Commodities & Energy Sector

BCA will be holding the Dubai session of the BCA Academy seminar on November 28 & 29. This two-day course teaches investment professionals how to examine the economy, policy, and markets; and also makes links between these important factors. Moreover, it represents a great networking opportunity for all attendees. I look forward to seeing you there. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights Donald Trump's victory represents a sea-change for U.S. politics as well as the economy. His expansionary fiscal policy, to be implemented as the labor market's slack evaporates, will boost demand, wages, and will prove inflationary. The Fed will respond with higher rates, boosting the dollar. EM Asian currencies will bear the brunt of the pain. Commodity currencies, especially the AUD, will also be significant casualties. EUR/USD will weaken in the face of a strong greenback, but should outperform most currencies. Key risks involve gauging whether the Fed genuinely wants to create a "high-pressure", economy as well as the potential for Chinese fiscal stimulus. Feature Trump's electoral victory only re-enforces our bullish stance on the dollar. A Trump presidency implies much more fiscal stimulus than originally anticipated. Therefore, the Fed will not be the only game in town to support growth. This strengthens our view that, on a cyclical basis, the OIS curve still underprices the potential for higher U.S. interest rates. In a Mundell-Fleming world, this suggests a much higher exchange rate for the greenback. Additionally, Trump's protectionist views are likely to hit EM economies - China in particular - harder than DM economies. We continue to prefer expressing our bullish dollar view by shorting EM and commodity currencies. Is Trump Handcuffed? Trump's victory reflects a tidal wave of anger and dissatisfaction with the current state of the U.S. economy. Most profoundly, his candidacy was a rallying cry against an increasingly unequal distribution of economic opportunities and outcomes for the U.S. population. As we highlighted last week, since 1981, the top 1% of households have seen their share of income grow by 11%. In fact, while 90% of households have seen their real income contract by 1% since 1980, the top 0.01% of households have seen their real income increase more than five-fold (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The (Really) Rich Got Richer In this context, Trump's appeal, more than his often-distasteful racial or gender rhetoric, has been his talk of protecting the middle class. But, by losing the popular vote, are his hands tied? Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, surmises in a Special Report1 sent to all BCA's clients that it is not the case. First, Trump's victory speech emphasized infrastructure spending, indicating that this is likely to be his first priority. As Chart I-2 illustrates, there is a lot of room for the government to spend on this front. At 1.4% of GDP, government investment is at its lowest level since World War II. Furthermore, according to the Tax Policy Institute, Trump's current plan includes $6.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. Second, the Republican Party now controls Congress as well as the White House. Not only has the GOP historically rallied around the president when all the levers of power are in the party's hands, but also, the Tea party has been one of Trump's most ardent supporters. Hence, Trump's program is unlikely to be completely squelched by Congress. Third, the GOP is most opposed to government spending when Democrats control the White House. When Republicans are in charge of the executive, the GOP is a much less ardent advocate of government stringency, having increased the deficit in the opening years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Room To Increase##br## Infrastructure Spending Chart I-3Republicans Are Fiscally Responsible ##br##When It Suits them Finally, international relations are the president's prerogative. While there are legal hurdles to renegotiate treaties like NAFTA, Trump can slap tariffs easily, rendering previous arrangements quite impotent. Though protectionism has not been highlighted in Trump's victory speech, the topic's popularity with his core electorate highlights the risk that trade policies could be impacted. Bottom Line: Trump has a mandate to spend and got elected because of his policies that support the middle class. His surprise victory represents a sea-change, a move the rest of the Republican establishment will not ignore. Therefore, we expect Trump to be able to implement large-scale fiscal stimulus. Economic Implications To begin with, Trump is a populist politician. While populism ultimately ends badly, it can generate a growth dividend for many years. Nowhere was this clearer than in 1930s Germany, where Hitler's reign yielded a major economic outperformance of Germany relative to its regional competitors (Chart I-4).2 Government infrastructure spending played a large role in this phenomenon. Also, the Reagan era shows how fiscal stimulus can lead to a boost to growth. From the end of the 1981-82 recession to 1987, U.S. real GDP per capita outperformed that of Europe and Japan, despite the dollar's strength in the first half of the decade. Fascinatingly, the U.S. GDP per capita even outperformed that of the U.K., a country in the midst of the supply-side Thatcherite revolution (Chart I-5). This suggests that the U.S's economic outperformance was not just a reflection of Reagan's deregulatory instincts. Chart I-4Populism Can Boost Growth Chart I-5Reagan Deficits Boosted Growth Too Unemployment is close to its long-term equilibrium, and the hidden labor-market slack has greatly dissipated. Additionally, one of the biggest hurdles facing small businesses is finding qualified labor. In the context of a tight labor market, we anticipate that Trump's fiscal stimulus will not only boost aggregate demand directly, but will also exert significant pressures on already rising wages (Chart I-6). Compounding this effect, if Trump does indeed focus on infrastructure spending, work by BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy service shows that this type of stimulus offers the highest fiscal multiplier (Table I-1).3 Chart I-6Stimulating Now Will Feed Wage Growth Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Additionally, a retreat away from globalization, and a move toward slapping more tariffs and quotas on Asia and China would be inflationary. Historically, falling inflation has coincided with falling tariffs as competitive forces increase. This time, with the output gap closing, and the tightening labor market, decreasing the trade deficit could arithmetically push GDP above trend, accentuating wage and inflationary pressures. Finally, for households, a combination of rising wages, elevated consumer confidence, and low financial obligations relative to disposable income could prompt a period of re-leveraging (Chart I-7). Moreover, the median FICO score for new mortgages has fallen from more than 780 in 2013 to 756 today, an easing in lending standard for mortgages. All the factors above suggest that U.S. growth is likely to improve over the next two years, driven by the government and households. It also points towards rising inflationary pressures. As we have highlighted before, the more the economy can generate wage growth to support domestic consumption, the more it becomes resilient in the face of a stronger dollar. The tyranny of the feedback loop between the dollar and growth will loosen. This environment would be one propitious for the Fed to hike interest rates as the economy becomes less dependent on lower rates for support. In the long-run, the Trump growth dividend is likely to require a payback, but this discussion is for another day. Bottom Line: Trump is likely to boost U.S. economic activity through fiscal stimulus, especially infrastructure spending. Since the slack in the economy is now small, especially in the labor market, this increases the likelihood that the Fed will finally be able to durably push up interest rates (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Household Debt Load Can Grow Again Chart I-8Vanishing Slack = Higher Rates Currency Market Implications The one obvious effect from a Trump victory is that it re-enforces our core theme that the dollar will strengthen on a 12 to 18-months basis as the market reprices the Fed's path. However, we expect Asian currencies to be viciously hit by this new round of dollar strength. For one, compared to the drubbing LatAm currencies received, KRW, TWD, and SGD are only trading 13%, 9%, and 15% below their post 2010 highs. Most importantly though, EM Asia has been the main beneficiary of 35 years of expanding globalization. Countries like China or the Asian tigers have registered world-beating growth rates thanks to a growth strategy largely driven by exports (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Former Winners Become Losers Under Trump We expect these economies and currencies to suffer the most from Trump's retribution and from a continued structural underperformance of global trade. China, Korea, and co. are likely to be hit by tariffs under a Trump administration. Also, under a Trump administration, the likelihood of implementation of new international trade treaties is near zero. Therefore, the continuous expansion of globalization of the previous decades is over, and may even somewhat reverse. Furthermore, a move toward a more multipolar world, like the interwar period, tends to be associated with falling trade engagement. Trump's desire to diminish the global deployment of U.S. troops would only add to such worries. Regarding the RMB, the picture is murky. On the one hand, the RMB is trading 4% below fair value and does not need much devaluation from a competitiveness perspective. However, Chinese internal deflationary pressures, courtesy of much overcapacity, remain strong (Chart I-10). Easing these pressures requires a lower RMB. Moreover, the offshore yuan weakened substantially in the wake of Trump's victory, yet the onshore one did not, suggesting that the PBoC is depleting its reserves to support the currency. This tightens domestic liquidity conditions, exacerbating the deflationary forces in the country. Chart I-10Plenty Of Excess Capacity In China This means that China is in a bind as a depreciating currency will elicit the wrath of president Trump. The risk is currently growing that China will let the RMB fall substantially between now and January 20. Such a move would magnify any devaluating pressures on other Asian exchange rates. While it is difficult to be bullish MXN outright on a cyclical basis when expecting a broad dollar rally, the recent weakness in MXN is overdone. Mexico has not benefited nearly as much from globalization as Asian nations. Also, after a 60% appreciation in USD/MXN since June 2014, even after the imposition of tariffs, Mexico will still be competitive. Even then, the likelihood and severity of any tariffs enacted on Mexico might be exaggerated by markets. In fact, President Nieto's invitation to Trump last summer may prove to have been a particularly uncanny political move. Investors interested in buying the peso may want to consider doing it against the won, potentially one of the biggest losers from a Trump presidency. Outside of EM, the AUD is at risk. Australia sits in the middle of the pack in terms of economic and export growth during the globalization era, but it is very exposed to Asian economic activity. Historically, the AUD has been tightly correlated with Asian currencies (Chart I-11). Adding insult to injury, Australia is a large metals producer, which means that Australia's terms of trade are highly levered to the Chinese investment cycle, the main source of demand for iron ore, copper, etc. (Chart I-12). With China already swimming in over capacity, unless the government enacts a new infrastructure package, Chinese imports of raw materials will remain weak. Chart I-11AUD Will Suffer If Asian Currencies Fall Chart I-12China Is The Giant In The Room The NZD is also likely to suffer against the USD. The currency's sensitivity to the dollar strength and EM spreads is very high. However, we expect AUD/NZD to remain depressed. The outlook for relative terms of trades supports the kiwi as ag-prices will be less impacted by a slowdown in Chinese capex than metals. Additionally, on most metrics, the New Zealand economy is outperforming that of Australia (Chart I-13). The CAD should beat both antipodean currencies. First, it is less sensitive to the U.S. dollar or EM spreads than both the AUD and the NZD, reflecting its tighter economic link with the U.S. We also expect some softer rhetoric and actions from Trump when it comes to implementing trade restrictions with Canada than with Asia. Finally, while we are very concerned for the outlook for metals, the outlook for energy is superior. Yes, a strong greenback is a headwind for oil prices, but a Trump presidency is likely to result in strong household consumption. Vehicle-miles-driven growth would remain elevated, suggesting healthy oil demand from the U.S. Meanwhile, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects the drawdown in global oil inventories to accelerate, particularly if Saudi Arabia and Russia can agree on a 1mm b/d production cut at the upcoming OPEC meeting at the end of the month, which is bullish for oil (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Stronger Kiwi Domestic Fundamentals Chart I-14Better Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil We also remain yen bears. The isolationist stance of Trump is likely to incentivize Abe to double down on fiscal stimulus, especially on the military. Japan is currently massively outspent on that front by China (Chart I-15). With the BoJ pegging policy rates at 0% for the foreseeable future, the yen will swoon on the back of falling real yields. Moreover, if our bearish stance on Asian currencies materializes itself, this will put competitive pressures on the yen, creating an additional negative. For the euro, the picture is less clear. The euro remains the mirror image of the dollar, so a strong greenback and a weak euro are synonymous. Additionally, Trump stimulus, if enacted, will ultimately result in higher nominal and real yields in the U.S. relative to Europe, especially as the euro area does not display any signs of being at full employment (Chart I-16). That being said, the euro is currently very cheap, supported by a current account surplus, and the ECB might begin tapering asset purchases in the second half of 2017. Combining these factors together, while we remain cyclically bearish on EUR/USD - a move below parity over the next 12-18 months is a growing possibility - the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and even the yen. We are looking to buy EUR/JPY, especially considering the skew in positioning (Chart I-17). Chart I-15Japan Will Spend More On Its ##br##Military With Or Without Trump Chart I-16European Labor Market##br## Slack Is Evident Chart I-17EUR/JPY Has##br## Room To Rally Finally, the outlook for the pound remains clouded until we get a better sense of the High Court's decision on the government's appeal regarding the need for a Parliamentary vote on Brexit. We expect the court's decision to re-inforce the previous ruling, which means that the pound could strengthen as the probability of a "soft Brexit" grows. The resilience of the pound in the face of the recent dollar's strength points to such an outcome. Risk To Our View And Short-Term Dynamics The biggest risk to our view is obviously that Trump's fiscal plans never pan out. However, since our bullish stance on the dollar predates Trump's electoral victory, we would therefore remain dollar bulls, albeit less so. Nonetheless, limited fiscal stimulus would likely cause a temporary pullback in the dollar. Chart I-18A Mispricing Or A Signal? Another short-term risk is the Fed. Currently, inflation expectations in the U.S. have shot up. If the Fed does not increase rates in December - this publication currently thinks the FOMC will increase rates then - the dollar will fall as this move will put downward pressures on U.S. real rates. This is especially relevant as the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 2.8%, in line with the Fed's estimate of the long-term equilibrium Fed funds rates as per the "dots". A big risk for our EM / commodity currency view is China. China may not respond to Trump by aggressively bidding down the CNY before January 20. Instead, to counteract the negative effect of Trump on Chinese export growth, China might instigate more fiscal stimulus, plans that always have a large infrastructure component. The recent parabolic move in copper needs monitoring (Chart I-18). Bottom Line: A Trump victory is a massive boon for the dollar. However, because Trump represents a move away from globalization, the main casualties of the Trump-dollar rally will be Asian currencies and the AUD. The CAD and the NZD will also undergo downward pressures, but less so. Finally, while EUR/USD is likely to fall, the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and the yen. As a risk, in the short-term, an absence of Fed hike in December would represent the biggest source of weakness for the dollar. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 To be clear, while we do find some of Trump comments over the past year highly distasteful, we are not suggesting that he is a re-incarnation of Hitler or that his presidency is doomed to end in a massive global conflict. It is only an economic parallel. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it." - U.S. President Elect Donald Trump (November 9, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "I'm very skeptical as far as further interest rate cuts or additional expansionary monetary policy measures are concerned -- over time, the benefits of these measures decrease, while the risks increase" - ECB Executive Board Member Sabine Lautenschlaeger (November 7,2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "In order for long-term interest rate control to work effectively, it is important to maintain the credibility in the JGB market through the government's efforts toward establishing sustainable fiscal structures" - BoJ Minutes (November 10, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "[The impact of a weak pound on inflation]... will ultimately prove temporary, and attempting to offset it fully with tighter monetary policy would be excessively costly in terms of foregone output and employment growth. However, there are limits to the extent to which above-target inflation can be tolerated" - BOE Monetary Policy Summary (November 3, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Inflation remains quite low...Subdued growth in labor costs and very low cost pressures elsewhere in the world mean that inflation is expected to remain low for some time" - RBA Monetary Policy Statement (October 31, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Weak global conditions and low interest rates relative to New Zealand are keeping upward pressure on the New Zealand dollar exchange rate. The exchange rate remains higher than is sustainable for balanced economic growth and, together with low global inflation, continues to generate negative inflation in the tradables sector. A decline in the exchange rate is needed" - RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler (November 10, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We have studied the research and the theory behind frameworks such as price-level targeting and targeting the growth of nominal gross domestic product. But, to date, we have not seen convincing evidence that there is an approach that is better than our inflation targets" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (November 1, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We don't have a fixed limit for growing the balance sheet; it's a corollary of our foreign exchange market interventions - which we conduct to fulfill our price stability mandate" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Banks' capital ratios have doubled since the financial crisis and liquidity has improved. At the same time, some aspects of the Norwegian economy make the financial system vulnerable. This primarily relates to high property price inflation combined with high household indebtedness" - Norges Bank Deputy Governor Jon Nicolaisen (November 2, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "...the weak inflation outcomes in recent months illustrate the uncertainty over how quickly inflation will rise. The Riksbank now assesses that it will take longer for inflation to reach 2 per cent. The upturn in inflation therefore needs continued strong support" - Riksbank Minutes (November 9, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The inexorable shift of refining eastward would be accelerated if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia fail to curb crude oil production as we expect. Prolonging the crude oil market-share war - particularly between opposing camps led by KSA and Iran within OPEC, and Russia's campaign outside the Cartel - will advantage Asian refiners in the short term. Over the longer term, the expansion of oil refining in Asia and the Middle East likely will accelerate, as these warring camps invest directly in refining capacity in Asia and expand their domestic and regional refining and trading capacity. The risk Asian product markets will become super-saturated over the next 3 - 5 years remains elevated, as local refining capacity outgrows local demand and export markets are used to dispose of product surpluses. Like their upstream counterparts, refiners can be expected to fight for market share, leading to a compression in margins. Energy: Overweight. We continue to expect a production cut by KSA and Russia to be announced at the OPEC meeting this month. Base Metals: Neutral. LME aluminum prices still have upside as the market will likely remain supply deficit in the short term. We look to buy aluminum on weakness. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain on the sidelines ahead of the Fed's December meeting. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We still look to go long wheat versus soybeans. We also look to go long corn versus sugar. Feature We continue to expect an announcement from KSA and Russia of a net 1mm b/d production cut at this month's OPEC meeting in Vienna, after accounting for the 400k b/d or so of seasonal production declines in KSA. A failure to follow through on a cut will prolong the global market-share war among OPEC and Russian oil producers seeking long-term customers in Asian refining markets, particularly in China. China's so-called teapots, which refine 60k to 70k b/d, only started importing crude oil for their own accounts late last year. These refiners represent about one-third of China's 14.3 mm b/d refining capacity as of 2015. It's been a slow ramp - some of these teapots only got started on importing their own crude this year - but they're definitely on a growth trajectory and should catch up with KSA and India in the near future. Some of them already are using hedge markets and setting up their own trading operations, according to media reports. Also, we're expecting to see increased investment in refining in China by KSA and others in the very near future, which will bring state of the art technology to the sector. In and of itself, a failure of KSA and Russia to agree a production cut would be bullish for the growth potential of Asian refiners, as Middle Eastern and Russian crude oil supplies continue to be aggressively marketed to them, allowing them to build capacity and grow their share of global exports (Chart of the Week). Chart of the Week (A)Asia/Middle East Refining Inputs Continue to ##br##Grow As OPEC Market-Share War Drags On Chart of the Week (B)Asia/Middle East Refiners' Market Share Of ##br##Gasoline Exports Is Growing Chart of the Week (C)...As Are ##br##Diesel/Gasoil Exports Our expectation for crude production cuts by KSA and Russia, perhaps with sundry cuts from their allies in the market-share war, would accelerate the draws in crude and product inventories globally. Absent a cut, inventories will continue to draw slowly, based on an assessment of data provided by the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), a transnational oil-data service (Chart 2). The current cycle of supply destruction is being prolonged by high global inventory levels. High inventories keep prices under pressure, which, as we have often noted, raise the odds of civil unrest in cash-strapped states. The odds of unplanned production outages and loss of exports thus remains elevated. A price spike in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. Chart 2Inventories Will Continue To Fall Slowly ##br##If KSA-Russia Don't Cut Crude Output Chart 3Asia/Middle East Diesel Output##br## Growth Will Continue Global Refining and Storage Markets Continue Transformation Longer term, we see an inexorable shift in refining eastward, as local refiners expand their capacity in China and India, and financially stronger crude and product exporters expand their refining and trading operations by investing in existing or new Asian refining capacity - e.g., KSA in China and South Korea, and Russia's Rosneft in India alongside a major trading company. This will keep high-valued-added exports growing in Asia (Chart 3 and Chart 4), and will take market share from traditional processing centers - e.g., northwest Europe, and Singapore's processing refineries (Chart 5). Chart 4Along With ##br##Gasoline Output Chart 5Asia/Middle East Refiners ##br##Displace Traditional Processors With or without a production cut by KSA and Russia, the incidence of crude-oil supply destruction will continue to fall on the poorer OPEC producers outside the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which lack the wherewithal to invest in higher crude-oil output domestically, or in refining and trading capacity domestically or abroad. These cash-strapped states also will be unable to make direct investments in refining assets in end-use markets, depriving them of assured outlets for crude production enjoyed by exporters like KSA with substantial refining investments domestically and worldwide.1 This means that, unlike KSA, where refined-product sales and trading will constitute a greater share of revenues over the medium term (out to 10 years), these cash-strapped producers will continue to depend on crude