ロシア

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

Highlights Dear Client, This week's BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy contains our 2017 Outlook for Energy markets. After surprising the markets with a production cut last week, OPEC and Russia likely will do so again with a successful implementation of their agreement next year. Even if they only get buy-in on 60% to 70% of the 1.8 mm b/d in cuts they believe they've secured, production cuts and natural declines in production that are not reversed via enhanced oil recovery (EOR) will accelerate the drawdown in global crude oil and refined products inventories, which is the stated goal of the agreement. We expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl next year, up $5 from our previous forecast, on the back of last week's announced cut. We are moving the bottom of the range in which we expect WTI prices to trade most of the time next year to $45/bbl and keeping the upside at $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. Any sign either or both will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand and replace natural declines could spike prices further out the curve. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, things get a bit complicated next year: As the spread between Brent and WTI prices widens - the Feb17 spread was pricing at ~ $2.10/bbl earlier this week (Brent over) - we expect U.S. WTI exports to increase from current levels averaging ~ 500k b/d, which should keep the price differential in check next year. For the near term, we are using a +$1.50/bbl differential (Brent over) for our 2017 central tendency, although this could narrow and invert as U.S. exports grow. We closed out our long Feb/17 Brent $50/$55 call spread last week - recommended November 3, 2016, expecting OPEC and Russia to agree a production cut - with a 156% indicated profit. We are taking profits of 80.6% on our long Aug/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI, basis Tuesday's close, and replacing it with a long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread at today's closing levels, expecting backwardation to widen next year. We remain bullish U.S. natural gas near term, given reduced year-on-year production growth going into year-end. A normal-to-colder winter will be especially bullish. We remain long 2017Q1 natural gas, which is up 21.1% since we recommended the position on November 2, 2016. Longer term, we are neutral natgas, expecting production growth to resume in 2017. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Feature KSA, Russia Deal Drives Oil Prices In 2017 The evolution of oil prices next year will be dominated by the agreement between OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC, with Russia in the lead, to cut production by up to 1.8 mm b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 mm from OPEC, 300k b/d from Russia, and another 300 from other non-OPEC producers. Later this week, other non-OPEC producers are scheduled to arrive in Vienna to discuss cuts they will pledge to make starting in January. Non-OPEC production is down ~ 900k b/d this year, according to the IEA's November Oil Market Report, so it is difficult to see where these cuts will come from. Outside Russia, Kazakhstan and Oman, anything coming out of the meetings with non-OPEC producers in Vienna this week will be decline-curve losses disguised as production cuts. Still, it means they're not funding EOR programs to replace lost production (e.g., China's 10% yoy losses). Even if actual cuts only amount to 60 - 70% of the volumes agreed at OPEC's November 30 meeting in Vienna, we expect OECD storage levels - combined commercial inventories of both crude oil and refined products - to fall some 10%, or 300 million bbls, to ~ 2.75 billion bbls by the end of 2017Q3. This would put stocks roughly at their five-year average levels, the stated goal of OPEC, and its reason for negotiating the production cut (Chart of the Week). In addition, this will flatten the forward Brent and WTI curves, and deepen an already-developing backwardation in WTI beginning with contracts delivering in December 2017 (Chart 2). This will reverse the contango structure in place since mid-2014, which allowed commercial OECD oil inventories to swell by 400 mm bbls, and non-OECD inventories to increase by 240 mm bbls, according to OPEC estimates. Chart of the WeekOPEC's, Russia's Goal: Normalize Storage##br## To Five-year Average Level Chart 2Backwardation Expected ##br##In WTI And Brent Analysts Expect Cheating On The Deal Most analysts expect cheating on this deal: OPEC's production is expected to fall to 33mm b/d following production cuts, from a record high in November of 34.2mm b/d, according to a Reuters poll.1 At 33mm b/d, OPEC's output would be 500k b/d above the targeted production level of 32.5mm b/d agreed at OPEC's November 30 meeting in Vienna with Russia (Table 1). In other words, most analysts think OPEC will only deliver 700k b/d of the 1.2 mm b/d it pledged to cut under this deal. We disagree. Table 1Allocation of OPEC Cuts This Deal's Going To Work: KSA And Russia Want And Need It OPEC's goal is to get inventories back to 5-year average levels. The Cartel's latest Monthly Oil Market Report puts the global stock overhang at 304mm over the 5-year average, just slightly over our calculated value to end October (Chart of the Week).2 To get stocks to the 5-year average level by the end of June 2017 - when the Vienna agreement runs out - would require an average weekly draw of ~ 11.7mm bbl in OECD oil and products stocks, or roughly 1.7mm b/d. Between normal decline-curve losses and the production cuts, if KSA and Russia got full compliance on this deal, it stands a good chance of meeting OPEC's goal by the end of June. Even if they don't and get, say, a total of 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d in cuts from OPEC and non-OPEC producers, the Agreement's storage goal will be achieved by the end of 2017Q3 or the beginning of Q4. Chart 3KSA And Russia Need To Back Off ##br##After Near-Vertical Output Increases Unlike past production-cut deals, we think there is a good chance KSA and Russia will get fairly high compliance on this agreement. Given the results of the Reuters survey on expected compliance, our out-of-consensus call is predicated on our belief this round of cuts is fundamentally different from what we've seen before. KSA and Russia - and their allies - want and need this deal. KSA and Russia have made their point by massively increasing production in a down market, but both now need to - and want to - back off of flogging their fields and driving prices lower (Chart 3). Given the extremely high dependence both have on oil revenues, they need higher prices.3 For starters, Russia was an active participant in this deal: its energy minister, Alexander Novak, told KSA's oil minister, Khalid Al-Falih, Russia would cut - not freeze - production in the lead-up to the November 30 meeting, and would contribute half the cut OPEC wanted from producers outside the Cartel. In addition, Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, was "directly involved" in the deal, mediating between KSA and its arch rival Iran, according to various press reports.4 Politically, after having invested so much capital, we do not think Russia will backslide on this agreement. There may be some fudging on what actually constitutes a "cut" - e.g., 2017Q1 maintenance that removes 200k b/d or so from production may be called a "cut" - but by Q2 we expect to see the full 300k b/d cut taken. By the same token, we do not think KSA will backslide on its commitment. Saudi's new oil minister Al-Falih invested considerable political capital in getting a deal done, as well, over the course of meetings in Algiers, Istanbul and finally around the November 30 Vienna meeting. Practically, both KSA and Russia have burned through considerable foreign reserves to fund government expenditures following the price collapse (Chart 4). By our estimates, KSA will have burned through $220 billion in reserves between July 2014, just prior to its decision to launch OPEC's market-share war, and December 2016, equivalent to 30% of foreign reserves. Russia will have drawn down its official reserves by $77 billion over the same period, or 16% of its total holdings. Chart 4Lower Oil Prices Forced KSA And Russia ##br##To Burn Through Reserves In addition, both want to tap foreign direct investment (FDI) for cash, investments and technology, and will find it difficult to do so if oil markets remain chronically oversupplied and subject to large downdrafts as producers relentlessly increase production, as we noted in recent research.5 Both KSA and Russia are working on larger agendas next year and 2018. And both require higher prices. They cannot afford to run down reserves any further. Russia is looking to sell 19.5% of Rosneft, after the state pushed through a $5.2 billion merger with Bashneft in October. KSA is looking to issue additional debt, having raised $17.5 billion in October, and will look to IPO 5% of state-owned Aramco next year or in 2018. Both must convince FDI that money invested in their economies will not be wasted because oil production cannot be reined in. And, they both must attend to increasingly restive populations. As a result of the production cuts, KSA's and Russia's export revenues will increase: KSA's 2017 oil export revenues will increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's will increase by ~ $9 billion, following the ~ $10/bbl lift in oil prices the agreement has provided. Both will be able to lever their production to support more debt issuance. KSA will need that leverage to pull off the diversification it is attempting under its Vision 2030 initiative. Russia needs higher prices for its secondary offering of Rosneft, and to get some much-needed breathing room for its budget after years of sanctions, recession and lower government revenues. We would not be surprised if Russia sees additional production cuts next year, which will goose prices a little and put a firmer support under the ~ $50/bbl floor (basis Brent crude oil prices). Given the dire straits in which Russia finds itself, the government likely will increase taxes in 2017, which will result in lower production at the margin. We expect, however, that this will be spun in such a way as to show that when Putin gets involved, positive results occur.6 KSA's Allies Will Cut; Iran And Iraq Are Maxed Out For Now We believe this is a deal that will hold up, which, net, will generate something along the lines of 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d in production cuts in 2017H1. UAE and Kuwait can be counted on to support KSA, as they always have, and cut. And Oman - now at 1mm b/d - will step up for a small slug of the cuts too, and have said they'll match OPEC up to a 10% cut. Iran and Iraq have taken production as far as it can go over the next six months to a year, and do not represent a threat to the KSA-Russia deal (Chart 5). Iran's maxed out - they're not capable of adding all that much to their current 3.7mm b/d output. Iraq could cheat, but we don't think they can go much above 4.5mm b/d, despite their assertion they're at 4.7 mm b/d. Besides, producing at 4.4mm b/d, per the agreement, will produce more revenue for them at higher prices than producing 4.7 mm b/d at lower prices (if they actually could get to that level), and they realize that. According to press reports, Iraq only signed on to the deal in Vienna after they saw the rally in prices following leaks a deal had been reached. Maybe at this time next year, they will have mobilized some FDI to get production ramping, but even that's doubtful. With the exception of Libya and Nigeria - both of which are exempt under this deal - everyone in OPEC outside Iraq, KSA and the GCC OPEC members is producing at max (Chart 6). Libya and Nigeria are equally likely to raise output as prices increase as they are to lose output. The higher prices go the more likely these states are to see increased violence, as warring factions within their borders vie for control of rising oil revenues. Internal conflicts have not been resolved: Any increase in prices accompanied by increased production gives the warring factions more to fight over. The expected value of their increased production next year is therefore zero. Chart 5KSA's Allies Will Support It;##br## Iran, Iraq Maxed Out Chart 6Most Of OPEC Ex Gulf States ##br##Also Are Producing At Max Levels U.S. Shale Production Will Rise We expect to see evidence of the cuts contained in the KSA-Russia deal to begin showing up in the February - March period, in the form of falling commercial inventory levels. The only thing that can destabilize the six-month KSA-Russia deal is U.S. shale-oil production coming back faster and stronger than expected (Chart 7). Pre-cut, we (and the U.S. EIA) estimated U.S. shale production would bottom in late 2017Q1, and then start re-expansion as rig counts rose to sufficient levels. However, overall 2017 production would be 200 - 300 kb/d lower than 2016 production. Chart 7If U.S. Shale Ramps Too Quickly ##br##KSA-Russia Deal Could Unravel If, as we expect, the higher oil price caused by the KSA-Russia deal results in an increase of only ~ 200 kb/d above this estimate, with the production response substantially occurring in the second half of 2017, there's a good chance this deal can hold together and get global commercial oil stocks down to average levels by September 2017. As we've argued, KSA and Russia already have to have factored that in. The apparent average breakeven for the U.S. producers (including a return on capital) appears to be ~ $55/bbl, which could pop above $60 from time to time next year as the long process of restoring U.S. production plays out.7 Having the international oil market pricing at the marginal cost of U.S. shale producers is a lot better for KSA, Russia and the rest of the distressed, low-cost sovereign producers than the low-$40s that cleared the market a few weeks ago. As long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these states earn economic rent. Too fast a move to or through the $65 - $75/bbl range would no doubt produce a short-term revenue jump for cash-strapped producers - particularly those OPEC members outside the GCC. But it also would make most of the U.S. shales economic to develop, and incentivize the development of other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is brought on line (e.g., oil sands and deepwater). This ultimately would crash prices over the longer term, making it difficult for the industry to attract capital. This is not an ideal outcome for KSA's planned IPO of Aramco, or Russia's sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, or their investors. Even so, reinvestment has to be stimulated with higher oil prices in the not-too-distant future, most likely in 2018. Oil production so far has barely started to show the negative production ramifications of the $1+ trillion cuts to capex that will occur between 2015 and 2020, resulting in some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production not being available to the market. We expect the effects of this foregone production to show up over the next four years, and believe there is not much producers, particularly International Oil Companies (IOCs), can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. Chart 8Accelerating Decline Rates And##br## Steady Demand Will Stress Shale Producers With such huge cuts to future expenditures, and enormous amounts of debt incurred by the IOCs to pay for the completion of legacy mega-projects that will need to be repaid ($130B in debt added in the past two years), OPEC could see a looming shortage of oil developing later this decade if IOC-sponsored offshore production falls into steep declines, as we think is likely. With U.S. shales accounting for a larger share of global production, the global decline curve will accelerate from our estimated current level of 8 - 10% p.a. This will be happening as oil demand continues to grow 1.2 - 1.5mm b/d over the 2017 - 2020 interval (Chart 8). These massive capex cuts seen in the industry since OPEC's market-share war was launched in November 2014 will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. Any sign either or both will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand could spike prices further out the curve, as we've noted in previously. Investment Implications Of BCA's Oil View The KSA-Russia deal is short term - it expires in June, but is "extendable for another six months to take into account prevailing market conditions and prospects," according to terms of the Agreement contained in the OPEC press release of November 30. This forces investors to take relatively tactical positions in the oil markets, with some optionality for longer-dated exposure. We closed out our long Feb/16 Brent $50/$55 call spread last week - recommended November 3, 2016, expecting OPEC and Russia to agree a production cut - with a 156% indicated profit (using closing prices). We are taking profits of 80.6% on our long Aug/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI, basis Tuesday's close, and replacing it with a long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread at today's closing levels, expecting backwardation to widen next year. This is a strategic recommendation, which also will give us exposure to higher prices by the end of 2017. We will look for overshoots on the downside to get long options exposures again, and longer dated exposures as well. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC expected to deliver only half of target production cut: Kemp," published online by reuters.com on December 6, 2016. OPEC has invited Russia, Colombia, Congo, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Oman, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bolivia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Brunei to meet in Vienna Dec. 10, according to Reuters. 2 Please see the feature article in last month's OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report published November 11, 2016, "Developments in global oil inventories," beginning on p. 3. 3 Please see "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash," in the September 8, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Exclusive: How Putin, Khamenei and Saudi prince got OPEC Deal Done," published by reuters.com on December 1, 2016, and "OPEC Deal Hinged on 2 a.m. Phone Call and It Nearly Failed," published on line by bloomberg.com on December 1, 2016. See also Russia Today's online article "Putin 'directly involved' in OPEC reaching production cut deal," published December 2, 2016, on rt.com, which also details Putin's meetings months prior with KSA Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G20 meeting in China. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "The OPEC Debate", dated November 24, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Lukoil officials are talking up production cuts and possible tax hikes in Iranian and Arab media: Here is an Iranian outlet (https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/54595/lukoil-sees-60-oil-in-2017), and an Arab outlet with a longer version of the same TASS story (http://www.tradearabia.com/news/OGN_317517.html). Concerns re possible tax increases next year, which will force production lower, appear in the second-to-last paragraph. 7 Please see pp. 22 - 23 of "From Boom to Gloom: Energy States After the Oil Bust," presented by Mine Yucel, Senior Vice President and Director of Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, July 12, 2016, for a discussion of shale breakevens. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

特別レポート

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

Highlights Tighter global oil markets resulting from the production cut we expect to be announced November 30 at OPEC's Vienna meeting, along with fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration in the U.S., will continue to stoke inflation expectations. We believe gold is well suited for hedging investors' medium-term inflation exposure, given its sensitivity to 5-year/5-year CPI swaps in the U.S. and eurozone. If the Fed decides to get out ahead of this expected pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations by raising rates aggressively next year, we would expect any increase in gold prices - and oil prices, for that matter - to be challenged. For OPEC and non-OPEC producers, a larger production cut may be required to offset a stronger USD next year. Near term, we still like upside oil exposure, given our expectation that production will be cut. Energy: Overweight. We remain long Brent call spreads expiring at year-end, and long WTI front-to-back spreads in 2017H2, in anticipation of an oil-production cut. Base Metals: Neutral. We expect nickel to outperform zinc in 2017. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are long gold at $1,227/oz after our buy-stop was elected on November 11. We are including a 5% stop-loss for this position. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Our long Mar/17 wheat vs. beans order was filled on November 14. We still look to go long corn vs. sugar. Feature Chart of the WeekBrent, WTI Curves Will Flatten, ##br##Then Backwardate Following Oil-Production Cut Continuing production increases from sundry sources outside OPEC, which the International Energy Agency estimates will lift output almost 500k b/d in 2017, are turning the heat up on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to agree a production cut at the Cartel's meeting in Vienna later this month. It's either that or risk another downdraft that takes prices closer to the bottom of our long-standing $40-to-$65/bbl price range that defines U.S. shale-oil economics. The unexpected strength in production growth outside OPEC likely will require KSA and Russia to come up with a production cut that exceeds the 1mm b/d we projected earlier this month would be required to lift prices into the mid-$50s/bbl range. On the back of the expected cuts, we recommended getting long a February 2017 Brent call spread - long the $50/bbl strike vs. short the $55/bbl strike at $1.21/bbl. As of Tuesday's close, when we mark our positions to market every week, the position was up 9.09%. Reduced output from KSA and Russia - and, most likely, Gulf allies of KSA - will force refiners globally to draw down crude in storage, and for refined product inventories to draw as well. This will lift the forward curves for Brent and WTI futures (Chart of the Week). We expect oil prices will increase by approximately $10/bbl, following the joint cuts of 500k b/d each we expect KSA and Russia, which will be announced November 30. This also will lift 3-year forward WTI futures prices, which, as we showed in previous research, share a common trend with 5y5y CPI swaps. As stocks continue to draw next year, we expect the forward Brent and WTI curves to flatten, and, in 2017H2, to backwardate - that is to say, prompt-delivery prices will trade above the price of oil delivered in the future. For this reason, we are long August 2017 WTI futures vs. short November 2017 WTI futures, expecting the price difference between the two, which favors the deferred contract at present (i.e., a contango curve), to flip in favor of the Aug/17 contract. Chart 2Longer-dated WTI Futures, ##br##Inflation Expectations Rising Fiscal Stimulus Expected in the U.S. The election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the U.S. likely will usher in significant fiscal stimulus beginning next year, particularly as Republicans now control the Presidency and Congress for the first time since 2005 - 06, when George W. Bush was president. Trump campaigned on a promise of significant fiscal stimulus, which likely will, among other things, stoke inflation expectations as money starts to flow to infrastructure projects and tax cuts toward the end of next year. Even before Trump's election 5-year/5-year (5y5y) CPI swaps were ticking higher, as oil markets rebalanced and started to discount the drawdown in global inventories this year and next (Chart 2). As the outlines of the Trump administration's fiscal policy take shape and money starts to flow to infrastructure projects, we expect inflation expectations to continue to rise. In previous research, we showed 5y5y CPI swaps and 3-year forward WTI futures are cointegrated, meaning they follow the same long-term trend. Indeed, we can specify 5y5y CPI swaps in the U.S. and eurozone directly as a function of 3-year forward WTI futures.1 Gold Will Lift With Rising Inflation Expectations... In the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) markets, gold prices have shared a common trend with U.S. CPI 5y5y swaps and real interest rates, which we show in a new model (Chart 3A, top panel).2 Using this specification, we find a 1% increase in the U.S. 5y5y CPI swaps increases gold prices by slightly more than 9%. Similarly, we find a 1% increase in EMU 5y5y CPI swaps increases gold prices by slightly more than 10% (Chart 3B, top panel).3 Of course, investors always can go straight to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) for inflation protection, given the evolution of the respective CPIs in the U.S. and eurozone drives returns for these securities (Chart 4). However, we believe gold gives investors higher leverage to actual inflation and expected inflation. Chart 3AGold Prices Ticking Higher With ##br##U.S. CPI Inflation Expectations Chart 3BEMU Inflation Expectations ##br##Vs. 3-year Forward WTI Chart 4Inflation Expectations And TIPS ##br##Are Highly Correlated, As Well ...But The USD's Evolution Matters, Too The combination of tighter oil markets and fiscal stimulus in the U.S. will continue to push inflation and inflation expectations higher. The Fed will not sit idly by and just watch inflation expectations move higher next year. Indeed, prior to the election, we expected two rate hikes next year, following a likely rate increase at the FOMC's meeting next month. With expectations of a tightening oil market, and a fresh round of fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration, the odds of an even stronger USD increase. We had been expecting the USD will appreciate 10% over the next year or so, as a result of the upcoming December rate hike and two additional hikes next year. This could change, since, as, our Foreign Exchange Strategy service noted, "Trump's electoral victory only re-enforces our bullish stance on the dollar."4 A stronger USD, all else equal, is bearish for commodities generally, since it raises the cost of dollar-denominated commodities ex-U.S., and lowers the costs of commodity producers in local-currency terms. The former effect depresses demand at the margin, while the latter raises supply at the margin. Both effects would combine to reduce oil prices at the margin (Chart 5). This would, in turn, lower inflation expectations, which would feed into lower gold prices (Chart 6). Chart 5A Stronger USD Would Be Bearish For Oil Chart 6And Gold Prices As It Would Lower Inflation Expectations Our FX view, is complicated by the possibility the Fed might want to run a "high-pressure economy" next year, and the potential for additional Chinese fiscal stimulus going into the 19th Communist Party Congress next fall. If both the U.S. and China deploy significant fiscal stimulus next year, the growth in these economies could overwhelm the negative effects of a stronger USD, and industrial commodities - chiefly base metals, iron ore and steel - could rally as demand picks up. Oil demand also would be expected to pick up as a result of the combined fiscal stimulus coming out of the U.S. and China, both from infrastructure build-outs and income growth. KSA - Russia Oil-Production Cut Gets Complicated These considerations will complicate the calculus of KSA and Russia and their respective oil-producing allies as the November 30 OPEC meeting in Vienna draws near. If the Fed moves to get out ahead of increasing inflation expectations by adding another rate hike or two next year, oil prices will encounter a significant headwind. OPEC and non-OPEC producers could very well find themselves back at the bargaining table negotiating additional cuts, as prices come under pressure next year from higher U.S. interest rates. It is too early to act on any speculation regarding fiscal policy in the U.S. or China next year. However, given our expectation for an oil-production cut announcement later this month at OPEC's Vienna meeting, we are confident staying long the Brent $50/$55 call spread, and the long Jul/17 vs. short Nov/17 WTI spread position we recommended earlier this month. As greater clarity emerges on U.S. and Chinese fiscal policy going into next year, we will update our assessments. Bottom Line: We expect global oil markets to tighten as KSA and Russia engineer a production cut, which will be announced at OPEC's Vienna meeting later this month. Fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration in the U.S., and possible fiscal stimulus in China next year could put a bid under commodities. However, if the Fed gets out ahead of the expected pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations by raising rates aggressively next year, any increase in commodity prices - oil and gold, in particular - will be challenged. KSA and Russia could find themselves back at the bargaining table, negotiating yet another production cut to offset a stronger USD. That said, we are retaining our upside oil exposure via a Brent $50/$55 call spread expiring at the end of this year, and our long Jul/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI futures, which will go into the money as the forward curve flattens and then goes into a backwardation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com BASE METALS China Commodity Focus: Base Metals Nickel: A Good Buy, Especially Versus Zinc Chart 7Nickel: More Upside Ahead We are bullish on nickel prices, both tactically and strategically. Its supply deficit is likely to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017. China will continue to increase its refined nickel imports to meet strong domestic stainless steel production growth. We remain strategically bearish zinc even though our short Dec/17 LME zinc position got stopped out at $2500/MT with a 4% loss. We expect nickel to outperform zinc considerably in 2017. We recommend buying Dec/17 LME nickel contract versus Dec/17 LME zinc contract at 4.3 (current level: 4.38). If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a stop-loss level for the ratio at 4.15. Nickel prices have gone up over 50% since bottoming in February (Chart 7, panel 1). The global nickel supply deficit reached a record high of 75 thousand metric tons (kt) for the first eight months of this year, based on the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data (Chart 7, panel 2). More upside for nickel in 2017 On the supply side, the outlook is not promising in 2017. Global nickel ore and refined nickel production fell 5.2% and 1.1% yoy for the first eight months of this year, respectively, according to the WBMS data (Chart 7, panel 3). The newly elected Philippine government is clearly aiming for "responsible mining," and has been highly restrictive on domestic nickel mining activities, actions that likely will reduce the country's nickel ore production in 2017. The Philippines became the world's biggest nickel ore producer and exporter after Indonesia banned nickel ore exports in January 2014. The Philippines has implemented a national audit on domestic mines from July to September and has halted 10 mines for their environmental violations since July. Eight of them are nickel producers, which account for about 10% of the country's total nickel output. In late September, the government further declared that 12 more mines (mostly nickel) were recommended for suspension, and 18 firms are also subject to a further review. Stringent policy oversight will be the on-going theme for Philippine mines. We expect more suspensions in the country next year. There is no sign the export ban will be removed by the Indonesian government. Since Indonesia banned nickel ore exports in January 2014, the country's nickel ore output has declined 84% from 2013 to 2015. This occurred even though smelters were built locally, which will allow more nickel ore output in Indonesia. However, the incremental Indonesian output is unlikely to make up for the global nickel ore shortage next year. Global nickel demand is on the rise again (Chart 7, panel 4). According to the International Stainless Steel Forum (ISSF), global stainless steel production grew by 11.5% in 2016Q2 from only 3.7% yoy in 2016Q1. Comparatively, in 2015, the growth was a negative 0.3%. Due to fiscal and monetary stimulus in China this year, we expect continued growth in global stainless steel production in 2017. Why China Is Important To Global Nickel Markets China is the world's biggest nickel producer, consumer and importer. Its primary effect on nickel prices is through refined nickel imports. It also influences global stainless steel prices through stainless steel exports. In comparison to the global supply deficit of 75 kt, the deficit in China widened to 346 kt for the first eight months of this year - the highest physical shortage ever (Chart 8, panel 1). China has driven the global growth of both refined nickel production and nickel consumption since 2010 (Chart 8, panels 2 and 3). During the first eight months of this year, Chinese nickel production dropped sharply to 40.5 kt, nearly three times the global nickel output loss of 13.6 kt. For the same period, China's nickel demand growth accounted for 67% of global growth. In addition, the country produces about 53% of global stainless steel and exports about 10% of domestic-made stainless steel products to the rest of world (Chart 8, panel 4). Clearly, China is extremely important to both the global stainless steel and nickel markets. China Needs To Import More Nickel in 2017 Looking forward, China is likely to continue increasing its nickel imports to meet a growing domestic supply deficit (Chart 9, panel 1). The country's ore imports have been declining because of Indonesia's ban since 2014, and further dropped this year on the Philippine's suspensions (Chart 9, panel 2). Scarcer ore supply drove down Chinese refined nickel and nickel pig iron (NPI) output every year for the past three consecutive years (including this year). Chart 8China: A Key Factor For Nickel Market Chart 9Chinese Nickel Imports Are Set To Rise Prior to 2014, China imported nickel ores from Indonesia to produce NPI, which is used in its domestic stainless steel production. In 2013, only 20% of domestic nickel demand was met by unwrought nickel imports. After 2014, China's higher nickel ore imports from the Philippines were not able to make up the import losses from Indonesia (Chart 9, panel 3). As a result, in 2015, the percentage of domestic nickel demand met by unwrought nickel imports jumped to 47%. Furthermore, for the first eight months of this year, imports accounted for 57% of Chinese demand. Before the Indonesian ban in 2014, Chinese stainless steel producers and NPI producers built up mammoth nickel ore inventories for their stainless steel ore NPI production (Chart 9, panel 4). Now, Chinese laterite ore inventories are much lower than three years ago. Plus, most of the inventories likely are low nickel-content Philippines ore. Besides the tight ore inventory, China's stainless-steel output is accelerating. According to Beijing Antaike Information Development Co., a state-backed research firm, for the first nine months of 2016, Chinese nickel-based stainless steel output grew 11.3% yoy, a much stronger growth rate than the 4% seen during the same period last year. Given falling domestic nickel output and increasing nickel demand from the stainless steel sector, China seems to have no other choice but to import more refined nickel or NPI from overseas. Downside Risks Nickel prices could fall sharply in the near term if massive LME inventories are released to the global market. After all, global nickel inventories currently are at a high level of more than 350 kt, which is more than enough to meet the supply deficit of 75 kt (Chart 10, panel 1). However, as prices are still at the very low end of the range over the past 13 years, we believe that the odds of a massive, sudden inventory release is small. Inventory holders will be hesitant to sell their precious inventory too quickly, therefore the inventory release will likely be gradual, especially given the continuing export ban in Indonesia and a likely increase in the suspension of mines in the Philippines. In the longer term, if Indonesian refined nickel output continues growing at the pace registered in the past two years, the global nickel supply deficit may be much less than the market expects (Chart 10, panel 2). In that scenario, nickel prices will also fall. Due to power supply shortages, poor infrastructure and funding problems, many of the smelters and stainless steel plants' development have got delayed, so we believe these problems will continue to be headwinds for Indonesian nickel output growth. A five-million capacity stainless steel project, funded by three Chinese companies, potentially making Indonesia the world's second biggest stainless steel producer, will only be in production by 2018. Therefore, we believe next year is still a good window for a further rally in nickel prices. In addition, global stainless steel output may weaken again after this year's stimulus from China runs out of steam, which will also weigh on nickel prices (Chart 10, panel 3). We will monitor these risks closely. Investment strategy We expect nickel to outperform zinc considerably in 2017. Nickel has underperformed zinc massively since 2010 with the nickel/zinc price ratio tumbling to a 17-year low (Chart 11, panel 1). Chart 10Downside Risks To Watch Chart 11Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 Even though our short Dec/17 LME zinc position was stopped out at $2500/MT with a 4% loss due to the short-term turbulence, we remain strategically bearish zinc, as we expect supply to rise in 2017 (Chart 11, panel 2).5 Given our assessments of the nickel and zinc markets, we recommend buying Dec/17 LME nickel contract versus Dec/17 LME zinc contract at 4.3 (current level: 4.38) (Chart 11, panel 3). If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a stop-loss level for the ratio at 4.15. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Our updated estimates of the cointegrating regressions for U.S. and eurozone 5y5y CPI swaps indicate 3-year forward WTI futures explain close to 87% of the U.S. swap levels and 82% of the eurozone swaps, in the post-GFC period (January 2010 to present). Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Inflation Expectations Will Lift As Oil Rebalances," dated March 31, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 We also found that, over a longer period encompassing pre-GFC markets, gold prices shared a common trend with U.S. 5y5y CPI swaps, as well. Indeed, the evolution of 5y5y CPI swaps explained 84% of gold's price from 2004, when the 5y5y CPI swap time series begins, to present. 3 Previously, we estimated a gold model using the Fed's core PCE and the St. Louis Fed's 5y5y U.S. TIPS inflation index and found a 1% increase in the core PCE translates to a 4% increase in gold prices. Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "A 'High-Pressure Economy' Would Be Bullish For Gold," dated October 20, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "Reaganomics 2.0?," dated November 11, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for zinc section "The Lithium Battery Supply Chain: Efficient Exposure To Electric-Vehicle Market," dated October 27, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights EM risk assets will continue to plunge as U.S. bond yields and the U.S. dollar have more upside. Asset allocators should maintain an underweight allocation to EM within global equity and credit portfolios. Upgrade Russian stocks from neutral to overweight within an EM equity portfolio. Reinstate the long Russia ruble / short Malaysian ringgit trade. Feature The rout in emerging markets (EM) risk assets will persist, regardless of the direction of the U.S. equity market. While president-elect Donald Trump's potential fiscal stimulus will boost U.S. growth, it will not be sufficient to offset the negative impact on EM from rising U.S. Treasury yields and a stronger U.S. dollar. On a broader scale, risks of protectionist measures from the incoming U.S. administration are non-trivial, which will make investors even more jittery on EM. Notably, from a historical perspective, firm U.S. growth has not been a panacea for EM, particularly when the latter's domestic fundamentals were poor and commodities prices were falling. For example, EM in general and emerging Asia in particular collapsed in 1997- '98 when U.S. real GDP growth was averaging 4.5%, and European real GDP growth was 3.5%. In particular, U.S. import volumes were booming at double-digit rates, but this was insufficient to circumvent the crisis in Asia (Chart I-1). Importantly, U.S. bond yields were falling during the 1997-'98 period. Chart I-1Strong U.S. Growth Is No Panacea For EM Stocks It is hard to expect similar U.S. growth nowadays, even with Trump's potential fiscal impetus. Meanwhile, any fiscal boost in Europe so far remains a forecast. Besides, back in the 1990s, the U.S. and Europe were dominant sources of global demand - and China was not at all an economic power. Since the late 1990s, the significance of China and the rest of EM has grown enormously, while the importance of the U.S. and Europe with respect to global demand in general and EM in particular has fallen. In short, the outlook for stronger growth in the U.S. is not a reason to turn bullish on EM because the latter's fundamentals are poor. The U.S. dollar rally will persist. The greenback is close to being fairly valued, or only slightly expensive (Chart I-2). Typically, major cycles run until a market becomes considerably expensive or very cheap. It is not often that markets bottom or peak at their fair value. Odds are that the U.S. dollar will become more expensive before this bull market is over. In effect, the U.S. dollar rally is reflective of America sucking in capital. This will leave EM current account deficit countries exposed. As the currencies of these countries plummet and their local bond yields rise, their share prices will plunge and credit spreads will widen. Importantly, Trump's trade protectionist rhetoric could accelerate the depreciation in the Chinese RMB. If and when America imposes import tariffs on China, the latter will compensate via further yuan depreciation. In fact, Chinese residents will "assist" the People's Bank of China in devaluing the currency by converting their RMBs into U.S. dollars. As the RMB weakens further, probably at a faster speed, other Asian currencies will plummet (Chart I-3). In fact, odds are high that EM financial markets will once again become sensitive to the RMB. Chart I-2The U.S. Dollar Is Not Expensive Chart I-3RMB And Emerging Asian Currencies Apart from shorting the RMB versus the U.S. dollar, on October 19 we recommended shorting the KRW against the THB because the Korean won was one of most vulnerable EM currencies to continued RMB depreciation and renewed JPY weakness. We reiterate this trade today. Consistent with U.S. dollar appreciation, commodities prices will drop. One unsustainable post-U.S. presidential election move has been the rally in industrial metals in general, and copper in particular. Traders have bid up copper prices as the metal had lagged the rally in risk assets since February (Chart I-4). Nevertheless, expectations that U.S. infrastructure spending will considerably boost world demand for industrial metals are misplaced. The U.S. accounts for a very small portion of global industrial metals demand, including copper. Chart I-5 demonstrates that U.S. demand for copper is seven times smaller than that of China. On average, China accounts for about 50% of global demand for industrial metals, while the U.S. accounts for slightly less than 10%. Chart I-4The Rally In Copper ##br##Prices Is Unsustainable Chart I-5Industrial Metals ##br##Consumption: U.S. Versus China Hence, any reasonable rise in U.S. demand will not be sufficient to offset a single-digit percentage drop in China's intake of industrial metals, which we expect to occur in 2017. Finally, the Chilean mining firm Codelco - the largest copper producer in the world - in recent weeks has cut its premiums on copper shipped to Asia and Europe.1 This is a move to reduce prices - and a sign that demand is weak relative to supply. This leads us to believe that a rally driven by financial investors at a time of inferior demand-supply balance will prove short-lived. Investors should consider shorting copper on any further price strength. The selloff in U.S. and global bonds will likely persist well into December, which in turn will unravel the turmoil in bond proxies and high-multiples stocks (Chart I-6). In our July 13 Weekly Report,2 we argued that U.S. bond yields had bottomed and a selloff would prove painful as lower yields increases their duration. As a result, even a small rise in yields would lead to considerable bond price declines. Since then, while G7 bond yields initially grinded higher, they have surged over the past week. U.S. 10-year and 30-year bond yields have risen by 40 and 36 basis points, respectively since November 1. This translates into a 3.5% and 7.5% price decline for 10-year and 30-year bonds, accordingly. A similar scenario has also played out with EM bonds - both U.S. dollar and local-currency denominated. Accumulating considerable losses will force further bond liquidation. Our feeling is that many bond proxies and markets that benefited from lower yields will be seriously damaged in the coming weeks. Consistently, EM carry trades are at risk of further unraveling. Interestingly, Chart I-7 demonstrates that many high-yielding EM local bond markets are at a critical technical juncture. Odds are that their yields are heading considerably higher after troughing at their long-term moving averages. Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields ##br##And Bond Proxies Chart I-7AEM Local-Currency Bonds Are ##br##At Critical Technical Resistance Levels Chart I-7BEM Local-Currency Bonds Are##br## At Critical Technical Resistance Levels Bottom Line: EM risk assets will continue to plunge. Stay put and remain defensive. Asset allocators should maintain an underweight allocation to EM within both global equity and credit portfolios. Currency traders who are not already short should consider shorting a basket of the following EM currencies: BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, IDR and MYR. In addition, we recommend maintaining our short RMB versus USD trade, as well as our short KRW / long THB position. Today, we are also reinstating the long RUB / short MYR trade (see section on Russia below). For more details on other currency, fixed-income, credit and equity positions, please refer to our Open Position Tables on pages 12-13. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see: Codelco cuts 2017 China copper premium by 27% to $72/t.- sources (2016, November 14). Retrieved from https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3601613/Latest-news/Codelco-cuts-2017-China-copper-premium-by-27-to-72-sources.html 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View," dated July 13, 2016; a link is available on page 14. Russia: Overweight Equities; Reinstate Long RUB / Short MYR Trade Chart II-1Overweight Russian Stocks ##br##Versus The EM Equity Benchmark Russia stands out as one of the few EM countries that will likely benefit from Trump's presidency. As such, we recommend dedicated EM investors overweight Russia within both EM equity and credit portfolios. The energy and financial equity sectors together account for 75% of the Russian MSCI equity index, and we think they will continue to outperform their EM peers for the following reasons: With the ruble serving as a shock absorber, Russia's oil and gas sector has been able to weather the volatility in energy prices. If it wasn't for the ruble's massive devaluation in 2014-15, Russian energy companies would have struggled to stay solvent. While we expect oil prices to drop toward $35 per barrell, Russian energy stocks will still perform better than their EM counterparts. Furthermore, going forward, oil prices will outpace industrial metals prices. This should help Russian stocks, credit, and the currency outperform their EM peers (Chart II-1). As we argued above (please refer to page 3), the latest rally in industrial metals prices - based on expectations of U.S. infrastructure spending - does not make sense to us. In fact, the U.S. is a much more important consumer of oil than industrial metals in total world aggregate demand. Hence, strong U.S. growth and weaker Chinese growth (our baseline assumption) should be associated with oil prices outperforming base metals prices. Russia is much more advanced in its deleveraging cycle than most other EM economies. This will help banks and consumer stocks outperform their EM peers. In March 2016 we highlighted our preference for Russia's banking system relative to Malaysia's, and initiated a relative equity trade: long Russian stocks / short Malaysian stocks. This trade has already returned 30% and we believe it still has further to go. Today, we extend this positive view on Russia's banking system vis-à-vis Malaysia, to one versus the entire EM bank universe. In contrast to other emerging markets, Russian banks have been recognizing NPLs and have increased their provisions significantly (Chart II-2). Russia has now been in recession for two years and its banks have increased their NPL provisions and their credit growth has already slowed down significantly. This stands in stark contrast to other emerging markets, where banks are failing to realize NPLs and increase provisions adequately, despite substantially slower economic growth and elevated debt levels. In fact, Russia's domestic credit impulse is already starting to head into positive territory (Chart II-3), while the same indicator for the overall EM aggregate will be negative over the next 12 months or so. Russia's financial market outperformance will be aided by orthodox macro policies. This stands in contrast to unorthodox measures in many other developing countries. In terms of monetary policy, the Central Bank of Russia has refrained from injecting excess liquidity into the system or intervening in the foreign exchange market. Moreover, the central bank has been canceling the licenses of smaller banks. This is bullish for listed banks, as their market share will increase (Chart II-4). Chart II-2Russian Banks Have Recognized ##br##NPLs And Raised Provisions Chart II-3Russia's Credit Impulse ##br##Is Turning Positive Chart iI-4Russia: Banking Sector Consolidation ##br##Is Bullish For Listed Banks With respect to fiscal policy, although the government has exceeded its planned budget deficit of 3% of GDP for 2016, we believe this is not an issue given that Russia's total government debt is very low at only 16.5% of GDP. Lastly, our bias is that the recent victory of President-elect Trump will be marginally positive for the Russian economy relative to other EM. While the U.S. is not a major importer of Russian exports, investors will begin to price in sanction relief. European sanctions are particularly important for Russia and a substantive improvement in U.S.-Russia relations could lead some relatively pro-Russia European governments (Italy, Hungary, Greece, etc.) to demand that EU sanctions be either rolled back fully or significantly modified. Therefore, since Russia does not export as many goods to the U.S. compared to other emerging markets and sanctions may be easing soon, the nation is much more insulated from potential U.S. protectionist measures than many other EM countries. Investment Recommendations The Russian economy is further along its necessary adjustment path compared to the rest of the EM world, and there is less downside at the moment. Furthermore, Russian monetary and fiscal policymakers have undertaken orthodox policy measures in the face of an economic crisis - which cannot be said of many other EM countries. As such, we recommend dedicated EM investors upgrade Russia from neutral to overweight within an EM equity portfolio. We reiterate an overweight stance on Russian sovereign and corporate credit and recommend holding the following trades: Short Russian CDS / long South African CDS Long Russian and Chilean corporate credit / Short Chinese offshore corporate credit. We also recommend currency traders reinstate the long RUB / short MYR trade (Chart II-5). The two currencies are sensitive to energy prices, but the Russian economy is likely to recover soon, while the Malaysian economy has much more downside ahead. Excessive liquidity injections in Malaysia relative to somewhat tighter monetary conditions in Russia will lead to ringgit depreciation versus the ruble (Chart II-6). Lastly, the ruble offers a higher carry than the ringgit. Consistent with the currency trade, we are maintaining our long Russian / short Malaysian equity trade. Chart II-5Reinstate Long RUB / ##br##Short MYR Trade Chart II-6Malaysia And Russia: ##br##Non-Orthodox Versus Orthodox Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

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

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

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

The volte-face being attempted by OPEC and non-OPEC producers in an attempt to keep oil prices above a pure-competition market-clearing level arises from the dire financial circumstances key states in both camps find themselves. Now begins the arduous process of determining just how much the Gulf Arab states within OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA); and non-OPEC states, chiefly Russia, can cut oil production without giving shale-oil producers in the U.S. a huge windfall.

Hillary Clinton has a 65% chance of winning the election; she receives 334 electoral college votes according to our model. Trump still requires an exogenous shock to win. Meanwhile, the USD is poised to rally - and leftward-moving policymakers will applaud its redistributive effects while MNCs suffer the consequences.