Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights The biggest demand-side risk to base metals this year remains a larger-than-expected China economic slowdown. A managed slowdown appears to be under way, with Beijing giving every appearance of balancing macro-prudential policies in a way that does not severely derail the economy. It goes without saying a loss of control over this process could produce a hard landing in China, with more severe consequences for the economy in general, and base metals in particular. Energy: Overweight. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia appear to be negotiating a 10- to 20-year deal that would institutionalize OPEC 2.0 as a production-management coalition. This has global significance, which we will be exploring in future research.1 Base Metals: Neutral. Fears of a trade war between the U.S. and China following the announcement of up to $60 billion in tariffs - meant to redress alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property - sent copper prices below $3/lb last week. There are tentative signals this threat is receding; if confirmed, base metals, particularly copper, would rally. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices rallied more than $50/oz over the past week, following the announcement of U.S. tariffs directed at China, only to fall ~ $25/oz by mid-week as trade tensions lessened. We remain long the metal as a portfolio hedge against such risks. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese officials threatened to levy countervailing tariffs against imports of U.S. ags, steel pipes, and scrap aluminum in response to the $60 billion tariff package announced by the U.S. last week. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin attempted to calm rising tensions, with assurances the U.S. and China would reach an agreement that avoids the imposition of tariffs. Feature Once-hot metals markets are at risk of cooling (Chart of the Week). Despite the weak U.S. dollar and relatively strong - albeit more risky - global economic environment, investors have been hesitant to take large bullish positions in metals, largely because of fears of a slowdown in China. This fear is not unfounded, and this week we assess how likely such a slowdown is, and the consequences for metals markets. China accounts for ~ 50% of demand for most metals we cover (Chart 2). Construction, infrastructure, automotive, and manufacturing sectors have an outsized role as end users of metals, and their performance will be especially significant to the demand outlook going forward (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekMetals Markets At Risk Of Cooling Chart 2Don't Overlook China Chart 3Keep An Eye On Key Sectors China Intentionally Out Of Sync With Global Business Cycle? Chart 4China's Cycle Peaked Last Year Analysts generally believe commodities tend to outperform late in the business cycle as economies start to overheat and central banks move to restrain inflation. We believe these dynamics will pan out differently this time around. China's current business cycle likely peaked last year (Chart 4), and entered a moderation phase. As the single largest consumer of metals on the planet, it would be extremely important for global base metals markets if China's business cycle is out of sync with the rest of the world, which, based on the IMF's latest assessment, remains in a robust growth phase. This alone could justify a less bullish stance on metals this year, and could mute the late-cycle phase returns we would typically expect. Nevertheless, the synchronized global upturn being tracked by ourselves and the IMF is the first such upswing since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).2 In a note exploring China's significance in global commodity markets, researchers at the IMF found that surprises in China's Industrial Production (IP) announcements - measured as the scaled deviation of actual year-on-year (y/y) IP growth from the median Bloomberg consensus estimate just before the announcement - have an important effect on metal prices.3 Given China's outsized role in global commodity markets, this result is intuitive. Another relevant finding from their research is that the impact of Chinese IP surprise is larger when global risk is elevated - measured by the VIX. This is especially significant in the case of negative surprises.4 These findings are all the more relevant now, given the higher likelihood of negative surprises from China as it sets in motion a managed slowdown on a scale never before seen. Provided the synchronized nature of global growth remains intact, we expect global demand ex-China will partially mitigate the negative impact of domestic policies in China aimed at slowing the economy. Nonetheless, we do expect volatility to be higher this year. The Backdrop Chart 5Secondary Industry Output Past Its Peak Both China's official manufacturing PMI and the Li Keqiang Index peaked in 2017 and have since weakened significantly, raising fears of softening demand fundamentals for metals this year. Even though growth in the services sector remains robust, it is not as relevant to metal demand as manufacturing and infrastructure (Chart 5). Nevertheless, it could help support metals demand indirectly as growth in the services sector - i.e., the so-called tertiary industries, which now account for more than half of Chinese GDP - could spur demand for physical goods, and in turn re-energize the manufacturing cycle. This will depend crucially on maintaining income growth to spur demand for consumer durables and discretionary purchases (e.g., automobiles requiring gasoline). Similarly, China's GDP came in above target last year, coinciding with a recovery in secondary industries - i.e., construction and manufacturing, which are big metals consumers. However, secondary industry output appears to have peaked, which we believe is further evidence a benign moderation is already underway in China. This is compounded by the ongoing transition in China's economic structure - a services-led Chinese economy is not as supportive for metals demand as a manufacturing one. At present, out of the indicators of the general health of China's economy we track, the sole beacon of hope comes from the Caixin manufacturing PMI, which currently stands above its 12-month moving average level. Given the slew of other series pointing to a benign slowdown, we are inclined to push this PMI strength aside as an exception rather than the rule. Oh, Don't Forget A Possible Trade War Our analysis of metals markets is made difficult by the possibility of a trade war between the U.S. and China. The Trump Administration already has pledged to impose tariffs of up to $60 billion on Chinese imports over alleged intellectual-property theft. The net effect of these tariffs would be a reduction in demand for Chinese products - propagating a slowdown in the manufacturing sector. Despite these grim data readings, we expect Chinese policy makers to continue holding the reins in this policy-induced slowdown. We expected a deceleration going into the year, which now is evident in the data, but a severe and unruly unwinding is not our base case scenario. Macro-Prudential Measures Driving Up Interest Rates Chart 6Market Rates Are Trending Higher The Peoples Bank of China's (PBOC) 1-week interbank repo rate has been the official policy rate since 2015. However, it does not reflect the reality of rising interest rates in China. Instead, BCA Research's China Investment Strategists point to the 3-month rate as the de facto indicator of the monetary policy environment in China.5 While the former is up ~50 bps since late 2016, the latter has increased by about 200 bps during the same period. The wide rate spread reflects Beijing's renewed regulatory efforts to crack down on shadow banking (Chart 6). Our China Strategists note that the main trigger for a China slowdown likely would be monetary-policy tightening. However, the uptrend in market interest rates has been driven by regulatory decisions - the implementation of macro-prudential policies - rather than direct monetary policy tightening. In their scenario-based analysis, BCA's China specialists conclude that since China's economy is already cooling, increases in the benchmark lending rate - the 1-week interbank repo rate - are not needed. If anything, such increases would pressure the average lending rates into tight-monetary-policy territory. Although a hawkish PBOC - absent a meaningful improvement in economic outlook - is on our analysts' list of risks to monitor this year, they do not expect aggressive policy tightening in China, as they do not foresee an inflationary breakout. The Impact The exceptional performance of metals last year was in part driven by infrastructure spending and a rebound in real estate investment in China. Since then, Beijing has also tightened the leash on the property sector. Additionally, a deceleration in infrastructure investment is now evident. This is unsurprising given that two of the three "critical battles" highlighted by Xi Jinping threaten the housing and infrastructure sectors. Furthermore, automobile production and sales do not suggest a reason for optimism. President Xi Jinping has been experimenting with various measures to rein in housing speculation including restrictions on home purchases, encouraging an affordable rental market, and the introduction of "joint-ownership" housing.6 In addition, a "long term property mechanism" as well as a national property tax are in the works. The objective is to discourage speculative home building and property speculation generally, while ensuring sufficient supply in the market to help alleviate shortages, thus curbing exorbitant price increases. The impact of these policies - in the form of a cooling housing market - is evident in home prices in Tier 1 cities. After having decelerated meaningfully at the end of last year, they recorded y/y declines in the first two months of this year (Chart 7). While not as pronounced, home prices in Tier 2 and 3 markets have also slowed considerably compared to 1H17. However, BCA Research's China investment strategists point out that although prices of homes in Tier 1 cities generally lead Tier 2 and 3 markets, this overlooks other significant indicators of the health of China's real estate sector.7 Our China specialists argue that residential floor space sold should be used as the leading gauge of the property market. They find that floor space sold leads Tier 1 prices which guides floor space started and land area purchased. While the latter two are relatively weak, the recent upturn in floor space sold may point toward a more positive future for the Chinese housing sector. A rebound in the House Price Diffusion Index as well as a falling floor-space-available-for-sale versus sales ratio makes them a little less pessimistic about the market's future, suggesting a potential pickup in construction if floor space started does in fact take its cue from the pickup in floor space sold. Nevertheless, it remains too early to get a clear reading on the future of China's real estate sector at this point. On a positive note, the percentage of Chinese households planning to buy a house in the next three months remains high (Chart 8). Further, while the percentage of total new bank loans that are housing mortgages and loans to real estate developers came down slightly last year, they have rebounded, and now make up roughly half of total new bank loans. However, new mortgage loans as a percent of home sales have decelerated sharply. Chart 7Pick Up In Floor Space Sold:##BR##A Positive Sign? Chart 8Large Number Of Households##BR##Plan To Purchase Homes While the slowdown in real estate may not turn out to be as severe as some of the data suggests, Beijing's government spending is decelerating (Chart 9). While spending in transportation infrastructure has decelerated from double-digit figures recorded earlier last year, spending on utilities has come down considerably. In line with other sectors, automobile production slowed considerably in China last year (Chart 10). It has been decelerating on a monthly basis since December, and most recent February data shows large y/y declines. Going forward, we expect the phasing out of tax breaks for small vehicles in China to continue slowing demand growth for cars there. Chart 9Government Spending##BR##Decelerated Significantly Chart 10Auto Production And Sales##BR##Not Lending Support Bottom Line: A tighter regulatory and credit backdrop is evident in recent readings on China's real estate, infrastructure, and automobile sectors. Given the importance of these industries as end users of metals, the above heralds a more tepid view of China's demand for metals going forward, as we continue to expect moderation in China's economy. Nevertheless, the global market will remain supported by strength elsewhere. On the supply side, disruptions remain an upside risk this year. Stay neutral for now. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the producer coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which, at the end of 2016, agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of production from the market. The coalition has been remarkably successful in maintaining production discipline, which, together with strong global demand growth, has put OECD oil inventories on a steep decline path. Please see "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand" in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for our latest assessment of global supply and demand and our price forecaset. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Brighter Prospects, Optimistic Markets, Challenges Ahead," in the IMF's January 2018 World Economic Outlook Update. 3 Please see IMF Spillover Notes "China's Footprint in Global Commodity Markets," dated September 2016. 4 The IMF also found U.S. IP surprises have a similar impact on commodity markets, despite its smaller share of global imports. The Fund puts this down to the fact that the U.S. is an indicator for global growth. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report titled "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "What's Next In China's Bid To Cool Housing Market: QuickTake," available at bloomberg.com, dated March 4, 2018. 7 Please see China Investment Strategy's Weekly Report titled "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?," dated February 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Overweight (High Conviction) For most of the past five years, the narrative in S&P energy stocks has been a sad one; underlying energy prices have failed to sustain a rally and stock prices have been stuck in the doldrums. This time looks different; the resilience of the recovery in the global economy has kept a solid floor underneath oil prices, which are pushing up against 3-year highs. The surprising part of the rally in oil prices is the failure of energy stocks to catch up (top panel). Pricing power in energy is rising at its fastest pace this decade and (for now) the sector wage bill is continuing to contract (second panel). The upshot is that margins are rapidly expanding, albeit still from a very weak base (third panel). While the most positive side of the v-shaped recovery in earnings estimates is now behind the sector (bottom panel), profit forecasts are still moving higher at near-record pace; eventually stock prices have to catch up. Stay overweight.

Highlights Our supply-demand balances indicate oil fundamentals are softening slightly. All else equal, this might prompt us to lower our average-price forecasts for Brent and WTI from $74 and $70/bbl this year by $2 to $3/bbl. However, this is oil: All else equal seldom applies. An unusual confluence of risk factors has raised the likelihood of sharp price moves - down and up - this year. These range from the threat of trade wars (bearish for demand), to renewed U.S.-led sanctions against Iran and deeper sanctions against Venezuela (bullish, as they could remove as much as 1.4mm b/d of supply). The possible extended delay of the Aramco IPO compounds the uncertainty. Brent and WTI implied volatilities - the principal gauge of price risk in trading markets - had a brief spike earlier this month, but subsequently retreated (Chart of the Week). We believe the lower volatility offers an opportunity to get long a put spread in Dec/18 Brent options, to complement an existing long call spread in these options. Energy: Overweight. We are taking profit on our long Jul/18 vs. short Dec/18 WTI calendar spread to re-position for the higher volatility. As of Tuesday's close, this spread was up 90.4% since inception November 2, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Metal Bulletin reported the flow of zinc into China from Spain has turned into a flood, which is depressing physical premiums and causing unintended inventory accumulation. Almost 161k MT of Spanish zinc was shipped to China last year, a 15-fold increase in annual volumes. The bulk of the increase occurring during the August-to-December period. Spain accounted for a quarter of the ~ 67k MT of zinc imported by China in January. Precious Metals: Neutral. Going into Jerome Powell's first meeting as Fed Chair, gold held recent support ~ $1,310/oz. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. U.S. Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue warned farmers a tit-for-tat trade war could hit their markets particularly hard earlier this week, according to Reuters. Cotton could be especially hard hit (please see p. 9 for details).1 Feature Fundamentally, our global supply-demand balances indicate the global oil market will remain in a physical deficit this year, even though they do suggest a slight softening. As such, we are leaving our Brent and WTI forecasts for this year at $74 and $70/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, we also are leaving our average-price Brent and WTI expectations at $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, with the caveat that these are highly conditional on OPEC 2.0's expected forward guidance later this year.2 Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Volatility Lower,##BR##Even As Price Risks Mount Chart 2BCA's Oil Price Forecast##BR##Remains Unchanged Nonetheless, it is difficult to remain sanguine regarding the oil-price outlook. A remarkable confluence of geopolitical events has introduced higher risk to the downside and the upside for oil prices this year and next. On the downside, trade-war rhetoric continues to ramp up, as the Trump administration threatens sanctions against China for alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, and slow-walks NAFTA negotiations with Mexico and Canada. Either or both of these could be the spark that lights a global trade war. Re the latter, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue is warning U.S. farmers their markets could get caught up in a tit-for-tat trade war.3 Upside oil-price risk arises from increasingly bellicose signaling by the Trump administration re the Iran nuclear sanctions deal, and hints the U.S. could impose sanctions directly on Venezuela's oil industry, which would augment sanctions against individuals already in place. Rex Tillerson's expected replacement at the U.S. State Department, Mike Pompeo, shares President Trump's hostility to the 2015 deal that lifted trade sanctions on Iran, which allowed it to increase its production and boost exports. If the May 12 deadline for issuing waivers on the Iran sanctions passes, trade penalties again will be in force against Iran, which likely will, once again, reduce its production and exports, if U.S. allies fall in line with Washington. The odds of this are now higher with Rex Tillerson no longer at the helm at the U.S. State Department. Lastly, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, who, as Minister of Defense, is leading KSA's proxy wars against Iran throughout the Middle East, is in Washington cementing relations with President Trump. Trump has indicated his administration is abandoning his predecessor's pivot away from the Middle East and re-engaging at a deeper level with KSA. The Crown Prince also indicated he will be discussing the Iran sanctions with President Trump in meetings this week.4 Fundamentals Remain Supportive ... For Now Chart 3Supply-Demand Fundamentals##BR##Remain Supportive The slight softening detected in our supply-demand balances model is largely coming from the supply side (Chart 3). Most of this is due to surging U.S. crude and liquids production. The EIA's higher-than-expected U.S. crude oil production estimates for 4Q17 provides a higher base on which continued production gains can build this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in this week's Energy Sector Strategy that, over the past three months, the EIA increased its U.S. onshore oil production estimates for 4Q17 by 310k b/d.5 Although we faded this estimate earlier this year, Matt's analysis of E&P balance sheet data for the quarter confirms this surge in production. U.S. production growth dominates global growth this year - up almost 1.3mm b/d on average y/y, led by a 1.2mm b/d y/y gain in shale-oil output. For next year, we have U.S. output up just over 1mm b/d, almost all of which is accounted for by increased shale production. Total U.S. crude production goes to 10.6mm b/d this year, and 11.9mm b/d next year. In 1Q18, the U.S. will displace KSA as the second-largest crude producer in the world. U.S. crude oil production will exceed Russia's expected crude and liquids production of 11.35mm b/d next year by 2Q19 (Table 1). Total U.S. crude and liquids production (including NGLs, biofuels, and refinery gain) goes to 17.4mm b/d this year, and 19.1mm b/d next year. Strong demand continues to absorb rising production this year and next. By our reckoning, global oil demand grows 1.7mm b/d this year, and 1.64mm b/d next year, up slightly from our earlier estimate of 1.57mm b/d. Global demand averages 100.3mm b/d this year, and just shy of 102mm b/d next year. These fundamentals continue to support our judgement that OPEC 2.0's primary goal - draining OECD inventories below their current five-year average - will be met this year (Chart 4). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Chart 4Expect OECD Inventories To Draw A Bit Slower Expect OPEC 2.0 To Endure Next year is a different story. Not because markets fundamentally change. But because we fully expect to be substantially revising our production estimates as OPEC 2.0 evolves into a more durable, longer-lasting structure. Chart 5Backwardation Weakens Under##BR##Provisional 2019 Estimates We expect OPEC 2.0 to provide forward guidance regarding its production-management goals for 2019 and beyond, once all of the particulars in formalizing its structure are agreed later this year. As a result, we fully expect to be revising our price forecasts and OECD inventory expectations in line with more definitive OPEC 2.0 production guidance throughout this year. As things stand now, we assume volumes voluntarily removed from production - some 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d by our reckoning - will slowly be returned to the market over 1H19. By 2H19, those states within OPEC 2.0 that actually cut production - mostly KSA and Russia - are assumed to be back at pre-2017 production levels. More than likely, the coalition will maintain its production cuts at a lower level so that OECD inventories do not grow excessively and place the OPEC and non-OPEC member states of the coalition in the same dire straits that led to the formation of OPEC 2.0. This will arrest the descent in prices generated by our fundamental models toward the end of 2019 (Chart 2). In addition, the renewed OECD inventory build our model generates (Chart 4) also will be arrested. This will keep markets backwardated in 2019, as opposed to moving toward contango as production growth exceeds consumption growth, restraining the erosion in the backwardation in the forward Brent and WTI curves (Chart 5). Tail Risks Rising In Oil Markets An unusual confluence of risk factors has raised the likelihood of sharp price moves to the downside and to the upside this year. These range from the threat of growth-killing trade wars, to renewed U.S.-led sanctions against Iran and deeper sanctions directed at Venezuela's oil sector. A full-blown global trade war would be bearish for prices, as it would depress growth globally, particularly in EM economies, which are the primary drivers of oil demand. At the other end of the price distribution, reimposing sanctions on Iran and targeting Venezuela's oil industry with sanctions could remove up to 1.4mm b/d of supply from markets later this year, by some estimates.6 A former Obama administration official familiar with the Iran sanctions estimates as much as 500k b/d of exports could be lost if sanctions are reimposed. Venezuela's crude oil output has been collapsing and currently is less than 1.6mm b/d. Oil-directed sanctions from the U.S. could force the Venezuelan oil industry to collapse. Added to this volatile mix, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, also known as MBS, called on President Trump this week in Washington. MBS is leading KSA's proxy wars against Iran, and remains at the forefront of efforts to deny them political and military advantage in the Gulf and the Middle East. MBS and President Trump are on the same page in their opposition to the Iran sanctions deal, as is the presumptive U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who, as Reuters notes, "fiercely opposed the Iranian nuclear deal as a member of Congress."7 Lastly, reports of a possible extended delay of the Aramco IPO creates additional uncertainty re our analysis. It is entirely possible KSA thus far has failed to get indicative bids for the 5% of the firm they intend to float anywhere near its $100 billion target. A target bid would value Saudi Aramco at ~ $2 trillion. Given that we view the IPO as the principal driver of KSA's oil policy over the next two years, this raises questions as to whether the Kingdom will remain committed to higher prices over the short term - $60 to $70/bbl is the range we assume - or whether it will lower its sights to a range we believe Russia favors ($50 to $60/bbl). We continue to expect KSA to favor higher prices over the short term, as it works to reduce its fiscal breakeven oil price from ~ $70/bbl to $60/bbl. A higher price range also will help the Kingdom raise debt under more favorable terms, should it decide to wait on the IPO and finance the early stages of its diversification away from oil-export revenues. Either way, we would expect the Kingdom to favor higher prices. It also is possible a lack of bids approaching KSA's Aramco target level will make a private placement more attractive. A consortium led by China's sovereign wealth fund is believed to have shown a bid for the entire 5% placement. The quid pro quo is believed to have been KSA accepting payment for its oil in yuan. This could have profound implications for the market, as we noted in a Special Report exploring the Kingdom's anti-corruption campaign. This alternative also would tend to favor higher prices, in as much as KSA would not want its new shareholder to realize a loss shortly after its purchase of 5% of Aramco.8 Investment Implications Of Higher Tail Risk As our Chart of the Week indicates, trading markets do not appear to have priced the growing tail risks into option premiums. The market's chief gauge of oil-price risk - the implied volatilities of traded put and call options - staged a brief rally, but have since retreated.9 Volatility is the critical driver of option value. We believe the low volatility levels in the market at present offer an opportunity to add to our long Brent call spreads in Dec/18 options. Specifically, we recommend getting long a $50/bbl Dec/18 Brent put and selling a $45/bbl Dec/18 Brent put option against it. This will give investors low-cost, low-risk exposure to a sudden down move, in addition to the upside exposure our existing Dec/18 $65 vs. $70/bbl Brent call spread provides to a sudden up move resulting from the risk factors we discussed above. Of course, more adventuresome investors can choose to get long put spreads and ignore taking exposure to the upside if they believe downside risks from trade tensions will dominate the evolution of oil prices this year. On the other side of the divide, those who believe the increasing geopolitical tensions discussed above will dominate price formation going forward, can choose to get long calls or call spreads and ignore taking exposure to the downside. Separately, we will be taking profits on our long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread trade, to re-position for our higher-volatility expectation. This position was up 90.4% as of Tuesday's close, when we mark our recommendations to market. Bottom Line: We are keeping our forecast for 2018 and 2019 unchanged, despite the unexpectedly strong U.S. oil supply growth being reported by the EIA and in E&P quarterly earnings reports. An unlikely confluence of geopolitical risks has raised price risk to the downside and the upside. To position for this, we are recommending investors get long put and call spreads in Dec/18 Brent futures. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 We discussed the implications of a trade war vis-a-vis U.S. ag markets in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report. Please see "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," published by BCA Research March 15, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 In last month's publication, we noted the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - the putative leaders of the producer coalition we've dubbed OPEC 2.0 - favor formalizing their agreement with a long-term alliance. Among other things, OPEC 2.0 members would be expected to build buffer stocks to address any sudden supply outages, in order to maintain orderly markets. Please see "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy February 22, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see footnote 1 references, and "U.S. agriculture secretary says exports at risk in tariff disputes," published by reuters.com March 19, 2018. 4 Please see "Trump Says of Iran Deal, 'You're Going to See What I Do,' published by bloomberg.com March 20, 2018. 5 Please see "Public Companies Confirm Large Q4 2017 Production Surge," in the March 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "U.S. foreign policy turn could take 1.4 million b/d off global oil market: analysts," published by S&P Global Platts on its online site March 15, 2018. 7 Please see "Oil nears six-week high as concern grows over Middle East," published by uk.reuters.com March 21, 2018. 8 Please see our Special Report published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy November 16, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Implied volatilities, or "implieds" in trading markets, are market-cleared pricing parameters for options. They are calculated once a put (the right to sell the underlying asset upon which an option is written) or call (the right to buy the asset) price (i.e., the option premium) clears the market. Implieds are the annualized standard deviation of expected returns for whatever asset is being priced in a trading market. As such, they are often used to measure the risk that is being priced in options markets by willing buyers and sellers. When implieds are high, risk expectations are high, and the range in which prices are expected to trade widens. "The opposite holds when volatility is low." Ags/Softs Can China Retaliate With Agriculture? China's outsized population means that it is a major consumer of many agricultural products. In last week's Weekly Report, we highlighted that this has made U.S. farmers increasingly wary of the impact of a prospective trade war on the agriculture sector. We concluded that while restrictions on China's imports of U.S. soybeans would have a large impact on U.S. farmers, retaliation by China may not be feasible, given that alternative sources of supply are not readily available. Instead, cotton appears to be the more vulnerable crop, in the event of retaliation. Table 2 below formalizes this analysis. The first column shows the importance of each ag to the U.S., as measured by the percent of U.S. exports that go to China. We use this measure to derive the qualitative value displayed in the third column. The results imply that restrictions on China's imports of U.S. sorghum, soybeans, and to a lesser extent cotton, would severely harm U.S. farmers of these crops. On the other hand, wheat, corn, and rice exports to China do not make up a large proportion of U.S. exports, and thus are not especially significant to American farmers of those commodities. The second column measures China's ability to substitute away from the U.S. as a supplier. We calculate a ratio using world inventories ex-U.S. versus the volume of China's imports from the U.S. for particular crops. The larger the value in column two, the greater China's ability to substitute away from the U.S. Based on these metrics, the last column reveals that China is extremely dependent on the U.S. in terms of sorghum and soybeans, while it has greater ability to find alternative suppliers of the other commodities. Cotton accounts for 16% of U.S. exports. World inventories ex-U.S. for cotton stands at 157 times more than the volume of China's 2017 imports from the U.S. This simple analysis indicates U.S. cotton exports likely will fall victim to retaliation by China, in the event of a trade war. Table 2Cotton Could Fall Victim In Trade Dispute 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 Several economic and financial market indicators point to a budding downtrend in Chinese capital spending and its industrial sector. The recent underperformance of global mining, chemicals and machinery/industrials corroborate that capital spending in China is starting to slump. Shipments-to-inventory ratios for Korea and Taiwan also point to a relapse in Asian manufacturing. This is occurring as our global growth sentiment proxy sits on par with previous peaks, and investor positioning in EM and commodities is overextended. Stay put on EM. Markets with currency pegs to the U.S. dollar, such as the Gulf states and Hong Kong, will face tightening local liquidity. Share prices in these markets have probably topped out. Feature On the surface, EM equities, currencies and local bond and credit markets are still trading well. However, there are several economic indicators and financial variables that herald negative surprises for global and Chinese growth. In particular: China's NBS manufacturing PMI new orders and backlogs of orders have relapsed in the past several months. Chart I-1 illustrates the annual change in new orders and backlogs of orders to adjust for seasonality. The measure leads industrial profits, and presently foreshadows a slowdown going forward. Furthermore, the average of NBS manufacturing PMI, new orders, and backlog orders also points to a potential relapse in industrial metals prices in general as well as mainland steel and iron ore prices (Chart I-2). The message from Charts I-1 and I-2 is that the recent weakness in iron ore and steel prices could mark the beginning of a downtrend in Chinese capital spending. While supply cuts could limit downside in steel prices, it would be surprising if demand weakness does not affect steel prices at all.1 Chart I-1China: Slowdown Has Further To Run Chart I-2Industrial Metals Prices Have Topped Out Although China's money and credit have been flagging potential economic weakness for a while, the recent manufacturing PMI data from the National Bureau of Statistics finally confirmed an impending deceleration in industrial activity and ensuing corporate profit disappointment. Our credit and fiscal spending impulses continue to point to negative growth surprises in capital spending. The latter is corroborated by the weakening Komatsu's Komtrax index, which measures the average hours of machine work per unit in China (Chart I-3). In both Korea and Taiwan, the overall manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratios have dropped, heralding material weakness in both countries' export volumes (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Signs Of Weakness In Chinese Construction Chart I-4Asia Exports Are Slowing Notably, global cyclical equity sectors that are leveraged to China's capital spending such as materials, industrials and energy have all recently underperformed the global benchmark (Chart I-5). Some of their sub-sectors such as machinery, mining and chemicals have also begun to underperform (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Global Cyclicals Have ##br##Begun Underperforming... Chart I-6...Including Machinery ##br##And Chemical Stocks Among both global and U.S. traditional cyclicals, only the technology sector is outperforming the benchmark. However, we do not think tech should be treated as a cyclical sector, at least for now. In brief, the underperformance of global cyclical equity sectors and sub-sectors following last month's equity market correction corroborate that China's capital spending is beginning to slump. Notably, this is occurring as our global growth sentiment proxy rests on par with its previous apexes (Chart I-7). Previous tops in this proxy for global growth sentiment have historically coincided with tops in EM EPS net revisions, as shown in this chart. Chart I-7Global Growth Sentiment: As Good As It Gets All told, we may be finally entering a meaningful slowdown in China that will dampen commodities prices and EM corporate earnings. The latter are still very strong but EPS net revisions have rolled over and turned negative again (Chart I-8). Chart I-8EM EPS Net Revisions Have Plummeted EM share prices typically lead EPS by about nine months. In 2016, EM stocks bottomed in January-February, yet EPS did not begin to post gains until December 2016. Even if EM corporate profits are to contract in the fourth quarter of this year, EM share prices, being forward looking, will likely begin to wobble soon. Poor EM Equity Breadth There is also evidence of poor breadth in the EM equity universe, especially compared to the U.S. equity market. First, the rally in the EM equally-weighted index - where all individual stocks have equal weights - has substantially lagged the market cap-weighted index since mid 2017. This suggests that only a few large-cap companies have contributed a non-trivial share of capital gains. Second, the EM equal-weighted stock index's and EM small-caps' relative share prices versus their respective U.S. counterparts have fallen rather decisively in the past six weeks (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). While the relative performance of market cap-weighted indexes has not declined that much, it has still rolled over (Chart I-9, bottom panel). We compare EM equity performance with that of the U.S. because DM ex-U.S. share prices themselves have been rather sluggish. In fact, DM ex-U.S. share prices have barely rebounded since the February correction. Third, EM technology stocks have begun underperforming their global peers (Chart I-10). This is a departure from the dynamics that prevailed last year, when a substantial share of EM outperformance versus DM equities was attributed to EM tech outperformance versus their DM counterparts and tech's large weight in the EM benchmark. Chart I-9EM Versus U.S. Equities: Relative ##br##Performance Is Reversing Chart I-10EM Tech Has Started ##br##Underperforming DM Tech Finally, the relative advance-decline line between EM versus U.S. bourses has been deteriorating (Chart I-11). This reveals that EM equity breadth - the advance-decline line - is substantially worse relative to the U.S. Chart I-11EM Versus U.S.: Relative Equity Breadth Is Very Poor Bottom Line: Breadth of EM equity performance versus DM/U.S. has worsened considerably. This bodes ill for the sustainability of EM outperformance versus DM/U.S. We continue to recommend an underweight EM versus DM position within global equity portfolios. Three Pillars Of EM Stocks EM equity performance is by and large driven by three sectors: technology, banks (financials) and commodities. Table I-1 illustrates that technology, financials and commodities (energy and materials) account for 66% of the EM MSCI market cap and 75% of MSCI EM total (non-diluted) corporate earnings. Therefore, getting the outlook of these sectors right is crucial to the EM equity call. Table I-1EM Equity Sectors: Earnings & Market Cap Weights Technology Four companies - Alibaba, Tencent, Samsung and TSMC - account for 17% of EM and 58% of EM technology market cap, respectively. This sector can be segregated into hardware tech (Samsung and TSMC) and "new concept" stocks (Alibaba and Tencent). We do not doubt that new technologies will transform many industries, and there will be successful companies that profit enormously from this process. Nevertheless, from a top-down perspective, we can offer little insight on whether EM's "new concept" stocks such as Alibaba and Tencent are cheap or expensive, nor whether their business models are proficient. Further, these and other global internet/social media companies' revenues are not driven by business cycle dynamics, making top-down analysis less imperative in forecasting their performance. We can offer some insight for technology hardware companies such as Samsung and TSMC. Chart I-12 demonstrates that semiconductor shipment-to-inventory ratios have rolled over decisively in both Korea and Taiwan. In addition, semiconductor prices have softened of late (Chart I-13) Together, this raises a red flag for technology hardware stocks in Asia. Chart I-12Asia's Semiconductor Industry Chart I-13Semiconductor Prices: A Soft Spot? Finally, Chart I-14 compares the current run-up in U.S. FANG stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google) with the Nasdaq mania in the 1990s. An equal-weighted average stock price index of FANG has risen by 10-fold in the past four and a half years. Chart I-14U.S. FANG Stocks Now ##br##And 1990s Nasdaq Mania A similar 10-fold increase was also registered by the Nasdaq top 100 stocks in the 1990s over eight years (Chart I-14). While this is certainly not a scientific approach, the comparison helps put the rally in "hot" technology stocks into proper historical perspective. The main take away here is that even by bubble standards, the recent acceleration in "new concept" stocks has been too fast. That said, it is impossible to forecast how long any mania will persist. This has been and remains a major risk to our investment strategy of being negative on EM stocks. In sum, there is little visibility in EM "new concept" tech stocks. Yet Asia's manufacturing cycle is rolling over, entailing downside risks to tech hardware businesses. Putting all this together, we conclude that it is unlikely that EM tech stocks will be able to drive the EM rally and outperformance in 2018 as they did in 2017. Banks We discussed the outlook for EM bank stocks in our February 14 report,2 and will not delve into additional details here. In brief, several countries' banks have boosted their 2017 profits by reducing their NPL provisions. This has artificially boosted profits and spurred investors to bid up bank equity prices. We believe banks in a number of EM countries are meaningfully under-provisioned and will have to augment their NPL provisions. The latter will hurt their profits and constitutes a major risk for EM bank share prices. Energy And Materials The outlook for absolute performance of these sectors is contingent on commodities prices. Industrial metals prices are at risk of slower capex in China. The mainland accounts for 50% of global demand for all industrial metals. Oil prices are at risk from traders' record-high net long positions in oil futures, according to CFTC data (Chart I-15, top panel). Traders' net long positions in copper are also elevated, according to the data from the same source (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Hence, it may require only some U.S. dollar strength and negative news out of China for these commodities prices to relapse. Chart I-15Traders' Net Long Positions In ##br##Oil And Copper Are Very Elevated How do we incorporate the improved balance sheets of materials and energy companies into our analysis? If and as commodities prices slide, share prices of commodities producers will deflate in absolute terms. However, this does not necessarily mean they will underperform the overall equity benchmark. Relative performance dynamics also depend on the performance of other sectors. Commodities companies could outperform the overall equity benchmark amid deflating commodities prices if other equity sectors drop more. In brief, the improved balance sheets of commodities producers may be reflected in terms of their relative resilience amid falling commodities prices but will still not preclude their share prices from declining in absolute terms. Bottom Line: If EM bank stocks and commodities prices relapse as we expect, the overall EM equity index will likely experience a meaningful selloff and underperform the DM/U.S. benchmarks. Exchange Rate Pegs Versus U.S. Dollar With the U.S. dollar depreciating in the past 12 months, pressure on exchange rate regimes that peg their currencies to the dollar has subsided. These include but are not limited to Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As a result, these countries' interest rate differentials versus the U.S. have plunged (Chart I-16). In short, domestic interest rates in these markets have risen much less than U.S. short rates. This has kept domestic liquidity conditions easier than they otherwise would have been. However, maneuvering room for these central banks is narrowing. In Hong Kong, the exchange rate is approaching the lower bound of its narrow band (Chart I-17). As it touches 7.85, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) will have no choice but to tighten liquidity and push up interest rates. Chart I-16Markets With U.S. Dollar Peg: ##br##Policymakers' Maneuvering Window Is Closing Chart I-17Hong Kong: Interest ##br##Rates Are Heading Higher In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the monetary authorities have used the calm in their foreign exchange markets over the past year to not match the rise in U.S. short rates (Chart I-18A and Chart I-18B). However, with their interest rate differentials over U.S. now at zero, these central banks will have no choice but to follow U.S. rates to preserve their currency pegs.3 Chart I-18ASaudi Arabian Interest Rates Will Rise Chart I-18BThe UAE Interest Rates Will Rise If U.S. interest rates were to move above local rates in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, those countries' currencies will come under considerable depreciation pressure because capital will move from local currencies into U.S. dollars. Hence, if U.S. short rates move higher, which is very likely, local rates in these and other Gulf countries will have to rise if their exchange rate pegs are to be preserved. Neither the Hong Kong dollar nor Gulf currencies are at risk of devaluation. The monetary authorities there have enough foreign currency reserves to defend their respective pegs. Nevertheless, the outcome will be domestic liquidity tightening in the Gulf's and Hong Kong's banking system. In addition, potentially lower oil prices will weigh on Gulf bourses and China's slowdown will hurt growth and equity sentiment in Hong Kong. All in all, equity markets in Gulf countries and Hong Kong have probably seen their best in terms of absolute performance. Potential negative external shocks and higher interest rates due to Fed tightening have darkened the outlook for these bourses. Bottom Line: Local liquidity in Gulf markets and Hong Kong is set to tighten. Share prices in these markets have probably topped out. However, given these equity markets have massively underperformed the EM equity benchmark, they are unlikely to underperform when the overall EM index falls. Hence, we do not recommend underweighting these bourses within an EM equity portfolio. For asset allocators, a neutral or overweight allocation to these bourses is warranted. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's "De-Capacity" Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017; the link is available on page 16. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "EM Bank Stocks Hold The Key," dated February 14, 2018; the link is available on page 16. 3 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "United Arab Emirates: Domestic Tailwinds, External Headwinds," dated March 12, 2018. The link is available on fms.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Escalating trade tensions - most notably between the U.S. and China, and the U.S. and its NAFTA partners - threaten the outperformance ags posted in 1Q18, which was driven by unfavorable weather and transportation disruptions in major producing regions, along with a weak dollar. Energy: Overweight. The IPO of Saudi Aramco apparently will be delayed into 2019, according to various press reports. New York, London and Hong Kong remain in contention for the foreign listing of KSA's national oil company. Base Metals: Neutral. China's iron ore and copper imports in January - February 2018 were up 5.4% and 9.8% y/y, respectively. China's year-to-date (ytd) steel product exports are down 27.1% y/y, while ytd aluminum exports are up 25.8% y/y. The aluminum data are consistent with our assessment that the global aluminum deficit will likely ease this year.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. A global trade war would boost gold's appeal, and we continue to recommend it as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Weather and transport disruptions boosted global ag markets in 1Q18. However, this outperformance is under threat as global trade tensions build (see below). Feature Chart of the WeekAgs Are Off To A Good Start Weather concerns in highly productive regions of South America as well as the U.S. have supported ag prices since the beginning of the year (Chart of the Week). Corn and wheat bottomed in mid-December, and have since gained 14.8% and 25.4%, respectively, while soybeans bottomed mid-January and have since gained 10.6%. This pushed the Grains and Oilseed CCI up 12.6% since the beginning of the year. Drought ... And Flooding In The U.S. Erratic weather in the U.S. could affect yields. The chief areas of concern are the U.S. mid-South and lower Midwest, which have recently experienced flooding, and are raising fears of lower yields of winter wheat. At the same time, the area from Southwestern Kansas to Northern Texas experienced unusually dry weather, causing winter grains to suffer. On top of that, high water levels in the Ohio River also led to shipping disruptions. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not lower its 2017/18 estimates of U.S. wheat yields in its latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), yield estimates stand significantly lower than those of the last crop year (Chart 2). In addition, American wheat farmers are expected to harvest the smallest area recorded in the history of the series, which dates back to the 1960/61 crop year. U.S. wheat production is expected to be the lowest since 2002/03 - a 25% year-on-year (y/y) drop in output. As a result, the U.S. supply surplus will likely be the smallest since 2002, weighing on U.S. exports. The U.S. generally accounts for only ~8% of global wheat production, and increases elsewhere, primarily in Russia and India, are expected to more than offset the fall in U.S. output. Despite the poor conditions in the U.S., global supply is expected to continue growing this year with the wheat market in surplus and inventories swelling to record levels (Chart 3). Chart 2Depressed Yield, Record Low Acreage In U.S. Chart 3World Remains Well Supplied Drought In Argentina Supporting Soybean, And To A Lesser Extent Corn Prices In addition to the unfavorable North American weather, warm and dry weather in Argentina have resulted in a fall in estimated yields of Argentine corn and soybeans.2 Argentina accounts for 14% and 3% of global soybean and corn production, respectively. The USDA cut back its estimate of Argentine soybean production by 13% in the latest WASDE, causing a downward revision of ~4 mm MT in global inventories (Chart 4). Although Argentina's estimated corn output was also reduced, the resulting decline in its exports is expected to be picked up by U.S. exports. American farmers thus are benefitting from the unfavorable weather in Argentina. As is the case with soybeans, the net effect on corn is a 4 mm MT downwards revision to global inventories. In addition, grain exports from Argentina's main agro-export hub of Rosario were stalled last month due to a truckers' strike. While the strike has now eased, it led to transportation bottlenecks and contributed to limited global supply earlier this year. Back in the U.S., the Trump administration's lack of clarity regarding where it stands on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates refiners blend biofuels like corn-based ethanol into the nation's fuels, is worrying farmers. While the energy industry is unsatisfied with the current policy, claiming that the RFS is unfair and costly, it gives a lifeline to corn farmers with excess stock. Bottom Line: Unfavorable weather and transportation disruptions, primarily in the U.S. and Argentina, have been bullish for ags since the beginning of the year. Lower production is expected to push both soybeans and corn to deficits in 2017/18 (Chart 5). The longevity of the impact of these forces hinges on whether the weather will improve between now and harvest, causing yields to come in better-than-expected. Chart 4Weather Weighs On Soybean And Corn Yields Chart 5Corn And Soybeans In Deficit This Year "We Can Also Do Stupid"3 In addition to the impact of his domestic immigration policy on the availability of farm workers, President Trump's controversial trade policies are threatening to spill into ags.4 In direct response to the 25% and 10% tariff Trump slapped on steel and aluminum imports, several of America's key ag trading partners have already reacted by communicating the possibility of imposing similar tariffs on their imports of American goods - chiefly agricultural goods. Among the commodities rumored to be at risk are Chinese soybean, sorghum and cotton imports, and EU agriculture imports including corn and rice imports. While President Trump's stated aim is to make America great again by reviving industries hurt by cheap imports and unfair trade, his strategy is proving risky as many of the trade partners he is threatening to rock ties with are in fact major consumers of U.S. agricultural products (Chart 6). In fact, the top three importers of U.S. ag products - collectively accounting for 42%, or $58.7 billion worth of U.S. ag exports in 2017 - are Canada, China, and Mexico (Charts 7A and 7B). Chart 6Risky Strategy, Mr. President Chart 7ASoybeans Appear To Be At Risk... Chart 7B... As Is Cotton However, when it comes to the bulk commodities we cover, China is by far the U.S. ag industry's biggest customer - importing more than 30% of all U.S. exports, equivalent to $14.9 billion. Thus, China appears to have significant leverage in the case of a trade war, and U.S. farmers are worried of the impact from trade disputes. China has already indicated that it is investigating import restrictions on sorghum. Chinese trade restrictions - if implemented - will have a significant impact on U.S. sorghum farmers. In value terms, sorghum exports contributed less than 1% to U.S. agricultural product exports last year, but exports to China made up more than 80% of all U.S. sorghum exports. Sino-American Trade Dispute Would Hurt U.S. Ags...But Not As Much As Is Feared Chart 8Relatively Low Soybean Inventories The biggest fear among U.S. farmers is not the loss of sorghum exports, but that China will impose restrictions on its imports of U.S. soybeans. Soybeans are the U.S.'s largest ag export - contributing 16% to the value of all agricultural product exports. Nearly 60% of U.S. soybean exports, and more than a third of U.S. soybeans, end up in China. Thus it may appear that China has some leverage there. In fact, Brazil, which is already China's top soybean supplier, has already communicated that it would be willing to supply China with more soybeans. However, China's ability to find alternative suppliers is questionable. While China imported ~32 mm MT of soybeans from the U.S. last year, Brazil's total soybean inventories stand at ~22 mm MT. Brazil simply does not have enough excess supply to cover all of China's needs. In fact, global soybean inventories are ~95 mm MT - only three times the amount of China's annual imports from the U.S. On top of that, although China generally tries to shield itself from supply shocks by building large inventories, its soybean inventories - measured as stocks-to-use - are significantly lower than that of other ags (Chart 8). In fact, Beijing has already tightened its scrutiny on U.S. soybeans, announcing at the beginning of the year that it would no longer accept shipments with more than 1% of foreign material. Half of last year's shipments reportedly would have failed this criterion, and the net effect of this new policy is higher costs for U.S. farmers. Cotton is another agricultural commodity that China has indicated may be caught up in a trade dispute. 16% of U.S. cotton exports went to China last year, but although the U.S. is the dominant global cotton exporter, its value accounts for less than 5% of total U.S. agricultural products exports. Given that China's inventories are extremely high - enough to cover a year's worth of consumption - and that Chinese imports from the U.S. are equivalent to ~3% of global inventories, there is significant opportunity for China to diversify its imports and find an alternative supplier to the U.S. Bottom Line: Although China would be better able to implement restrictions on cotton imports from the U.S. compared to soybeans, the impact on U.S. farmers would be less painful given that they are not as dependent on China as U.S. soybean farmers are. U.S. Ags Dominate Exports, But Substitutes Abound The U.S. is the world's top exporter of corn and cotton, and the second largest exporter of wheat and soybeans. While it remains a dominant player in global export markets, its share of global agriculture exports has been declining sharply over time (Chart 9). While in levels, the general trend for U.S. agriculture exports - with the exception of wheat - appears to be upward, the share of U.S. exports as a percentage of global exports has actually been falling. Compared to the year 2000, the global share of U.S. corn and wheat exports has almost halved, going from 64% to 36%, and 29% to 14%, respectively. In the soybean market, U.S. soybean exports now account for 37% of exports, down from half of global trade. Lastly, U.S. rice exports now account for 7% of global exports, a fall from 11% in 2000. Unlike most other ag commodities, U.S. cotton has captured a larger share of the global market - currently at almost 50%, from 26% in 2000. Russian, Canadian, and European wheat farmers have been tough competitors. This crop year, Russia is expected to surpass the U.S. as the top wheat exporter for the first time (Chart 10). In addition, while the U.S. was the dominant wheat exporter just 10 years ago, more recently, Canada and the EU have on some occasions exported more wheat than the U.S. Chart 9U.S. Exports Relatively Less Attractive Chart 10U.S. Exports Face Growing Competition In the case of soybeans, Brazilian exports have grown significantly since 2010, consistently exporting more than the U.S. since 2012. Brazilian corn exports are also catching up to the U.S., as are Argentine corn exports which have been growing steadily. If these trade disputes prove to be an ongoing trend, we see two potential scenarios panning out: U.S. farmers could move away from farming crops most impacted by trade restrictions, and instead increase the farmland allocated to crops that are consumed domestically, and thus insulated from the Trump administration's trade policy decisions. In this scenario, the longer term impact would be an increase in the supply of locally consumed ags and a decrease in the U.S. supply of exportable ags. Global ag trade flows could shift, such that U.S. allies begin importing more of their ag products from the U.S., while countries that are in trade disputes with the U.S. switch to other ag suppliers. NAFTA Is Still At Risk The ongoing re-negotiation of NAFTA ultimately could lead to an abrogation of the treaty. Should this evolve with no superseding bilateral trade agreements, it would mark a significant blow to the U.S. agricultural industry. Mexico is the second-largest destination for U.S. agricultural exports after China, accounting for 13% of all U.S. exports of agricultural bulks, while Canada makes up a much smaller 2% share. Nearly 30% of U.S. corn exports and 23% of U.S. rice exports end up in Mexico. As a result, these two bulks are especially vulnerable in the event of a treaty abrogation. Wheat, cotton and soybeans - Mexico accounts for 14%, 7%, and 7% of these exports, respectively - would also be impacted by a trade dispute. In the interest of diversifying its sources of ag imports, Mexico has already started exploring other suppliers from South America. Its corn imports from Brazil are reported to have increased 10-fold last year. Furthermore, government officials and grain buyers have been visiting Brazil and Argentina to investigate other ag suppliers for Mexico. BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service assign a 50/50 probability to a breakdown in the NAFTA negotiations. In the event of a NAFTA abrogation, they assign a 25% chance of a failure to strike bilateral agreements - resulting in a conditional probability of only 12.5%. Bottom Line: The shrinking role of the U.S. as a global ag supplier at a time when global storage facilities are well-stocked will - in most cases - allow its global consumers to diversify away from U.S. exports. In the case of soybeans, however, this is less certain. A Weaker USD Also Helped Buoy Ag Prices In 1Q18 Chart 11A Stronger Dollar Would Weigh On Ags A weaker dollar has been supportive of commodities prices so far this year (Chart 11). The recent bout of U.S. import restrictions has investors expecting the USD to further weaken on the back of a trade war. However, our FX Strategists believe the current set of tariffs will have a muted effect on the dollar.5 In fact, given that the U.S. economy is currently at full employment, and their expectation that the Fed will be proactive, tariffs will likely generate inflationary pressures, causing the tighter monetary policy, which does not support further weakening of the USD. Bottom Line: A pick-up in the dollar along with an escalation in trade disputes or the scrapping of NAFTA would be bearish for ags. For now, bullish weather forecasts prevail, and are keeping prices well supported. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease," dated March 1, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Soybean and corn plantings are reported to be half their typical height. Please see "Argentina Drought Bakes Crops Sparks Grain Price Rally," available at reuters.com. 3 As expressed by EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's about the potential tit-for-tat retaliatory measures in response to steel and aluminum import tariffs. 4 According to Chuck Conner, president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, and former deputy agriculture secretary during the George W. Bush administration, roughly 1.4 million undocumented immigrants work on U.S. farms each year, or roughly about 60% of the agriculture labor force. 5 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For the Dollar?," dated March 9, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Dear Client, Following up on last week's report, my colleagues Caroline Miller, Mathieu Savary, and I held a webcast on Wednesday to discuss the outlook for the dollar along with recent events. If you haven't already, I hope you find the time to listen in. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Protectionism is popular with the American public in general, and Trump's base specifically. The sabre-rattling will persist, but an all-out trade war is unlikely. Trump is focused on the stock market, and equities would suffer mightily if a trade war broke out. The Pentagon has also warned of the dangers of across-the-board tariffs that penalize America's military allies. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. That's not the case today. The equity bull market will eventually end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Feature Q: What prompted Trump's announcement? A: Last week began with President Trump proclaiming that he would seek re-election in 2020. Then came a slew of negative news, including the resignation of Hope Hicks, Trump's White House communications director, and the downgrading of Jared Kushner's security clearance. All this happened against the backdrop of the ever-widening Mueller probe. Trump needed to change the subject. Fast. However, it would be a mistake to think that the tariff announcement was simply a distractionary tactic. Turmoil in the White House might have been the immediate trigger, but events had been building towards this outcome for some time. The Trump administration had imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels in January. Hiking tariffs on steel and aluminum - two industries that had suffered heavy job losses over the past two decades - was a logical next step. In fact, the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum were similar to the 24% and 7.7% tariff rates, respectively, that the Commerce Department proposed as one of three options on February 16th.1 Protectionism is popular with the American public. This is especially true for Trump's base (Chart 1). Indeed, it is safe to say that Trump's unorthodox views on trade are what handed him the Republican nomination and what allowed him to win key swing (and manufacturing) states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump made a promise to his voters. He is trying to keep it. Q: Wouldn't raising trade barriers hurt the U.S. economy, thereby harming the same workers Trump is trying to help? A: That's the line coming from the financial press and most of the political establishment, but it's not as clear cut as it may seem. An all-out trade war would undoubtedly hurt the U.S., but a minor skirmish probably would not. The U.S. does run a large trade deficit. Economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney recently estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the U.S. economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation.2 This accords with other studies, such as the one by David Autor and his colleagues, which found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 2).3 Chart 1Trump Is Catering ##br##To His Protectionist Base Chart 2China's Ascent Has Reduced##br## U.S. Manufacturing Employment Granted, China does not even make it into the top ten list of countries that export steel to the United States. But that is somewhat beside the point. As with most commodities, there is a fairly well-integrated global market for steel. Due to its proximity to Asian markets, China exports most of its steel to the rest of the region (Chart 3). That does not stop Chinese overcapacity from dragging down prices around the world. Chart 3Most Of China's Steel Exports Don't Travel That Far Q: Wouldn't steel and aluminum tariffs simply raise prices for American consumers, thereby reducing real wages? A: That depends. If Trump's gambit reduces the U.S. trade deficit, this will increase domestic spending, putting more upward pressure on wages. As far as prices are concerned, the U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and an additional $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. And even that would be a one-off hit to the price level, rather than a permanent increase in the inflation rate. In practice, it is doubtful that prices would rise by the full amount of the tariff (if they did, what would be the purpose of retaliatory measures?). Most econometric studies suggest that producers will absorb about half of the tariff in the form of lower profit margins. To the extent that this reduces the pre-tariff price of imported goods, it would shift the terms of trade in America's favor. Chart 4Does Trade Retaliation Make Sense ##br## When Most Trade Is In Intermediate Goods? There is an old economic theory, first elucidated by Robert Torrens in the 19th century, which says that the optimal tariff is always positive for countries such as the U.S. that are price-makers rather than price-takers in international markets. Put more formally, Torrens showed that an increase in tariffs from very low levels was likely to raise government revenue and producer surplus by more than the loss in consumer surplus. So, in theory, the U.S. could actually benefit at the expense of the rest of the world by imposing higher tariffs.4 Q: This assumes that there is no trade retaliation. How realistic is that? A: That's the key. As noted above, a breakdown of the global trading system would hurt the U.S., but a trade spat could help it. Trump was trying to scare the opposition by tweeting "trade wars are good, and easy to win." In a game of chicken, it helps to convince your opponent that you are reckless and nuts. Trump's detractors would say he is both, so that works in his favor. Trump has another thing working for him. Most trade these days is in intermediate goods (Chart 4). It does not pay for Mexico to slap tariffs on imported U.S. intermediate goods when those very same goods are assembled into final goods in Mexico - creating jobs for Mexican workers in the process - and re-exported to the U.S. or the rest of the world. The same is true for China and many other countries. This does not preclude the imposition of targeted retaliatory tariffs. The EU has threatened to raise tariffs on Levi's jeans and Harley Davidson motorcycles (whose headquarters, not coincidently, is located in Paul Ryan's Wisconsin district). We would not be surprised if high-end foreign-owned golf courses were also subject to additional scrutiny! But if this is all that happens, markets won't care. The fact that the United States imports much more than it exports also gives Trump a lot of leverage. Take the case of China. Chinese imports of goods and services are 2.65% of U.S. GDP, but exports to China are only 0.96% of GDP. And nearly half of U.S. goods exports to China are agricultural products and raw materials (Chart 5). Taxing them would be difficult without raising Chinese consumer prices. Simply put, the U.S. stands to lose less from a trade war than most other countries. Chart 5China Stands To Lose More From A Trade War With The U.S. Q: Couldn't China and other countries punish the U.S. by dumping Treasurys? A: They could, but why would they? Such an action would only drive down the value of the dollar, giving U.S. exporters an even greater advantage. The smart, strategic response would be to intervene in currency markets with the aim of bidding up the dollar. Chart 6Slowing Global Growth Is Bullish##br## For The Dollar Q: So the dollar could strengthen as a result of rising protectionism? A: Yes, it could. This is a point that even Mario Draghi made at yesterday's ECB press conference. If higher tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit, this will increase U.S. aggregate demand. The boost to demand would be amplified if more companies decide to relocate production back to the U.S. for fear of being shut out of the lucrative U.S. market. The U.S. economy is now operating close to full employment. Anything that adds to demand is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. That could lead to a stronger greenback. Considering that the U.S. is a fairly closed economy which runs a trade deficit, it would suffer less than other economies in the event of a trade war. A scenario where global growth slows because of rising trade tensions, while the composition of that growth shifts towards the U.S., would be bullish for the dollar (Chart 6). Q: What are the implications for stocks and bonds? A: Wall Street will dictate what happens to stocks, but Main Street will dictate what happens to bonds. The stock market hates protectionism, so it is no surprise that equities sold off last week. It is this fact that ultimately got Trump to soften his position. Trump is used to taking credit for a rising stock market. If stocks flounder, this could make him think twice about pushing for higher trade barriers. As far as bonds are concerned, they will react to whatever happens to growth and inflation. As noted above, a trade skirmish could actually boost growth and inflation. Given that the economy is near full capacity, the latter is likely to rise more than the former. This, too, could cause Trump to cool his heels. After all, if higher inflation pushes up bond yields, this will hurt highly-levered sectors such as, you guessed it, real estate. Q: In conclusion, where do you see things going from here? A: Trade frictions will continue. As my colleague Marko Papic highlighted in a report published earlier this week, NAFTA negotiations are likely to remain on the ropes for some time.5 The Trump administration is also investigating allegations of Chinese IP theft. The U.S. is a major exporter of intellectual property, but these exports would be much larger if U.S. companies were properly compensated for their ingenuity. Chinese imports of U.S. intellectual property were less than 0.1% of Chinese GDP in 2017, an implausibly small number (Chart 7). If China is found to have acted unfairly, this could lead the U.S. to impose across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on inbound foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, as noted above, worries about a plunging stock market will constrain Trump from acting too aggressively. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. Today, firms are struggling to find qualified staff (Chart 8). This suggest that Trump will stick to doing what he does best, which is taking credit for everything good that happens under the sun. Chart 7China Is Importing More IP From The U.S., ##br##But The "True" Number Is Probably Higher Chart 8Protectionism Makes Less Sense ##br##When The Labor Market Is Strong Ironically, the latest trade skirmish is occurring at a time when the Chinese government is taking concerted steps to reduce excess capacity in the steel sector, and the profits of U.S. steel producers are rebounding smartly (Chart 9). In fact, the latest Fed Beige Book released earlier this week highlighted that "steel producers reported raising selling prices because of a decline in market share for foreign steel ..."6 Chart 9Chinese Steel Exports Falling, U.S. Steel Profits Rising Meanwile, German automakers already produce nearly 900,000 vehicles in the U.S., 62% of which are exported. In fact, European automakers have a smaller share of the U.S. market than U.S. automakers have of the European one.7 A lot of what Trump wants he already has. The Pentagon has also warned that trade barriers imposed against Canada and other U.S. military allies could undermine America's standing abroad. This is an important point, considering that Trump invoked the rarely used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the President broad control over trade policy in matters of national security, to justify raising tariffs. Trump tends to listen to his generals, if not his other advisors. He probably was not expecting their reaction. All this suggests that a major trade war is unlikely to occur. As we go to press, it appears that the White House will temporarily exclude Canada and Mexico from the list of countries subject to tariffs. We suspect that the EU, Australia, South Korea, and a number of other economies will get some relief as well. White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro has also said that some "exemptions" may be granted for specific categories of steel and aluminum products that are deemed necessary to U.S. businesses. That is a potentially very broad basket. The bottom line is that the equity bull market will end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances met with restrictive monetary policy, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Secretary Ross Releases Steel and Aluminum 232 Reports in Coordination with White House," U.S. Department of Commerce, February 16, 2018. 2 Katharine G. Abraham, and Kearney, Melissa S., "Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence," NBER Working Paper No. 24333, (February 2018). 3 David H. Autor, Dorn, David and Hanson, Gordon H., "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 4 A graphical illustration of this point is provided here. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018. 6 Please see "The Beige Book: Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions By Federal Reserve District,"Federal Reserve, dated March 7, 2018. 7 Please see Erik F. Nielsen, "Chief Economist's Comment: Sunday Wrap," UniCredit Research, dated March 4, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global trade data we track as indicators of current and expected commodity demand - particularly EM import volumes - will provide a lift to oil prices over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Against this still-positive backdrop, heightened geopolitical tensions are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war - now a factor following the Trump administration's bellicose rhetoric - would reduce our oil demand forecasts. That said, our Geopolitical Strategy team notes past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD, which would be bullish commodities.1 Energy: Overweight. Even though it is not a surprise, the anti-trade rhetoric coming out of Washington is a wake-up call for oil markets. Trade is deeply entwined with EM income growth, which drives commodity demand globally. A shock to global trade would be a shock to aggregate demand and oil demand, hence oil prices. Base Metals: Neutral. President Trump announced 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum last week. Markets are fretting over the possibility of a full-blown trade war if the U.S. zeroes in on China, as it apparently is doing, and Washington's allies impose retaliatory tariffs, should the Trump administration level tariffs on their exports.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. A global trade war would boost gold's appeal, and we continue to recommend it as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. In a series of tweets earlier this week, President Trump suggested concessions on steel and aluminum tariffs to Canada and Mexico in exchange for concessions on NAFTA. Neither Mexico nor Canada supported this link. Feature Our short-term models of global trade volumes continue to indicate EM imports - a key variable in our analysis of industrial commodity demand - will continue to grow (Chart of The Week).3 This will be supportive of commodity prices generally, particularly oil, in 1H18. In 2H18 and beyond, the outlook is getting cloudier. And more volatile. A fundamental underpinning of our oil-demand expectation for this year and next is that a slowdown in China in 2H18 will be offset by a pickup in EM and DM aggregate demand - and trade volumes - ex-China, in line with the IMF's expectation for EM and DM growth this year and next (Chart 2).4 DM markets and India likely will take up the slack created by China's slight slowdown. In fact, India already is moving out ahead: Based on official data, India's economy grew at a 7.2% rate in December, topping China's 6.8% rate, according to a Reuters survey at the end of February.5 Chart 1EM Import Volumes Will Continue To Grow Chart 2EM Growth Ex-China Keeps Oil Demand Strong EM Import Volumes Are Important To Oil Prices EM demand drives global oil demand. Over the long haul, the relationship between oil prices and EM import volumes has been strong: A 1% increase in EM import volumes has translated into roughly a 1% increase in Brent and WTI prices since 2000 (Chart 3).6 These variables all are linked: EM economic growth correlates with higher incomes, higher commodity demand and higher import volumes. All else equal (i.e., assuming supply is unchanged), this increases oil prices (via higher demand). The biggest weight in the EM import volume variable is China's imports, so the sustainability of the current Chinese growth is important, as is how smoothly policymakers there slow the economy in 2H18 as we expect. Chinese imports are sensitive to industrial output, which is captured by the Li Keqiang index, global PMIs, and FX markets (Chart 4). Provided policymakers can maintain income growth as the country pivots - once again - away from heavy industrial-export-led growth to consumer- and services-led growth, oil demand will not be materially affected, and should continue growing. At present, China's import volume growth has leveled off as Chart 4 shows, indicating income growth is holding up. China recently guided toward a GDP growth target of 6.5% for this year. Given they have a solid track record of achieving such targets, this indicates that they do not expect a severe slowdown. However, a hard economic landing - always a risk in transforming such a huge economy - would force us to reconsider our growth estimates. Chart 3EM Imports Supportive Of Prices Chart 4Growth In China's Import Volumes Levels Off In our analysis, we do not yet have enough information to determine whether the Trump administration will launch a trade war with China. The impact of President Trump's proposed steel and aluminum tariffs on China is de minimis: Chinese exports of these commodities to the U.S. amount to less than 0.2% of China's total exports, as our colleagues at BCA Research's China Investment Strategy note in this week's analysis.7 The big risk from these tariffs lies in what happens next. If they are the first step in additional tariffs directed at industries far more important to China, they could invite retaliation.8 If the recently announced tariffs expand to a global trade war - already the EU, Canada and Mexico have indicated they will not sit idly by while tariffs are imposed on exporters in their countries - the threat to world trade, and EM imports in particular, rises considerably. This would threaten crude oil prices. Trade Wars And Oil Flows Other than exports from the U.S., which could be targeted by states retaliating against tariffs, it is difficult to imagine the flow of oil being affected by a trade war in the short term: Oil is an internationally traded commodity, and traders adapt quickly to disruptions - e.g., re-routing crude flows in response to events affecting production, consumption, inventories or shipping.9 However, it does not require much of an intellectual leap to see EM trade volumes being significantly impacted by a trade war via the slowing in income growth globally. Such a turn of events would reduce aggregate demand in that part of the market - EM - that is responsible for the bulk of commodity demand growth. Falling EM trade volumes would be the natural result of falling incomes. This would be disinflationary, as well, which is not unexpected (Chart 5). We have found a long-term relationship with strong co-movement properties between EM import volumes and U.S. CPI and PCE inflation indexes. Our modelling indicates a 1% decrease (increase) in EM import volumes translates into a decrease (increase) in these U.S. inflation indexes of 15 to 20bp with a 6- to 12-month lag. These are non-trivial quantities: For instance, a decline in EM import volumes of 10% or more could shave as much as 2 points from U.S. inflation (Chart 6). Such a disinflation impulse once again coming from the real economy would, in all likelihood, force the Fed to throttle back on its interest-rate normalization policy or reverse course. Chart 5Lower EM Import Volumes##BR##Would Take U.S. Inflation Lower Chart 6EM Trade Volumes##BR##Over Time Volatility Likely To Pick Up As we noted above, our Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) colleagues point out the threat of tariffs and quotas has been used by U.S. administrations in the past to get systemically important central banks to support a weaker USD.10 The end game always is to spur exports to boost economic growth. The downside risk from trade wars discussed above is fairly obvious. Not so obvious is the upside commodity-price risk arising from a depreciation in the USD, which falls out of a strategy of using the threat of tariffs to ultimately weaken the USD. Our GPS colleagues quote Paul Volcker's summary of a similar gambit by Richard Nixon, who also ran a mercantilist presidential campaign in the late 1960s, to ultimately weaken the USD: The conclusion reached by some that the United States shrugged off responsibilities for the dollar and for leadership in preserving an open world order does seem to me a misinterpretation of the facts ... The devaluation itself was the strongest argument we had to repel protectionism. The operating premise throughout was that a necessary realignment of exchange rates and other measures consistent with more open trade and open capital markets could accomplish the necessary balance-of-payments adjustment. It is impossible to say whether such a depreciation is the Trump administration's end-game. However, if it is, this would be bullish commodities generally, gold and base metals in particular. For oil, a weaker USD would be bullish, but, as we have shown recently, fundamentals now drive oil price formation.11 Bottom Line: Current and expected EM import volumes indicate oil prices will continue to be supported by rising demand over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Still, heightened geopolitical tensions brought on by bellicose trade signaling from the U.S. are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war would force us to lower our forecast for Brent and WTI crude oil from our current $74 and $70/bbl expectations for this year. However, as our Geopolitical Strategy team notes, past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD. Should this turn out to be the Trump administration's strategy, the weaker USD would be bullish for commodity prices. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," published March 6, 2018. It is available at gps.bceresearch.com. Our colleagues note, "Import tariffs ought to be bullish for the greenback, given that they lead to higher domestic policy rates as inflationary pressures rise (and not just passing ones). However, as the previous two examples of U.S. protectionism teach us, the U.S. uses threats of tariffs so that it can get a cheaper USD. From Washington's perspective, both accomplish the same thing. Intriguingly, the U.S. dollar has sold off on the most recent news of protectionism." (Emphasis added.) 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease," published March 1, 2018, particularly the discussion beginning on p. 7. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our 3-month ahead projections are based on two components: (1) the first principal component of a basket of currencies exposed to global growth; and (2) lagged U.S. monetary variables. Our modeling shows that exchange rates are forward-looking variables containing information of future fundamentals. Therefore, by selecting currencies exposed to global and EM growth, this allows us to run short-term forecasts of EM import volumes. The analysis is also confirmed using Granger-causality tests. 4 Please see "Brighter Prospects, Optimistic Markets, Challenges Ahead," in the IMF's January 22, 2018, World Economic Outlook Update, which notes its revised forecast calling for stronger global growth reflects improved DM growth expectations. 5 Please see "India regains status as fastest growing major economy," published by reuters.com on February 28, 2018. 6 These results fall out of co-integration regressions. 7 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China And The Risk Of Escalation," published March 7, 2018. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. See also footnote 2 above. 8 President Trump reportedly is considering broadening the tariffs on a range of Chinese imports and limiting Chinese investment in the U.S., to punish the country for "its alleged theft of intellectual property," according to Bloomberg. Please see "U.S. Considers Broad Curbs on Chinese Imports, Takeovers," published by Bloomberg.com, March 6, 2018. 9 The U.S. is exporting a little over 1.5mm b/d of crude oil and 4.6mm b/d of refined products at present, according to EIA data. A drawn-out trade war resulting in U.S. oil exports being hit with retaliatory tariffs or quotas could derail the expansion of crude exports brought on by the growth in shale-oil output in America. The IEA expects the U.S. to account for the largest increase in crude exports in the world between now and 2040, "propelling the region above Russia, Africa and South America in the global rankings." This has the effect of reducing net U.S. crude imports to 3mm b/d by 2040 from 7mm b/d at present. An increase in product exports - from 2mm b/d to 4mm b/d - makes the U.S. a net exporter of crude and product, based on the IEA's analysis. The largest demand for crude imports comes from Asia over this period, which grows 9mm b/d to 30mm b/d in total. Please see "WEO Analysis: A sea change in the global oil trade," published by the IEA February 23, 2018, on its website at iea.org. 10 We urge our readers to pick up BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report cited in footnote 1 above, which lays out our GPS team's analytical framework regarding trade wars. They note, "If constraints to trade protectionism were considerable, Trump would not have the ability to surprise the markets with bellicose rhetoric on a whim. BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy cannot predict individual triggers for events. But our framework allows us to elucidate the constraint context in which policymakers operate. On protectionism, Trump operates in a poorly constrained context. This is why we have been alarmist on trade since day one." 11 We found that the more backwardated oil forward curves are the less impact the USD has on the evolution of prices. Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published on February 22, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights We re-examine our Yield and Protector portfolios to find out which assets will hold up best if there is a material correction. Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Are tariffs on aluminum and steel the start of a trade spat or a trade war? Feature Fears of a trade war and a hawkish tone from Fed Chair Jay Powell at his first Humphrey Hawkins testimony to Congress pushed the U.S. equity market lower last week. The ten-year Treasury yield barely budged however, buffeted by a more hawkish Fed on one side and a trade-induced slowdown in global growth on the other. The dollar was modestly higher last week, but oil and gold prices moved lower. The S&P 500's 4% loss in February was the worst single month since October 2016 and worst February since 2009. Both investment-grade and high-yield credit spreads widened last week, and have yet to return to their late January lows. Moreover, at 22, the VIX remained elevated relative to start of the year, consistent with our view that markets have entered a more volatile, late-cycle phase. With the 2.8% run-up in the S&P 500 since the February 8 low, investors are less concerned that the early February pullback in risk assets was a signal that the equity bull market is over and a recession is right around the corner. Nonetheless, some clients with a more strategic outlook are considering paring back risk now. Others want to know how to protect gains while still participating in the bullish tone for the market BCA expects in the next 12 months. Our Yield and Protector portfolios might provide a way for investors to protect against the downside while still participating in the S&P 500. Preparing For A Pullback BCA recommends investors stay overweight on equities and U.S. spread product, but expects that positions should be moved to neutral later this year and then to underweight sometime in 2019.1 Long-term investors should already consider paring back their exposures to both asset classes given that valuations are stretched. We have periodically recommended that a variety of investments be added as portfolio "insurance" to help guard against a material correction in equities. We recently highlighted two forms of insurance: our Yield and Protector Portfolios. We introduced the Yield Portfolio in October 20142 and first discussed the Protector Portfolio in October 2015.3 This week, we revisit the issue by comparing both portfolios with a more common form of insurance: shifting from cyclical to defensive stocks within an equity allocation. The Yield Portfolio (YP) emphasizes "high quality carry", along with some protection via TIPS (25% of the Portfolio), if inflation begins to surprise on the upside after investors are conditioned to expect only deflation shocks. The YP performs well in an environment of slow nominal growth, no recession and gradual interest-rate hikes. On the other hand, the Protector Portfolio (PP) is designed to provide insulation against both deflationary (gold and trade-weighted dollar) and inflationary (TIPS) tail risks. Therefore, the PP may underperform risk assets for a time if tail risks keep receding. Still, it has done well during the equity rally and conservative investors should consider adopting it. As discussed in the section below, our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Charts 1, 2, and 3 show a breakdown of the relative performance of S&P 500 defensives along with our Yield and Protector Portfolios. Panels 2 and 3 of Charts 1, 2 and 3 present the rolling one-year beta and alpha of each strategy versus the S&P 500. Alpha is presented as the difference between the actual year-over-year excess return of the portfolio (versus short-term Treasury bills) and what would have been expected given the portfolio's beta. This measure is also referred to as "Jensen's alpha." Chart 1S&P 500 Defensives##BR##A Modestly Low Beta Option Chart 2A Lower Beta##BR##Than Defensives Chart 3A Beta Near Zero,##BR##And Positive Alpha Based on the historical beta of the three portfolios versus the S&P 500, defensive stocks are the most correlated with the overall equity market. Our PP had a negative correlation to the broad market until earlier this year, when it turned slightly positive. BCA's YP is somewhere in between, with a positive but relatively low beta. This is consistent with the equity composition of the three portfolios (shown in Table 1). Note that our protector portfolio is composed entirely of non-equity assets. Table 1A Breakdown Of Three##BR##Portfolio Insurance Options After accounting for their lower betas, all three portfolios have outperformed the S&P in risk-adjusted terms since the onset of the global economic recovery. However, the three portfolios have experienced a relative decline versus the S&P 500 since Trump's election. This has occurred due to passive rather than active underperformance. In other words, they have underperformed because they failed to keep up with the S&P 500 rather than because of losses in absolute terms. We draw two important conclusions from Charts 1, 2 and 3 for U.S. multi-asset investors. First, the lower beta of our YP and PP compared with S&P defensives means that the former represent a better insurance against a sell-off in the equity market rather than the latter. Secondly, the persistently positive volatility-adjusted returns for our insurance portfolios highlights an investor preference for these assets in the past few years. However, since late 2017 when investors began to significantly upgrade the prospects for global growth and U.S. corporate profits, all three portfolios struggled to outperform the S&P 500 on a risk-adjusted basis. BCA's forecast implies that these portfolios may continue to struggle in the next year or so. For now, our investment bias towards equities over government bonds makes us less inclined to favor a low beta position within a balanced portfolio. Our analysis suggests that clients who anticipate the need for portfolio insurance in the coming year should back our YP and PP over a defensive-sector allocation. We would likely extend this recommendation to all clients if there is any material progression towards the sell-off triggers identified in the Bank Credit Analyst's February 2018 publication.4 Bottom Line: Investors seeking protection against a potential equity market sell-off should look to our Yield and Protector Portfolios over defensive-sector positioning. We do not currently recommend these portfolios for all clients, but we may do so if our key sell-off triggers are breached. Gold Bugged Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. The yellow metal is supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks and greater volatility in equity markets.5 However, the higher inflation and inflation expectations will be countered by Fed rate hikes, which will boost the U.S. dollar and lift real rates in our base case. Strategically, we expect that gold will provide a good hedge against any downturn in equities when the bull market turns bear in 2H19. Chart 4 shows that the price of gold in real terms is still very expensive. On a nominal basis, gold is at the top end of a trading channel initiated in early 2012 (Chart 5). There has been a significant gap between the model value and the actual price of gold for the past four years. The real price of gold remains elevated, although inflation has been well contained. Chart 4Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Chart 5Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel However, the macro environment BCA envisions for 2018 is also supportive for gold (Table 2). Gold tends to perform well when oil prices rise and as the 2/10 Treasury curve steepens. Moreover, gold prices tend to go up when the U.S. economy benefits from fiscal thrust and tax cuts. Furthermore, the soundings on the February ISM manufacturing index support higher gold prices. When the headline index is above 60 as it was in February (60.8), gold climbs by an average of 31%. Even 12 months after ISM is above 60, gold returns are over 20%. The elevated level of ISM new orders (64.2) and price (74.2) indices in February also suggest solid increases for gold. Finally, gold prices climb in the late stages of an economic expansion, such as the current one that began in 2009.6 Even so, our 6 to 12-month view on gold is that it will take its cues from Fed policy and policy expectations. The Fed is not behind the curve on inflation, and inflation expectations and measured inflation remain low. Our CPI and PCE models (Chart 6) show only a modest acceleration in inflation by year-end, which will be sufficient to keep the Fed on track this year as it continues to shrink its balance sheet and boost rates four times. Thus, there is no pressing need to hold gold as a hedge against inflation in the next year. Nonetheless, for those investors too concerned about a pullback that turns into a correction or a bear market, we note that gold has a 33% weight in our Protector Portfolio. Table 2Favorable Macro Backdrop For Gold Chart 6BCA's Inflation Models Show Only##BR##Modest Acceleration Through Year-End Bottom Line: Gold is expensive in real terms relative to a set of fundamentals that have explained its real price since 1970. However, it may have a better value on a strategic basis or as part of a portfolio designed to protect against falling equity prices. Moreover, our macro backdrop forecast for the next 12 months supports higher gold prices. Keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Trade Off BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has long argued that two sources of geopolitical risk this year are China's trade surplus and Trump's position on trade relations with China, Canada and Mexico. Specifically, the view is that weak poll numbers may lead Trump to trigger trade disputes with important trading partners such as China, Mexico and Canada. However, our geopolitical analysts also point out that investors should not confuse a trade spat with a trade war. There are very few legal or constitutional constraints on Trump over trade issues (Table 3). It will be his decision whether to adopt sweeping tariffs (trade war) as opposed to a more targeted approach (trade spat). Clearly, the former is more disruptive and raises more uncertainty, so this is the key distinction to keep in mind. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush (II) and Obama all imposed temporary tariffs on items (including steel and aluminum, and including by citing national security concerns) without triggering a trade war. Late last week, Trump indicated that he would announce tariffs on steel and aluminum this week. He implied that he would go for a broad-based approach of penalizing all steel and aluminum imports, which points toward the more aggressive approach. But the details (whether he exempts U.S. allies and partners or narrows the scope of goods) will not be certain until he issues his official proclamation. Table 3Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Steel and aluminum get the headlines, but account for only a small share of U.S. trade and GDP7 (Chart 7). BCA is more concerned about the Administration's stance on more deeper issues, like the WTO, NAFTA, or (in China's case) intellectual property and state-owned enterprises.8 The issues here are harder to quantify, have few precedents, and have more structural and ideological issues which are at stake. The U.S. has a massive trade surplus in services and in intellectual property,9 so a prolonged disruption would pose a serious threat to the U.S. economy, at least in the short term. Trump's decision on intellectual property trade with China is due on August 12, but could occur earlier. BCA's stance on U.S.-China relations is bearish in the long run.10 We place high odds on an eventual trade war, but the timing is a tougher call. Investors should not view China's proportional retaliation on an item-by-item basis as the start of a trade war. BCA's view is that China's leadership will try to offer reforms and investment opportunities to pacify Trump. However, there is a risk either that China offers no reforms (in which case Xi Jinping's rampant Communism exacerbates trade conflicts) or that Trump may introduce broad sweeping measures that give China no choice but to respond in kind, leading to a trade war. Our Geopolitical Strategy service notes that the probability of Trump abrogating NAFTA is as high as 50%. The seventh round of NAFTA talks concludes this week; an eighth round is scheduled for late March. Negotiations could drag on right to the Mexican election on July 1, but if they are not looking more optimistic by this spring then the risk of the U.S. (or Mexico) walking away will rise. The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico (Chart 8). Chart 7Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Chart 8U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Bottom Line: Elevated trade tensions with China,11 Canada and Mexico are near-term risks to global growth. From now through April could be a decisive time for the Trump Administration with China and NAFTA. We are bearish on U.S.-China relations in the long term. If Trump abandons NAFTA, the implications for the U.S. economy would be muted, although U.S. inflation may push higher. Such a decision would also send a clear signal to other key U.S. allies. However, if Trump stands by NAFTA, then it signals that he has sided with the establishment on trade. This would be bullish for risk assets and would lower geopolitical risk premia. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," published February 23, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Ice Storm", published October 20, 2014. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Tenuous Relief Rally", published on October 12, 2015. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, February 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Gold Still Shines Despite Threat Of Higher Inflation", published February 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View", published October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease", published March 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "America Is Roaring Back", published January 31, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?", published June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin", published January 18, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China", published February 28, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Fiscal Stimulus To Prolong The Expansion The market swoon in early February should not induce investors to lower risk. The stock market correction (the first for almost two years) was triggered by a couple of inflation and wage readings that came in slightly above expectations, and was exacerbated by some technical factors such as automated trading by volatility-target funds. But, significantly, it was not accompanied by the usual signals of rising risk aversion: for example, credit spreads barely widened and the gold price was stable (Chart 1). Volatility is likely to remain high but, as our U.S. Investment Strategy service recently found, the VIX has not been a useful indicator of recessions and bear markets: many times over the past 30 years it has spiked higher without risk assets producing negative returns over the subsequent 12 months (Chart 2).1 Recommended Allocation Chart 1Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Chart 2Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Fiscal policy moves in the U.S. make us believe, rather, that the current economic expansion will last longer than we previously forecast. A combination of tax cuts plus recent spending proposals (including $165 billion on the military and $45 billion on disaster relief) will boost GDP by about 0.8% of GDP this year and 1.3% next, compared to the IMF's earlier forecast of a fiscal contraction this year (Chart 3).2 Add to that the boost from the 8% trade-weighted depreciation of the U.S. dollar over the past 12 months (which should add 0.3% to growth over two years), and it is difficult to imagine U.S. GDP growth turning down any time soon. Accordingly, BCA has shifted its recession call from the second half of 2019 to sometime in 2020. Of course, this is not all good news. The U.S. budget deficit is likely to increase to 5½% of GDP in 2019, which will put upward pressure on interest rates. The fiscal impulse will hit an economy already at full capacity, and so will be inflationary. The scenario we envisage is boom-and-bust, leading to a nastier recession than we had previously expected. Nonetheless, the boost to growth should be positive for risk assets over the next 12 months. Our model of earnings growth now suggests that U.S. EPS should continue to grow at close to a 20% rate for the rest of this year (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Boost To U.S. Growth Chart 4Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too How quickly will the Fed push back against the potentially inflationary implications of this higher growth? We have found a remarkable turnaround in investors' perceptions of inflation over the past few weeks. Whereas last year most argued that structural forces (online shopping, the gig economy etc.) meant that inflation would stay depressed, now many worry that it will quickly shoot above 2% and force the Fed to tighten policy aggressively. This has caused them to over-react, for example, to the (rather obvious) statement from the last FOMC minutes that "participants noted that a stronger outlook for economic growth raised the likelihood that further gradual policy firming would be appropriate." Our view remains that core PCE inflation - the Fed's favorite measure - is likely to move back gradually to 2% (from 1.5% currently), but not accelerate dramatically. Unit labor costs remain subdued (Chart 5), the continued rise in the participation rate means there is more slack in the labor market than implied by headline unemployment (Chart 6), and inflation expectations remain low. This should allow new Fed chair Jerome Powell to continue to withdraw accommodation at a measured pace. The market has already priced in that the Fed will tighten this year at least in line with its dots (Chart 7). We expect four, rather than the Fed's projected three, hikes this year, but this should not be too hard for the market to absorb. Chart 5Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Chart 6 Still Some Slack In Labor Market Chart 7Market Has Caught Up To The Fed We have for some months now advised long-term, more risk-averse investors to consider dialing back risk, and the volatility in February was a good example of why. We would expect further such bouts of volatility. However, with a recession still probably two years away, and a combination of stronger-than-expected growth and a Fed reluctant to accelerate tightening, the next 12 months should remain positive for equities and other risk assets. Fixed Income: We now expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield to rise to 3.3-3.5%. This will come from a further 40 BP increase in inflation expectations (taking them back to a level compatible with the Fed achieving its inflation target) plus a rise in the real yield, as markets start to price in the end of secular stagnation (Chart 8). The rise in global yields will be exacerbated by increasing net supply, as fiscal deficits rise and central banks wind down QE (Chart 9). We are, accordingly, underweight duration, and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. We will likely reduce our exposure to credit before we turn defensive on equities. But, for now, strong economic growth and higher oil prices mean spread product is likely to outperform government bonds. Chart 8Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Chart 9Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Currencies: Rising interest rate differentials have failed to cause the dollar to rally (Chart 10). FX markets are trading, rather, on valuations (the euro and yen are, indeed, undervalued), on current account positions (the euro zone and Japan have large surpluses), and on the narrative that U.S. twin deficits historically caused the dollar to weaken. Our FX strategists find this is true only when, as in 2001-3, U.S. real rates were falling; after the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, real rates rose, pushing up the dollar (Chart 11). The key, therefore, is how quickly the Fed reacts this time. The dollar currently has strong downward momentum (especially against the yen) and this could continue. But as global growth slows relative to the U.S., relative interest rates are likely to reassert themselves as a factor, causing the dollar to strengthen again. Chart 10Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Chart 11Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Equities: Given the macro environment, we continue to recommend pro-cyclical equity tilts, with overweights in higher beta markets such as the euro zone and Japan, and cyclical sectors such as financials, energy, and industrials. Our underweight on EM equities is based on the risk of a slowdown in China (where tighter financial conditions point to a slowing of the industrial sector, Chart 12), the possibility of a U.S. dollar rebound, and the vulnerability of highly leveraged foreign-currency EM borrowers to a rise in U.S. interest rates. Commodities: Our energy team has further revised up their oil price forecast, on expectations that the OPEC agreement will be extended, which will cause a greater draw-down in oil inventories (Chart 13).3 They see Brent crude averaging $74 a barrel this year, with spikes above $80. However, the response of the U.S. shale industry will begin to kick in, pushing the price down to below $60 by end-2019. We are neutral on industrial commodities, which will benefit from stronger global growth but are at risk in the event of dollar appreciation and slowdown in China. Chart 12Tighter Monetary Conditions In China Chart 13Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Please note that, due to the Easter holidays in some countries, the GAA Quarterly Portfolio will be published one day later than usual, on April 3. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Late Innings," dated 26 February 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 For details, please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "March 2018," available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0: Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," dated 22 February 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Seasonal environmental restrictions on Chinese aluminum output are due to ease going into spring, which will restore some of the output taken off line when inefficient smelters were shuttered last year. Global demand likely will slow later this year, largely because we expect GDP growth in China, which accounts for more than half of global aluminum consumption, to moderate in 2H18. In addition, expected U.S. tariffs and quotas will limit imports and revive output in that market. This will contribute to the easing of a tight global balance, and take some of the pressure off prices, but we do not expect a significant move lower. We remain neutral. Energy: Overweight. Our long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short Dec/18 $70/bbl calls - recommended last week on the back of our updated price forecast - closed with a 3.1% gain on Tuesday. We took profits on our long 4Q19 $55/bbl Brent puts vs. short 4Q19 $50/bbl Brent puts, realizing a 20.7% gain since it was recommended January 18, 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. We are expecting a secular increase in aluminum supplies this year, on the back of Chinese environmental policies and more difficult global trading conditions. Precious Metals: Gold markets awaited Fed Chair Powell's Humphrey-Hawkins testimony beginning Tuesday, as vice chair for financial supervision, Randal Quarles, warned U.S. economic growth could exceed expectations the day before. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Argentina's drought looks like it will stress that country's grain harvests, and tighten markets at the margin. Feature Chart of the WeekAluminum In Large Deficit Last Year Easing of winter supply restrictions in China, as well as tighter controls on U.S. aluminum imports, will dominate the aluminum market in the near term. In both cases, the net effect likely will be an increase in global supply. The latter would also support aluminum's price in the U.S. market - as measured by the U.S. Midwest premium. These events will ease the global physical deficit in aluminum, which last year came in at its widest since 1995 (Chart of the Week). The current tight conditions are driven by Beijing's elimination of overcapacity, which, along with environmental reform policies implemented last year, led to a reduction in China's output. The price dynamics that dominated the aluminum market over the past couple years will shift as a result. This already can be seen in the behavior of prices on the LME and the SHFE: LME prices have been gyrating around $2,200/MT, while SHFE prices have dipped by more than 5% since the beginning of the year. Unwinding China's Supply-Side Policies? At first blush, it may not be apparent China's primary aluminum production sector experienced significant changes last year. After stalling at 1% year-on-year (y/y) growth in 2016, output grew 1.2% y/y in 2017, a sharp deceleration from the 16% y/y average growth rates registered between 2010 and 2015. However, the annual gain masked a 10% y/y increase in output in 1H17, which was almost completely reversed by the negative impacts of China's environmental policies and its efforts to eliminate overcapacity. These policy-led initiatives ultimately caused output to fall 7% y/y in 2H17 (Chart 2). The resulting 1 mm MT of production cuts in the second half of last year reflects China's 2017 supply-side policies. Beijing's strategy is two-fold: Chart 2Sharp Fall In 2H17 Output From China ... Eliminate outdated and unlicensed capacity by forcing it to close. This has removed an estimated 3-4 mm MT of annual capacity. The policy targets capacity lacking proper building and expansion permits, as well as the smelters that do not meet strict environmental standards. However, not all the shutdowns are permanent. Among this shuttered capacity is 2 mm MT of outdated smelter capacity belonging to China Hongqiao, which the company plans to replace with new capacity.1 The other major supply-side policy implemented by Beijing last year is a restriction on smelter activity during the mid-November to mid-March period. As is the case in the steel sector, this winter-curtailment policy seeks to reduce pollution during the smog-prone winter months. Aluminum smelters in the cities targeted in the winter plan were ordered to cut output by ~ 30% during this period. This policy is expected to be an annually recurring event until 2020. However, while 3 mm MT of annualized capacity would have been closed during the winter if the full 30% curtailment target had been met, reports surfaced in mid-December that compliance was low, and suggested only ~ 0.6 mm MT of capacity (just 20% of the goal, or 6% of the curtailment target) had been closed.2 The total aluminum annual capacity affected by both the winter environmental curtailments and capacity-reduction policies implemented last year could potentially reach 7 mm MT. China's total smelting capacity was a reported 40 mm MT in 2016. Lower Chinese Production ... And Consumption On a year-on-year basis, global primary aluminum production has been falling since August. This is, for the most part, true on a month-on-month basis, as well. The 12-month moving average for global aluminum production peaked in July, and has been coming down consistently since then. Although 2017 production came in higher than the previous year, this is due to a ~ 6% y/y increase in the first half, which preceded a ~ 4% y/y decline in output in the second half of the year. These dynamics are driven by China, which accounts for 55% of global primary production. Chinese firms raised primary output in 1H17, which was followed by a sharp contraction in 2H17. Chinese primary aluminum production peaked in June, recording an all-time record of 2.98 mm MT before falling in the subsequent months. On the other hand, primary production from the rest of the world has remained largely unchanged over the past two years, at 26 mm MT. Data from the International Aluminum Institute shows month-on-month production increases in China in December and January; however, output is still lower vs. the same period a year earlier. Chinese production drove global aluminum production higher in the past, but falling output from the world's leading producer now is causing global primary aluminum supply to contract. The impact of China's supply curtailments has been muted by lower demand for the metal (Chart 3). Again, lower consumption has been driven by the top-demand market - China - which typically consumes ~ 55% of the primary metal. Chinese primary consumption and production each came down by more than 1 mm MT y/y in the second half of last year. Falling aluminum demand in China is consistent with a slowdown in Chinese automobile production as well as fixed asset investments in infrastructure and transportation (Chart 4). Furthermore, China's scrap aluminum imports increased in 2H17, reflecting a preference for the secondary metal as the price of primary aluminum increased. Chart 3... Coincided With Falling Chinese Consumption Chart 4Slowdown In Chinese Demand A Divergence In Global Dynamics ... Despite the improved balance in China, the global primary aluminum balance in the rest of the world recorded a large deficit last year - the largest since 1995 (Chart 5). While both consumption and production in China came down by more than 1 mm MT in 2H17, consumption in the rest of the world increased by ~ 0.4 mm MT, even as production remained largely unchanged. This tightened the global market, as more stringent aluminum production policies in China meant that there was no flooding of Chinese aluminum to ease the deficit. In fact, the world excluding China deficit is the largest at least since the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) started collecting data in 1995. ... Is Reflected In Inventory Dynamics This also coincides with rising aluminum stocks on the Shanghai Futures Exchange and falling inventory on the LME. In fact, Chinese aluminum imports have been falling and were down almost 30% y/y in 2H17. At the same time, Chinese net exports picked up slightly (Chart 6). Chart 5Record Aluminum Deficit Outside China Chart 6Chinese Net Exports On The Rise In response to lower output, LME inventories have been falling since 2Q14, and they continued their descent last year, ending 2017 at roughly the same level as mid-2008. On the other hand, stocks at the SHFE have been rising steeply since the beginning of last year and are at record highs (Chart 7). Whether the tight global market fundamentals will persist depends on whether China's outdated capacity cuts prove to be temporary or permanent. Chart 7Dynamics Reflected In Stock Changes U.S. Tariffs And Quotas Would Offset Tight Markets In what appears to be an effort to revive U.S. aluminum and steel production, the U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation into these domestic industries late last year. Last month, Commerce proposed tariffs and quotas that would impact all aluminum imports with the exception of aluminum scrap and aluminum powders. There appear to be two main objectives of this investigation: 1. Increase capacity utilization in the U.S. aluminum and steel industries; and 2. Penalize China for subsidizing its aluminum sector at the expense of those in other countries. Among the Commerce proposals: 1. A 7.7% tariff on all aluminum imports to the U.S. 2. A 23.6% tariff on all aluminum imports from certain countries, while other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the U.S.3 3. A quota on all aluminum imports from other countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the U.S. In a memo issued last week, the U.S. Department of Defense expressed its support for the targeted tariffs (option 2 above), as well as a recommendation to postpone action on the aluminum sector. President Trump has until April 19 to make a decision on the aluminum recommendations. While he may not stick to the exact details outlined in the three options, our Geopolitical Strategists expect him to go through with implementing protectionist measures to limit aluminum imports. U.S. production of primary aluminum is at its lowest level since 1951 (Chart 8). To reach the 80% target of smelter capacity utilization envisioned by Commerce, the U.S. will have to add ~ 0.67 mm MT of supply. This represents just ~ 1.16% of world supply in 2016. Imports currently make up 90% of U.S. primary aluminum consumption. Chart 8U.S. Producers Took A Big Hit In fact, even if this amount of aluminum was supplied domestically in the U.S. last year, the world aluminum market would have remained in deficit. Furthermore, this additional supply would pale in comparison to the cuts China has already implemented in its aluminum sector last year. China's primary production in the August to December period last year came in 1.15 mm MT below the same period in 2016. Annual smelter capacity in the U.S. is estimated to be a combined 1.82 mm MT. Of this capacity, Alcoa has 0.34 mm MT of idle capacity, Century Aluminum has 0.27 mm MT, while ARG International's Missouri plant has 0.27 mm MT of idle capacity. U.S. producers have started communicating plans to restart idled capacity. According to Century Aluminum's CEO, the company's eastern Kansas operation, which shuttered more than half of its production, could ramp output at one of its smelters to full capacity of up to 0.27 mm MT by early next year. Similarly, Alcoa has committed to partially restarting production at its Warwick, Indiana, facility, which would bring 0.16 mm MT of capacity online by the second quarter of this year. However, imports are not the sole reason output in the U.S. aluminum sector is falling. High power costs also have contributed, but this is not addressed in the Department of Commerce's report. In any case, we would not be surprised to witness an increase in aluminum imports by U.S. consumers before a final decision is made. If import controls do in fact fall into place, prices in the U.S. - as reflected by the U.S. Midwest transaction premium - will likely increase. Bottom Line: Supply- and demand-side developments, mostly in China, which accounts for more than half of global production and consumption, will combine to ease a global supply deficit this year. Expected U.S. tariffs and quotas will limit imports and revive output in that market. This will take some pressure off prices, but, we do not expect levels to move significantly lower. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "China Hongqiao says to cut 2 mln T/year of outdated aluminum capacity," published on August 2, 2017, available at reuters.com. 2 Please see "Aluminum Under Pressure After China Smog Cutbacks Fall Short," published on December 20, 2017, available at reuters.com. 3 The countries noted are China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam. 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