oil sales alone. Chart 6U.S. Product Exports Hold Up Well Given its technological edge and nearby crude supplies - Canadian heavy shipped south via pipeline, conventional and light-tight oil (LTO) from shale fields, and increasing volumes of Mexican crude following the sale of deep-water acreage next month - we do not expect U.S. refiners to lose export-market share in the high-value-added light-product markets (diesel and gasoline/aviation fuels) (Chart 6). Indeed, on a 5-year seasonal basis, U.S. refined-product exports actually are increasing, as nearby refiners - e.g., Mexico - continue to find it difficult to maintain operations. Even as Asia and the Middle East refining and trading markets develop, we continue to expect a deepening of crude and product flows among North and South American producers and refiners.2 China Policy Put Could Spur Refining Output In our earlier research, we noted the implicit put provided to Chinese refiners, after the National Development and Reform Commission mandated products be sold at a minimum crude oil reference price of $40/bbl. This was done to encourage conservation and to support domestic refiners and producers.3 So, if crude oil prices go below $40/bbl for Chinese refiners, this regulation incentivizes them to refine as much as possible, then store or export output surplus to domestic needs. Unless the government steps in to tax away the refining windfall resulting from this put whenever the reference crude price falls below $40/bbl, this policy will, at the margin, pressure global refined-product prices, and keep refining margin growth potential limited as Chinese capacity increases. This pattern was seen in Chinese agricultural markets, where crop price supports resulted in a massive accumulation of corn in storage, as farmers bought cheap corn on the international market and sold it into the government storage market. The crop price supports are being unwound, but it does illustrate the Ironclad Law of Regulation - markets always find a way to game regulations to their advantage. Refining Margins Will Remain Under Pressure Chart 7Refining Margins Will Remain Under Pressure The rapid expansion of refining capacity in Asia and the Middle East - driven by increased domestic and foreign investment in refining and trading capacity - suggests to us refined-product markets could be in for an extended period of oversupply, which will limit refiner margins going forward. OPEC's market-share war, and the massive supplies produced by U.S. shale-oil producers made it abundantly clear that crude oil is a super-abundant resource, particularly with shale-oil production ready to come on line as soon as prices move above $50/bbl. The buildout in refining capacity by KSA and other OPEC members, along with plans to expand Asian and Middle East refining capacity and, critically, to supply that capacity with aggressively priced crude charging stock, will keep refining margins under pressure going into 2017 (Chart 7). The risk of super-saturating Asian markets in the near future with unsold refined products as crude supplies and production are ramped up in the near future, therefore, poses a risk for refiners generally, since, at the right prices, crude and product can be moved anywhere on the globe. This poses a particular risk for KSA as it readies the IPO of is state-owned oil company Aramco. KSA is simultaneously attempting to grow its own refining capacity worldwide - from a current level of ~ 6mm b/d to as much as 10mm b/d - and retain and secure long-term customers for its crude. In effect, as a refiner it will be competing with the very customers to which it provides crude oil. This doubly compounds the difficulty of IPOing Aramco, as well, since investors will want to be assured the refining side of the enterprise is not being disadvantaged by the crude-oil supply side of the enterprise. However, for KSA as a sovereign state, this expansion of revenues earned from a massive refining presence worldwide is clearly a boon. KSA could, at the end of the day, refine, export and trade product volumes that equal or surpass its current crude export volumes, as it continues to invest and build out its global refining presence. This will further distance it from its OPEC brethren and other crude oil producers worldwide, making it less a crude exporter and more a global vertically integrated portfolio manager. Bottom Line: We see an inexorable shift of refining eastward, with or without a production cut by KSA and Russia. Failure to agree and implement a production cut would prolong the crude oil market-share and provide a tailwind to Asian refiners in the short term. With or without a production cut, we see the expansion of oil refining in Asia and the Middle East continuing apace, as direct investment flows to refining and trading. The risk that Asian product markets will become super-saturated over the next 3 - 5 years remains elevated, as local refining capacity outgrows local demand and exports from Asian and Middle East refineries grow. Like their upstream counterparts, refiners can be expected to fight for market share, leading to a compression in margins. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com BASE METALS China Commodity Focus: Base Metals Aluminum: Buy On Weakness Tactically, we are bullish on LME aluminum prices and neutral on SHFE aluminum prices.4 Supply shortages will likely persist in the ex-China world over next three to six months. Strategically, we are neutral on LME aluminum prices and bearish on SHFE aluminum prices. Profitable Chinese smelters will continue boosting their aluminum production, which will eventually spill over into the global market. We recommend buying Mar/17 LME aluminum contract if it falls to $1,580/MT (current: $1,727/MT). We expect the contract price to rise to $1,900/MT over next three to five months. If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a stop-loss at $1,500/MT. Aluminum prices have gone up considerably this year (Chart 8, panel 1). Global aluminum producers cut their production sharply while global consumption only contracted slightly, reversing a deep supply-surplus market in 2015 to a significant supply-deficit market in 2016 (Chart 8, panel 2). Moreover, aluminum inventories in both LME and SHFE markets also have fallen to multi-year lows (Chart 8, panel 3). However, aluminum prices went nearly vertical in China with a 48% rally since late last November, while LME prices have been only up 21% during the same period of time (Chart 8, panel 1). Why have prices in China gone up much more than the global LME prices? Will the rallies in aluminum prices in both LME and SHFE markets continue? The answer is mainly in China. China: The Most Important Factor In The Global Aluminum Market As the world's largest aluminum producer and consumer, China accounts more than 50% of global aluminum production and consumption (Chart 9, panel 1). The country has also been the major contributor to the growth of both global supply and demand for at least the past 10 years (Chart 9, panels 2 and 3). Chart 8Aluminum: Still More ##br##Upside Ahead? Chart 9China: The Most Important Factor ##br##In Aluminum Market China And The Price Collapse In 2015 In November 2015, while LME aluminum prices plunged to their lowest levels since February 2009, aluminum prices in China (SHEF) collapsed to their lowest levels since at least 1994. There were four main factors driving for the price drop. Chinese aluminum output increased more than 3 million metric tons (Mn MT), which accounted 87% of global supply growth, and resulted in excessive global supply. At the same time, global aluminum demand growth experienced a sharp slowdown -- yoy growth was 6% in 2015, versus 16.1% in 2014. This was mainly led by China, where, last year, aluminum demand growth slowed from 27.5% in 2014 to 10.9% in 2015. Inventories at SHFE were boosted by about 68% in 2015, while inventories at LME remained elevated. With China producing much more than it consumed, the country started to encourage exports of semi-manufactured aluminum products last year to reduce the domestic supply surplus (Chart 9, panel 4). In April 2015, the country removed the export tariff on several major aluminum semi-manufactured products. In November 2015, the country implemented a policy of giving a 13-15% value-added tax rebate to exporters of semi-manufactured products. As a result, last year net Chinese unwrought aluminum exports increased 16.7% yoy, which have weighed on global LME aluminum prices. China And The Price Rally In 2016 Chart 10Positive Factors To Aluminum Prices Similarly, China was the major driving factor behind this year's rally as well. Global supply was cut massively for the last two months of 2015 and the first eight months of 2016, as extremely low aluminum prices resulted in huge losses for most global aluminum producers. According to the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS), for the first eight months of this year, China accounted for 55% of the global aluminum supply cuts, as the country suspended its high-cost producing capacity and started industry-wide coordinated production cutbacks in last December (Chart 10, panel 1). Extremely low inventory levels also spurred the price rally. Inventories at SHFE warehouses fell 76.5% from mid-March to late-September (Chart 10, panel 2). In addition, the social inventory at major cities (Wuxi, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Gongyi and Foshan) also fell to record lows. Surging coal prices and rising alumina prices have also pushed up domestic aluminum production costs (Chart 10, panel 3). In addition, China implemented its newly promulgated Road Traffic Management Regulations regarding overloaded and oversized trucks, and unsafe vehicles on September 21. It was common before these regulations were implemented for drivers to overload shipments of commodities in order to increase profits. This raised road transportation costs for commodities like steel, coal, aluminum, aluminum products and other metals. It also created a bottleneck for timely transporting of coal to aluminum smelters, which own self-generated power plants, and transporting primary aluminum from major producing provinces Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Ningxia to some inner-land provinces like Henan for further manufacturing. As China cut its aluminum production this year, the country's exports of semi-manufactured aluminum products also fell 1.9% yoy for the first nine months of this year. As for Chinese aluminum demand, the data are confusing: The WBMS data showed a contraction for the first eight months of 2016, but the domestic industry association reported a decent increase in Chinese aluminum demand so far this year. Based on domestic auto output and construction activity data, we are inclined to believe Chinese aluminum demand rose moderately on the back of this year's fiscal stimulus. Other Factors For The Price Rally In 2016 There are two factors besides China for this year's aluminum rally. U.S. aluminum output fell nearly 50% yoy this year as Alcoa and Century Aluminum massively cut capacity late last year in response to lower prices (Chart 10, panel 4). For the ex-China world, while its supply fell 1.2%, consumption actually grew 0.4% for the first eight months of this year. This increased the supply deficit for the world excluding China, which is positive for LME aluminum prices (Chart 10, panel 5). So, What's Next? Tactically, we are bullish on LME aluminum prices and neutral on SHFE aluminum prices. Chart 11Aluminum: Buy On Weakness Most of the aforementioned positive factors are still in place. Even though China has enough capacity to oversupply both its domestic market and global markets again, the key factor will be how fast China boosts its aluminum output. With new added capacity and idled capacity returned to service, China's operating capacity for aluminum has been rising every month so far this year. According to the data provided by Sublime China Information Group, as of the end of October, China's aluminum operating capacity was 35.1 MMt/y (million metric tons per year), a rise of 0.575 MMt/y from the previous month, and an increase of 2.034 mtpy from the end of 2015. Based on our calculations, so far, total aluminum output from January to September is still much lower than the same period last year. In addition, considering the possible output loss due to the Spring Festival in late January, we believe it will take another three to six months for China to meet its own domestic demand and inventory restocking. Therefore, as domestic supply becomes more ample, China's domestic prices - including SHFE aluminum prices - should have limited upside. At the same time, the downside also should be limited by low inventory and rebounding demand. We expect more upside for LME aluminum prices as the supply shortage will likely persist in the ex-China world over next three to six months. Currently, Chinese aluminum prices are about 20% higher than the LME prices (both are in USD terms), which will likely limit the supply coming from China's exports to the rest of the world. Strategically, we are neutral on LME aluminum prices and bearish on SHFE aluminum prices. Currently, about 85% of the China's aluminum operating capacity is profitable. With new low-cost capacity and more idled capacity coming back line, profitable Chinese smelters will continue boosting their aluminum production to maximize profits. This, over a longer term such as nine months to one year, should eventually spill over into the global market. Risks China has imposed stricter environmental regulations on the domestic metal smelting and refining process since 2014 to control domestic pollution. The government currently is sending environmental inspection teams to major aluminum producing provinces to check how well the smelters and refiners comply with state environment rules. Some unqualified factories may be ordered to close. If this occurs, domestic SHFE aluminum prices may go up further in the near term. On the other side, if unprofitable aluminum producers in China also increase their output quickly, in order to creating jobs and revenue for local governments, prices at both SHFE and LME may face a big drop. We will monitor these risks closely. Investment Strategy We probably will see increasing Chinese aluminum production in 2016Q4, which may induce price corrections in both LME and SHFE prices. We prefer to buy LME aluminum on weakness. We recommend buying the Mar/17 LME aluminum contract if it falls to $1,580/MT (current: $1,727/MT) (Chart 11). We expect the contract price to rise to $1,900/MT over next three to five months. If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a stop-loss level at $1,500/MT. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for an extended discussion of increasing Asian and Middle Eastern refining capacity "KSA, China, India Ramping Oil Product Exports," dated July 28, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 We will be exploring inter-American crude and product flows - and the potential for expanding this trade - in future research. 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report p. 6 of the earlier-referenced "KSA, China, India Ramping Oil Product Exports," dated July 28, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 LME denotes London Metals Exchange and SHFE denotes Shanghai Futures Exchange. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Gold shares have bounced of late, aided by U.S. political uncertainty and a bullish long-term backdrop. Indeed, the likelihood of a prolonged period of negative to ultra-low real interest rates is high given startlingly low potential GDP growth in most of the developed world. Gold shares typically do well in the aftermath of a debt binge. When we took profits in August, we advised that we would look to return to an overweight position once tactical downside risks had been reduced. Are we there yet? Extreme bullishness toward the yellow metal has not yet fully unwound. While the share price ratio has dropped back to its 200-day moving average, cyclical momentum remains stretched, as measured by the 52-week rate of change. Sentiment in the commodity pits is still elevated, flows into gold ETFs are still strong and net speculative positions have not yet made a full retreat. The implication is that there could be additional selling pressure in the coming weeks. In terms of potential buy triggers, anything that causes the U.S. dollar to lose its bid is a strong candidate. Ironically, a Fed rate hike could produce such an outcome, contrary to popular wisdom. In our view, the U.S. (and global) economy cannot handle tighter financial conditions, and a rise in interest rates would need to be offset by a weaker currency. Gold shares perform well when economic expectations are faltering, and a hawkish Fed would likely raise global economic fears. Stay neutral, but stay tuned.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Bank profits are unlikely to match those of the broad market if the Fed hikes interest rates and loan demand cools. Sell into strength. Gold shares are looking increasingly attractive, but we will refrain from upgrading until the U.S. dollar is closer to a peak. Drug pricing power is worse than government data suggests, warranting a downshift in our previously upbeat view toward pharmaceutical equities. Recent Changes S&P Health Care - Removed from our high conviction list. Upgrade Alert Gold Shares - Currently neutral. Downgrade Alert S&P Pharmaceuticals Index - Currently overweight. S&P Biotech Index - Currently overweight. Table 1 Feature Chart 1From Greed To Fear The gaping mismatch between fundamentals and broad market valuations remains intact, but will be in jeopardy of re-converging should the Fed signal an intention to tighten monetary conditions through next year. As previously outlined, our view is that the economy, particularly the corporate sector, will struggle further if financial conditions become more restrictive and/or election uncertainty persists. Indeed, investors have been scrambling to buy protection, aggressively bidding up near-term VIX contracts, especially relative to longer-term contracts. While it is tempting to view this increase in fear as a contrary positive, this measure typically sinks lower when investors turn cautious. Chart 1 shows that tactical broad market vulnerability still exists. On a more fundamental basis, the non-financial corporate sector's return on equity has already fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years (Chart 2). Yet the median price/sales and price/earnings ratios are flirting with all-time highs (Chart 2). That divergence is not sustainable, given the direct link between ROE, profit growth and valuations. Central bank benevolence has underwritten this gap. Third quarter earnings have failed to impress thus far, keeping the equity market locked in a tight range. So far, one nascent trend is that domestic and consumer-linked equities appear to be gaining traction at the expense of global, business-dependent sectors. We expect the complexion of earnings contributions to become more lopsided in the quarters ahead, in support of most of these budding trend changes. The inevitable upshot of a strong U.S. dollar is deteriorating profit breadth. Chart 3 shows that the number of industry groups experiencing rising forward earnings estimates is likely to erode as the currency strengthens. Clearly, industries most reliant on exports and/or capital spending are most vulnerable. The corporate sector has run up debt levels and is struggling to generate profit growth. In turn, business spending has been compromised, as measured by the contraction in core durable goods orders (Chart 3). On the flipside, consumers have rebuilt their savings and are enjoying the benefits of a positive wealth effect. The increase in real wage and salary growth is underpinning real median household income. The latter surged 5.2%, posting the largest percentage increase in the history of the data. Consumer income expectations are well supported (Chart 3, top panel). The implication is that consumption-oriented plays should be well positioned to deliver profit outperformance, even if the labor market slows. From an investment theme perspective, the upshot is domestic-oriented areas are poised to make a comeback relative to globally-exposed sectors after a burst of speed in recent months (Chart 4). Net earnings revisions are already shifting in that direction, with more upside ahead based on U.S. dollar strength, as well as dirt cheap relative valuations (Chart 4). Chart 2A Disturbing Mismatch Chart 3Consumers Are Stronger Than Corporates Chart 4Favor Domestic Vs. Global One exception is the banking sector, where there is limited scope for earnings outperformance and/or valuation expansion. Bank Stocks Are Showing Signs Of Life, But... Bank stocks have moved higher, following the sell-off in global bond markets and steepening in yield curves sparked initially by the Bank of Japan's curve targeting shift and a reversal of incremental easing expectations from the Bank of England. However, we are not convinced that the relative performance bear market is over. A Special Report published on October 3 surveyed the performance of banks during Fed tightening cycles, to help put context around the widely held view that Fed rate hikes will bolster bank stocks on a sustained basis. History shows there has been only a loose relationship between the Fed funds rate and net interest margins. It would take rising rate expectations within the context of a steeper yield curve, improving credit quality and rapid loan growth to justify an optimistic profit outlook. Bank profits have not been able to outpace the broad corporate sector since the beginning of 2015 (Chart 5, top panel), even though loan growth has been healthy and overall earnings were crushed by the implosion in commodity prices during that period, allowing most other sectors to show earnings outperformance. Will another 25 bps interest rate hike remedy this? The Fed is keen to hike rates partially because it views them as being overly accommodative for an economy operating close to full employment, and is keen to reestablish firepower in advance of the next economic downturn. But there is scant evidence of economic overheating to support the view that rates have been 'too low'. Inflation and inflation expectations, while up from very depressed levels, are still historically low and the economy is struggling to grow at, let alone above, trend. Consequently, a strident Fed would boost the odds of a policy mistake. The market appears to share that view, given the failure of the yield curve to stop narrowing since the taper talk started, notwithstanding the recent blip up (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5Why Would Bank Profits Outperform Now? Chart 6Beware U.S. Dollar Strength Now that the USD is strengthening anew, the odds of imported deflation have climbed, to the detriment of corporate profits and bank stock relative performance (Chart 6, top panel). While nominal yields have backed up, real 2-year yields have declined, which is not consistent with an upgrading in economic expectations. Indeed, C&I loan growth has dropped sharply in recent weeks (Chart 6). By extension, it is hard to envision long-term yields rising much, if at all, which will keep net interest margins thin. Furthermore, if overall earnings remain stuck in neutral, corporate credit quality will undoubtedly worsen given the debt binge in recent years. Non-performing loans have only just begun to increase. Higher interest rates will not solve these problems. Instead, the downturn in credit quality could accelerate via more onerous debt servicing requirements, given the lack of a corporate sector balance sheet cushion. Perhaps more worrying is that banks are no longer pruning cost structures, which is unusual given that credit standards are tightening on most credit products outside of traditional mortgages. In the last 25 years, or as far back as we have the data, bank stocks lagged the broad market after bank employment started rising. The only exception was in the aftermath of the tech bubble, when all non-TMT sectors outperformed (Chart 7). If banks continue to expand their wage bill, without a widening in net interest margins and/or reversal in increased loan loss reserving, bank profits will fail to match the growth rate of the overall S&P 500. The optimal, but not exclusive, time for banks to outperform is typically exiting recession, when policy is easing and the yield curve is steepening, and in the late innings of an expansion. In fact, productivity is sagging throughout the financial sector. Financial sector employment is probing new highs (Chart 8), reflecting a more onerous cost structure required to meet regulatory obligations. Employment is now growing faster than sales, a reliable indication of flagging productivity. The implication is that financial sector profits will continue to lag those of the broad market. Chart 7Beware Rising Bank Employment Chart 8Sectoral Productivity Drain Bottom Line: Strength in bank stocks is a chance to sell. Is It Time To Buy Back Gold Shares? Gold shares are bouncing after having been punished in the last few months. Overheated technical conditions and prospects for a more hawkish Fed led us to recommend taking profits in August, despite a positive long-term outlook. Indeed, the likelihood of a prolonged period of negative to ultra-low real interest rates is high given startlingly low potential GDP growth in most of the developed world. Gold shares typically do well in the aftermath of a debt binge, as proxied by our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, shown advanced, Chart 9). It is unnerving that the CHM has suffered such a broad-based deterioration without any back up in interest rates. Low interest rates and tight credit spreads have cushioned what has otherwise been a stark erosion in debt servicing capabilities: there is little scope for a parallel upshift in the global interest rate structure. These are bullish conditions for gold shares, as captured by the upbeat reading in our Cyclical Gold Indicator (Chart 9, top panel). As such, when we took profits we advised that we would look to return to an overweight position once tactical downside risks had been reduced. Are we there yet? Chart 10 suggests that extreme bullishness toward the yellow metal has not yet fully unwound. While the share price ratio has dropped back to its 200-day moving average, cyclical momentum remains elevated, as measured by the 52-week rate of change. Sentiment in the commodity pits is still elevated, flows into gold ETFs are still strong and net speculative positions have not yet made a full retreat (Chart 10), especially in view of the recent politically-motivated pop in market volatility. The implication is that there could be additional selling pressure in the coming weeks. Chart 9Cyclically Appealing, But... Chart 10... Still Tactically Frothy Chart 11The Currency Is Critical In terms of potential buy triggers, anything that causes the U.S. dollar to lose its bid is a strong candidate. Ironically, a Fed rate hike could produce such an outcome, contrary to popular wisdom. In our view, the U.S. (and global) economy cannot handle tighter financial conditions, and a rise in interest rates would need to be offset by a weaker currency. Gold shares perform well when economic expectations are faltering (Chart 11, shown inverted), and a hawkish Fed would likely raise global economic fears. On the flipside, a go-slow Fed could keep the currency bid. That would allow the economy more time to heal and recover, and possibly overheat, thereby potentially boosting future returns on capital, certainly relative to other countries where output gaps remain larger. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on gold stocks, but put them on upgrade alert in recognition that an upgrade back to overweight could occur sooner rather than later, i.e. by yearend, depending on macro dynamics. What To Do With Drug Stocks? A number of drug wholesalers reported earnings misses and provided disappointing guidance, specifically citing worse than expected generic pricing pressure, enough to offset ongoing branded drug price increases. In the current environment of political uncertainty toward health care companies, the knee jerk reaction has been to abandon all pharmaceutical-related equities, regardless of exposure to branded or generic medicines. Our pharmaceutical equity view has noted that the time to worry about the pace of drug price increases would be if they sparked a change in consumption patterns and/or buyer behavior. The fact that major buying groups such as health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are balking at generic drug price increases constitutes such a shift. Consumer spending on drugs has slowed, albeit that has not been confirmed by neither strong retail drug store sales nor booming hospital employment (Chart 12). Nor is there an unwanted inventory build (Chart 12). Nevertheless, in light of new information, which implies that company-reported pricing pressure is worse than current government data shows, we are downgrading our outlook for drug-related shares. Still, rather than sell after the index has already taken a large hit, pushing relative performance to oversold and undervalued levels (Chart 12), we will await a more opportune moment to lighten positions, especially in view of our preference for defensive equities. Keep in mind that the drug price increases are still well in excess of the overall rate of inflation as branded drug prices continue to rise (Chart 13), and earnings stability should be increasingly desirable as the U.S. dollar climbs. In the meantime, drug-related shares are now on downgrade alert and the overall health care sector is off our high-conviction list. The good news is that other parts of the health care sector should benefit if drug inflation cools. For instance, a reduction in the rate of drug price increases, and in the case of generics, outright price cuts, is a blessing for the S&P managed care industry. Cost inflation had been perking up, but should ease in the coming quarters as drug expenses abate. Health insurance premiums are growing at a faster rate than overall inflation, while job growth remains decent (Chart 14), underscoring that top-line growth is still outpacing that of the overall corporate sector. If cost inflation eases while revenue climbs, the index should move to at least a market multiple from its current discounted valuation. Importantly, technical readings have improved. Chart 12Under The Gun... Chart 13... But Pricing Power Remains Strong Chart 14Celebrating Reduced Cost Inflation Cyclical momentum has begun to reaccelerate from neutral levels after unwinding overbought conditions (Chart 14), suggesting that a breakout to new relative performance highs is in the offing. Bottom Line: The pain in drug-related shares should provide a gain to health care insurers. Stay overweight the S&P managed care index. However, look to lighten the S&P pharmaceutical and biotech indexes on a relative performance bounce in the coming weeks, both are now on downgrade alert. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights By now, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia have figured out that if each cuts 500k b/d of production, the revenue enhancement for both will be well worth the foregone volumes. Even without additional cuts from other OPEC and non-OPEC producers - most of whom already have seen output drop as a result of OPEC's market-share war - KSA and Russia benefit. A 1mm b/d cut would accelerate the draw in oil inventories next year, allowing U.S. shale-oil producers to quickly move to replace shut-in output. Importantly, shale producers' marginal costs will then begin to set market prices. Longer term, KSA and Russia would have to manage their production in a way that keeps shale on the margin. Whether they can continue to cooperate over the long term remains to be seen. Energy: Overweight. We are recommending investors go long February 2017 $50 Brent calls vs. short $55 Brent calls, in anticipation of a production cut from KSA and Russia. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, despite the better-than-expected PMIs for China reported earlier this week. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are moving our gold buy-stop to $1,250/oz from $1,210/oz, expecting higher core PCE inflation. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We are recommending a strategic long position in Jul/17 corn versus a short in July/17 sugar. Feature The options market gives a 43% probability to Brent prices exceeding $50/bbl by the end of this year (Chart of the Week). We think these odds are too low, given our expectation KSA and Russia will announce production cuts of 500k b/d each at the OPEC meeting scheduled for November 30, 2016 in Vienna. Chart of the WeekOptions Probability Brent Exceeds $50/bbl By Year-End Is Less Than 50% A production cut totaling 1mm b/d - plus whatever additional volumes are contributed by GCC OPEC members - will, in all likelihood, send Brent prices back above $50/bbl by year end. This is a fairly high-conviction call for us: We are putting the odds prices will exceed $50/bbl by year-end closer to 80%. As such, we are opening a Brent call spread, getting long February 2017 $50 Brent calls vs. short $55 Brent calls, in anticipation of this production cut from KSA and Russia.1 There are two simple facts driving our assessment: KSA and Russia are desperate for cash - they're both trying to source FDI, and will continue to need external financing for years. They can't wait for supply destruction to remove excess production from the market, given all they want to accomplish in the next two years. The vast majority of income for these states is derived from hydrocarbon sales - 70% by one estimate for Russia, and 90% for KSA - and both have seen painful contractions in their economies during the oil-price collapse, which forced them to cut social spending, raise fees, issue bonds and sell sovereign equity assets.2 With the exception of KSA, Russia, Iraq and Iran, most of the rest of the producers in the world have seen crude oil output fall precipitously - particularly poorer non-Gulf OPEC states (Chart 2), and market-driven economies like the U.S. (Chart 3). Thus, KSA's insistence that others bear the pain of cutting production has already been realized. Iran and Iraq, which together are producing ~ 8mm b/d, maintain they should be exempt from any production freeze or cut, given their economies are in the early stages of recovering from economic sanctions related to a nuclear program and years of war, respectively. Chart 2GCC OPEC Production Surges, ##br##Non-Gulf OPEC Production Collapses Chart 3Russia' Gains Lift Non-OPEC Production;##br## U.S. Declines Continue Why Would KSA And Russia Act Now? Neither trusts the other, which is why neither cut production unilaterally to accelerate storage drawdowns. Any unilateral cut would have ceded market share to the arch rival. Both states have gone to great efforts to show they can increase production even in a down market, just to make the point that they would not give away hard-won market share (Chart 4). Chart 4KSA and Russia Devoted##br## Significant Resources to Lift Production These states are at polar-opposite ends of the geopolitical spectrum - KSA is supporting Iran's enemies in proxy wars throughout the Middle East, while Russia is supporting Iran and its allies. In the oil markets, they are both going after the same customers in Asia and Europe. Each state had to convince the other it could endure the pain of lower prices, which brought both to the table at Algiers, and allowed their continued dialogue since then to flourish. Globally, the market rebalancing already is mostly - if not completely - done. Excess production has been removed from the market, and very shortly we will see inventory drawdowns accelerate. But, if KSA and Russia leave this process to the market, we may be looking at 2017H2 before stocks start to draw hard. By cutting production now, KSA and Russia accelerate the stock draw and hasten the day when shale is setting the marginal price in the market. While shale now is comfortably in the middle of the global cost curve, it still sits above KSA's and Russia's cost curve, which means the marginal revenue to both will be higher than if their marginal costs are driving global pricing. Both states have a lot they want to do next year and in 2018: Russia is looking to sell 19.5% of Rosneft; KSA is looking to issue more debt and IPO Aramco. Both must convince FDI that the money that's invested in their industries will not be wasted because production has not been reined in. And, they both must keep restive populations under control. Cutting production by 1mm b/d or more would push prices back above $50/bbl, perhaps higher, resulting in incremental income of some $50mm to $75mm per day for KSA and Russia. Viewed another way, the incremental revenue generated annually by higher prices brought on by lower production would service multiples of KSA's first-ever $17.5 billion global debt issue brought to market last month. Both KSA and Russia will be able to lever their production more - literally support more debt issuance - by curtailing production now. KSA will need that leverage to pull off the diversification it is attempting under its Vision 2030 initiative. Russia would be able to do more with higher revenues, as well. Balances Point To Supply Deficit Next Year The meetings - "sideline" and otherwise - in Algiers, Istanbul and Vienna over the past month or so at various producer-consumer conclaves were attended mostly by producers that already have endured painful revenue cutbacks brought on by the OPEC market-share war declared in November 2014. Even those producers that did not endure massive production cuts - e.g., Canada, where oil-sands investments sanctioned prior to the price collapse continue to come on line despite low prices - will see far lower E&P investment activity going forward, given the current price environment. Chart 5Oil Markets Will Go Into Deficit Next Year Global oil supply growth will be relatively flat this year and next (Chart 5). This will create a physical deficit in supply-demand balances, even with our weaker consumption-growth expectation: We've lowered our growth estimate to 1.30mm b/d this year, and expect 1.34mm b/d growth next year. We revised demand growth lower based on actual data from the U.S. EIA and weaker projections for global growth.3 Among the major producers, only Iran, Iraq, KSA, and Russia increased output yoy. North America considered as a whole is down despite Canada's gains, and will stay down till 2017H2, based on our balances assessments. South America is essentially flat this year and next. The North Sea's up slightly this year, down more than 5% yoy in 2017, while the Middle East ex-OPEC is flat. Lastly, we expect China's production to be down close to 7% this year, and almost 4% next year. Managing The KSA-Russia Production Cut If KSA and Russia can cut 1mm b/d of production, they'd have to actively manage global balances so that the U.S. shale barrel meets the bulk of demand increases, while conventional reserves fill in decline-curve losses. Iran and Iraq together will be up 1mm b/d this year, but only 350k b/d next year. Both states are going to have a tough time attracting FDI to accelerate production gains, although ex-North America, these states probably have a higher likelihood of attracting investment than Non-Gulf OPEC, which is in terrible shape, and will have a hard time funding projects. Recently recovered Libyan and Nigerian output likely is the best they will be able to do until additional FDI arrives.4 At low price levels, even KSA can't realize the full value of the assets it is attempting to sell and the debt it will be servicing (lower prices mean lower rating from rating agencies). This is a worry for KSA, as it looks to IPO 5% of Aramco and issue more debt.5 Without higher prices, they will need to continue to slash spending, cut defense budgets, salaries and bonuses, and begin to levy taxes and fees. Below $50/bbl Brent, Russia faces similar constraints, and cannot expect to realize the full value of the 19.5% share of Rosneft it hopes to sell into the public market. Net, if KSA and Russia can get prices up above $50/bbl by cutting 1mm from their combined production and increase their gross revenues doing so, it's a major win for them. Such a cut would bring forward the global inventory drawdown we presently see picking up steam in 2017H2 without any reductions in production. In addition, because International Oil Companies (IOCs) are limited in terms of capex they can deploy to invest in National Oil Company (NOC) projects, conventional oil reserves will not be developed in the near term due to funding constraints. That, and higher capex being devoted to the U.S. shales, will keep a lid on production growth ex-U.S. Given how we see investment in production playing out over the medium term - i.e., 3 - 5 years - it will fall to the U.S. shales and Iran-Iraq production to find the barrels to meet demand increases and to replace production lost to natural declines. Given that we expect non-Gulf OPEC yoy production in 2017 to be down close to 1.3mm b/d (or -13%), and that we expect Brazil to be flat next year, cutting 1mm b/d from KSA and Russia's near-record levels of production is a bet both states will find worth taking, in order to lift and stabilize prices over the medium term. GCC OPEC production is expected to be up ~ 1% next year, or ~ 150kb/d, so these states have some scope for reducing output, as well. Price Implications If KSA and Russia Cut If we do indeed see KSA and Russia reduce output 1mm b/d as we expect, we expect storage draws will likely accelerate next year, which will flatten WTI and Brent forward curves, and send both into backwardation (Chart 6). We also would expect prices to move toward $55/bbl in the front of the WTI and Brent forward curves, once the storage draws start backwardating these curves. This would be a boon to KSA's and Russia's gross revenues, generating ~ $75mm a day of incremental revenue post-production cuts. Chart 6Expect Backwardation With ##br##A KSA-Russia Production Cut Given this expected dynamic, we recommend going long a February 2017 Brent call spread: Buy the $50 Brent call and sell the $55/bbl Brent call. We also recommend getting long WTI front-to-back spreads expecting a backwardation by mid-year or thereabouts: Specifically, we recommend getting long August 2017 WTI futures vs. short November 2017 WTI futures. This scenario also will be bullish for our Energy Sector Strategy's preferred fracking Equipment services companies, HAL and SLCA. ...And if They Fail to Cut Production? If KSA and Russia fail to cut production, and instead freeze it or raise output following the November OPEC meeting, the market will quickly look through their inaction and continue to price to the actual supply destruction we've been observing for the better part of this year. In such a scenario, prices will push into the lower part of our expected $40 to $65/bbl price range for a longer period of time, which not only will prolong the financial stress of OPEC and non-OPEC producers, but will keep the probability of a significant loss of exports from poorer OPEC states elevated. Either way, global inventories will be significantly reduced by the end of 2017, either because of a production cut by KSA and Russia, or because of continued supply destruction brought about by lower prices. Bottom Line: We expect KSA and Russia to announce a 1mm b/d production cut at the upcoming OPEC meeting at the end of this month. This will rally crude oil prices above $50/bbl, and accelerate the drawdown in global storage levels, which will backwardate Brent and WTI forward curves. We recommend getting long Feb17 $50/bbl Brent calls vs. short $55/bbl Brent calls, and getting long Jul17 WTI vs. short Nov17 WTI futures in anticipation of these cuts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Sugar: Downgrade To Strategically Bearish, Look To Go Long Corn Vs. Sugar We downgrade our strategic sugar view from neutral to bearish, as we expect a much smaller supply deficit next year. We also downgrade our tactical sugar view from bullish to neutral, as prices have already surged over 120% since last August. We expect corn to outperform sugar in 2017. Brazil will likely increase its imports of cheaper U.S. corn-based ethanol. We look to long July/17 corn versus July/17 sugar if the price ratio drops to 17 (current: 17.94). If the position gets filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss to limit the downside risk. Sugar prices have rallied more than 120% since last August on large supply deficits and an extremely low global stock-to-use ratio (Chart 7). Falling acreage and unfavorable weather have reduced sugarcane supplies from major producing countries Brazil, India, China and Thailand. Chart 7Sugar Tactically Neutral, Strategically Bearish Tactically, We Revise Our Sugar View From Bullish To Neutral. Sugar prices are likely to stay high over next three to six months on tight supplies. The global sugar stock-to-use ratio is at its lowest level since 2010 (Chart 7, panel 3). Inventories in India and China fell to a six-year low while inventories in the European Union (EU) were depleted to all-time lows. These three regions together accounted for 36.7% of global sugar consumption last year. However, we believe prices will have limited upside over next three to six months. Despite tight inventories, India and China likely will not increase imports. India currently has a 40% tax on sugar imports, and the government also imposed a 20% duty on its sugar exports in June to boost domestic supply. China started an investigation into the country's soaring sugar imports in late September. The probe will last six months, with an option to extend the deadline. In the meantime, other sugar importers likely will reduce or delay their sugar purchases because of currently high prices. Lastly, speculative buying is running out of steam, as traders already are deeply long sugar - net speculative positions as a percentage of total open interest is sitting at record-high levels (Chart 7, panel 4). Strategically, We Downgrade Our Sugar View From Neutral To Bearish. Assuming normal weather conditions across major producing countries next year, we believe the global sugar market will have a much smaller supply deficit over a one-year time horizon. Although sugar prices in USD terms reached their highest level since July 2012, prices in other currencies actually rose to all-time highs (Chart 8). Record high sugar prices in these countries will encourage planting and investment, which will consequently result in higher sugar production, especially in Brazil, India and Thailand. This year, due to adverse weather during April-September, the USDA has revised down its sugarcane output estimates for Brazil and Thailand by 3.2% and 7.1%, respectively. Assuming a return of normal weather next year, we expect sugarcane output in these two countries to recover. Farmers in China and India have cut their sown acreage for sugarcane this year on extremely low prices late last year and early this year. With prices up significantly in the latter half of this year, we expect sugar output in these two countries to rebound on acreage recovery as well. In addition, Brazilian sugar mills have clearly preferred producing sugar over ethanol so far this year on surging global sugar prices. According to the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA), for the accumulated production until October 1, 2016, 46.31% of sugarcane was used to produce sugar, a considerable increase from 41.72% for the same period of last year. We expect this trend to continue in 2017, adding more sugar supply to the global market. Moreover, as the market becomes more balanced next year, speculators will likely unwind their huge long positions, which may accelerate a price drop sometime next year (Chart 7, panel 4). Where China Stands In The Global Sugar Market? China is the world's biggest sugar importer, the third-largest consumer and the fifth-biggest producer, accounting for 14.2% of global imports, 10.3% of global consumption and 4.9% of global production, respectively (Chart 9, panel 1). Chart 8Sugar Supply Will Increase In 2017 Chart 9Chinese Sugar Imports May Slow Sugar production costs are much higher in China than in Brazil and Thailand, due to higher wages and low rates of mechanization. Falling sugar prices in 2011-2015 further reduced the profitability of Chinese sugar producers. As a result, the sugarcane-sown area in China has dropped 24% in three years, resulting in a huge supply deficit (Chart 9, panel 2). Because domestic prices are much higher than global prices, the country has boosted its imports rapidly in recent years (Chart 9, panel 3). We believe, in the near term, the recently announced investigation into surging sugar imports will slow the inflow of sugar into the country, which will be negative for global sugar prices. In the longer term, the sugarcane-sown area in China will recover on elevated sugar prices, indicating the country's production is set to rebound, which likely will reduce its sugar imports. This is in line with our strategic bearish view. Chart 10Corn Is Likely To Outperform Sugar In 2017 Risks To Our Sugar View In the near term, sugar prices could rally further on negative weather news or if the USDA revises down its estimates of global sugar production and inventories. Prices also could go down sharply if speculators unwind their huge long positions before the year end. We will re-evaluate our sugar view if one of these risks materializes. In the long term, if adverse weather occurs and damages the Brazilian sugarcane yield outlook for next season, which, in general starts harvesting next April, we may upgrade our bearish view to bullish. How To Profit From The Sugar Market? In the softs market, we continue to prefer relative-value trades to outright positions. With regards to sugar, we look to go long corn vs. short sugar, as we expect corn to outperform sugar in 2017. Both sugar and corn are used in ethanol production. Ethanol is also a globally tradable commodity. While sugar prices rose to four-year highs, corn prices fell to seven-year lows, resulting in a significant increase in Brazilian sugar-based ethanol production costs and a considerable drop in U.S. corn-based ethanol production costs. We believe the current high sugar/corn price ratio is unlikely to sustain itself, as Brazil will likely increase its imports of cheaper U.S. corn-based ethanol (Chart 10, panels 1, 2 and 3). In addition, global ethanol importers will also prefer buying U.S. corn-based ethanol over Brazilian sugar-based ethanol. Eventually, this should bring down the sugar/corn price ratio to its normal range. Therefore, we look to long July/17 corn versus July/17 sugar if the price ratio drops to 17 (current: 17.94) (Chart 10, panel 4). If the position gets filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss to limit the downside risk. In addition to the risks related to the fundamentals, this pair trade also faces the risk of a steep contango in the corn futures curve, and a steep backwardation in the sugar futures curve. The July/17 corn prices are 6.2% higher than the nearest futures prices and July/17 sugar prices are 5.2% lower than the nearest sugar futures prices. Long Wheat/Short Soybeans Relative Trade On another note, our long Mar/17 wheat/short Mar/17 soybeans relative trade was stopped out at a 5% loss on October 26. We still expect wheat to outperform soybeans over next three to six months. We will re-initiate this relative trade if the ratio drops to 0.41 (current: 0.426) (Chart 10, bottom panel). Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 The Feb17 options expire 22 December 2016, three weeks after the OPEC meeting. 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On The Need For Cash," dated September 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 The IMF expects slightly slower global GDP growth this year (3.1%), and a slight pick-up next year (3.4%). Please see "Subdued Demand, Symptoms and Remedies," in the October 2016 IMF World Economic Outlook. 4 Please see "OPEC Special-Case Nations Add 450,000 Barrels in Threat to Deal," by Angelina Rascouet and Grant Smith, published by Bloomberg news service November 2, 2016. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," dated January 14, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Recommended Allocation Central Banks Still In The Driving Seat Markets continue to obsess about every move from the three major DM central banks. With two of them (the Fed and the ECB) likely to withdraw accommodation cautiously over the coming 12 months, the upside for risk assets is limited. The Fed is signaling that it will probably hike in December and the futures market is pricing in a 70% probability of that happening (roughly the probability one month before the rate rise in December last year). Inflation expectations have picked up recently (Chart 1) and core PCE inflation ticked up to 1.7% in August, within "hailing distance", as Fed vice-chair Stanley Fischer put it, of the Fed's 2% target. There is a political angle, too: having forecast four rate rises for the year, the Fed would endanger its credibility (and risk an audit from Congress) if it failed to deliver even one. At the same time, with growth in the Eurozone running a little above trend, the ECB is likely to announce in December an extension to its asset purchase program beyond March 2017 but eventually at a slower pace (a "tapering"). Reflecting these factors, government bond yields have moved up in recent months (Chart 2), and the trade-weighted dollar has strengthened by 4% since mid-August. None of these moves are good for risk assets, which have consequently moved sideways since August. But neither do they presage a big selloff since central banks will err on the side of caution. Inflation in the U.S. is unlikely to jump: wage growth will be kept under control by a gradual rise in the participation rate, which will prevent unemployment falling much further (Chart 3). The Fed's leaders continue to sound dovish. Janet Yellen even raised the question in a recent speech of "whether it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects [from the 2007-9 Global Financial Crisis] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy'", though she emphasized this was a suggestion for further economic research not her view. More practically, the FOMC will have a more dovish tilt in 2017, as the three regional Fed presidents who voted for a hike in September rotate out. Chart 1Have Inflation Expectations Bottomed? Chart 2Bond Yields Moving Higher Chart 3Core Workers Reentering The Labor Force Meanwhile, economic data remain somewhat sluggish. The U.S. manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISMs both rebounded sharply in September, suggesting that the very weak August prints were, as we suggested, an anomaly. Q3 U.S. real GDP growth come in at 2.9%, but the New York Fed's NowCast points to a slowdown to 1.4% in Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 4) has also turned down again recently, with notable weakness in consumer spending and housebuilding. We expect this sluggish pace to continue through 2017: consumption should hold up as wage rises come through, but it is hard to forecast a strong recovery in capex, given the low capacity utilization rate (Chart 5), even if investment in the mining and energy sectors bottoms out next year. Eurozone growth could stutter too. It is driven substantially by credit growth, but historically European banks have tended to curtail lending after their share prices have fallen, as has been the case recently (Chart 6). Chinese growth has stabilized (at least in the GDP data, which seems to come in regularly at 6.7%, bang in the middle of the government's target range), thanks to the government's reflation policy from earlier this year. While the Chinese authorities have now reined back a little on stimulus, given their worries about the run-up in house prices,1 they offer an option since they would undoubtedly reflate again should growth slow. Chart 4Data Surprising Negatively Again Chart 5Hard To See More CAPEX Indeed Chart 6Share Prices Influence Lending All this suggests that returns from investment assets will be low, but positive, over the coming 12 months. With economic growth anemic but stable, bond yields prone to drift up, and equities expensive (but not as expensive as bonds), we expect risk-adjusted returns from the major asset classes to be broadly similar. We continue to recommend therefore a neutral weighting between bonds and equities, and suggest that investors look to pick up extra return through tilts to investment-grade corporate credit, inflation-linked over nominal bonds, and alternative assets such as real estate and private equity. Equities: Our preference remains for U.S. equities over European ones in USD terms. The dollar is likely to strengthen further, and the worst is not over for Eurozone banks - the time to buy into them will be at the point of maximum pain, which may come if German or Italian banks have to be bailed out by their governments. We continue to recommend a small (currency-hedged) overweight on Japan. The Bank of Japan's new policy to cap 10-year government bond yields at 0% has worked so far: the yen has weakened to JPY 104 to the dollar and equities have risen moderately. We expect further fiscal or wage-control measures from the government to give inflation an extra push. We remain wary of EM equities: earnings growth is negative, loan growth has started to slow (with the credit impulse having a high correlation with earnings and economic growth), and there is still little sign of structural reform. Some sectors in EM - notably IT and Healthcare - are attractive, however. Fixed Income: U.S. Treasury bond yields are likely to rise further - our model suggests fair value is a little below 2% (Chart 7) - and so we remain underweight duration. A moderate pickup in inflation suggests that TIPs will outperform nominal bonds (as described in detail in our recent Special Report).2 We lowered our recommendation in high-yield corporate debt to neutral last month because, at 65 BPs, the default-adjusted spread no longer offers sufficient return to justify the risk. At the start of the year it was 400 BPs (Chart 8). We continue to like investment-grade debt, where the spread over government bonds is 120 BPs in the U.S. and 100 BPs in the Eurozone, higher than at any point in 2005-2006 during the last expansion. Chart 7Treasury Yields Could Rise Further Chart 8Junk No Longer Offers Enough Return Currencies: We expect the U.S. dollar to continue to appreciate given the differential in growth and monetary conditions between the U.S. and other developed economies. The dollar looks expensive, but is nowhere near the over-bought levels it got to at the peak of previous rallies in 1985 and 2002 (Chart 9). China seems likely to allow a further weakness of the RMB against the dollar, repegging it to a trade-weighted currency basket. This could push down other emerging market currencies too particularly if, like Brazil recently, they try to cut rates to boost growth. Chart 9USD Not As Overvalued As In The Past Commodities: Oil has probably overshot in the short-term on expectations that Saudi Arabia and Russia will cap, or even cut, production. We think this talk has been overhyped and that the OPEC meeting in November could prove a disappointment. Nonetheless, we still see the equilibrium level for crude over the next two years at USD 50 a barrel, the marginal cost for U.S. shale producers. Industrial commodities are likely to fall further (they peaked in June) if we are right that the dollar appreciates. We continue to like gold as an inflation hedge, but short-term are nervous because it, too, is negatively correlated with the dollar. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010" dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "TIPS For Inflation-Linked Bonds," dated October 28, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights Chart 1Model Weights In October, the model outperformed global equities in USD and local-currency terms; it also outperformed the S&P 500 in local-currency terms, while performing in line with the S&P in USD terms. For November, the model trimmed its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). The model increased its weighting in French, Dutch, and Swedish stocks at the expense of the U.S., Japan, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Emerging Asia. Within the bond portfolio, allocation to New Zealand and the U.K. was increased, while the allocation to U.S., Australian and Spanish paper was reduced. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in October, while the bond risk index improved noticeably. Feature Performance In October, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 0.6% in local-currency terms, and was down 1% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a loss of 1.4% for the global equity benchmark, and a 1% loss for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The higher allocation to EM stocks in October was timely, but the boost to bonds was a drag on the model's performance. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 67% to 66% and increased its bond weighting from 21% to 26%. The allocation to cash was decreased from 12% to 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model reduced its allocation to New Zealand equities by 3 points, Emerging Asia by 2 points and U.S., Japan, Germany and Switzerland by 1 point each. Meanwhile, it increased allocation to Dutch, French and Swedish stocks by 4 points, 3 points and 1 point, respectively. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to U.K. and New Zealand paper was increased by 6 points and 5 points respectively, while allocation to Australia, Spain and the U.S. was cut by 3 points, 2 points and 1 point, respectively. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of October 27, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated in October and investors should position for additional dollar strength. Our Dollar Capitulation Index seems to be breaking out to the upside following a pattern of lower highs. Since 2008, such breakouts have been followed by a significant rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators Our model continues to exclude commodities from the portfolio. The risk index for this asset class remains at the highest level in over two years (Chart 4). For the first time since June 2014, the risk index for global equities is above the neutral line (Chart 5). The higher overall risk reflects deteriorating liquidity and momentum readings. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the third month in a row. Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The value component of the risk index for U.S. stocks improved in October, but this was overshadowed by worsening liquidity and momentum readings. The model slightly trimmed its allocation to U.S. equities (Chart 6). Even after the latest small uptick in the risk index for Dutch equities, it remains one of the lowest among the model's universe. The allocation to this bourse was increased. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Netherlands Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. stocks declined slightly in October, but remains firmly in high-risk territory both compared to its own history and its global peers. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 8). The model slightly upgraded Swedish equities, despite a worsening risk index. The continued favorable liquidity backdrop remains a boon for Swedish stocks (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Swedish Stock Market And Risk After declining for four consecutive months, the overall risk index for bonds is not at extreme high-risk levels anymore. The increase in yields has helped completely unwind overbought conditions, as per our momentum indicator. The model used the latest selloff to increase its allocation to bonds (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined markedly in October, but a few other markets also feature improved risk readings. As a result, the model downgraded U.S. Treasurys (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The selloff in New Zealand bonds has pushed the momentum indicator into oversold territory, boosting the allocation to this asset class (Chart 12). The risk index for euro area bonds remains firmly in the high-risk zone even after a notable decline. However, there are select bond markets in the common-currency area that have relatively more favorable risk readings (Chart 13). Chart 12New Zealand Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Within the euro area, Italian bonds feature a risk reading that has fallen below the neutral line. While the cyclical indicator continues to move into more bond-negative territory, it is currently being offset by the oversold reading on the momentum indicator (Chart 14). U.K. gilt yields moved up as the post-Brexit inflation backdrop became gilt-unfriendly and growth surprised on the upside. Now, with momentum moving from overbought to oversold over just a couple of months, any negative economic surprises could potentially weigh on gilt yields. The model has added this asset class to the portfolio (Chart 15). Chart 14Italian Bond Yields and Risk Chart 15U.K. Bond Yields And Risk A more hawkish Fed could push the dollar higher. The 13-week momentum measure for the USD remains above, but close to the neutral line. The recovery of the 40-week rate of change from mildly negative levels which have represented a floor since 2012 would suggest that a new leg in the dollar bull market is in the offing (Chart 16). Both the 13-week and 40-week momentum measures for the euro are below the neutral line (Chart 17). Growing monetary divergences could continue weighing on EUR/USD before the technical indicators are pushed into more oversold territory. Fears of hard Brexit knocked down the pound. The 13-week rate of change is now close to its post-Brexit lows, while the 40-week rate of change measure is at the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). At these technical levels the pound seems overdue to find a temporary bottom (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights We expect the U.S. House of Representatives to remain in GOP hands, but the Democrats could take razor-thin control of the Senate if Clinton wins the Presidency. The current, market-bullish status quo of divided government will continue. The chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. We would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support in the U.S. for removing the sequester, opening the door to some fiscal stimulus. A shift in focus from monetary to fiscal policy will be quite bullish for the dollar, which could rise by 10% in trade-weighted terms. The Japanese government appears to be preparing another shot of fiscal stimulus, which would be quite bearish for the yen and bullish for Japanese stocks when combined with the Bank of Japan's new yield curve policy. A number of headwinds that have held back U.S. growth this year will give way, generating 2½-3% real GDP growth in 2017. Positive growth surprises will encourage the FOMC to tighten in December and another five times over 2017/18. However, the speed of rate hikes will depend on how quickly the dollar appreciates. Dollar appreciation will undermine U.S. EPS growth next year. We view this as a headwind for stocks, but not something that will prevent modest gains in the S&P 500 next year. A key risk is that a surging dollar and a more hawkish FOMC sparks a correction in EM assets in the near term, spilling over into developed market bourses. Given elevated valuations, the risk/reward balance still favors a defensive strategy, with no more than a benchmark allocation to stocks. Several trends support our recommendation to maintain slightly below-benchmark duration within fixed- income portfolios. Among them, the annual growth rate in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over. Continue to overweight indexed bonds versus conventional issues. Oil prices should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect the tightening oil market will dominate. However, base metals will struggle. Feature As we go to press, Hillary Clinton is poised to win the Presidency of the United States following a tumultuous and divisive campaign. The key question now is the Senate race, where less controversial Republicans are contesting close elections. The GOP is at high risk of losing four Senate seats, with another three in play. Democrats need only four seats to take the Senate because, assuming that Clinton wins the presidency, Vice-President Tim Kaine would then cast the tie-breaking vote in that body. We expect the GOP to hold onto the House. This means that the current, market-bullish status quo of a divided government will continue. With the House remaining in Republican hands, and Democrats clinging to a potential razor-thin control of the Senate, the Clinton White House would be constrained on some of its most left-leaning policies. Unlike Obama, Clinton's victory will not be a popular sweep. She will likely receive less than 50% of the popular vote and will be the first candidate ever elected that has more voters saying they dislike her than like her (Chart I-1). Therefore, the odds are slim that Clinton will come to power with the same level of confidence and agenda-setting mandate as Obama did in 2008. Chart I-1Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever Nonetheless, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that the chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. On corporate tax reform, it is difficult to see a reduction in effective tax rates, but a deal could be struck to broaden the tax base by closing various loopholes. This would be negative for some S&P 500 multinational corporations, but would benefit America's small and medium-sized enterprises. Paul Ryan and moderate Republicans understand that there has been a paradigm shift in America and that the median voter has moved to the left. As such, we would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester. Even a modest infrastructure plan could make a substantive difference for the economy given the high fiscal multipliers of government spending in an economy with low interest rates. The political shift to the left means that a Clinton-Ryan coalition will care less about the concerns of America's large corporations than previous governments, leading to policies that will result in higher effective tax rates on major corporations, a dollar bull market (in conjunction with tighter Fed policy, see below), and rising wages over the next four years. The election outcome will also be positive for bombed-out U.S. health care stocks. Even if the Democrats take the Senate, a Republican-held House will make it difficult for Clinton to push through legislation that does serious damage to the sector's pricing power. Health care stocks are oversold and cheap, at a time when consumer demand is solid and our pricing power proxy is rising much more quickly than overall corporate sector pricing. In terms of the macro implications, a shift in focus from monetary to fiscal stimulus will be quite bullish for the dollar. Below we discuss the important changes coming in the global investment landscape stemming from a renewed dollar bull phase. U.S. Growth: Expect Upside Surprises Any boost to U.S. infrastructure spending is unlikely to show up in GDP until the second half of next year. Nonetheless, there are other reasons to be more upbeat than the consensus on growth prospects for the first half as well. It is important to note that U.S. real final sales to private domestic purchasers, a good measure of underlying demand growth, has grown at almost 2½% over the past year, and was up 3.2% in the second quarter sequentially. A number of headwinds conspired to hold back the headline GDP growth figures, but these headwinds should moderate next year (Chart I-2): The five-quarter inventory correction is almost unprecedented in its length, but there are some high-frequency indicators (i.e. durable goods inventories and the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index) that suggest that the correction is coming to an end (Chart I-3). Inventory destocking only needs to stabilize to boost GDP growth, since it is the change of the change in inventories that affects GDP growth. Chart I-2U.S. 2016 Growth Headwinds To Fade Chart I-3Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Some of this year's slowdown reflects a pullback in the contribution of federal and state & local government spending. Nonetheless, this will not last long because state and local government revenues are trending higher and this sector spends all it takes in. As noted above, we also expect a boost from infrastructure spending at the federal level. Housing starts and residential investment hit a soft patch this year. The second quarter dip was mainly due to a warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. The NAHB homebuilders index heralds a rebound in housing activity in the coming months, in line with the improvement in household formation. Indeed, housing starts are still 20-25% below estimates of the amount of construction necessary to keep up with population growth. We also expect a little more capital spending once the election is out of the way, profits begin to expand again and industrial production growth improves early in the New Year. Moreover, the oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. Overall corporate capital spending intentions have perked up (Chart I-4). The trade sector will be a drag on growth, especially if the dollar appreciates as we expect. Nonetheless, we believe that the unwinding of the other headwinds that have dogged the economy this year could provide real GDP growth of 2½-3% in 2017. Stronger-than-expected growth will have a positive impact on America's trading partners via import demand, but it is the response of the dollar that could really shake up global financial assets. The reasoning behind our strong dollar view is straightforward: interest rates differentials are the strongest predictor of currency trends on a 12-18 month horizon. Relative economic performance between the U.S. and the rest of the world suggests that interest rate differentials will move even further in favor the U.S. dollar. Chart I-5 highlights that the dollar tends to appreciate when U.S. interest rates are in the upper half of the interest rate distribution of the G10. With few central banks outside of the U.S. in a position to be able to lift interest rates, gently rising U.S. rates will keep the U.S. among the global developed market (DM) high-yielders for many years. Chart I-4Capex Plans Have Improved Chart I-5U.S. Sitting Atop The Global Interest Rate Distribution Buoys The Dollar Real interest rate differentials may shift even more than nominal rates in favor the dollar. Inflation expectations should rise in Europe and Japan to the extent that their respective currencies weaken and their economies receive a boost from improved U.S. import demand. But since neither central bank will allow much of an increase in local bond yields, rising inflation expectations will translate into lower real yields in the Eurozone and Japan. This will reinforce the dollar's bias to appreciate. The ECB could upset this forecast by announcing that it will taper the asset purchase program beginning in March of next year, but we believe it is more likely the central bank will extend the QE program for another six months. In Japan's case, the nominal yield curve is now fixed by the Bank of Japan out to 10-years. How Much Will The Dollar Appreciate? This is a difficult question. A central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. Our sense is that over the next couple of years the fed funds rate will need to rise to 2% in nominal terms (0% in real terms) and the dollar will appreciate by 10% in trade-weighted terms, to avoid an economic overheating and an overshoot of the inflation target. We expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. But, of course, an outsized dollar response to the initial rate hikes would temper the speed of Fed tightening. A 10% rise seems aggressive, but it would still leave the broad trade-weighted dollar index well below previous peaks. Wouldn't Such A Dollar Surge Kill Any Hopes Of A Recovery In U.S. Profits? Undoubtedly, dollar strength presents a direct and non-trivial risk to the earnings outlook. Our U.S. EPS model foresees a return to positive earnings growth early next year, and a full-year expansion of 5-6% (Chart I-6). This is based on three important assumptions: (1) industrial production returns to modest but positive growth next year; (2) oil prices are roughly unchanged from current levels, allowing profits in the energy patch to recover with a lag; and (3) nominal GDP growth accelerates modestly relative to labor compensation. Chart I-6The U.S. Profit Outlook However, we assumed in the base case scenario presented in May that the dollar is unchanged. Re-running the model with a 10% dollar appreciation over the next year would shave about 2-3 percentage points off of EPS growth next year (Chart I-6). In other words, EPS would rise next year, but only modestly. Can The S&P 500 Rally In The Context Of Dollar Strength? Chart I-7Stocks Can Appreciate With The Dollar An appreciating dollar is clearly a headwind, but it is the case that the S&P 500 rallied along with the dollar in the last three major dollar bull markets: 1978-1985, 1994-2002, and 2011 to today (Chart I-7). One could point to special factors in each episode. Nonetheless, our point is that if the dollar is appreciating because growth outside the U.S. is deteriorating, then the backdrop is negative for U.S. equities. But if the dollar is appreciating because the U.S. economic growth backdrop has brightened (with no deterioration elsewhere), then U.S. stocks can rally despite the negative impact of the dollar on profits. Indeed, the direction of causation reverses at times: it is the rally in U.S. risk assets (along with higher rates) that attracts foreign capital and pushes the dollar higher. A tax holiday on foreign retained earnings would also be positive for the dollar and risk assets. That said, the currency shifts we expect over the next year will favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. market in local currency terms. This is particularly so for Japan if more aggressive monetary and fiscal policies manage to sharply devalue the yen (see below). According to our models, a 5% depreciation of the euro and a 10% drop in the yen in trade-weighted terms would boost EPS growth next year by 3 and 5 percentage points, respectively, in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart I-8). Monetary policy divergence and relative valuation also support our recommendation to favor Japanese and Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. Chart I-8The Eurozone Profit Outlook What Does Our Dollar Outlook Mean For EM Assets? Continuing liquidity injections from the ECB and BoJ are positive for emerging market (EM) assets. Unfortunately, this will not shield emerging markets from a 10% dollar rise, especially if it is accompanied by another downleg in commodity prices (Chart I-9). A stronger greenback is likely to cause distress among over-leveraged EM borrowers given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Chart I-10 illustrates that there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar since the early 1980s. Meanwhile, the gap between EM and U.S. nonfinancials' return on equity (RoE) remains deeply negative, which historically has been associated with EM currency depreciation. Chart I-9Dollar Strength Is Negative For Commodities... Chart I-10...And Emerging Markets The implication is that the recent rally in EM risk assets and currencies will not last. Investors should avoid this space. A dollar rally would also be a headache for the People's Bank of China (PBoC). Allowing the RMB to depreciate aggressively versus the dollar to avoid an appreciation in trade-weighted terms could ruffle political feathers in the U.S. and spark capital flight. The PBoC will likely manage the RMB's decline versus the dollar and allow it to appreciate in trade-weighted terms, while tightening capital account controls to prevent capital from fleeing the country. This outcome is slightly negative for the economy and could generate some financial market volatility as the process unfolds. We believe that China will be able to maintain GDP growth of around 6½% next year and that there will be no financial crisis related to China's high debt levels. Nonetheless, China's transition away from an investment-led to a consumer-led expansion means that the tailwind for commodity demand and EM exports will not return. FOMC: Some Like It Hot The probability of a Fed rate hike in December eased a little in recent days due to some disappointing economic data, such as the September readings on retail sales and the CPI, along with comments from Fed Chair Yellen on the benefits of allowing the economy to "run hot". Some others on the FOMC share her views, but many do not. As we highlighted in last month's Special Report,1 Yellen will not overrule the consensus on the FOMC. The appetite to test the limits of the supply side of the economy is simply not broad enough, as visions of the inflationary 1970s still loom large in some policymakers' minds. The Fed may end up being too slow in tightening policy and generate an overheated economy by accident, but the idea of purposefully engineering a temporary inflation overshoot is off the table. The hawkish shift in the consensus can be observed in the latest FOMC minutes. Not only did three members vote for a rate hike in September, but "several" members felt that a rate hike was a "close call". The remaining doves often point out that the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, core PCE, is still below the 2% target. However, this measure is an outlier; all other popular measures of underlying inflation are near or above 2% and are in a clear uptrend. Wage growth, although somewhat mixed across the various measures, is also trending up (Chart I-11). The doves already lost two members this year (Williams and Rosengren). More will jump ship if core PCE moves up in the coming months as we expect, although a 10% dollar appreciation by itself could shave almost a half point off of inflation next year (Chart I-12). Chart I-11U.S. Wage Pressure Is Growing Chart I-12The Inflation Impact Of Dollar Strength Recent data disappointments are a concern, but the bounce in both the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing surveys in September, especially in the new orders components, is a sign that the soft patch will not endure. It would require a significant disappointment in the October and November payroll reports for the FOMC to stand pat at the December meeting. Beyond this year, our base-case outlook calls for five quarter-point rate hikes over 2017 and 2018, compared to only two rate hikes currently discounted in money markets. This forecast is uncertain because an even larger portion of the overall tightening in monetary conditions than we expect could come via the dollar. Indeed, there is a significant risk that dollar strength and Fed tightening sparks a correction in risk assets. The TINA phenomenon (There Is No Alternative) has forced many investors to take more risk they are comfortable holding. Valuations are also rich. This is the main reason why our investment recommendation is cautious, including only a benchmark allocation to equities in a balanced portfolio. We maintain that stocks will outperform bonds and cash on a 1-2 year horizon, although total returns will be depressed by historical standards. Moreover, we would not be surprised to see a 10% correction in the major equity bourses in the coming months. Investors with a short-term horizon should consider buying some insurance against this risk. What would it take for us to upgrade stocks to overweight? We would like to see significant fiscal stimulus in some combination of the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. It would be particularly bullish if the stimulus occurs outside the U.S., because a pickup in global growth would allow the Fed to tighten without driving the dollar significantly higher. This scenario would improve the outlook for equities inside and outside of the U.S. Finally, a 10% equity correction would create enough value that we would be quite tempted to upgrade the sector. Japan Prepares For The Next Step The dollar's ascent will be particularly acute versus the yen if we are right that more aggressive policy action looms in Japan. We argued in last month's Overview that fiscal stimulus will be particularly powerful in the context of the Bank of Japan's (BoJ) new policy framework. Instead of targeting a pace of asset purchases, the central bank is effectively fixing the yield curve by promising to hold the 10-year yield near to zero. By fixing the yield curve and by committing to maintain this policy until Japanese inflation moves above the 2% target, the BoJ is hoping to raise inflation expectations and drive down real bond yields. Fiscal stimulus in this environment would be quite effective because nominal yields would not be allowed to rise in response. Any increase in inflation expectations would flow directly into lower real yields and weaken the yen, thus reinforcing the initial thrust of fiscal policy. The timing and amount of additional fiscal spending is not clear, but the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget. Government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. Any efforts to boost income will add to upward pressure on actual inflation and inflation expectations. Given that the market is discounting inflation of only 0.26% per year on average over the next 20 years, the balance of risks favors an inflation rate that surprises to the upside. The resulting downward pressure on real interest rates, at a time when U.S. real rates will be rising, will depress the yen. Our currency experts expect the yen to weaken to 125 versus the dollar, representing a decline of roughly 10% in trade-weighted terms. We estimate that this would add about a half point to Japanese headline consumer price inflation next year (Chart I-12). A successful policy push would ultimately be quite bearish for JGBs. However, a critical element in the plan is that the BoJ prevents a premature rise in nominal yields. We do not expect any JGB selloff for at least a year. This means that, while total returns for JGBs will be poor (or negative for some maturities), the market will outperform the other major government bond markets in currency hedged terms if global yields rise in the coming months as we expect. The implication is that investors should favor JGBs over Bunds and, especially, Treasuries within global hedged bond portfolios. Also, stay long inflation protection in Japan, overweight the Nikkei and underweight the yen. Reason To Be Bond Bearish Chart I-13Reasons To Keep Duration Short Our fairly hawkish view on the Fed is a key factor behind our recommendation to keep duration slightly short of benchmark within bond portfolios. More broadly, the global deflation beast is far from tamed, but the firming in selected commodity prices is reducing some of the downward pressure on inflation in the advanced economies. Oil prices have breached $50/bbl on hopes that OPEC-Russia talks will result in production cuts. Our commodity strategists do not expect any agreement to have much of a lasting impact on oil prices. Indeed, there is a risk that oil prices correct if the talks ultimately fail. However, we still expect WTI to trade between $40 and $65/bbl until 2020. The annual growth rate for the continuous commodity index has reached positive territory for the first time since 2014, which is translating into a more positive pricing environment for manufactured goods and overall headline inflation rates for both developed and emerging economies (Chart I-13, bottom panel). This has given inflation expectations a boost in the major markets, at a time when output gaps in developed countries are narrowing (the gap is near to being fully closed in the U.S.). Several other factors favor a below-benchmark duration stance at least for the near term (Chart I-13): Global growth is improving slowly. The global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rising and our diffusion index shows that 10 of 15 countries have rising LEIs. We expect the U.S. economy, in particular, to surprise to the upside. The prospect of even a little fiscal stimulus is bond bearish, following years of austerity in the major developed countries. The downward pressure on global term premia is dissipating as the BoJ has switched away from quantitative targets for asset purchases to fixing the yield curve. The ECB is likely to extend the QE program by another six months, but the central bank is unlikely to lift the pace of purchases from the current level. The annual percent change in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Liquidity Growth Peaking Out The market expects that real short-term interest rates will stay in negative territory until at least the middle of the next decade, even in the U.S. There is plenty of room for the forward yield curve to reprice higher if growth turns out to be better than expected. This is particularly the case in the U.K., where fears of a post-Brexit economic bust and a fresh shot of stimulus from Bank of England sent the pound and gilt yields to extremely low levels. Our global bond and currency services recommend taking profits on overweight gilt/underweight sterling positions, and shifting in the opposite direction. Finally, bond sentiment indicators are still bullish, particularly in the U.S. Treasury market. Nonetheless, we are far from frothing bond bears. We do not believe that the fixed income market has moved into a secular bear phase, and would likely shift to benchmark or even above-benchmark duration if the 10-year Treasury yield reached 2%. Yields could eventually re-test the year's lows if there is a sharp equity correction. This is a market to be traded for now. Conclusions A more upbeat view on global and, especially, U.S. growth prospects is positive for risk assets, but the adjustment process could be painful as investors come to grips with what this means for the Fed. Extremely low Treasury yields imply that the consensus has "bought into" the Secular Stagnation thesis for the U.S., or at least to the view that America will never again be able to grow above 2%. The pickup in growth we expect will arrive at a time when there is accumulating evidence of an acceleration in wages, signaling that the labor market has reached full employment. A shift in focus away from monetary and toward fiscal stimulus, both inside and outside the U.S., is also bond-bearish. The bond market appears to be ignoring these trends so far, although rising inflation expectations suggest that we may be at the edge of a change in market expectations for growth, inflation and the Fed outlook. A significant shift up in the dollar would limit the bond market selloff, and it would be positive for the major economies outside of the U.S. Nonetheless, a 10% dollar appreciation would carry its own risks, including a hit to the U.S. profit outlook. On its own, dollar strength would not prevent the S&P 500 from rising, but there is a non-trivial risk that it wreaks havoc in the EM and commodity space for a time, reverberating back into developed markets. The bottom line is that investors should remain focused on capital preservation, with no more than an overall benchmark weighting in equities with a bias toward defensive sectors. Within bond portfolios, keep duration on the short side and favor high-quality spread product to government bonds in the major countries. High-yield bonds would benefit from stronger-than-expected economic growth in the U.S., but value is poor and balance sheets are deteriorating; the risk/reward balance is unattractive. European investment-grade bonds issued by domestic issuers are more attractive than the U.S. market because of improving balance sheet health. Favor real-return bonds to conventional issues in the major countries and add exposure to floating-rate notes. Our dollar view means that base metals should be avoided, despite the fact that we expect that China will be able to stabilize growth at around 6-7%. Oil should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect a tightening oil supply/demand backdrop. Both gold and silver would weaken if the dollar continues to appreciate and real bond yields rise in the near term. Nonetheless, rising inflation should overwhelm these negatives in the medium term. This implies that precious metals deserve a strategic place in investors' portfolios, although the near-term could be rough. Finally, we have received many questions on the risks posed by mushrooming U.S. student debt. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, takes an in-depth look. We conclude that student debt is a modest economic drag, but is not a source of risk to the government's finances and does not represent the next "subprime" crisis. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 27, 2016 Next Report: November 24, 2016 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Herding Cats at the Fed," October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Student Loan Blues: Can't Repay What I Borrowed Incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages. Some are comparing this trend to the housing subprime crisis, arguing that student debt is a major drag on growth at a minimum, and the source of another financial crisis at worst. Delinquency rates have surged and the 5-year cumulative default rate on student debt has reached almost 30%. Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%. Sticker prices at most institutions have mushroomed, although few students pay the full fare. Rising tuition fees only explain about half of the surge in student debt. Education still pays, although the benefits have waned versus the costs. Moreover, students with debt lag significantly those with no debt in terms of wealth accumulation and home ownership after graduation. The rise in default rates have been due to the influx of non-traditional student borrowers after 2007, who come from lower income families and have had poorer educational and employment outcomes. However, the wave of such borrowers has faded, which means that overall delinquency and default rates will decline in the coming years. Debt service payments, while onerous for many families, are not a major drag on overall real GDP growth. The increased propensity of 18-35 year-olds to live with their parents has trimmed annual real GDP growth by 0.14% per year since 2007, although student debt is only one of many underlying causes. The student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer because of the high recovery rate. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Student debt is not the next subprime. "We are not doing these young people any favors by giving them loans that they cannot afford, that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy, and that could be a drag on their financial well-being even into retirement". - Sheila Bair, former FDIC chief, Bloomberg interview, September 26, 2016 Ms. Bair was one of the first to warn about the risks posed by the U.S. subprime MBS market, well before Lehman went bust. Few were listening then, but more are listening now as she sounds the alarm bell regarding student loans. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages (Chart II-1). Ms. Bair notes that, like the MBS market before 2007, cheap and freely available credit is fueling prices (tuition in this case). Banks handed out mortgage loans to many who could not afford them in the 2000s, just as the Department of Education (DoE) is doing today with student loans. It is difficult to assess borrowers' ability to repay student loans. Some argue that the DoE is not even trying. The trajectory of student debt is indeed alarming (Chart II-2). In inflation-adjusted terms, the total value of loans outstanding has quadrupled since 2000, representing an annual average compound rate of 9.4%. The rise reflects both an increase in the number of borrowers and more borrowing per person. Average debt/person has jumped from $17,300 in 2007 to almost $28,000 in 2015 (amounts vary across data sources). Rising debt levels occurred across the family income distribution. Chart II-1Student Debt: The Next Subprime? Chart II-2Student Loan Statistics These figures understate the true debt levels because they include only loans that are made under the federal loan program, representing 81% of the total. The remainder are private loans, mostly originated by banks. Private loans do not enjoy the same borrower protection afforded to federal loans, and carry a significantly higher interest rate (average of almost 14% in 2016, compared to federal loan rates of 3.76%). The data on private loans are sparse due to limited reporting, but a study based on 2012 data showed that the average amount of debt for students with private loans was almost $40,000 at that time.1 Sticker Shock It is easy to blame rising tuition fees given soaring "sticker prices" at most institutions. The average posted fee for tuition and room & board has increased by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms since 2007 at public universities, and by 23% at private non-profit institutions (Charts II-3A & II-3B). However, due to grants, tuition discounts and tax credits for education, only a small fraction of students pay the posted rate. For the 2015/16 school year, the net price that the average student paid at a private non-profit institution was $26,400, far less than the almost $44,000 sticker price. Chart II-3ATuition & Fees: Public Institutions Chart II-3BTuition & Fees: Private Institutions Chart II-4The Distribution Of Student Debt The Brookings Institute estimates that only about 50% of the escalation in student debt in the past two decades can be explained by rising tuition costs.2 Another quarter reflects rising educational attainment; kids are staying in school longer to get a leg up in the highly competitive workplace. The remainder of the total rise in debt was left unexplained in the study. Other possible contributing factors include policy changes that expanded eligibility for federal loans programs, and the housing bust that made it more difficult for families to borrow against the value of their homes for education purposes. There was also a change in the background characteristics of borrowers after the Great Financial Crisis (see below). The share of students suffering with an extraordinary amount of debt is growing, although they still represent a small portion of the total for federal loans (Chart II-4). Five percent of student debtors owe more than $100,000 each, up from 2% in 2007. Another 10% hold between $50,000 and $100,000. About two-thirds of student borrowers owe less than $25,000. A Student Debt Crisis? Another Brookings paper provides estimates for the debt service burden associated with federal student loans. The burden is calculated as the median debt service payment divided by median earnings of employed borrowers for two years after entering the repayment period (Chart II-5).3 This ratio rose from about 4½% in 2004 to 7.1% in 2013. Unfortunately, more recent data are not available. The average interest rate on the outstanding loans has moderated since 2011, although not nearly as quickly as the drop in market interest rates.4 Nonetheless, the continued escalation in the stock of debt per person in recent years means that the debt service-to-income ratio has likely continued to escalate since 2013, despite the moderation in the average interest rate paid. The jump in student loan delinquencies has raised red flags regarding the number of borrowers in financial distress, feeding concerns that a student loan debt crisis is on the horizon. The 90-day delinquency rate for student loans has increased from about 7% in 2007 to 11% in 2012, where it has hovered ever since according to the Federal Reserve Bank of NY data (Chart II-1). However, since only about 55% of all loans are in the repayment period, the actual delinquency rate among those in repayment is almost double the official figures. Loans are considered to be in default when they are more than 270 days past due. Brookings estimates that the 5-year default rate for student loans entering the repayment period five years earlier reached 28% in 2014, up from 16% for the five-year period ending in 2007 (Chart II-6).5 Perhaps surprisingly, the default rate is still far below the peak rate of more than 40% in the late 1990s. Chart II-5Debt Service Burden Is Rising Chart II-6Defaults Are Rising Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%.6 This is because borrowers are not able to discharge federal student debts during bankruptcy. Congress has passed legislation making it very difficult for borrowers to avoid repaying. The DoE has the authority to use a number of extraordinary collection means. These include garnishing a portion of borrower's wages or seizing any payment a borrower may receive from the federal government. Education Still Pays, But Not For Everyone Chart II-7Debt And Wages For 20-40 Year Olds The good news is that education still pays for the average or median borrower. Chart II-7 shows that, while the average amount of student loans has escalated, it is still well below the average wage for those borrowers in the 20 to 40-year age group.7 The gap between wages and debt has narrowed over the past 15 years, but the increase in lifetime earnings potential still far exceeds the rise in accumulated debt for the average or median student. Of course, student loans have not paid off for everyone. News reports have highlighted plenty of examples of students that have graduated with crushing debt burdens and poor job prospects. Nonetheless, the Brookings study found that, for the vast majority, "the increase in borrowing would be made up for relatively early in the career of a worker with mean earnings".8 The Digest of Education Statistics show that, in 2013, the median annual earnings for full-time workers with a Bachelor's degree in the 25 to 34 age group was $48,530, compared with $30,000 for workers with just a high-school diploma. The bad news is that it is taking much longer to repay these debts. The mean term of repayment has increased from 7½% in 1992 to about 13½ years in 2010.9 Extended repayment and income-driven repayment plans can increase the loan term to 20, 25 or even 30 years. In some cases, borrowers will still be paying for their education when their children enter college!10 There is also evidence that the debt burden is causing some young adults to delay marriage and live with their parents for longer than they otherwise would. More Debt And Less Wealth Young student debtors also lag significantly relative to their peers in terms of wealth accumulation. A Pew Research Center study found that households headed by a young, college-educated adult without any student debt obligations have about seven times the typical net worth ($64,700) of households headed by a young, college-educated adult with student debt ($8,700; Chart II-8).11 Net worth is lower for those with student loans not just because their overall debt levels are higher; the value of their assets trailed as well. This gap is despite the fact that those households with a degree had almost double the annual income of those in the study that did not. Even comparing only households headed by young adults that did not attain a degree, accumulated wealth for those with student debt fell far short of those who avoided debt. One explanation is that money being absorbed by student debt repayment is unavailable to accumulate assets. A Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of Boston study12 estimated that a 10% increase in student loan debt per household is associated with a 0.9% decline in the value of total wealth. Student loan burdens also mean that households end up relying more on other types of debt, such as auto loans and credit cards, according to the Pew study. Chart II-8Higher Debt, Lower Wealth... Table II-1...And Lower Homeownership Student debtors are also less likely to own a home after 2009 (Table II-1). Before 2009, the FRB of Boston study found that 30-year olds with a history of student loans had a higher homeownership rate than those without student debt. This makes sense because the boost to household income from obtaining more education should make it easier to quality for a mortgage. However, the relationship between student debt and homeownership switched after the Great Recession. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen sharply since home prices peaked in 2006, but the drop was more severe for those with student loans. This is probably due to the erosion in future income expectations following the recession for those with student debt, as well as more limited access to additional credit based on these individuals' existing debt loads (i.e. lower credit scores). Alternatively, student debtors may simply be reluctant to add to their overall leverage in light of the more uncertain economic outlook. A Fed study estimated that every 10% increase in student debt per person now results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation.13 Non-Traditional Borrowers Led The Surge In Delinquencies... While student debt burdens are unlikely to ameliorate anytime soon, the default rate should moderate in the coming years. Brookings (2015) conducted a detailed assessment of the characteristics of student loan borrowers and how they changed after 2007, by matching administrative data on federal student borrowers with earnings data from tax records. The study split the sample into "traditional" and "non-traditional" borrowers. Traditional borrowers are defined to be those attending 4-year public and private institutions because they tend to be typical in nature; they start college in their late teens, soon after completing high school, are dependent on their parents for aid purposes, pursue 4-year degrees and, frequently, head on to graduate study. This group historically represented the majority of federal borrowers and loan amounts. Non-traditional borrowers historically made up only a small portion of the total. These are defined to be those borrowing for 2-year programs (primarily community college) or to attend for-profit schools. The study found that non-traditional borrowers have largely come from lower-income families, tended to be older (i.e. not supported by parents), attended institutions with relatively low completion rates and faced poor labor market outcomes after leaving school (Chart II-9). Lower median wages and higher rates of unemployment meant that non-traditional borrowers tended to default on their student loans at a higher rate than traditional students. Student borrowing is counter cyclical; it tends to accelerate during recessions as unfavorable labor market conditions encourage people to return to school or to stay in school longer. The flow of new borrowers accelerated particularly sharply during the Great Recession, as intense pressure on State budgets led to cuts in scholarships by public institutions. Access to alternative credit markets was also curtailed during and after the Great Financial Crisis. Chart II-9Non-Traditional Students Had Poor Labor Market Experience Chart II-10Surge In Non-Traditional ##br##Borrowers After 2007 Student loan inflows (i.e. the number of new borrowers) and outflows (the number paying off loans) are shown in Chart II-10. Inflows trended higher from 2000 to 2007, while outflows were fairly flat, leading to an upward trend in the net inflows. Inflows subsequently surged during the recession, reaching a peak in 2010. The jump in new borrowers was concentrated among non-traditional students. The number of non-traditional borrowers grew to represent almost half of all new borrowers soon after the recession. The wave of students who had begun to borrow during the recession entered the repayment period in increasingly large numbers from 2011 to 2014. The early years of repayment are the most precarious because debtors are just starting their careers and their earnings are the most variable. The rise in the share of non-traditional borrowers largely explains the surge in the overall default rate since 2011. In contrast, the majority of traditional borrowers have experienced strong labor market outcomes and relatively low rates of default. Of all the students who left school, started to repay federal loans in 2011, and had fallen into default by 2013, about 70% were non-traditional borrowers. ...But The Worst Is Over The situation has since begun to reverse. Inflows and the net change in the number of borrowers has declined since 2012, particularly at 2-year and for-profit institutions. The moderation of the pace of inflows, the change in the composition of borrowers (less non-traditional), and efforts by the DoE to expand the use of income-based repayment programs will put downward pressure on delinquency and default rates in the coming years. Economic Impact Of Student Debt There are several channels through which rising student debt can affect overall economic growth. Spending by households with student debt will be curtailed both by the need to service the loans and by the fact that these households have lower levels of net worth. They are also less likely to own a home or form a small business. (1)Debt Service Burden And The Wealth Effect Table II-2 presents estimates of the value of aggregate debt service payments as a percent of GDP. This is based on the median debt service-to-earnings estimates from the Brookings Institute and median income for households where the head is less than 35 years of age in the Survey of Consumer Finances. If we assume that every dollar paid to service student loans is a dollar not spent on goods and services, then Table II-2 implies that the resulting drag on the level of real GDP has doubled from 0.17% of GDP in 2004 to 0.34% in 2013 (latest year available). However, it is the increase over time that matters for GDP growth, not the level. The rise of 0.17% was spread over nine years, suggesting that the drag on GDP growth was minimal. Moreover, this represents an overestimate of the actual drag, because households with student debt have leaned more heavily on other types of debt in an attempt to maintain their living standards. Table II-2The Debt Service Drag On GDP Lower levels of asset accumulation and net worth will also undermine consumer spending. However, we believe that accounting for both the "wealth effect" and the debt-service effect on GDP would be double counting. Chart II-11Spending On Education ##br##Not A Growth Driver Education spending also provides a possible offset to the negative impact of debt service on GDP growth. However, in terms of household spending on education, in inflation-adjusted terms there has been virtually no growth in consumer spending on higher education over the past 15 years despite all the extra spending in nominal dollars (Chart II-11). Data on government spending specifically on higher education is not available, but spending on all levels of education including primary and secondary schools has declined as a fraction of real GDP since the early 2000's. The implication is that total spending on higher education by households and governments has not provided any offset to the drag on GDP growth from student debt since 2007. (2)Housing Market Earlier, we cited Fed estimates that every 10% increase in student debt per person results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen by 5.5 percentage points since the beginning of 2007, reaching 62.9% in the second quarter of 2016. We estimate that rising student indebtedness could account for as much as 1½ percentage points of the total 5½ percentage point drop. This is based on the Fed's estimates, the rise in the share of student loan borrowers among the total number of households and the increase in student debt-per-person. Again, this estimate likely overstates the impact because we are implicitly assuming that every new student borrower since 2007 ultimately forms a new household upon graduation. Undoubtedly, a portion of student borrowers formed a household with other student borrowers. Even if this estimate is close to the truth, it is not clear that there is a large impact on GDP growth. The formation of new households will result in an expansion in the housing stock one-for-one (assuming no change in inventories). Whether they decide to rent or buy, this will boost the residential investment portion of GDP. Buying a home or condo often results in home renovation and purchases of new furnishings, thus providing the economy with a larger boost compared to new households that rent. Nonetheless, the difference is difficult to estimate and is probably small enough to ignore. Another way to approach the issue is to gauge the impact on the housing market of the greater propensity of 18-35 year olds to live with their parents. Those living at home jumped from 19.2 million in 2007 to 23.0 million in 2015. The proportion of those living at home of the total population of 18-35 year olds rose from 28% to 32%. If the ratio had not increased over the period, it would have resulted in an extra 2½ million young people leaving home. If we assume that one-quarter of them move in with someone else who is also leaving home, then it would result in an increase in the housing stock of more than 1.8 million units since 2007 (condos or single family homes). We estimate that the resulting boost to residential construction growth would have added an average 0.14 percentage points to real GDP growth each year since 2007. Of course, it is not clear how much of the "living at home" trend is due to student loans as opposed to low earnings or poor job prospects. This estimate thus overstates the direct impact of student loans on the housing market. Nonetheless, it is instructive that the living-at-home phenomenon has been a non-trivial drag on economic growth via new home construction. (3) New Business Creation Academic research has also linked rising student indebtedness to a slower pace of new business creation. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia points out that approximately 60% of new jobs in the private sector are created by small business.14 The U.S. Small Business Administration states that small firms receive approximately three-quarters of their capital needs in the form of loans, credit cards and lines of credit, which often have a personal liability attached. Having student loans reduces one's debt capacity and thus the ability to obtain small business loans. The Fed study compared student loan data and new business formation across U.S. counties. The Fed estimates that an increase of one standard deviation in student debt results in a decrease of 70 in the annual pace of new small business creation, representing a decline of approximately 14½%. Chart II-12 shows the inverse correlation between student debt and new business formation across U.S. states. Chart II-12Student Debt Hinders Small Business Creation The impact of a slower pace of new business creation on overall economic growth is unclear. A student that does not create a new business for whatever reason will likely end up working for an already existing company that is growing, expanding the supply side of the economy anyway. True, small businesses create a lot of jobs, but they lose a lot too because the failure rate for these firms is high in the early years. Some claim that the less vibrant new business environment since 2007 reflects a less dynamic economy, helping to explain the dismal productivity record since that time. However, this flies in the face of the fact that the small business sector is less productive overall than large businesses. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there is a rough correlation between the new firm creation rate and real GDP growth per capita at the state level. However, it is not clear which one is driving the other. Our sense is that, while a less vibrant new business backdrop likely contributed to the poor post-Lehman economic record, it is far from the major driving factor. Chart II-13GDP Growth And Small Business Creation: Which One Is The Driver? (4) The Federal Budget Could the surge in delinquency rates wind up costing the taxpayer a bundle? Eighty percent of all student loans are either made directly by or are backed by the federal government, generating a potentially large contingent liability. Fortunately for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on student loans is extremely high. Moreover, the Federal government makes money on the spread between the student loan rate and the rate at which it finances these loans (Treasury yields). Congress sets the loan rates and they are kept well above Treasury yields. Under Congressional accounting rules, the cost of a student loan is recorded in the federal budget during the year the loan is disbursed, taking into account the amount of the loan, expected payments to the government over the life of the loan, and other cash flows, all discounted to the present value using interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities. By this accounting rule, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal government will make a net profit of almost $200 billion over the 2013-2023 period.15 However, a more reasonable "fair value" accounting method, which includes the costs of collection and other items, shows that the student loan program will cost the taxpayer roughly $100 billion over the same period. Either way, the bottom line is that the student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer. Delinquency and default rates are likely to moderate in the coming years. But even if default rates were to surge to new highs for some reason, the recovery rate is so elevated that the impact on the Federal budget balance would be lost in the rounding. Conclusion It seems clear that incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. There has been a vicious circle in which increased federal loan limits supported institutions' ability to raise tuition fees, resulting in a greater need for federal loans. Some for-profit institutions have been criticized for offering shoddy education, for graduating too many students in disciplines for which job prospects are poor, and for encouraging students to load up on high-cost debt. The U.S. spends almost 80% more per pupil on higher education than the OECD average, and yet some argue that this has not resulted in better educational outcomes. The social impact of student leveraging is clearly negative. The benefits of education have narrowed relative to the costs. Financial stress has increased along with debt service burdens, especially for non-traditional borrowers, and repayment periods have been extended to an average of over 13 years. These trends have caused young people to delay marriage and home purchases. This is a serious political and social issue that needs to be addressed. That said, we do not agree with Ms. Bair that student debt is the next "subprime" crisis. Delinquency and default rates are likely to fall in the coming years. These loans have not been packaged into opaque financial instruments and distributed throughout the investment world. The vast majority of the loans are federally backed and the recovery rate is very high. Even if there is a wave of mass defaults, the federal deficit might rise slightly but there is no channel through which the shock can propagate through the financial system. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 "Student Debt and the Class of 2015," Annual Report of the Institute for College Access & Success, October 2016. 2 Beth Akers and Matthew Chingos, "Is a Student Loan Crisis on the Horizon?" Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, June 2014. 3 Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis, "A Crisis in Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions They Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2015. 4 Most federal student loans are at a fixed rate set by Congress. 5 Brookings (2015). 6 http://www.edcentral.org/edcyclopedia/federal-student-loan-default-rate… 7 The data are only available to 2010, but we have estimated figures to 2013. 8 Brookings (2014). 9 Brookings (2014). 10 Student loans generally have a 10-year term, but loans consolidated with the federal government are eligible for extended repayment terms based on the outstanding balance, with larger debts eligible for longer repayment terms. 11 "Young Adults, Student Debt and Economic Well-Being," Pew Research Center, May 14, 2014. 12 Daniel Cooper and J.Christina Wang, "Student Loan Debt and Economic Outcomes," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, October 2014. 13 Alvaro Mezza, Daniel Ringo, Shane Sherlund and Kamila Sommer, "On the Effect of Student Loans on Access to Homeownership," Finance and Economic Discussion Series of the Federal Reserve Board. 2016-2010. 14 Brent Ambrose, Larry Cordell, and Shuwei Ma, "The Impact of Student Loan Debt on Small Business Formation," Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper, July 2015. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity markets ended the month slightly lower as investors come to grips with the economic and profit implications of the pending Fed rate hike and Brexit. While TINA is still in play, caution abounds, as highlighted by waning investor sentiment and continued weakness in our Equity Technical indictor. Rising bond yields and a stronger dollar contributed to a weakening in our Monetary Indictor, trends that no doubt contributed to the overall diminished appetite for risk over the month. Our Equity Valuation Indicators have improved somewhat, but still remain in overvalued territory. Net earnings revisions have become constructive and positive earnings surprises increasingly outpaced negative ones. Despite this, we would need to see a close to 10% price depreciation for U.S. equities to appear attractive, as outlined in Section 1. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators continue to send a positive message for stock markets. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. At the moment, the low levels of the WTP indicators suggest that flows have been stronger into bonds than into stocks. From a contrary perspective, this means that there is "dry powder" available if investors decide to move more aggressively into equity markets. The U.S. and Eurozone indicators appear to have bottomed out last month and continue their ascent. This should be bullish for both U.S. and Eurozone equities. The U.S. dollar notched a strong month with a gain of more than 3%. This has tightened financial conditions as can be seen in the decline of our Financial Conditions Index. The deviation from its 12-month moving average is even more pronounced, turning negative after several months of treading water in "easing" territory. Our Dollar Composite Technical indicator displayed a violent move higher, but has yet to breach a level consistent with previous episodes of overextension; the USD can rally further. The yen is showing signs of entering an extended period of depreciation. Net speculative positions are extremely elevated and the 40-week rate of change appears to have formed a trough, rebounding from all-time lows. In a similar vein, the euro is also displaying weakness as its 40-week rate of change is crossing into negative territory. As outlined in Section 1, we expect a 10% appreciation in the U.S. dollar, a 10% depreciation in the yen and a 5% depreciation of the euro in trade-weighted terms. The commodity complex ended the month flat, with a more robust global growth backdrop offsetting the negative impact of a strong U.S. dollar and higher rates. While the advance/decline line ticked up, a positive sign for a potential broad-based gain across currencies, gold had a less than stellar month. The outsized impact of financial variables (U.S. dollar strength and higher real rates) on the yellow metal led to a more than 5% price decline. Our Commodity Composite Technical Indicator surged deeper into overbought territory, indicating that it might be time to take some risk off the table. The balance of risks for commodities excluding oil is to the downside. As mentioned in Section 1, an appreciating U.S. dollar and elevated yields will eventually feed through to weakness in the space. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights Dear Client, The growth of the electric-vehicle market, particularly re its implications for hydrocarbons as the primary transportation fuel in the world, will remain a key issue for energy markets, particularly oil. The IEA estimates transportation accounted for 64.5% of oil demand in 2014, the latest data available, compared to natural gas's 7% share and electricity's 1.5% share.1 Last week, Fitch Ratings published a report concluding, "Widespread adoption of battery-powered vehicles is a serious threat to the oil industry." For example, the agency contends that "in an extreme scenario, where electric cars gained a 50 per cent market share over 10 years about a quarter of European gasoline demand could disappear." This is not a widespread view in the energy markets. IHS Energy published a report in 2014 finding, "Past energy transitions took decades to unfold and were driven by a combination of market factors: cost, scarcity of supply, utility and flexibility, technology development, geopolitical developments, consumer trends, and policy.2" While our view is more aligned with IHS's, it is undeniable electric vehicles are a growing market. For this reason, we are publishing an analysis by BCA Research's EM Equity Sector Strategy written by our colleague Oleg Babanov, which explores the lithium-battery supply chain and how investors can gain exposure to this critical element of the fast-growing global electric-vehicle market. Separately, we are downgrading our strategic zinc view from neutral to bearish, and recommending a Dec/17 short if it rallies. Robert P. Ryan Senior Vice President, Commodity & Energy Strategy Lithium is a rare metal with a costly production process and a high concentration in a small number of countries. Difficulty in production is comparable to deep-sea oil drilling. Lithium is the key element in lithium-ion batteries. Demand is rapidly increasing as more countries adopt environment-protection policies and electric-car production is on the rise. We recommend an overweight on the lithium battery supply chain (Table 1), on a long-term perspective (one year plus). We estimate demand for the raw material to rise by approximately 30% over the coming years, driven by the main electric vehicle production clusters in Asia and the U.S. Table 1Single Stock Statistics For Companies##br## In The Lithium Battery Supply Chain (Oct 2016)* What Is Powering Your Battery? Being a relatively rare and difficult to produce metal, lithium demand is rapidly increasing due to the metal's unique physical characteristics, which are utilized in long-life or rechargeable batteries. Rapidly rising demand from portable electronics manufacturers, and the push of the auto industry to develop new fuel-efficient technology, backed by the widespread support of many governments to reduce transportation costs and improve CO2 emissions, are driving prices for the metal higher. We believe that companies in the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain, from miners to battery producers and down to EV manufacturers, will benefit from the change in environmental policies and the growing need for more portable devices with larger energy storage. As the focus of the wider investment community remains tilted towards the U.S. (and Tesla in particular), many companies in the lithium battery supply chain, as well as EV producers, remain overlooked and undervalued. EV Production Expected To Surge We expect a continuation of the push towards energy-saving vehicles among car manufacturers, driven by government incentives and new tougher regulations (EU regulations for CO2 emissions in 2020 will be the strictest so far). Over one million EV vehicles of different types were sold in 2015. In countries such as Norway, the penetration of PEVs is reaching up to 23% (Chart 1). Based on the current growth rates (Chart 2), the compound annual growth rate of EV production is estimated at 30% to 35% over the next 10 years. Japan will remain in top spot in EV penetration (the current HEV rate is around 20% of the overall market). Japan's market (controlled by Toyota and Honda) is dominated by the HEV type of vehicles, and we expect it to remain this way. Chart 1PEV Penetration By Country Chart 2EV Sales By Country We expect the largest boost in market share gains to happen on the European market, based on very stringent CO2 emissions regulation (Chart 3) and ambitious EV targets set by the larger countries. EV market share is set to reach 20% (from the current 5%) in the coming seven to 10 years. The EU is closely followed by South Korea. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) has developed an ambitious plan of growth, by which EV market share should reach 20% by 2020 and 30% by 2025. New EVs will receive special license plates, fuel incentives, and new charging stations. MOTIE wants the auto industry to be able to produce 920,000 NEVs per year, of which 70% should be exported. Among other large markets, the U.S. and China will remain the two countries with lowest EV penetration rates, although growth rates will be impressive. This will be due to low incentives from the government and cheap traditional fuel supply (in the U.S.), or a low base, some subsidy cuts, and infrastructure constraints (in China). Especially in China's case, the numbers remain striking (Chart 4). According to statistics published by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), EV sales in 2015 grew 450% YOY. The market is estimated to grow at an average rate of 25% over the next 10 years. Chart 3EU CO2 Emission Targets Chart 4Monthly NEV Sales China In this report we will highlight companies from the raw material production stage: Albermarle (ALB US), Gangfeng Lithium (002460 CH), Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH), and Orocobre (ORE AU); to added-value battery producers: BYD (1211 HK), LG Chem (051910 KS), and Samsung SDI (006400 KS); down to some electric vehicle companies: Geely Automobile Holdings (175 HK) and Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH). The Supply Side Driven by demand from China and the U.S., the raw material base for lithium has shifted in the past 20 years from subsurface brines to more production-intensive hard-rock ores. Brine operations are mostly found in the so-called LatAm "triangle" - Argentina, Chile and Bolivia - while China and Australia produce lithium from spodumene (a mineral consisting of lithium aluminium inosilicate) and other minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates world reserves at 14 million tonnes in 2015, with Bolivia and Chile on top of the table (Chart 5). The main lithium producing countries, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are Australia, Chile, and Argentina (Chart 6). Chart 5Lithium Reserves Concentrated In LatAm Chart 6Lithium Production Dynamics By Country The lithium mining process starts with pumping lithium-containing brine to subsurface reservoirs and leaving the water to evaporate (from 12 to 24 months) until the brine reaches a 6% lithium content. From here there are three ways to process the concentrate, or the hard-rock in mineral form: Treatment with sulfuric acid (acidic method) Sintering with CaO or CaCO3 (alkali method) Treatment with K2SO4 (salt method) Further, lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), a poorly soluble solution, is isolated from the received concentrate and transferred into lithium chloride, which is purified in a vacuum distillation process. Storage is also difficult: as lithium is highly corrosive and can damage the mucous membrane, it is most commonly stored in a mineral oil lubricant. Due to the rare nature of the metal, lithium comes mainly as a by-product of other metals and comprises only a small part of the production portfolio. This is the reason why the underlying metal price and the share prices of the largest producers of lithium have low correlation (Chart 7). Albermarle, SQM, and FMC Corp currently control as much as three-quarters of global lithium production, but price performance is not keeping up with the price of the underlying metal. For best exposure to the metal, we concentrate on companies with a large degree of dedication to mining lithium and close ties to the end-users. We recommend one established market leader (by volume) - Albermarle (ALB US); one company that just started operations - Orocobre (ORE AU), whose assets are concentrated in Argentina; and two lithium miners from China - Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium (002460 CH) and Tianqi Lithium (002466 CH). These companies display much higher correlation to the metal price (Chart 8). Chart 7FMC Corp., SQM And ##br##Albermarle Vs. Lithium Price Chart 8Orocorbe, Jiangxi Ganfeng And##br## Tianqi Lithium Vs. Lithium Price Albermarle (ALB US): U.S. company with EM exposure (Chart 9). After the acquisition of Rockwood Holdings in 2015, Albermarle became one of the largest producers of lithium and lithium derivatives. Lithium accounts for more than 35% of the company's revenue stream (+20% YOY), which compares favourably to the 20% of the Chilean producer SQM and the 8% of another large US producer FMC Corp. Chile comprises 31% of global production. Albermarle's 2Q16 results on 3 August came broadly in line with market expectations. Some deviation from expectations occurred because of discontinued operations in the Surface Treatment segment. Group sales contracted by 7%, due to divestures started in previous quarters (Chemetal). Positively, lithium sales grew 10% YOY due to both better pricing and higher volumes, and EBITDA in the segment improved by 20%. Group EBITDA (adjusted) grew by 5% YOY and the bottom-line (adjusted) expanded by 11% YOY. Management appears confident about FY16 operations, guiding 1% improvement in EBITDA, as well as 3% in FY EPS and aims to maintain EBITDA margins in the lithium segment at over 40%. We see high growth potential due to Albermarle's portfolio composition. The market is currently expecting an EPS CAGR of 9% over the next four years. Albermarle is trading at a forward P/E of 23.1x. Orocobre (ORE AU): An Australian company mining in Argentina (Chart 10). Orocobre is an Australian resource company, based in Brisbane. As in the case with Albermarle, the majority of operations are located in EM, so we see it as appropriate to include the company into our portfolio. Chart 9Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Albermarle vs MXEF Index Chart 10Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Orocobre vs MXEF Index Orocobre is at an initial stage in the lithium production process. The only division working at full capacity is Borax Argentina (acquired from Rio Tinto in 2012), an open-pit borate mining operation (producing 40 kilotonnes per annum (ktpa)). The flagship project (65% share), launched in a JV with Toyota Tsusho Corp, is the Olaroz lithium facility, a salt lake with an estimated 6.5 million tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) reserves. The planned capacity is at 17.5 ktpa. Due to the geological structure, it comes with one of the lowest operational costs ($3500 per tonne). The production ramp-up to 2,971 tonnes of lithium, reported on 19 July together with the 4Q16 results, came a notch below market expectations. The management lowered the production guidance, delaying full operational capacity by two months until November (realistically it might take even longer). Positive points in guidance included an LCE price exceeding $10,000/tonne in the upcoming quarter and confirmation that the company turned cash flow positive in the first half of this year.3 Orocobre is already planning capacity expansion at the Olaroz facility to 25 ktpa, with diversification into lithium hydroxide. Further exploration drilling is underway in the Cauchari facility, just south of Olaroz. The market forecasts the company to produce a positive bottom-line in FY17 and grow EPS by a CAGR of 25% for the next four years. Orocobre is currently trading at a forward P/E of 36.1x. Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium (002460 CH): one of the largest lithium producers in China (Chart 11). Gangfeng is a unique company in the lithium space in the sense that it is a raw material producer with added processing capabilities. The main trigger for our OW recommendation was the acquisition of a 43% stake in the Mt Marion project in Australia. From 3Q16 onwards the bottleneck in raw material supply will be removed and the company can count on approximately 20 thousand tonnes (kt) of lithium spodumene. On the back of this news, the company announced a production expansion into lithium hydroxide (20 kt) from which 15 kt will be battery grade and 5 kt industry grade. This has the potential to lift Ganfeng to one of the top five producers in the world. Ganfeng reported stellar 2Q16 results on 22 August. The top-line grew two times YOY, while operating profit increased by 7.8x. Operating margin jumped from 9.8% to 35.9%, and the bottom-line expanded five-fold YOY. The profit margin also improved from 8.55% to 25.3%. We expect less strong, but still robust, YOY growth for the upcoming quarters. Market projects EPS CAGR of over 50% during the next four years, as the production run-up will continue. The company is currently trading at a forward P/E of 36.8x. Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH): Making the move (Chart 12). Tianqi is the third largest producer in the world (18% of global capacity). Recently the company got into the news on rumors of its attempted expansion by taking a controlling stake in the world's largest lithium producer, Chile's SQM. Chart 11Performance Since October 2015:##br## Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium vs MXEF Index Chart 12Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Tianqi Lithium vs MXEF Index SQM has an intricate shareholding structure, with the involvement of the Chilean government and a rule that no shareholder is currently allowed to own more than a 32% stake in the company (this rule can be changed only through an extraordinary shareholder meeting). At the moment the largest shareholder is Mr. Ponce Lerou (son-in-law of former President Augusto Pinochet), who owns just under 30% and has a strategic agreement with a Japanese company, Kowa, which makes the combined holding 32%. During the last week of September Tianqi acquired a 2% stake (for USD209 m) from US-based fund SailtingStone Capital Partners, which held a 9% stake, with the option to buy the remaining 7%. In a further step, Tianqi is trying to negotiate a deal with one of Mr. Ponce Lerou's companies which holds a 23% stake. It is said that Mr. Ponce Lerou has got into a political stalemate with the Chilean government on a production increase at one of its deposits and is looking to exit the company. Tianqi reported strong Q2 results on 22 August. Revenues grew by 2.4x YOY, and operating profit improved by 3.9x YOY. Operating margin grew from 42.99% in 2015 to 69.35% in 2Q16, and bottom-line increased twofold QOQ as production ramp-up continued. At the same time profit margin reached 48.9%, up from 2.8% a year ago. The company is currently trading at a forward P/E of 23.4x, and the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 13% over the next three years. The Demand Side4 Lithium is used in a wide range of products, from electronics to aluminium production and special alloys, down to ceramics and glass. But battery production takes the largest share of utilization (Charts 13A & 13B). Chart 13ALithium UsageChart 13BLithium Batteries Most Widely Used As confirmed by import statistics (from the U.S. Geological Survey), demand in many Asian countries, as well as the U.S., has been constantly rising. Among the main importers, South Korea is in fourth place with the largest number of new lithium-related projects started. In top position is the U.S., where we expect a strong demand increase, once the Tesla battery mega-factory in Nevada is completed, followed by Japan, which has the highest penetration of electric vehicles (EV), and China (Chart 14). Chart 14Composition Of Lithium Imports By Country Because of its low atomic mass, lithium has a high charge and power-to-mass ratio (a lithium battery generates up to 3V per cell, compared to 2.1V for lead-acid or 1.5V for zinc-carbon), which makes it the metal-of-choice for battery electrolytes and electrodes, and makes it difficult to replace with other metals, due to its unique physical features. Lithium is used in both disposable batteries (as an anode) and re-chargeable ones (Li-ion or LIB batteries, where lithium is used as an intercalated compound). Li-ion batteries are used in: Portable electronics, such as mobile phones (lithium cobalt oxide based); Power tools / household appliances (lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese oxide); EVs (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC). The most produced battery is the cylindrical 18650 battery. Tesla's Model S uses over 7000 of these type of batteries for its 85 kWh battery pack (the largest on the market until mid-August, when Tesla announced a 100 kWh battery pack). The amount of lithium used in a battery pack depends on the kW output. Rockwood Lithium (now Albermarle), estimated in one of its annual presentations that: A hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) uses approximately 1.6kg of lithium A plug-in hybrid (PHEV) uses 12kg An electric vehicle (EV) uses more than 20kg (but all depends on make, model, and technology). An average car battery (PHEV/EV) would use over 10kg of lithium, assuming 450g per kWh (please note that real-life calculations suggest a usage of up to 800g per kWh of lithium. We have used the lower end of the range for our estimates), with Tesla's battery consuming around 70kg of lithium. Simple math suggests that with the completion of the mega-factory (estimated production of 35 GWh or 500k batteries p.a.), Tesla alone will be consuming at least half of world lithium production by 2020, and create a large overhang in demand. Among car battery producers, we like global players with dominant market positions and strong ties to end-users, such as LG Chem, Samsung SDI in Korea, and BYD in China. Those three companies together control more than half of global battery production (Chart 15) and will most likely maintain market share in the foreseeable future, as barriers to entry are high due the amount of investment required into technology and production facilities, and the end-product is difficult to differentiate on the market. BYD Corp (1211 HK): Build Your Dreams, it's in the name (Chart 16). Founded in 1995 and based in Shenzhen, BYD covers the whole value chain, from R&D and production of batteries (phone and car batteries) to automobile production and energy storage solutions. It is currently the largest battery and PHEV producer in China. The total revenues stream consists of 55% from auto and auto components sales, 33% portable electronics battery, and 12% car battery sales. Chart 15Largest Lithium ##br##Battery Producers Chart 16Performance Since October 2015: ##br##BYD Corp vs MXEF Index We believe the company is best positioned to reap multi-year rewards from the recent drive of the Chinese government to promote new electronic vehicle (NEV) growth through subsidies, support of charging infrastructure, and changes in legislation. The introduction of carbon trading in August (carbon credit will be measured on the number of gasoline-powered vehicles in the producer's fleet) will give BYD a benefit over other car manufacturers. BYD's model pipeline and battery manufacturing capacity (expected to reach 20 GWh by FY17), as well as favourable pricing ($200 kWh compared to over $400 kWh for Tesla) put the company into a leadership position. BYD reported 2Q16 results on 28 August, which came out very strong. Revenues grew by 52.5% YOY and 384% on a semi-annual perspective, driven by all three business segments and especially strong in EV sales (+29% YOY). This came with a significant beat of consensus estimates and later we saw a 68% upwards adjustment. As a result operating margin and profit margin improved from 3.8% and 2.2% in 2Q15 to 8.5% and 5.8% in 2Q16. Bottom-line was up 4x YOY. The market is currently pricing in an EPS CAGR of 12% over the next three years. BYD is trading at a forward P/E of 23.9x. LG Chem (051910 KS): Catering for the US market (Chart 17). LG Chem is the largest chemical company in South Korea, operating in three different divisions: petrochemicals (from basic distillates to polymers), which account for 71% of total revenues, information technology and electronics (displays, toners etc.), which represent 13% of total revenues, and energy solutions, 16% of total revenues. LG Chem is the third largest battery producer in the world, manufacturing a pallet from small watch and mobile phone batteries down to auto-packs. LG's North American operations in Holland, Michigan produce battery packs for the whole range of GM (Chevrolet, Cadillac) EVs (including the most popular Volt range), as well as for the Ford Focus. In Europe, customers include Renault; in Asia, LG is working with Hyundai, SAIC, and Chery. The company reported better-than-expected 2Q16 results on 21 July. Revenues grew by 3% YOY and operating profit by 8.5% YOY, driven solely by the petrochem division (up 10% YOY). Bottom-line expanded by a healthy 8% YOY. LG Chem trades at deeply discounted levels (forward P/E of 11.6x) due to the remaining negative profitability in the battery segment (partly due to licensing issues in China, which represents 32% of total revenues), but we estimate that the trend will turn in the following quarters, as Chevrolet is ramping up demand with new product lines and management is guiding for a resolution in China. Furthermore, plans released by the Korean government in June/July (renewable energy plan and EV expansion plan) will increase demand for batteries by more than 30% CAGR in the next five years. The market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 9% over the upcoming four years. Samsung SDI (006400 KS): Investing into the future (Chart 18). In contrast to LG Chem, Samsung SDI is fully focused on Li-ion battery production, with 66.5% of total revenues coming from this division (BMW and Fiat among clients). The company also produces semiconductors and LCD displays, which account for 35.5% of total revenue. Chart 17Performance Since October 2015: ##br##LG Chem vs MXEF Index Chart 18Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Samsung SDI vs MXEF Index Samsung SDI is currently in a reorganization phase, as the company is spinning off "Samsung SDI Chemicals" and has announced it will invest $2.5 bn into further development of its car battery business. The proceeds from the sale of Samsung SDI Chemicals (taken over by Lotte Chemicals in April for around $2.6 bn) will also be directed towards the car battery segment. Samsung SDI reported weak 2Q16 results on 28 July, as expected. Revenues continued to contract on a YOY basis, although the rate of decline slowed compared to Q1 and even registered 2% QOQ growth. The bottom-line was positive due to a one-off gain (the sale of the chemical business). The main headwinds came from delays in licensing Chinese factory production and a strong Japanese yen. On the positive side, Li-ion batteries in portable devices performed well, due to better than expected Galaxy S7 sales, as well as OLED sales, due to increased demand and capacity constraints in the mobile phone and large panel spaces. Due to the high concentration of EV battery-related revenues in its portfolio, we believe that Samsung SDI will be the largest beneficiary of government's renewable energy and EV expansion plans. The company is also ideally positioned to take advantage of the fast-growing Chinese market (35% of revenues coming from China), once the issue with licensing is resolved (which management guided will happen in Q3). The recent problems with overheating or exploding batteries, reported by users of the new Samsung phones, have sent the share price lower. We believe that this offers an excellent entry point, as ultimately the company will replace/improve the technology, and, at the same time, there are no alternatives which could threaten Samsung SDI's leadership in the portable battery space. The temporary issue in China has weighted on valuations, as Samsung SDI is trading at a forward P/E of 27.7x, while the market expects EPS to increase fivefold in the coming four years. Accessing The Chinese EV Market Best access to the fast growing Chinese market is through local car manufacturers, such as Geely (Chart 19). The subsidy schemes, put in place by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), currently cover only domestic-made models (except the BMW i3). Furthermore, import duties are making foreign-made vehicles uncompetitive in terms of price. We recommend to overweight Geely (0175 HK) and electric bus producer Yutong Bus (600066 CH) on the 30% NEV rule for public transport procurement. Chart 19Accessing The Chinese EV Market Geely ("Lucky" in Mandarin) Automobile Holdings (175 HK): A company with large ambitions (Chart 20). Probably best known for its two foreign car holdings, Volvo and the London Taxi Company, Geely grew from a small appliances manufacturer to the second largest EV producer in China, with an ambitious goal to manufacture 2 mn units by 2020. We see the main positive driver in Geely's big push into the EV market. The goal set by management is to have 90% of its fleet powered by electricity by 2020. The so called "Blue Geely" initiative is based on a revamp of Geely's current fleet into HEVs/PHEVs (65% as per plan) and EVs (35%). In May the company raised $400 mn in "green bonds" in a first for a Chinese car company, to support its R&D and manufacturing project, Ansty, to produce the first zero-emission TX5 black cabs in the U.K. The company reported strong 1H16 results on 18 August. Revenues were up 30% YOY, driven by higher production volume (up 10% YOY) and a sales price hike of around 15% YOY. The co-operation with Volvo seems to be working well (Volvo's design, Geely's production capabilities). The average waiting time for new models in China is approximately two months. The bottom-line expanded by 37.5% YOY despite a high density of new model launches, and we expect to see some margin improvement in the coming quarters. The market forecasts an EPS growth CAGR of 25% over the coming four years. Geely is currently trading at a forward P/E of 15.6x. Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH): An unusual bus manufacturer (Chart 21). Yutong Bus Company is the world's largest, and technologically most advanced, producer of medium and large-sized buses (over 75k units produced in FY15, 10% global market share), with its own R&D and servicing capabilities. Even more important, Yutong is one of the largest producers of electric-powered buses in China and globally. Chart 20Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Geely Automobile Holdings vs MXEF Index Chart 21Performance Since October 2015:##br## Yutong Bus Company vs MXEF Index Due to the 30% EV procurement rule for local governments, the number of electric buses produced in 2015 soared 15 times to 90,000, a quarter of which were produced by Yutong. We expect this number to grow further with the introduction of the new carbon emission trading scheme. We see Yutong as best positioned in the bus manufacturers' space to take advantage of the new trading rules. Yutong reported 2Q16 results on 23 August, which came in broadly in line with market expectations. Revenue expanded by 34% YOY, driven by volume growth (7400 NEV units sold, +100% YOY). The push into EVs came with higher cost-of-sales (warranty and servicing). This did not affect gross margin (up 1% to 25%). Bottom-line grew by 50% YOY. Management maintained an upbeat outlook, guiding 25,000 units of NEV sales in FY16, with an average sales price increase due to higher sales in the large-bus segment. Management also expects to receive the national subsidy for FY15 in 3Q16 and for 2016 in 1Q17. The market currently factors in an EPS CAGR growth of 8% over the next four years. Yutong is trading at a forward P/E of 12.3x. How To Trade? The EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of the listed equities, which would consist of four mining companies, three car battery pack producers, and two EV manufacturers. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): Albermarle (ALB US), Gangfeng Lithium (002460 CH), Orocobre (ORE AU), Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH), BYD (1211 HK), LG Chem (051910 KS), Samsung SDI (006400 KS), Geely Automobile Holdings (175 HK), Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH). ETFs: Global X Lithium ETF (LIT US) Funds: There are currently no funds available, which invest directly into lithium or lithium-related stocks. Please note that the trade recommendation is long-term (1Y+) and based on an OW call. We don't see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). Trades can also be implemented through our recommendation versus MXEF index either directly through equities in the recommended list or through ETFs. For convenience, the performance of both the ETFs and market cap-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To Our Investment Case Because of the broad diversification, we see our portfolio exposed to idiosyncratic risk factors, which could affect single-stock performance, as well as the following macro factors: Mining: Falling lithium prices due to lower demand or a ramp-up in production on some of the Australian projects, could hurt profitability or delay new projects (especially in case of Orocobre). We also see some political risk stemming from the region of operations (Argentina, Chile), especially taking into account the weak performance of Chile's own lithium producer SQM and its role in a Brazil-like political scandal. Battery and EV production. We identify the main risk in drastic changes to governments' environmental and subsidy policies, which would hit the whole supply chain. A slowdown in economic development can make green or power-saving initiatives too expensive and governments will have to rethink their subsidy policies or production/penetration goals. This will hurt profitability through either a negative impact on sales or through smaller subsidies, which producers and end-users are receiving from their governments. One further risk is the dramatic increase in demand for lithium after the completion of Tesla's factory in Nevada, but may also come from other large players such as BYD. We currently see this risk as muted. As with all large Tesla initiatives, you have to take them with a pinch of salt, as the exact end numbers and the time the factory will be working at full capacity are unclear. Furthermore, Tesla, unlike many Chinese competitors, has no supply of lithium of its own, so there is little chance that it can protect supply or control prices. In any case, we see the overall portfolio as balanced, as the mining companies' performance should compensate for a negative impact on the end producers. Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk BASE METALS China Commodity Focus: Base Metals Zinc: Downgrade To Strategically Bearish We downgrade our strategic zinc view from neutral to bearish. We believe zinc supply (both ore and refined) will rise in response to current high prices, resulting in a 10-15% decline in zinc prices over next 9-12 months. Tactically, we still remain neutral on zinc prices as we believe the market will remain in supply deficit over the near term. Chinese zinc ore production will recover in 2017, while the country's zinc demand growth will slow. China is the world's biggest zinc ore miner, refined zinc producer, and zinc consumer. We recommend selling Dec/17 zinc if it rises to $2,400/MT (current: $2,373.5/MT). If the sell order gets filled, put on a stop-loss level at $2,500/MT. Zinc has been the best-performing metal in the base-metals complex, beating copper, aluminum and nickel this year. After bottoming at $1,456.50/MT on January 12, zinc prices have rallied 64.7% to $2,399/MT on October 3 (Chart 22, panel 1). The Rally The rally was supercharged by a widening supply deficit, which was mainly due to a record shortage of zinc ores globally (Chart 22, panels 2, 3 and 4). Late last October our research showed the output loss from the closure of Australia's Century mine, the closure of Ireland's Lisheen mine and Glencore's production cuts would reduce global zinc supply by 970 - 1,020 KT in 2016, which would be equivalent to a 7.1 - 7.5% drop in global zinc ore output.5 Moreover, a 16% price decline during the November-January period spurred additional production cut worldwide. According to the WBMS data, for the first seven months of 2016, global zinc ore production declined 11.9% versus the same period of last year, a reduction never before seen in the zinc market. In comparison, there was no decline in global zinc demand (Chart 22, panel 4). As a result, the global supply deficit reached 152-thousand-metric-tons (kt) for the first seven months of 2016, versus the 230kt supply surplus during the same period last year. What Now? Tactically, We Remain Neutral. On the supply side, we do not see much new ore supply coming on stream over the next three months. On the demand side, both monetary and fiscal stimulus in China has pushed Chinese zinc demand higher. For the first seven months of 2016, the country's zinc consumption increased 209 kt, the biggest consumption gain worldwide. Because of China, global zinc demand did not fall this year. China will continue lifting global zinc demand as its auto production, highway infrastructure investment, and overseas demand for galvanized steel sheet will likely remain elevated over the near term (Chart 23, panels 1, 2 and 3). Inventories at the LME are still hovering around the lowest level since August 2009, while SHFE inventories also have been falling (Chart 23, bottom panel). Speculators seem to be running out of steam, as the open interest has dropped from the multi-year high on futures exchanges. Chart 22Zinc: Strategically Bearish, Tactically Neutral Chart 23Positive Factors In The Near Term The aforementioned factors militate against zinc prices dropping sharply in the near term. However, with prices near the 2014 and 2015 highs, and facing strong technical resistance, we do not see much upside. Strategically, We Downgrade Our Strategic Zinc View From Neutral To Bearish We believe zinc supply (both ore and refined) will rise in response to current high prices, resulting in a 10-15% decline in zinc prices over next 9-12 months. Chart 24High Prices Will Boost Supply In 2017 Zinc prices at both LME and China's SHFE markets are high (Chart 24, panel 1). Last year, many miners and producers cut their ore and refined production due to extremely low prices. If zinc prices stay high over next three to six months, we expect to see an increasing amount of news stories on either production cutbacks coming back or new supply being added to the market, which will clearly be negative to zinc prices (Chart 24, panels 2 and 3). So far, even though Glencore, the world's biggest ore producing company, is still sticking firmly to its output reduction plan, there have been some news reports about other producers raising their output, all of which will increase zinc ore supply in 2017. The CEO of the Peruvian Antamina mine said on October 10 the mine operator will aim to double its zinc output in 2017 to 340 - 350 kt, up from an estimated 170 kt - 180 kt this year, as the open pit operation transitions into richer zinc areas. This alone will add 170 kt - 180 kt new zinc supply to the market. Vedanta said last week that its zinc ore output from its Hindustan Zinc mine located in India will be significantly higher over next two quarters versus the last two quarters. Nyrstar announced in late September that it is reactivating its Middle Tennessee mines in the U.S., expecting ore production to resume during 2017Q1 and to reach full capacity of 50 kt per year of zinc in concentrate by November 2017. Red River Resource is also restarting its Thalanga zinc project in Australia, and expects to resume producing ore in early 2017. Glencore may not produce more than its 2016 zinc production guidance over next three months. But it will likely set its 2017 guidance higher, if zinc prices stay elevated. After all, the company has massive mothballed zinc mines, which are available to bring back to the market quickly. In comparison to the high probability of more supply coming on stream, global demand growth is likely to stay anemic in 2017, as the stimulus in China, which was implemented in 2016H1, will eventually run out of steam. How Will China Affect The Global Zinc Market? Chart 25Look To Short Dec/17 Zinc China is the world's largest zinc ore producing country, the world's largest refined zinc producing country, and the world's largest zinc consuming country. Last year, the country produced 35.9% of global zinc ore, 43.8% of global refined zinc, and consumed 46.7% of global zinc. Over the near term, China is a positive factor to global zinc prices. Domestic refiners are currently willing to refining zinc ores as domestic zinc prices are near their highest levels since February 2011. With inventories running low and domestic ore output falling 7.8% during the first seven months of 2016, the country may increase its zinc ore imports in the near term, further tightening global zinc ore supply. Domestic zinc demand and overseas galvanized steel demand are likely to stay strong in the near term. However, over the longer term, China will become a negative factor to global zinc prices. China's ore output the first seven months of 2016 was 221 kt lower than the same period of last year as low prices in January-March forced widespread mine closures. The country's mine output may not increase much, as the government shut 26 lead and zinc mines in August in Hunan province (the 3rd largest zinc-producing province in China) due to safety and environmental concerns. The ban will be in place until June 2017. Looking forward, elevated zinc prices and a removal of the ban will boost Chinese zinc ore output in 2017. Regarding demand, we expect much weaker Chinese zinc demand growth next year as this year's stimulus should run out of steam by then. Risks If global zinc ore supply does not increase as much as we expect, or global demand still have a robust growth next year, global zinc supply-demand balance may be more tightened, resulting in further zinc price rallies. If Chinese authorities resume their reflationary policies next year during the lead-up to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in the fall, which may increase Chinese and global zinc demand considerably, we will re-evaluate our bearish strategic zinc view. Investment Ideas As we are strategically bearish zinc, we recommend selling Dec/17 zinc if it rises to $2,400/MT (current: $2,373.5/MT) (Chart 25). If the sell order gets filled, put on a stop-loss level at $2,500/MT. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see p. 32 of the 2016 edition of the International Energy Agency's "Key World Energy Statistics." The IEA reckons global oil demand in 2014 averaged just over 93mm b/d. 2 Please see the Financial Times, p. 12, "Warning on electric vehicle threat to oil industry," in the October 9, 2016, re the Fitch Ratings report, and IHS Energy's Special Report, "Deflating the 'Carbon Bubble,' Reality of oil and gas company valuation," published in September 2014. 3 Because of the early stage of the project, a conventional equity analysis is not yet applicable. 4 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", dated September 20, 2016, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for Base Metal section, "Global Oil Market Rebalancing Faster Than Expected", dated October 22, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights The resilience of EM industrial commodity demand, which is helping to lift inflation and inflation expectations in the U.S., will be tested over the next few months, as markets gear up for a possible oil-production deal between OPEC and Russia, and the first of perhaps three Fed rate hikes in December and next year. Any indication Janet Yellen has persuaded her colleagues to run a "high-pressure economy" will provoke us to get long gold, given its sensitivity to the Fed's preferred inflation gauge. We remain wary, however, given the higher-rates stance favored by some Fed officials, which, our modeling suggests, would reverse the pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations in the U.S. by depressing EM growth. Energy: Overweight. We continue to favor U.S. shale-oil producers at this stage in the cycle, and continue to look for opportunities to take commodity price exposure. Base Metals: Neutral. We downgraded copper to neutral from bullish last week, expecting prices to trade sideways over the next three months. Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to be buyers of gold at $1,210/oz. If we continue to see the Fed's preferred inflation gauge increase, we will raise that target. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We are recommending a tactical long position in Mar/17 wheat versus a short in Mar/17 soybeans. Feature In her Boston Fed speech last week, Fed Chair Janet Yellen dangled catnip in front of commodity markets by discussing the possibility of "temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy,' with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market" as a means of countering the prolonged hysteresis in the U.S. economy.1 Any indication Dr. Yellen has succeed in convincing her colleagues to pursue such a strategy would compel us to get long gold, given the sensitivity of the yellow metal to core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge (Chart of the Week).2 Indeed, we find there is a long-term equilibrium between spot gold prices and the core PCEPIand U.S. financial variables, which is extremely robust over time.3 Core PCEPI has been ticking up this year, most recently in March and appears to be leading 5-year/5-year inflation expectations tracked by the St. Louis Fed, which bottomed in June and have been trending higher since (Chart 2).4 In our modeling, we find a 1% increase in core PCE translates into a 4% increase in gold prices, suggesting gold would provide an excellent hedge against rising inflation. Chart of the WeekGet Long Gold If Pressure ##br##Builds in U.S. Economy Chart 2Core PCE ##br##Ticking Up Core PCE And EM Commodity Demand There is an enduring long-term relationship between inflation generally and EM commodity demand, which we have highlighted in previous research.5 This week we are exploring long-term equilibrium relationships between EM industrial commodity demand and core PCE, given the obvious interest among commodity investors. The big driver of core PCE is EM industrial commodity demand, as can be seen in Chart 3, which shows the output of two regressions we ran using non-OECD oil demand - our proxy for EM oil demand - and world base metals demand, which is dominated by China's roughly 50% share of global base metals demand. Core PCE is cointegrated with these measures of industrial-commodity demand, which makes perfect sense considering most - sometimes, all - of the demand growth for industrial commodities (oil and base metals, in this instance) is coming from EM economies.6 For example, of the total growth in oil demand since 2013, non-OECD demand accounted for 1.1mm b/d of an average 1.2mm b/d global demand growth. Within other markets, China accounts for more than 50% of global iron ore, copper ore, metallurgical and thermal coal demand.7 At the margin, prices in the real economy are being set by EM demand, not by DM demand. This, in turn, feeds into core and headline PCE and other inflation gauges. Feedback Between Fed Policy And EM Commodity Demand Leading economic indicators for EM growth are turning up, which is supportive for commodity demand near term (Chart 4). This has been aided by accommodative monetary policy in the U.S., which has kept the USD relatively tame after peaking in January 2016.8 Chart 3EM Industrial Commodity Demand,##br## Core PCE Share Common Trend Chart 4EM Leading Indicators ##br##Point to Growth Upturn The single biggest risk to commodity demand and commodity prices remains U.S. monetary policy. The longer-term cointegrating relationships highlighted in this week's research are consistent with earlier results we reported on the impact of U.S. financial variables on commodity demand.9 When we model EM oil demand as a function of U.S. financial variables, we find a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWI) is consistent with a 22bp decrease (increase) in consumption using these longer-dated models. For global base metals, a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI corresponds with a 27bp drop (increase) in demand. As a general rule, each 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI is accompanied by a 25bp drop (increase) in EM demand for oil and global base metals (Charts 5 and 6). Chart 5EM Oil Demand Will Fall If ##br##The Fed Gets Too Aggressive... Chart 6...As Will##br## Base Metals Demand As mentioned above, we continue to expect a 25bp hike by the Fed at its December meeting, followed by two additional hikes next year. Our House view continues to maintain this round of rate hikes will cause the USD to appreciate by 10% over the next 12 months. If this is fully passed through, we expect this gauge to register a ~ 2.5% decline in EM demand for industrial commodities. This would reduce the core PCE's yoy rate of change to ~ 1%, vs. the current level of 1.7% yoy growth. Walking A Tightrope Chair Yellen's speech makes it clear the Fed is well aware of how its monetary policy affects the global economy and the feedback loop this creates. This is of particular moment right now, given the Fed is the only systemically important central bank even considering tightening its monetary policy. As she notes, "Broadly speaking, monetary policy actions in one country spill over to other economies through three main channels: changes in exchange rates; changes in domestic demand, which alter the economy's imports; and changes in domestic financial conditions - such as interest rates and asset prices - that, through portfolio balance and other channels, affect financial conditions abroad." The other major threat to EM commodity demand is the oil-production deal being negotiated by OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC, led by Russia. Should these negotiations result in an actual cut in oil production, it would accelerate the tightening of global oil markets - likely increasing the rate at which global inventories of crude oil and refined products are drained - and put upward pressure on prices. While we do not expect a material agreement to emerge from these negotiations - KSA and Russia already are producing at or close to maximum capacity at present. A freeze in production by these states would result in no change in production globally. The risk here is KSA actually cuts production beyond its seasonal decline by adding, say, a 500k b/d cut to the expected 500k b/d seasonal decline, and Russia agrees to something similar. This would be offset by continued production increases in Iran, and possibly in Libya and Nigeria, but would, nonetheless, surprise the market and rally prices. All else equal, higher prices would weaken EM demand growth at the margin, and feed back into lower inflation expectations. We do not believe it is in KSA's or non-OPEC producers' interest to try to tighten markets sharply, since a price spike would re-energize conservation efforts by consumers, particularly in DM economies, and incentivize alternative transportation technologies like electric cars, as happened when oil prices were above $100/bbl from 2010 to mid-2014. Nonetheless, KSA, Russia, and other parties to any production-management agreement will have to balance this risk against the likelihood U.S. shale producers step in to fill the production cutbacks before any meaningful increase in revenues accrues to these states. Bottom Line: It still is too early to discuss the implications of a production cut, given negotiations between the KSA and Russia camps ahead of OPEC's November meeting continue. However, this could become a material issue next year, just as the Fed is considering whether to hike rates two more times, as we expect. A combined oil-production cut emerging from the KSA - Russia negotiations, which is a non-trivial risk, coupled with two Fed rate hikes could set off a new round of disinflation or even deflation, just as EM commodity demand was starting to enliven inflation and inflations expectations in the U.S.10 This could force the Fed to back off further rate hikes, or even walk back previous rate hikes. If on, the other hand, Chair Yellen is successful in persuading her colleagues to run a "high-pressure economy" we would look to get long commodities generally, gold in particular, given our expectation core PCE inflation and inflation expectations will move higher. As our research has shown, the yellow metal is particularly sensitive to the Fed's preferred inflation gauge. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS China Commodity Focus: Softs Grains: Focus On Relative-Value Trade We remain strategically bearish grains, but we are upgrading our tactical view for wheat from bearish to neutral. We believe most of the negative news already is reflected in wheat prices. Over next three to six months, we expect wheat to outperform soybeans. Wheat prices could move up on reduced U.S. acreage, rising Chinese imports, or any unfavorable winter weather in major producing countries while expanding area-sown in Brazil, Argentina, China and the U.S. will likely pressure down soybean prices. We recommend a tactical long position in March/17 wheat versus March/17 soybeans. We suggest a 5% stop-loss to limit the downside risk. Grain prices have already rebounded 10.3% since August 30, when prices collapsed to a 10-year low (Chart 7, panel 1). There were three main reasons behind the precipitous price drop from early June to late August. 1.The 25% rally grain prices in 2016H1 encouraged global planting of spring wheat, soybeans, corn and rice. 2.Favorable weather lifted yields of all grains to record highs. 3.Extremely cheap Russian, Ukraine, Argentine and Brazilian currencies boosted exports from these major grain producing countries. In addition, grain-related policy changes in Argentine and Russia also have stimulated their grain exports (wheat benefited most and corn next). Given a 10% rebound recently, as the USDA expects global grain stocks to rise 3% to a new high next year, we remain a strategical bearish view on grain. Looking forward, we will continue to focus on relative-value trades in grain markets. Tactically, we are interested in long wheat versus soybeans. Wheat: Tactically Neutral Wheat has underperformed other grains so far in 2016 (Chart 7, panel 2). Prices fell to 361 cents per bushel on August 31, which was the lowest level since June 2006 (Chart 7, panel 3). Wheat prices have already recovered 16.7% from their August bottom. We believe, over the next three to six months, wheat prices may have limited downside due to one or a combination of the following factors. U.S. farmers are currently in the process of planting winter wheat. According to the USDA, as of October 9, 59% of winter wheat acreage has been planted. As U.S. wheat production costs are well above current market prices, U.S. farmers likely will further cut their wheat acreage over the next several weeks. This year, U.S. wheat-planted acreage has already dropped to the lowest since 1971 (Chart 8, panel 1). Global wheat yields improved 2.8% this year, with 13.4% and 20.8% increases in Russian and U.S. yields, respectively. Even though Russia will raise its wheat-sown area for next season, the country's wheat crop still faces plenty of risks during its development period. Too cold a winter or too hot a summer, which may not even result in a considerable drop in yields, still could spur a temporary rally in wheat prices. Similarly, U.S. wheat yields are also likely to retreat from the record high in 2017H1. In addition, extremely low wheat prices will encourage global farmers to plant other more profitable crops instead. As a result, both global wheat acreage and yields will likely go down next year (Chart 8, panel 2). Speculators are currently holding sizable net short positions. Market sentiment is also extremely bearish. Given this backdrop, any short-covering also would drive prices up (Chart 8, panels 3 and 4). Chart 7Wheat: Cautiously Bullish Chart 8Wheat: Upgrade To Tactically Neutral ##br##On Supportive Factors Soybeans: Tactically Bearish Soybeans have outperformed other grains significantly this year (Chart 7, panel 2). As planting soybeans general is more profitable than planting corn, wheat and rice, global farmers are likely to expand their soybean acreage for the next harvest season. According Conab, Brazil's national crop agency, Brazil's soybean production next spring will increase 6.7% to 9%. Record high U.S. soybean production is likely to weigh down the market as well. According to the USDA, 7.1% jump in the yields will bring U.S. soybean crop to a record high, an 8.7% increase from last year. As of October 9, 2016, only 44% U.S. soybean has been harvested, 12 percentage points behind last year. Chart 9China Grain Imports Will Continue Rising How does China contribute to our grain view? As the world's largest grain producer and also the largest consumer, China is an important player in global grain market. Last year the country accounted for 20.7% of global aggregate grain production and 23% of global consumption. In terms of grain imports, as we predicted in our January 2011 Special Report "China-related Ag Winners For The Long Term," China's grain imports have been on the uptrend, despite the depreciating RMB in the most recent two years (Chart 9). In terms of individual grain markets, China has been the most significant player in the global soybean market, accounting for 62.7% of global imports last year. China is also the world's largest rice importer, accounting for 12.5% of global rice trade. However, for corn and wheat markets, China only accounted for about 2% of global trade. In late March, the Chinese government announced an end to its price-support program for corn, but the government maintained price-support policies for wheat and rice. The government also announced its temporary reserve policy will be replaced by a new market-oriented purchase mechanism for the domestic corn market. In addition, the policy of giving direct subsidies to soybean farmers will continue in the 2016-17 market year. What Are The Implications Of China's Grain-Related Policy? Domestic corn prices fell sharply with global prices, while the gap between domestic soybean prices and the international ones remains large (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2). This will discourage domestic corn sowing and encourage soybean production, which is positive to global corn markets, but negative for global soybean markets. China's imports of wheat and rice are set to rise, given a widening price gap (Chart 10, panels 3 and 4). The country's demand for high-quality wheat and rice are rising as household incomes have greatly improved. China will likely liquidate its elevated grain inventories, which account for about 45% of global stocks. This will be bearish for all grains. However, as most of the domestic grain stocks are low-quality grains, inventory liquidation may affect animal feed market rather than the good-quality grain market. Overall, China's grain policy is positive for international corn, wheat and rice prices, but negative for global soybean prices. Investment strategy As we expect wheat to outperform soybeans over the next three to six months, we recommend a tactical long position in March/17 wheat versus short March/17 soybeans with a 5% stop-loss (Chart 11). Chart 10Implications Of China Grain Related Policy Chart 11Go Long Wheat Versus Soybeans With Stops Downside risks To Our Relative-Value Trade Position Currently, global wheat inventories still are at a record highs, and almost all the major wheat exporting countries continue to hold considerable inventory for sale. If farmers in Russia, Ukraine and Argentina rush to sell to take advantage of recent price rally, wheat prices will fall. Also, a strengthening USD will put a downward pressure on grain (including wheat and soybeans) prices. For this reason, it will be important to monitor U.S. dollar strength against the currencies of these countries - too-strong a USD will keep grains from being exported, which will keep domestic U.S. prices under pressure. However, our relative-value trade may weather this risk well as a strengthening dollar affects both wheat and soybeans. Moreover, if weather continues to be favorable during the winter, wheat prices may drop below the August lows. On the other side, if unfavorable weather reappears in South America next spring like this year, soybean prices may quickly go up. To limit our downside risk, we suggest putting a 5% stop-loss to our long wheat/short soybeans trade. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Macroeconomic Research After the Crisis," Dr. Yellen's speech delivered at the October 14, 2016, Boston Fed 60th annual economic conference in Boston. She highlighted hysteresis - "the idea that persistent shortfalls in aggregate demand could adversely affect the supply side of the economy" - in her discussion on how demand affects aggregate supply. She noted, "interest in the topic has increased in light of the persistent slowdown in economic growth seen in many developed economies since the crisis. Several recent studies present cross-country evidence indicating that severe and persistent recessions have historically had these sorts of long-term effects, even for downturns that appear to have resulted largely or entirely from a shock to aggregate demand." 2 Core PCE is the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, which excludes food and energy prices 3 The relationship shown in the Chart Of The Week covers the period March 2000 to present. The adjusted R2 of the cointegrating regression we estimated is 0.97; the price elasticity of gold with respect to a 1% change in the core PCE is close to 4%. The model is dominated by real rates, however: a 1% increase in real rates translates to a 15% decrease in gold prices, while a 1% increase in the broad trade-weighted USD implies a decrease in gold prices of just under 2.5%. Data and modeling constraints took the last observation to August 2016, when the model suggested the "fair value" of gold was close to $1,200/oz. At the time, gold was trading at just below $1,310/oz. Prices subsequently fell into the low to mid $1,200s, and were trading at ~ $1,270/oz as we went to press). 4 For this chart, we use the St. Louis Fed's 5y5y U.S. TIPS inflation index. Please see Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 5-Year, 5-Year Forward Inflation Expectation Rate [T5YIFR], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIFR , October 19, 2016. 5 Please see "Memo To Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation" and "Commodities Could Be Hit Hard By Fed Rate Hikes," in the August 4, 2016, and September 1, 2016, issues of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also "China's Evolving Demand for Commodities," by Ivan Roberts, Trent Saunders, Gareth Spence and Natasha Cassidy," presented at the Reserve Bank of Australia's Conference focused on "Structural Change in China: Implications for Australia and the World," 17 - 18 March 2016. 6 The adjusted-R2 statistics for cointegrating regressions we ran for core PCE as a function of non-OECD oil demand and world base metals demand were 0.99 and 0.98 from 2000 to present. 7 Please see discussion beginning on p. 4 of "China's Evolving Demand for Commodities," by Ivan Roberts, Trent Saunders, Gareth Spence and Natasha Cassidy," presented at the Reserve Bank of Australia's Conference focused on "Structural Change in China: Implications for Australia and the World," 17 - 18 March 2016. 8 The Fed's broad trade-weighted USD index post-Global Financial Crisis peaked in January at just under 125 and currently stands at 122.6. Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Trade Weighted U.S. Dollar Index: Broad [TWEXBMTH], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TWEXBMTH, October 18, 2016. 9 Please see p. 3 of "Commodities Could Be Hit Hard By Fed Rate Hikes," in the September 1, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 We define a non-trivial risk as a 1-in-6 chance of occurrence - i.e., the same odds as Russian roulette. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades