Global

Trepidation engulfs commodity markets like a fog weaving through half-deserted streets. Central bankers huddle in muttering retreats, growing more cautious by the day. EM growth concerns – particularly slowing trade volumes, and the drama surrounding Sino – U.S. trade negotiations – contribute to this. Europe’s slowdown as Brexit approaches, and a U.S. government that seems forever at loggerheads also sap investor confidence. Nonetheless, the level of industrial commodity demand – oil and copper in particular – continues to hold up. By our reckoning, EM growth still is positive y/y. And central bank caution – along with less-restrictive policies – provides a supportive backdrop for industrial commodities down the road. The production discipline we expect from OPEC 2.0 this year sets the stage for a continued rally in oil prices. Given our view on EM growth, we continue to favor staying long oil exposure, and remaining exposed to industrial commodities generally via the S&P GSCI position we recommended on December 7, 2017. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We are closing our open long call spreads in 2019 Brent, having lost the ~ $1/bbl premium in each. We are opening a new set of similar positions in anticipation of the next up-leg in Brent. At tonight’s close of trading, we will go long Brent $70 Calls vs. short $75 Calls in June, July and August 2019. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Metal Bulletin’s benchmark iron ore price index for China traded through $90/MT earlier this week, as supply concerns continue to weigh on markets in the wake of evacuations from areas close to tailings dams used by miners.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Bullion broker Sharps Pixley reported the PBOC’s gold reserves total almost 60mm ounces, up 380k ounces from end-2018 levels. Russia’s state media outlet RT proclaimed: “China on gold-buying spree amid global push to end US dollar dominance” on Tuesday. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Last week’s USDA WASDE report estimates world ending stocks for grains will be up slightly for the 2018-19 crop year at 772.2mm MT vs 766.6mm MT previously estimated in December. A January report was not issued due to the U.S. government shutdown. Feature In discussions with clients in the Middle East last week, few contested the assertion OPEC 2.0 is determined to keep supply below demand this year, in order to draw down global oil and refined product inventories.2 This strategy worked well for the coalition after it was stood up in November 2016. Back then, production cutbacks, an unexpected collapse of Venezuelan output, and random outages in Libya and elsewhere combined with above-average global demand to keep consumption above production. This led to a drawdown in OECD inventories of 260mm barrels between January 2017 and June 2018. OPEC 2.0 is off to a strong start on its renewed effort to rein in production and draw down inventories. OPEC (the old Cartel) cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d.3 The largest cut once again came from KSA, which reported it reduced output by just over 400k b/d m/m in January. This follows a 450k b/d reduction in December 2018 reported by the Kingdom in last month’s OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report. For March, KSA already is indicating it plans to drop production to 9.8mm b/d – 1.3mm b/d less than it was pumping in November 2018. There are some signs of discord within OPEC 2.0. Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin once again is arguing against the coalition’s production-cutting strategy, this time in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin.4 This is not the first time such disagreements were aired: In November 2017, leaders of Russia’s oil industry walked out of a meeting with Energy Minister Alexander Novak following a disagreement with the government on extending OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal launched at the beginning of the year. In the end, the deal was extended after President Putin weighed in.5 A Deeper Look At Demand Uncertainty These supply-side issues are not trivial, and pose significant risks to our price view. All the same, Russia does benefit from higher oil prices, in that inelastic global demand in the short-to-medium term produces a non-linear price increase when supply is reduced. Russia’s OPEC 2.0 quota calls for production to fall from 11.4mm b/d production basis its October 2018 reference level (11.6mm b/d at present) to 11.2mm b/d in 2019. As long as Russia’s participation in the OPEC 2.0 coalition advances its economic and geopolitical interests – i.e., higher revenues than could be expected without having a direct role in global production management, and in deepening its ties with KSA – we expect it to remain a member in good standing in OPEC 2.0. At the moment, the bigger issues center on the state of global demand for industrial commodities. Unlike the situation that prevailed during the first round of OPEC 2.0 cuts, global markets no longer are seeing a synchronized global recovery in aggregate demand. Rather, EM commodity demand growth – the engine of global growth – has been trending down at a slow and constant pace since the beginning of 2018. This is not news: It shows up in our new Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index, and we’ve been writing about it and accounting for it in our metals and oil demand projections for months (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCommodity Demand May Be Bottoming BCA’s GIA index is heavily weighted to EM commodity demand. Based on our estimates, it appears to be close to or in a bottoming phase and ready to turn up within the next quarter. It is worthwhile pointing out that even with the slowdown over the past year or so, BCA’s GIA index still stands significantly higher than the level registered during the manufacturing downturn of 2015-16. This also adds color as to why the OPEC market-share war launched in November 2014 was so devastating to prices – demand was contracting while supplies were surging from OPEC 2.0 states and from U.S. shale-oil producers. Pessimism Is Overdone We have maintained for some time commodity markets are overly pessimistic on the global growth outlook, mainly because of their gloomy view on the Chinese economy, and anticipated knock-on effects for EM growth arising from this view. Our colleagues at BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy succinctly capture the current mood pervading global markets: “… this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors.”6 We continue to expect the slowdown in EM to persist in 1H19 based on our modeling and actual consumption data. Part – not all – of this is due to the slowdown in China, where policymakers are moving to reverse earlier financial tightening with modest fiscal and monetary stimulus in 1H19. We continue to expect the Communist Party leadership in China will want to start increasing stimulus later this year or in 1H20, so that it hits the economy full force in 2021 in time for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP. Such stimulus will bolster industrial commodity demand. Still, this is difficult to call, particularly the form stimulus will take. President Xi appears committed rebalancing China’s economy – i.e., supporting consumer-led growth – and may want to keep policy powder dry, so to speak, to counter a recession in 2020 or thereafter. Stimulating the consumer economy in China could boost consumption of gasoline, and demand for white goods like household appliances at the expense of heavy industrial demand. Oil and base metals used in stainless steel would benefit in such an environment. Timing this rebound remains difficult. It appears to us that oil and, to a lesser extent, base metals have undershot their fair-value levels (based on our modeling) on the back of negative expectations and sentiment. If we are correct in this assessment, this should limit the negative surprises going forward and open upside opportunities for commodity prices (Chart 2). Chart 2Technically, Oil's Oversold Under The Hood Of BCA’s Newest Model Because demand is so difficult to capture, we continually are looking for different gauges to measure it and cross-check against each other. We developed our Global Industrial Activity index to target the actual performance of commodity-intensive activities globally. Each component is selected based on its sensitivity to the cycle in global industrial activity, hence on the cycle of global commodity demand. This is different from the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), which uses a GDP-weighted average of 23 countries’ LEI. By relying on GDP, the LEI weights in the indicator favor DM countries and do not account for the growing share of the service sector in these economies (Chart 3).7 Chart 3GIA Captures Commodity Demand Our GIA index focuses on commodity demand, which is fundamentally different from proxies of global real GDP growth or global economic activity. Nonetheless, we included the BCA global LEI with a small weight (~ 10%) in our index to capture DM economies. This inclusion does add information to our new gauge. Our GIA index correlates with Emerging Markets’ GDP, copper and oil prices with lags of one to three months. This index is designed to measure the strength of the underlying demand for commodities. It does not account for the supply side and other idiosyncratic shocks that affects each commodity. For instance, our index captures ~ 55% of the variation in the y/y movement in oil prices; adding our oil market supply and sentiment indicators on top of the demand variable raises this to more than 80% (Chart 4). Chart 4Combined Indicators Work Best The index is divided into four main components, which gauge the demand-side impacts of (1) trade; (2) currency movements; (3) manufacturing demand; and (4) the Chinese economy, given its importance to overall commodity demand. The GIA index’s Trade Component combines EM import volumes and an estimate of global dry bulk shipping rates to gauge demand. Readers of the Commodity & Energy Strategy are familiar with our use of EM trade volumes as a proxy for EM income.8 This week, we introduce a new proxy for shipping rates using the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) as a proxy of global economic activity. Our methodology is based on the approaches taken by James D. Hamilton and Lutz Kilian in their respective models that use the BDI to proxy global growth.9 We created two alternative measures based on each of their approaches and average them to come up with our own proxy of the cyclical factor of global shipping rates driven by demand. Both of our alternative measures use a rebased version of the real BDI, which uses the U.S. CPI to deflate the nominal value. Because it picks up the surge in shipping activity in 2H18 resulting from the front-running of tariffs in the Sino – U.S. trade war, the Trade Component of our GIA index gives the most positive readings of all the components (Chart 5, panel 1). By the end of this month, we expect the effects of this front-running to avoid tariffs will wash through the gauge, and we will have greater clarity on the state of global trade. Chart 5Performance Of GIA Components The Currency Component uses a basket of currencies that are sensitive to global growth – i.e., the currencies