Oil

Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? Chart 1U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. Chart 2Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Chart 3Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). Chart 4Policymakers Fear The Middle Income Trap 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 5Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. Chart 6Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Chart 7The Market Has Already Priced-In A Fed Pause 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. Chart 8Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Chart 9Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? Chart 10A Ray Of Hope From Broad Money bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy.   Chart 11Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. Chart 13ADon't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Chart 13B...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Chart 14AOpening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... Chart 14B...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Chart 15Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Chart 16Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. Chart 17A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Chart 18Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Chart 19Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. Chart 20U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. Chart 21Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 22Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. Chart 23Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. Chart 24Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Chart 25...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Chart 26Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. Chart 27EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Chart 28Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can.  Chart 29Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. Chart 30Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. Chart 31Trump Sanctions Boosted Risk Premium 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. Chart 32Barometer Of Trump’s Survival 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst.  Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity.   This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. Chart 33Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). Chart 34Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Chart 35Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too South Korea Over Taiwan  Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      Yes. He literally said that.   Geopolitical Calendar

… quick’s the word and sharp’s the action. Jack Aubrey1 Idiosyncratic supply-demand adjustments – some induced by head-spinning reversals of policy (e.g., the U.S. about-face on Iran oil export sanctions) – and uncertainty regarding monetary policy and trade will keep volatility in oil, metals and grains elevated in 2019. We remain overweight energy – particularly oil – expecting OPEC 2.0 to maintain production discipline, and for demand to remain resilient.2 We remain neutral base metals and precious metals, seeing the former relatively balanced, and the latter somewhat buoyant, even as the Fed continues its rates-normalization policy. We remain underweight ags, although weather-induced supply stress has reduced the global inventories some. While we continue to favor being long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI on a strategic basis, tactical positioning will continue to dominate commodity investing in 2019. Highlights Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts goes into effect in January vs. October levels, and should allow inventories to resume drawing. Base Metals: Neutral. Fundamentally, base metals are largely balanced, which is keeping us neutral going into 2019. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices will remain sensitive to Fed policy and policy expectations. Palladium prices have soared as a growing physical deficit noted earlier widens.3 If China cuts sales taxes on autos again, demand could soar. Ags/Softs: Underweight. A strong USD will weigh on ag markets, particularly grains, next year. An agreement on contentious Sino – U.S. trade issues could re-open Chinese markets to U.S. exports. However, the arrest of the CFO of China’s Huawei Technologies in Canada for possible extradition to the U.S. complicates negotiations.   Feature Going into 2019, commodity markets once again are sending conflicting signals. While we continue to favor exposure to commodities as an asset class by being long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI index, which fell 6% this year on the back of the collapse in crude oil prices and flattening of the forward curves in Brent and WTI.  Nonetheless, we believe investors will continue to be rewarded by taking tactical exposure on an opportunistic basis. Volatility remains the watchword, particularly in 1H19, for the primary industrial commodities – oil and base metals. While idiosyncratic supply-demand adjustments will drive prices in each market, Fed policy also will contribute to volatility, as the U.S. central bank likely remains the only systemically important monetary authority following through on rates-normalization. In line with our House view, we expect the Fed to deliver its fourth rate hike of 2018 at its December meeting next week, and four additional hikes next year. On the back of Fed policy, we expect the broad trade-weighted USD to rise another 3-5% in 2019, following a 6% increase in 2018 (Chart of the Week). This will supress demand ex-U.S. for commodities priced in USD, by raising the USD cost of these commodities. Chart of the WeekStronger USD Pressures Commodity Demand Stronger USD Pressures Commodity Demand Stronger USD Pressures Commodity Demand Below, we highlight the key themes we believe will dominate commodities in 2019. Oil Markets Still Re-Calibrating Fundamentals We continue to expect global oil demand to remain strong next year, despite the slight downgrading of global GDP growth earlier this year by the IMF. We expect EM import volumes – one of the key variables we track to proxy EM income levels – to hold up in 1H19, which supports our assessment commodity demand will grow, albeit at a slower rate than this year (Chart 2).4 Chart 2Slowing Trade Volumes Might Pre-sage Softer Commodity Demand Slowing Trade Volumes Might Pre-sage Softer Commodity Demand Slowing Trade Volumes Might Pre-sage Softer Commodity Demand In 2H19, we see the volume of EM imports dipping y/y from higher levels, then recovering toward year-end. This indicates the all-important level of EM income – hence commodity demand – will remain resilient, but the rate of growth in incomes will slow. This is confirmed by the behavior of the Global Leading Economic Indicators we use to cross check our EM income expectation via import volumes (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Leading Economic Indicators Lead EM Import Volume Changes Global Leading Economic Indicators Lead EM Import Volume Changes Global Leading Economic Indicators Lead EM Import Volume Changes There is a chance Sino – U.S. trade relations will thaw, which would remove a large uncertainty over the evolution of demand next year. This would be supportive for EM trade volumes generally, particularly imports. However, this is not a given, and we are not assuming any pick-up in demand in anticipation of such a development. We need to see concrete actions, followed by tangible trade improvement first. On the supply side, oil markets still are in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions last month – i.e., the last-minute granting of waivers to Iran’s largest oil importers. However, following OPEC 2.0’s decision last week to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in 1H19, we continue to expect prices to recover. Indeed, going into the OPEC 2.0 meeting last week, we had already lowered our December 2018 production estimates for OPEC 2.0, and also reduced 2019 output estimates by ~ 1mm b/d, so the producer coalition’s action did not come as a surprise (Chart 4).5 Chart 4BCA's Global Oil Balances Anticipated OPEC 2.0 Cuts BCA's Global Oil Balances Anticipated OPEC 2.0 Cuts BCA's Global Oil Balances Anticipated OPEC 2.0 Cuts In addition to the cuts by OPEC 2.0, the Alberta, Canada, government mandated production cuts, which will become effective January 1, 2019, to clear a persistent supply overhang that was decimating producers’ revenues in the province. We estimate there is ~ 200k b/d of trapped Alberta supply – i.e., excess production over takeaway capacity (pipeline and rail) – along with ~ 35mm bbls of accumulated excess production in storage the government intends to draw over the course of 2019 at a rate of ~ 96k b/d. This will lower overall OECD inventories, even if the Canadian barrels are transferred south. Net, in addition to the 1.2mm b/d of cuts from OPEC 2.0, the ~ 300k b/d coming from Canada next year will mean close to 1.5 mm b/d of production, or ~1.4mm b/d of actual supply when accounting for the inventory release, is being cut or curtailed from these two sources. We cannot, at this point, forecast over-compliance with the OPEC 2.0 accord, which was one of the signal features of the deal in 2017 and 1H18. The Trump administration’s waivers for Iran’s eight largest oil importers expire May 2019. We view it as highly unlikely the Trump administration will re-impose export sanctions in full on Iranian exports following the expiration of waivers, and fully expect they will be extended at least for 90 days. This is because oil fundamentals will remain tight next year, despite the massive de-bottlenecking of the Permian Basin in West Texas. While an additional 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity will be added to the region, it will not be fully operational until 4Q19. We have ~ 300k b/d of additional supply coming out of the Permian after the pipeline expansions are done in 2H19. Even as pipeline capacity is filled, the U.S. still needs to significantly increase its deep-water oil-export capacity to get this crude to market.6 Bottom Line: We expect the oil market to re-balance in 1H19, as production falls by ~ 1.4mm b/d – the combination of OPEC 2.0 and Canadian production cuts – and consumption grows by a similar amount. The USD will continue to appreciate next year, which, at the margin, will temper demand growth and prices. Gold: Remaining Long Equity And Inflation Risks Trump Higher Rates in 2019 As the U.S. economic cycle matures and advances into its final innings, we continue to recommend holding gold in a diversified portfolio. U.S. inflationary pressure will surprise to the upside in 2019, per our House view, which will offset the effects of somewhat less accommodative U.S. monetary policy in the U.S. The October equity correction is a reminder that, when rising UST yields drag stocks down in late-cycle markets, gold works as an effective hedge against equity risks, and can outperform bonds. In fact, both of the corrections we saw in 2018 likely were caused by a sharp increase in bond yields. This convexity on the upside and downside is what makes gold our preferred portfolio hedge. Easy Monetary Policy + Rising Rate = Bullish Gold Prices Despite being negatively correlated with interest rates, gold tends to perform well when the fed funds rate is below r-star – known as the “natural rate of interest” – and is rising (Chart 5, panel 1).7 When this happens, policy rates are below the so-called natural interest rate consistent with a fully employed economy, which, all else equal, is inflationary. In these late-cycle environments, gold’s ability to hedge against inflation and equity risks dominate its price formation, while its correlation with U.S. real rates diminishes. Chart 5Gold Will Stay in Trading Range Gold Will Stay in Trading Range Gold Will Stay in Trading Range In our view, gold will remain in an upward trading range until rates become restrictive enough to depress the inflation outlook (Chart 5, panel 2). Our U.S. strategists estimate the equilibrium fed funds rate is at ~ 3%, and project it will rise to ~ 3⅜% by end-2019. Therefore, despite our House view of four rate hikes next year, we expect the U.S. economy to remain in a below-r-star-and-rising phase for most of the year. Consistent with our House view, we believe U.S. inflation is likely to surprise to the upside next year, which will push gold prices higher (Chart 6, panel 1). The U.S. economy remains strong, particularly on the employment front. This means wage growth will work its way through inflation rates. Chart 6U.S. Inflation Likely to Surprise U.S. Inflation Likely to Surprise U.S. Inflation Likely to Surprise Admittedly, this is not the consensus view. Investors are not worried about significantly higher inflation (Chart 6, panel 2). However, our Bond strategists argue that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation is stuck below historical levels because of this abnormally low fear of elevated inflation (i.e. > 2.5%). Once inflation starts drifting higher, there will be an upward shift in investors’ inflation expectations. Any short-term dip in inflation on the back of lower oil prices will be transitory, given our view that oil prices will recover next year. If such a transitory dip, or concerns about a global growth slowdown spilling back into the U.S. causes the Fed to pause, we would add to our precious metal view position, given our assessment that this would raise the probability of an inflation overshoot. Lastly, gold prices recently have been depressed by an abnormally high correlation with the U.S. dollar (Table 1). We put this down to speculative positioning: Net speculative positions are stretched for both the U.S. dollar and gold, Table 1Gold Vs. USD Correlations Running Higher Than Normal 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets therefore, any change in expectations likely will be amplified by a reversal in positioning (Chart 7). In the medium-term, we expect the gold-dollar correlation to converge back to its average, which would mute the dollar’s impact on gold. This would, all else equal, raise inflation and equity risks factors. Chart 7Spec Positioning Stretched Spec Positioning Stretched Spec Positioning Stretched Bottom Line: We continue to recommend gold as a portfolio hedge for investors, given its convexity – it outperforms during equity downturns, and participates on the upside (albeit not as much). Given our out-of-consensus House view for inflation, we believe gold also will provide a hedge against this risk. Palladium: China Tax Policy Could Lift Price Palladium soared to dizzying heights this year, on the back of an expanding physical deficit (Chart 8). Were it not for the loss of an automobile-tax break in China, which reduced the rate of growth in sales there to unchanged y/y, this deficit likely would have been considerably wider, inventories would have drawn even harder, and palladium prices would have been higher (Chart 9). Chart 8Palladium's Physical Deficit Expanding Palladium's Physical Deficit Expanding Palladium's Physical Deficit Expanding Chart 9Palladium Inventories Collapse Palladium Inventories Collapse Palladium Inventories Collapse Palladium’s demand is mainly driven by its use in catalytic converters for gasoline-powered cars, which dominate sales in the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest car markets (Chart 10). U.S. sales growth has leveled off this year (Chart 11), as has China’s. However, the China Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) is pressing policymakers to reduce the 10% auto sales tax by half, which could keep palladium demand elevated relative to supply, should it happen.8 Chart 10Auto Catalyst Demand Dominates Palladium 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets Chart 11China Car Sales Could Revive With Tax Cut China Car Sales Could Revive With Tax Cut China Car Sales Could Revive With Tax Cut Russian producers, led by Norilsk Nickel, supply ~ 40% of the world’s palladium. Markets have been fearful U.S. sanctions could be imposed on Norilsk and other Russian producers throughout the year by the U.S., most recently in re Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels in international waters, and over Russia’s response to the threatened withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by the U.S., which could be keeping a risk premium firmly embedded in palladium prices.9 With platinum trading below $800/oz, or ~ 65% of palladium’s value, autocatalyst makers could begin to switch out their catalysts (Chart 12). Chart 12Platinum Could Fill Palladium Supply Gap Platinum Could Fill Palladium Supply Gap Platinum Could Fill Palladium Supply Gap Base Metals: Trade Tensions, USD Cloud Outlook Base metals remain inextricably bound up with EM income growth. When EM incomes are growing, commodity demand – particularly for base metals – is growing, and vice versa. This typically shows up in EM GDP and import volume levels, which we use as explanatory variables in our base-metals price modeling (Chart 13). Chart 13Base Metals Demand Tied To EM Income, Trade Volumes Base Metals Demand Tied To EM Income, Trade Volumes Base Metals Demand Tied To EM Income, Trade Volumes There are, in our view, two significant risks to EM income growth over the short and medium terms: Sino – U.S. trade disputes, which erupted earlier this year. They carry the risk of spreading globally and unwinding supply chains that have taken decades to develop between DM and EM economies;10 Fed monetary policy, which is immediately reflected in USD levels. A strong dollar raises the local-currency costs of commodities for consumers ex-U.S., and debt-servicing costs in EM economies. In addition, it lowers the local-currency costs of producing commodities ex-U.S., which incentivizes producers to raise production to capture this arbitrage, since they are paid in USD. The trade-war risk remains, despite the agreement between presidents Trump and Xi at the G20 in Buenos Aires to work on a trade deal. Even so, the actual level of tariffs imposed by both sides is trivial relative to the level of global trade, which is in excess of $20 trillion p.a. – ~$17 trillion for goods, $5 trillion for services, according to the WTO (Chart 14). Chart 14Sino – U.S. Tariffs Remain Trivial Relative to Overall Global Trade 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets Fed policy, on the other hand, is a threat of far greater moment to EM income growth, and, through this, import volumes, which we use to proxy that growth. The LMEX index, a gauge of base-metals prices traded on the LME, is extremely sensitive to changes in EM import volumes. This is not unexpected, given the income elasticity of trade for EM economies is greater than 1.0. Our modeling finds a 1% increase in EM import volumes translates to a 1.3% increase in the LMEX, which is consistent with the World Bank’s estimate of EM income elasticity of trade.11 Per our House view, we believe markets are too sanguine regarding the possibility of a Sino – U.S. trade deal. Such an event, should it occur, would immediately affect base metals markets, as China accounts for roughly half of base metals demand globally(Chart 15). Market participants’ default setting appears to be the U.S. and China will resolve their trade differences in short order – i.e., by the March 1, 2019, deadline agreed at the G20 meeting – resulting in a win-win for both countries and the world. We are hopeful this view is correct, but we would not take any positions in base metals in expectation of such an outcome. Instead, we think the substantive technological and strategic differences between the two countries, and underlying distrust, will result in a renewed escalation of tensions. Chart 15China Demand Remains Pivotal Base Metals Demand Could Wobble China Demand Remains Pivotal Base Metals Demand Could Wobble China Demand Remains Pivotal Base Metals Demand Could Wobble Bottom Line: We remain neutral base metals going into 2019. Fundamentally, most of the metals in the LME index are in balance, or can get there in short order. The Fed’s rates-normalization policy continues to represent a larger short-term risk to EM income growth than Sino – U.S. trade tensions, but, longer term, we continue to expect tension between the world’s dominant economies to escalate. Ags: Trade Tensions, USD Cloud Outlook That’s not a typo in the sub-head above; ags – particularly soybeans – are dealing with the same headwinds bedeviling base metals. The agreement to work on a trade agreement reached at the G20 summit between the U.S. and China lifted grain markets, and supported the upward trend in grain and bean prices. All the same, Sino – U.S. trade relations are prone to go off the rails at any time. The Buenos Aries understanding, after all, only holds for 90 days. In addition to the hoped-for agreement to resolve trade-war issues, grain prices received support from the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This helped align supply-demand fundamentals globally with prices. Focusing too much on China can obscure the fact that the USMCA, which replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), eliminated major uncertainties over the fate of U.S. grain exports to Mexico, the second-largest destination for U.S grains, beans and cotton. In fact, Mexico accounts for 13% of all U.S. ag exports (Chart 16).12 Chart 16Trade Negotiations Hit American Farmers Hard 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets All the same, the Sino – U.S. trade war is hitting U.S. ags hard, particularly soybeans. The 25% tariff on China’s imports of U.S. grains created two parallel agriculture markets. In one market, China is scrambling to secure supplies, creating a deficit. In the other, U.S. farmers are struggling to market their produce overseas, suffering from storage shortages and in some cases left with no option but to leave their crops to rot. Close to 60% of U.S. bean exports historically went to China. The U.S. – China trade war caused a soybean shortage in Brazil, as demand from China for its crops soared, while a record 11% of American beans are projected to be left over after accounting for exports and domestic consumption (Chart 17). Chart 17Bean Shortage in Brazil, Supply Glut in the U.S. Bean Shortage in Brazil, Supply Glut in the U.S. Bean Shortage in Brazil, Supply Glut in the U.S. A successful resolution to the U.S. – China trade tensions is unlikely to reverse the over-supply of beans globally (Chart 18). In fact, we expect beans stocks-to-use (STU) ratios to build next year, unlike global corn and wheat stocks (Chart 19). This will set a record for the soybean STU ratios, pushing them above 30%. Chart 18Expect Another Bean Surplus Expect Another Bean Surplus Expect Another Bean Surplus Chart 19Bean STU Ratios Will Grow Bean STU Ratios Will Grow Bean STU Ratios Will Grow As is the case for metals, the USD will weigh on ag markets, which will make U.S. exports more expensive than their foreign competition (Chart 20). As is the case for all of the commodities we cover, a strong dollar will weigh on prices at the margin. Chart 20A Strong USD Will Make U.S. Exports Expensive A Strong USD Will Make U.S. Exports Expensive A Strong USD Will Make U.S. Exports Expensive Bottom Line: A thaw in the Sino – U.S. trade war should realign global grain markets, but will not keep soybeans from setting new global inventory records. A strong USD will be a headwind for ag markets, as it is for other commodity markets we cover.     Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      This is a fictional character in the movie Master and Commander, based on the novels of Patrick O’Brian. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It was formed in November 2016 to manage oil production. 3      Please see “Silver, Platinum At Risk As Fed Tightens; Palladium Less So,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 15, 2018.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see “The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand,” published as a Special Focus in the IMF’s Global Economic Prospects in June 2018 for a discussion of income elasticities for oil, base metals and other commodities in large EM economies. 5      In our current forecast for 2019, we expect Brent to average $82/bbl next year, and for WTI to trade $6/bbl below that.  Please see “All Fall Down: Vertigo In the Oil Market … Lowering 2019 Brent Forecast to $82/bbl,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy November 15, 2018.  We will be updating our supply-demand balances and price forecast next week. 6      At 11.7mm b/d and growing, the U.S. is the largest crude oil producer in the world, having recently eclipsed Russia’s total crude and liquids production of 11.4mm b/d, and the U.S. EIA’s projected 2019 output of 11.6mm b/d.  U.S. crude oil exports hit 3.2mm b/d for the week ended November 30, 2018, an all-time high, according to EIA data.  It is worthwhile recalling crude oil exports were illegal until December 2015.  U.S. product exports totalled 5.8mm b/d for the week ended November 30, and 6.3mm b/d the week before that.  Total U.S. crude and product exports are running ~ 9mm b/d at present, which placed them just above total imports of crude and products – i.e., the U.S. became a net exporter of crude and products at the end of November. 7      The San Francisco Fed defines r-star as the inflation-adjusted “natural” rate of interest consistent with a fully employed economy, with inflation close to the Fed’s target.  r-star is used to guide interest-rate policy consistent with long-term macro goals set by the Fed.  Please see “R-star, Uncertainty, and Monetary Policy,” by Kevin J. Lansing, published in the FRBSF Economic Letter May 30, 2017. 8      Please see “Exclusive: Reverse gear - China car dealers push for tax cut as auto growth stalls,” published by reuters.com October 11, 2018. 9      Please see “Is Norilsk Nickel too big to sanction?” published by ft.com on April 19, 2018, and “U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty,” published by nytimes.com October 19, 2018. 10     We discuss this in “Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals,” published July 12, 2018, in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11     For a discussion of the World Bank’s trade elasticities, please see “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy June 21, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12     Canada makes up a smaller share of U.S. exports, at ~ 2%. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q18 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets

Highlights Our take on the key macro drivers of financial markets hasn’t evolved much since we laid it out this summer, … : Monetary policy is still accommodative; lenders are ready, willing and able; and the expansion remains intact. ... but the inflection points are getting nearer: The good times won’t last forever, though. The Fed is resolutely tightening policy, BBB-heavy investment-grade issuance has the corporate bond market flirting with a plague of fallen angels, and the global economy is slowing. Our strategy remains more cautious than our outlook for now, … : Although we think the equity bull market has another year to run, and the expansion will stretch into 2020, we are only equal-weight equities, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. … but we’re alert to opportunities to get more aggressive: Investment-grade and high-yield bonds are unlikely to offer an attractive risk-reward profile, but the S&P 500 shouldn’t decline much more if the economy holds up. Feature Mr. and Ms. X’s annual visit is an occasion for every BCA service to look toward the coming year, mindful of how it could improve on the one just past. The theme we settled on in last year’s discussion, Policy and Markets on a Collision Course, began asserting itself in earnest in October, and appears as it will be with us throughout 2019. The Fed is nearing its fourth rate hike this year, on the heels of three in 2017, and markets are warily contemplating the tipping point at which higher interest rates begin to interfere with activity. The yield curve has become a constant worry (Chart 1), with short rates moving in step with the fed funds rate while yields at the long end have been just one-half as sensitive (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Curve Anxiety Has Exploded ... Yield Curve Anxiety Has Exploded ... Yield Curve Anxiety Has Exploded ...   Chart 2... As The Curve Has Steadily Flattened 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last? 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last? Trade tensions are an even thornier policy challenge. After flitting on and off investors’ radar earlier in the year, trade barriers have been a major source of angst in recent months as central banks, investor polls and company managements increasingly cite them among their foremost concerns. Unfortunately, our geopolitical strategists do not expect relief any time soon. They see trade as just one aspect of an extended contest for supremacy between China and the U.S. Late-Cycle Turbulence, our 2019 house theme, pairs nicely with Policy-Market Collision. The gap between our terminal fed funds rate expectation and the money market’s is huge, and leaves ample room for a repricing of the entire yield curve. Trade has been a roller coaster, capable of inducing whiplash in 140 characters or less, and it may already have brought global manufacturing to the brink of a recession. Oil lost 30% in two months at the stroke of a pen; its immediate fate is in the hands of OPEC, but the caprice with which Iranian sanctions may or may not be re-imposed is likely to feed uncertainty. As we advised Mr. and Ms. X a few weeks ago, investors should stay nimble; there is no point to committing to a twelve-month strategy right now.1 The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Our equilibrium fed funds rate model estimates that the equilibrium fed funds rate, the rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity, is currently around 3%. It projects that the equilibrium rate will approach 3¼% by the middle of 2019, and 3⅜% by year end. The implication is that policy is comfortably accommodative now, and will not cross into restrictive territory for another 12 months – assuming that the Fed hikes four times next year, in line with our ambitious expectation. If the Fed steps back from its gradual pace, and only hikes three times in 2019 (as per the dots), or just once (as per the money market), the day when the economy and markets will have to confront tight monetary conditions will be pushed even further into the future. Stretching monetary accommodation until late next year would seem to forestall the arrival of the next recession until at least the first half of 2020. Tight policy is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a recession, as recessions have only occurred when the policy rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium over the six decades covered by our model. A longer stretch of accommodation would also continue to nourish the equity bull market and discourage allocations to Treasuries. Over the last 60 years, the S&P 500 has accrued all of its real returns when policy was easy (Table 1), while Treasuries have wilted, especially in the current phase of the fed funds rate cycle (Table 2). Table 1Equities Flourish When Policy’s Easy ... 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last? 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last?   Table 2... While Treasuries Stumble 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last? 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last? The Business Cycle The state of policy is one of the three components in our simple recession indicator. Neither of the other two is sounding the alarm, either. Our preferred 3-month-to-10-year segment of the Treasury yield curve is still comfortably upward sloping, even if it has been steadily flattening and we expect it to invert late next year (Chart 3). Year-over-year growth in leading economic indicators decelerated slightly last month, but remains well above the zero line that has reliably preceded past recessions. Chart 3Flattening, But Not Yet Flat Flattening, But Not Yet Flat Flattening, But Not Yet Flat The Credit Cycle Anyone following the credit cycle would do well to start with the axiom that bad loans are made in good times. Its converse is just as true: good loans are made in bad times. Loan officers are every bit as susceptible to the recency bias as other human beings, and they tend to extrapolate from the freshest observations when assessing a borrower’s prospects. When things are good, lenders assume they will continue to be good, and let their guard down by lending to marginal borrowers and/or relaxing the terms on which they will lend. When things are bad, on the other hand, loans have to be underwritten so tightly that they squeak. The upshot is that lending standards and loan performance are tightly bound up with one another. In the near term, standards and performance are joined at the hip; over a five-year period, standards lead performance as a contrary indicator. Defaults almost certainly bottomed for the cycle in 2014, to judge by speculative-grade bonds (Chart 4, top panel), and loans (Chart 4, bottom panel). Standards reliably followed, and the proportion of lenders easing standards for corporate borrowers, as per the Fed’s senior loan officer survey, spiked (Chart 5). Chart 4Weakening, But Not Yet Weak Weakening, But Not Yet Weak Weakening, But Not Yet Weak   Chart 5Standards Follow Performance In Real Time ... Standards Follow Performance In Real Time ... Standards Follow Performance In Real Time ... The 2012 and 2014 peaks in willingness suggest that performance is due to erode (Chart 6). We do not foresee a step-function move higher in defaults, or a sudden collapse in loan availability, but we do expect some fraying at the edges. Given how tight spreads remain, any weakness at the margin could go a long way to wiping out much, if not all, of spread product’s excess return. The bottom line is that the credit cycle is well advanced, and investors should expect borrower performance and lender willingness to weaken from their current levels. Chart 6... And Lead Them Over The Intermediate Term ... And Lead Them Over The Intermediate Term ... And Lead Them Over The Intermediate Term Bonds We have written at length on our bearish view on rates and Treasuries.2 The key pillar supporting our rationale is the gap between our terminal fed funds rate estimate, 3.5-4%, and the market’s view that the Fed will not go beyond 2.75%, if indeed it gets to that level at all (Chart 7). The gap is big enough to drive a truck through, and leaves a lot of room for yields to shift higher all along the curve, even if the Fed were to slow its 25-bps-a-quarter tempo, as the Wall Street Journal suggested it might in a report last Thursday. We continue to believe that inflation is the inevitable outcome once surging aggregate demand collides with limited spare capacity, and that the Fed will be forced to push the fed funds rate to 3.5% and beyond. Chart 7Something's Gotta Give Something's Gotta Give Something's Gotta Give Our view that the credit cycle has already passed its peak drives our view on spread product. Though we remain constructive on the economy and the outlook for corporate earnings, we are not enamored of the risk-reward offered by corporate bonds. Although high-yield spreads blew out by nearly 125 bps from early October to late November, high yield still does not look cheap (Chart 8, bottom panel). The same holds for investment-grade spreads, which remain near the bottom of their long-term range despite widening by over 50 bps (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 8Spreads Are Still Tight Spreads Are Still Tight Spreads Are Still Tight Bottom Line: We recommend that investors underweight fixed income within balanced portfolios, while underweighting Treasuries and maintaining below-benchmark duration. We recommend benchmark holdings in spread product, but we expect to downgrade it to underweight before the end of the first half. Equities With monetary policy still accommodative, and the expansion still intact, the cyclical backdrop is equity-friendly. If we’re correct that policy won’t turn restrictive for another twelve months or so, the bull market should have about another year to go. We downgraded equities to equal weight as a firm in mid-June nonetheless, on signs of global deceleration and the potentially malign effects of tariffs and other impediments to global trade. U.S. Investment Strategy fully supported that decision, but we are alert to opportunities to upgrade equities to overweight within U.S. portfolios if prices decline enough to make the prospect of a new cycle high attractive on a risk-reward basis. The risk-reward requirement implies that the fall in price would have to occur without a material weakening of the fundamental backdrop. For now, we think the fundamental supports remain stable, as per the equity downgrade checklist we constructed to keep tabs on them. The checklist monitors recession indicators, none of which betray any concern now; factors that may weigh on corporate earnings; inflation measures, because higher inflation could motivate the Fed to hike more quickly than planned, with adverse consequences for the bull market; and signs of overexuberance (Table 3). Table 3Equity Downgrade Checklist 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last? 2019 Key Views: Inflection At Last? The earnings-pressure section focuses on the key factors that might signal margin contraction – wage growth, dollar strength and rising bond yields – but none of them look especially problematic now. While we think compensation gains will eventually push the Fed to go beyond its own terminal rate estimates, they have not yet picked up enough to cause concern. The dollar has paused in its advance, mostly marking time since the end of October. Only BBB corporate yields have gotten closer to checking the box (Chart 9). BCA’s preferred margin proxies remain in good shape, on balance (Chart 10), and our EPS profit model is calling for robust profit growth across all of next year (Chart 11). Chart 9Higher Rates Will Exert Some Margin Pressure Higher Rates Will Exert Some Margin Pressure Higher Rates Will Exert Some Margin Pressure   Chart 10In The Absence Of Margin Pressures, ... In The Absence Of Margin Pressures, ... In The Absence Of Margin Pressures, ...   Chart 11... 2019 Earnings Could Hold Up Nicely ... 2019 Earnings Could Hold Up Nicely ... 2019 Earnings Could Hold Up Nicely Oil’s plunge has pulled both headline CPI and longer-run inflation expectations lower. Although we think that the inflation respite is merely a head fake, and that oil will soon regain its footing (please see below), the run of harmless inflation data has the potential to soothe some market concerns about the Fed. If the Fed itself takes the data at face value, it may signal that the current 25-bps-a-quarter gradual pace could be slowed. As for exuberance, the de-rating the S&P 500 has endured since its forward multiple peaked at 18.5 in January suggests that it’s not a problem. We are not living through anything remotely resembling an equity mania. Bottom Line: BCA’s mid-June downgrade of global equities from overweight to equal-weight was timely. We remain equal-weight in balanced U.S. portfolios, but are more likely to upgrade U.S. equities than downgrade them, given the supportive cyclical backdrop. Oil We devoted our report two weeks ago to the oil outlook and its implications for the economy. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service’s bullish 2019 view has not changed: it still sees a market in a tight supply/demand balance with high potential for supply disruptions and a smaller-than-usual inventory reserve to make up the slack. The unexpected release of over a million barrels a day of Iranian output has played havoc with oil prices, but does not provoke the growth concerns that declining demand would. Provided OPEC is able to agree on production cuts, and abide by them going forward, our strategists see Brent and WTI averaging $82 and $76/barrel across 2019. The Dollar We remain bullish on the dollar, though it will find the going rougher than it did in 2018. Traders have built up sizable net long positions, so it will take more for the greenback to extend its advance than it did to begin it. Ultimately, we think desynchronization between the U.S. and the rest of the major DM economies will keep the dollar moving higher. If the U.S. does not continue to outgrow the currency-major economies by a healthy margin, and/or the Fed does not respond to that growth by hiking rates to prevent overheating, the dollar’s advance may be nearly played out. Putting It All Together Three major assumptions underpin our views: The U.S. economy is at risk of overheating in its second year of markedly above-trend growth fueled by fiscal stimulus, and the Fed will respond to that risk by decisively raising rates. There will be a noticeable global slowdown, but it will not go far enough to turn into a recession. The U.S. will remain mostly immune to the global slump. We will be positioned well if all of these assumptions are validated by events, though timing is always uncertain. Financial-market volatility often increases late in the cycle, and we expect the backdrop to remain fluid. We are trying to maintain a fluid mindset in kind, monitoring the incoming data to make sure our cyclical assessments still apply, while remaining alert to opportunities created by significant price swings. Although we are neither traders nor tacticians, we want to retain some flexibility, and are trying to resist mentally locking in our positioning for the entire year. We are particularly focused on the monetary policy backdrop and the transition from accommodative to restrictive policy, which has historically been critically important for asset allocation. Our main goal is to anticipate the approach of inflection points in the key cycles – business, credit and monetary – as adeptly as we can. We are also resolved to look through the noise of one-off price swings and the blather that has already been clogging the airwaves. We seek to help our clients formulate a strategy for navigating the turbulence without being swept up in it. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the December 2018 Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy, “The Rates Outlook,” the September 17, 2018; U.S. Investment Strategy, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?” and the November 5, 2018; U.S. Investment Strategy, “Checking In On Our Rates View,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Commodity & Energy Strategy clients, We went into the G20 meeting this past weekend expecting the leaders of OPEC 2.0 to instruct their ministers to cut oil output by 1.0mm – 1.4mm b/d at their upcoming meeting in Vienna. However, we could see higher cuts: News reports suggest OPEC 2.0 – the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition lead by Saudi Arabia and Russia – could agree to re-instate its original production-management accord agreed in November 2016, under which 1.8mm b/d of output was taken off the market. In addition to the G20 news, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley served notice an 8.7% production cut – 325k b/d of crude and oil-sands output in the province – will commence January 1. The province also intends to secure rail transport to move 120k b/d. In this update, we reprise the events that led to the price collapse of the past month, and present what we consider the most likely outcome of the OPEC 2.0 Vienna meeting on December 6. As was the case in 2015, this agreement will be one of the critical determinants of oil prices next year. First a brief review of the price collapse of the past month. Toward end-October, the Trump administration – likely the State Department – realized the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran could remove as much as 1.7mm b/d of exports from the market. Our own estimate had 1.25mm b/d of Iranian exports being lost to the market under the re-imposition of the Iran sanctions. At the upper end of market estimates, the amount of crude removed from the market could have exceeded total global spare capacity to meet any unplanned oil-production outage. Such an outage – e.g., losing 500k b/d from Iraq, Libya or Nigeria, or the total collapse of Venezuela, which would take ~ 1mm b/d off the market – would have produced a supply shock. In such a scenario, prices would rally through $100/bbl, and likely would push even higher if a large unplanned outage occurred while Iranian exports were falling. With U.S. shale supplies growing 1.3mm b/d, and demand growing 1.45mm b/d next year, per our modeling, demand destruction would have ensued, with higher prices required to allocate increasingly scarce supply, if such an outage hit the market. Following what appears to have been a lengthy internal debate on the sanctions at the end of October and beginning of November, the Trump administration ended up granting waivers on the sanctions to Iran’s eight (8) largest importers. In so doing, a potential supply shock that almost surely would have resulted in a price spike was transformed into a short-term supply glut, which collapsed prices. The waivers, in other words, were a supply shock to the downside.  Little if any detail has been made available regarding the waivers by the Trump administration. Markets literally were left to scramble to calibrate new supply-demand balances in the dark (Chart 1). Chart 1Waivers Were A Downside Supply Shock to Markets ... Waivers Were A Downside Supply Shock to Markets ... Waivers Were A Downside Supply Shock to Markets ... Following the waivers, longer-dated futures followed the front of the curve lower and backwardated markets – reflecting increasingly tight supply-demand balances – became contango to flat markets (Chart 2). The immediate shock of the waivers likely was compounded by speculative liquidation along the curve, not just at the front (Chart 3). The vertical jump in implied volatilities suggests the entire market – hedgers and speculators – was caught off guard by the waivers (Chart 4). The waivers likely prompted producers to accelerate hedging programs, as speculators unwound long positions. In addition, upward revisions of U.S. production – following the addition of more than 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity from the Permian Basin by the end of 2019 – likely played a role in accelerating longer-dated hedging programs. It is worthwhile noting the backwardation in Brent returns to the forward curve in 2H19 then flattens, while for WTI, the curve carries slightly month-on-month to the end of 2020, then pretty much flattens out thereafter (Chart 5). It also is worthwhile noting the back of the curve fell less than the front of the curve, as the graphs above show. Chart 2... And Backwardations Disappeared, As Supply Suddenly Increased ... And Backwardations Disappeared, As Supply Suddenly Increased ... And Backwardations Disappeared, As Supply Suddenly Increased Chart 3Speculators Exited Oil Speculators Exited Oil Speculators Exited Oil Chart 4Volatility Surged Following Waivers Volatility Surged Following Waivers Volatility Surged Following Waivers Chart 5Waivers Flatten Forward Curves Waivers Flatten Forward Curves Waivers Flatten Forward Curves Markets Still Are In The Dark OPEC 2.0 member states – having access to their customers’ demand schedules – have some idea of what the waivers entail, and are adjusting their supply schedules accordingly. We went into the G20 meeting expecting production cuts of between 1.0mm and 1.4mm b/d. All the same, we could see higher cuts: News reports suggest OPEC 2.0 could re-instate its original production-management accord agreed in November 2016, under which 1.8mm b/d of output was taken off the market. Nonetheless, we continue to expect cuts to come in on either side of 1.2mm b/d from OPEC 2.0 following its Vienna meeting. In Alberta, as we discussed in last week’s CES, the government’s action was undertaken to narrow the sometimes-massive basis differentials between WTI, the U.S. benchmark, and WCS, the Canadian benchmark for crude-oil pricing. The WTI – WCS spread has been under persistent pressure due to a lack of storage and takeaway capacity. According to the CBC, the government is losing $80mm per day due to the takeaway and storage constraints. The 8.7% cuts will remain in place until some 35mm barrels of oil in storage is shipped to refining markets, most likely in the Spring, according to the CBC. By the end of next year, the production cuts are expected to fall to 95k b/d, following the opening of new takeaway pipeline capacity. There are a few caveats to keep in mind going forward: Production cuts from OPEC 2.0 could be larger than the upper estimate we are working with (1.4mm b/d). The Iranian import waivers are expected to expire in 2H19. However, the Trump administration could unilaterally extend them, given the expansion of Permian takeaway capacity will not be fully completed till 4Q19. Also, U.S. crude oil export capacity will not be sufficient to move surplus crude from the U.S. to global markets for a couple of years at best. This likely is what underlies the forward market’s flattening post-2020. Venezuela is still subject to larger-than-expected decrease in production: We attach a 33% probability to the total collapse of Venezuela over the next year, which could remove ~ 800k b/d of exports from the market, and severely test OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity. On the demand-side, the market (and BCA Research) expect a slowdown in global growth next year. However, the Trump – Xi talks at the G20 this past weekend pointing toward a greater willingness to resolve trade differences could revive global trade and commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals. This is not a given, however, and we are not adjusting our demand expectation of 1.46mm b/’d of growth next year because of it.       Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, In addition to today’s report, we sent you our 2019 Outlook earlier this week, featuring a discussion between BCA editors and Mr. and Ms. X. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Today’s macroeconomic backdrop of slowing global growth, plunging oil prices, falling equity prices, widening credit spreads, and a strong dollar is reminiscent of what transpired in 2015. We do not expect global capital spending to contract as much as it did back then, partly because Saudi output cuts should preclude the need for shale producers to slash capex plans. Nevertheless, global growth is likely to slow further into the first half of next year, suggesting that equities and other risk assets could face renewed near-term pressures. The sell-off in the dollar following Powell’s speech is unwarranted. We expect the DXY to reach 100 by early next year. Global bond yields will rise by more than currently discounted over a 12-to-18 month horizon, but are likely to fall somewhat over the next few months. Feature Echoes From The Past Today’s macroeconomic backdrop is starting to look increasingly similar to 2015, a year when the global economy slowed sharply and commodity prices took it on the chin. In 2014, the Fed was gearing up to raise rates while other central banks were still in full-out easing mode. The divergence in monetary policies between the U.S. and the rest of the world caused the U.S. dollar to surge. The broad trade-weighted dollar strengthened by 16% between July 2014 and March 2015 (Chart 1). Chart 1Current Dollar Strength: Replay Of 2015? Current Dollar Strength: Replay Of 2015? Current Dollar Strength: Replay Of 2015? The effects of the stronger dollar rippled across the global economy. Notably, since China had a de facto currency peg to the dollar at the time, the resurgent greenback made Chinese companies less competitive in global markets. The appreciation of the yuan came at a time when the Chinese government was tightening both monetary and fiscal policy. The year-over-year change in total social financing (TSF) reached as high as 23% in April 2013 but fell to 12% in May 2015 (Chart 2). Chart 2Just Like Today, China Was Tightening Monetary And Fiscal Policy Going Into 2015 Just Like Today, China Was Tightening Monetary And Fiscal Policy Going Into 2015 Just Like Today, China Was Tightening Monetary And Fiscal Policy Going Into 2015 Eager to give its export sector a competitive boost, China allowed the currency to weaken by about 4% in August 2015 (Chart 3). The “mini-devaluation” backfired. Rather than instilling confidence in the economy, it caused investors to bet on further currency declines. Capital outflows intensified as the yuan came under further pressure. Between June 2014 and January 2016, China lost almost US$1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. Chart 3China's Mini-Devaluation Backfired China's Mini-Devaluation Backfired China's Mini-Devaluation Backfired The combination of a stronger dollar and sagging Chinese growth led to a steep decline in commodity prices. The London Metals Exchange index fell by nearly 40% between July 2014 and January 2016. Brent crude oil prices plunged from $110/bbl to as low as $26/bbl during this period (Chart 4). Capital spending in the commodity sector collapsed. Fears over the financial health of commodity producers and related firms caused credit spreads to widen (Chart 5).  Chart 4Stronger Dollar And Soggy Chinese Growth Were A Bad Combination For Commodity Prices Stronger Dollar And Soggy Chinese Growth Were A Bad Combination For Commodity Prices Stronger Dollar And Soggy Chinese Growth Were A Bad Combination For Commodity Prices Chart 5Weakness In The Commodity Complex Weighed On High-Yield Bonds In 2015 Weakness In The Commodity Complex Weighed On High-Yield Bonds In 2015 Weakness In The Commodity Complex Weighed On High-Yield Bonds In 2015 Throughout the course of 2015, the Fed refused to back off from its plans to start raising rates. It hiked rates in December of that year and signaled four more hikes for 2016. However, as markets continued to swoon, the FOMC quickly backed off. The Fed would not raise rates again for a full 12 months. The Federal Reserve’s decision to temper its hawkish rhetoric, along with China’s decision to ramp up stimulus in early 2016, put a floor under risk assets. Fast forward to the present and investors are again wondering if the Fed is about to blink and whether the Chinese authorities are set to deliver a massive dose of global reflationary stimulus. We would not exclude either option. However, we think that a lot more pain is required before either occurs. China’s Begrudging Stimulus Program The Chinese government’s reform agenda remains focused on curbing credit growth and reducing excess capacity. China has historically stimulated its economy with ever-more debt and investment spending (Chart 6). There is an obvious tension here – one that is likely to make the authorities reluctant to turn on the credit spigot unless the economy slows further. Chart 6China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand Of course, China can try to stimulate its economy without relying on more debt-financed investment spending. In particular, it can try to boost consumption or net exports. The problem is that neither of these two options would be welcome news for other nations. Capital goods and raw materials account for more than 80% of Chinese imports. The rest of the world relies on Chinese investment, not Chinese consumption. Similarly, while stricter capital controls have given the authorities greater scope to weaken the yuan than they had in 2015, such a move would only hurt China’s competitors and curb Chinese imports.  The Fed Will Keep Hiking Stocks rallied and the dollar sold off on Wednesday after Chairman Powell seemingly suggested that the fed funds rate was already close to neutral. This appeared to be a sharp recanting of his statement in early October that the Fed was a “long way” from neutral. We think the financial media and many pundits overreacted to Powell’s remarks. What he actually said was that “interest rates are still low by historical standards, and they remain just below the broad range of estimates of the level that would be neutral for the economy.”1 The “broad range” of estimates that Powell was referring to is drawn from September’s Summary of Economic Projections, which showed that FOMC members saw the appropriate “longer run” level of the fed funds rate as ranging between 2.5% and 3.5%. Given that the current target for the fed funds rate is 2%-to-2.25%, Powell was merely stating a fact about the current position of the Fed dots, not offering new forward guidance. In any case, investors are focusing too much on what Powell may or may not be thinking. The Fed does not know where the neutral rate is. True to its “data-dependent” approach, it will keep raising rates until the economy slows by enough that it needs to stop. Our base-case scenario envisions only a modest slowdown in U.S. growth, driven in part by increasing capacity constraints (the latter should make the Fed more, not less, eager to raise rates). So far, the data are consistent with this benign slowdown scenario. Holiday sales have been stronger than expected, based on data from Johnson-Redbook and Adobe Digital Insights. According to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, real GDP is on track to increase by 2.6% in the fourth quarter. Net exports and inventory destocking are expected to shave about half a percentage point off growth. This means that real final domestic demand is still growing at a healthy 3% pace. GDP growth could slow to about 2.5% next year as the fiscal impulse declines and the lagged effects from the recent tightening in financial conditions make their way through the economy. Nevertheless, given that most estimates peg potential growth at around 1.7%-to-1.8%, this should still be enough to push the unemployment rate towards 3% by the end of 2019, bringing it to the lowest level since the Korean War. This should keep price and wage inflation on an upward trajectory (Chart 7). Chart 7Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? The “dots” in the September Summary of Economic Projections foresaw one rate increase this December and three additional hikes next year. The market is currently pricing in only two hikes through to end-2019 and no hikes beyond then (Chart 8). If our baseline scenario for the U.S. economy unfolds as expected, the Fed will raise rates four times next year, which will keep the U.S. dollar well bid.  Chart 8The Market Does Not Buy The Dots Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 Oil And The Global Economy: Why It Will Not Be As Bad This Time Around As in 2015, a key question today is how the recent drop in oil prices will affect both the U.S. and the global economy. Here there is some good news. The balance sheets of U.S. energy companies have improved markedly over the past few years. Rapid productivity has allowed shale producers to boost production to record levels without having to incur substantially higher costs. In fact, capital spending in the energy sector is far lower as a share of GDP today than it was in the lead-up to the 2015 shale bust (Chart 9). Chart 9Energy Sector Capex Is Far Below Its 2014 Peak Energy Sector Capex Is Far Below Its 2014 Peak Energy Sector Capex Is Far Below Its 2014 Peak Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the slide in oil prices is also likely to be different this time around. In 2015, the Saudis refrained from cutting output in the hope that this would undermine Iran and decimate the fledgling U.S. shale industry. In the end, the Iranian regime endured, and while U.S. production did fall temporarily, it quickly rebounded (Chart 10). Chart 10Who Won The Market Share War Of 2015? Who Won The Market Share War Of 2015? Who Won The Market Share War Of 2015? Going into September, the Saudis ramped up production after President Trump indicated his intent to tighten sanctions on Iranian oil exports. In the end, Trump declined to reimpose the sanctions. This left the market with a surfeit of crude. There is a limit to how much Saudi Arabia can cut output. Now that the stock market is well off its highs, President Trump has started to take credit for low oil prices. Nevertheless, the Saudis are keenly aware that they need crude to trade at about $83 per barrel just to balance their budget. Our geopolitical and energy strategists expect the Kingdom to cut production by enough to push up prices from current levels. Russia has also hinted at restraining supply. If U.S. producers fill part of the void created by Saudi and Russian production cutbacks, U.S. energy sector capital spending will hold up much better than it did in 2015. Provided that oil prices do not return all the way to their September highs, U.S. consumers will also benefit from an increase in spending power. Investment Conclusions We do not expect the global economy to weaken as much as it did in 2015. Nevertheless, most forward-looking economic indicators point to slower growth over the next few quarters (Chart 11). Global growth will likely bottom out by the middle of 2019, but until then, investors should continue to favor developed over emerging market stocks. They should also overweight defensive equity sectors, such as consumer staples and health care, relative to deep cyclicals, such as materials and industrials. Given sector skews, this implies a regional preference for the U.S. over Europe and Japan. Chart 11Global Growth Is Slowing Global Growth Is Slowing Global Growth Is Slowing As far as the near-term absolute direction of stocks is concerned, the equity score from our MacroQuant market-timing model has risen from its recent lows thanks to an improvement in sentiment/technical components. Nevertheless, the model is still pointing to heightened downside risks to global equities over the remainder of the year and into early 2019 due to slowing growth and the lagged effects of the recent tightening in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 12MacroQuant Equity Model* Score Is Off Its Lows, But Is Still Warning Of More Downside For Stocks Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 Slower global growth and ongoing Fed rate hikes should keep the dollar well bid. Consistent with our qualitative analysis, our model is currently sending a very bullish signal on the greenback (Chart 13). We expect the DXY to reach 100 by early next year. Chart 13MacroQuant U.S. Dollar Model Is Pointing To Further Upside For The Greenback Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 The model’s near-term outlook on bonds has improved greatly in recent weeks after having spent the better part of the last 18 months in bearish territory (Chart 14). To be clear, this is a tactical signal: The model’s cyclical fair-value estimate for the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield stands at 3.71% – 67 basis points above current levels – which implies that the 12-to-18 month path for yields remains to the upside (Chart 15). Nevertheless, with global growth slowing and lower energy prices dragging down inflation, there is a good chance that the 10-year yield will temporarily fall below 3% before resuming its structural uptrend. Chart 14MacroQuant Recommended Portfolio*: Tactically Favor Bonds Over Stocks Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015   Chart 15MacroQuant U.S. Bond Model*: Treasury Yields Are Still Well Below Fair Value, But The Upside Is Capped Tactically Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Jerome H. Powell, “The Federal Reserve’s Framework for Monitoring Financial Stability,” Federal Reserve, November 28, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

OPEC 2.0’s meeting next week in Vienna once again will feature a full cast of dignitaries representing member states, including the energy ministers from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, Khalid al-Falih and Alexander Novak. They have led the coalition since it was formed two years ago to halt a destructive oil-price collapse occasioned by the disastrous OPEC market-share war, which was launched at a similar gathering in November 2014. U.S. President Donald Trump will be present in Vienna, if only in spirit; and via Twitter, of course, continuing to press the oil exporters to maintain production at record high levels. We expect Trump’s demands to go unheeded. The leaders of OPEC 2.0 – and their bosses – likely will agree to production cuts in Buenos Aries at the G20 meeting starting tomorrow, which energy ministers will ratify in Vienna. If they don’t, the 30.2% decline in Brent since early October will mark a stopping-off point in a larger down move (Chart 1). Chart 1Another Price Collapse Looms, Without An OPEC 2.0 Production Cut Another Price Collapse Looms, Without An OPEC 2.0 Production Cut Another Price Collapse Looms, Without An OPEC 2.0 Production Cut Our 2019 Brent forecast remains at $82/bbl, with WTI $6/bbl lower. We expect OPEC 2.0 will agree to cut 1.0 – 1.4mm b/d of production, to undo the supply shock delivered via waivers on the U.S. export sanctions against Iran.1 Without production cuts our forecast will be lowered. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Canadian crude oil prices likely will remain depressed, as takeaway pipeline capacity remains fully booked and producers are forced to use expensive rail transport to move their barrels south (see below). The WCS – WTI differential recently traded close to -$50/bbl, due to pipeline constraints. Base Metals: Neutral. Zinc’s near-record physical-to-prompt futures backwardation remains close to recent highs, on the back of sharply lower stocks at the LME and SHFE. 2 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold remains in the middle of the range it’s occupied since 2013, on either side of $1,225/oz going into the G20 meeting. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybeans recovered slightly ahead of the G20 meeting in Buenos Aries tomorrow. Markets will be watching for any sign of a thaw in the Sino – U.S. trade war. Feature Two years into the oil-price recovery, OPEC 2.0 member states continue to suffer from post-traumatic budget disorders (PTBD). The coalition’s leaders need higher prices, as do the rest of its members. KSA, Russia and the other OPEC 2.0 member states are coming off weak recoveries from the oil-price collapse of 2015 – 16. The oil price required to balance KSA’s budgetary obligations – its fiscal breakeven (FBE) price – averages $82.90/bbl this year and next, according to the IMF’s most recent estimates.3 If prices remain lower for longer, KSA’s official reserves will continue to fall, as its sovereign wealth fund continues to be tapped to fill budget gaps. The Kingdom’s official reserves, which stand at ~ $495 billion by the IMF’s reckoning, have fallen by almost one-third versus their 2014 peak, as a result of the lingering effects of the oil-price collapse.4 The Kingdom needs higher prices to transition to a less oil-dependent economy, and to meet its budget obligations in the present. Lastly, if it ever hopes to IPO its state oil company, Aramco, to fund its diversification efforts, KSA will have to have higher prices. The Middle East oil exporters as a group (ex Libya and Yemen, which are failed states), also are especially vulnerable to another oil-price collapse. The IMF estimates that every $10/bbl reduction in oil prices translates into 3 percentage-point drop in these states’ GDPs, and spawns untoward economic ramifications – e.g., tightening financial conditions leading to asset-price corrections, deterioration of banks’ assets, and slower growth. 5 As for Russia, it only started recovering last year from the oil-price shock of 2015 – 16 and the imposition of Western sanctions following its annexation of Crimea. Prior to that, real wages fell precipitously, and the government was required to tighten fiscal and monetary policy to control inflation following the collapse of the rouble, when the central bank stopped defending it in the wake of falling oil prices. Real GDP fell 2.5% in 2015 and 0.2% in 2016, then grew at a 1.5% rate last year, which was below expectations, according to the IMF. Growth is expected to come in at 1.7% this year, although the recent collapse in oil prices and renewed tensions with Ukraine could temper this outlook.6 The IMF warned in its July 2018 assessment of the economy, that “structural constraints” – high levels of state control, economic concentration and regulation, weak institutions and infrastructure – and geopolitical tensions “raised uncertainty and dampened domestic and foreign private investment.” Against this backdrop, President Trump’s insistence upon keeping KSA’s and OPEC’s production higher to keep U.S. gasoline prices lower puts his “oil policy” directly in opposition to the interests of KSA and its Gulf allies. Even though Russia has geared its budget to withstand oil prices as low as $40/bbl, lower prices will impact it, albeit to a lesser extent than the Middle East OPEC states. These states are not alone in being disadvantaged by President Trump’s insistence on lower-for-longer oil prices. U.S. shale-oil producers, which are driving the country’s oil output surge, do not benefit from lower prices. WTI prices in the low-$50s – and West Texas Midland prices trading ~ $6/bbl below that, because of pipeline constraints in the Permian Basis – will reduce capex in the shales and imperil growth (Chart 2). Chart 2Bottlenecks Pressure Spreads Bottlenecks Pressure Spreads Bottlenecks Pressure Spreads In addition, the U.S. defense contractors, whose interest President Trump recently cited as his principal foreign policy driver when he was demanding higher OPEC production, know that without stronger oil prices, KSA will not be able to follow through on the $110+ billion of arms deals contained in various letters of intent signed last year during the president’s visit to the Kingdom.7 Net, we expect OPEC 2.0 to agree on production cuts of between 1.0mm and 1.4mm b/d at its December 6 meeting. In our balances modeling, to be conservative, we assume OPEC 2.0 (ex Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela) production next year will be 900k b/d below the peak reached this month (Chart 3). This, along with steady demand – we assume growth of 1.46mm b/d next year, which takes global demand over 101.6mm b/d next year – drives our $82/bbl forecast for Brent. We expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent next year. Chart 3Lower OPEC 2.0 Production Expected Lower OPEC 2.0 Production Expected Lower OPEC 2.0 Production Expected In addition to the above assumptions, we also believe KSA and its Gulf allies will maintain their production cuts in 2H19, to make room for higher U.S. shale production once Permian Basin pipeline transportation is de-bottlenecked. With the exception of the 2014 – 16 price collapse, which resulted from the ill-fated market-share war launched by OPEC in an attempt to limit Iran’s revenues when it returned to export markets following the removal of export sanctions in 2015, OPEC’s modus operandi has been to reduce production to make room for non-OPEC production increases.8 Canada’s Takeaway Dilemma Unlike the Permian Basin, Canada’s takeaway bottlenecks – i.e., insufficient pipeline capacity to move all of the oil-sands crude it can produce south to the U.S. refining or Gulf Coast export market – are not likely to be resolved in the near future. This will reduce investment in oil-sands development, and keep pressure on oil producers selling their crude on a Western Canadian Select (WCS) basis, the Canadian benchmark. At present, there is a large takeaway deficit in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Pipeline capacity has been maxed out since 2H17. There were five planned pipeline projects in the basin, four of which have been either cancelled or indefinitely delayed – i.e., the Trans Mountain Expansion, Northern Gateway, Energy Est and Keystone XL – while one is expected to be constructed in 4Q19 (i.e., the Line 3 Replacement). The outlook for pipeline capacity does not bode well for WCS prices. Since 2017, around 3mm b/d of needed pipeline infrastructure has been cancelled/delayed. The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement is expected to increase crude delivery to Superior, WI, in 4Q19, by ~ 370k b/d. Absent a major policy or court ruling U-turn, projected pipeline additions will be insufficient to cover Alberta’s growing oil sands surplus until 2022, and possibly beyond (Chart 4).9 Chart 4Expected Pipeline Additions In Canada Fall Short The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting This persistent takeaway deficit pushed the WTI – WCS spread past the crude-by-rail cost range (Chart 5). This means prices are signaling the need for additional takeaway capacity – i.e., building additional pipeline, or importantly, additional trains/crews/rail infrastructure – and that production should be reduced. Chart 5WCS Differentials Signal More Takeaway, Less Production Is Required The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting Our analysis of takeaway capacity in the WCSB leads us to believe investments in oil sands will be curtailed, which will lead to a slowdown in production starting in 2021 (Chart 6). According to IHS Markit, production growth this year and next is expected to come mainly from projects under construction before 2014. Capex is still low compared to pre-2014 levels (Chart 7). The current WTI – WCS spread should limit production growth to ~ 600k b/d between 2018 and ~ 2022. If, as we expect, the delayed pipelines are built in late 2021- early 2022, investment should start to rise again prior to this. Hence, production growth could resume close to 2022, or slightly thereafter. This is in line with the Canadian National Energy Board’s low-price scenario, in which oil production increases by 600k b/d from now to 2021, and plateau/declines afterward due to lack of investments. Chart 6Expect Lower Oil-Sands Capex Expect Lower Oil-Sands Capex Expect Lower Oil-Sands Capex Chart 7Capex Below Pre-2014 Levels The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The lack of pipeline takeaway capacity has forced crude producers to pay higher rates to move their oil out of the provinces via rail. In the short-term, this is a reasonable – although partial – solution. In theory, Saskatchewan and Alberta have enough loading-terminal capacity to transport all of the excess crude supply above pipeline capacity (Chart 8). Chart 8Takeaway Capacity Can Be Found The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting However, loading-terminals are currently underutilized and shared with other commodities produced in the regions.10 Hence, crude-by-rail can only increase by: Taking capacity from other commodities currently using the rail cars, crews and locomotives. However, most of these substitute transportation modes are in already-agreed long- and medium term contracts with the railroad companies (Chart 9). Railroad companies are not willing to give away space paid for by grain shippers, which are long-term reliable customers – as opposed to uncertain crude-oil customers. Earlier this year, railroads said they would only pursue multi-year contracts with oil producers to finance new crews, locomotives, and track capacity: Short-term contracts are too risky, in the event oil shipments stop suddenly. This is ongoing; crude-by-rail volume should continue to rise through the end of the year, and part of next year.11 The fact that there is a low level of uncertainty around the lack of pipeline capacity for the next 3-4 years helps increase rail investments. Chart 9Railroads Make Grain Contracts First Priority The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting Investing in new equipment, crews and infrastructures. The Alberta Government recently announced it wants the Federal government to invest in new rail cars and infrastructure to increase takeaway capacity by 120k to 140k b/d. However, those new rail cars are only projected to start moving oil in 2H19.12 We expect crude-by-rail volumes to increase in the next few months, but the growth should slow or even flatten in 1H19, given new capacity takes time to be brought on line and other commodities already have a claim on most of the rail space.13 Crude-by-rail growth should resume in 2H19, however. We expect crude-by-rail volume to reach ~ 300k b/d by year-end and ~ 450k b/d by 4Q19. This will help alleviate some of the pressure on WCS prices (Chart 10). The fact that no pipelines are expected in the next 3 years or so suggests the WCS discount to WTI will remain in the crude-by-rail price range shown in Chart 5 – i.e., a $15-to-$22/bbl discount over the quality discount for heavy sour crude vs. the light-sweet WTI benchmark.14 Chart 10Crude-by-rail Should Increase In 2H19 The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting As bad as things sound for Canadian producers, there are two potentially important – and conflicting – regulatory and policy wildcards that could affect our projections. First the good news, then the bad news: Government-imposed production cuts: The current abnormally wide WCS spreads are caused by the marginal excess production above pipeline and rail capacity. We estimate this excess to be ~ 200k b/d. This means the marginal price received for producing these volumes sets the selling prices of the other ~ 4mm b/d produced in Canada by ~ $10-15/bbl. Therefore, as suggested by two leading Canadian oil producers, a relatively small government-imposed production reduction would have a large positive effect on WCS prices (Chart 11). As present, we assign a low probability to this outcome. Chart 11Government-Imposed Production Cut Would Lift Prices The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting IMO 2020 regulation: The January 1, 2020, implementation of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) sulphur cap on marine fuels of 0.50% could contribute to widening the WCS price discount. A recent study by CERI concluded the new regulation would decrease prices of heavy sour crude, by driving down demand for these grades. This would significantly affect Canadian oil, as it competes with other heavy streams for limited complex refining capacity worldwide. According to CERI’s analysis, IMO 2020 regulation alone could maintain the differential at $31-33/bbl. We will be exploring the implications of IMO 2020 in future research. Bottom Line: Canada’s oil industry faces a Herculean lift if it is to attract capital to grow. Pipeline constraints limiting crude takeaway capacity to the south in the WCSB strongly suggest investment in oil sands will be curtailed, which will lead to a slowdown in production starting in 2021. Crude-by-rail is a palliative, which does not fully address the underlying transportation bottlenecks limiting the growth of the Canadian crude-oil industry.     Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “All Fall Down: Vertigo In The Oil Market … Lowering 2019 Brent Forecast To $82/bbl,” published November 15, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     LME stocks are at 10-year lows, and the SHFE’s are just over 20% of their August levels. Please see “METALS – Zinc falls as weaker Chinese demand outweighs supply fears,” published by reuters.com November 26, 2018. 3      This assumes average crude-oil production of 10.1mm b/d by the IMF. Please see the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook Update for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, for May 2018, Statistical Appendix Table 6. 4      Please see the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook Update for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, for May 2018, Statistical Appendix Table 22. 5      Please see the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook Update for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, for May 2018 (p. 8). 6      The Russian seizure of Ukrainian ships and sailors earlier this week could prompt additional sanctions from the West. In its immediate aftermath, the ruble fell, credit-default insurance rates rose and the yield on local-currency bonds approached 9% p.a. Please see “Russian Assets Retreat as Ukraine Clash Revives Sanctions Risk,” published by bloomberg.com November 26, 2018. See also the IMF’s Country Report No. 18/275, Russian Federation, published in September 12, 2018, press release, and the full report published July 17, 2018. 7      Please see “In Trump’s Saudi Bargain, the Bottom Line Proudly Wins Out,” published by the nytimes.com October 14, 2018. 8      A failure by OPEC 2.0 to cut production and an extension of waivers on the Iran sanctions could add as much as 1.2mm b/d of oil to the market next year, which would renew the global inventory-building cycle and push Brent prices down by $20/bbl versus our forecasts, in our estimation. 9      Prior to the cancellation/delay by U.S. and Canadian Courts of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain and TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline projects – and before the record blow-out of the WTI – WCS basis – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) projected Canadian production would grow from 4.5mm b/d in 2018 to 6.1mm b/d in 2035. All of this growth is projected to come from the WCSB oil sands. On August 30, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The National Energy Board (NEB) now has to conduct a new review, which will require it to increase consultations with indigenous groups, and to assess the impact of marine shipping before submitting the project. On November 8, U.S. District Judge in Montana issued a ruling on the Keystone XL pipeline forcing the State Department to analyze new information in the environmental assessment of the project. The project is not cancelled, but it now needs a new environmental impact assessment. Please see the CAPP’s July report entitled 2018 Crude Oil Forecast. 10     Please see the CAPP’s July report entitled “2018 Crude Oil Forecast: Markets And Transportation,” for more details. 11     Cenovus signed three-year deals to transport approximately 100,000 barrels per day (bbls/d) of heavy crude oil from northern Alberta to the U.S. by rail. (https://www.cenovus.com/news/news-releases/2018/09-26-2018-cenovus-signs-rail-deals-to-transport-oil-to-u.s.-gulf-coast.html). GE Transportation announced CN ordered 60 new locomotives on top of an order of 200 made in December 2017 (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/09/05-cn-orders-60-locomotives-from-ge). 12     Please see “Desperate to move crude, Alberta may buy trains alone if Canada balks,” published November 22, 2018, by ca.reuters.com. The odds of the Federal government participating in this investment are low: First, the request wasn’t mentioned in the most recent Federal economic statement. Second, the Federal government already stepped in to buy the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline; Ottawa is now focused on making sure this will be approved in court challenges. 13     Both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railroads mentioned their priority was to handle the Canadian grain harvest during the “challenging winter months” before allocating rail space to crude oil. Grains-to-oil rail space substitution should increase in spring 2019. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/11/14-cn-and-cp-expect-to-bring-on-even-more-crude-oil-traffic-next-year 14     The discount to get Canadian crude to Cushing, OK, where the NY Mercantile Exchange’s WTI futures contract delivers, can increase by $5/bbl for Gulf deliveries. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed In 2018 The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting

Highlights On a 6-month horizon, go long a combination of banks and high quality 10-year bonds. The recommended combination is 25 cents in the banks and 75 cents in the bonds. The preferred banks are European or euro area and the preferred bonds are U.S. T-bonds. Stay short oil and gas versus financials. During December, use any sharp sell-offs in sterling to buy the pound… …and to downgrade the FTSE100 to underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekBanks And Bond Yields Were Connected At The Hip... Until This Year Banks And Bond Yields Were Connected At The Hip... Until This Year Banks And Bond Yields Were Connected At The Hip... Until This Year Back in June, in Oddities In The 1st Half, Opportunities In The 2nd Half we pointed out two striking oddities in financial market behaviour. One oddity was the sharp decoupling of crude oil from industrial commodity prices (Chart I-2). It is highly unusual for crude oil to outperform copper by 50 percent in the space of just six months. We argued that such an extreme deviation would have to correct one way or another. Which of course it did… Chart I-2Crude Oil Abruptly Decoupled From Industrial Commodities... Then Abruptly Recoupled Crude Oil Abruptly Decoupled From Industrial Commodities... Then Abruptly Recoupled Crude Oil Abruptly Decoupled From Industrial Commodities... Then Abruptly Recoupled The other oddity was the abrupt decoupling of bank equity performance from bond yields (Chart I-3 and Chart of the Week). Bank equity prices and bond yields are usually connected at the hip. The tight connection exists because higher bond yields tend to signal stronger economic growth, either real or nominal. Stronger growth should be good for banks as it is associated with both accelerating credit growth and lower provisions for non-performing loans. Chart I-3Banks Decoupled From Bond Yields... But Will Recouple Banks Decoupled From Bond Yields... But Will Recouple Banks Decoupled From Bond Yields... But Will Recouple On the back of these two striking oddities, we recommended a compelling trade: short oil and gas versus financials. This trade is now in profit and has further to run, but today we want to introduce a new trade: go long a combination of banks and bonds. Explaining The Oddities Of 2018 The underperformance of banks from February through September was entirely consistent with similar underperformances in the other classically growth-sensitive sectors – industrials, and basic materials as well as the decline in industrial commodity prices (Chart I-4). Furthermore, these underperformances started well before any inkling of a trade war. This suggests that the cyclical sector underperformances were correctly reflecting a common or garden down-oscillation in global growth. Chart I-4Oil And Gas Was The Odd Man Out Oil And Gas Was The Odd Man Out Oil And Gas Was The Odd Man Out Oil was a striking oddity because its supply dynamics, rather than its demand dynamics, were dominating its price action, at one point lifting its year-on-year inflation rate to 70 percent for Brent and 80 percent for WTI. Part of this surge in year-on-year inflation was also to do with the ‘base effect’, the dip in the oil price to $45 in the summer of 2017. The base effect shouldn’t really bother markets. After all, most people do not consciously compare a price today with the price precisely a year ago. The problem is that central banks do compare a price today with the price precisely a year ago in their inflation targets. Clearly, when oil price inflation was running at 80 percent, it was underpinning headline CPI inflation, central bank reaction functions, and thereby bond yields. Hence, the two striking oddities – oil abruptly decoupling from industrial commodities (Chart I-5) and bond yields abruptly decoupling from banks – are two sides of the same coin. From February through September, bond yields were taking their cue, at least partly, from the rising price of oil, given its major impact on headline inflation and on central bank reaction functions. Whereas banks, industrials, and industrial commodity prices were taking their cue from fading global growth and industrial activity. Chart I-5It Is Highly Unusual For Oil To Outperform Copper By 50% In Six Months It Is Highly Unusual For Oil To Outperform Copper By 50% In Six Months It Is Highly Unusual For Oil To Outperform Copper By 50% In Six Months A Banks Plus Bonds Combination Could Be A Win-Win The oddities of 2018 are now correcting. With the oil price sharply lower, its year-on-year inflation rate has plunged to -10 percent (Chart I-6). Furthermore, as we have pointed out in recent reports, the sharp deceleration in global credit growth from February through September has clearly arrested and even reversed. The upshot is that banks and bond yields will recouple, one way or the other. Chart I-6Oil Inflation Down from 70% To -10% Oil Inflation Down from 70% To -10% Oil Inflation Down from 70% To -10% Most likely, global growth will rebound somewhat and the beaten-down bank equity prices have considerable scope for recovery (Chart I-7), while the restraint on headline CPI inflation will keep bond yields in check. Indeed, as President Trump recently tweeted: Chart I-7Global Growth Will Rebound, So Will Banks Global Growth Will Rebound, So Will Banks Global Growth Will Rebound, So Will Banks “Inflation down, are you listening Fed!” But if we are wrong and growth disappoints, bank equities are already beaten-down while a further downdraft in inflation will pull down bond yields. Either way, on a six month horizon a combination of banks and high quality 10-year bonds should be a win-win strategy. Given the different betas of the two investments, the recommended combination is 25 cents in the banks and 75 cents in the bonds. The preferred banks are European or euro area and the preferred bonds are U.S. T-bonds. Focus On Sectors And Currencies The remainder of this report is a reminder that successful macro investing requires the application of the Pareto Principle, also known as 80:20 rule. In macro investing, the vast majority of performance outcomes, ‘the 80’, are explained by a very small number of drivers, ‘the 20’. We find that the vast majority of a region’s or a country’s stock market relative performance is explained just by its distinguishing sector fingerprint combined with its currency (Chart I-8 - Chart I-12). Chart I-8Euro Stoxx 600 Vs. MSCI Emerging Markets = Global Healthcare In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Euro Stoxx 600 Vs. MSCI Emerging Markets = Global Healthcare In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Euro Stoxx 600 Vs. MSCI Emerging Markets = Global Healthcare In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-10FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Technology In Dollars FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Technology In Dollars FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-11FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-12FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Major stock markets comprise of multinational companies whose sales and profits are internationally diversified. But each major stock market has a distinguishing ‘long’ sector in which it contains up to a quarter of its total market capitalisation, as well as a distinguishing ‘short’ sector in which it has a significant under-representation. The combination of this long sector and short sector gives each equity index its distinguishing fingerprint (Table I-1): FTSE100 = long energy, short technology. Eurostoxx50 = long banks, short technology. Nikkei225 = long industrials, short banks and energy. S&P500 = long technology, short materials. MSCI Emerging Markets = long technology, short healthcare. Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Distinguishing Fingerprint Oil, Banks, And Bonds: The Oddities Of 2018 Oil, Banks, And Bonds: The Oddities Of 2018 The other important factor is the currency. The FTSE100 oil and gas stock, BP, receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In other words, BP’s global business is currency neutral. But BP’s stock price is quoted in London in pounds. Hence, if the pound strengthens, the company’s multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. This means that the domestic economy can impact its stock market through the currency channel. Albeit it is a counterintuitive relationship: a strong economy via a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak economy via a weak currency helps the stock market. What does all of this mean for our European country allocation right now? From a sector perspective, a stance that is short oil and gas versus financials penalises the FTSE100 versus the Eurostoxx50, given the FTSE100’s oil and gas fingerprint and the Eurostoxx50’s banks fingerprint. Against this, a weakening pound would support the FTSE100. Given that Theresa May’s Brexit agreement will meet stiff resistance when it comes to Parliament in the second week of December, the point of maximum risk for the pound is still ahead of us. But as we argued last week, we ultimately expect relief for the pound as: either the Article 50 process is extended, or the U.K. moves into a transition period within a negotiated Brexit.1 Hence, during December, use any sharp sell-offs in sterling to buy the pound, and to downgrade the FTSE100 to underweight.   Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that this year’s sell-off in Italian equities is technically very stretched. Therefore, in a continued de-escalation of the budget spat between Italy and the EU, Italian equities would be ripe for a strong countertrend burst of outperformance. On this basis, our recommended trade is long MIB versus the Eurostoxx with a profit target of 5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 Long MIB Vs. Euro Stoxx Long MIB Vs. Euro Stoxx The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas”, November 22, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations