Developed Countries

Overweight Within our broad-based U.S. equity sector and subsector coverage, we continue to recommend a modest gold-related hedge via being overweight the global gold mining index (given that the S&P gold index only comprises a single stock) versus the MSCI All-Country World Index, expressed through the long GDX:US/short ACWI:US exchange traded funds. Globally there is a slowdown that has infected a number of economies and BCA’s calculated Global ZEW economic sentiment index has lit a fire under gold mining stocks (Global ZEW shown inverted, second panel). The longer the global soft-patch lasts, the longer Central Banks will remain on the sidelines or even ease monetary policy in order to rekindle growth. Moreover, the global policy uncertainty index is perking up given the ongoing U.S./China trade tussle (top panel), recent news of a no deal between the U.S. and North Korea and looming Brexit deadline. All of this underpins global gold stocks. Tack on the recent fear that gripped markets, and skyrocketing equity risk premia, and the ingredients are in place for additional gains in the relative share price ratio (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Stay overweight the global gold miners index (long GDX:US/short ACWI:US); please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details.

Special Report

Highlights Many on the left have embraced Modern Monetary Theory because it seemingly provides a politically expedient way to increase social welfare spending without raising taxes. Money-financed budget deficits can be justified when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, but can be extremely inflationary once full employment is reached. Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation and larger budget deficits. The path to high rates is lined with low rates, meaning that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy is usually necessary to stoke inflation. Investors should maintain a bullish bias towards global equities for now, but be prepared to turn bearish late next year as inflation begins to accelerate in the United States. An earlier turn to a more defensive posture on stocks may be necessary if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, emerges as the likely victor in the next presidential election. Feature Print Some Money And Feel The Bern You know that an economic theory has reached the big leagues of policy debate when the Fed Chair is asked about it during his congressional testimony. This is exactly what happened on February 26, 2019, when Senator David Perdue questioned Jay Powell about his views on Modern Monetary Theory, or simply MMT as it is often called. Rather ironically given its name, MMT plays down the influence of monetary policy over the economy. Its adherents argue that Congress, and not the Fed, should be responsible for maintaining full employment. MMT proponents abhor the idea of a “balanced budget.” They contend that worries about sovereign debt levels are overblown. The U.S. government can always print money to finance itself. Fiscal deficits matter, but only to the extent that excessive deficits can cause inflation. The theory’s backers are a bit cagey about exactly how much inflation they are willing to tolerate or what they would do if, as in the 1970s, inflation and unemployment both rose together. Whether one thinks MMT is crackpot economics is not the point. What matters is that its supporters are growing in number. They include Stephanie Kelton, Bernie Sanders’ former economic advisor, and one of the speakers at BCA’s forthcoming annual New York Investment Conference. In my personal opinion, Sanders stands a very good chance of winning the 2020 presidential election. This makes MMT about as market-relevant as anything out there. In the following Q&A, we discuss the details of MMT and what it means for investors: Q: How does Modern Monetary Theory differ from standard Keynesian economics? A: MMT is almost indistinguishable from Keynesian economics when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, an environment where even interest rates of zero are not enough to revive demand. What really separates the two schools of thought is that MMT proponents tend to see liquidity trap conditions as the normal state of affairs, whereas most Keynesians see them as the exception to the rule. Q: Who’s right? The Keynesians or the MMTers? A: That remains to be seen. Near-zero rates have been the norm for most of the last decade, and much longer in Japan. This is a key reason why MMT has grown in popularity. The future may be different, however. Output gaps are shrinking and some of the structural forces which have held down rates over the last decade may fade. For example, the ratio of workers-to-consumers has peaked around the world, which may result in a decline in global savings (Chart 1). This could push up interest rates. Chart 1The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Q: Does the tendency of MMT backers to see the world as chronically ensnarled in a liquidity trap explain why they seem to consistently argue for bigger budget deficits? A: It does. If an economy needs negative interest rates to reach full employment, but actual rates are constrained by the zero-lower bound, anything which incrementally adds to aggregate demand will not result in higher rates. This means that increased government spending will not crowd out private investment – indeed, quite to the contrary, bigger budget deficits will “crowd in” private spending by boosting employment. The standard MMT prescription is to run a budget deficit that is large enough, but no larger, to maintain full employment. In effect, this means taking any excess private-sector savings – that is, savings which cannot be transformed into private investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus – and having the government absorb them with its own dissavings. Q: So MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time? Good luck with that. A: Yes, that is a common problem with most left-wing theories: They assume that the government should not be trusted with anything unless it is run by fellow leftists, in which case it should be trusted with everything. To make the fiscal response timelier, MMT supporters have proposed creating a government job guarantee. The basic idea is that the government would hire more workers when the private sector is hunkering down, while shedding workers when the private sector is expanding. In theory, automatic fiscal stabilizers of this sort could help dampen the business cycle. The consensus among MMT backers in the U.S. is that a $15 wage would be high enough to offer a tolerable standard of living without enticing many people to opt for government work when suitable private-sector employment is available. MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time. Unfortunately, as is often the case with such ideas, the devil is in the details. For example, does the $15 wage include potentially generous government benefits? What will the government do if someone shows up for work but decides to just loaf around? What about low-skilled workers who would be more productive in the private sector but are instead diverted into government make-work projects? Inquiring minds want to know. Q: And the price tag could be huge! Wouldn’t an extended period of large budget deficits – even if justified by economic circumstances – cause debt levels to spiral out of control? A: A prolonged period of large budget deficits would most certainly lead to a significant increase in the government debt burden. However, if the interest rate on government borrowing is lower than the growth rate of the economy, as MMT supporters tend to assume, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually stabilize.1 In such a setting, the government could just roll over the existing stock of debt indefinitely, while issuing enough new debt to cover interest payments. No additional taxes would be necessary. Chart 2 shows this point analytically. Right now, projected GDP growth is higher than 10-year government borrowing rates for most countries (Chart 3). That’s the good news. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that this will remain the case indefinitely. If interest rates ever rose above GDP growth for an extended period of time, debt dynamics would quickly become unsustainable. MMTers argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants because they see the currency as a public monopoly.  Q: Isn’t it crazy to assume that interest rates will always stay below GDP growth? A: Not according to MMTers. They argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants. This is because they see the currency as a public monopoly. As long as a government is able to issue its own currency, it can create money to pay for whatever it purchases, and by definition, money pays no interest. This means that the interest rate can always be held below the growth rate of the economy. The only reason policymakers may wish to raise interest rates is if inflation is getting out of hand. However, even then, most MMT adherents would prefer that the government tighten fiscal policy either by hiking taxes on the rich or cutting spending programs they don’t like (the military is usually high on their list). Raising rates is widely seen by MMT supporters as simply providing a handout to bondholders. Q: It sounds like MMT basically cuts the Fed and other central banks out of the loop. A: That’s right. MMTers contend that monetary policy has little impact on the economy. In fact, many MMT advocates believe that higher rates raise aggregate demand by putting more income into bondholders’ pockets. It’s a very odd argument. Yes, corporate investment tends to respond more to animal spirits than to changes in interest rates. However, there is little doubt that rates affect housing, the currency, and asset prices (and all three, in turn, affect animal spirits). It is almost as if the 1982 recession – an episode where the Volcker Fed took interest rates to 19% – never happened. Q: An odd argument, but perhaps not a surprising one? A: That’s where the “Magic Money Tree” moniker comes in. When an economy is suffering from high unemployment, there really is a free lunch: Putting more people to work can increase someone’s spending without decreasing someone else’s. However, when an economy is at full employment, scarcity becomes relevant again. If a government wants to spend more, it has to convince the private sector to spend less, which it normally does by raising interest rates. MMTers like to throw out the old chestnut about how budget deficits endow the private sector with financial assets such as cash or government bonds. But if additional government spending leads to higher inflation, an increase in the volume of financial assets will simply result in the erosion of the value of existing financial assets. There may be times when more government spending is beneficial even in a full-employment economy, such as funding for basic scientific research or public infrastructure. However, there may also be times when increased government spending is wasteful and comes at the expense of valuable private-sector investment. MMT does not distinguish between the two cases because its adherents seem to deny that any such trade-off exists. Q: It sounds like MMTers want to have their cake and eat it too. A: Exactly. The political appeal of MMT is that it seemingly promises European-style welfare spending without Europe’s level of taxes. Just print more money! Let us ignore the fact that the Fed actually pays interest on bank reserves. Under the current rules, increasing the monetary base would not be costless for the government if that money ended up back at the Fed in the form of excess reserves, as it surely would. The bigger problem is that a large increase in government spending, which is not matched by much higher taxes, will quickly cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would either need to rapidly tighten fiscal policy, aggressively hike interest rates, or face hyperinflation and a plunging currency. Q: That seems like an obvious point. Why don’t MMTers see it? A: It gets back to what we discussed at the outset – MMTers regard the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity globally, including in the United States, where the unemployment rate has fallen below official estimates of NAIRU (the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). MMT supporters tend to be skeptical of these NAIRU estimates, believing them to be biased upwards. MMTers see the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity in the world. To be fair, the methodology used by the OECD and many other statistical agencies to calculate the full employment rate, which effectively just smooths out past values of the actual unemployment rate, has probably understated the degree of labor market slack in a few countries (Chart 4). Chart 4AThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (I) Chart 4BThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (II) That said, we doubt that NAIRU is overstated in the United States. Both the Fed and the OECD peg NAIRU at 4.3%, slightly below the CBO’s estimate of 4.6%. As it is, the current CBO estimate is nearly one percentage point below the post-1960 average (Chart 5). Back in the 1960s and 1970s, most economists thought NAIRU was lower than it actually turned out to be (Chart 6). This caused the Fed to keep rates below where they should have been. Chart 5U.S. NAIRU Is Estimated To Be The Lowest On Record Chart 6The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Q: Let’s bring this back to market strategy. What does the increasing popularity of MMT mean for investors? A: Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation. The idea that central banks should raise rates preemptively to avoid overheating is slowly giving way to the belief that they should wait to see the “whites of inflation’s eyes” before tightening monetary policy. Meanwhile, on the fiscal side, austerity is out, and big deficits are in. None of this should be all that surprising. Attitudes towards inflation move in generational cycles. The generation that grew up during the 1930s was highly sensitized towards deflation risk. As a result, policymakers focused on increasing employment, even at the expense of higher inflation. In contrast, the generation that came of age in the 1970s favored policies that clamped down on inflation. For today’s generation, the stagflation of the seventies is a distant memory. “Maximum employment” is the name of the game again. It often takes several years for an overheated economy to produce inflation. This is particularly true when the Phillips curve is quite flat, as appears to be the case today. To the extent that the Fed raises rates over the next 12 months, it will be in response to better-than-expected growth. The stock market should be able to do well in that environment. However, as we get into late-2020 or early-2021, inflation may begin to move materially higher, forcing the Fed to crank up the pace of rate hikes. At that point, equity prices will drop and a maximum short duration stance towards government bonds will be warranted. Q: Just in time for Bernie Sanders’ inauguration! You predicted Trump would win, but Crazy Bernie? Come on, seriously? A: My guess is that Trump was the only Republican candidate who could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, while Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who could have lost to Trump. Had it been Bernie versus Trump, Trump would have lost. Given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed.   This is not just idle speculation. During the tail end of the 2016 primary season, head-to-head polls showed Sanders leading Trump by about 10 points, compared to a 3-point lead for Clinton (Chart 7). The final results would have been more favorable for Trump, but given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed. A strong economy will help Trump this time around. However, demographic trends continue to move against Republicans. Trump also made a strategic mistake during his first two years in office by focusing on Republican pet issues like corporate tax cuts and gutting Obamacare, rather than securing funding for the border wall, which was his signature campaign promise. For its part, the Democrat establishment will try to stymie Sanders again, but having recently watered down the “superdelegate” rules, it will be in a much weaker position to do so than last time. Q: Yikes, President Bernie doesn’t sound good for stocks! A: In our client conversations on “tail risks” facing the markets, Bernie Sanders almost never comes up. Admittedly, a lot can change in the next 12 months, including the possibility that Joe Biden will enter the race. Biden is more moderate than Sanders and has broad-based appeal. This means that it is still too early to make any significant changes to portfolio strategy. However, if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, begins to do well in the polls, markets may start to get antsy later this year.     Peter Berezin Chief Global Investment Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com       1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Price differentials between global light-sweet crude oil benchmarks Brent and WTI will narrow over the next three years, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production growth remains challenged. U.S. product exports also will expand, as investments by Gulf Coast refiners allow them to take in more of the domestic light-sweet crude output. Growing volumes of WTI being exported to Europe are being priced relative to Brent. Over time, we expect the marginal light-sweet crude barrel for the global oil market – and the benchmark of refiners’ primary cost – will be directly linked to WTI – Houston pricing. Given this expectation of increased U.S. exports, we are initiating a long WTI vs. short Brent swap position at tonight’s close in 2020. The 2020 swap settled Tuesday at $6.6/bbl; we project it will average $3.25/bbl. In the heavy-sour markets, differentials – most prominently the Brent – Dubai spread – will remain tight, owing to OPEC 2.0 production cuts, lost Venezuelan and Iranian exports, due to U.S. sanctions, and ongoing difficulties getting Canadian heavy crude to refining markets. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 likely will decide to extend production cuts to year-end in June, as opposed to May, as was expected earlier.1 This will allow the Cartel to respond to whatever the U.S. decides on May 4 re extending waivers on Iranian export sanctions, and to export losses from U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang announced tax cuts amounting to almost $300 billion (~ 2 trillion RMB), as policymakers attempt to hit a GDP growth target of 6.0 to 6.5% this year. We are getting tactically long spot copper at tonight’s close, expecting this fiscal stimulus to boost prices over $3.00/lb in the next 3 – 6 months. Feature In a little more than two years from now, Exxon will add 1mm b/d of pipeline take-away capacity to the Permian Basin. The new pipe is in addition to the 2mm b/d of takeaway capacity currently being added to the basin, which is expected to be fully operational by the end of this year. Current production in the Permian is close to 4mm b/d, so the combined incremental new pipe will provide considerable room for production growth into the 2020s. Exxon’s pipeline expansion – undertaken with Plains All American and Lotus Midstream – was announced in January, just before the company proceeded with its final investment decision (FID) to expand the capacity of its Beaumont, TX, refinery by 250k b/d to 616k b/d. The new capacity is expected to come online in 2022, and will make Beaumont the largest refinery in the U.S. The refinery expansion will take in light-sweet crude from the Permian, where Exxon plans to triple production to 600k b/d by 2025.2 These announcements are not one-offs: Permian production, and shale-oil output generally, is booming. In the Permian, oil output rose just over 800k b/d last year, according to the U.S. EIA (Chart of the Week, panel 1). Overall U.S. shale output in the Big 5 basins – Anadarko, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Permian – rose close to 1.5mm b/d in 2018.3 Output growth in the Permian will remain super-charged on the back of the pipeline buildout, and the capex being poured into it as the Majors and large E&P companies industrialize production there, not unlike a manufacturing process. We expect the Permian to lead the development of shale-oil production, driving total crude and liquids growth in the U.S., which last year grew by 2.2mm b/d to reach 19mm b/d by December (Chart of the Week, panel 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Physical Liquidity Continues To Fall Continued investments in state-of-the-art refinery expansions in the U.S. Gulf are expected to continue as well, given the production growth we expect for the Permian, and the pipeline expansions that will take that output to the Houston refining market. Chevron, for example, is expected to close on an acquisition from Brazilian state oil company Petrobras for the 110k b/d Pasadena Refining System, also in the Houston Ship Channel. The company will feed this unit with light-sweet crude from the Permian, which it told analysts this week it expects to grow to 600k b/d by end-2020 and 900k b/d by 2023.4 At present, the U.S. Gulf Coast refining infrastructure cannot absorb all of the light-sweet crude that will be produced in the Permian and the other major basins in coming years. The export markets – particularly the Atlantic Basin, which is home to the physical Brent market – will be absorbing more and more of U.S. light-sweet production in coming years as North Sea production stagnates relative to the U.S. shales (Chart of the Week, panel 3). Output in the U.K. North Sea was at its lowest level since 1973 in 2017, following the price collapse of 2014 – 2017 instigated by the OPEC market-share war launched in 2014. UK output was flattish last year, while Norwegian production was down slightly more than 6% in 2018, bringing it to just under 1.5mm b/d. Drilling activity is picking up this year, along with M&A activity as private equity firms step in to buy properties being sold by the U.S. Majors. As can be seen in the Chart of the Week, production is expected to begin picking up at the end of this year, but base effects from the low levels of late exaggerate the gains in percentage terms. U.S. Crude Exports Set To Soar The North Sea Brent market is arguably the most important crude oil market in the world. It is the underlying physical market for the world’s benchmark crude oil – Brent Blend – against which up to two-thirds of the world’s crude oil prices are indexed.5 Production of the five constituent streams comprising the Brent index – the Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk and Troll crudes – has been falling year on year, and one of the streams (Forties) is regularly being exported to Asian refining markets. This has prompted the main price-reporting agencies to consider adding to the constituents of the Brent index, and changing the type of pricing it records.6 At the same time, increasing volumes of WTI light-sweet crude are making their way into the Brent North Sea physical market.7 These export volumes will increase, supported by the buildout of pipeline takeaway and deep-water harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf, which, when done, will expand the capacity of Gulf ports to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs).8 On the back of these rising exports to the European market, Argus Media, one of the price-reporting agencies, this year began publishing U.S. waterborne pricing assessments as differentials to the ICE Brent futures. According to Argus, slightly over a quarter of the 2.6mm b/d of crude exports out of the U.S. last November went to Europe to compete with North Sea grades like Brent and Forties, two of the Brent index constituents. For the week ended February 22, 2019, the four-week average of crude oil exports from the U.S. was close to 3.1mm b/d, a record for average exports. According to S&P Global Platts, “There have been 48 VLCCs booked for loading out of the USGC so far in 2019 – about five times the amount booked in the first two months of 2018 and a drastic difference to the two VLCCs that were booked during the same period in 2017.”9 Most of the growth in U.S. exports is coming from the shale-oil production boom, which is swelling the volume of light-sweet barrels in the Gulf. While increasing volumes of WTI are making their way into European wet markets, it is too early to call WTI delivered to the Houston refining market (WTI – Houston) a benchmark; it’s more of a reference price for now. All the same, the necessary and sufficient conditions are falling into place for WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark: It has consistent quality; diversity of buyers (refiners and trading companies), sellers (producers and traders), and speculators to provide hedging liquidity to physical-market participants; and, in due course, will have reliable shipping facilities, including ports capable of handling VLCCs and smaller vessels. This last condition is the critical limiting factor at present.10 We expect that, by the early 2020s, the necessary and sufficient conditions will be in place to allow WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark. By that time, we project the U.S. will be exporting in excess of 10mm b/d of crude and liquids, and refined products, with crude exports alone exceeding 5mm b/d by then. Currently, the U.S. exports slightly more than 8mm b/d of crude oil and products (Chart 2). The six largest importers of U.S. crudes are found in the Atlantic and Pacific basins (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 2U.S. Will Expand Its Lead As Largest Crude and Products Exporter Chart 3AU.S. Exports To Atlantic ... Chart 3B... And Pacific Growing Bottom Line: We expect the Brent vs. WTI crude oil differential to narrow next year, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production stagnates. On the back of this, we are opening a long WTI vs. short Brent position in 2020. We expect this differential to average $3.25/bbl next year versus current market levels of $6.6/bbl. Canadian WCS Differentials Could Relapse The Western Canadian Select (WCS) differential to WTI YTD contracted to a discount of $10.50/bbl from an average discount of $26.3/bbl in 2018, as the Alberta government’s production curtailment took effect (Chart 4).11 This is allowing Alberta’s excess inventories to start declining, which was one of the primary motivations of the government’s action. Chart 4Government-mandated Production Cuts Reverse Inventory Builds in Alberta Not all the news out of Canada is good for producers, however. An unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion puts future Canadian production growth in jeopardy. This will complicate the Alberta government’s plan to stabilize the sound discount to WTI, which is necessary to maintain investors’ confidence in the sector. In our previous analysis of the Canadian oil sector, we assumed the Line 3 replacement project would be completed in the fourth quarter of this year. This is now pushed back by at least 6 months, likely into 2H20.12 The replacement was expected to restore Line 3’s original takeaway capacity of 760k b/d from 390k b/d, and was a crucial input in our Canadian oil output forecasts. The reduction of the production curtailment to ~ 95k b/d in 2H19 previously announced by the Alberta government will not be sufficient to maintain the WCS transportation discount below $15/bbl (Chart 5). Thus, the government most likely will extend part of the ~ 325k b/d mandatory cuts into 2H19. A rollback of the curtailment policy to 95k b/d ahead of the Line 3 replacement would push the differential back above the crude-by-rail range – i.e., a $15-to-$22/bbl discount over the quality discount for heavy sour crude vs. the light-sweet. We expect a combination of production decreases and increased crude-by-rail transport, which will have to go to record levels, could help alleviate the negative pressure on the WCS-WTI discount (Chart 6). For instance, maintaining a 225k-barrel-per-day production curtailment from April to December 2019, combined with an increase in crude-by-rail transport to ~ 460k b/d by year-end would be enough to maintain the discount in our estimated crude-by-rail range (Chart 7).13 Heavy Crude Differentials Will Remain Tight The prolongation of Canadian crude bottlenecks will contribute to keeping heavy-sour vs. light-sweet price differentials tight. Altogether, our expectation of high compliance to the output cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 countries, which primarily export heavy-sour crudes; larger-than-expected Venezuelan output declines in heavy-sour output; and continued takeaway capacity constraints in Canada will keep the price differentials between light-sweet and heavy-sour crudes tight. This can be seen in the Brent – Dubai spread, which at times, favors the heavy-sour crude streams (Chart 8). Chart 8Heavy-Sour Crude Differentials Tighten As Supply Contracts Bottom Line: The WCS differential vs. WTI is at risk of weakening once again, following the unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion. The Alberta government will have to get more deeply involved to keep unconstrained production from hammering the differential once again.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see “OPEC likely to defer output policy decision until June – sources,” published by uk.reuters.com, March 4, 2019. 2 Please see “Permian Majors Expand Downstream Processing,” published by Morningstar Commodities Research, February 11, 2019. 3 These data were sourced from the EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report for February 2019. 4 See fn 2 above. See also “Chevron, Exxon take turns wooing investors with shale boasts,” published by reuters.com March 5, 2019. 5 This estimate comes from ICE Brent Crude Oil, published by The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which runs the Brent futures market. 6 Please see “Viewpoint: North Sea benchmark changes looming” which was published by Argus Media on December 27, 2018. 7 Please see “US waterborne crude trade shifts toward Brent basis” published by Argus Media on February 15, 2019. 8 See, e.g., Carlyle Group’s recently announced involvement in such a venture. Carlyle expects its deep-water buildout to be done in late 2020. 9 Please see “In the LOOP: Record US crude exports boost VLCC tanker demand, rates,” published by S&P Global Platts on March 5, 2019. 10 Please see Liz Bossley’s article “There Can (Not) Be Only One,” beginning on p. 15 of the May 2018 issue of the Oxford Energy Forum – Oil Benchmarks – Issue 113, for a discussion of different oil-price benchmarks. 11 We discuss Canada’s take-away dilemma in our November 29, 2018, publication entitled “The Third Man At OPEC 2.0’s Meeting.” It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see “Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline replacement likely won’t be in service until second half of 2020,” published by The Globe and Mail on March 3, 2019. 13 The government intends to increase the production ceiling by 100k b/d by April 2019, this makes the mandatory cuts at 225k b/d from 325k b/d in January 2019. https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-value-resources.asp Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

Dear Client, I am travelling this week so this report is a joint effort juxtaposing two contrasting observations about France. The ‘opulence’ part highlights France as the world’s dominant producer of luxury goods, and makes the case that some of the French luxury goods companies should form a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. The ‘rebellion’ part borrows from a recent Special Report on French politics penned by my colleague Jeremie Peloso. It analyses the recent yellow vest protests in France, and assesses whether they are a cause for concern. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Feature Opulence Made In France Global luxury goods sales amount to a quarter of a trillion dollars, and Europe dominates in the production of these luxury goods. Measured by the number of companies, the leading luxury goods country is Italy. But on the more important metric of share of total global sales, the undisputed world leader is France. In fact, just four French companies produce a quarter of the world’s luxury goods sales. The four are: LVMH, Kering, L’Oreal, and Hermes1 (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Table I-1). France’s luxury goods sector is an excellent diversifier for investors. This is because, compared to other goods and services, luxuries follow very different laws of economics: The demand for luxuries has a positive elasticity to price. Put more simply, the desirability of a luxury increases as its price goes up. This is opposite to the demand for non-luxuries which has a negative elasticity to price: for non-luxury items, the demand declines as the price goes up. By definition, you cannot compete with a luxury item by undercutting its price. Given that a luxury implies fine-craftsmanship rather than mass production, the sector is highly resilient to the existential threats confronting other European industries that emanate from out-sourcing to lower cost economies and from automation. Luxury demand is also relatively insensitive to exchange rate movements. The barrier to entry into the luxuries sector is extremely high. It takes years, or even decades, for a luxury item to acquire its premium status based on consistent high quality in materials and craftsmanship. This high barrier to entry makes it much harder for other economies to challenge the European and French dominance in providing these luxury products. Despite these attractive characteristics the sector does still require a source of structural demand. Our premise, expounded in our Special Report “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, is that the feminisation of consumer spending, particularly in Europe, is providing a strong structural tailwind to the demand for ‘soft’ luxury goods. A recent industry study by Deloitte corroborates this thesis, pointing out that the strongest growth in the luxury sector is to be found in cosmetics, fragrances, bags and accessories. On this premise, the four leading French companies are big beneficiaries.2,3   Are market valuations already aware of, and fully discounting, the thesis of feminisation of consumer spending? We think not, as most investors are surprised by the thesis and unaware of the on-going dynamics behind it. On this basis, three of the four French luxury companies, trading on forward PE multiples in the 20s or below, still appear reasonably valued for their growth prospects (Table I-2). The exception is Hermes which, on a multiple of 40, does seem richly priced. The bottom line is that the three other leading French luxury goods companies – LVMH, Kering, and L’Oreal – do deserve to be a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. Rebellion Made In France The yellow vest protest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. What started on the social media as a protest against the fuel tax in rural areas has evolved into a movement against President Macron. This transition occurred in part because a large segment of the population believes that Macron’s reforms have mainly benefited the wealthy. 77 percent of respondents in a recent poll view him as the “president of the rich.” The modification of the ‘wealth tax’ – which mostly shifts the focus toward real estate assets instead of financial assets – was highly criticized for favouring the wealthiest households. It resonated strongly with the perception that past governments helped the wealthiest households to accumulate more wealth on the back of the middle class. But it is not clear how intense or durable this popular sentiment will be, given that this type of inequality is not extreme in France and has not been rising (Chart I-3). Chart I-3What Income Inequality? Public support for the protests has hovered consistently around 70 percent since they started in November 2018 (Chart I-4). However, there are now more respondents who think that the protests should stop as that they should continue (Chart I-5). As a sign of things to come, a demonstration against the yellow vests and in support of Macron and his government – held by the “red scarves” – managed to gather more people on the streets of Paris than the regionally based yellow vests have done in the capital city.4 Who are the yellow vests? They are mostly rural, mostly hold a high school degree (or less), and overwhelmingly support anti-establishment political leaders Marine Le Pen (right-wing leader of the National Rally) or Jean-Luc Mélenchon (left-wing leader of La France Insoumise). This suggests that the movement has failed to cross the ideological aisle and win converts from the centre (Diagram I-1). How many French people are actually protesting? Although there was a slight pickup in protests at the beginning of January, the numbers countrywide are not high. In fact, they are far from what they were back in November and therefore would have to get much larger for markets to become concerned anew (Chart I-6). If we are to compare these protests to those in 1995 or 2010, the numbers pale in comparison (Table I-3). For instance, the protest of December 1995 brought a million people onto the streets while the demonstrations against the Woerth pension reform in 2010 lasted for seven months and gathered close to nine million protesters across eight different events (Chart I-7). We would compare the yellow vest protests to the 15-month long Spanish Indignados in 2011, which gathered between six and eight million protesters overall, and the U.S. Occupy Wall Street protests that same year. The two movements were similarly disorganized and combined disparate and often contradictory demands. In both cases, the governments largely ignored the protesters. Thus the yellow vests should not have a major impact on Macron’s reform agenda. As expected, Macron has not mentioned changing course on his most business-friendly reforms, which we see as a signal to investors that, despite the recent chaos, the plan remains the same. There is no strategic reason why Macron would reverse course. His popularity is already in the doldrums. His only chance at another term is to plough ahead and campaign in 2022 on his accomplishments. Nevertheless, to ensure that he does not plough into a rock, Macron will adjust course to calm the protesters. For example, the recent increase in the minimum wage that the government announced in response to the demonstrations was not supposed to be implemented until later in the presidential term. In a similar vein, pension reforms will likely be postponed given the ongoing protests. Macron hoped to introduce a universal, unified pension system by the middle of 2019 to replace an overly complex and fragmented system in which 42 different types of pension coexist, each one having its own rules of calculation. Though protests (both yellow vest and otherwise) have been unimpressive by historical standards, it might be too risky for the government to push the pension reform so close to these events. Such adjustments to the reform agenda should help reduce the protest movement’s fervour or otherwise its support. The bottom line is that the yellow vest protests were to be expected – they are the natural consequence of Emmanuel Macron’s push to reform the French economy and state. However, when compared to previous efforts to derail government reforms, the numbers simply do not stack up. Their disunited and broad objectives are likely to limit the effectiveness of the movement going forward.5   Dhaval Joshi,  Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the case of L’Oreal this refers to the L’Oreal Luxe division. 2  Please see the European Investment Strategy “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, dated December 6, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Deloitte: Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2018, Shaping the future of the luxury industry 4 According to the government, 10,500 “red scarves” marched in Paris on January 27, 2018. 5 For the full report, please see the Geopolitical Strategy Special Report “France: La March A Suivre?”, dated February 27, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.