of countries heavily engaged in trade – and the Risky vs. Safe-haven currency ratio built by BCA’s Emerging Market Strategy.10 This allows us to capture the information regarding the state of global economic activity contained in the highly efficient and forward-looking currency markets. This component collapsed in March 2018, but seems to have bottomed recently (Chart 5, panel 2). The Manufacturing Component looks at the PMIs and various business conditions and expectations surveys for countries that have large industrial exposures to the economic health of EM.11 Currently, this component signals a continuation of the downward trend first observed at the beginning of 2018 (Chart 5, panel 3). Lastly, the Chinese Economy Component uses two indicators of the country’s industrial output: the Li Keqiang Index, and our China Construction Indicator. Despite the fact that the slowdown in China is at the center of investor pessimism re global demand, this component is still holding well (Chart 5, panel 4). It has a moderate negative trend, but is not alarming for commodity demand. Moreover, we expect some stimulus in the second half of the year, which should keep this component supportive for commodity prices. Industrial Commodity Demand Still Holding Up Our GIA index proxies demand for industrial commodities, which is closely aligned with EM GDP – as GDP grows, demand for industrial commodities grows (Chart 6, panel 1). The GIA index is more correlated with copper prices than with oil prices, but it still provides an excellent snapshot of the state of demand for these commodities (Chart 4). Chart 6GIA, Meet Dr. Copper Also, it is interesting to note there appears to be only one large specific supply shock that affected the copper market’s relationship with global demand (Chart 6, panel 2). Our new index supports the Market’s “Dr. Copper” argument, in the sense that copper prices are pretty much always aligned with global industrial activity. We also note that the recent Sino – U.S. trade tensions have pushed copper below the value that is explained by our demand proxy. Bottom Line: The resolve of OPEC 2.0 to reduce production is not in doubt. OPEC (the old Cartel) reported this week its member states cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d. On the demand side, new GIA index indicates things are not as bad as sentiment and expectations would indicate. If anything, we expect the combination of OPEC 2.0’s resolve and rising demand for industrial commodities – oil and copper in particular – to lift prices as the year progresses.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Brazil evacuates towns near Vale, ArcelorMittal dams on fears of collapse,” published by reuters.com on February 8, 2019. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition of OPEC states, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC states, led by Russia, which recently agreed to cut production by ~ 1.2mm b/d to drain commercial oil inventories and re-balance markets globally. 3      Please see the February 2019 issue of OPEC’s Monthly Oil Market Report, which is available at opec.org. 4      Please see “Exclusive: Russia’s Sechin raises pressure on Putin to end OPEC deal,” published by uk.reuters.com February 8, 2019. 5      Please see “Russian oil unsettled by talk of longer production cuts,” published by ft.com November 15, 2017. 6      Please see “A Crisis Of Confidence?” published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy, published February 12, 2019.  It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7      The components of the global LEI are also different from our GIA index, and more market-oriented. For details on each series included in the LEI, please see “OECD Composite Leading Indicators: Turning Points of References Series and Component Series,” published February 2019. It is available at oecd.org. 8      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk,” where we discussed the relationship between EM imports volume, EM income and commodity prices, published August 23, 2018, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9      The best approach is still debated in the literature. For more details on Hamilton and Kilian’s measurements, please see James D Hamilton, “Measuring Global Economic Activity,” Working paper, August 20, 2018 and Lutz Kilian, “Measuring Global Real Economic Activity: Do Recent Critiques Hold Up To Scrutiny?” Working paper, January 12, 2019. By selecting EM only import volumes and our proxy shipping rate based on the BDI, we narrow our Trade Component to factors that are mainly linked to industrial activity and commodity-intensive sectors. 10     Our basket of currencies includes Korea, Sweden, Chile, Thailand, Malaysia and Peru. The risky vs. safe-haven currency ratio average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns (including carry). 11     This includes Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China and Australia. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades     TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018

Highlights Uncertainty & Growth: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, etc). Monetary Policy: A growing number of central banks have taken “risk management” measures to try and prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. Implications For Bond Yields: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields). Feature Central Banks Take Out Some Insurance The list of global central banks taking a more cautious stance on monetary policy expanded last week. The Bank of England and Reserve Bank of Australia both cut their growth forecasts for 2019 and signaled that there was no chance of interest rate increases in the near term. This follows similar guidance provided in recent weeks by the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada and Sweden’s Riksbank. There was even a dovish surprise in the emerging world, with the Reserve Bank of India delivering an unexpected rate cut last week. In Europe, the European Central Bank (ECB) has not yet shifted its already highly-dovish policy guidance (no rate hikes until at least September), but ECB President Mario Draghi recently noted that the downside risks to European growth have increased. The European Commission went a step further and downgraded its growth forecasts for 2019 last week. The Bank of Japan cut its inflation forecast for 2019 last month, also indicating that monetary policy would remain unchanged over at least the rest of the year. The language used by all of these policymakers to explain their dovish turn was eerily similar, highlighting elevated global uncertainty weighing on growth expectations and, through plunging asset prices, tightening financial conditions (Chart of the Week). The sources of that uncertainty are well known to investors: U.S.-China tariff negotiations, slowing global trade, Brexit, domestic U.S. political squabbles (i.e. government shutdowns over “The Wall”). Until those developments begin to get resolved, uncertainty will continue to weigh on economic confidence. Chart of the WeekThe “Risk Management” Approach To Setting Monetary Policy 21st Century central bankers mostly subscribe to a “risk management” approach to policymaking. This means setting policy dovish enough to cut off downside tail risks to growth during periods of elevated uncertainty about the economic outlook – especially when inflation is below policymaker targets. Yet central bankers remain devoted followers of the Phillips Curve framework. There is a limit to how dovish they can become while unemployment is low and wage growth is increasing. This limits how far government bond yields can fall if growth does not slow enough to cause unemployment to rise. So far, the softer global growth seen in recent quarters has not resulted in any increase in unemployment rates in the major developed economies. Of course, employment is a lagging variable. If the current soft patch for growth extends into a more prolonged slowdown in the coming months, resulting in companies cutting hiring or shedding labor to protect weakening profitability, then there is room for bond yields to continue to fall as markets begin to price in easier monetary policy. That is not our expectation. The U.S. economy remains on solid footing, and we anticipate additional policy actions from China to stabilize economic growth and put a floor under global trade activity. This will eventually cause central bankers to move back to a less dovish policy stance more consistent with trends in unemployment and inflation, with the U.S. Fed leading the way on that front in the latter half of 2019. The eventual result will be higher U.S. Treasury yields, both in absolute terms and relative to government bond yields of the other major developed economies. Bottom Line: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty. Central banks are taking the appropriate “risk management” measures to prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. The Link Between Economic Confidence & Monetary Policy The pro-risk rally that opened 2019 endured its first test last week, with several major market prices – including the S&P 500 index, U.S. high-yield spreads, the 10-year Italy-Germany government bond yield differential and the DXY index of the U.S. dollar - bouncing off key medium-term moving averages (Chart 2). Purely from a technical analysis perspective, a test of the primary trends established in the latter half of 2018 (bearish equities and credit, bullish the U.S. dollar) was to be expected, particularly given the severity of the past selloff in global equity markets. Chart 2The First Test For The 2019 Risk Rally Investor sentiment towards global growth, however, remains pessimistic. Nervousness over the outcome for the U.S.-China trade talks, with the March 1 deadline fast approaching, is an obvious source of concern given how slowing Chinese import demand has spilled over so dramatically into weaker global trade activity (Chart 3). Yet there are several other dates for investors to fret about in the near term, including the deadline for a deal to avert another U.S. government shutdown (this Friday), the U.S. debt ceiling deadline (also March 1) and “Brexit day” in the U.K. (March 29). Chart 3A China-Led Slowing Of Global Trade Yet this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors. One such set of data that we pay close attention to is the ZEW survey. The ZEW survey, produced by a prominent German economic think tank, is most well-known for the data related to Germany itself. The ZEW also produces similar survey data measuring readings on “current conditions” and “expectations” for other major developed economies: the U.S., U.K., Japan, France, and Italy (as well as an aggregate measure for the entire euro area). This makes the ZEW data useful for conducting cross-country analysis of economic sentiment, as the survey structure and questions are consistent for each country. Looking at the individual country readings from the ZEW data, shown in Charts 4 and 5, it is clear that the depressed readings on global growth sentiment are similar across all major countries. Yet at the same time, the individual ZEW Current Conditions indices, while off their cyclical peaks, are exhibiting more diverse trends. The U.S., in particular, stands out as having a very robust reading on Current Conditions, which lines up with the overall firmness of the U.S. economic data. Chart 4A Co-Ordinated Decline Of Expectations, Not Actual Growth Chart 5The European Growth Slump Is Broad-Based The strong correlation between the ZEW Expectations readings suggests that there is a common factor causing market participants to become more worried about the outlook for global growth. These can all be summarized under “uncertainty”, for which we also have data available at the country level from the Economic Policy Uncertainty indices developed by researchers Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis.1 In Charts 6 and 7, we plot the Policy Uncertainty indices against the ZEW growth expectations indices for the individual countries/regions for which the ZEW conducts its surveys. The growth expectations data is shown inverted to correlate with the Policy Uncertainty indices. The visual relationship shows that the current period of elevated Policy Uncertainty has occurred alongside the plunge in growth expectations, seen most strongly in the U.S., U.K. and Italy. Chart 6Uncertainty Slamming Sentiment Hardest In The U.S. & U.K. Chart 7Germany Weathering The Storm Better Than Italy & France But can this link between uncertain and growth expectations result in an actual slowing of economic activity? Can slumping expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy? One way to look at this is to see how growth expectations evolve relative to current economic growth. We show those gaps between the Current Conditions and Growth Expectations components of the ZEW survey in Charts 8 and 9. A rising line indicates a wide gap between Current Conditions and Expectations and vice versa. We also add real GDP growth in each panel of the charts, to compare that “ZEW Gap” to actual growth outcomes. Chart 8The “ZEW Gap” Now At Levels That Have Heralded Past Downturns … Chart 9… Within Europe Too … The current gap between the two measures is at or near the widest levels seen in the history of the ZEW data dating back to the early 1990s. The previous times that the ZEW Gap reached such levels, economic growth slowed for all the countries in the ZEW survey – most notably in the run-up to the recessions in the early 1990s, early 2000s and 2009. The ZEW Gap also accurately signaled the recessions seen within the euro area after the 2011 European Debt Crisis. The first implication of this result is large discrepencies between strong current growth and expectations almost always resolve themselves with actual weaker growth, if not outright recession – not a good sign for the global economy in the coming quarters. Yet one major difference between today and those prior episodes of a wide ZEW Gap is the level of monetary policy accommodation. In those prior episodes that ended in recession, central bankers raised policy rates to restrictive levels that eventually caused the growth slowdown. This can be seen in Chart 10, where we plot the ZEW Gaps vs the “Monetary Policy Gaps”, defined as the difference between actual central bank policy rates and an estimate of neutral rates derived from a simple Taylor Rule formula.2 Chart 10...But Monetary Policy Is Not Tight This Time Today, central banks are maintaining policy rates far below levels of neutral consistent with long-run potential growth and economies operating at or beyond full capacity – even with inflation rates that are below central bank targets. This should help cushion the blow from weakening growth expectations stemming from the current period of elevated economic uncertainty. The root cause of all recessions is always monetary policy that becomes too restrictive. Typically, that occurs directly through central banks hiking rates above neutral and actively engineering a growth slowdown. It can also occur if an external shock to growth is severe enough to depress economic activity faster than policymakers can identify the slowdown and respond with easier monetary policy. The latter appears to be the outcome that investors are most worried about today. Yet with central banks now turning more dovish in response to elevated uncertainty, at a time when monetary policy appears already highly stimulative, the odds of a monetary policy error crushing growth are low. We are more worried about the opposite outcome, where policymakers are giving more stimulus to a global economy that does not necessarily need it, given that overly tight monetary policy is not the main problem at the moment. In other words, policymakers who have become more dovish today will need to become less dovish later, if and when the current laundry list of uncertainties begin to get resolved. We think that is only a real issue in the U.S. at the moment, though. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to indicate that tighter monetary policy is still required in the U.S. (Chart 11), unlike the Monitors from the U.K., euro area and Japan – the other countries where we have looked at the expectations/uncertainty relationship. Thus, we expect U.S. Treasury yields to have more upside than German Bund, U.K. Gilt or Japanese government bonds over the next 6-12 months. Chart 11The Message From Our CB Monitors - Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Bottom Line: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields).   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The full set of global Policy Uncertainty Indices, with data downloads and methodological descriptions, can be found at  www.policyuncertainty.com. 2 Neutral Policy Rate = Potential GDP growth + central bank inflation target + (0.5 x (current inflation minus central bank inflation target)) +( 0.5 * the IMF estimate of the output gap)). Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns