that Tehran would retaliate to an oil export embargo by closing the Strait. Rouhani's comments were reinforced on July 5 by the commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, whose forces patrol the Strait, Mohammad Ali Jafari. Could Iran actually impede traffic through the Strait of Hormuz?10 Yes. Our most pessimistic scenario posits that Iran could close the waterway for about three or four months. This is based on three military capabilities: mines, land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), and a large number of small boats for suicide-like attack waves. In our pessimistic scenario, we assume that Iran would be able to deploy about 700 mines and threaten the Strait by firing only one anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) operated via land-based batteries or ship per day, in order to prolong the threat.11 In that way, Iran could draw out the threat indefinitely. The length of closure is based on how long it would take the U.S. naval assets in the region to clear the mines, establish a Q-route - corridor within which the probability of hitting a mine is below 10% - and locate ASCM radars and batteries. The pessimistic scenario is unlikely to occur because of several countermeasures that the U.S. and its regional allies could employ - anti-mine operations, meant to clear a so-called Q route allowing safe passage of oil tankers under U.S. naval escort; punitive retaliation, which would inflict punitive damage on Iran's economy and infrastructure; and, lastly, Iran would not want to risk exposing its radar-guided anti-ship missiles to U.S. suppression of enemy air-defense (SEAD) operations that seek and destroy radars. Despite Iran's growing capability, we still posit that its forces would only be able to close the Strait of Hormuz for between three-to-four months. However, the more likely, "optimistic," scenario is that the closure itself lasts 7-10 days, while Iran then continues to threaten, but not actually close, the Strait for up to four months. It would be worth remembering that the U.S. has already retaliated against a potential closure, precisely 30 years ago. Midway through the Iran-Iraq war, both belligerents began attacking each other's tankers in the Gulf. Iran also began to attack Kuwaiti tankers after it concluded that the country was assisting with Iraq's war efforts. In response, Kuwait requested U.S. assistance and President Ronald Reagan declared in January 1987 that tankers from Kuwait would be flagged as American ships. After several small skirmishes over the following year, the USS Samuel B Roberts hit a mine north of Qatar. The mine recovered was linked to documents found by the U.S. during an attack on a small Iranian vessel laying mines earlier in 1987. The U.S. responded by launching Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, 1988. During the operation, which only lasted a day, the U.S. navy seriously damaged Iran's naval capabilities before it was ordered to disengage as the Iranians quickly retreated. Specifically, two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six gunboats were destroyed. The USS Wainwright also engaged two Iranian F-4s, forcing both to retreat after one was damaged. From this embarrassing destruction of Iran's naval assets, the country realized that conventional capabilities stood little chance against a far superior U.S. navy. As a result, Iran has strengthened its asymmetrical sea capabilities, such as the use of small vessels, and has made evident that the use of mines would be integral to its engagements with foreign navies in the Gulf. However, the switch to asymmetrical warfare means that Iran would likely threaten, rather than directly close, the Strait. From an investment perspective, the threat to shipping would have to be priced-in via higher insurance rates. According to research by the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center, the insurance premiums never rose above 7.5% of the price of vessel during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war and actually hovered around 2% throughout the conflict. Rates for tankers docking in Somali ports, presumably as dangerous of a shipping mission as it gets, are set at 10% of the value of the vessel. A typical very large crude carrier (VLCC) is worth approximately $120 million. Adding the market value of two million barrels of crude would bring its value up to around $270 million at current prices. If insurance rates were to double to 20%, the insurance costs alone would add around $30 per barrel, $15 per barrel if rates stayed at the more reasonable 10%. This is without factoring in any geopolitical risk premium or direct loss of supply of Iran's output due to war. Bottom Line: Iran's military capabilities have increased significantly since the 1980s when it last threatened the shipping in the Strait. Iran has also bolstered its asymmetric capabilities since 2012, while the U.S. has largely remained the same in terms of anti-mine capabilities. If Iran had the first-mover advantage in our preemptive closure scenario, the most likely outcome would be that it could close the Strait for up to 10 days and then threaten to close it for up to four months in total. SCENARIO II - Retaliatory Closure A retaliatory closure is possible in the case of a U.S. (or Israeli) attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. Following from the military analysis of a preemptive closure, we can ascertain that a retaliatory closure would be far less effective. The U.S. would deploy all of its countermeasures to Iranian closure tactics as part of its initial attack. If Iran loses its first-mover advantage, it is not clear how it would lay the mines that are critical to closing the Strait. Iran's Kilo class submarines, the main component of a covert mine-laying operation, would be destroyed in port or hunted down in a large search-and-destroy mission that would "light up" the Strait of Hormuz with active sonar pings. The duration of the closure could therefore be insignificant, even non-existent. The only potential threat is that of Iran's ASCM capability. Iran would be able to use its ASCMs in much the same way as in the preemptive scenario, depending on the rate of fire and rate of discovery by U.S. assets. Bottom Line: It makes a big difference whether Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz preemptively or as part of a retaliation to an attack. The U.S. would, in any attack, likely target Iran's ability to retaliate against global shipping in the Persian Gulf. As such, Tehran's asymmetric advantages would be lost. Putting It All Together - Can Iran Close The Strait? Our three scenarios are presented in Table 2. Iran has the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz for up to three-to-four months. That "pessimistic" scenario, however, is highly unlikely. The more likely scenarios are the "preemptive optimistic" and retaliatory scenarios. Table 2Closing The Strait Of Hormuz: Scenarios Assessing the price implications of these scenarios is extremely difficult. Even though the "preemptive optimistic" and the "retaliatory" scenarios are short-lived, up to 20% of the world's daily demand would be removed from the market in the event the Strait of Hormuz was closed. Of course, the U.S. would release barrels from its 660mm-barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) - likely the full maximum of 30 million barrels authorized under law, released over 30 days for a 1 MMb/d release - and Europe would also release ~ 1 MMb/d or so from its crude and product stocks. China likely would tap its SPR as well for 500k b/d. In addition, there is ~ 2 MMb/d of spare capacity in OPEC, which could be brought on line in 30 days (once the Strait is re-opened), and delivered for at least 90 days. How and when a closure of the Strait of Hormuz occurs cannot be modeled, since, as far as prices are concerned, so much depends on when it occurs, and its duration. For this reason, and the extremely low probability we attach to any closure of the Strait, we do not include these types of simulations in our analysis of the various scenarios we include in our ensemble. That said, it is useful to frame the range implied by the scenarios above. We did a cursory check of the impact of scenarios 1 and 2 above, in which we assume 19 MMb/d flow through the Strait is lost for 10 days and 100 days due to closure by Iran in July 2019. We assume this will be accompanied by a 2 MMb/d release from various SPRs globally. In scenario 1, the 10-day closure of the Strait lifts price by $25/bbl, and is resolved in ~ 2 months, with prices returning to ~ $75/bbl for the remainder of the year. In scenario 2, the Strait is closed for 100 days, and this sends prices to $1,500/bbl in our simulation. This obviously would not stand and we would expect the U.S. and its allies - supported by the entire industrialized world - would launch a powerful offensive to reopen the Strait. This would be extremely destructive to Iran, which is why we give it such a low probability. Bottom Line: While the odds of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz are extremely low - to the point of not being explicitly modeled in our balances and forecasts - framing the possible outcomes from the scenarios considered in this report reveals the huge stakes involved. A short closure of 10 days could pop prices by $25/bbl before flows are restored to normal and inventory rebuilt, while an extended 100-day closure could send prices to $1,500/bbl or more. Because the latter outcome would result in a massive offensive against Iran - supported by oil-consuming states globally - we view this as a low-probability event. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 President Trump's tweets calling for higher oil production have consistently been directed at the original OPEC Cartel, as seen July 4: "The OPEC monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $'s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!" Since the end of 2016, we have been following the production and policy statements of OPEC 2.0, the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 We will be exploring the rising risks to our demand projections in future research. Still, we are in broad agreement with the IMF's most recent assessment of global economic growth, which remains at 3.9% p.a. Please see "The Global Expansion: Still Strong but Less Even, More Fragile, Under Threat," published July 16, 2018, on the IMF's blog. 3 We discuss this at length in the Special Report we published with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy on June 7, 2018, entitled "Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 In an apparent recognition of what it would mean for world oil markets if Iran's exports did go to zero - particularly with Venezuela so close to collapse, which could take another 800k b/d off the market - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced waivers to the sanctions would be granted, following Trump's remarks at the beginning of July. See "Pompeo says US could issue Iran oil sanctions waivers" in the July 10, 2018, Financial Times. The Trump administration, however, is keeping markets on their toes, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin telling the U.S. Congress, "We want people to reduce oil purchases to zero, but in certain cases, if people can't do that overnight, we'll consider exceptions." See "Iran sues US for compensation ahead of re-imposition of oil sanctions," published by S&P Global Platts on July 17, 2018, on its spglobal.com/platts website. 5 Technically, this means the confidence interval around the target is now wider, which implies high probability of going above $80/bbl as well as the probability of going under $70/bbl. Still, the 2019 risks are skewed to the upside, in our view. 6 Given that our model is based solely on a variety of fundamental variables - i.e. supply-demand-inventory - the deviations can be interpreted as movements in the risks premium/discount. 7 This exercise does not include any estimate of oil flows through KSA's East-West pipeline, and possible exports therefrom. The rated capacity of the 745-mile line is 5 MMb/d, possibly 7 MMb/d. KSA's Red Sea loading capacity and the capacity of the Suez Canal and Bab el Mandeb under stress - i.e., the volumes either can handle with a surge of oil-tanker traffic - is not considered either. 8 This is the U.S. EIA's estimate. The EIA notes that in 2015 the daily flow of oil through the Strait accounted for 30% of all seaborne-traded crude oil and other liquids. Natural gas markets also could be affected by a closure: In 2016, more than 30% of global liquefied natural gas trade transited the Strait. Please see "Three important oil trade chokepoints are located around the Arabian Peninsula," published August 4, 2017, at eia.gov. 9 We encourage our clients to read our analysis of potential Iranian retaliatory strategies, penned by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Analysis of Iran's military strategy and U.S. counterstrategy used in this paper relies on research from three heavily cited papers. Eugene Gholz and Daryl Press are skeptical of Iran's ability to close the Strait in their paper titled "Protecting 'The Prize': Oil and the National Interest," published in Security Studies Vol. 19, No. 3, 2010. Caitlin Talmadge gives Iran's capabilities far more credit in a paper titled "Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz," published in International Security Vol. 33, No. 1, Summer 2008. Eugene Gholz also led a project at the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law that published an extensive report titled "The Strait of Hormuz: Political-Military Analysis of Threats to Oil Flows." 11 In the Strauss Center study, the most likely number is 814 mines, if Iran had a two-week period to do so covertly. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018

Refiners have taken it to the chin over the past six weeks, underperforming both the SPX and the broad energy complex, and deteriorating industry fundamentals signal that more pain lies ahead. Crack spreads have given way recently, and as the Brent/WTI crude oil spread closes in on the zero line, refining margins will remain under intense downward pressure (second panel). Not only is demand faltering (not shown), but the news is equally grim on refining inventories. In fact, there is no apparent supply side offset: gasoline stocks are rising (gasoline inventories shown inverted, third panel). This supply/demand backdrop will weigh on industry profitability. Adding insult to injury, relative valuations do not offer any cushion in case of any profit mishaps as they are hovering near previous cyclical peaks and significantly higher than the historical mean (bottom panel). Netting it out, decreasing refining margins, a deteriorating supply/demand backdrop and extended relative valuations suggest that refiners are a sell. Bottom Line: We trimmed the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to underweight; please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, ANDV and HFC.

Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Appendix 2B Appendix 2B (Cont.) Geopolitical Calendar

Overweight Disbelief in the longevity of the increase in oil prices is the likely culprit weighing on exploration & production (E&P) stocks along with a bottleneck-induced steep shale oil price discount to WTI. Nevertheless, the sizable recovery in underlying commodity prices has restored some semblance of normality in the E&P space. The second panel of the chart at the side shows that shale oil production is rising at a healthy clip following a long bottoming phase on the heels of reaccelerating WTI crude oil prices. Similar to the broad energy complex that integrateds dominate, oil & gas E&P producers are a capital expenditure upcycle play, which remains a key BCA theme for the year (third panel). Rising oil prices are conducive to additional energy-related investments (bottom panel). Adding it up, there are high odds that E&P stocks will continue to outpace the broad energy complex and the SPX on the back of firming capex budgets and sustained oil inflation. Bottom Line: We lifted the S&P oil & gas E&P index to an overweight stance; please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, DVN, CXO, MRO, APA, HES, NBL, EQT, COG, XEC and NFX.