Iran

Highlights Investors should expect little policy initiative out of the U.S. Congress after tax cuts; Polarization is likely to rise substantively in 2018, gridlocking Congress; Chinese policymakers are experimenting with growth-constraining reforms; Global growth has peaked; underweight emerging markets in 2018; Go long energy stocks relative to metal and mining equities. Feature Last week we published Part I of our 2018 Key Views.1 In it, we presented our five "Black Swans" for 2018: Lame Duck Trump: President Trump realizes his time in the White House is going to be short and seeks relevance abroad. He finds it in jingoism towards Iran - throwing the Middle East into chaos - and protectionism against China. A Coup In North Korea: Chinese economic pressure overshoots its mark and throws Pyongyang into a crisis. Kim Jong-un is replaced, but markets struggle to ascertain whether the successor is a moderate or a hawk. Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn: Markets cheer the higher probability of "Bremain" and then remember that Corbyn is a genuine socialist. Italian Election Troubles: Markets are fully pricing in the sanguine scenario of "much ado about nothing," which is our view as well. But is there really anything to cheer in Italy? If not, then why is the Italian market the best performing in all of DM? Bloodbath In Latin America: Emerging markets stall next year as Chinese policymakers tighten financial regulations. As the tide pulls back, Mexico and Brazil are caught swimming naked. These are not our core views. As black swans, they are low-probability events that may disturb markets in 2018. Our core view remains that geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017 and will be understated in 2018 (Charts 1 & 2). Most importantly, U.S. politics will be a tailwind to global growth while Chinese politics will be a headwind to global growth. While the overall effect may be neutral, the combination will be bullish for the U.S. dollar and bearish for emerging markets.2 Chart 12018 Will See Risks Dominate... 2018 Will See Risks Dominate... 2018 Will See Risks Dominate... Chart 2...As Global Growth Concerns Reemerge ...As Global Growth Concerns Reemerge ...As Global Growth Concerns Reemerge This week, we turn to the three questions that we believe will define the year for investors: Is A Civil War Coming To America? Is The Ghost Of Deng Xiaoping Haunting China? Will Geopolitical Risk Shift To The Middle East? Is A Civil War Coming To America? On a recent visit to Boston and New York we were caught off guard by how alarmed several large institutional clients were about the risk of severe social unrest in the U.S. We share this concern about the level of polarization in the U.S. and expect social instability to rise over the coming years (Chart 3).3 When roughly 40% of both Democrats and Republicans believe that their political competitors pose a "threat to the nation's well-being," we have entered a new paradigm (Chart 4). Chart 3Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 4"A Threat To The Nation's Well-Being?" Really?! Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Where we differ from some of our clients is in assessing the likely trigger for the unrest and its investment implications over the next 12 months. If the Democrats take the House of Representatives in the November 6 midterm election, as is our low-conviction view at this early point, then we would expect them eventually to impeach President Trump in 2019.4 Even then, it is not clear that the Senate would have the necessary 67 votes to convict Trump of the articles of impeachment (whatever they prove to be) and hence remove him from power. Republicans are likely to increase their majority in the Senate, even if they lose the House, because more Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2018. Therefore well over a dozen Republican senators would have to vote to remove a Republican president from power. For that to happen, Trump's popularity with Republican voters would have to go into a free fall, diving well below 60% (Chart 5). Meanwhile, we do not buy the argument that hordes of gun-wielding "deplorables" would descend upon the liberal coasts in case of impeachment. There may well be significant acts of domestic terrorism, particularly in the wake of any removal of Trump from office, but they would likely be isolated and unable to galvanize broader support. Our clients should remember, however, that ultra-right-wing militant groups are not the only perpetrators of domestic terrorism.5 Any acts of violence or social unrest are likely to draw press coverage and analytical hyperbole. But our left-leaning clients in the Northeast are likely overstating the sincerity of support for President Trump. President Trump won 44.9% of the Republican primary votes, but he averaged only 35% of the vote in the early days when the races were the most competitive. Given that only 25% of Americans identify as Republicans (Chart 6), it is fair to say that only about a third of that figure - 8%-10% of all U.S. voters - are Trump loyalists. Many conservative voters simply wanted change and were willing to give an outsider a chance (much as their liberal counterparts did in 2008!). Of that small percentage of genuine Trump fans, it is highly unlikely that a large share would seriously contemplate taking arms against the state in order to keep their leader in power against the constitutional impeachment process. Especially given that President Trump would be replaced by a genuine conservative, Vice President Mike Pence.6 Chart 5We Are A Long Way Away##BR##From Trump's Demise Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Chart 6Party Identifications##BR##Are Shrinking Party Identifications Are Shrinking Party Identifications Are Shrinking As such, we believe that it is premature to speak of a total breakdown of social order in America. It is notable that such a conversation is taking place, but other forms of polarization and social unrest are far more likely to be relevant at the moment. In terms of policy, we would expect gridlock in Congress if Democrats take the House and begin focusing on impeachment. In fact, gridlock may already be upon us, as we see little agreement between the Trump administration, its loyalists in Congress, and establishment Republican Senators like Dan Sullivan (R, Alaska), Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), Ben Sasse (R, Nebraska), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). These six Senators are all facing reelection in 2020 and are likely to evolve into Democrats-in-all-but-name. If President Trump's overall popularity continues to decline, we would not be surprised if one or two (starting with Collins) even take the dramatic step of leaving the Republican Party for the 2020 election. Essentially, establishment Republicans will become effective Democrats ahead of the midterms. Post-midterm election, with Democrats potentially taking over the House, the legislative process will grind to a complete halt. Government shutdowns, debt ceiling fights, failure of proactive policymaking to deal with crises and natural disasters, will all rise in probability. As President Trump faces greater constraints in Congress, we can see him becoming increasingly reliant on his executive authority to create policy. He would not be unique in this way, as President Obama did the same. While Trump's executive policy will be pro-business, unlike Obama's, uncertainty will rise regardless. The business community will not be able to take White House policies seriously amidst impeachment and a potential Democratic wave-election in 2020. Whatever executive orders Trump signs into power over the next three years, chances are that they will be immediately reversed in 2020. What about the markets? The Mueller investigation and heightened level of polarization could create drawdowns in equity markets throughout the year. However, impeachment proceedings are not likely to begin in 2018 and have never carried more weight with investors than market fundamentals (Chart 7).7 True, the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon triggered a spike in volatility and a fall in equities. However, the scandal alone did not cause the correction, rather it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, massive insurance fraud, recession, and a global oil shock.8 Chart 7AFundamentals, Not Impeachment,##BR##Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets Chart 7BFundamentals, Not Impeachment,##BR##Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets What about the impact on the U.S. dollar? Does Trump-related political instability threaten the dollar's status as the chief global reserve currency and a major financial safe haven? The data suggest not. We put together a list of events in 2017 that could be categorized as "unorthodox, Trump-related, political risk" (Table 1). We specifically left out geopolitical events, such as the North Korean nuclear crisis, so as not to dilute our dataset's focus on domestic intrigue. As Chart 8 illustrates, the U.S. dollar rose slightly, on average, a week after each event relative to its average weekly return prior to the crisis. While this may not be a resounding vote of confidence for the greenback (gold performed better), there is no evidence that investors are betting on a paradigm shift away from the dollar as the global reserve currency. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of Trump Presidency Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Chart 8Trump Is Not A U.S. Dollar Paradigm Shift Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 If investors should not worry about investment-relevant social strife in the U.S. in 2018, then when should they worry? Well, if Trump is actually removed from office, a first in U.S. history, at a time of extreme polarization, and in a country with easy access to arms and at least a strain of domestic terrorism, then 2019-20 will at least be a time for concern. Even without Trump's removal, we worry about unrest beyond 2018. We expect the ideological pendulum to shift to the left by the 2020 election. If our sister service - BCA's Global Investment Strategy - is correct, then a recession is likely to begin in late 2019.9 A combination of low popularity, market turbulence, and economic recession would doom Trump's chances of returning to the White House. But they would also be toxic for the candidacy of a moderate Democrat and would possibly propel a left-wing candidate to the presidency. Four years under a left-wing, socially progressive firebrand may be too much for many far-right voters to tolerate. Given America's demographic trends (Chart 9), these voters will realize that the writing is on the wall, that the window of opportunity to lock in their preferred policies has been firmly shut. The international context teaches us that disenchanted groups contemplate "exit" when the strategy of "voice" no longer works. How this will look in the U.S. is unclear at this point. Bottom Line: Investors should continue to fade impeachment-related, and Mueller investigation-related, pullbacks in the markets or the U.S. dollar in 2018. Our fears of U.S. social instability are mostly for the medium and long term. Fundamentals drive the markets and U.S. fundamentals remain solid for now. As our colleague Peter Berezin has pointed out, there is no imminent risk of a U.S. recession (Chart 10) and the cyclical picture remains bright (Chart 11).10 Chart 9A Changing America A Changing America A Changing America Chart 10No Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession No Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession No Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession Chart 11U.S. Cyclical Picture Is Bright U.S. Cyclical Picture Is Bright U.S. Cyclical Picture Is Bright Where BCA's Geopolitical Strategy diverges from the BCA House View, however, is in terms of the global growth picture. While we recognize that there are no imminent risks of a global recession, we do believe that the policy trajectory in China is being obfuscated by positive global economic projections. To this risk we now turn. Is The Ghost Of Deng Xiaoping Haunting China? Our view that Chinese President Xi Jinping would reboot his reform agenda after the nineteenth National Party Congress this October is beginning to bear fruit. Investors are starting to realize that the policy tightening of 2017 was not a one-off event but a harbinger of what to expect in 2018. China's economic activity is slowing down and the policy outlook is getting less accommodative (Chart 12).11 To be clear, we never bought into the 2013 Third Plenum "reform" hype, which sought to resurrect the ghost of Deng Xiaoping and his decision to open China's economy at the Third Plenum in 1978.12 Nor will we buy into any similar hype around the upcoming Third Plenum in 2018. Instead, we focus on policymaker constraints. And it seems to us that the constraints to reform in China have fallen since 2013. The severity of China's financial and economic imbalances, the positive external economic backdrop, the desire to avoid confrontation with Trump, and the Xi administration's advantageous moment in the Chinese domestic political cycle, all suggest to us that Xi will be driven to accelerate his agenda in 2018. Broadly, this agenda consists of revitalizing the Communist Party regime at home and elevating China's national power and prestige abroad. More specifically it entails: Re-centralizing power after a perceived lack of leadership from roughly 2004-12; Improving governance, to rebuild the legitimacy and popular support of the single-party state, namely by fighting corruption; Restructuring the economy to phase out the existing growth model, which relies excessively on resource-intensive investment while suppressing private consumption (Chart 13). Chart 12China's Economic Prospects Are Dimming China's Economic Prospects Are Dimming China's Economic Prospects Are Dimming Chart 13Excess Investment Is A Real Problem Excess Investment Is A Real Problem Excess Investment Is A Real Problem The October party congress showed that this framework remains intact.13 First, Xi was elevated to Mao Zedong's status in the party constitution, which makes it much riskier for vested interests to flout his policies. Second, he declared the creation of a "National Supervision Commission," which will expand the anti-corruption campaign from the Communist Party to the administrative bureaucracy at all levels. Third, he recommitted to his economic agenda of improving the quality of economic growth at the expense of its pace and capital intensity. What does this mean for the economy in 2018? We expect government policy to become a headwind, after having been a tailwind in 2016-17. As Xi and the top-decision-making Politburo officially stated on December 9, the coming year will be a "crucial year" for advancing the most difficult aspects of the agenda: Financial risk: Financial regulation will continue to tighten, not only on banks and shadow lenders but also on the property sector, which Chinese officials claim will see a new "long-term regulatory mechanism" begin to be enacted (perhaps a nationwide property tax) (Chart 14). Local governments will face greater central discipline over bad investments, excessive debt, and corruption. The new leadership of the People's Bank of China, and of the just-created "Financial Stability and Development Commission," will attempt to establish their credibility in the face of banks that will be clamoring for less readily available liquidity.14 Green industrial restructuring: State-owned enterprises (SOEs) will continue to face stricter environmental regulations and cuts to overcapacity. This is in addition to tighter financial conditions, SOE restructuring initiatives, and an anti-corruption campaign that puts top managers under the microscope. SOEs that have not been identified as national champions, or otherwise as leading firms, will get squeezed.15 What are the market implications? First and foremost, the status quo in China is shifting, which is at least marginally negative for China's GDP growth, fixed investment, capital spending, import volumes, and resource-intensity. Real GDP should fall to around 6%, if not below, rather than today's 7%, while the Li Keqiang index should fall beneath the 2013-14 average rate of 7.3%. Second, a smooth and seamless conclusion of the 2016-17 upcycle cannot be assumed. The government's heightened effectiveness in economic policy will stem in part from an increase in political risk: the expansion of the anti-corruption campaign and Xi Jinping's personal power.16 The linking of anti-corruption probes with general policy enforcement means that any lack of compliance could result in top officials being ostracized, imprisoned, or even executed. Xi's measures will have sharper teeth than the market currently expects. Local economic actors (small banks, shadow lenders, local governments, provincial SOEs) will behave more cautiously. This will create negative growth surprises not currently being predicted by leading economic indicators (Chart 15). Chart 14Property Tightening##BR##Continues Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Chart 15Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests##BR##A Benign Slowdown In Growth Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests A Benign Slowdown In Growth Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests A Benign Slowdown In Growth Chinese economic policy uncertainty, credit default swaps, and equity volatility should trend upward, as investors become accustomed to sectors disrupted by government scrutiny and a government with a higher tolerance for economic pain (Chart 16). How should investors play this scenario? Despite the volatility, we still expect Chinese equities, particularly H-shares, to outperform the EM benchmark, assuming the economy does not spiral out of control and cause a global rout. Reforms will improve China's long-term potential even as they weigh on EM exports, currencies, corporate profits and share prices. On a sectoral basis, BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that China's health care, tech, and consumer staples sectors (and arguably energy) all outperformed China's other sectors in the wake of the party congress, as one would expect of a reinvigorated reform agenda (Chart 17). These sectors should continue to outperform. Going long the MSCI Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Leaders index, relative to the broad market, is one way to bet on more sustainable growth.17 Chart 16Stability Continues##BR##After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? Chart 17China's Reforms Will Create##BR##Some Winners And Losers China's Reforms Will Create Some Winners And Losers China's Reforms Will Create Some Winners And Losers More broadly, investors should prefer DM over EM equities, since emerging markets (especially Latin America) will suffer from a slower-growing and less commodity-hungry China (Chart 18). Within the commodities complex, investors should expect crosswinds, with energy diverging upward from base metals that are weighed down by China.18 Chart 18Who Is Exposed To China? Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 What are the risks to this view? How and when will we find out if we are wrong? Chart 19All Signs Pointing To Headwinds Ahead All Signs Pointing To Headwinds Ahead All Signs Pointing To Headwinds Ahead First, the best leading indicators of China's economy are indicators of money and credit, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy have shown.19 The credit and broad money (M3) impulses have finally begun to tick back up after a deep dip, suggesting that in six-to-nine months the economy, which has only just begun to slow, will receive some necessary relief (Chart 19). The question is how much relief? Strong spikes in these impulses, or in the monetary conditions index or housing prices, would indicate that stimulus is still taking precedence over reform. Second, our checklist for a reform reboot, which we have maintained since April and is so far on track, offers some critical political signposts for H1 2018 (Table 2).20 For instance, if China is serious about deleveraging, then authorities will restrain bank lending at the beginning of the year. A sharp increase in credit growth in Q1 would greatly undermine our thesis (while likely encouraging exuberance globally).21 Also, in March, the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber-stamp parliament, will hold its annual meeting. NPC sessions can serve to launch new reform initiatives (as in 1998 and 2008) or new stimulus efforts (as in 2009 and 2016). This year's legislative session is more important than usual because it will formally launch Xi Jinping's second term. The event should provide more detail on at least a few concrete reform initiatives. If the only solid takeaways are short-term growth measures and more infrastructure investment, then the status quo will prevail. Table 2China Reform Checklist Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 By the end of May, an assessment of the concrete NPC initiatives and the post-NPC economic data should indicate whether China's threshold for economic pain has truly gone up. If not, then any reforms that the Xi administration takes will have limited effect. It is important to note that our view does not hinge on China's refraining from stimulus altogether. We do not expect Beijing to self-impose a recession. Rather, we expect stimulus to be of a smaller magnitude than in 2015-16. We also expect the complexion of fiscal spending to continue to become less capital intensive as it is directed toward building a social safety net (Chart 20). Massive old-style stimulus should only return if the economy starts to collapse, or closer to the sensitive 2020-21 economic targets timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Communist Party.22 Chart 20China's Fiscal Spending Is Becoming Less Capital Intensive Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Bottom Line: The Xi administration has identified financial instability, environmental degradation, and poverty as persistent threats to the regime and is moving to address them. The consequences are, on the whole, likely to be negative for growth in the short term but positive in the long term. We expect China to see greater volatility but to benefit from better long-term prospects. Meanwhile China-exposed, commodity-reliant EMs will suffer negative side-effects. Will Geopolitical Risk Shift To The Middle East? The U.S. geopolitical "pivot to Asia" has been a central theme of our service since its launch in 2012.23 The decision to geopolitically deleverage from the Middle East and shift to Asia was undertaken by the Obama administration (Chart 21). Not because President Obama was a dove with no stomach to fight it out in the Middle East, but because the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment sees containing China as America's premier twenty-first century challenge. Chart 21U.S. Has Deleveraged From The Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From The Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From The Middle East The grand strategy of containing China has underpinned several crucial decisions by the U.S. since 2011. First, the U.S. has become a lot more aggressive about challenging China's military expansion in the South China Sea. Second, the U.S. has begun to reposition military hardware into East Asia. Third, Washington concluded a nuclear deal with Tehran in 2015 - referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - in order to extricate itself from the Middle East and focus on China.24 President Trump, however, while maintaining the pivot, has re-focused his rhetoric back on the Middle East. The decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, while largely accepting a fait accompli, is an unorthodox move that suggests that this administration's threshold for accepting chaos in the Middle East is a lot lower. Our concern is that the Trump administration may set its sights on Iran next. President Trump appears to believe that the U.S. can contain China, coerce North Korea into nuclear negotiations, and reverse Iranian gains in the Middle East at the same time. In our view, he cannot. The U.S. military is stretched, public war weariness remains a political constraint, regional allies are weak, and without ground-troop commitments to the Middle East Trump is unlikely to change the balance of power against Iran. All that the abrogation of the JCPA would do is provoke Iran, which could lash out across the Middle East, particularly in Iraq where Tehran-supported Shia militias remain entrenched. Investors should carefully watch whether Trump approves another six-month waiver for the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA) of 2012. This act imposes sanctions against all entities - whether U.S., Iranian, or others - doing business with the country (Table 3). In essence, IFCA is the congressional act that imposed sanctions against Iran. The original 2015 nuclear deal did not abrogate IFCA. Instead, Obama simply waived its provisions every six months, as provided under the original act. Table 3U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy remains overweight oil. As our energy strategists point out, the last two years have been remarkably benign regarding unplanned production outages. Iran, Libya, and Nigeria all returned production to near-full potential, adding over 1.5 million b/d of supply back to the world markets (Chart 22). This supply increase is unlikely to repeat itself in 2018, particularly as geopolitical risks are likely to return in Iraq, Libya, and Nigeria, and already have in Venezuela (Chart 23). Chart 22Unplanned Production Outages Are At The Lowest Level In Years Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Nigeria is on the map once again with the Niger Delta Avengers vowing to renew hostilities with the government. Nigeria's production has been recovering since pipeline saboteurs knocked it down to 1.4 million b/d in the period from May 2016 to June 2017, but rising tensions could threaten output anew. And Venezuela remains in a state of near-collapse.25 Iraq is key, and three risks loom large. First, as we have pointed out since early 2016, the destruction of the Islamic State is exposing fault lines between the Kurds - who have benefited the most from the vacuum created by the Islamic State's defeat - and their Arab neighbors.26 Second, remnants of the Islamic State may turn into saboteurs since their dream of controlling a Caliphate is dead. Third, investors need to watch renewed tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Shia-Sunni tensions could reignite if Tehran decides to retaliate against any re-imposition of economic sanctions by Washington. Not only could Tehran retaliate against Sunnis in Iraq, throwing the country into another civil war, but it could even go back to its favorite tactic from 2011: threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz. Another critical issue to consider is how the rest of the world would respond to the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran. Under IFCA, the Trump administration would be able to sanction any bank, shipping, or energy company that does business with the country, including companies belonging to European and Asian allies. If the administration pursued such policy, however, we would expect a major break between the U.S. and Europe. It took Obama four years of cajoling, threatening, and strategizing to convince Europe, China, India, Russia, and Asian allies to impose sanctions against Iran. For many economies this was a tough decision given reliance on Iran for energy supplies. A move by the U.S. to re-open the front against Iran, with no evidence that Tehran has failed to uphold the nuclear deal itself, would throw U.S. alliances into a flux. The implications of such a decision could therefore go beyond merely increasing the geopolitical risk premium. Chart 23Iraq, Libya, And Venezuela Are##BR##At Risk Of Production Disruptions In 2018 Iraq, Libya, And Venezuela Are At Risk Of Production Disruptions In 2018 Iraq, Libya, And Venezuela Are At Risk Of Production Disruptions In 2018 Chart 24Buy Energy,##BR##Short Metals Buy Energy, Short Metals Buy Energy, Short Metals Bottom Line: BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy has set the average oil price forecast at $67 per barrel for 2018.27 We believe that the upside risk to this view is considerable. As a way to parlay our relatively bearish view on the Chinese economy with the bullish oil view of our commodity colleagues, we would recommend that our clients go long global energy stocks relative to metal and mining equities (Chart 24). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views, Part I: Five Black Swans," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 On June 14, James Hodkinson, a left-wing activist, attacked Republican members of Congress while practicing baseball for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. 6 A very sophisticated client in New York asked us whether we believed that National Guard units, who are staffed from the neighborhoods they would have to pacify in case of unrest, would remain loyal to the federal government in case of impeachment-related unrest. Our high-conviction view is that they would. First, the U.S. has a highly professionalized military with a strong history of robust civil-military relations. Second, if the Alabama National Guard remained loyal to President Kennedy in the 1963 University of Alabama integration protests - the so-called "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" incident - then we certainly would expect "Red State" National Guard units to remain loyal to their chain-of-command in 2017. That said, the very fact that we do not consider the premise of the question to be ludicrous suggests that we are in a genuine paradigm shift. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 The "Saturday Night Massacre," which escalated the crisis in the White House, occurred in October, the same month that OPEC launched an oil embargo and caused the oil shock. The U.S. economy was already sliding into recession, which technically began in November. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, and Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, and Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 For instance, the decision to stack the country's chief bank regulator (the CBRC) with some of the country's toughest anti-corruption officials is significant and will bode ill not only for corrupt regulators but also for banks that have benefited from cozy relationships with them. This is not a neutral development with regard to bank lending. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Note that these eco-reforms will reduce supply, which could offset - at least in part - the lower demand from within China. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals," dated November 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. The status of China's supply-side reforms suggests that steel, coking coal, and iron ore prices are most likely to decline from current levels; please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 It is primarily credit excesses that a reform-oriented government would seek to rein in, while fiscal spending may have to increase to try to compensate for slower credit growth. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, and "Brewing Tensions In The South China Sea: Implications," dated June 13, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Key Themes For Energy Markets In 2018," dated December 7, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors should expect little policy initiative out of the U.S. Congress after tax cuts; Polarization is likely to rise substantively in 2018, gridlocking Congress; Chinese policymakers are experimenting with growth-constraining reforms; Global growth has peaked; underweight emerging markets in 2018; Go long energy stocks relative to metal and mining equities. Feature Last week we published Part I of our 2018 Key Views.1 In it, we presented our five "Black Swans" for 2018: Lame Duck Trump: President Trump realizes his time in the White House is going to be short and seeks relevance abroad. He finds it in jingoism towards Iran - throwing the Middle East into chaos - and protectionism against China. A Coup In North Korea: Chinese economic pressure overshoots its mark and throws Pyongyang into a crisis. Kim Jong-un is replaced, but markets struggle to ascertain whether the successor is a moderate or a hawk. Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn: Markets cheer the higher probability of "Bremain" and then remember that Corbyn is a genuine socialist. Italian Election Troubles: Markets are fully pricing in the sanguine scenario of "much ado about nothing," which is our view as well. But is there really anything to cheer in Italy? If not, then why is the Italian market the best performing in all of DM? Bloodbath In Latin America: Emerging markets stall next year as Chinese policymakers tighten financial regulations. As the tide pulls back, Mexico and Brazil are caught swimming naked. These are not our core views. As black swans, they are low-probability events that may disturb markets in 2018. Our core view remains that geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017 and will be understated in 2018 (Charts 1 & 2). Most importantly, U.S. politics will be a tailwind to global growth while Chinese politics will be a headwind to global growth. While the overall effect may be neutral, the combination will be bullish for the U.S. dollar and bearish for emerging markets.2 Chart 12018 Will See Risks Dominate... 2018 Will See Risks Dominate... 2018 Will See Risks Dominate... Chart 2...As Global Growth Concerns Reemerge ...As Global Growth Concerns Reemerge ...As Global Growth Concerns Reemerge This week, we turn to the three questions that we believe will define the year for investors: Is A Civil War Coming To America? Is The Ghost Of Deng Xiaoping Haunting China? Will Geopolitical Risk Shift To The Middle East? Is A Civil War Coming To America? On a recent visit to Boston and New York we were caught off guard by how alarmed several large institutional clients were about the risk of severe social unrest in the U.S. We share this concern about the level of polarization in the U.S. and expect social instability to rise over the coming years (Chart 3).3 When roughly 40% of both Democrats and Republicans believe that their political competitors pose a "threat to the nation's well-being," we have entered a new paradigm (Chart 4). Chart 3Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 4"A Threat To The Nation's Well-Being?" Really?! Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Where we differ from some of our clients is in assessing the likely trigger for the unrest and its investment implications over the next 12 months. If the Democrats take the House of Representatives in the November 6 midterm election, as is our low-conviction view at this early point, then we would expect them eventually to impeach President Trump in 2019.4 Even then, it is not clear that the Senate would have the necessary 67 votes to convict Trump of the articles of impeachment (whatever they prove to be) and hence remove him from power. Republicans are likely to increase their majority in the Senate, even if they lose the House, because more Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2018. Therefore well over a dozen Republican senators would have to vote to remove a Republican president from power. For that to happen, Trump's popularity with Republican voters would have to go into a free fall, diving well below 60% (Chart 5). Meanwhile, we do not buy the argument that hordes of gun-wielding "deplorables" would descend upon the liberal coasts in case of impeachment. There may well be significant acts of domestic terrorism, particularly in the wake of any removal of Trump from office, but they would likely be isolated and unable to galvanize broader support. Our clients should remember, however, that ultra-right-wing militant groups are not the only perpetrators of domestic terrorism.5 Any acts of violence or social unrest are likely to draw press coverage and analytical hyperbole. But our left-leaning clients in the Northeast are likely overstating the sincerity of support for President Trump. President Trump won 44.9% of the Republican primary votes, but he averaged only 35% of the vote in the early days when the races were the most competitive. Given that only 25% of Americans identify as Republicans (Chart 6), it is fair to say that only about a third of that figure - 8%-10% of all U.S. voters - are Trump loyalists. Many conservative voters simply wanted change and were willing to give an outsider a chance (much as their liberal counterparts did in 2008!). Of that small percentage of genuine Trump fans, it is highly unlikely that a large share would seriously contemplate taking arms against the state in order to keep their leader in power against the constitutional impeachment process. Especially given that President Trump would be replaced by a genuine conservative, Vice President Mike Pence.6 Chart 5We Are A Long Way Away##BR##From Trump's Demise Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Chart 6Party Identifications##BR##Are Shrinking Party Identifications Are Shrinking Party Identifications Are Shrinking As such, we believe that it is premature to speak of a total breakdown of social order in America. It is notable that such a conversation is taking place, but other forms of polarization and social unrest are far more likely to be relevant at the moment. In terms of policy, we would expect gridlock in Congress if Democrats take the House and begin focusing on impeachment. In fact, gridlock may already be upon us, as we see little agreement between the Trump administration, its loyalists in Congress, and establishment Republican Senators like Dan Sullivan (R, Alaska), Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), Ben Sasse (R, Nebraska), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). These six Senators are all facing reelection in 2020 and are likely to evolve into Democrats-in-all-but-name. If President Trump's overall popularity continues to decline, we would not be surprised if one or two (starting with Collins) even take the dramatic step of leaving the Republican Party for the 2020 election. Essentially, establishment Republicans will become effective Democrats ahead of the midterms. Post-midterm election, with Democrats potentially taking over the House, the legislative process will grind to a complete halt. Government shutdowns, debt ceiling fights, failure of proactive policymaking to deal with crises and natural disasters, will all rise in probability. As President Trump faces greater constraints in Congress, we can see him becoming increasingly reliant on his executive authority to create policy. He would not be unique in this way, as President Obama did the same. While Trump's executive policy will be pro-business, unlike Obama's, uncertainty will rise regardless. The business community will not be able to take White House policies seriously amidst impeachment and a potential Democratic wave-election in 2020. Whatever executive orders Trump signs into power over the next three years, chances are that they will be immediately reversed in 2020. What about the markets? The Mueller investigation and heightened level of polarization could create drawdowns in equity markets throughout the year. However, impeachment proceedings are not likely to begin in 2018 and have never carried more weight with investors than market fundamentals (Chart 7).7 True, the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon triggered a spike in volatility and a fall in equities. However, the scandal alone did not cause the correction, rather it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, massive insurance fraud, recession, and a global oil shock.8 Chart 7AFundamentals, Not Impeachment,##BR##Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets Chart 7BFundamentals, Not Impeachment,##BR##Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets Fundamentals, Not Impeachment, Drive Markets What about the impact on the U.S. dollar? Does Trump-related political instability threaten the dollar's status as the chief global reserve currency and a major financial safe haven? The data suggest not. We put together a list of events in 2017 that could be categorized as "unorthodox, Trump-related, political risk" (Table 1). We specifically left out geopolitical events, such as the North Korean nuclear crisis, so as not to dilute our dataset's focus on domestic intrigue. As Chart 8 illustrates, the U.S. dollar rose slightly, on average, a week after each event relative to its average weekly return prior to the crisis. While this may not be a resounding vote of confidence for the greenback (gold performed better), there is no evidence that investors are betting on a paradigm shift away from the dollar as the global reserve currency. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of Trump Presidency Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Chart 8Trump Is Not A U.S. Dollar Paradigm Shift Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 If investors should not worry about investment-relevant social strife in the U.S. in 2018, then when should they worry? Well, if Trump is actually removed from office, a first in U.S. history, at a time of extreme polarization, and in a country with easy access to arms and at least a strain of domestic terrorism, then 2019-20 will at least be a time for concern. Even without Trump's removal, we worry about unrest beyond 2018. We expect the ideological pendulum to shift to the left by the 2020 election. If our sister service - BCA's Global Investment Strategy - is correct, then a recession is likely to begin in late 2019.9 A combination of low popularity, market turbulence, and economic recession would doom Trump's chances of returning to the White House. But they would also be toxic for the candidacy of a moderate Democrat and would possibly propel a left-wing candidate to the presidency. Four years under a left-wing, socially progressive firebrand may be too much for many far-right voters to tolerate. Given America's demographic trends (Chart 9), these voters will realize that the writing is on the wall, that the window of opportunity to lock in their preferred policies has been firmly shut. The international context teaches us that disenchanted groups contemplate "exit" when the strategy of "voice" no longer works. How this will look in the U.S. is unclear at this point. Bottom Line: Investors should continue to fade impeachment-related, and Mueller investigation-related, pullbacks in the markets or the U.S. dollar in 2018. Our fears of U.S. social instability are mostly for the medium and long term. Fundamentals drive the markets and U.S. fundamentals remain solid for now. As our colleague Peter Berezin has pointed out, there is no imminent risk of a U.S. recession (Chart 10) and the cyclical picture remains bright (Chart 11).10 Chart 9A Changing America A Changing America A Changing America Chart 10No Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession No Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession No Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession Chart 11U.S. Cyclical Picture Is Bright U.S. Cyclical Picture Is Bright U.S. Cyclical Picture Is Bright Where BCA's Geopolitical Strategy diverges from the BCA House View, however, is in terms of the global growth picture. While we recognize that there are no imminent risks of a global recession, we do believe that the policy trajectory in China is being obfuscated by positive global economic projections. To this risk we now turn. Is The Ghost Of Deng Xiaoping Haunting China? Our view that Chinese President Xi Jinping would reboot his reform agenda after the nineteenth National Party Congress this October is beginning to bear fruit. Investors are starting to realize that the policy tightening of 2017 was not a one-off event but a harbinger of what to expect in 2018. China's economic activity is slowing down and the policy outlook is getting less accommodative (Chart 12).11 To be clear, we never bought into the 2013 Third Plenum "reform" hype, which sought to resurrect the ghost of Deng Xiaoping and his decision to open China's economy at the Third Plenum in 1978.12 Nor will we buy into any similar hype around the upcoming Third Plenum in 2018. Instead, we focus on policymaker constraints. And it seems to us that the constraints to reform in China have fallen since 2013. The severity of China's financial and economic imbalances, the positive external economic backdrop, the desire to avoid confrontation with Trump, and the Xi administration's advantageous moment in the Chinese domestic political cycle, all suggest to us that Xi will be driven to accelerate his agenda in 2018. Broadly, this agenda consists of revitalizing the Communist Party regime at home and elevating China's national power and prestige abroad. More specifically it entails: Re-centralizing power after a perceived lack of leadership from roughly 2004-12; Improving governance, to rebuild the legitimacy and popular support of the single-party state, namely by fighting corruption; Restructuring the economy to phase out the existing growth model, which relies excessively on resource-intensive investment while suppressing private consumption (Chart 13). Chart 12China's Economic Prospects Are Dimming China's Economic Prospects Are Dimming China's Economic Prospects Are Dimming Chart 13Excess Investment Is A Real Problem Excess Investment Is A Real Problem Excess Investment Is A Real Problem The October party congress showed that this framework remains intact.13 First, Xi was elevated to Mao Zedong's status in the party constitution, which makes it much riskier for vested interests to flout his policies. Second, he declared the creation of a "National Supervision Commission," which will expand the anti-corruption campaign from the Communist Party to the administrative bureaucracy at all levels. Third, he recommitted to his economic agenda of improving the quality of economic growth at the expense of its pace and capital intensity. What does this mean for the economy in 2018? We expect government policy to become a headwind, after having been a tailwind in 2016-17. As Xi and the top-decision-making Politburo officially stated on December 9, the coming year will be a "crucial year" for advancing the most difficult aspects of the agenda: Financial risk: Financial regulation will continue to tighten, not only on banks and shadow lenders but also on the property sector, which Chinese officials claim will see a new "long-term regulatory mechanism" begin to be enacted (perhaps a nationwide property tax) (Chart 14). Local governments will face greater central discipline over bad investments, excessive debt, and corruption. The new leadership of the People's Bank of China, and of the just-created "Financial Stability and Development Commission," will attempt to establish their credibility in the face of banks that will be clamoring for less readily available liquidity.14 Green industrial restructuring: State-owned enterprises (SOEs) will continue to face stricter environmental regulations and cuts to overcapacity. This is in addition to tighter financial conditions, SOE restructuring initiatives, and an anti-corruption campaign that puts top managers under the microscope. SOEs that have not been identified as national champions, or otherwise as leading firms, will get squeezed.15 What are the market implications? First and foremost, the status quo in China is shifting, which is at least marginally negative for China's GDP growth, fixed investment, capital spending, import volumes, and resource-intensity. Real GDP should fall to around 6%, if not below, rather than today's 7%, while the Li Keqiang index should fall beneath the 2013-14 average rate of 7.3%. Second, a smooth and seamless conclusion of the 2016-17 upcycle cannot be assumed. The government's heightened effectiveness in economic policy will stem in part from an increase in political risk: the expansion of the anti-corruption campaign and Xi Jinping's personal power.16 The linking of anti-corruption probes with general policy enforcement means that any lack of compliance could result in top officials being ostracized, imprisoned, or even executed. Xi's measures will have sharper teeth than the market currently expects. Local economic actors (small banks, shadow lenders, local governments, provincial SOEs) will behave more cautiously. This will create negative growth surprises not currently being predicted by leading economic indicators (Chart 15). Chart 14Property Tightening##BR##Continues Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Chart 15Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests##BR##A Benign Slowdown In Growth Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests A Benign Slowdown In Growth Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests A Benign Slowdown In Growth Chinese economic policy uncertainty, credit default swaps, and equity volatility should trend upward, as investors become accustomed to sectors disrupted by government scrutiny and a government with a higher tolerance for economic pain (Chart 16). How should investors play this scenario? Despite the volatility, we still expect Chinese equities, particularly H-shares, to outperform the EM benchmark, assuming the economy does not spiral out of control and cause a global rout. Reforms will improve China's long-term potential even as they weigh on EM exports, currencies, corporate profits and share prices. On a sectoral basis, BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that China's health care, tech, and consumer staples sectors (and arguably energy) all outperformed China's other sectors in the wake of the party congress, as one would expect of a reinvigorated reform agenda (Chart 17). These sectors should continue to outperform. Going long the MSCI Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Leaders index, relative to the broad market, is one way to bet on more sustainable growth.17 Chart 16Stability Continues##BR##After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? Chart 17China's Reforms Will Create##BR##Some Winners And Losers China's Reforms Will Create Some Winners And Losers China's Reforms Will Create Some Winners And Losers More broadly, investors should prefer DM over EM equities, since emerging markets (especially Latin America) will suffer from a slower-growing and less commodity-hungry China (Chart 18). Within the commodities complex, investors should expect crosswinds, with energy diverging upward from base metals that are weighed down by China.18 Chart 18Who Is Exposed To China? Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 What are the risks to this view? How and when will we find out if we are wrong? Chart 19All Signs Pointing To Headwinds Ahead All Signs Pointing To Headwinds Ahead All Signs Pointing To Headwinds Ahead First, the best leading indicators of China's economy are indicators of money and credit, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy have shown.19 The credit and broad money (M3) impulses have finally begun to tick back up after a deep dip, suggesting that in six-to-nine months the economy, which has only just begun to slow, will receive some necessary relief (Chart 19). The question is how much relief? Strong spikes in these impulses, or in the monetary conditions index or housing prices, would indicate that stimulus is still taking precedence over reform. Second, our checklist for a reform reboot, which we have maintained since April and is so far on track, offers some critical political signposts for H1 2018 (Table 2).20 For instance, if China is serious about deleveraging, then authorities will restrain bank lending at the beginning of the year. A sharp increase in credit growth in Q1 would greatly undermine our thesis (while likely encouraging exuberance globally).21 Also, in March, the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber-stamp parliament, will hold its annual meeting. NPC sessions can serve to launch new reform initiatives (as in 1998 and 2008) or new stimulus efforts (as in 2009 and 2016). This year's legislative session is more important than usual because it will formally launch Xi Jinping's second term. The event should provide more detail on at least a few concrete reform initiatives. If the only solid takeaways are short-term growth measures and more infrastructure investment, then the status quo will prevail. Table 2China Reform Checklist Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 By the end of May, an assessment of the concrete NPC initiatives and the post-NPC economic data should indicate whether China's threshold for economic pain has truly gone up. If not, then any reforms that the Xi administration takes will have limited effect. It is important to note that our view does not hinge on China's refraining from stimulus altogether. We do not expect Beijing to self-impose a recession. Rather, we expect stimulus to be of a smaller magnitude than in 2015-16. We also expect the complexion of fiscal spending to continue to become less capital intensive as it is directed toward building a social safety net (Chart 20). Massive old-style stimulus should only return if the economy starts to collapse, or closer to the sensitive 2020-21 economic targets timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Communist Party.22 Chart 20China's Fiscal Spending Is Becoming Less Capital Intensive Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Bottom Line: The Xi administration has identified financial instability, environmental degradation, and poverty as persistent threats to the regime and is moving to address them. The consequences are, on the whole, likely to be negative for growth in the short term but positive in the long term. We expect China to see greater volatility but to benefit from better long-term prospects. Meanwhile China-exposed, commodity-reliant EMs will suffer negative side-effects. Will Geopolitical Risk Shift To The Middle East? The U.S. geopolitical "pivot to Asia" has been a central theme of our service since its launch in 2012.23 The decision to geopolitically deleverage from the Middle East and shift to Asia was undertaken by the Obama administration (Chart 21). Not because President Obama was a dove with no stomach to fight it out in the Middle East, but because the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment sees containing China as America's premier twenty-first century challenge. Chart 21U.S. Has Deleveraged From The Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From The Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From The Middle East The grand strategy of containing China has underpinned several crucial decisions by the U.S. since 2011. First, the U.S. has become a lot more aggressive about challenging China's military expansion in the South China Sea. Second, the U.S. has begun to reposition military hardware into East Asia. Third, Washington concluded a nuclear deal with Tehran in 2015 - referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - in order to extricate itself from the Middle East and focus on China.24 President Trump, however, while maintaining the pivot, has re-focused his rhetoric back on the Middle East. The decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, while largely accepting a fait accompli, is an unorthodox move that suggests that this administration's threshold for accepting chaos in the Middle East is a lot lower. Our concern is that the Trump administration may set its sights on Iran next. President Trump appears to believe that the U.S. can contain China, coerce North Korea into nuclear negotiations, and reverse Iranian gains in the Middle East at the same time. In our view, he cannot. The U.S. military is stretched, public war weariness remains a political constraint, regional allies are weak, and without ground-troop commitments to the Middle East Trump is unlikely to change the balance of power against Iran. All that the abrogation of the JCPA would do is provoke Iran, which could lash out across the Middle East, particularly in Iraq where Tehran-supported Shia militias remain entrenched. Investors should carefully watch whether Trump approves another six-month waiver for the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA) of 2012. This act imposes sanctions against all entities - whether U.S., Iranian, or others - doing business with the country (Table 3). In essence, IFCA is the congressional act that imposed sanctions against Iran. The original 2015 nuclear deal did not abrogate IFCA. Instead, Obama simply waived its provisions every six months, as provided under the original act. Table 3U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy remains overweight oil. As our energy strategists point out, the last two years have been remarkably benign regarding unplanned production outages. Iran, Libya, and Nigeria all returned production to near-full potential, adding over 1.5 million b/d of supply back to the world markets (Chart 22). This supply increase is unlikely to repeat itself in 2018, particularly as geopolitical risks are likely to return in Iraq, Libya, and Nigeria, and already have in Venezuela (Chart 23). Chart 22Unplanned Production Outages Are At The Lowest Level In Years Three Questions For 2018 Three Questions For 2018 Nigeria is on the map once again with the Niger Delta Avengers vowing to renew hostilities with the government. Nigeria's production has been recovering since pipeline saboteurs knocked it down to 1.4 million b/d in the period from May 2016 to June 2017, but rising tensions could threaten output anew. And Venezuela remains in a state of near-collapse.25 Iraq is key, and three risks loom large. First, as we have pointed out since early 2016, the destruction of the Islamic State is exposing fault lines between the Kurds - who have benefited the most from the vacuum created by the Islamic State's defeat - and their Arab neighbors.26 Second, remnants of the Islamic State may turn into saboteurs since their dream of controlling a Caliphate is dead. Third, investors need to watch renewed tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Shia-Sunni tensions could reignite if Tehran decides to retaliate against any re-imposition of economic sanctions by Washington. Not only could Tehran retaliate against Sunnis in Iraq, throwing the country into another civil war, but it could even go back to its favorite tactic from 2011: threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz. Another critical issue to consider is how the rest of the world would respond to the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran. Under IFCA, the Trump administration would be able to sanction any bank, shipping, or energy company that does business with the country, including companies belonging to European and Asian allies. If the administration pursued such policy, however, we would expect a major break between the U.S. and Europe. It took Obama four years of cajoling, threatening, and strategizing to convince Europe, China, India, Russia, and Asian allies to impose sanctions against Iran. For many economies this was a tough decision given reliance on Iran for energy supplies. A move by the U.S. to re-open the front against Iran, with no evidence that Tehran has failed to uphold the nuclear deal itself, would throw U.S. alliances into a flux. The implications of such a decision could therefore go beyond merely increasing the geopolitical risk premium. Chart 23Iraq, Libya, And Venezuela Are##BR##At Risk Of Production Disruptions In 2018 Iraq, Libya, And Venezuela Are At Risk Of Production Disruptions In 2018 Iraq, Libya, And Venezuela Are At Risk Of Production Disruptions In 2018 Chart 24Buy Energy,##BR##Short Metals Buy Energy, Short Metals Buy Energy, Short Metals Bottom Line: BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy has set the average oil price forecast at $67 per barrel for 2018.27 We believe that the upside risk to this view is considerable. As a way to parlay our relatively bearish view on the Chinese economy with the bullish oil view of our commodity colleagues, we would recommend that our clients go long global energy stocks relative to metal and mining equities (Chart 24). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views, Part I: Five Black Swans," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 On June 14, James Hodkinson, a left-wing activist, attacked Republican members of Congress while practicing baseball for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. 6 A very sophisticated client in New York asked us whether we believed that National Guard units, who are staffed from the neighborhoods they would have to pacify in case of unrest, would remain loyal to the federal government in case of impeachment-related unrest. Our high-conviction view is that they would. First, the U.S. has a highly professionalized military with a strong history of robust civil-military relations. Second, if the Alabama National Guard remained loyal to President Kennedy in the 1963 University of Alabama integration protests - the so-called "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" incident - then we certainly would expect "Red State" National Guard units to remain loyal to their chain-of-command in 2017. That said, the very fact that we do not consider the premise of the question to be ludicrous suggests that we are in a genuine paradigm shift. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 The "Saturday Night Massacre," which escalated the crisis in the White House, occurred in October, the same month that OPEC launched an oil embargo and caused the oil shock. The U.S. economy was already sliding into recession, which technically began in November. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, and Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, and Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 For instance, the decision to stack the country's chief bank regulator (the CBRC) with some of the country's toughest anti-corruption officials is significant and will bode ill not only for corrupt regulators but also for banks that have benefited from cozy relationships with them. This is not a neutral development with regard to bank lending. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Note that these eco-reforms will reduce supply, which could offset - at least in part - the lower demand from within China. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals," dated November 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. The status of China's supply-side reforms suggests that steel, coking coal, and iron ore prices are most likely to decline from current levels; please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 It is primarily credit excesses that a reform-oriented government would seek to rein in, while fiscal spending may have to increase to try to compensate for slower credit growth. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, and "Brewing Tensions In The South China Sea: Implications," dated June 13, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Key Themes For Energy Markets In 2018," dated December 7, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Middle Eastern geopolitics will add upside risk to our bullish oil view, but not cause a drastic supply shock; Saudi Arabia is at last converting from a feudal monarchy to a modern nation-state; The greatest risk is domestic upheaval, motivating Saudi internal reforms and power consolidation; Abroad, the Saudis are constrained by military weakness, relatively low oil prices, and U.S. foreign policy; Geopolitical risk premia are seeping back into oil prices, but OPEC 2.0 and the Saudi-Iranian détente are still intact. Feature Geopolitical and political turbulence in Saudi Arabia kicked into high gear in November, with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman apparently turning the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton into a luxury prison for members of the royal family.1 At the same time, rumors are swirling that the bizarre resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, allegedly orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, is a potential casus belli. In this scenario, Lebanon would become a proxy war for a confrontation between Sunni Gulf monarchies led by Saudi Arabia (aided by Israel) and their Shia rivals, led by Iran and its proxy Hezbollah. To our clients around the world we say, "please take a deep breath." In this report, we intend to separate the signal from the noise. The Middle East has been a theater of paradigm shifts since at least 2011.2 Not all of them are investment relevant. In this report, we conclude that: Changes under way in the Middle East are the product of impersonal, structural forces that have been in place since the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in 2011; Saudi Arabia is engaged in belated, European-style nation-building, a volatile process that will raise tensions in the country and the region; Saudi Arabia remains constrained by a lack of resources and military capabilities, and unclear alliance structures. Iran, meanwhile, benefits from the status quo. As such, no major war with Iran is likely in the short term, although proxy wars could intensify. In the short term, we agree that the moves by Saudi leadership will increase tensions domestically and in the region. However, over the long term, the evolution of Saudi Arabia from the world's last feudal monarchy into a modern nation-state should improve the predictability of Middle East politics. Regardless of our view, one thing is clear: Saudi Arabia has an incentive to keep oil prices at the current $64 per barrel, or higher, as domestic and regional instability looms. As such, we believe that risks to oil prices are to the upside, but a global growth-constraining geopolitical shock to oil supply is unlikely. The Paradigm Shift: Multipolarity "Tikrit is a prime example of what we are worried about ... Iran is taking over [Iraq]."3 -- Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Foreign Minister, to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, March 5, 2015 Pundits, journalists, investors, and Middle East experts all make the same mistake when analyzing the region: they assume it exists on "Planet Middle East." It does not. The Middle East is part of a global system and its internal mechanic is not sui generis. Its actors are bit players in a much bigger game, which involves nuclear powers like the U.S., China, and Russia. Yes, the whims and designs of Middle East leaders do matter, but only within the global constraints that they are subject to. The greatest such constraint has been the objective and observable withdrawal of the U.S. from the Middle East, emblematized by a dramatic reduction of U.S. troops in the region (Chart 1). The U.S. went from stationing 250,000 troops in 2007 to mere 36,000 in 2017. The withdrawal was not merely a manifestation of President Barack Obama's dovish foreign policy. Rather, it was motivated by U.S. grand strategy, specifically the need to "pivot to Asia" and challenge China's rising geopolitical prowess head on (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging Chart 2China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. As we expected, President Donald Trump has not materially increased the U.S. presence in the region since taking office.4 His efforts to eradicate the Islamic State have largely built on those of his predecessor. While he has rhetorically changed policy towards Iran, and taken steps to imperil the nuclear deal by decertifying it, he has not abrogated the deal. The U.S. president can withdraw from the nuclear deal without congressional approval, yet President Trump has merely passed the buck to Congress, which has until the end of the year to decide whether to re-impose sanctions. For Saudi Arabia, U.S. rhetoric and half measures do not change the fact that Iraq is now devoid of American troops and largely in the Iranian sphere of influence. Following the 1991 Gulf War, Saudi Arabia enjoyed the best of both worlds for two decades: a Sunni-dominated but weakened Iraq serving the role of an impregnable buffer between itself and the much more militarily capable Iran. Since Iraq's paradigm shift in the wake of American invasion, the buffer has not only vanished but has been replaced by a Shia-dominated, Iranian-influenced Iraqi state (albeit still relatively weak). Unsurprisingly, Saudi military spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from the 2011 U.S. withdrawal to 2015, and in absolute terms has risen from $48.5 billion in 2011 to $63.7 billion in 2016, revealing a deep concern in Riyadh that its northern border has become nearly indefensible (Chart 3). Chart 3Saudis React To U.S. Withdrawal The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Meanwhile, Baghdad's heavy-handed political and military tactics produced an immediate reaction from the Sunni population.5 Militant Sunni insurgent groups, with material support from unofficial (and probably official) channels in Saudi Arabia and wider Gulf monarchies, began to fight back. Violence escalated and soon melded with the emerging civil war in Syria, which by early 2013 had taken on a sectarian cast as well. This led to the emergence of the Islamic State, which grew out of the earlier Sunni insurgence against the U.S. in the Al Anbar governorate. The military success of the Islamic State in 2014 against the inexperienced and demoralized Iraqi Army forced Baghdad to lean even more heavily on domestic Shia militias, and Iran, for survival. Islamic State militants reached the outskirts of Baghdad in September 2014 and were only beaten back by a combination of hardline Shia militias and Iranian advisers and irregular troops. From the Saudi perspective, this direct intervention by the Iranian military in Iraq was the final straw. Most jarring to the Saudis was the fact that the Americans acquiesced to the Iranian presence in Iraq and even collaborated with Iran. In fact, the overt presence of Iranian military personnel in Syria and Iraq drew no rebuke from the U.S. Some American officials even seemed to praise the Iranian contribution to the global effort against the Islamic State. Meanwhile, the nuclear negotiations continued undisturbed, right down to their successful conclusion in July 2015. Bottom Line: Global multipolarity and the rise of China has forced America's hand, and the dramatic withdrawal of military assets from the Middle East is the direct consequence. Saudi Arabia has suffered a dramatic reversal of geopolitical fortunes, with its crucial geographic buffer, Iraq, now dominated by its strategic rival, Iran. Saudi Arabia "Goes It Alone," And Fails Miserably "Saudi Arabia will go it alone."6 -- Mohammed bin Nawwaf Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Saudi ambassador to the U.K., December 17, 2013 To counter growing Iranian influence across the region and its strategic isolation, Saudi Arabia relied on five general strategies, all of which have failed: Map 1Saudi Arabia's Shia-Populated Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Asymmetric warfare: Saudi Arabia has explicitly and implicitly supported radical-Islamist Sunni militant groups around the region. Some of these groups were either directly linked to, or vestiges of, al-Qaeda. The Islamic State, which received implicit support from Saudi Arabia in its early days of fighting president Bashar al-Assad in Syria, eventually turned against Saudi Arabia itself. Its agents claimed multiple mosque attacks in the Shia-populated Eastern Provinces (Map 1), attacks intended to incite sectarian violence in this key oil-producing Saudi area. Saudi officials also became alarmed at a large number of Saudi youth who went to fight with Islamic State fighters across the region, some of whom are now back in the country (Chart 4). "Sunni NATO": Talk of a broad, Sunni alliance against Iran has not materialized. Despite the Saudis' best efforts, the main Sunni military powers - Egypt and Pakistan - have remained aloof of its regional efforts to isolate Iran. The best example is the paltry contribution of its Sunni peers to the ongoing war in Yemen, where anti-government Houthi rebels are nominally allied with Iran. Pakistan contemplated sending a brigade of 3,000 troops to the Saudi-Yemen border earlier this year, but has refused to join the fight directly. Egypt sent under 1,000 troops early in the war, but none since. Talk of a 40,000 Egyptian deployment to the Yemen conflict earlier this year has not materialized. If Pakistan and Egypt are unwilling to help Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, why would they be interested in directly confronting a formidable military power like Iran? Direct warfare: When supporting militants and spending money on allies did not work, Saudi Arabia decided to try its hand at direct warfare. In February 2015, it began airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The war, which costs Saudi Arabia over $70 billion a year, has gone badly for Saudi Arabia.7 Despite two years of intensive involvement by Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies, the capital Sanaa remains in Houthi hands. As far as we are aware, there has been no real Saudi ground troop commitment to the conflict. K-street: Despite its best efforts, and the vast resources spent on lobbyists in Washington, Saudi Arabia could not prevent the U.S. détente with Iran. What the Saudis failed to appreciate was multipolarity, i.e. how the U.S. pivot to Asia would affect Washington's policy toward the Middle East.8 Oil prices: At the fateful November 2014 OPEC meeting, Saudi Arabia refused to cut oil production in the face of falling prices, instead increasing production (Chart 5). Since late 2016, however, Saudi Arabia has reversed this aggressive bid for market share and orchestrated oil production cuts with Russia and OPEC states. Chart 4The Islamic State Movement Threatens Saudi Arabia The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Chart 5Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Each and every one of the above strategies has failed. The last one is the most spectacular: Saudi Arabia was forced to backtrack from its oil production surge and negotiate with long-time geopolitical rival Russia, which was courting the Saudis to relieve its budget pressures from low oil prices. Saudi Arabia not only accepted the need to work with Russia, but also acquiesced to Russia's geopolitical demands for détente in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The latter will force Saudi Arabia at least tacitly to accept the continued leadership of President al-Assad in Syria. Furthermore, Saudi intervention in Yemen has gone nowhere. Pundits who claim that the Saudis are on the verge of a major military engagement in ______ (insert Middle East country), should carefully study the effectiveness of the Saudi military in Yemen. After over two years of Saudi bombardment, the Houthis are further entrenched in the country. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's Sunni allies have not committed many ground troops to the effort, save for Sudan, which is impoverished and has no choice but to curry favor with its largest foreign donor. Bottom Line: The past six years have taught the Saudi leadership a series of hard lessons. Saudi Arabia cannot "go at it alone." On the contrary, the rise of the Islamic State - a messianic political entity claiming religious superiority to the Saudi kingdom - has alarmed the Saudi leadership and awoken it to a truly existential risk: domestic upheaval. Nation-Building, Saudi Style "What happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region in the last 30 years is not the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, people wanted to copy this model in different countries, one of them is Saudi Arabia. We didn't know how to deal with it. And the problem spread all over the world. Now is the time to get rid of it."9 -- Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, October 24, 2017 European nation-states developed over the course of five hundred years, from roughly the end of the Hundred Years' War between England and France to the unification of Italy and Germany in the mid-nineteenth century. Fundamentally, these efforts were about centralizing state power under a single authority by evolving the governance system away from feudal monarchy toward a constitutional, bureaucratic, and national system. The defining feature of feudalism was the separation of feudal society into three "estates": the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The first two estates - the clergy and the nobility - had considerable rights and privileges. The king, who was above all three estates, nonetheless had to curry favor with both in order to raise taxes and wage wars. The state was weak and often susceptible to foreign influence via interference in all three estates. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's last feudal monarchies and it does not have five hundred years to evolve. Still, the best model for what is going on inside Saudi Arabia today is the European nation-building of the past. In brief, recent Saudi policies - from foreign policy assertiveness to domestic reforms - are intended to centralize power and evolve Saudi Arabia into a modern nation-state. Three parallel efforts, modeled on European history from the last millennia, are under way: Curbing the "first estate": Saudi Arabia has begun to curb the power of the religious establishment. In April 2016, it severely curbed the powers of the hai'a - the country's religious police. They no longer have the power to arrest. Instead, they have to report violations of Islamic law to the secular police; and they are only allowed to work during office hours.10 The state has even arrested a prominent cleric who opposed the change in hai'a powers, and has dismissed many other conservative clerics since King Salman came to power. Curbing the "second estate": The detention of members of the Saudi royal family at the Ritz Carlton is part of an ongoing effort to curb the powers of the "landed aristocracy" and bring it under the control of the ruling Sudairi branch of the royal family.11 This is not just palace intrigue, but a necessary step in harnessing the financial resources of the state, which are currently dispersed amongst roughly 2,000 members of the "second estate." Rallying the "third estate": Nationalism was used by European leaders of the nineteenth century to rally the plebs behind the state-building efforts of the time. Similarly, King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are building a Saudi national identity. To do so, they are appealing to the youth, which makes up 57% of the country's population (Chart 6), as well as emphasizing the existential threat that Iran poses to the kingdom. Chart 6Still A Young Country Still A Young Country Still A Young Country We do not see these efforts as merely the reckless agenda of an impulsive thirty year-old, as Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is often derisively portrayed by his opponents. We see genuine strategy in every policy that has been initiated by Saudi leadership since King Salman took over in January 2015. Several efforts are particularly notable. Vision 2030: A Major Salvo Against The "First Estate" As we indicated in May 2016, we consider the Saudi "Vision 2030" reform blueprint to be a serious document.12 While its plan to address Saudi economic constraints is overly ambitious and vague, there are nonetheless several prominent themes that reveal the preferences of Saudi leaders: Education: The document emphasizes the link between education and economic development. Notably, there is no mention of religion. Gender Equality: Elevating the role of women in the economy will require relaxing many strict social and religious rules that impede gender equality. As if on cue, the Saudi leadership announced that it would soon end its policy of forbidding women to drive. Corruption: A new emphasis on government transparency and reducing corruption will undermine many powerful vested interests, including the religious elites. We were right to emphasize these three themes back in May 2016 as it is now obvious that King Salman and his son Mohammad bin Salman are following the prescriptions of their Vision 2030. What explains their reformist zeal? Over half of the Saudi population of almost 30 million is below 35 years of age. The youth population is facing difficulty entering the labor force, with unemployment above 30% (Chart 7). This rising angst is often expressed online, where the Saudi population is as interconnected as its peers in emerging markets (Chart 8). Saudi citizens have an average of seven social media accounts and the country ranks seventh globally in terms of the absolute number of social media accounts. Between a quarter and a fifth of the population uses Facebook, a quarter of all Saudi teenagers use Snapchat,13 and Twitter has the highest level of penetration in Saudi Arabia of any other country in the region.14 Chart 7A Potential National Security Risk A Potential National Security Risk A Potential National Security Risk Chart 8Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others The idea that the royal family can take on the religious establishment on behalf of the youth seems far-fetched. Skeptics point out that the conservative Sunni Wahhabi religious movement lies at the foundation of the Saudi state. However, commentators who take this mid-eighteenth-century alliance as a key feature of modern Saudi Arabia often overstate its nature and influence. Not only is the Wahhabi hold on power potentially overstated, but Westerners may even overstate the country's religiosity as a whole. According to the World Values Survey, Saudi Arabia is less religious than Egypt and is on par with Morocco.15 Although Saudi Arabia has not appeared in the survey since 2004, it is fair to assume that, with the proliferation of social media and rise in the youth population, the country has not become more religious over the past decade (Chart 9). In addition, Saudis identify with values of self-expression over values of survival (as much as moderate Muslim Malaysians, for example), which is a sign of a relatively wealthy, industrial society. Chart 9Saudi Arabia: More Modern Than You Think The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Weekend At The Ritz: The "Second Estate" Is Put On Notice The ongoing effort to curb the power of the Saudi "second estate" is not just about court intrigue and political maneuvering. Without harnessing the economic resources of the wider Saudi aristocracy, the state would succumb to debilitating capital outflows. If the Saudi "second estate" decided to "vote" against King Salman and his son with their "deposits" - and flee the country - the all-important currency peg would collapse. Despite a pickup in oil prices, Saudi Arabia's currency reserves are falling rapidly and could soon dip below the total amount of local-currency broad money (Chart 10). Beneath that point, confidence among locals and foreigners in the currency peg could shatter, leading to massive capital flight, which was clearly a very serious problem as of end-2016 (Chart 11). Chart 10KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting Chart 11KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist The peg of the Saudi riyal to the U.S. dollar is not just an economic tool. It is a crucial social stability anchor for an economy that imports nearly all of its basic necessities. De-pegging would lead to a massive increase in import costs and thus a potential political and social crisis. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) has at its disposal considerable resources for the next two years. However, this is only the case if capital outflows do not pick up and oil prices continue to stabilize. The Russia-OPEC deal is in place to ensure the latter. The "weekend at the Ritz" is meant to ensure the former. But doesn't the crackdown against the wealth of 2,000 royal family members represent appropriation of private property? Not in the minds of King Salman and his reformist son. In fact, if the financial wealth of the royal family is used to fill the coffers of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, there is no reason why members of the Saudi "second estate" cannot benefit from its future investment returns and essentially "clip coupons" for a living. In fact, prior to the anti-corruption crackdown against the "second estate," Saudi officials hosted a completely different event at the Ritz Carlton: a gathering of top international investors for a conference called "Davos in the Desert." Judging by the conversations we had with a number of participants at that event, the point was not to encourage investments in Saudi Arabia. Rather, it was to secure the services of top international managers as Saudi Arabia ramps up the investment activities of its Public Investment Fund (PIF). Investors should therefore consider the first weekend at the Ritz as the launch of a new international investment vehicle by Saudi officials and the second weekend at the Ritz as its capitalization by the wider "second estate." We expect that fighting corruption will remain a major domestic policy thrust going forward. A recent academic study, for example, takes on the difficult job of eradicating wasta - the concept that each favor or privilege in Saudi society flows through middlemen or connections.16 The volume has been edited by Mohamed A. Ramady, professor of Finance and Economics at King Fahd University in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and is undoubtedly supported by the royal family. Moreover, King Salman and his son have the example of Chinese President Xi Jinping's impressive power consolidation via anti-corruption campaign right in front of them and are unlikely to have embarked on this course with the expectation that it would be a short process. Iran As An Existential Threat: Harnessing The "Third Estate" Real reform is always and everywhere difficult, otherwise the desired end-state would already be the form. For the Saudi leadership, attacking both the first and second estate presents considerable risks. It is appropriate, therefore, to believe that a palace coup may be attempted against King Salman and his son.17 International tensions with Iran are a particularly useful strategy to distract the opposition and paint all domestic dissent as treasonous. This is not to say that Saudi Arabia does not face considerable strategic challenges from Iran. As mentioned, Iranian influence in Iraq is particularly threatening to Saudi Arabia as it gives Tehran influence over a key strategic buffer that also produces 4.4 million barrels of crude per day. Furthermore, Iran supported the 2011 uprising in Shia-majority Bahrain against the Saudi-allied al-Khalifa monarchy; it at least nominally supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen; it has directly intervened in Syria on behalf of President al-Assad; and it continues to support Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is safe to say that, since 2011, Iran has been ascendant in the Middle East and has surrounded Saudi Arabia with strategic threats on all points of the compass. But to what extent is the Saudi rhetoric on Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, and Qatar a real threat to the stability in the Middle East? We turn to this question in our next section. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia's domestic intrigue is far more logical than pundits and the media make it out to be. King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are trying to build a modern nation state from what is today the world's last feudal monarchy. To do so, they have to enlist the support of the third estate - the country's large youth population - and curb the powers of its first and second estates - the religious establishment and the landed aristocracy. The process will be filled with risks and volatility, but is ultimately necessary for the long-term stability of the kingdom. Regional Risk Of War Is Overstated "[I am] positive there will be no implications coming out of this dramatic situation at all."18 -- Secretary of Defense James Mattis, asked about the Qatar crisis and the fight against ISIS, June 5, 2017 As this report goes to publication Saudi Arabia has accused Iranian-allied Hezbollah of forcing Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to run for his life. Hariri resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia. Although he claims that he is not being held against his will by Saudi authorities, his resignation is highly suspect. Saudi officials have also called a failed missile attack on Riyadh's airport, allegedly launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen, as a possible "act of war" by Iran. Meanwhile, Bahrain's Saudi-allied government has accused Iran of destroying an oil pipeline via terrorist action. The region's rumor mill - one of the most productive in the world - is in overdrive. What are the chances of increased proxy warfare between Saudi Arabia and Iran? We think that there is a good chance that Saudi Arabia will step up its military activity in the ancillary parts of the Middle East. In particular, we could see renewed Saudi military campaigns in Yemen and Bahrain. In isolation, these campaigns would add a temporary risk premium to oil prices. But given that Iran has no intention to become directly involved in either, we would expect Saudi moves to be largely for show. Over the long term, we do not see a direct confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia for three reasons. First, Saudi military capabilities are paltry and the kingdom has failed to secure the support of the wider Sunni world for its "Sunni NATO." We have already mentioned Saudi military failures in Yemen. Anyone who thinks that Saudi Arabia is ready to directly confront Iran must answer two questions. First, how does the Saudi military confront a formidable foe like Iran when it cannot dislodge Houthis from Yemen? Second, if Saudi Arabia is itching for a real conflict with Iran, why is it not saber-rattling in Iraq, a far more strategic piece of real estate for Saudi Arabia than any of the other countries where it accuses Iran of meddling? Chart 12Correlation Between Oil Prices And Military Disputes The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Second, oil prices remain a constraint to war. The reality is that there is a well-known relationship between high oil prices and aggressive foreign policy in oil-producing states (Chart 12). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. Chart 13 shows that oil states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes when oil prices are higher.19 While oil prices have recovered from their doldrums from two years ago, they are also a far cry from their pre-2014 highs. In fact, by our calculation, oil prices are still below the Saudi budget break-even price of oil, despite its best efforts to implement austerity (Chart 14). Chart 13More Oil Revenue = More Aggression The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Chart 14Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Third, Saudi Arabia has failed to secure a clear security commitment from the U.S. While the Trump administration is far more open to supporting Saudi Arabia than the Obama administration, it still criticized the Saudi decision to ostracize Qatar. Secretary of Defense James Mattis made a visit to Qatar in September to offer American support. In a shocking reversal to over half-a-century of geopolitics, King Salman went to Moscow this October to deepen geopolitical relations with Russia.20 The visit included several business deals in the realm of energy and a significant promise by Saudi Arabia to purchase Russian arms in the future, including the powerful S-400 SAM system. Saudi Arabia is the world's third-largest arms importer and uses purchases as a tool of diplomacy, but has never purchased weapons from Russia in a significant way in the past. While many pundits have pointed to the Saudi-Russian détente as a sign of strength, we see it as a sign of weakness. It illustrates that Saudi Arabia is diversifying its security portfolio away from the U.S. It is doing so because it has to, not because it wants to. As U.S. petroleum imports continue to decline due to domestic shale production, Saudi Arabia is compelled to find new allies (Chart 15). The plan to hold an initial public offering for Aramco, and to target sovereign Chinese entities as major bidders for Aramco assets, fits this pattern as well. Chart 15Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security ##br##Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline However, diversifying the geopolitical security portfolio to include Russia and China will not mean that Saudi Arabia will have a blank check to wage direct war against Iran. Both Russia and China have considerable diplomatic and economic interests in Iran and are as likely to restrain as to enable Saudi ambition. Finally, talk of a Saudi-Israeli alliance against Hezbollah in Lebanon is as far-fetched as a direct Saudi-Iranian confrontation. Israel won the 2006 war against Hezbollah, but at a high cost of 157 soldiers killed and 860 wounded.21 The Israeli public grew tired of the one month campaign, showing political limits to offensive war. Furthermore, twelve years later, Hezbollah is even more deeply entrenched in Lebanon. Unless Saudi Arabia is willing to provide ground troops for the effort (see Yemen discussion above), it is unclear why Israel would want to enter the morass of Lebanese ground combat on behalf of Riyadh. Bottom Line: Constraints to Saudi offensive military action remain considerable: paltry military capability, fiscal constraints imposed by low oil prices, and a lack of clear support from the U.S. While rhetorical attacks on Iran serve the strategic goal of nation-building, we do not expect a major war between oil-producing states that would significantly raise oil prices over the medium term. The rhetoric and posturing will increase volatility and temporarily push up prices from time to time. Investment Implications Of Saudi Nation-Building First, on the question of OPEC 2.0, our baseline case is for the 1.8 million barrel-per-day production cuts to be extended through June 2018, drawing OECD inventories down toward their five-year average and creating the conditions for Brent and WTI prices to average $65 per barrel and $63 per barrel respectively next year.22 Moreover, both Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin have endorsed extensions through end-2018. These comments add bullish upside risk to prices, though they also alter perceptions and thus raise the short-term downside risk if no extension is agreed this month (which we think is the least likely scenario). Second, as to broader geopolitical risks in the Middle East, we believe they are rising yet again in the short and medium term, after the relative calm of 2017.23 We could see Saudi officials decide to ramp up military operations in Yemen or revive them in neighboring Bahrain. However, we do not see much of a chance of serious conflict in Lebanon or Qatar. The former would require an Israeli military intervention, which is unlikely given the outcome of the 2006 war. The latter would require American acquiescence, which is unlikely given the vital U.S. strategic presence in the country's Al Udeid military base. Nonetheless, even temporary military operations in any of these locales could add a geopolitical risk premium to oil markets. For example, the 2006 Lebanon-Israel War, which had no impact on oil production, generated a significant jump in oil prices (Chart 16). Chart 16Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Over the long term, how should investors make sense of the complicated Middle East geopolitical theater? Our rule of thumb is always to seek out the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. For a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications, we would need to see it have an impact on at least two of the following three factors: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni versus Shia. When we consider the security dilemma between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia are two regions critical to global oil supply. Tellingly, neither has played a role in the recent spate of tensions between the two countries. Saudi Arabia has been very careful not to increase tensions with Iran in Iraq. In fact, the Saudi leadership has reached out to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who was received by King Salman in October in the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. How should investors price domestic political intrigue in Saudi Arabia? In the long term, any failure of King Salman and his son to reform the country would be negative for internal stability, with risks to oil production if social unrest were to increase. In the short and medium term, however, even a palace coup would likely have no lasting impact on oil prices as it would be highly unlikely that an alternative leadership would imperil the kingdom's oil exports. On the contrary, a coup against King Salman could lead to lower oil prices if the new leadership in Riyadh decided to renege on their oil production cuts with Russia. The bottom line is that the geopolitical risk premium is likely to rise. The evolution of Saudi Arabia away from a feudal monarchy requires the suppression of the kingdom's first and second estates, a dangerous business that will likely be smoothed by nationalism and saber-rattling. Risks to oil prices, therefore, are to the upside. However, given the considerable constraints on Saudi Arabia's military and foreign policy capabilities, we do not foresee global growth-constraining oil supply risks in the Middle East. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The latest news from Riyadh is that the nearby Courtyard by Marriott Hotel may have been enlisted by the Saudi authorities for the crackdown, in addition to the Ritz Carlton. If true, we can only imagine the horrors that the prisoners are subject to! 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Iran 'taking over' Iraq, Saudis warn, blaming U.S. refusal to send troops against ISIS," The National Post, dated March 5, 2015, available at nationalpost.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Iran's influence in Iraq grew almost immediately following the American military withdrawal. Iraq's Shia Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, wasted no time revealing his allegiance to Iran or his sectarian preferences. Baghdad issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi literally the day after the last American troops withdrew from the country, signaling to the Sunni establishment that compromise was not a priority. Persecution of the wider Sunni population soon followed, with counter-insurgency operations in Sunni populated Al Anbar and Nineveh governorates. 6 Please see Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, "Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone," New York Times, dated December 17, 2013, available at nytimes.com. 7 Please see Bruce Riedel, "Saudi Arabia's Mounting Security Challenges," Al Monitor, dated December 2015, available at al-monitor.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Martin Chulov, "I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam, says crown prince," The Guardian, dated October 24, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 10 Something tells us that most violations of Islamic law are likely to be committed after hours! 11 The Sudairi branch of the Saud dynasty refers to the issue of Saudi Arabia's founder Abdulaziz Ibn Saud with Hassa bint Ahmed Al Sudairi, one of Ibn Saud's wives and a member of the powerful Al Sudairis clan. The union produced seven sons, the largest faction out of the 45 sons that Ibn Saud fathered. As the largest grouping, the sons - often referred to as the "Sudairi Seven" - were able to consolidate power and unite against the other brothers. In addition to the current King Salman, the other member of the Sudairi faction who became a king was Fahd, ruling from 1982 to 2005. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The app is used to transmit photos and videos between users that disappear from the device after being viewed in 10 seconds. It is highly unlikely to be used for religious education. It is highly likely to be used by teenagers for ... well, use your imagination. 14 Please see "Social Media In Saudi Arabia - Statistics And Trends," TFE Times, dated January 12, 2017, available at tfetimes.com; "Saudi social media users ranked 7th in the world," Arab News, November 14, 2015, available at arabnews.com. 15 The World Values Survey is used in academic political science research to track changes in global social and political values. Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have summarized the key findings in Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005). For more information, please see http://worldvaluessurvey.org. 16 Please see Mohamed A. Ramady, ed., The Political Economy Of Wasta: Use and Abuse of Social Capital Networking (New York: Springer, 2016). 17 It would not be the first such coup in Saudi history. King Saud was deposed in 1962 by his brother, King Faisal. 18 Please see Nahal Toosi and Madeline Conway, "Tillerson: Dispute Between Gulf States And Qatar Won't Affect Counterterrorism," dated June 5, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 19 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behaviour," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at www.iie.com. 20 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "Mideast War, By The Numbers," Associated Press, August 17, 2006, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 22 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," dated October 19, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights This week, Commodity & Energy Strategy is publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy. Driven by the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, OPEC 2.0 formalized the well-telegraphed decision to extend its production cuts for another nine months, carrying the cuts through the seasonally weak demand period of Q1 2018. The extension is will be successful in bringing OECD inventories down to normalized levels, even assuming some compliance fatigue (cheating) setting in later this year. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI at tonight's close, given our expectation OPEC 2.0's extension of production cuts, and lower exports by KSA to the U.S., will cause the U.S. crude-oil benchmark to backwardate. Base Metals: Neutral. Despite "catastrophic flooding" in March, 1Q17 copper output in Peru grew almost 10% yoy to close to 564k MT, according to Metal Bulletin. This occurred despite strikes at Freeport-McMoRan's Cerro Verde mine, where production was down 20.5% yoy in March. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our strategic gold portfolio hedge is up 2.61% since it was initiated on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's Crop Progress report indicates plantings are close to five-year averages, despite harsh weather in some regions. We remain bearish. Feature Chart 1Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d##BR##For Over 400 Days Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d For Over 400 Days Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d For Over 400 Days OPEC 2.0's drive to normalize inventories by early 2018 will be accomplished with last week's agreement to extend current production cuts through March 2018. In total, OPEC has agreed to remove over 1 MMb/d of producible OPEC oil from the market for over 400 days (Chart 1), supplemented by an additional 200,000-300,000 b/d of voluntary restrictions of non-OPEC oil through Q3 2017 at least, perhaps longer if Russia can resist the temptation to cheat after oil prices start to respond. Many of the participants in the cut, from both OPEC and non-OPEC, are not actually reducing output voluntarily, but have had quotas set for them that merely reflect the natural decline of their productive capacity, limitations that will be even more pronounced in H2 2017 than in H1 2017. With production restricted by the OPEC 2.0 cuts, global demand growth will outpace supply expansion by another wide margin in 2017, just as it did last year (Chart 2). As shown in Chart 3, steady demand expansion and the slowdown in supply growth allowed oil markets to move from oversupplied in 2015 to balanced during 2016; demand growth will increasingly outpace production growth in 2017, creating sharp inventory draws (Chart 4) that bring stocks down to normalized levels by the end of 2017 (Chart 5). Chart 2 Chart 3Production Cuts And Demand##BR##Growth Will Draw Inventories Production Cuts And Demand Growth Will Draw Inventories Production Cuts And Demand Growth Will Draw Inventories Chart 4Higher Global Inventory##BR##Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Higher Global Inventory Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Higher Global Inventory Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Chart 5OECD Inventories To Be##BR##Reduced To Normal OECD Inventories To Be Reduced To Normal OECD Inventories To Be Reduced To Normal The extension of the cut through Q1 2018 will help prevent a premature refilling of inventories during the seasonally weak first quarter next year. The return of OPEC 2.0's production to full capacity in Q2 2018 will drive total production growth above total demand growth for 2018, returning oil markets from deliberately undersupplied during 2017 to roughly balanced markets in 2018, with stable inventory levels that are below the rolling five-year average. 2018 inventory levels will still be 5-10% above the average from 2010-2014, in line with the ~7% demand growth between 2014 and 2018. Compliance Assessment: Only A Few Players Matter In OPEC 2.0 OPEC's compliance with the cuts announced in November 2016 has been quite good, with KSA anchoring the cuts by surpassing its 468,000 b/d cut commitment. In addition to KSA, OPEC is getting strong voluntary compliance from the other Middle Eastern producers (except Iraq), while producers outside the Middle East lack the ability to meaningfully exceed their quotas in any case. OPEC's Core Four Remain Solid. The core of the OPEC 2.0 agreement has delivered strong compliance with their announced cuts. Within OPEC, the core Middle East countries Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE have delivered over 100% compliance of their 800,000 b/d agreed-to cuts. We expect these countries to continue to show strong solidarity with the voluntary cuts through March 2018 (Chart 6). Iraq And Iran Make Small/No Sacrifices. Iraq and Iran were not officially excluded from cuts, but they were not asked to make significant sacrifices either. We estimate Iran has little-to-no capability to materially raise production in 2017 anyhow, and KSA is leaning on Iraq to better comply with its small cuts. Chart 7 shows our projections for Iran and Iraq production levels through 2018. Chart 6KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying##BR##The Load Of OPEC Cuts KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying The Load Of OPEC Cuts KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying The Load Of OPEC Cuts Chart 7Iran And Iraq Production##BR##Near Full Capacity Iran And Iraq Production Near Full Capacity Iran And Iraq Production Near Full Capacity Iraq surged its production above 4.6 MMb/d for two months between OPEC's September 2016 indication that a cut would be coming and the late-November formalization of the cut. Iraq's quota of 4.35 MMb/d is nominally a 210,000 b/d cut from its surged November reference level, but is essentially equal to the country's production for the first nine months of 2016, implying not much of a real cut. Despite the low level of required sacrifice, Iraq has produced about 100,000 b/d above its quota so far in 2017 at a level we estimate is near/at its capacity anyway. KSA and others in OPEC are not pleased with Iraq's overproduction and have pressured it to comply with the agreement. We forecast Iraq will continue producing at 4.45 MMb/d. Iran's quota represented an allowed increase in production, reflecting the country's continued recovery from years of economic sanctions. We project Iran will continue to slowly expand production, but since the country is almost back up to pre-sanction levels, there is little remaining easily-achievable recovery potential. South American & African OPEC Capacity Eroding On Its Own. Chart 8 clearly shows how production levels in Venezuela, Angola and Algeria started to deteriorate well before OPEC formalized its production cuts, with productive capacity eroded by lack of reinvestment rather than voluntary restrictions. The quotas for these three countries (as well as for small producers Ecuador and Gabon) are counted as ~258,000 b/d of "cuts" in OPEC's agreement, but they merely represent the declines in production that should be expected anyway. With capacity deteriorating and no ability to ramp up anyway, these OPEC nations will deliver improving "compliance" (i.e. under-producing their quotas) in H2 2017, and are happy to have the higher oil prices created by the extension of production cuts by the core producers within OPEC 2.0. Libya and Nigeria Exclusions Unlikely To Result In Big Production Gains. Both Libyan and Nigerian production levels have been constrained by above-ground interference. Libyan production has been held below 1.0 MMb/d since 2013 principally by chronic factional fighting for control of export terminals, while Nigerian production--on a steady natural decline since 2010--has been further limited by militants sabotaging pipelines in 2016-2017. While each country has ebbs and flows to the amount of oil they are able to produce, we view both countries' problems as persistent risks that will continue to keep production below full potential (Chart 9). Chart 8 Chart 9Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher##BR##Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances For Nigeria, we estimate the country's crude productive capacity has eroded to about 1.8 MMb/d from 2.0 MMb/d five years ago due to aging fields and a substantial reduction in drilling (offshore drilling is down ~70% since 2013). Within another year or two, this capacity will dwindle to 1.7 MMb/d or below. On top of this natural decline, we have projected continued sabotage / militant obstruction will limit actual crude output to an average of 1.55 MMb/d for the foreseeable future. Libyan production averaged just 420,000 b/d for 2014-2016, a far cry from the 1.65 MMb/d produced prior to the 2011 Libyan Revolution that ousted strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Since Gaddafi was deposed and executed, factional strife and conflict has persisted. Each faction wants control over oil export revenues and, just as importantly, wants to deny the opposition those revenues, resulting in a chronic state of conflict that has limited production and exports. If a détente were reached, we expect Libyan oil production could quickly rise to about 1.0 MMb/d of production within six months; however, we put the odds of a sustainable détente at less than 30%. As such, we forecast Libyan crude production will continue to struggle, averaging about 600,000 b/d in 2017-2018. Non-OPEC Cuts Hang On Russia In November, ten non-OPEC countries nominally agreed to restrict production by a total of 558,000 b/d, but Russia--with 300,000 b/d of pledged cuts--is the big fish that KSA and OPEC are relying on. Mexico's (and several others') agreements are window dressing, reframing natural production declines as voluntary action to rebalance markets. Through H1 2017, Russia has delivered on about 60-70% of its cut agreement, with compliance growing in Q2 (near 100%) versus Q1 (under 50%). From the start, Russia indicated it would require some time to work through the physical technicalities of lowering production to its committed levels, implying that now that production has been lowered, Russia could deliver greater compliance over H2 2017 than it delivered in H1 2017. We are a little more skeptical, expecting some weakening in Russia's compliance by Q4, especially if the extended cuts deliver the expected results of bringing down OECD inventories and lifting prices. Russia surprised us with stronger-than-expected production during 2016. Some of the outperformance was clearly due to a lower currency and improved shale-like drilling results in Western Siberia, but it is unclear whether producers also pulled too hard on their fields to compensate for lower prices, and are using the OPEC 2.0 cut as a way to rest their fields a bit. We have estimated Russian production returning to 11.3 MMb/d by Q4 2017 (50,000 b/d higher than 2016 average production) and holding there through 2018 (Chart 10), but actual volumes could deviate from this level by as much as 100,000-200,000 b/d. Mexico, the second largest non-OPEC "cutter," is in a position similar to Angola, Algeria, and Venezuela. Mexican production has been falling for years (Chart 11), and the nation's pledge to produce 100,000 b/d less in H1 2017 than in Q4 2016 is merely a reflection of this involuntary decline. As it has happened, Mexican production has declined by only ~60,000 b/d below its official reference level, but continues to deteriorate, promising higher "compliance" with their production pledge in H2 2017. Chart 10Russia Expected##BR##To Cheat By Q4 Russia Expected To Cheat By Q4 Russia Expected To Cheat By Q4 Chart 11Mexican Production Deterioration##BR##Unaffected By Cut Pledges Mexican Production Deterioration Unaffected By Cut Pledges Mexican Production Deterioration Unaffected By Cut Pledges Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are not complying with any cuts, and we don't expect them to. Despite modest pledges of 55,000 b/d cuts combined, the two countries have produced ~80,000 b/d more during H1 2017 than they did in November 2016. We don't expect any voluntary contributions from these nations in the cut extension, but Azerbaijan's production is expected to wane naturally (Chart 12). While contributing only a small cut of 45,000 b/d, Oman has diligently adhered to its promised cuts, supporting its OPEC and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) neighbors. We expect Oman's excellent compliance will be faithfully continued through the nine-month extension (Chart 13). Chart 12Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected##BR##To Comply With Any Cut Extension Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected To Comply With Any Cut Extension Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected To Comply With Any Cut Extension Chart 13Oman Has Faithfully Complied##BR##With Cut Promises To Date Oman Has Faithfully Complied With Cut Promises To Date Oman Has Faithfully Complied With Cut Promises To Date OPEC Extension Will Continue To Support Increased Shale Drilling Energy Sector Strategy believed OPEC's original cut announced in November 2016 was a strategic mistake for the cartel, as it would accelerate the production recovery from U.S. shales in return for "only" six months of modestly-higher OPEC revenue. As we cautioned at the time, the promise of an OPEC-supported price floor was foolish for them to make; instead, OPEC should have let the risk of low prices continue to restrain shale and non-Persian Gulf investment, allowing oil markets to rebalance more naturally. However, despite our unfavorable opinion of the strategic value of the original cut, since the cut has not delivered the type of OECD inventory reductions expected (seemingly due to a larger-than-expected transfer of non-OECD inventories into OECD storage), we view the extension of the cut as a necessary, and logical, next step. OPEC 2.0's November 2016 cut agreement signaled to the world that OPEC (and Russia) would abandon KSA's professed commitment to a market share war, and would instead work together to support a ~$50/bbl floor under the price of oil. Such a price floor dramatically reduced the investment risk for shale drilling, and emboldened producers (and supporting capital markets) to pour money into vastly increased drilling programs. Now that the shale investment genie has already been let out of the bottle, extending the cuts is unlikely to have nearly the same stimulative impact on shale spending as the original paradigm-changing cut created. The shale drilling and production response has been even greater than we estimated six months ago, and surely greater than OPEC's expectations. The current horizontal (& directional) oil rig count of 657 rigs is nearly twice the 2016 average of 356 rigs, is 60% higher than the level of November 2016 (immediately before the cut announcement), and is still rising at a rate of 25-30 rigs per month (Chart 14). The momentum of these expenditures will carry U.S. production higher through YE 2017 even if oil prices were allowed to crash today. Immediately following OPEC's cut, we estimated 2017 U.S. onshore production could increase by 100,000 - 200,000 b/d over levels estimated prior to the cut, back-end weighted to H2 2017, with a greater 300,000-400,000 b/d uplift to 2018 production levels. Drilling activity has roared back so much faster than we had expected, indicative of the flooding of the industry with external capital, that we have raised our 2017 production estimate by 500,000 b/d over our December estimate, and raised our 2018 production growth estimate to 1.0 MMb/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Rig Count Recovery Dominated##BR##By Horizontal Drilling Rig Count Recovery Dominated By Horizontal Drilling Rig Count Recovery Dominated By Horizontal Drilling Chart 15Onshore U.S. Production##BR##Estimates Rising Sharply Onshore U.S. Production Estimates Rising Sharply Onshore U.S. Production Estimates Rising Sharply Other Guys' Decline Requires Greater Growth From OPEC, Shales, And Russia We've written before about "the Other Guys' in the oil market, defined as all producers outside of the expanding triumvirate of 1) U.S. shales, 2) Russia, and 3) Middle East OPEC. While the growers receive the vast majority of investors' focus, the Other Guys comprise nearly half of global production and have struggled to keep production flat over the past several years (Chart 16). Chart 17 shows the largest offshore basins in the world, which should suffer accelerated declines in 2019-2020 (and likely beyond) as the cumulative effects of spending constraints during 2015-2018 (and likely beyond) result in an insufficient level of projects coming online. This outlook requires increasing growth from OPEC, Russia and/or the shales to offset the shrinkage of the Other Guys and simultaneously meet continued demand growth. Chart 16The Other Guys' Production##BR##Struggling To Keep Flat The Other Guys' Production Struggling To Keep Flat The Other Guys' Production Struggling To Keep Flat Chart 17 Risks To Rebalancing Our expectation global oil inventories will draw, and that prices will, as a result, migrate toward $60/bbl by year-end is premised on the continued observance of production discipline by OPEC 2.0. GCC OPEC - KSA, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE - Russia and Oman are expected to observe their pledged output reduction, but we are modeling some compliance "fatigue" all the same. Even so, this will not prevent visible OECD oil inventories from falling to their five-year average levels by year-end or early next year. Obviously, none of this can be taken for granted. We have consistently highlighted the upside and downside risks to our longer term central tendency of $55/bbl for Brent crude, with an expected trading range of $45 to $65/bbl out to 2020. Below, we reprise these concerns and our thoughts concerning OPEC 2.0's future. Major Upside Risks Chief among the upside risks remains a sudden loss of supply from a critical producer and exporter like Venezuela or Nigeria, which, respectively, we expect will account for 1.9 and 1.5 MMb/d of production over the 2017-18 period. Losing either of these exporters would sharply rally prices above $65/bbl as markets adjusted and brought new supply on line. Other states - notably Algeria and Iraq - highlight the risk of sustained production losses due to a combination of internal strife and lack of FDI due to civil unrest. Algeria already appears to have entered into a declining production phase, while Iraq - despite its enormous potential - remains dogged by persistent internal conflict. We are modeling a sustained, slow decline in Algeria's output this year and next, which takes its output from 1.1 MMb/d in 2015 down to slightly more than 1 MMb/d on average this year and next. For Iraq, where we expect a flattening of production at ~ 4.4 MMb/d this year and a slight uptick to ~ 4.45 MMb/d in 2018, continued violence arising from dispersed terrorism in that country in the wake of a defeat of ISIS as an organized force, will remain an ongoing threat to production. Longer term - i.e., beyond 2018 - we remain concerned the massive $1-trillion-plus cutbacks in capex for projects that would have come online between 2015 and 2020 brought on by the oil-price collapse in 2015-16 will force prices higher to encourage the development of new supplies. The practical implication of this is some 7 MMb/d of oil-equivalent production the market will need, as this decade winds down, will have to be supplied by U.S. shales, Gulf OPEC and Russia, as noted above. Big, long-lead-time deep-water projects requiring years to develop cannot be brought on fast enough to make up for supply that, for whatever reason, fails to materialize from these sources. In addition, as shales account for more of global oil supplies and "The Other Guys" continue to lose production to higher depletion rates, more and more shale - in the U.S. and, perhaps, Russia - and conventional Persian Gulf production will have to be brought on line simply to make up for accelerating declines. This evolution of the supply side is significantly different from what oil and capital markets have been accustomed to in previous cycles. Because of this, these markets do not have much historical experience on which to base their expectations vis-à-vis global supply adjustment and the capacity these sources of supply have for meeting increasing demand and depletion rates. Lower-Cost Production, Demand Worries On The Downside Downside risks, in our estimation, are dominated by higher production risks. Here, we believe the U.S. shales and Russia are the principal risk factors, as the oil industry in both states is, to varying degrees, privately held. Because firms in these states answer to shareholders, it must be assumed they will operate for the benefit of these interests. So, if their marginal costs are less than the market-clearing price of oil, we can expect them to increase production up to the point at which marginal cost is equal to marginal revenue. The very real possibility firms in these countries move the market-clearing price to their marginal cost level cannot be overlooked. For the U.S., this level is below $53/bbl or so for shale producers. For Russian producers, this level likely is lower, given their production costs are largely incurred in rubles, and revenues on sales into the global market are realized in USD; however, given the variability of the ruble, this cost likely is a moving target. While a sharp increase in unconventional production presently not foreseen either in the U.S. or Russian shales will remain a downside price risk, an increase in conventional output - chiefly in Libya - remains possible. As discussed above, we believe this is a low risk to prices at present; however, if an accommodation with insurgent forces in the country can be achieved, output in Libya could double from the 600k b/d of production we estimate for this year and next. We reiterate this is a low-risk probability (less than 25%), but, in the event, would prove to be significant additions to global balances over the short term requiring a response from OPEC 2.0 to keep Brent prices above $50/bbl. Also on the downside, an unexpected drop in demand remains at the top of many lists. This is a near-continual worry for markets, which can be occasioned by fears of weakening EM oil-demand growth from, e.g., a hard landing in China, or slower-than-expected growth in India. These are the two most important states in the world in terms of oil-demand growth, accounting for more than one-third of global growth this year and next. We do not expect either to meaningfully slow; however, we continue to monitor growth in both closely.1 In addition, we continue to expect robust global oil-demand growth, averaging 1.56 MMb/d y/y growth in 2017 and 2018. This compares with 1.6 MMb/d growth last year. OPEC 2.0's Next Move Knowing the OPEC 2.0 production cuts will be extended to March 2018 does not give markets any direction for what to expect after this extension expires. Once the deal expires, we expect production to continue to increase from the U.S. shales, and for the key OPEC states to resume pre-cut production levels. Along with continued growth from Russia, this will be necessary to meet growing demand and increasing depletion rates from U.S. shales and "The Other Guys." Yet to be determined is whether OPEC 2.0 needs to remain in place after global inventories return to long-term average levels, or whether its formation and joint efforts were a one-off that markets will not require in the future. Over the short term immediately following the expiration of the production-cutting deal next year, OPEC 2.0 may have to find a way to manage its production to accommodate U.S. shales without imperiling their own revenues. This would require a strategy that keeps the front of the WTI and Brent forward curves at or below $60/bbl - KSA's fiscal breakeven price and $20/bbl above Russia's budget price - and the back of the curve backwardated, in order to exert some control over the rate at which shale rigs return to the field.2 As we've mentioned in the past, we have no doubt the principal negotiators in OPEC 2.0 continue to discuss this. Toward the end of this decade, such concerns might be moot, if growing demand and accelerating decline curves require production from all sources be stepped up. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the May 18, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy article entitled "Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts," in which we discuss the outlook for China's and India's growth. Together, these states account for more than 570k b/d of the 1.56 MMb/d growth we expect this year and next. The article is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 A backwardated forward curve is characterized by prompt prices exceeding deferred prices. Our research indicates a backwardated forward curve results in fewer rigs returning to the field than a flat or positively sloped forward curve. We explored this strategy in depth in the April 6, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories

Highlights Despite Saudi-Iranian tensions, the OPEC 2.0 production-cut deal will survive; Petro-state balance sheets remain under pressure; OPEC 2.0 agreement will backwardate the forward curve, and slow the pace of shale recovery; Aramco IPO will motivate Saudi Arabia to over-deliver on the cuts; In expectation of backwardation, investors should go long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent, while also going long Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts. Feature Despite cooperating to reduce oil production and drain global oil inventories, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Iran still compete at every level for dominance of the Gulf region's economic and geopolitical order. We have maintained that KSA's aggressive push to privatize (or de-nationalize) its state oil company - ARAMCO - is an extension of this battle. Now that a state-led Chinese consortium has emerged as a potential cornerstone investor in the $100 billion Saudi Armco initial public offering (IPO) expected next year, we believe a key element of KSA's strategy in the Persian Gulf's "security dilemma" is falling into place.1 The Interests At Stake By aggressively courting Chinese investors for its potential record-breaking Aramco IPO next year, KSA doesn't just secure funding to pursue its goal of becoming the largest publicly traded vertically integrated oil company in the world. It tangibly expands the number of powerful interests in the world with a deep economic stake in its execution of Vision 2030, the grand plan to diversify away from its near-total dependence on oil revenues. China, too, benefits from this arrangement: By expanding its financial and economic commitments to KSA, it pursues its global investment and technology strategy, and gradually its standing as a "Great Power" with a vested interest in protecting those investments. These states jointly benefit from Aramco's expansion of its refining business into the Asian refined-product markets, which will remain the most heavily contested space in the oil market. It also does not hurt China, where crude oil production has been falling since June 2015 (Chart 1), to be financially invested in a petro-super-state like KSA, which has been supplying on average 14% of its imports over the same period (Chart 2). China's product demand will breach 12mm b/d this year, with gasoline demand growing some 300k b/d, according to the IEA. Overall product demand will grow close to 345k b/d, keeping China the premier growth market in the world for refined products. Investing in the refining system meeting this consumption - and Asia's other growing markets - therefore is attractive to Chinese companies on numerous fronts. Chart 1Chinese Oil Production Falling ... Chinese Oil Production Falling ... Chinese Oil Production Falling ... Chart 2... And Imports From KSA Steady ... And Imports From KSA Steady ... And Imports From KSA Steady Iran has yet to execute on its apparent strategy to attract FDI to its oil and gas sector, where the resource potential is of the same order of magnitude as KSA's. When combined with the development potential of Iraq, a neighboring petro-state, the potential of OPEC's "Shia Bloc" is enormous. Iran has the largest natural gas reserves in the world, and Iraq's oil endowment is second only to KSA's in terms of the vast low-cost, high-quality resource available for development. Yet Iran's success in lining up the investment and technical expertise required to develop its resource endowment as it approaches critical post-sanctions elections next month has been halting at best.2 Aside, that is, from deepening its relationship with Russia, which also is seeking desperately needed FDI in the wake of the oil-price collapse brought about by OPEC's market-share was during 2015 - 16. The KSA-Iran Security Dilemma In Context Before we get into the intricacies of energy geopolitics, a brief recap is in order.3 Chart 3Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Prior to the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions against Iran beginning in 2015, KSA and OPEC benefited from an undersupplied oil market that kept oil prices above $100/bbl which allowed these states to increase domestic and military spending massively while experiencing few problems in oil exports or development. This can be seen in the evolution of KSA's fiscal breakeven oil prices, which increased dramatically in the lead-up to the 2014 price collapse (Chart 3), as production grew more slowly than spending. As the Saudi Manifa field came online in early 2014, global production expanded from various quarters, and it became apparent that sanctions against Iran would be lifted, KSA led OPEC into a market-share war. Oil prices fell from $100/bbl before OPEC's November 2014 meeting to below $30/bbl by the beginning of 2016. This strategy turned out to be a complete failure.4 We correctly predicted the failed market-share strategy would force an alliance between OPEC and non-OPEC petro-states - led by KSA and Russia, respectively - to cut production in the face of considerable market skepticism in the lead-up to OPEC's November 2016 Vienna meeting and in consultations with the Russian-led non-OPEC petro-states shortly thereafter.5 We remain convinced that this coalition, which we've dubbed OPEC 2.0, will extend its production cuts to the end of this year.6 As a result, OECD commercial inventories will decline by 10% or so, despite rising in Q1.7 Petro-State Balance Sheets Still Under Pressure The oil-price evolution described above buffeted petro-state budgets, particularly KSA's and Russia's. The pressures generated by this evolution hold the key to understanding where oil prices will go next. Finances: While both Saudi Arabia and Russia have managed to weather the decline in oil prices, the pain has been palpable. BCA's Frontier Market Strategy has detailed Saudi fiscal woes in detail.8 Based on their estimates, Saudi authorities will have enough reserves to defend the country's all-important currency peg for the next 18-24 months (Table 1). Without the peg, prices of imports would skyrocket. Table 1Saudi Arabia: Projected Debt Levels And Foreign Reserves OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets Given that Saudi Arabia imports almost all of its consumer staples, such a price shock could lead to social unrest. Beyond the next two years, the government will have to rely on debt issuance to fund its deficits and focus its remaining foreign exchange resources on maintaining the peg. The problem is that this strategy will leave the country with just $350 billion in reserves by the end of 2018, lower than local currency broad money (Chart 4). At that point, confidence among locals and foreigners in the currency peg could shatter, leading to even greater capital flight than is already underway (Chart 5). Chart 4KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting \ Chart 5KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist While Russia has weathered the storm much better, largely by allowing the ruble to depreciate, its foreign exchange reserves are down to 330 billion, the lowest figure since 2007 (Chart 6). OPEC 2.0's shale-focused strategy: The market strategy behind the OPEC 2.0 agreement is complex. The roughly 1.8 mm b/d of coordinated production cuts is supposed to draw down global storage by ~ 300 mm bbls by the end of 2017. This should lead to forward curves backwardating - a process that is clearly under way (Chart 7). According to BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, a backwardated forward curve is critical in slowing down the pace of tight oil production in the U.S. given the reliance of shale producers on hedging future production prices to lock in minimum revenue.9 Geopolitics: Countries with an unlimited resource like oil tend to be authoritarian regimes (Chart 8). This phenomenon is referred to as the "resource curse," and is well documented in political science. Chart 6Russia: Forex ##br##Reserves Depleting Russia: Forex Reserves Depleting Russia: Forex Reserves Depleting Chart 7Backwardation ##br##Under Way Backwardation Under Way Backwardation Under Way Chart 8Unlimited Resources ##br##Undermine Democracy OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets What does it have to do with geopolitics? Basically, it suggests that the main national security risk to energy-producing regimes is not each other but their own populations. In countries where the political leadership generates its wealth from the sale of natural resources, the citizenry becomes a de facto "cost center" requiring social benefits and security expenditures to ensure the unemployed remain peaceful. By contrast, manufacturing nations benefit from an industrious citizenry that is a "profit center" for government coffers. In this paradigm, the main national security risk for energy-producing regimes is not external, but rather derives from their own under-utilized or restless populations. Thus, when the "unlimited resource" is re-priced for lower demand or greater global supply, the real risk becomes domestic unrest. At that moment, expensive geopolitical imperatives take a back seat to domestic stability. This explains the current détente between, on one side, Russia and the OPEC "Shia Bloc" (Iran and Iraq), and on the other, Saudi Arabia and its OPEC allies. Even with this détente, Saudi Arabia, its allies, and the "Shia Bloc" are finding it difficult to maintain fiscal spending that funds their still-massive social programs with prices trading in the low- to mid-$50/bbl range (Chart 9). Saudi's fiscal breakeven oil price is estimated to be $77.70/bbl this year by the IMF. Iran and Iraq require $60.70/bbl and $54/bbl, respectively, putting them in slightly better shape than their Gulf rival, but still in need of higher prices to sustain the spending required to quell social unrest.10 Given Russia's relatively superior domestic economic situation and political stability (Chart 10), we suspect that Moscow cares a little less about oil market rebalancing than Saudi Arabia. President Vladimir Putin will face reelection in less than a year, but he is unlikely to face a serious challenger. Chart 9Oil Prices Too Low For National Budgets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets Chart 10Support For Putin Holding Up Support For Putin Holding Up Support For Putin Holding Up Even so, Russia still feels the pain of lower energy prices. Oil and gas revenues constituted 36% of state revenues last year, down from 50% in 2014, when prices were trading above $100/bbl. This pushed Russia's budget deficit out to more than 3% of GDP in 2016. According to The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, "even with planned spending cuts (the deficit) will still be more than 1% of GDP by 2019 ... Russia's Reserve Fund could be exhausted by the end of 2017, on the government's original forecast of an oil price of $40/barrel in 2017."11 Oil-Market Rebalancing Critical For KSA's Aramco IPO For Saudi Arabia, however, rebalancing is critical, which explains why it has over-delivered on the promised production cuts, while Russia and the "Shia Bloc" have dragged their feet (Chart 11 and Chart 12). Not only is the currency peg non-negotiable, but Riyadh's clear interest is oil-price stability in the lead-up to its Aramco IPO. It is not enough to attract a mega investor from China; the entire oil-investment community has to be convinced they are not pouring money into an enterprise that could lose value close on the heels of the IPO. Chart 11Saudis Cut Production More Than Russians ... Saudis Cut Production More Than Russkies ... Saudis Cut Production More Than Russkies ... Chart 12... Or The 'Shia Bloc' ... Or The 'Shia Bloc' ... Or The 'Shia Bloc' To attract foreign capital at reasonable prices for Aramco's massive privatization, KSA must prove it can exert some control over the oil price "floor." As such, the Kingdom's motivation to stick to the OPEC 2.0 agreement is serious. In a joint report done by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy last January, we argued that three factors are critical to this IPO:12 Moving downstream: Saudi Arabia intends to become a major global refiner with up to 10 million b/d of refining capacity (an addition of about 5 mm b/d of capacity). If realized, this volume of refining capacity would rival that of ExxonMobil's 6 mm+ b/d, the largest in the world. Because OPEC does not set quotas for refined-product exports, Saudi Arabia's shift downstream would allow it to capture higher revenues from international sales of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other refined products. This could eventually mean that Saudi Arabia would fly above ongoing crude oil market-share wars. Instead, it could rely on its access to short-haul domestic supplies and state-of-the-art technology - Aramco's principal endowments - to command massive crack spreads, or the difference between the price of input, crude oil, and output, refined product. FDI wars: With estimates of its value hovering ~ $100 billion, the Aramco IPO expected next year will be the largest ever executed. It is likely to divert FDI that Iraq and Iran desperately need to revitalize their production, transportation, and refining infrastructure. This is a crucial long-term goal for Saudi Arabia. At the moment, its oil production dwarfs that of its "Shia Bloc" OPEC rivals. However, Iran and Iraq are projected to close the gap and potentially export even more oil than the Kingdom in future (Chart 13). Bringing China into the region: The U.S. deleveraging from the Middle East continues. President Donald Trump may have ordered cruise missile strikes against Syria, but he is not interested in getting bogged down in another land war in the region. Chart 14 speaks for itself. As such, Saudi Arabia is largely on its own when facing off against Iran, its regional rival. Appeals to Chinese state energy companies are therefore designed to give Beijing a stake in Saudi energy infrastructure. This would force China to start caring more about what happens to Saudi Arabia, as with Iraq, where it is heavily invested, and Iran, where it has long flirted with investing more. Chart 13Shia Bloc Gaining On KSA Shia Bloc Gaining On KSA Shia Bloc Gaining On KSA Chart 14U.S. Has Deleveraged From Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From Middle East When we first penned our report, we were speculating on the China link. Since then, Beijing has created a consortium consisting of state-owned energy giants Sinopec and PetroChina and banks, led by the country's sovereign wealth fund, to compete in the expected $100 billion equity sale.13 Given the financial, economic, and geopolitical importance of the Aramco IPO, we continue to expect that Saudi Arabia will push to extend the OPEC 2.0 production cut when the group meets in Vienna on May 25. Judging by the commitments to the cuts thus far, the deal appears to be an agreement for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies to continue to cut and for Russia and the "Shia Bloc" (Iran and Iraq) not to increase production.14 (Both of the latter states still have a lot of "skin in the game," so to speak.) As such, an extension of the deal is in the interests of KSA, Russia, and their respective allies. And, importantly, it will continue to provide a floor to oil prices. Meanwhile, downside and upside risks to supply continue. In terms of supply increase, the usual suspects -Libya and Nigeria - are working to increase production. In terms of supply decrease, we continue to worry about the dissolution of Venezuela as a functioning state and the potential that supply disruptions may occur. Bottom Line: Geopolitical drivers still support the continuation of OPEC 2.0's efforts to restrain production and draw down global oil stockpiles. As such, our positioning recommendations for an expected backwardation - i.e., long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent - and our fade of the option-market skew favoring put - the long Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts - remain intact. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 A "security dilemma" refers to a situation in which a state's pursuit of "security" through military strength and alliances leads its neighbors to respond in kind, triggering a spiral of distrust and tensions. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," dated January 14, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com. NB: The $100-billion figure often attached to the estimated size of the IPO, which will seek to float 5% of Aramco, is a placeholder for the moment. There is considerable disagreement over the level at which the market will value Aramco, which some estimates significantly below the value assumed by the $100-billion estimate. We will be examining this in future research. 2 The New York Times provided an excellent summary of post-sanctions development recently in "Even Bold Foreign Investors Tiptoe in Iran," March 31, 2017. 3 For a summary of BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy recommendation performance, please contact your relationship manager. 4 Please see "The Game's Afoot, But Which One," for the consequences of OPEC's market-share war. It was published April 6, 2017, in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Raising The Odds Of A KSA-Russia Oil-Production Cut," dated November 3, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC-Russia Oil Deal On Track To Deliver," dated February 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Frontier Market Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain," dated February 1, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 9 Contango markets - where prices for prompt delivery are less than prices for deferred delivery - favor shale producers when the front of the WTI forward curve is ~ $50/bbl, and - all else equal - incentivizes them to hedge forward so as to lock in future revenues and maximize the number of rigs they deploy. In backwardated markets, however, the number of rigs a shale operator is able to deploy is lower, all else equal, which means the revenue they can lock in by hedging forward is lower. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "North American Oil Pipeline Buildout Complicates Price And Storage Expectations," dated February 16, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see the IMF, Regional Economic Outlook: Middle East and Central Asia, October 2016, Table 5. 11 Please see "Russia Oil Production Outlook to 2020," Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, February 2017. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," dated January 14, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "Exclusive: China gathers state-led consortium for Aramco IPO - sources," Reuters, dated April 19, 2017, available at reuters.com. 14 In "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20, 2017, we noted, "Without pulling storage down to more normal levels, inventories remain too close to topping out, which puts markets at higher risk of the sort of price collapse seen in 2015-16. At the beginning of 2016, global oil markets were close to pricing in the approach of a full-storage event. In such an event, as global inventories approach capacity, prices trade below the cash-operating costs of the most expensive producers, until enough supply is forcibly knocked off line to drain excess stocks. This is an extremely high-risk scenario for states like KSA, Russia and their allies, which are heavily dependent on oil-export revenues to fund government budgets and much of the private sector. After the last such event at the beginning of 2016, these states were left reeling, as fiscal spending was slashed, projects were canceled and governments burned through foreign reserves in an effort to make up for lost revenue." This report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Despite cooperating to reduce oil production and drain global oil inventories, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Iran still compete at every level for dominance of the Gulf region's economic and geopolitical order. We have maintained that KSA's aggressive push to privatize (or de-nationalize) its state oil company - ARAMCO - is an extension of this battle. Now that a state-led Chinese consortium has emerged as a potential cornerstone investor in the $100 billion Saudi Armco initial public offering (IPO) expected next year, we believe a key element of KSA's strategy in the Persian Gulf's "security dilemma" is falling into place.1 Energy: Overweight. We are long the Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short the Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl puts at a net premium of -$0.47/bbl. This new recommendation was down 46.8%, which we initiated last week following our assessment of OPEC 2.0's strategy to reduce global oil inventories. We remain long the Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent, which is up 94.7%. Our long GSCI position is down 4.5%; we have a 10% stop on this position. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper registered a 51k metric ton physical surplus in January, according to estimates from the International Copper Study Group. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold retreated going into French elections over the weekend, indicating investors were not as fearful as some pundits. Our long volatility position is down 43.8%. Ags/Softs: Underweight: Reuters reported the Brazilian government will provide up to 500 million reals (~$159mm) to market this year's corn crop. An expected record harvest and weak export volumes prompted the action.2 Feature By aggressively courting Chinese investors for its potential record-breaking Aramco IPO next year, KSA doesn't just secure funding to pursue its goal of becoming the largest publicly traded vertically integrated oil company in the world. It tangibly expands the number of powerful interests in the world with a deep economic stake in its execution of Vision 2030, the grand plan to diversify away from its near-total dependence on oil revenues. China, too, benefits from this arrangement: By expanding its financial and economic commitments to KSA, it pursues its global investment and technology strategy, and gradually its standing as a "Great Power" with a vested interest in protecting those investments. These states jointly benefit from Aramco's expansion of its refining business into the Asian refined-product markets, which will remain the most heavily contested space in the oil market. It also does not hurt China, where crude oil production has been falling since June 2015 (Chart 1), to be financially invested in a petro-super-state like KSA, which has been supplying on average 14% of its imports over the same period (Chart 2). China's product demand will breach 12mm b/d this year, with gasoline demand growing some 300k b/d, according to the IEA. Overall product demand will grow close to 345k b/d, keeping China the premier growth market in the world for refined products. Investing in the refining system meeting this consumption - and Asia's other growing markets - therefore is attractive to Chinese companies on numerous fronts. Chart 1Chinese Oil Production Falling ... Chinese Oil Production Falling ... Chinese Oil Production Falling ... Chart 2... And Imports From KSA Steady ... And Imports From KSA Steady ... And Imports From KSA Steady Iran has yet to execute on its apparent strategy to attract FDI to its oil and gas sector, where the resource potential is of the same order of magnitude as KSA's. When combined with the development potential of Iraq, a neighboring petro-state, the potential of OPEC's "Shia Bloc" is enormous. Iran has the largest natural gas reserves in the world, and Iraq's oil endowment is second only to KSA's in terms of the vast low-cost, high-quality resource available for development. Yet Iran's success in lining up the investment and technical expertise required to develop its resource endowment as it approaches critical post-sanctions elections next month has been halting at best.3 Aside, that is, from deepening its relationship with Russia, which also is seeking desperately needed FDI in the wake of the oil-price collapse brought about by OPEC's market-share was during 2015 - 16. The KSA-Iran Security Dilemma In Context Chart 3Saudi Profligacy Has Continued In 2017 Saudi Profligacy Has Continued In 2017 Saudi Profligacy Has Continued In 2017 Before we get into the intricacies of energy geopolitics, a brief recap is in order.4 Prior to the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions against Iran beginning in 2015, KSA and OPEC benefited from an undersupplied oil market that kept oil prices above $100/bbl which allowed these states to increase domestic and military spending massively while experiencing few problems in oil exports or development. This can be seen in the evolution of KSA's fiscal breakeven oil prices, which increased dramatically in the lead-up to the 2014 price collapse (Chart 3), as production grew more slowly than spending. As the Saudi Manifa field came online in early 2014, global production expanded from various quarters, and it became apparent that sanctions against Iran would be lifted, KSA led OPEC into a market-share war. Oil prices fell from $100/bbl before OPEC's November 2014 meeting to below $30/bbl by the beginning of 2016. This strategy turned out to be a complete failure.5 We correctly predicted the failed market-share strategy would force an alliance between OPEC and non-OPEC petro-states - led by KSA and Russia, respectively - to cut production in the face of considerable market skepticism in the lead-up to OPEC's November 2016 Vienna meeting and in consultations with the Russian-led non-OPEC petro-states shortly thereafter.6 We remain convinced that this coalition, which we've dubbed OPEC 2.0, will extend its production cuts to the end of this year.7 As a result, OECD commercial inventories will decline by 10% or so, despite rising in Q1.8 Petro-State Balance Sheets Still Under Pressure The oil-price evolution described above buffeted petro-state budgets, particularly KSA's and Russia's. The pressures generated by this evolution hold the key to understanding where oil prices will go next. Finances: While both Saudi Arabia and Russia have managed to weather the decline in oil prices, the pain has been palpable. BCA's Frontier Market Strategy has detailed Saudi fiscal woes in detail.9 Based on their estimates, Saudi authorities will have enough reserves to defend the country's all-important currency peg for the next 18-24 months (Table 1). Without the peg, prices of imports would skyrocket. Table 1Saudi Arabia: Projected Debt Levels And Foreign Reserves OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets Given that Saudi Arabia imports almost all of its consumer staples, such a price shock could lead to social unrest. Beyond the next two years, the government will have to rely on debt issuance to fund its deficits and focus its remaining foreign exchange resources on maintaining the peg. The problem is that this strategy will leave the country with just $350 billion in reserves by the end of 2018, lower than local currency broad money (Chart 4). At that point, confidence among locals and foreigners in the currency peg could shatter, leading to even greater capital flight than is already underway (Chart 5). Chart 4KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting Chart 5KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist While Russia has weathered the storm much better, largely by allowing the ruble to depreciate, its foreign exchange reserves are down to 330 billion, the lowest figure since 2007 (Chart 6). OPEC 2.0's shale-focused strategy: The market strategy behind the OPEC 2.0 agreement is complex. The roughly 1.8 mm b/d of coordinated production cuts is supposed to draw down global storage by ~ 300 mm bbls by the end of 2017. This should lead to forward curves backwardating - a process that is clearly under way (Chart 7). According to BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, a backwardated forward curve is critical in slowing down the pace of tight oil production in the U.S. given the reliance of shale producers on hedging future production prices to lock in minimum revenue.10 Geopolitics: Countries with an unlimited resource like oil tend to be authoritarian regimes (Chart 8). This phenomenon is referred to as the "resource curse," and is well documented in political science. Chart 6Russia: Forex Reserves Depleting Russia: Forex Reserves Depleting Russia: Forex Reserves Depleting Chart 7Backwardation Under Way Backwardation Under Way Backwardation Under Way What does it have to do with geopolitics? Basically, it suggests that the main national security risk to energy-producing regimes is not each other but their own populations. In countries where the political leadership generates its wealth from the sale of natural resources, the citizenry becomes a de facto "cost center" requiring social benefits and security expenditures to ensure the unemployed remain peaceful. By contrast, manufacturing nations benefit from an industrious citizenry that is a "profit center" for government coffers. In this paradigm, energy-producing states face a primary security risk that is not external, but rather derives from their own under-utilized or restless populations. Thus, when the "unlimited resource" is re-priced for lower demand or greater global supply, the real risk becomes domestic unrest. At that moment, expensive geopolitical imperatives take a back seat to domestic stability. This explains the current détente between, on one side, Russia and the OPEC "Shia Bloc" (Iran and Iraq), and on the other, Saudi Arabia and its OPEC allies. Even with this détente, Saudi Arabia, its allies, and the "Shia Bloc" are finding it difficult to maintain fiscal spending that funds their still-massive social programs with prices trading in the low- to mid-$50/bbl range (Chart 9). Saudi's fiscal breakeven oil price is estimated to be $77.70/bbl this year by the IMF. Iran and Iraq require $60.70/bbl and $54/bbl, respectively, putting them in slightly better shape than their Gulf rival, but still in need of higher prices to sustain the spending required to quell social unrest.11 Chart 8Unlimited Resources Undermine Democracy OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets Chart 9Oil Prices Too Low For National Budgets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets Chart 10Support For Putin Holding Up Support For Putin Holding Up Support For Putin Holding Up Given Russia's relatively superior domestic economic situation and political stability (Chart 10), we suspect that Moscow cares a little less about oil market rebalancing than Saudi Arabia. President Vladimir Putin will face reelection in less than a year, but he is unlikely to face a serious challenger. Even so, Russia still feels the pain of lower energy prices. Oil and gas revenues constituted 36% of state revenues last year, down from 50% in 2014, when prices were trading above $100/bbl. This pushed Russia's budget deficit out to more than 3% of GDP in 2016. According to The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, "even with planned spending cuts (the deficit) will still be more than 1% of GDP by 2019 ... Russia's Reserve Fund could be exhausted by the end of 2017, on the government's original forecast of an oil price of $40/barrel in 2017."12 Oil-Market Rebalancing Critical For KSA's Aramco IPO For Saudi Arabia, however, rebalancing is critical, which explains why it has over-delivered on the promised production cuts, while Russia and the "Shia Bloc" have dragged their feet (Chart 11 and Chart 12). Not only is the currency peg non-negotiable, but Riyadh's clear interest is oil-price stability in the lead-up to its Aramco IPO. It is not enough to attract a mega investor from China; the entire oil-investment community has to be convinced they are not pouring money into an enterprise that could lose value close on the heels of the IPO. Chart 11Saudis Cut Production More Than Russians ... Saudis Cut Production More Than Russians ... Saudis Cut Production More Than Russians ... Chart 12... Or The "Shia Bloc" ... Or The "Shia Bloc" ... Or The "Shia Bloc" To attract foreign capital at reasonable prices for Aramco's massive privatization, KSA must prove it can exert some control over the oil price "floor." As such, the Kingdom's motivation to stick to the OPEC 2.0 agreement is serious. In a joint report done by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy last January, we argued that three factors are critical to this IPO:13 Moving downstream: Saudi Arabia intends to become a major global refiner with up to 10 million b/d of refining capacity (an addition of about 5 mm b/d of capacity). If realized, this volume of refining capacity would rival that of ExxonMobil's 6 mm+ b/d, the largest in the world. Because OPEC does not set quotas for refined-product exports, Saudi Arabia's shift downstream would allow it to capture higher revenues from international sales of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other refined products. This could eventually mean that Saudi Arabia would fly above ongoing crude oil market-share wars. Instead, it could rely on its access to short-haul domestic supplies and state-of-the-art technology - Aramco's principal endowments - to command massive crack spreads, or the difference between the price of input, crude oil, and output, refined product. FDI wars: With estimates of its value hovering ~ $100 billion, the Aramco IPO expected next year will be the largest ever executed. It is likely to divert FDI that Iraq and Iran desperately need to revitalize their production, transportation, and refining infrastructure. This is a crucial long-term goal for Saudi Arabia. At the moment, its oil production dwarfs that of its "Shia Bloc" OPEC rivals. However, Iran and Iraq are projected to close the gap and potentially export even more oil than the Kingdom in future (Chart 13). Bringing China into the region: The U.S. deleveraging from the Middle East continues. President Donald Trump may have ordered cruise missile strikes against Syria, but he is not interested in getting bogged down in another land war in the region. Chart 14 speaks for itself. As such, Saudi Arabia is largely on its own when facing off against Iran, its regional rival. Appeals to Chinese state energy companies are therefore designed to give Beijing a stake in Saudi energy infrastructure. This would force China to start caring more about what happens to Saudi Arabia, as with Iraq, where it is heavily invested, and Iran, where it has long flirted with investing more. Chart 13"Shia Bloc" Gaining On KSA "Shia Bloc" Gaining On KSA "Shia Bloc" Gaining On KSA Chart 14U.S. Has Deleveraged From Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From Middle East U.S. Has Deleveraged From Middle East When we first penned our report, we were speculating on the China link. Since then, Beijing has created a consortium consisting of state-owned energy giants Sinopec and PetroChina and banks, led by the country's sovereign wealth fund, to compete in the expected $100 billion equity sale.14 Given the financial, economic, and geopolitical importance of the Aramco IPO, we continue to expect that Saudi Arabia will push to extend the OPEC 2.0 production cut when the group meets in Vienna on May 25. Judging by the commitments to the cuts thus far, the deal appears to be an agreement for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies to continue to cut and for Russia and the "Shia Bloc" (Iran and Iraq) not to increase production.15 (Both of the latter states still have a lot of "skin in the game," so to speak.) As such, an extension of the deal is in the interests of KSA, Russia, and their respective allies. And, importantly, it will continue to provide a floor to oil prices. Meanwhile, downside and upside risks to supply continue. In terms of supply increase, the usual suspects -Libya and Nigeria - are working to increase production. In terms of supply decrease, we continue to worry about the dissolution of Venezuela as a functioning state and the potential that supply disruptions may occur. Bottom Line: Geopolitical drivers still support the continuation of OPEC 2.0's efforts to restrain production and draw down global oil stockpiles. As such, our positioning recommendations for an expected backwardation - i.e., long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent - and our fade of the option-market skew favoring put - the long Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts - remain intact. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 A "security dilemma" refers to a situation in which a state's pursuit of "security" through military strength and alliances leads its neighbors to respond in kind, triggering a spiral of distrust and tensions. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," dated January 14, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com. NB: The $100-billion figure often attached to the estimated size of the IPO, which will seek to float 5% of Aramco, is a placeholder for the moment. There is considerable disagreement over the level at which the market will value Aramco, which some estimates significantly below the value assumed by the $100-billion estimate. We will be examining this in future research. 2 Please see "Brazil readies $159 million in corn subsidies amid record crop," Reuters, April 19, 2017, available at Reuters.com. 3 The New York Times provided an excellent summary of post-sanctions development recently in "Even Bold Foreign Investors Tiptoe in Iran," March 31, 2017. 4 For a summary of BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy recommendation performance, please contact your relationship manager. 5 Please see "The Game's Afoot, But Which One," for the consequences of OPEC's market-share war. It was published April 6, 2017, in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Raising The Odds Of A KSA-Russia Oil-Production Cut," dated November 3, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC-Russia Oil Deal On Track To Deliver," dated February 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Frontier Market Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain," dated February 1, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 10 Contango markets - where prices for prompt delivery are less than prices for deferred delivery - favor shale producers when the front of the WTI forward curve is ~ $50/bbl, and - all else equal - incentivizes them to hedge forward so as to lock in future revenues and maximize the number of rigs they deploy. In backwardated markets, however, the number of rigs a shale operator is able to deploy is lower, all else equal, which means the revenue they can lock in by hedging forward is lower. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "North American Oil Pipeline Buildout Complicates Price And Storage Expectations," dated February 16, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see the IMF, Regional Economic Outlook: Middle East and Central Asia, October 2016, Table 5. 12 Please see "Russia Oil Production Outlook to 2020," Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, February 2017. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," dated January 14, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Exclusive: China gathers state-led consortium for Aramco IPO - sources," Reuters, dated April 19, 2017, availableat reuters.com. 15 In "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20, 2017, we noted, "Without pulling storage down to more normal levels, inventories remain too close to topping out, which puts markets at higher risk of the sort of price collapse seen in 2015-16. At the beginning of 2016, global oil markets were close to pricing in the approach of a full-storage event. In such an event, as global inventories approach capacity, prices trade below the cash-operating costs of the most expensive producers, until enough supply is forcibly knocked off line to drain excess stocks. This is an extremely high-risk scenario for states like KSA, Russia and their allies, which are heavily dependent on oil-export revenues to fund government budgets and much of the private sector. After the last such event at the beginning of 2016, these states were left reeling, as fiscal spending was slashed, projects were canceled and governments burned through foreign reserves in an effort to make up for lost revenue." This report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets OPEC 2.0: Fear And Loathing In Oil Markets

Dear Client, I am visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and India this week, and as such there will be no regular Weekly Report. Instead, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Senior Vice President, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the Middle East has reached a stable equilibrium, as much as is possible, and will not drive the news or markets in 2017. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights The Middle East is not a major geopolitical risk in 2017. Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions will de-escalate, for now. The OPEC production cut will go through; oil prices will average $55/bbl in 2017. Geopolitical risk continues to rotate to the Asia Pacific region. Trump, Iranian elections, and Iraqi instability pose risks to the view. Feature The Middle East has dominated the news flow for the past five years, for good reason. The carnage in Syria and Iraq is tragic and reprehensible. However, the investment relevance of the various regional conflicts is dubious. For all the attention paid to the rise of the Islamic State, we would remind clients that the group's conquest of Iraq's second-largest city Mosul in June 2014 did not cause a spike in oil prices but rather marked the end of the bull market (Chart 1)! From an investment perspective, the only dynamic worth watching in the Middle East is the "Great Game" between regional actors, which have been looking to fill the vacuum left by America's dramatic geopolitical deleveraging (Chart 2). The U.S. strategy is permanent and driven by global interests, namely the rise of China and the need to shift resources towards East Asia. Given the incoming Trump administration's laser focus on China, we expect that the U.S. will remain aloof from the Middle East. Chart 1Ironically, Worry About The Fall Of ISIS Ironically, Worry About The Fall Of ISIS Ironically, Worry About The Fall Of ISIS Chart 2While The U.S. Military Deleverages... While The U.S. Military Deleverages... While The U.S. Military Deleverages... Does the recent détente between Russia and Turkey in Syria, and between Iran and Saudi Arabia over OPEC production cuts, signal that the Middle East has finally found geopolitical equilibrium? We tentatively think the answer is yes. This will reduce the importance of the region as the primary source of geopolitical risk premia, which BCA's geopolitical strategists have expected to shift to Asia for some time.1 Saudi-Iranian Tensions Are On Ice Chart 3...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Up ...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Up ...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Up Since the U.S. decision to deleverage from the region in 2011, Saudi Arabia has leveraged up, becoming one of the world's largest arms purchasers and involving itself overtly and covertly in several regional conflicts in the process (Chart 3). Saudi insecurity deepened following President Barack Obama's decision to leave no troops in Iraq. The last U.S. soldier of the main occupation force left Iraq on December 18, 2011. The very next day, on December 19, Iraq's Shia Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a close ally of Iran, issued an order for the arrest of the Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi. The move by al-Maliki set off what essentially became a civil war in the country, with the Sunni minority eventually turning to ever-more radicalized militant groups for protection. From the Saudi perspective, Iraq is a vital piece of real estate as it is a natural buffer between itself and its Shia rival Iran. While the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy, based in Bahrain, continues to guard against any Iranian incursion via the Persian Gulf, there is very little space between the Saudi oil fields and Iran if Iraq falls into Iran's orbit. The subsequent five years saw Iran and Saudi Arabia fight several proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. These included direct military action by Iran in Iraq and Syria against Saudi-backed militants and by Saudi Arabia in Yemen against Iranian-backed militants. It also included oil politics, with Saudi Arabia announcing in November 2014 that it was ending years of its price-setting strategy. These strategies ultimately proved to be unsustainable and BCA's Geopolitical Strategy called the peak in Saudi-Iranian tensions in February 2016.2 Why? First, because oil prices collapsed! Geopolitical adventurism is a luxury afforded to those with the means to pursue adventures. The combination of low oil prices, domestic social outlays, and an expensive war in Yemen forced Saudi Arabia to burn through $220 billion of its foreign reserves between July 2014 and December 2016, equivalent to 30% of its central-bank holdings!3 There is a relationship between high oil prices and aggressive foreign policy in oil-producing states (Chart 4). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. As Chart 5 illustrates, petrol states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized international disputes.4 This relationship is particularly pronounced when oil sells at above $70 per barrel. At that price, oil producing states become more prone to disputes than non-oil states, regardless of leadership qualities. Chart 4 Chart 5 Second, Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen proved to be a disaster. The kingdom intervened in March 2015 to reinstate the democratically elected President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who had been removed from power by Iranian-linked Houthi rebels. The real reason for the intervention was for the Saudis to gauge their war-making capabilities, test their recently purchased military equipment, and put a check on Iranian influence in the region. A quick, successful war in Yemen would have been a template for future interventions in Iraq and Syria on behalf of Sunni allies, and would have cemented Saudi Arabia's position as a regional power in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy warned, however, defeating the experienced Houthis would not be easy and Saudi Arabia would ultimately hesitate to commit to a land war.5 The intervention has resulted in disaster for Saudi Arabia on several levels: Houthis remain in control of the capital Sana'a and largely the same territory that encompassed the former Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen); The Saudis, desperate for a ground-force presence, have turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda's and ISIS's control of almost a third of the country in the south and coastal regions; Saudi forces have taken considerable losses, including some high-tech and high-priced items; The conflict has exposed severe military deficiencies, from the low level of strategic and tactical planning of senior staff, to the poor communication of units at the middle level, to the pervasive low morale and training of the rank-and-file. The biggest loss for Saudi Arabia has been that of leadership. What began as a pan-Sunni intervention led by Riyadh, with considerable involvement by the UAE and Egypt, has seen the Saudis lose almost all their allies. The UAE removed its troops in mid-2016 (in somewhat of a diplomatic spat with Riyadh) and Egypt has subsequently held military exercises with Russia, a Saudi rival in the region, and decided in December to provide military advisors to the Syrian Arab Army. All the talk about a "Sunni NATO" is over. Saudi Arabia's experience in Yemen, combined with the decline in its currency reserves, forced it to come to terms with reality, and eventually agree to an oil production cut with Russia and Iran. Thus it took Saudi Arabia exactly five years, from the U.S. withdrawal in Iraq in 2011, to realize the limits of its regional power. Bob Ryan, Senior Vice President of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, correctly forecast the OPEC cut and expects the deal to be successfully implemented in 2017.6 One reason Bob is confident is that both Saudi Arabia and Russia are looking to privatize their energy sector significantly by 2018. Russia has sold 19.5% of Rosneft and the Saudis want to conduct an IPO of 5% of their state-owned oil company Aramco. It makes no sense to do this IPO in an environment of low oil prices. Furthermore, sovereign debt issuance to cover budget deficits will become cheaper when oil prices are higher. Geopolitics are aligning with Bob's view as well. Saudi Arabia's attempt to counter Iranian influence in the region has failed both militarily and via oil politics. Riyadh is focusing inwards, on its "Vision 2030" reforms, which will entail considerable domestic upheaval as a result of its comprehensive effort to remove the ultra-conservative religious establishment from power.7 This is now coming to light, with Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently announcing harsh punitive measures for any cleric who incites or resorts to violence against the reform agenda. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia's bid for regional hegemony is over, at least for now. The country is focusing inwards, on long-term political and social reforms and economic diversification. Its efforts to bring Iran to heel with low oil prices and with direct military confrontation in Yemen have failed. The oil production-cut deal between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia should hold as a result of the de-escalation of Saudi-Iranian tensions and the socio-economic priorities of all three states. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service is overweight energy relative to other commodities as a result.8 Is The Russia-Turkey Détente Sustainable? Turkey and Russia have concluded a political and military détente in Syria with surprising speed. This has made one of our major geopolitical risks for 2017 - a Turkish-Russian confrontation over Syria - already obsolete. Much as with Saudi Arabia, Turkey has had a bite of regional hegemony, did not like the bitter taste, and has decided to make a deal with its rivals instead. For Turkey, the real concern over the past five years has been American inaction in Syria. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has spent a lot of political capital opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He had hoped that a successful revolution would create a new client state for Turkey, yielding Turkey overland access to Persian Gulf energy sources. Erdogan was therefore beyond dismayed when President Barack Obama failed to intervene in Syria in 2013 following Assad's use of chemical weapons. The chronology of what happened next is important: Russia intervened two years later, in September 2015, to stem the progress of anti-Assad rebels and save the regime from collapse. Two months later, a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 was shot down by Turkish F-16s in the Turkey-Syria border area. Turkey and Russia broke relations for a while, but tensions did not escalate. Ankara faced a coup attempt in mid-July 2016, which the ruling party linked to the U.S.-based Islamist preacher Fethullah Gülen. The Obama administration refused to extradite Gülen without concrete evidence of his involvement. By late July, Turkish officials were calling Russia a "friendly neighbor" and a "strategic partner." In early August, Erdogan met Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, after issuing a letter with an apology to the family of the shot-down pilot. Then, on August 24, Turkey invaded Syria. The military intervention, dubbed "Operation Euphrates Shield," was officially launched to fight the Islamic State, a common pretext these past three years. Erdogan officially stated that he also aimed to fight Assad's regime, but this appeared to put Ankara and Moscow back on collision course, and statements from the Turkish side have since been "corrected." The real reason for the intervention was not to fight ISIS or Assad, but rather to curb the gains made by the various Kurdish militias on the ground in Iraq and Syria. In particular, Ankara intervened to prevent the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - the armed wing of the Syrian Democratic Union Party, which is affiliated with the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers' Party - from linking up with its now vast territory held in the north of Syria (Map 1). Chart The territory, which our map shows has expanded considerably as the YPG has claimed mostly Islamic State-held areas, is split between Rojava, the main territory east of the Euphrates river, and the Afrin enclave near the Mediterranean Sea. For Turkey, the proximity of such a vast Kurdish-held territory so close to its own Kurdish southeastern region presents a national-security nightmare. The operation's strategic goal was to capture Al-Bab, the stronghold of the Islamic State in northern Syria and a strategic point between the two YPG-held swaths of territory. However, it has taught the Turks that they have no experience fighting a prolonged battle, especially against local insurgents and militants who know the region. Since the first attack on Al-Bab's western part, the Turkish army has suffered three defeats and retreated to initial positions. With Turkey stuck in Al-Bab, the Russian air force has now begun to bomb Islamic State positions to help their tentative new ally. This level of operational coordination is notable and important. It suggests that Turkey, a NATO member state, is now reliant on Russian air strikes for ground support rather than on American sorties flying out of NATO's air base in Incirlik, Turkey. Turkey even claims that U.S. presence in Incirlik is obsolete if it receives no help from the U.S. Air Force around Al-Bab. How sustainable is the Turkey-Russia détente? We suspect it will be quite sustainable, at least in the short term. Ankara has moved away from demands for Assad to step down, with the Deputy Prime Minister, Numan Kurtulmus, recently stating that Turkey would not "impose any decision" on the Syrian people regarding future leadership. The assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey also failed to derail Russo-Turkish cooperation. Beyond the short term, however, the question remains what Turkey intends to do about Kurdish gains, which are considerable in both Syria and Iraq. The town of Manbij, for instance, is strategically located west of the Euphrates and was supposed to be ceded to Turkey by the Kurds. The situation could grow even more complicated for Turkey as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq may proclaim independence after the Islamic State stronghold of Mosul is liberated in early 2017.9 The YPG in Syria could then ask to join their fellow Kurds in Iraq in forming a unitary state. Although unlikely, this scenario is probably on Turkey's mind, as it would mean that the Kurds inside Turkey may intensify their anti-government insurgency. Note, however, that this scenario does not bother Russia. As far as Moscow is concerned, it has succeeded in keeping Assad in power, its Syrian naval base in Tartus is secure, and it has proven its ability to project power outside of its immediate sphere of influence (Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, and the Caucasus), thus advertising its "Great Power" status. Bottom Line: For the time being, the Russian-Turkish détente will hold. The real risk is not a Turkish-Russian confrontation, but rather a wider Turkish engagement in both Syria and Iraq against the Kurds sometime in the future. We suspect that the Turkish military experience in Syria may make the Turks think twice about engaging in a large-scale war against the Kurds across three states. But given the erratic policymaking out of Ankara in recent years, it is difficult to say this with any confidence. The geopolitical risk of Turkish imperial overreach will continue to weigh on Turkish assets in 2017. Risks To The Sanguine View There are many reasons why investors should stay up at night in 2017, but the Middle East is not one of them. The process of U.S. deleveraging from the region has been painful and costly (from a human perspective especially), but it has ultimately forced regional powers to figure out how to carve out the leftover space between them. There are a few questions left to answer, starting with the Kurdish question. But, for the most part, we do not expect to see the major players - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, or Israel - come to blows with each other. There are three major risks to this sanguine view. The U.S. Is Back! The current semi-stable equilibrium will definitely be thrown off track if the Trump administration decides to sink its teeth fully into the Middle East. We expect President-elect Donald Trump to authorize greater military action against the Islamic State, including more intense air strikes. However, this is not a qualitative reversal of Obama's deleveraging policy. A real reversal would be if Trump decided to follow the advice of Iran hawks in his government - of whom there are several - and increase tensions with Tehran. This is unlikely, given Trump's focus on China and his willingness to improve ties with Russia, a nominal ally of Iran. In fact, there has been almost no talk of Iran from either President-elect Trump or any of his advisors since the election. Furthermore, while U.S. oil imports from OPEC are no longer declining, they are still massively down since their peak in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). It is unlikely that Trump will commit resources to a region of diminishing importance to U.S. interests. Change Of Guard In Tehran. While the risk of Washington saber-rattling with Iran is overstated, what happens if the moderate President Hassan Rouhani is defeated in the upcoming May election? Hardliners are arguing that the nuclear deal with the West has done nothing for the economy, the main pillar of Rouhani's 2013 platform. This is not true. Headline inflation ticked up in late 2016, but remains well off the 40% levels in 2013, while GDP growth has been in the black throughout Rouhani's term, and net exports have bottomed (Chart 7). However, the flow of FDI into the country has been tepid, probably due to ongoing uncertainty with the government transition in the U.S. Both European and Asian businesses are waiting to see if the incoming Trump administration wants to revive sanctions. Meanwhile, skirmishes between U.S. and Iranian vessels - purportedly controlled by the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - have increased in the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the hardliners in Tehran are hoping that they can bait the hardliners in D.C. into a pre-election confrontation that sinks Rouhani. Iraqi Instability. Although the Iraqi government is set to take over Mosul from the Islamic State some time in Q1 2017, the fact remains that the country is bitterly divided between Sunnis and Shia amidst sluggish oil revenues. While the production cut deal will raise revenues marginally, revenues will still be well below their highs (Chart 8). Defeating the Islamic State militarily is one thing, but the real challenge is for Baghdad to reintegrate the Sunni population, which largely lives in territory devoid of oil production. A renewal of civil strife and terrorism targeting Iraqi civilians, which could happen as the Islamic State militants blend back into the wider population, may be a risk in 2017. Chart 6U.S. Imports From OPEC Remain Low U.S. Imports From OPEC Remain Low U.S. Imports From OPEC Remain Low Chart 7Iranian Economy Improves Under Reformist Rule Iranian Economy Improves Under Reformist Rule Iranian Economy Improves Under Reformist Rule Chart 8Iraqi Oil Revenues Still Down From Highs Iraqi Oil Revenues Still Down From Highs Iraqi Oil Revenues Still Down From Highs A word on Israel may also be in order. Israel has not played a major geopolitical role in the region for the past five years and we suspect it will not in the next five. It is secure from its neighbours, who cannot match it in terms of military capability, and remains preoccupied with domestic politics and internal security. Meanwhile, the days when the region unified against Israel are over. Sectarian and ethnic conflicts have gutted Israel's traditional enemies. And former foes, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are now close allies. The one geopolitical threat that remains is Iran. However, that threat remains dormant as long as Israel maintains nuclear supremacy over Iran and as long as the U.S. remains a security guarantor for Israel. We do not see either changing any time soon. Investment Implications The main investment implication of our thesis that the Middle East has found a new equilibrium is that the region will not dominate the news flow in 2017. Short of a major Turkish blunder in Syria and Iraq, we see the current status quo largely frozen in place. Saudi Arabia appears to have conceded, for now at least, its inferior place in the geopolitical pecking order. Investors have plenty of things to worry about in 2017, such as general de-globalization, a potential Sino-American trade war, geopolitical tensions in East Asia, and elections in four of the five largest euro-area economies. Our geopolitical team's long-standing thesis that geopolitical risk is rotating out of the Middle East and into East Asia is therefore fully playing out.10 Chart 9KSA-Russia Production ##br##Pact Aims at Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aims at Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aims at Lowering Inventories In the near term, the geopolitical equilibrium should allow Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia to maintain their six-month agreement to cut production by up to 1.8 million b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 million b/d from OPEC, 300,000 b/d from Russia, and another 300,000 b/d from other non-OPEC producers. The goal of this agreement is to reduce global oil inventories to more normal levels, which our commodity strategists believe will happen by the end of 2017 (Chart 9). Bob Ryan, of the Commodity & Energy Strategy, forecasts U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl in 2017. The incoming Trump administration will focus its Middle East policy on cooperating with regional actors against the Islamic State. Investors should expect to see more American "muscle" dedicated to the fight, perhaps at the risk of causing civilian casualties (which the Obama White House was careful to avoid). The downside of this strategy is that as the Islamic State loses its territory and ceases to be a caliphate, it will revert to being a more conventional terrorist organization. Its foreign fighters may return home to Europe, Russia, and elsewhere, while home-grown militants will seek to sow further Sunni-Shia discord, especially in Iraq. Unfortunately, this trend will keep our thesis of "A Bull Market For Terror" intact, which lends support to U.S. defense stocks.11 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Middle East: Saudi-Iran Tensions Have Peaked," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 According to the estimates of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017," dated January 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behavior," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at iie.com. According to Hendrix, revolutionary leaders are "leaders who come to power by force and attempt to transform preexisting political and economic relationships, both domestically and abroad." The definition is broad and includes leaders who used force in order to gain prominence. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Does Yemen Matter?" dated March 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also Emerging Market Equity Sector Strategy, "MENA: Rise Early, Work Hard, Strike Oil," dated October 4, 2016, available at emes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017," dated January 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see P. Ronzheimer, C. Weinmann, and K. Mössbauer, "Kurden Brauchen Mehr Deutsche Abwehrraketen," Bild, dated October 28, 2016, available at http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/mossul/kurden-brauchen-dringend-milan-systeme-48495330.bild.html. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Multipolarity will peak in 2017 - geopolitical risks are spiking; Globalization is giving way to zero-sum mercantilism; U.S.-China relations are the chief risk to global stability; Turkey is the most likely state to get in a shooting war; Position for an inflation comeback; Go long defense, USD/EUR, and U.S. small caps vs. large caps. Feature Before the world grew mad, the Somme was a placid stream of Picardy, flowing gently through a broad and winding valley northwards to the English Channel. It watered a country of simple beauty. A. D. Gristwood, British soldier, later novelist. The twentieth century did not begin on January 1, 1900. Not as far as geopolitics is concerned. It began 100 years ago, on July 1, 1916. That day, 35,000 soldiers of the British Empire, Germany, and France died fighting over a couple of miles of territory in a single day. The 1916 Anglo-French offensive, also known as the Battle of the Somme, ultimately cost the three great European powers over a million and a half men in total casualties, of which 310,862 were killed in action over the four months of fighting. British historian A. J. P. Taylor put it aptly: idealism perished on the Somme. How did that happen? Nineteenth-century geopolitical, economic, and social institutions - carefully nurtured by a century of British hegemony - broke on the banks of the Somme in waves of human slaughter. What does this have to do with asset allocation? Calendars are human constructs devised to keep track of time. But an epoch is a period with a distinctive set of norms, institutions, and rules that order human activity. This "order of things" matters to investors because we take it for granted. It is a set of "Newtonian Laws" we assume will not change, allowing us to extrapolate the historical record into future returns.1 Since inception, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued that the standard assumptions about our epoch no longer apply.2 Social orders are not linear, they are complex systems. And we are at the end of an epoch, one that defined the twentieth century by globalization, the spread of democracy, and American hegemony. Because the system is not linear, its break will cause non-linear outcomes. Since joining BCA's Editorial Team in 2011, we have argued that twentieth-century institutions are undergoing regime shifts. Our most critical themes have been: The rise of global multipolarity;3 The end of Sino-American symbiosis;4 The apex of globalization;5 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics;6 The passing of the emerging markets' "Goldilocks" era.7 Our view is that the world now stands at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The transition is not going to be pretty. Investors must stop talking themselves out of left-tail events by referring to twentieth-century institutions. Yes, the U.S. and China really could go to war in the next five years. No, their trade relationship will not prevent it. Was the slaughter at the Somme prevented by the U.K.-German economic relationship? In fact, our own strategy service may no longer make sense in the new epoch. "Geopolitics" is not some add-on to investor's asset-allocation process. It is as much a part of that process as are valuations, momentum, bottom-up analysis, and macroeconomics. To modify the infamous Milton Friedman quip, "We are all geopolitical strategists now." Five Decade Themes: We begin this Strategic Outlook by updating our old decade themes and introducing a few new ones. These will inform our strategic views over the next half-decade. Below, we also explain how they will impact investors in 2017. From Multipolarity To ... Making America Great Again Our central theme of global multipolarity will reach its dangerous apex in 2017. Multipolarity is the idea that the world has two or more "poles" of power - great nations - that pursue their interests independently. It heightens the risk of conflict. Since we identified this trend in 2012, the number of global conflicts has risen from 10 to 21, confirming our expectations (Chart 1). Political science theory is clear: a world without geopolitical leadership produces hegemonic instability. America's "hard power," declining in relative terms, created a vacuum that was filled by regional powers looking to pursue their own spheres of influence. Chart 1Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity The investment implications of a multipolar world? The higher frequency of geopolitical crises has provided a tailwind to safe-haven assets such as U.S. Treasurys.8 Ironically, the relative decline of U.S. power is positive for U.S. assets.9 Although its geopolitical power has been in relative decline since 1990, the U.S. bond market has become more, not less, appealing over the same timeframe (Chart 2) Counterintuitively, it was American hegemony - i.e. global unipolarity after the Soviet collapse - that made the rise of China and other emerging markets possible. This created the conditions for globalization to flourish and for investors to leave the shores of developed markets in search of yield. It is the stated objective of President-elect Donald Trump, and a trend initiated under President Barack Obama, to reduce the United States' hegemonic responsibilities. As the U.S. withdraws, it leaves regional instability and geopolitical disequilibria in its wake, enhancing the value-proposition of holding on to low-beta American assets. We are now coming to the critical moment in this process, with neo-isolationist Trump doubling down on President Obama's aloof foreign policy. In 2017, therefore, multipolarity will reach its apex, leading several regional powers - from China to Turkey - to overextend themselves as they challenge the status quo. Chaos will ensue. (See below for more!) The inward shift in American policy will sow the seeds for the eventual reversal of multipolarity. America has always profited from geopolitical chaos. It benefits from being surrounded by two massive oceans, Canada, and the Sonora-Chihuahuan deserts. Following both the First and Second World Wars, the U.S.'s relative geopolitical power skyrocketed (Chart 3). Chart 2America Is A Safe-Haven,##br## Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline America Is A Safe-Haven, Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline America Is A Safe-Haven, Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline Chart 3America Is Chaos-Proof bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c3 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c3 Over the next 12-24 months, we expect the chief investment implications of multipolarity - volatility, tailwind to safe-haven assets, emerging-market underperformance, and de-globalization - to continue to bear fruit. However, as the U.S. comes to terms with multipolarity and withdraws support for critical twentieth-century institutions, it will create conditions that will ultimately reverse its relative decline and lead to a more unipolar tendency (or possibly bipolar, with China). Therefore, Donald Trump's curious mix of isolationism, anti-trade rhetoric, and domestic populism may, in the end, Make America Great Again. But not for the reasons he has promised-- not because the U.S. will outperform the rest of the world in an absolute sense. Rather, America will become great again in a relative sense, as the rest of the world drifts towards a much scarier, darker place without American hegemony. Bottom Line: For long-term investors, the apex of multipolarity means that investing in China and broader EM is generally a mistake. Europe and Japan make sense in the interim due to overstated political risks, relatively easy monetary policy, and valuations, but even there risks will mount due to their high-beta qualities. The U.S. will own the twenty-first century. From Globalization To ... Mercantilism "The industrial glory of England is departing, and England does not know it. There are spasmodic outcries against foreign competition, but the impression they leave is fleeting and vague ... German manufacturers ... are undeniably superiour to those produced by British houses. It is very dangerous for men to ignore facts that they may the better vaunt their theories ... This is poor patriotism." Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (1896) The seventy years of British hegemony that followed the 1815 Treaty of Paris ending the Napoleonic Wars were marked by an unprecedented level of global stability. Britain's cajoled enemies and budding rivals swallowed their wounded pride and geopolitical appetites and took advantage of the peace to focus inwards, industrialize, and eventually catch up to the U.K.'s economy. Britain, by providing expensive global public goods - security of sea lanes, off-shore balancing,10 a reserve currency, and financial capital - resolved the global collective-action dilemma and ushered in an era of dramatic economic globalization. Sound familiar? It should. As Chart 4 shows, we are at the conclusion of a similar period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. There are other forces at work, such as pernicious wage deflation that has soured the West's middle class on free trade and immigration. But the main threat to globalization is at heart geopolitical. The breakdown of twentieth-century institutions, norms, and rules will encourage regional powers to set up their own spheres of influence and to see the global economy as a zero-sum game instead of a cooperative one.11 Chart 4Multipolarity And De-Globalization Go Hand-In-Hand bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c4 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c4 At the heart of this geopolitical process is the end of Sino-American symbiosis. We posited in February that Charts 5 and 6 are geopolitically unsustainable.12 China cannot keep capturing an ever-increasing global market share for exports while exporting deflation; particularly now that its exports are rising in complexity and encroaching on the markets of developed economies (Chart 7). China's economic policy might have been acceptable in an era of robust global growth and American geopolitical confidence, but we live in a world that is, for the time being, devoid of both. Chart 5China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed... bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c5 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c5 Chart 6And Now China ##br##Is Exporting Deflation bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c6 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c6 China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart 8). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Exports make up only 19% of China's GDP and 12% of U.S. GDP. The two leading economies are far less leveraged to globalization than the conventional wisdom would have it. Chart 7China's Steady Climb Up ##br##The Value Ladder Continues Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 8Sino-American ##br##Symbiosis Is Over bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c8 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c8 Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth, moving the economy up the value chain. Or they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers, as they have been doing - to defend their domestic market from competition.13 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West and protectionism is already on the march (Chart 9). Chart 9Protectionism On The March Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now The problem with this likely choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into the international economic order (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle-class, which makes China potentially the world's second-largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism - particularly with regard to Chinese imports. Mercantilism was a long-dominant economic theory, in Europe and elsewhere, that perceived global trade to be a zero-sum game and economic policy to be an extension of the geopolitical "Great Game" between major powers. As such, net export growth was the only way to prosperity and spheres of influence were jealously guarded via trade barriers and gunboat diplomacy. What should investors do if mercantilism is back? In a recent joint report with the BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, we argued that investors should pursue three broad strategies: Buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps) across equity markets as the former are almost universally domestically focused; Favor closed economies levered on domestic consumption, both within DM and EM universes; Stay long global defense stocks; mercantilism will lead to more geopolitical risk (Chart 10). Chart 10Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Investors should also expect a more inflationary environment over the next decade. De-globalization will mean marginally less trade, less migration, and less free movement of capital across borders. These are all inflationary. Bottom Line: Mercantilism is back. Sino-American tensions and peak multipolarity will impair coordination. It will harden the zero-sum game that erodes globalization and deepens geopolitical tensions between the world's two largest economies.14 One way to play this theme is to go long domestic sectors and domestically-oriented economies relative to export sectors and globally-exposed economies. The real risk of mercantilism is that it is bedfellows with nationalism and jingoism. We began this section with a quote from an 1896 pamphlet titled "Made in Germany." In it, British writer E.E. Williams argued that the U.K. should abandon free trade policies due to industrial competition from Germany. Twenty years later, 350,000 men died in the inferno of the Somme. From Legal To ... Charismatic Authority Legal authority, the bedrock of modern democracy, is a critical pillar of civilization that investors take for granted. The concept was defined in 1922 by German sociologist Max Weber. Weber's seminal essay, "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule," argues that legal-rational authority flows from the institutions and laws that define it, not the individuals holding the office.15 This form of authority is investor-friendly because it reduces uncertainty. Investors can predict the behavior of policymakers and business leaders by learning the laws that govern their behavior. Developed markets are almost universally made up of countries with such norms of "good governance." Investors can largely ignore day-to-day politics in these systems, other than the occasional policy shift or regulatory push that affects sector performance. Weber's original essay outlined three forms of authority, however. The other two were "traditional" and "charismatic."16 Today we are witnessing the revival of charismatic authority, which is derived from the extraordinary characteristics of an individual. From Russia and the U.S. to Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines, and soon perhaps Italy, politicians are winning elections on the back of their messianic qualities. The reason for the decline of legal-rational authority is threefold: Elites that manage governing institutions have been discredited by the 2008 Great Recession and subsequent low-growth recovery. Discontent with governing institutions is widespread in the developed world (Chart 11). Elite corruption is on the rise. Francis Fukuyama, perhaps America's greatest political theorist, argues that American political institutions have devolved into a "system of legalized gift exchange, in which politicians respond to organized interest groups that are collectively unrepresentative of the public as a whole."17 Political gridlock across developed and emerging markets has forced legal-rational policymakers to perform like charismatic ones. European policymakers have broken laws throughout the euro-area crisis, with the intention of keeping the currency union alive. President Obama has issued numerous executive orders due to congressional gridlock. While the numbers of executive orders have declined under Obama, their economic significance has increased (Chart 12). Each time these policymakers reached around established rules and institutions in the name of contingencies and crises, they opened the door wider for future charismatic leaders to eschew the institutions entirely. Chart 11As Institutional Trust Declines, ##br##Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders As Institutional Trust Declines, Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders As Institutional Trust Declines, Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders Chart 12Obama ##br##The Regulator Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Furthermore, a generational shift is underway. Millennials do not understand the value of legal-rational institutions and are beginning to doubt the benefits of democracy itself (Chart 13). The trend appears to be the most pronounced in the U.S. and U.K., perhaps because neither experienced the disastrous effects of populism and extremism of the 1930s. In fact, millennials in China appear to view democracy as more essential to the "good life" than their Anglo-Saxon peers. Chart 13Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Charismatic leaders can certainly outperform expectations. Donald Trump may end up being FDR. The problem for investors is that it is much more difficult to predict the behavior of a charismatic authority than a legal-rational one.18 For example, President-elect Trump has said that he will intervene in the U.S. economy throughout his four-year term, as he did with Carrier in Indiana. Whether these deals are good or bad, in a normative sense, is irrelevant. The point is that bottom-up investment analysis becomes useless when analysts must consider Trump's tweets, as well as company fundamentals, in their earnings projections! We suspect that the revival of charismatic leadership - and the danger that it might succeed in upcoming European elections - at least partly explains the record high levels of global policy uncertainty (Chart 14). Markets do not seem to have priced in the danger fully yet. Global bond spreads are particularely muted despite the high levels of uncertainty. This is unsustainable. Chart 14Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Bottom Line: The twenty-first century is witnessing the return of charismatic authority and erosion of legal-rational authority. This should be synonymous with uncertainty and market volatility over the next decade. In 2017, expect a rise in EuroStoxx volatility. From Laissez-Faire To ... Dirigisme The two economic pillars of the late twentieth century have been globalization and laissez-faire capitalism, or neo-liberalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the communist challenge, anointing the U.S.-led "Washington Consensus" as the global "law of the land." The tenets of this epoch are free trade, fiscal discipline, low tax burden, and withdrawal of the state from the free market. Not all countries approached the new "order of things" with equal zeal, but most of them at least rhetorically committed themselves to asymptotically approaching the American ideal. Chart 15Debt Replaced Wages##br## In Laissez-Faire Economies Debt Replaced Wages In Laissez-Faire Economies Debt Replaced Wages In Laissez-Faire Economies The 2008 Great Recession put an end to the bull market in neo-liberal ideology. The main culprit has been the low-growth recovery, but that is not the full story. Tepid growth would have been digested without a political crisis had it not followed decades of stagnating wages. With no wage growth, households in the most laissez-faire economies of the West gorged themselves on debt (Chart 15) to keep up with rising cost of housing, education, healthcare, and childcare -- all staples of a middle-class lifestyle. As such, the low-growth context after 2008 has combined with a deflationary environment to produce the most pernicious of economic conditions: debt-deflation, which Irving Fisher warned of in 1933.19 It is unsurprising that globalization became the target of middle-class angst in this context. Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history: it exerted a strong deflationary force on wages (Chart 16). While it certainly lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in developing nations, globalization undermined those low-income and middle-class workers in the developed world whose jobs were most easily exported. World Bank economist Branko Milanovic's infamous "elephant trunk" shows the stagnation of real incomes since 1988 for the 75-95 percentile of the global income distribution - essentially the West's middle class (Chart 17).20 It is this section of the elephant trunk that increasingly supports populism and anti-globalization policies, while eschewing laissez faire liberalism. In our April report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," we posited that the pivot away from laissez-faire capitalism would be most pronounced in the economies of its greatest adherents, the U.S. and U.K. We warned that Brexit and the candidacy of Donald Trump should be taken seriously, while the populist movements in Europe would surprise to the downside. Why the gap between Europe and the U.S. and U.K.? Because Europe's cumbersome, expensive, inefficient, and onerous social-welfare state finally came through when it mattered: it mitigated the pernicious effects of globalization and redistributed enough of the gains to temper populist angst. Chart 16Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Chart 17Globalization: No Friend To DM Middle Class Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now This view was prescient in 2016. The U.K. voted to leave the EU, Trump triumphed, while European populists stumbled in both the Spanish and Austrian elections. The Anglo-Saxon median voter has essentially moved to the left of the economic spectrum (Diagram 1).21 The Median Voter Theorem holds that policymakers will follow the shift to the left in order to capture as many voters as possible under the proverbial curve. In other words, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not political price-makers but price-takers. Diagram 1The Median Voter Is Moving To The Left In The U.S. And U.K. Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now How does laissez-faire capitalism end? In socialism or communism? No, the institutions that underpin capitalism in the West - private property, rule of law, representative government, and enforcement of contracts - remain strong. Instead, we expect to see more dirigisme, a form of capitalism where the state adopts a "directing" rather than merely regulatory role. In the U.S., Donald Trump unabashedly campaigned on dirigisme. We do not expand on the investment implications of American dirigisme in this report (we encourage clients to read our post-election treatment of Trump's domestic politics).22 But investors can clearly see the writing on the wall: a late-cycle fiscal stimulus will be positive for economic growth in the short term, but most likely more positive for inflation in the long term. Donald Trump's policies therefore are a risk to bonds, positive for equities (in the near term), and potentially negative for both in the long term if stagflation results from late-cycle stimulus. What about Europe? Is it not already quite dirigiste? It is! But in Europe, we see a marginal change towards the right, not the left. In Spain, the supply-side reforms of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy will remain in place, as he won a second term this year. In France, right-wing reformer - and self-professed "Thatcherite" - François Fillon is likely to emerge victorious in the April-May presidential election. And in Germany, the status-quo Grand Coalition will likely prevail. Only in Italy are there risks, but even there we expect financial markets to force the country - kicking and screaming - down the path of reforms. Bottom Line: In 2017, the market will be shocked to find itself face-to-face with a marginally more laissez-faire Europe and a marginally more dirigiste America and Britain. Investors should overweight European assets in a global portfolio given valuations, relative monetary policy (which will remain accommodative in Europe), a weak euro, and economic fundamentals (Chart 18), and upcoming political surprises. For clients with low tolerance of risk and volatility, a better entry point may exist following the French presidential elections in the spring. From Bias To ... Conspiracies As with the printing press, the radio, film, and television before it, the Internet has created a super-cyclical boom in the supply and dissemination of information. The result of the sudden surge is that quality and accountability are declining. The mainstream media has dubbed this the "fake news" phenomenon, no doubt to differentiate the conspiracy theories coursing through Facebook and Twitter from the "real news" of CNN and MSNBC. The reality is that mainstream media has fallen far short of its own vaunted journalistic standards (Chart 19). Chart 18Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Chart 19 "Mainstream Media" Is A Dirty Word For Many "Mainstream Media" Is A Dirty Word For Many We are not interested in this debate, nor are we buying the media narrative that "fake news" delivered Trump the presidency. Instead, we are focused on how geopolitical and political information is disseminated to voters, investors, and ultimately priced by the market. We fear that markets will struggle to price information correctly due to three factors: Low barriers to entry: The Internet makes publishing easy. Information entrepreneurs - i.e. hack writers - and non-traditional publications ("rags") are proliferating. The result is greater output but a decrease in quality control. For example, Facebook is now the second most trusted source of news for Americans (Chart 20). Cost-cutting: The boom in supply has squeezed the media industry's finances. Newspapers have died in droves; news websites and social-media giants have mushroomed (Chart 21). News companies are pulling back on things like investigative reporting, editorial oversight, and foreign correspondent desks. Foreign meddling: In this context, governments have gained a new advantage because they can bring superior financial resources and command-and-control to an industry that is chaotic and cash-strapped. Russian news outlets like RT and Sputnik have mastered this game - attracting "clicks" around the world from users who are not aware they are reading Russian propaganda. China has also raised its media profile through Western-accessible propaganda like the Global Times, but more importantly it has grown more aggressive at monitoring, censoring, and manipulating foreign and domestic media. Chart 20Facebook Is The New Cronkite? Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 21The Internet Has Killed Journalism Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now The above points would be disruptive enough alone. But we know that technology is not the root cause of today's disruptions. Income inequality, the plight of the middle class, elite corruption, unchecked migration, and misguided foreign policy have combined to create a toxic mix of distrust and angst. In the West, the decline of the middle class has produced a lack of socio-political consensus that is fueling demand for media of a kind that traditional outlets can no longer satisfy. Media producers are scrambling to meet this demand while struggling with intense competition from all the new entrants and new platforms. What is missing is investment in downstream refining and processing to convert the oversupply of crude information into valuable product for voters and investors.23 Otherwise, the public loses access to "transparent" or baseline information. Obviously the baseline was never perfect. Both the Vietnam and Iraq wars began as gross impositions on the public's credulity: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But there was a shared reference point across society. The difference today, as we see it, is that mass opinion will swing even more wildly during a crisis as a result of the poor quality of information that spreads online and mobilizes social networks more rapidly than ever before. We could have "flash mobs" in the voting booth - or on the steps of the Supreme Court - just like "flash crashes" in financial markets, i.e. mass movements borne of passing misconceptions rather than persistent misrule. Election results are more likely to strain the limits of the margin of error, while anti-establishment candidates are more likely to remain viable despite dubious platforms. What does this mean for investors? Fundamental analysis of a country's political and geopolitical risk is now an essential tool in the investor toolkit. If investors rely on the media, and the market prices what the media reports, then the same investors will continue to get blindsided by misleading probabilities, as with Brexit and Trump (Chart 22). While we did not predict these final outcomes, we consistently advised clients, for months in advance, that the market probabilities were too low and serious hedging was necessary. Those who heeded our advice cheered their returns, even as some lamented the electoral returns. Chart 22Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Bottom Line: Keep reading BCA's Geopolitical Strategy! Final Thoughts On The Next Decade The nineteenth century ended in the human carnage that was the Battle of the Somme. The First World War ushered in social, economic, political, geopolitical, demographic, and technological changes that drove the evolution of twentieth-century institutions, rules, and norms. It created the "order of things" that we all take for granted today. The coming decade will be the dawn of the new geopolitical century. We can begin to discern the ordering of this new epoch. It will see peak multipolarity lead to global conflict and disequilibrium, with globalization and laissez-faire economic consensus giving way to mercantilism and dirigisme. Investors will see the benevolent deflationary impulse of globalization evolve into state intervention in the domestic economy and the return of inflation. Globally oriented economies and sectors will underperform domestic ones. Developed markets will continue to outperform emerging markets, particularly as populism spreads to developing economies that fail to meet expectations of their rising middle classes. Over the next ten years, these changes will leave the U.S. as the most powerful country in the world. China and wider EM will struggle to adapt to a less globalized world, while Europe and Japan will focus inward. The U.S. is essentially a low-beta Great Power: its economy, markets, demographics, natural resources, and security are the least exposed to the vagaries of the rest of the world. As such, when the rest of the world descends into chaos, the U.S. will hide behind its Oceans, and Canada, and the deserts of Mexico, and flourish. Five Themes For 2017: Our decade themes inform our view of cyclical geopolitical events and crises, such as elections and geopolitical tensions. As such, they form our "net assessment" of the world and provide a prism through which we refract geopolitical events. Below we address five geopolitical themes that we expect to drive the news flow, and thus the markets, in 2017. Some themes are Red Herrings (overstated risks) and thus present investment opportunities, others are Black Swans (understated risks) and are therefore genuine risks. Europe In 2017: A Trophy Red Herring? Europe's electoral calendar is ominously packed (Table 1). Four of the euro area's five largest economies are likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. Table 1 Europe In 2017 Will Be A Headline Risk Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We expect market volatility to be elevated throughout the year due to the busy calendar. In this context, we advise readers to follow our colleague Dhaval Joshi at BCA's European Investment Strategy. Dhaval recommends that BCA clients combine every €1 of equity exposure with 40 cents of exposure to VIX term-structure, which means going long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. The logic is that the term structure will invert sharply if risks spike.24 While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As we have posited since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration.25 Crises driven by Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are not dealt with more effectively or easily by nation states acting on their own. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro (Chart 23) or the EU (Chart 24). In our July report called "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" we posited that the euro area will likely persevere over at least the next five years.26 Chart 23Support For The Euro Remains Stable Support For The Euro Remains Stable Support For The Euro Remains Stable Chart 24Few Europeans Want Out Of The EU Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Take the Spanish and Austrian elections in 2016. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite Austria's elevated level of Euroskepticism (Chart 24), its central role in the migration crisis, and the almost comically unenthusiastic campaign of the out-of-touch Van der Bellen. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. Next year, we expect more of the same in three crucial elections: The Netherlands: The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) will likely perform better than it did in the last election, perhaps even doubling its 15% result in 2012. However, it has no chance of forming a government, given that all the other parties contesting the election are centrist and opposed to its Euroskeptic agenda (Chart 25). Furthermore, support for the euro remains at a very high level in the country (Chart 26). This is a reality that the PVV will have to confront if it wants to rule the Netherlands. Chart 25No Government For Dutch Euroskeptics Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 26The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair France: Our high conviction view is that Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), will be defeated in the second round of the presidential election.27 Despite three major terrorist attacks in the country, unchecked migration crisis, and tepid economic growth, Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013 (Chart 27). She continues to poll poorly against her most likely opponents in the second round, François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron (Chart 28). Investors who doubt the polls should consider the FN's poor performance in the December 2015 regional elections, a critical case study for Le Pen's viability in 2017.28 Chart 27Le Pen's Polling: ##br##Head And Shoulder Formation? Le Pen's Polling: Head And Shoulder Formation? Le Pen's Polling: Head And Shoulder Formation? Chart 28Le Pen Will Not Be##br## Next French President Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel's popularity is holding up (Chart 29), the migration crisis has abated (Chart 30), and there remains a lot of daylight between the German establishment and populist parties (Chart 31). The anti-establishment Alternative für Deutschland will enter parliament, but remain isolated. Chart 29Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Chart 30Migration Crisis Is Abating bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c30 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c30 Chart 31There Is A Lot Of Daylight... bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c31 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c31 The real risk in 2017 remains Italy. The country has failed to enact any structural reforms, being a laggard behind the reform poster-child Spain (Chart 32). Meanwhile, support for the euro remains in the high 50s, which is low compared to the euro-area average (Chart 33). Polls show that if elections were held today, the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory (Chart 34). However, it is not clear what electoral laws would apply to the contest. The reformed electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies remains under review by the Constitutional Court until at least February. This will make all the difference between further gridlock and a viable government. Chart 32Italy Is Europe's bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c32 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c32 Chart 33Italy Lags Peers On Euro Support bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c33 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c33 Chart 34Italy's Next Election Is Too Close To Call bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c34 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c34 Investors should consider three factors when thinking about Italy in 2017: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum.29 The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential Itexit referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voter choices. Benefits of the EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as they allow the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions.30 Sans Europe, the Mezzogiorno (Southern Italy) is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether the rest of Italy's euro-area peers will allow the country to remain mired in its unsustainable status quo. We think the answer is yes. First, Italy is too big to fail given the size of its economy and sovereign debt market. Second, how unsustainable is the Italian status quo? OECD projections for Italy's debt-to-GDP ratio are not ominous. Chart 35 shows four scenarios, the most likely one charting Italy's debt-to-GDP rise from 133% today to about 150% by 2060. Italy's GDP growth would essentially approximate 0%, but its impressive budget discipline would ensure that its debt load would only rise marginally (Chart 36). Chart 35So What If Italy's Debt-To-GDP Ends Up At 170%? bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c35 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c35 Chart 36Italy Has Learned To Live With Its Debt Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now This may seem like a dire prospect for Italy, but it ensures that the ECB has to maintain its accommodative stance in Europe even as the Fed continues its tightening cycle, a boon for euro-area equities as a whole. In other words, Italy's predicament would be unsustainable if the country were on its own. Its "sick man" status would be terminal if left to its own devices. But as a patient in the euro-area hospital, it can survive. And what happens to the euro area beyond our five-year forecasting horizon? We are not sure. Defeat of anti-establishment forces in 2017 will give centrist policymakers another electoral cycle to resolve the currency union's built-in flaws. If the Germans do not budge on greater fiscal integration over the next half-decade, then the future of the currency union will become murkier. Bottom Line: Remain long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. We have held this position since September 14 and it has returned -0.84%. The advantage of this strategy is that it is a near-perfect hedge when risk assets sell off, but pays a low price for insurance. Investors with high risk tolerance who can stomach some volatility should take the plunge and overweight euro-area equities in a global equity portfolio. Solid global growth prospects, accommodative monetary policy, euro weakness, and valuations augur a solid year for euro-area equities. Politics will be a red herring as euro-area stocks climb the proverbial wall of worry in 2017. U.S.-Russia Détente: A Genuine Investment Opportunity Trump's election is good news for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. Putin sought to defend the Russian sphere of influence from outside powers (Ukraine and Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia). Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public. We view Ukraine and Syria through this prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.31 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the promotion of democracy in Russia's sphere, which Putin considers an attempt to undermine his rule. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.32 The U.S. lacks constraints in this theater. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia and does not stand directly in the way of any Russian reprisals, unlike Europe. That is why we think Trump and Putin will reset relations. Trump's team may be comfortable with Russia having a sphere of influence, unlike the Obama administration, which explicitly rejected this idea. The U.S. could even pledge not to expand NATO further, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from Poland and the Czech Republic. These are avowed NATO allies, and this occurred merely one year after Russian troops marched on Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs anyway. Chart 37Thaw In Russian-West##br## Cold War Is Bullish Europe bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c37 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c37 Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in structural decline and attempting to hold onto a very large sphere of influence whose citizens are not entirely willing participants.33 Because Moscow must often use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it periodically revives tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, which we do not expect, then the cycle of tensions will continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through 2017, a rapprochement with Washington will ultimately thaw relations between Europe and Russia by the end of that year. Europe will benefit from resuming business as usual. It will face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East and cybersecurity. The ebbing of the Russian geopolitical risk premium will have a positive effect on Europe, given its close correlation with European risk assets since the crisis in Ukraine (Chart 37). Investors who want exposure to Russia may consider overweighing Russian equities to Malaysian. BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has initiated this position for a 55.6% gain since March 2016 and our EM strategists believe there is more room to run for this trade. We recommend that investors simply go long Russia relative to the broad basket of EM equities. The rally in oil prices, easing of the geopolitical risk premium, and hints of pro-market reforms from the Kremlin will buoy Russian equities further in 2017. Middle East: ISIS Defeat Is A Black Swan In February 2016, we made two bold predictions about the Middle East: Iran-Saudi tensions had peaked;34 The defeat of ISIS would entice Turkey to intervene militarily in both Iraq and Syria.35 The first prediction was based on a simple maxim: sustained geopolitical conflict requires resources and thus Saudi military expenditures are unsustainable when a barrel of oil costs less than $100. Saudi Arabia overtook Russia in 2015 as the globe's third-largest defense spender (Chart 38)! Chart 38Saudi Arabia: Lock And Load Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now The mini-détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia concluded in 2016 with the announced OPEC production cut and freeze. While we continue to see the OPEC deal as more of a recognition of the status quo than an actual cut (because OPEC production has most likely reached its limits), nevertheless it is significant as it will slightly hasten the pace of oil-market rebalancing. On the margin, the OPEC deal is therefore bullish for oil prices. Our second prediction, that ISIS is more of a risk to the region in defeat than in glory, was highly controversial. However, it has since become consensus, with several Western intelligence agencies essentially making the same claim. But while our peers in the intelligence community have focused on the risk posed by returning militants to Europe and elsewhere, our focus remains on the Middle East. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in conflicts in Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The reason for this concern is that the defeat of the Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. We are particularly concerned about three potential dynamics: Direct intervention in Syria and Iraq: The Turkish military entered Syria in August, launching operation "Euphrates Shield." Turkey also reinforced a small military base in Bashiqa, Iraq, only 15 kilometers north of Mosul. Both operations were ostensibly undertaken against the Islamic State, but the real intention is to limit the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds. As Map 1 illustrates, Kurds have expanded their territorial control in both countries. Map 1Kurdish Gains In Syria & Iraq Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Conflict with Russia and Iran: President Recep Erdogan has stated that Turkey's objective in Syria is to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.36 Yet Russia and Iran are both involved militarily in the country - the latter with regular ground troops - to keep Assad in power. Russia and Turkey did manage to cool tensions recently. Yet the Turkish ground incursion into Syria increases the probability that tensions will re-emerge. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Erdogan has cast himself as a defender of Sunni Arabs and has suggested that Turkey still has a territorial claim to northern Iraq. This stance would put Ankara in direct confrontation with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, allied with Iran. Turkey-NATO/EU tensions: Tensions have increased between Turkey and the EU over the migration deal they signed in March 2016. Turkey claims that the deal has stemmed the flow of migrants to Europe, which is dubious given that the flow abated well before the deal was struck. Since then, Turkey has threatened to open the spigot and let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe. This is likely a bluff as Turkey depends on European tourists, import demand, and FDI for hard currency (Chart 39). If Erdogan acted on his threat and unleashed Syrian refugees into Europe, the EU could abrogate the 1995 EU-Turkey customs union agreement and impose economic sanctions. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a "shooting war" that could impact global investors in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. The broader point is that the redrawing of the Middle East map is not yet complete. As the Islamic State is defeated, the Sunni population of Iraq and Syria will remain at risk of Shia domination. As such, countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia could be drawn into renewed proxy conflicts to prevent complete marginalization of the Sunni population. While tensions between Turkey, Russia, and Iran will not spill over into oil-producing regions of the Middle East, they may cloud Iraq's future. Since 2010, Iraq has increased oil production by 1.6 million barrels per day. This is about half of the U.S. shale production increase over the same time frame. As such, Iraq's production "surprise" has been a major contributor to the 2014-2015 oil-supply glut. However, Iraq needs a steady inflow of FDI in order to boost production further (Chart 40). Proxy warfare between Turkey, Russia, and Iran - all major conventional military powers - on its territory will go a long way to sour potential investors interested in Iraqi production. Chart 39Turkey Is Heavily Dependent On The EU Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 40Iraq Is The Big, And Cheap, Hope bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c40 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c40 This is a real problem for global oil supply. The International Energy Agency sees Iraq as a critical source of future global oil production. Chart 41 shows that Iraq is expected to contribute the second-largest increase in oil production by 2020. And given Iraq's low breakeven production cost, it may be the last piece of real estate - along with Iran - where the world can get a brand-new barrel of oil for under $13. In addition to the risk of expanding Turkish involvement in the region, investors will also have to deal with the headline risk of a hawkish U.S. administration pursuing diplomatic brinkmanship against Iran. We do not expect the Trump administration to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal due to several constraints. First, American allies will not go along with new sanctions. Second, Trump's focus is squarely on China. Third, the U.S. does not have alternatives to diplomacy, since bombing Iran would be an exceedingly complex operation that would bog down American forces in the Middle East. When we put all the risks together, a geopolitical risk premium will likely seep into oil markets in 2017. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy argues that the physical oil market is already balanced (Chart 42) and that the OPEC deal will help draw down bloated inventories in 2017. This means that global oil spare capacity will be very low next year, with essentially no margin of safety in case of a major supply loss. Given the political risks of major oil producers like Nigeria and Venezuela, this is a precarious situation for the oil markets. Chart 41Iraq Really Matters For Global Oil Production Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 42Oil Supply Glut Is Gone In 2017 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c42 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c42 Bottom Line: Given our geopolitical view of risks in the Middle East, balanced oil markets, lack of global spare capacity, the OPEC production cut, and ongoing capex reductions, we recommend clients to follow BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view of expecting widening backwardation in the new year.37 U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars President-elect Trump has called into question the U.S.'s adherence to the "One China policy," which holds that "there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" and that the U.S. recognizes only the People's Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government. There is widespread alarm about Trump's willingness to use this policy, the very premise of U.S.-China relations since 1978, as a negotiating tool. And indeed, Sino-U.S. relations are very alarming, as we have warned our readers since 2012.38 Trump is a dramatic new agent reinforcing this trend. Trump's suggestion that the policy could be discarded - and his break with convention in speaking to the Taiwanese president - are very deliberate. Observe that in the same diplomatic document that establishes the One China policy, the United States and China also agreed that "neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region." Trump is initiating a change in U.S. policy by which the U.S. accuses China of seeking hegemony in Asia, a violation of the foundation of their relationship. The U.S. is not seeking unilaterally to cancel the One China policy, but asking China to give new and durable assurances that it does not seek hegemony and will play by international rules. Otherwise, the U.S. is saying, the entire relationship will have to be revisited and nothing (not even Taiwan) will be off limits. The assurances that China is expected to give relate not only to trade, but also, as Trump signaled, to the South China Sea and North Korea. Therefore we are entering a new era in U.S-China relations. China Is Toast Asia Pacific is a region of frozen conflicts. Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty. Nor did China and Taiwan. Nor did the Koreas. Why have these conflicts lain dormant over the past seventy years? Need we ask? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have seen their GDP per capita rise 14 times since 1950. China has seen its own rise 21 times (Chart 43). Since the wars in Vietnam over forty years ago, no manner of conflict, terrorism, or geopolitical crisis has fundamentally disrupted this manifestly beneficial status quo. As a result, Asia has been a region synonymous with economics - not geopolitics. It developed this reputation because its various large economies all followed Japan's path of dirigisme: export-oriented, state-backed, investment-led capitalism. This era of stability is over. The region has become the chief source of geopolitical risk and potential "Black Swan" events.39 The reason is deteriorating U.S.-China relations and the decline in China's integration with other economies. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were foundational: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 44).40 For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its aegis. Chart 43The Twentieth Century Was Kind To East Asia Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 44Asia Sells, America Rules bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c44 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c44 It is well known, however, that Japan's economic model led it smack into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s over its suppressed currency and giant trade surpluses. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result was ultimately financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away (Chart 45). Astute investors have always suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it denies the U.S. access to its vast consumer market. Today there are signs that the time for confrontation is upon us: Since the Great Recession, U.S. household debt and Chinese exports have declined as a share of GDP, falling harder in the latter than the former, in a sign of shattered symbiosis (see Chart 8 above). Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have begun to decline (Chart 46). China's exports to the U.S., both as a share of total exports and of GDP, have rolled over, and are at levels comparable to Japan's 1980s peaks (Chart 47). China is wading into high-tech and advanced industries, threatening the core advantages of the developed markets. The U.S. just elected a populist president whose platform included aggressive trade protectionism against China. Protectionist "Rust Belt" voters were pivotal to Trump's win and will remain so in future elections. China is apparently reneging on every major economic promise it has made in recent years: the RMB is depreciating, not appreciating, whatever the reason; China is closing, not opening, its capital account; it is reinforcing, not reforming, its state-owned companies; and it is shutting, not widening, access to its domestic market (Chart 48). Chart 45Japan's Crisis Followed Currency Spike bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c45 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c45 Chart 46China Backing Away From U.S. Treasuries bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c46 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c46 There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s-90s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. Japan and the U.S. had established a strategic hierarchy in World War II. That is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the United States to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the United States. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. Chart 47The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c47 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c47 Chart 48China Is De-Globalizing bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c48 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c48 That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on longstanding American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. We see Sino-American rivalry as the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017: Trump will initiate a more assertive U.S. policy toward China;41 It will begin with symbolic or minor punitive actions - a "shot across the bow" like charging China with currency manipulation or imposing duties on specific goods.42 It will be critical to see whether Trump acts arbitrarily through executive power, or systematically through procedures laid out by Congress. The two countries will proceed to a series of high-level, bilateral negotiations through which the Trump administration will aim to get a "better deal" from the Xi administration on trade, investment, and other issues. The key to the negotiations will be whether the Trump team settles for technical concessions or instead demands progress on long-delayed structural issues that are more difficult and risky for China to undertake. Too much pressure on the latter could trigger a confrontation and broader economic instability. Chart 49China's Demographic Dividend Is Gone bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c49 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c49 The coming year may see U.S.-China relations start with a bang and end with a whimper, as Trump's initial combativeness gives way to talks. But make no mistake: Sino-U.S. rivalry and distrust will worsen over the long run. That is because China faces a confluence of negative trends: The U.S. is turning against it. Geopolitical problems with its periphery are worsening. It is at high risk of a financial crisis due to excessive leverage. The middle class is a growing political constraint on the regime. Demographics are now a long-term headwind (Chart 49). The Chinese regime will be especially sensitive to these trends because the Xi administration will want stability in the lead up to the CCP's National Party Congress in the fall, which promises to see at least some factional trouble.43 It no longer appears as if the rotation of party leaders will leave Xi in the minority on the Politburo Standing Committee for 2017-22, as it did in 2012.44 More likely, he will solidify power within the highest decision-making body. This removes an impediment to his policy agenda in 2017-22, though any reforms will still take a back seat to stability, since leadership changes and policy debates will absorb a great deal of policymakers' attention at all levels for most of the year.45 Xi will also put in place his successors for 2022, putting a cap on rumors that he intends to eschew informal term limits. Failing this, market uncertainty over China's future will explode upward. The midterm party congress will thus reaffirm the fact that China's ruling party and regime are relatively unified and centralized, and hence that China has relatively strong political capabilities for dealing with crises. Evidence does not support the popular belief that China massively stimulates the economy prior to five-year party congresses (Chart 50), but we would expect all means to be employed to prevent a major downturn. Chart 50Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Five-Year Party Congresses bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c50 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c50 What this means is that the real risks of the U.S.-China relationship in 2017 will emanate from China's periphery. Asia's Frozen Conflicts Are Thawing Today the Trump administration seems willing to allow China to carve a sphere of influence - but it is entirely unclear whether and where existing boundaries would be redrawn. Here are the key regional dynamics:46 The Koreas: The U.S. and Japan are increasingly concerned about North Korea's missile advances but will find their attempts to deal with the problem blocked by China and likely by the new government in South Korea.47 U.S. threats of sanctioning China over North Korea will increase market uncertainty, as will South Korea's political turmoil and (likely) souring relations with the U.S. Taiwan: Taiwan's ruling party has very few domestic political constraints and therefore could make a mistake, especially when emboldened by an audacious U.S. leadership.48 The same combination could convince China that it has to abandon the post-2000 policy of playing "nice" with Taiwan.49 China will employ discrete sanctions against Taiwan. Hong Kong: Mainland forces will bring down the hammer on the pro-independence movement. The election of a new chief executive will appear to reinforce the status quo but in reality Beijing will tighten its legal, political, and security grip. Large protests are likely; political uncertainty will remain high.50 Japan: Japan will effectively receive a waiver from Trump's protectionism and will benefit from U.S. stimulus efforts; it will continue reflating at home in order to generate enough popular support to pass constitutional revisions in 2018; and it will not shy away from regional confrontations, since these will enhance the need for the hawkish defense component of the same revisions. Vietnam: The above issues may provide Vietnam with a chance to improve its strategic position at China's expense, whether by courting U.S. market access or improving its position in the South China Sea. But the absence of an alliance with the U.S. leaves it highly exposed to Chinese reprisals if it pushes too far. Russia: Russia will become more important to the region because its relations with the U.S. are improving and it may forge a peace deal with Japan, giving it more leverage in energy negotiations with China.51 This may also reinforce the view in Beijing that the U.S. is circling the wagons around China. What these dynamics have in common is the emergence of U.S.-China proxy conflicts. China has long suspected that the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" was a Cold War "containment" strategy. The fear is well-grounded but the reality takes time to materialize, which is what we will see playing out in the coming years. The reason we say "proxy wars" is because several American allies are conspicuously warming up to China: Thailand, the Philippines, and soon South Korea. They are not abandoning the U.S. but keeping their options open. The other ASEAN states also stand to benefit as the U.S. seeks economic substitutes for China while the latter courts their allegiance.52 The problem is that as U.S.-China tensions rise, these small states run greater risks in playing both sides. Bottom Line: The overarching investment implications of U.S.-China proxy wars all derive from de-globalization. China was by far the biggest winner of globalization and will suffer accordingly (Chart 51). But it will not be the biggest loser, since it is politically unified, its economy is domestically driven, and it has room to maneuver on policy. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore are all chiefly at risk from de-globalization over the long run. Chart 51Globalization's Winners Will Be De-Globalization's Losers Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Japan is best situated to prosper in 2017. We have argued since well before the Bank of Japan's September monetary policy shift that unconventional reflation will continue, with geopolitics as the primary motivation for the country's "pedal to the metal" strategy.53 We will look to re-initiate our long Japanese equities position in early 2017. ASEAN countries offer an opportunity, though country-by-country fundamentals are essential. Brexit: The Three Kingdoms The striking thing about the Brexit vote's aftermath is that no recession followed the spike in uncertainty, no infighting debilitated the Tory party, and no reversal occurred in popular opinion. The authorities stimulated the economy, the people rallied around the flag (and ruling party), and the media's "Bregret" narrative flopped. That said, Brexit also hasn't happened yet.54 Formal negotiations with Europe begin in March, which means uncertainty will persist for much of the year as the U.K. and EU posture around their demands for a post-exit deal. However, improving growth prospects for Britain, Europe, and the U.S. all suggest that the negotiations are less likely to take place in an atmosphere of crisis. That does not mean that EU negotiators will be soft. With each successive electoral victory for the political establishment in 2017, the European negotiating position will harden. This will create a collision of Triumphant Tories and Triumphant Brussels. Still, the tide is not turning much further against the U.K. than was already the case, given how badly the U.K. needs a decent deal. Tightercontrol over the movement of people will be the core demand of Westminster, but it is not necessarily mutually exclusive with access to the common market. The major EU states have an incentive to compromise on immigration with the U.K. because they would benefit from tighter immigration controls that send highly qualified EU nationals away from the U.K. labor market and into their own. But the EU will exact a steep price for granting the U.K. the gist of what it wants on immigration and market access. This could be a hefty fee or - more troublingly for Britain - curbs on British financial-service access to euro markets. Though other EU states are not likely to exit, the European Council will not want to leave any doubt about the pain of doing so. The Tories may have to accept this outcome. Tory strength is now the Brexit voter base. That base is uncompromising on cutting immigration, and it is indifferent, or even hostile, to the City. So it stands to reason that Prime Minister Theresa May will sacrifice the U.K.'s financial sector in the coming negotiations. The bigger question is what happens to the U.K. economy in the medium and long term. First, it is unclear how the U.K. will revive productivity as lower labor-force growth and FDI, and higher inflation, take shape. Government "guidance" of the economy - dirigisme again - is clearly the Tory answer. But it remains to be seen how effectively it will be done. Second, what happens to the United Kingdom as a nation? Another Scottish independence referendum is likely after the contours of the exit deal take shape, especially as oil prices gin up Scottish courage to revisit the issue. The entire question of Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of which voted to stay in the EU) puts deeper constitutional and governmental restructuring on the horizon. Westminster is facing a situation where it drastically loses influence on the global stage as it not only exits the European "superstate" but also struggles to maintain a semblance of order among the "three kingdoms." Bottom Line: The two-year timeframe for exit negotiations ensures that posturing will ratchet up tensions and uncertainty throughout the year - invoking the abyss of a no-deal exit - but our optimistic outlook on the end-game (eventual "soft Brexit") suggests that investors should fade the various crisis points. That said, the pound is no longer a buy as it rises to around 1.30. Investment Views De-globalization, dirigisme, and the ascendancy of charismatic authority will all prove to be inflationary. On the margin, we expect less trade, less free movement of people, and more direct intervention in the economy. Given that these are all marginally more inflationary, it makes sense to expect the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," as our colleague Peter Berezin argued in July.55 That said, Peter does not expect the bond bull market to end in a crash - and neither do we. There are many macroeconomic factors that will continue to suppress global yields: the savings glut, search for yield, and economic secular stagnation. In addition, we expect peak multipolarity in 2017 and thus a rise in geopolitical conflict. This geopolitical context will keep the U.S. Treasury market well bid. However, clients may want to begin switching their safe-haven exposure to gold. In a recent research report on safe havens, we showed that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens in the past.56 Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge to equity corrections due to geopolitical and financial risks. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. As deflationary risks abate in the future, we suspect that gold will return to its safe-haven status. In addition to safe havens, U.S. and global defense stocks will be well bid due to global multipolarity. We recommend that clients go long S&P 500 aerospace and defense relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We are also sticking with our tactical trade of long U.S. defense / short U.S. aerospace. On the equity front, we have closed our post-election bullish trade of long S&P 500 / short gold position for an 11.53% gain in just 22 days of trading. We are also closing our long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 position - a play on de-globalization - for an 8.4% gain. Instead, we are initiating a strategic long U.S. small caps / short U.S. large caps, recommended jointly with our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy. We are keeping our EuroStoxx VIX term-structure hedge due to mounting political risk in Europe. However, we are looking for an opening into European stocks in early 2017. For now, we are maintaining our long USD/EUR - return 4.2% since July - and long USD/SEK - return 2.25% since November. The first is a strategic play on our view that the ECB has to remain accommodative due to political risks in the European periphery. The latter is a way to articulate de-globalization via currencies, given that Sweden is one of the most open economies in the world. We are converting it from a tactical to a strategic recommendation. Finally, we are keeping our RMB short in place - via 12-month NDF. We do not think that Beijing will "blink" and defend its currency more aggressively just because Donald Trump is in charge of America. China is a much more powerful country than in the past, and cannot allow RMB appreciation at America's bidding. Our trade has returned 7.14% since December 2015. With the dollar bull market expected to continue and RMB depreciating, the biggest loser will be emerging markets. We are therefore keeping our strategic long DM / short EM recommendation, which has returned 56.5% since November 2012. We are particularly fond of shorting Brazilian and Turkish equities and are keeping both trades in place. However, we are initiating a long Russian equities / short EM equities. As an oil producer, Russia will benefit from the OPEC deal and the ongoing risks to Iraqi stability. In addition, we expect that removing sanctions against Russia will be on table for 2017. Europe will likely extend the sanctions for another six months, but beyond that the unity of the European position will be in question. And the United States is looking at a different approach. We wish our clients all the best in health, family, and investing in 2017. Thank you for your confidence in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy. Marko Papic Senior Vice President Matt Gertken Associate Editor Jesse Anak Kurri Research Analyst 1 In Michel Foucault's famous The Order of Things (1966), he argues that each period of human history has its own "episteme," or set of ordering conditions that define that epoch's "truth" and discourse. The premise is comparable to Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigms," which we have referenced in previous Strategic Outlooks. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2012," dated January 27, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2014 - Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, and Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 A military-security strategy necessary for British self-defense that also preserved peace on the European continent by undermining potential aggressors. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trump And Trade," dated December 8, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see Max Weber, "The Three Types Of Legitimate Rule," Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1): 1-11 (1958). Translated by Hans Gerth. Originally published in German in the journal Preussische Jahrbücher 182, 1-2 (1922). 16 We do not concern ourselves with traditional authority here, but the obvious examples are Persian Gulf monarchies. 17 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). See also our review of this book, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see Irving Fisher, "The Debt-deflation Theory of Great Depressions," Econometrica 1(4) (1933): 337-357, available at fraser.stlouisfed.org. 20 Please see Milanovic, Branko, "Global Income Inequality by the Numbers: in History and Now," dated November 2012, Policy Research Working Paper 6250, World Bank, available at worldbank.org. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 In some way, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy was designed precisely to fill this role. It is difficult to see what would be the point of this service if our clients could get unbiased, investment-relevant, prescient, high-quality geopolitical news and analysis from the press. 24 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Roller Coaster," dated March 31, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Despite winning an extraordinary six of the 13 continental regions in France in the first round, FN ended up winning zero in the second round. This even though the election occurred after the November 13 terrorist attack that ought to have buoyed the anti-migration, law and order, anti-establishment FN. The regional election is an instructive case of how the French two-round electoral system enables the establishment to remain in power. 29 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy: Asking The Wrong Question," dated December 1, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Cold War Redux?" dated March 12, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 34 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Middle East: Saudi-Iranian Tensions Have Peaked," in Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 35 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 President Erdogan, speaking at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul in November 2016, said that Turkey "entered [Syria] to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror... We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice." 37 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 38 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 39 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 40 In recent years, however, China's "official" defense budget statistics have understated its real spending, possibly by as much as half. 41 Please see "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 44 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 45 The National Financial Work Conference will be one key event to watch for an updated reform agenda. 46 Please see "East Asia: Tensions Simmer ... Will They Boil?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 47 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 48 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, and "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 49 The Trump administration has signaled a policy shift through Trump's phone conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The "One China policy" is the foundation of China-Taiwan relations, and U.S.-China relations depend on Washington's acceptance of it. The risk, then, is not so much an overt change to One China, a sure path to conflict, but the dynamic described above. 50 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hong Kong: From Politics To Political Economy," dated September 8, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 51 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 52 Please see "Thailand: Upgrade Stocks To Overweight And Go Long THB Versus KRW" in BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 53 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, and "Unleash The Kraken: Debt Monetization And Politics," dated September 26, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 54 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 55 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 56 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Trump's foreign policy proposals will exacerbate geopolitical risks. Sino-American relations are the chief risk - they will determine global stability. A Russian reset will benefit Europe, especially outside the Russian periphery. Trump will retain the gist of the Iran nuclear deal. Turkey and North Korea are wildcards. Feature Chart 1Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Financial markets rallied sharply after the election of Donald Trump and the resulting prospect of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater fiscal thrust (Chart 1). But is the euphoria justified in light of Trump's unorthodox views on U.S. foreign policy and trade? Is Trump's "normalization" amid the transition to the White House a reliable indicator that the geopolitical status quo will largely be preserved? We believe Trump's election marks a substantial increase in geopolitical risk that is being understated by markets.1 This is not because of his personality, though that is not particularly reassuring, but rather because of his policy proposals. If acted on, Trump's geopolitical agenda would exacerbate global trends that are already underway: Waning U.S. Dominance: American power, relative to other nations, has been declining in recent years as a result of the emergence of new economic and military powers like China and India (Chart 2). If Trump allows himself to be sucked into another conflict despite his campaign promises - say, by overturning the nuclear deal with Iran - he could embroil the U.S. at a time when it is relatively weak. Multipolarity: America's relative decline has emboldened various other nations to pursue their interests independently, increasing global friction and creating a world with multiple "poles" of influence.2 If Trump keeps his word on reducing foreign commitments he will speed along this historically dangerous process. Lesser powers like Russia and Turkey will try to fill vacuums created by the U.S. with their own ambitions, with competition for spheres of influence potentially sparking conflict. Multipolarity has already increased the incidence of global conflicts (Chart 3). De-Globalization: The greatest risk of the incoming administration is protectionism. Trump ran on an overtly protectionist platform. Democratic-leaning economic patriots in the American "Rust Belt" handed him the victory (Chart 4), and he will enact policies to maintain these pivotal supporters in 2018 and 2020 elections. This will hasten the decline of trade globalization, which we signaled was peaking back in 2014.3 It does not help that multipolarity and collapse of globalization have tended to go hand in hand in the past. And historically speaking, big reversals in global trade do not end well (Chart 5). Chart 2U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense Chart 3Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c3 bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c3 Chart 4 Chart 5Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars In what follows we assess what we think are likely to be the most important geopolitical effects of Trump's "America First" policies. We see Russia and Europe as the chief beneficiaries, and China and Iran as the chief risks. A tougher stance on China, in particular, will feed broader strategic distrust; the combination of internal and external pressures on China will ensure that the latter will not be as flexible as in the past. For the past five years, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that the deterioration in Sino-American cooperation is the greatest geopolitical risk for investors - and the world. Trump's election will accelerate this process. Trump And Eurasia Chart 6 Trump's election is clearly a boon for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. The purpose of Putin's assertiveness has been to defend the Russian sphere of influence (namely Ukraine and Belarus in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) from outside powers: the U.S. and NATO seemed eager to "move in for the kill" after Russia emerged from the ashes. Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public with "rally around the flag" operations. We view Ukraine and Syria through this analytical prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.4 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal with Russia if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the "democracy promotion" activities that Putin considers to be directly aimed at the Kremlin. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.5 That is because the U.S. lacks constraints. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia (Chart 6) and does not stand directly in the way of any retaliation, as Europe does. That is why we think Trump and Putin will manage to reset relations. The U.S. can step back and allow Russia to control its sphere of influence. Trump's team may be comfortable with the concept, unlike the Obama administration, whose Vice-President Joe Biden famously pronounced that America "will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence." We could even see the U.S. pledging not to expand NATO from this point onwards, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from avowed NATO allies Poland and Czech Republic merely one year after Russian troops invaded Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs. Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in a structural decline as a great power and is attempting to hold on to a very large sphere of influence whose denizens are not entirely willing participants.6 Because Moscow often must use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it renews tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, we would expect the cycle to continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure under Trump. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through the end of 2017, a rapprochement with Washington could ultimately thaw relations by the end of next year. Europe stands to benefit, being able to resume business as usual with Russia and face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East, like in Syria. The recent decline in refugee flows will be made permanent with Russia's cooperation. The losers will be states in the Russian periphery that will feel less secure about American, EU and NATO backing, particularly Ukraine, but also Turkey. Countries like Belarus, which enjoyed playing Moscow against the West in the past, will lose the ability to do so. Once the U.S. abandons plans to prop up pro-West regimes in the Russian sphere of influence, Europeans will drop their designs to do the same as well. Trump And The Middle East Trump's "America First" foreign policy promises to be Obama's "geopolitical deleveraging" on steroids. He is opposed to American adventurism and laser-focused on counter-terrorism and U.S. domestic security. He also wants to deregulate the U.S. energy sector aggressively to encourage even greater energy independence (Chart 7). The chief difference from Obama - and a major risk to global stability - is Iran, where Trump could overturn the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, potentially setting the two countries back onto the path of confrontation. Nevertheless, this deal never depended on Obama's preferences but was rooted in a strategic logic that still holds:7 Iraqi stability: The U.S. needed to withdraw troops from Iraq without creating a power vacuum that would open up a regional war or vast terrorist safe haven. With the advent of the Islamic State, this plan clearly failed. However, Iran did provide a Shia-led central government that has maintained security for investments and oil outflows (Chart 8). Iranian defenses: Bombing Iran is extremely difficult logistically, and the U.S. did not want to force the country into a corner where asymmetric warfare, like cutting off shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, seemed necessary. Despite growing American oil production, the U.S. will always care about the transit of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, as this impacts global oil prices.8 China's emergence: Strategic threats grew rapidly in Asia while the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has emerged as a more technologically advanced and assertive global power that threatens to establish hegemony in the region. The deal with Iran was therefore a crucial piece of President Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy. Chart 7U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent Chart 8U.S. Policy Boosts Iraqi And Iranian Oil bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c8 bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c8 None of the above will change with Obama's moving on. Nor will the other powers that participated in sanctioning Iran (Germany, France, the U.K., Russia, and China) be convinced to re-impose sanctions now, just as they gain access to Iranian resources and markets. It is also not clear why Trump would seek confrontation with Iran in light of his desire to improve relations with Russia and concentrate U.S. firepower on ISIS - both objectives make Iran the ideal and obvious partner. Trump will therefore begrudgingly agree to the détente with Iran, perhaps after tweaking some aspects of the deal to save face. Meanwhile, it will serve the hawks in both countries if they can go back to calling each other "Satan." Iran itself is comfortable with the current situation, so it does not have an incentive to reverse the deal. It controls almost half of Iraq (and specifically the portion of Iraq that produces oil), its ally Hezbollah is safe in Lebanon, its ally Bashar Assad will win in Syria (more so with Trump in charge!), and its allies in Yemen (Houthi rebels) are a status quo power secure in a mountain fortress in the north of the country. It is hard to see where Trump would dislodge Iranian influence if he sought to do so. The U.S. is a powerful country that could put a lot of resources into rolling back Iranian influence, but the logic for such a move simply does not exist. Trump will also maintain Obama's aloof policy toward Saudi Arabia, which keeps it constrained (Chart 9).9 The country is in some ways the stereotype of the "ungrateful ally" that Trump wants to downgrade. For instance, Trump supported the law allowing victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the kingdom (a law that Obama tried unsuccessfully to veto). He has blamed the Saudis for the rise of ISIS and the failure to take care of Syrian refugees. His primary focus is on preventing terrorists from striking the U.S., and to that end he wants to cooperate with Russia and stabilize the region's regimes. This entails the relative neglect of Sunni groups under Shia rule in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the few issues where the Saudis will welcome Trump - opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, support for Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and opposition to aggressive democracy promotion - are so far rhetorical, not concrete, commitments. Chart 9Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Will Trump get sucked into the region to intervene against ISIS? We do not think so. A bigger risk is Turkey.10 President Recep Erdogan may think that Trump will either be too complacent about Turkish interests in Syria, or that Trump is in fact a "kindred nationalist spirit" who will not prevent Turkey from pursuing its own sphere of influence in Syria and northern Iraq. Trump's foreign policy of "offshore balancing" would call for the U.S. to prevent Turkey from resurrecting any kind of regional empire, especially if it risks a war with Russia and Iran or comes at the cost of regional influence for American allies like the Kurds.11 Turkey will also be starkly at odds on Syria and ISIS. This means Turkey and the U.S. could see already tense relations get substantially worse in 2017. We would not be surprised to see President Trump threaten Erdogan with expulsion from NATO within his first term. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our view is that Trump rejects the consensus of the intelligence and defense establishment and pushes Iran too far, leading to conflict. We do not think this will happen, but his rhetoric on the nuclear deal has been consistently negative and he seems likely to favor "Middle East hands" for top cabinet positions. He could involve the country in new Middle East entanglements if he does not show discipline in adhering to his non-interventionist preferences - particularly if he overreacts to an attack. Nonetheless, we believe that America's policy of geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East will continue. Trump may have a mandate to be tough on terrorism from his voters, but he definitely does not have a free hand to commit military resources to the region. Trump And Asia Trump criticized China furiously during the campaign, declaring that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. However, there is a familiar pattern of China bashing in U.S. presidential elections that leads to no sharp changes in policy.12 Will Trump be different? Some would argue that relations may actually improve, given how bad they already are. First, Trump's chief concern is to fire up the U.S. economy's animal spirits, and that would support China's ailing economy as long as he does not couple his tax cuts and fiscal stimulus with aggressive protectionist measures (Chart 10). Proponents of this view would point out that Trump's tougher measures may be called off when he realizes that the Chinese current account surplus has fallen sharply in recent years (Chart 11), and that the PBoC is propping up the RMB, not suppressing it. Similarly, Trump's China-bashing trade advisor, the former steel executive Dan DiMicco, may not get much traction given that the U.S. has largely shifted to Brazilian steel imports (Chart 12). In short, the U.S. could take a somewhat tougher stance on specific trade spats without provoking a vicious spiral of discriminatory actions. The fact that the U.S. is more exposed than ever to trade with emerging markets only reinforces the idea that it does not want to spark a real trade war (Chart 13). Chart 10A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth Chart 11China's Economy Rebalancing China's Economy Rebalancing China's Economy Rebalancing Chart 12China Already Lost The China Already Lost The "Steel Wars" China Already Lost The "Steel Wars" Chart 13A Reason To Eschew Protectionism A Reason To Eschew Protectionism A Reason To Eschew Protectionism Second, the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" and attempts to undermine China's economic influence in the region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have aggravated China with little substantive gain. By contrast, Trump may emphasize American business access to China over Chinese citizens' freedoms - which could reduce the risk of conflict. He may not go beyond symbolic protectionist moves, like the currency manipulation charge, and meanwhile canceling the never-ratified TPP would be a net gain for China.13 In essence, Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, could prove both pragmatic and willing to inherit the traditional Republican stance of business-oriented positive engagement with China. Chart 14 This is a compelling argument and we take it seriously. But it is not our baseline case. Rather, we think Trump will eventually take concrete populist steps that will mark a departure from U.S. policy in recent memory. As mentioned, it was protectionist blue-collar voters in the Midwest who gave Trump the White House, and he will need to retain their loyalty in coming elections. Moreover, the secular flatlining of American wages and the growth of income inequality have moved the median U.S. voter to the left of the economic spectrum, as we have argued.14 Neo-liberal economic policy has fewer powerful proponents than in the recent past. Thus, in the long run, we expect the grand renegotiation with China to fall short of market hopes, and Sino-American tensions to resume their upward trajectory.15 Why are we so pessimistic? Three main reasons: The "Thucydides Trap": Sino-U.S. tensions are fundamentally driven not by trade disputes but by the U.S.'s fear of China's growing capability and ambition.16 Great conflicts in history have often occurred when a new economic and military power emerged and tried to alter the regional political arrangements set up by the dominant power. This was as true in late nineteenth-century Europe, with the rise of Germany vis-à-vis the U.K. and France (Chart 14), as it was in ancient Greece. The rise of Japan in the first half of the twentieth century had a similar effect in Asia (Chart 15). Trump could, of course, endorse Xi's idea of a "new type of great power relations," which is supposed to avoid this problem. But nobody knows what that would look like, and greater trade openness is the only conceivable foundation for it. Chart 15AThe Disruptive Rise Of Germany The Disruptive Rise Of Germany The Disruptive Rise Of Germany Chart 15BThe Disruptive Rise Of Japan The Disruptive Rise Of Japan The Disruptive Rise Of Japan China's economic imbalances: A caustic dose of trade remedies from the Trump administration will compound internal economic pressures in China resulting from rampant credit expansion, misallocation of capital, excessive money printing, and capital outflows (Chart 16).17 The combination of internal and external pressures is potentially fatal and China's leaders will fight it. Otherwise, they risk either the fate of the Soviets or of the Asian strongman regimes that succumbed to democracy after embracing capitalism fully. Instead, China will avoid rushing its structural reforms (it is, after all, currently closing its capital account), and protect its consumer market, which it hopes to be the growth engine going forward. This is not a strong basis for the "better deal" that Trump will demand. President Trump will want China to open up further to U.S. manufacturing, tech, and service exports. Economics and the security dilemma: China and the U.S. will not be able to prevent economic tensions from spilling over into broader strategic tensions. Compare the spike in trade tensions with Japan in the 1980s, when Japanese exports to the U.S. peaked and the U.S. strong-armed Japan into appreciating its currency (Chart 17). The U.S. had nurtured Japan and South Korea out of their post-war devastation by running large trade deficits and enabling them to focus on manufacturing exports while minimizing spending on defense. China joined this system in the 1980s and has largely resembled the formal U.S. allies (Chart 18). Given that China has largely followed Japan's path, it was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually lose patience and become more competitive with China. China has seized a greater share of the U.S. market than Japan had done at that time, and its exports are even more important to the U.S. as a share of GDP (Chart 19). Comparing the exchange rates then and now, the Trump administration will be able to argue that China's currency is overdue for appreciation (Chart 20). However, in the 1980s, the U.S. and Japan faced no risk of military conflict - their strategic hierarchy was entirely settled in 1945. The U.S. and China have no such understanding. There is no way of assuring China that U.S. economic pressure is not about strategic dominance. In fact, it is about that. So while China may be cajoled into promising faster reforms - given that its trade surplus with the U.S. is the only thing that stands between it and current account deficits (Chart 21) - nevertheless it will tend to dilute and postpone these reforms for the sake of its own security, putting Trump's resolve to the test. Chart 16Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Chart 17The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan Chart 18Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Chart 19The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 20China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation Chart 21A Reason For China To Kowtow A Reason For China To Kowtow A Reason For China To Kowtow Trump's victory may also heighten Beijing's fears that it is being surrounded by the U.S. and its partners. That is because Trump will make the following developments more likely: Better Russian relations: From a bird's eye view, Trump's thaw with Putin could mark an inversion of Nixon's thaw with Mao. China is the only power today that can stand a comparison with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. at least needs to make sure the Sino-Russian relationship does not become too warm (Chart 22).18 Russo-Japanese peace treaty: The two sides are already working on a treaty, never signed after World War II. Aside from their historic territorial dispute, the U.S. has been the main impediment by demanding Japan help penalize Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Yet negotiations have advanced regardless, and Japanese air force scrambles against Russia have fallen while those against China have continued to spike (Chart 23). The best chance for a deal since the 1950s is now, with Abe and Putin both solidly in power until 2018. This would reduce Russian dependency on China for energy markets and capital investment, and free up Japan's security establishment to focus on China and North Korea. American allies are not defecting: The United States armed forces are deeply embedded in the Asia Pacific region and setbacks to the "pivot" policy should not be mistaken for setbacks to U.S. power in the absolute.19 U.S. allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and (soon) South Korea are in the headlines for seeking to warm up ties with China, but there is no hard evidence that they will turn away from the U.S. security umbrella. Rather, the pivot reassured them of U.S. commitment, giving them the flexibility to focus on boosting their economies, which means sending emissaries to Beijing. The problem is that Beijing knows this and will therefore still suspect that a "containment" strategy is underfoot over time. Better Indian relations: The Bush administration made considerable progress in improving ties with India. Trump also seems India-friendly, which would be supported by better ties with Russia and Iran. India could therefore become a greater obstacle to China's influence in South and Southeast Asia. Chart 22Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Chart 23Japan's Strategic Predicament Japan's Strategic Predicament Japan's Strategic Predicament From the above, we can draw three main conclusions: The U.S. role in the Pacific will determine global geopolitical stability under the Trump administration. The primary question is whether China is willing and able to accede to enough of Trump's demands to ensure that the U.S. and China have at least "one more fling," a further extension to the post-1979 trade relationship. It is possible that China is simply unable to do so and in the face of any concrete sanctions by Trump, will batten down the hatches, rally people around the flag, and shore up the state-led economy. There may be a tactical U.S.-China "improvement" over the next year - relative to the worst fears of trade war under Trump - but it will not be durable. The year 2017 will be the year of Trump's "honeymoon," while Xi Jinping will be focused on internal politics ahead of the Communist Party's crucial National Party Congress in the fall.20 Thus, after Trump gives China a "shot across the bow," like charging it with currency manipulation, the two sides will likely settle down at the negotiating table and send positive signals to the world about their time-tried ability to manage tensions. Financial markets will see through Trump's initially symbolic actions and begin to behave as if nothing has changed in U.S.-China relations. However, this calm will be deceiving, since economic and security tensions will eventually rise to the surface again, likely in a more disruptive way than ever before. China's periphery will be decisive, especially the Korean peninsula. The Koreas could become the locus of East Asia tensions for two reasons. First, North Korea's nuclear weaponization has reached a level that is truly alarming to the U.S. and Japan.21 New sanctions, if enforced, have real teeth because they target commodity exports (Chart 24). The problem is that China is unlikely to enforce them and South Korean politics are likely to turn more China-friendly and more pacific toward the North with the impending change of ruling parties. This will leave the U.S. and Japan with legitimate security grievances but less of an ability to change the outcome through non-military means. That is an arrangement ripe for confrontation. Separately, China's worsening relations with Taiwan, Vietnam's resistance to China's power-grab in the South China Sea, and conflicts between India and Pakistan will be key barometers of regional stability vis-à-vis China. Chart 24Will China Cut Imports From Here? Will China Cut Imports From Here? Will China Cut Imports From Here? The risk to this view, again, is that a Middle East crisis could distract the Trump administration. This would mark an excellent opportunity for China to build on its growing regional sway, and it would delay our baseline view that the Asia Pacific is now the chief source of geopolitical risk in the world. Investment Conclusions There is no geopolitical risk premium associated with Sino-American tensions. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the industry are at a loss when we ask how one should hedge tensions in the region. This is a major risk for investors as the market will have to price emerging tensions quickly. Broadly speaking, Sino-American tensions will reinforce the ongoing de-globalization. If the top two global economies are at geopolitical loggerheads, they are more likely to see their geopolitical tensions spill over to the economic sphere. Unwinding globalization implies that inflation will make a comeback, as the reduction in flows of goods, services, capital, and people gradually increases supply constraints. This is primarily bad for bonds, which have enjoyed a bull market for the past three decades that we see reversing.22 At the same time, these trends suggest that investors should favor consumer-oriented sectors and countries relative to their export-reliant counterparts, and small-to-medium sized businesses over externally-exposed multinationals. BCA Geopolitical Strategy's long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 trade is up 7.4% since inceptionon November 9. Finally, these trends, combined with the associated geopolitical risks of various powers struggling for elbow room, warrant a continuation of the Geopolitical Strategy theme of favoring Developed Markets over Emerging Markets, which has made a 45.5% return since inception in November 2012. The centrality of China risk only reinforces this view. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see our initial discussion of Trump's foreign policy, "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and, more recently, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "In Focus - Cold War Redux?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "It's A Long Way Down From The 'Wall Of Worry,'" dated March 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," dated April 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Turkey: Strategy After The Attempted Coup," dated July 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see John J. Meirsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016, available at www.foreignaffairs.com. 12 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 One of his foreign policy advisors, former CIA head James Woolsey, has floated the idea that the U.S. could turn positive about Chinese initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt One Road program to link Eurasian economies. Please see Woolsey, "Under Donald Trump, the US will accept China's rise - as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo," South China Morning Post, dated November 10, 2016, available at www.scmp.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 17 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

While the Fed's recent forward guidance leading markets to increase the odds of a policy-rate hike earlier than previously expected will restrain the recovery in crude oil prices, fundamentals will dominate price formation now that markets have rebalanced.