Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights Duration: Economic fundamentals indicate that U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher on a 6-12 month horizon. In the near term, however, positioning data suggest that the uptrend in U.S. bond yields is due for a pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Oil & U.S. Bonds: The cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of U.S. bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. This will continue to be true until long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. At that point the oil price will become a less important driver of U.S. bond yields. Australia: Maintain an overweight position in Australian government debt. Economic data are still mixed and the RBA will stay on hold for the foreseeable future. Against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes, Australian debt should outperform. Feature Chart of the WeekHigher Yields, Driven By Inflation There was certainly no shortage of possible catalysts for last week's bond rout (Chart of the Week). The Bank of Japan (BoJ) reduced its buying of long-dated JGBs, there was a rumor that China plans to slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt, and U.S. inflation expectations started to ramp back up - driven by a combination of higher oil prices and a strong December core CPI print. But of all these factors we think it is only the third that merits much attention. Once the BoJ started targeting the level of the yield curve in September 2016, its quantity targets became irrelevant. A reduction in the pace of BoJ buying only matters if it foreshadows a shift to a higher yield curve target. Our foreign exchange strategists don't think such a move is likely in the next 12-18 months.1 China, for its part, still has a highly managed currency and now that capital is no longer flowing out of the country it will start to rebuild its foreign exchange reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States (Chart 2). The compensation for 10-year U.S. inflation protection broke above 2% last week, after having been as low as 1.66% as recently as last June. This 34 basis point increase in inflation compensation coincided with a 36 basis point increase in the nominal U.S. 10-year yield and a Brent crude oil price that rose from $45 per barrel last June to $70 per barrel as of last Friday. We think these correlations will continue to be the most important factors driving bond yields during the next 6-12 months, and the bulk of this report is dedicated to disentangling the linkages between oil prices, inflation, inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. But first we reiterate our cyclical investment stance. Last week's U.S. CPI report provided further evidence that U.S. core inflation is in the process of bottoming-out (Chart 3). The 10-year U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rate will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's target. By that time the nominal 10-year yield will be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. Likewise, our energy strategists anticipate that an ongoing steady decline in commercial inventories will keep crude prices well supported on a 6-12 month horizon. Chart 2China's Forex Reserves Are Rising Chart 3U.S. Inflation Turns The Corner However, on a shorter time horizon (3 months or less), recent shifts in speculative positioning signal that the uptrends in bond yields and the oil price might be due for a pause (Chart 4). After having been solidly "net long" since the middle of last year, net speculative positions in the 10-year U.S. Treasury futures contract have just dipped into "net short" territory. Historically, net speculative positions have been a decent indicator of 3-month changes in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, and at current levels they signal that the 10-year yield could decline modestly during the next three months (Chart 5). Similarly, speculators in the oil futures market are now more "net long" than at any time since last February. While this positioning indicator does not work quite as well for the oil market as for the Treasury market, net longs at more than 20% of open interest (most recent reading is 26%) have more often than not been met with 3-month price declines since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 4Net Speculative Positioning##BR##For Oil And Bonds Chart 5Net Speculative Positions &##BR##10-Year Treasury Yield (2010 - Present) Chart 6Net Speculative Positions &##BR##WTI Oil Price (2010 - Present) Bottom Line: The outlook for U.S. inflation suggests that TIPS breakeven rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher. However, positioning data in both bond and oil markets suggest that the recent run-up in yields might be due for a near-term pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. Oil, TIPS, Inflation And U.S. Bond Yields: Sorting Out The Mess During the post-financial crisis period two relationships have been both (i) incredibly robust and (ii) unlike relationships observed in prior periods. They are: The cost of inflation protection has been an unusually important determinant of nominal U.S. bond yields. The oil price has shown a very strong correlation with the cost of inflation protection. Both relationships can be explained by the Federal Reserve's asymmetric ability to control inflation. We consider each relationship in turn. The Importance Of Inflation Chart 7TIPS Beta Declines When##BR##Breakevens Are Low A common rule of thumb is to estimate the TIPS beta - the proportion of movement in U.S. nominal bond yields that is explained by movement in TIPS (real) yields - at around 0.8. In other words, this assumes that 80% of the movement in nominal bond yields is explained by the real component. However, we observe that since the financial crisis the 10-year TIPS beta has been a much lower 0.68, and at times it has been closer to 0.5 on a 12-month rolling basis (Chart 7). We also observe that the TIPS beta tends to be lower when TIPS breakeven inflation rates are un-anchored to the downside. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that the Fed's ability to influence inflation is asymmetric. The Fed has a strong track record of successfully tightening to bring inflation down, but has been less successful at easing to drive it up. This asymmetric ability to influence prices is due in no small part to the zero-lower bound on interest rates. Because the Fed's ability to ease policy is constrained while its ability to tighten is not, bond market participants may at times question the Fed's ability to ease and revise their inflation expectations lower. It is also during these periods that inflation expectations become more volatile and a more important determinant of nominal bond yields. This is because they are increasingly driven by the swings in the economic data and less by the Fed's policy bias. The Importance Of Oil This is where the oil price comes in. Oil and other commodities are crucial inputs to the production process. As such, not only do these prices rise in response to stronger aggregate demand, but higher prices also signal mounting cost-push inflationary pressures. But despite this obvious truth, there is not always a strong correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations. This is because the Fed's reaction function influences the relationship. Consider the pre-crisis (2004-2008) period. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates stayed range-bound between 2.4% and 2.5% even as the oil price increased dramatically (Chart 8). Since investors perceived that the Fed would simply tighten policy to tamp out any inflationary pressures that might arise, there was no desire to demand greater compensation for inflation. However, this logic does not work in reverse. When commodity prices fell in 2014, inflation expectations declined alongside. In fact we observe that the correlations between long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates and both oil and commodity prices have been much stronger in the post-crisis period, when inflation expectations have been un-anchored (Table 1). Chart 8The Unstable Correlation: Breakevens & Oil Table 1Correlations Between TIPS Breakeven Inflation & Commodities Investment Conclusions The Fed's asymmetric reaction function leads to two crucial investment conclusions. First, long-maturity inflation expectations (as measured by the U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rate) can fall when deflationary pressures mount, but their upside is capped in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. This is because the market has no reason to question the Fed's ability to lower inflation by lifting rates. The upside limit of 2.4% to 2.5% will remain in place unless the Fed changes its inflation target. A change to the inflation target that allows for higher inflation is an idea that is quickly gaining traction among policymakers, but is unlikely to be implemented this year. Second, when long-maturity inflation expectations are below their 2.4% to 2.5% upper-bound they become both (i) a more important driver of nominal yields - as evidenced by the lower TIPS beta - and (ii) more sensitive to swings in commodity prices. For this reason, the oil price will continue to be an important driver of inflation expectations and nominal U.S. bond yields for the next few months, but will decrease in importance as TIPS breakevens move back to their 2.4% to 2.5% range. Once inflation expectations are re-anchored, nominal bond yields will once again be predominantly driven by the real component and swings in the price of oil will be less important for bond markets. The dynamics described above are not merely theoretical. Consider the evidence from five developed countries presented in Charts 9 & 10. Chart 9 shows that the oil price is tightly correlated with inflation expectations in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan, but also that inflation expectations in the U.K. and Australia did not respond to the recent increase in oil prices. The reason is that core inflation in the U.K. and Australia is already relatively close to the central bank's target (Chart 10). It is only where core inflation is far below target (in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan) that the oil price remains an important driver of bond yields. Chart 9Oil & Inflation Expectations Highly Correlated... Chart 10...But Only When Inflation Is Low The U.K. in particular presents an interesting case study. U.K. core inflation was quite far below target throughout 2015 and 2016, and during this time period U.K. inflation expectations were tightly linked with the oil price. It is only in the past few months that U.K. core inflation has moved back above target, and not surprisingly the correlation between the U.K. 10-year CPI swap rate and the price of oil has started to break down. Bottom Line: At present, the cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of U.S. bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. Both of these dynamics will continue to be true for the next few months, but will decline in importance as TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. When long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, then the oil price will become a less important driver of U.S. bond yields. Australia: Too Soon To Expect A Hike Chart 11Australia: A Solid Rebound In Growth... Over the last quarter much of the economic data from Australia have improved. Real GDP growth rebounded sharply to 2.8% YoY in Q3 from 1.9% the previous quarter (Chart 11). Iron ore prices have been rising since mid-October. Employment growth is robust and the unemployment rate is well below its estimated natural level. This begs the question - with so much going right is it time for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to lift rates? Our answer is an emphatic "no." First, most data improvements have been relatively minor and the overall economic picture remains mixed. As we mentioned in our recent Special Report,2 the RBA is stuck between conflicting forces. Booming house prices and rising household indebtedness on the one hand, and an economy still working off excess capacity on the other. Nevertheless, our expectation is that the RBA will allow the economy to recover further for the following reasons: Consumer health is fragile. Policymakers left cash rates unchanged at the last monetary policy meeting in December, and Governor Philip Lowe expressed concerns about household consumption. Consumption is a significant driver of economic growth and the combination of declining savings, elevated debt levels and weak income growth is worrisome (Chart 12). Since then, real income growth has dipped back into positive territory, but only barely so. Meanwhile, house prices are still surging, despite macro-prudential measures aimed at tightening lending standards, thereby supporting consumer spending through the wealth effect. Given an extreme household debt to income ratio, consumption would be very vulnerable if the RBA were to curb house price gains by raising rates. Labors markets have plenty of slack. The unemployment rate has fallen to a four year low and other labor market statistics show a broad-based improvement over the last quarter. However, the unemployment rate is still significantly higher than it was in the previous cycle and other improvements in the labor market have also occurred from extremely weak levels. In 2017Q1, the underemployment rate and part-time workers as a percentage of total workers both reached all-time highs. Those numbers have dipped slightly in Q3, with underemployment falling to 8.3% and part-time workers as a percentage of total declining to 31.7%, but those elevated levels suggest there still needs to be significant improvement before spare capacity is worked off and real wage growth starts to move higher (Chart 13). Chart 12...But Consumers Can't Afford A Rate Hike Chart 13Still Plenty Of Slack In Australian Labor Markets Inflation is still too low. Headline and core inflation readings came in at 1.8% and 1.9% respectively in Q3 (Chart 14). While headline slowed, core inflation recovered over the last quarter. Tradeable goods inflation collapsed into negative territory at -0.9%, as a result of currency strength and increased competition among retailers. Going forward, we expect consumer price growth to be muted given the lack of inflationary pressures. The output gap is wide, despite rebounding growth, and the IMF forecasts that it will be years before the Australian economy reaches capacity. The trade-weighted Aussie dollar index has risen almost 5% since it bottomed in early December, while the AUD/USD has broken above its 40-week moving average. Continued currency strength would exert even further deflationary pressure. As stated above, the labor market also requires significant improvement to work off excess capacity. All of these factors caused the RBA to dial back its inflation forecast in the November statement. It now expects that inflation will remain quite flat for the next two years, only touching the lower-end of its 2%-3% target range at the end of 2019. Consequently, inflation will not be forcing the RBA's hand in the foreseeable future. One of our key themes for 2018 is that global growth will be less synchronized. Central banks will therefore employ diverging monetary policies, presenting cross-country bond market investment opportunities. As such, we recently shifted to a slight overweight position in Australian debt within our model portfolio, arguing that it would outperform global government bond benchmarks during a year expected to be driven by Fed tightening and ECB/BoJ tapering concerns. Historically, relative yield moves have closely tracked relative shifts in monetary policy (Chart 15). In the U.S., above-trend growth, a tight labor market and the continued recovery in inflation will force the Fed to become more aggressive. If the RBA stays inactive as we expect, then this gap should continue to move in favor of Australian debt. Additionally, there is still a modest yield pickup in Australian debt relative to the global index and as we expect global bond yields to rise, low-beta Australian government bonds should offer considerable protection. Chart 14Australia: Lacking Inflationary Pressures Chart 15Australian Relative Yields Track Relative Policy This also leads us to continue holding our tactical Long Dec 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures trade from last October. We initially entered into this trade as a more focused way of expressing that the RBA will stay on hold. The trade is currently 6 bps in the money and with markets still pricing about 30 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, there is plenty of room for further profit as market expectations are revised down. Bottom Line: Maintain an overweight position in Australian government debt. Economic data are still mixed and the RBA will stay on hold for the foreseeable future. Against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes, Australian debt should outperform. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place", dated July 25, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Economic fundamentals indicate that TIPS breakeven inflation rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher on a 6-12 month horizon. In the near term, however, positioning data suggest that the uptrend in bond yields is due for a pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Oil & Bonds: The cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. This will continue to be true until long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. At that point the oil price will become a less important driver of yields. Fed: The Fed will start actively discussing alternative monetary policy frameworks in 2018. While we think the Fed will eventually adopt a policy framework that tolerates higher inflation, this shift probably won't occur this year. Feature There was certainly no shortage of possible catalysts for last week's bond rout (Chart 1). The Bank of Japan (BoJ) reduced its buying of long-dated JGBs, there was a rumor that China plans to slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt, and U.S. inflation expectations started to ramp back up - driven by a combination of higher oil prices and a strong December core CPI print. But of all these factors we think it is only the third that merits much attention. Once the BoJ started targeting the level of the yield curve in September 2016 its quantity targets became irrelevant. A reduction in the pace of BoJ buying only matters if it foreshadows a shift to a higher yield curve target. Our foreign exchange strategists don't think such a move is likely in the next 12-18 months.1 China, for its part, still has a highly managed currency and now that capital is no longer flowing out of the country it will start to rebuild its foreign exchange reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States (Chart 2). Chart 1Higher Yields, Driven By Inflation Chart 2China's Forex Reserves Are Rising The compensation for 10-year U.S. inflation protection broke above 2% last week, after having been as low as 1.66% as recently as last June. This 34 basis point increase in inflation compensation coincided with a 36 basis point increase in the nominal 10-year yield and a Brent crude oil price that rose from $45 per barrel last June to $70 per barrel as of last Friday. We think these correlations will continue to be the most important factors driving bond yields during the next 6-12 months, and the bulk of this report is dedicated to disentangling the linkages between oil prices, inflation, inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. But first we reiterate our cyclical investment stance. Last week's CPI report provided further evidence that core inflation is in the process of bottoming-out (Chart 3). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's target. By that time the nominal 10-year yield will be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. Likewise, our energy strategists anticipate that an ongoing steady decline in commercial inventories will keep crude prices well supported on a 6-12 month horizon. Chart 3U.S. Inflation Turns The Corner Chart 4Net Speculative Positioning For Oil And Bonds However, on a shorter time horizon (3 months or less), recent shifts in speculative positioning signal that the uptrends in bond yields and the oil price might be due for a pause (Chart 4). After having been solidly "net long" since the middle of last year, net speculative positions in the 10-year U.S. Treasury futures contract have just dipped into "net short" territory. Historically, net speculative positions have been a decent indicator of 3-month changes in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, and at current levels they signal that the 10-year yield could decline modestly during the next three months (Chart 5). Similarly, speculators in the oil futures market are now more "net long" than at any time since last February. While this positioning indicator does not work quite as well for the oil market as for the Treasury market, net longs at more than 20% of open interest (most recent reading is 26%) have more often than not been met with 3-month price declines since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 5Net Speculative Positions & 10-Year Treasury Yield Chart 6Net Speculative Positions & WTI Oil Price Bottom Line: The outlook for U.S. inflation suggests that TIPS breakeven rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher. However, positioning data in both bond and oil markets suggest that the recent run-up in yields might be due for a near-term pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. Oil, TIPS, Inflation And Bond Yields: Sorting Out The Mess During the post-financial crisis period two relationships have been both (i) incredibly robust and (ii) unlike relationships observed in prior periods. They are: The cost of inflation protection has been an unusually important determinant of nominal U.S. bond yields The oil price has shown a very strong correlation with the cost of inflation protection Both relationships can be explained by the Federal Reserve's asymmetric ability to control inflation. We consider each relationship in turn. The Importance Of Inflation Chart 7TIPS Beta Declines When ##br##Breakevens Are Low A common rule of thumb is to estimate the TIPS beta - the proportion of movement in U.S. nominal bond yields that is explained by movement in TIPS (real) yields - at around 0.8. In other words, this assumes that 80% of the movement in nominal bond yields is explained by the real component. However, we observe that since the financial crisis the 10-year TIPS beta has been a much lower 0.68, and at times it has been closer to 0.5 on a 12-month rolling basis (Chart 7). We also observe that the TIPS beta tends to be lower when TIPS breakeven inflation rates are un-anchored to the downside. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that the Fed's ability to influence inflation is asymmetric. The Fed has a strong track record of successfully tightening to bring inflation down, but has been less successful at easing to drive it up. This asymmetric ability to influence prices is due in no small part to the zero-lower bound on interest rates. Because the Fed's ability to cut rates is constrained by the zero-bound while its ability to lift rates is not, bond market participants may at times question the Fed's ability to ease and revise their inflation expectations lower. It is also during these periods that inflation expectations become more volatile and a more important determinant of nominal bond yields. This is because they are increasingly driven by the swings in the economic data and less by the Fed's policy bias. The Importance Of Oil This is where the oil price comes in. Oil and other commodities are crucial inputs to the production process. As such, not only do these prices rise in response to stronger aggregate demand, but higher prices also signal mounting cost-push inflationary pressures. But despite this obvious truth, there is not always a strong correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations. This is because the Fed's reaction function influences the relationship. Consider the pre-crisis (2004-2008) period. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates stayed range-bound between 2.4% and 2.5% even as the oil price increased dramatically (Chart 8). Since investors perceived that the Fed would simply tighten policy to tamp out any inflationary pressures that might arise, there was no desire to demand greater compensation for inflation. However, this logic does not work in reverse. When commodity prices fell in 2014, inflation expectations declined alongside. In fact we observe that the correlations between long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates and both oil and commodity prices have been much stronger in the post-crisis period, when inflation expectations have been un-anchored (Table 1). Chart 8The Unstable Correlation Breakevens & Oil Table 1Correlations Between TIPS Breakeven Inflation And Commodities Investment Conclusions The Fed's asymmetric reaction function leads to two crucial investment conclusions. First, long-maturity inflation expectations (as measured by the TIPS breakeven inflation rate) can fall when deflationary pressures mount, but their upside is capped in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. This is because the market has no reason to question the Fed's ability to lower inflation by lifting rates. The upside limit of 2.4% to 2.5% will remain in place unless the Fed changes its inflation target. A change to the inflation target that allows for higher inflation is an idea that is quickly gaining traction among policymakers, but is unlikely to be implemented this year (see section titled "The Fed In 2018: Contemplating A Major Change" below). Second, when long-maturity inflation expectations are below their 2.4% to 2.5% upper-bound they become both (i) a more important driver of nominal yields - as evidenced by the lower TIPS beta - and (ii) more sensitive to swings in commodity prices. For this reason, the oil price will continue to be an important driver of inflation expectations and nominal bond yields for the next few months, but will decrease in importance as TIPS breakevens move back to their 2.4% to 2.5% range. Once inflation expectations are re-anchored, nominal bond yields will once again be predominantly driven by the real component and swings in the price of oil will be less important for bond markets. The dynamics described above are not merely theoretical. Consider the evidence from five developed countries presented in Charts 9 & 10. Chart 9 shows that the oil price is tightly correlated with inflation expectations in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan, but also that inflation expectations in the U.K. and Australia did not respond to the recent increase in oil prices. The reason is that core inflation in the U.K. and Australia is already relatively close to the central bank's target (Chart 10). It is only where core inflation is far below target (in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan) that the oil price remains an important driver of bond yields. Chart 9Oil & Inflation Expectations Highly Correlated... Chart 10...But Only When Inflation Is Low The U.K. in particular presents an interesting case study. U.K. core inflation was quite far below target throughout 2015 and 2016, and during this time period U.K. inflation expectations were tightly linked with the oil price. It is only in the past few months that U.K. core inflation has moved back above target, and not surprisingly the correlation between the U.K. 10-year CPI swap rate and the price of oil has started to break down. Bottom Line: At present, the cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. Both of these dynamics will continue to be true for the next few months, but will decline in importance as TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. When long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, then the oil price will become a less important driver of bond yields. The Fed In 2018: Contemplating A Major Change? As was alluded to in the prior section, the biggest potential change for bond markets in 2018 would be if the Fed changed its monetary policy framework to one that tolerated higher levels of inflation. For example, let's imagine that the Fed suddenly lifted its inflation target from 2% to 3%. This would likewise shift the upper-bound range for long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to approximately 3.4% to 3.5%. It would mean that nominal bond yields have further upside over the course of the cycle, and also that oil and commodity prices would play an important role in bond markets for much longer. It would also lengthen the period where spread product can outperform Treasuries since the Fed would not be so quick to choke off the recovery. We still think it is unlikely that such a change will be implemented this year, but recent weeks have seen a marked increase in the number of Fed policymakers either advocating for a different policy framework or saying that the Fed should start researching alternative frameworks. What's crucial to remember is that the reason policymakers are unsatisfied with the current 2% inflation target is that it brings the zero-lower bound on interest rates into play too often. So any potential change in policy framework would be to one that tolerates higher inflation rates. Bernanke's Idea Chart 11The Implications Of A Price Level Target One potential new policy approach was put forward by ex-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in a recent blog post.2 Bernanke made the case for "Temporary Price Level Targeting", a policy where the Fed continues to use a 2% inflation target when the fed funds rate is sufficiently far from zero, but then switches to a price-level target when the fed funds rate is close to the zero bound. In his own words, the strategy would be communicated as follows: The Committee therefore agrees that, in future situations in which the funds rate is at or near zero, a necessary condition for raising the funds rate will be that average inflation since the date at which the federal funds rate first hit zero be at least 2 percent. Chart 11 provides an illustration of this example. Under the current framework the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation and forecasts that it will achieve this target sometime in 2019. In Bernanke's proposed framework the Fed would not target 2% inflation, but rather a price level that is consistent with 2% trend growth in prices since the zero-lower bound was hit in December 2008. In order to achieve this goal by the end of 2019 the Fed would need to tolerate a significant overshoot of inflation during the next two years (bottom panel). Who's On Board? The Appendix to this report is a list of all Fed Governors and Regional Fed Presidents. It also shows our own assessment of each committee member's policy bias. We noted from the most recent Summary of Economic Projections that 6 FOMC participants expect three rate hikes in 2018, 6 expect fewer than three rate hikes and 4 expect more than three hikes. From recent speeches we attempted to discern which member owns which forecast and then we attributed a "dovish" policy bias to those with a forecast for fewer than three hikes, a "neutral" bias to those expecting three hikes, and a "hawkish" bias to those expecting more than three hikes. We also show which FOMC participants are voters in 2018, although we do not think that distinction carries much practical importance. The Committee tends to arrive at decisions by consensus anyways, and all participants voice their opinions at every meeting whether or not it is their turn to vote. But it is the "notes" column of the Appendix that is most striking. There we highlighted all the FOMC participants who have recently made comments regarding the exploration of alternative policy frameworks. A general consensus seems to be forming that alternative frameworks should be studied this year, and a few policymakers (San Francisco Fed President John Williams, in particular) have strongly made the case that the Fed should switch to some sort of price level targeting regime. The Appendix also identifies the biggest source of uncertainty for the Fed this year. Namely that there are four vacant Governor positions that need to be filled. The New York Fed will also need a new President when William Dudley retires later this year. Who is nominated to fill those vacant positions will go a long way toward determining how aggressively the Fed pursues alternative policy frameworks. Bottom Line: The Fed will start actively discussing alternative monetary policy frameworks in 2018. While we think the Fed will eventually adopt a policy framework that tolerates higher inflation, this shift probably won't occur this year. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/ Appendix Table 2Composition Of The FOMC Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

ハイライト ビットコインの「合成」供給が金融デリバティブを通じて増加し、大手既存テクノロジー企業によるビットコイン類似の代替通貨の立ち上げが加わると、暗号通貨市場は自らの重みで崩壊するでしょう。 今後数年で供給増に起因する圧力を受け得る他の分野としては、原油、ハイイールド債、世界の不動産、低ボラティリティ取引が挙げられます。 対照的に、米国株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の減少が観察されています。 投資家はハイイールド債に対して米国株をロングすることを検討しつつ、ボラティリティ上昇に備えるべきです。 このような結果は1990年代後半に起きた状況に類似している可能性があり、その期間はVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向にある一方で株式は史上最高値を更新し続けました。 NAFTA交渉の決裂はカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソにとって依然として主要なリスクです。 特集 供給過剰でバブルが崩壊する 価格上昇の「治療法」はさらなる価格上昇である。ドットコムと住宅バブルは完全に自然消滅したわけではない。その崩壊は市場に新たな供給が波のように押し寄せたことで促進された。ドットコム・バブルの場合、2000年には新規公開（IPO）や二次公募による株式の洪水が投資家を圧倒し（チャート1）、インターネット株の価格に大きな下押し圧力を与えた。住宅ブームも同様に新規建設の急増によって覆された。住宅投資は2006年にGDP比6.6%と55年ぶりの高水準に達した（チャート2）。 チャート1 供給過剰による崩壊：例1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 チャート2 供給過剰による崩壊：例2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 ビットコインは同様の運命をたどろうとしているのだろうか？表面的には「いいえ」のように見えるかもしれない。より多くのビットコインが「マイニング」されるにつれ、追加生産の計算上のコストは指数関数的に上昇する。理論上、流通可能なビットコインは2100万枚に制限され、その約80%は既に生成されている（チャート3）。しかし、表面の下を見れば、ビットコインはさまざまな「供給側」要因に脆弱である可能性がある。 チャート3 ビットコイン：大部分は既に採掘済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み まず第一に、ビットコインの価値に連動する金融デリバティブの拡大は、暗号通貨の「合成」供給を生み出す脅威となる。 株式のコールオプションを売る（ライトする）とき、オプションの売り手は実質的に弱気の賭けをし、買い手は強気の賭けをしている。オプションを売るという行為自体が追加のロング・ポジションを生み、それは追加のショート・ポジションによってちょうど相殺される。さらに、特定のコールオプションを売る決定が類似のコールオプションの価格を押し下げる程度に、基礎となる株価も押し下げられるだろう。これは単純に、株式に対するロングエクスポージャーは現物株を保有するかそのコールオプションを保有することで得られるからである。後者の価格を傷つけるものは前者の価格も傷つける。 ビットコイン先物が取引され始めると、ビットコインに対して弱気の投資家はショートポジションを作り、結果として流通するビットコインの実質的な数量を増加させることができる。これは公式の発行枚数が同じままであっても起こり得る。 模倣は最大の賛辞 ビットコインの合成的な供給増はビットコイン投資家の懸念の一つである。もう一つの懸念は、ビットコイン類似の代替通貨からの競争の増大である。現在、数百もの暗号通貨が存在し、その多くはビットコインを支えるブロックチェーン技術のわずかな変形を使用している。 チャート4 政府は取り分を要求するだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう これまで新通貨の拡散は主に寝室やガレージで働く技術に精通した起業家によって牽引されてきた。しかし今や企業も参入している。営業しているらしいコダックの株価は、今週自社の暗号通貨を発表したことで3倍になった。これはこれから起こることのほんの一例に過ぎない。 フェイスブック、アマゾン、ネットフリックス、グーグルのような巨大企業が自社の暗号通貨を発行するのを妨げるものは何だろうか。彼らはすでに安全なグローバルネットワークを持っている。アマゾンは販売ごとに数コインを配り始め、消費者が新通貨で同社のオンラインストアから商品を購入できるようにすることもできる。やり方は簡単だ。1 唯一のもっともらしい制約は法的なものである：政府が自国の法定通貨への需要が落ちることを恐れて新興の暗号通貨を潰す脅威だ。数週間前に述べたように、米政府は通貨を印刷しその資金で財やサービスを購入する能力から年間約$100 billion、約1000億ドルのシニョレッジ収入を得ている（チャート4）。2 大企業が暗号通貨分野に参入すると、政府は遅かれ早かれ厳しい対応を取る可能性が高い。今週の韓国政府が取引所での暗号通貨取引禁止を検討するという報道は、その兆候である。 他にどの分野が？ 新規供給の津波に脆弱な他の分野はどこか？四つが思い浮かぶ： 原油：BCAの強気の原油見通しは大当たりだった。ブレントは昨年6月の44ドルから現在の69ドルまで上昇した。しかし今後の追加上昇はそれほど容易ではないかもしれない。当社のエネルギー・ストラテジストは米国シェール生産者の損益分岐点を50ドル台前半と見積もっている。3 現在はその水準を大きく上回っており、シェール供給は加速するだろう。これは短期的に価格がさらに上昇し得ないという意味ではないが、原油の長期的な上昇余地を制限する。 不動産：世界の多くで超低金利が住宅価格の急増を後押しした。カナダ、オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、および欧州の一部では、インフレ調整後の住宅価格は大不況前の水準を大きく上回っている（チャート5）。米国の実質住宅価格はまだ2006年のピークを下回っているが、商業用不動産（CRE）価格は新高値に達している（チャート6）。米国のCREセクター内の賃料上昇は鈍化し始めており、供給が徐々に需要に追いつきつつあることを示唆している（チャート7）。 チャート5 低金利が##br##住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 チャート6 商業用不動産価格が##br##不況前の水準を上回った 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている チャート7 賃料の伸びは鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 企業債務：低金利は企業にクレジットを活用させた。米国および多くの国で企業債務の対GDP比はほぼ過去最高水準にある（チャート8A およびチャート8B）。クレジットスプレッドは依然として非常にタイトだが、これも企業債が市場に出てくるにつれて変わる可能性がある。 チャート8A 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている チャート8B 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 低ボラティリティ取引：最近のブルームバーグの見出しは「ショート・ボラティリティ・ファンドに史上最多の資金が流入」と叫んでいた。4 Cboeで取引されるボラティリティ契約の数は2012年以降で10倍以上に増加した。ネットのショート投機ポジションは現在史上最高水準にある（チャート9）。トレーダーはここ数年、ボラティリティが低下することに賭けて巨額の利益を上げてきた。問題は、ボラティリティが上昇し始めると、同じトレーダーがポジションを一斉に手放す可能性があり、さらにボラティリティが高まる懸念があることだ。 前掲の分野とは対照的に、株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の侵食を受けている。S&Pの除数（ディバイザー）は2005年以降8%以上低下している。米国の上場企業数は1990年代後半以降ほぼ半減している（チャート10）。この傾向がすぐに逆転する可能性は低く、利益率の高止まりと多くの企業が法人税減税を利用して自社株買いを加速させる誘惑があることを考えれば、なおさらである。 チャート9 低ボラティリティへの需要が高い 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている チャート10 株式市場における供給の減少 株式市場における供給の侵食 株式市場における供給の侵食 株価上昇に賭ける一方、ボラティリティとクレジットスプレッドの上昇も見込む 前述の議論は、今後数か月で株価とボラティリティ、クレジットスプレッドの関係が変化する可能性を示唆している。これは初めてのことではない。チャート11は、1990年代後半にVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向に転じた一方でS&P500は史上最高値を更新し続けたことを示している。今、我々は類似の局面に入る可能性がある。 米国でのトレンド超過の成長継続とインフレ上昇は米国債利回りを押し上げるだろう。我々は2016年7月5日に「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉」と宣言したが、これはちょうど10年物米国債利回りが終値で史上最安の1.37%を記録したその日だった。5 利上げは資金繰りに苦しむ借り手を苦しめ、クレジットスプレッドを拡大させる。企業の業況が悪化し次の景気後退の時期が近づくにつれて株式のボラティリティも上昇するだろう。我々の基本シナリオでは、米国および世界は2019年後半に景気後退に陥ると見ている。 金融市場は景気後退を実際に起こる前に嗅ぎつける。ただし歴史が示すように、それは景気後退開始の約6か月前にしか起こらないことが多い（表1）。これは、世界の株式は今後12か月程度は上昇を続け得ることを示唆する。これを念頭に、我々はS&P500のロング対ハイイールド債を新規トレードとして開始する。 チャート11 株価が上昇する中でもボラティリティは上昇し、スプレッドは##br##拡大し得る 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 表1 手仕舞いにはまだ早い ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ 通貨に関するクイック・ヒット（4点） 今週は4つの項目が通貨およびフィクスト・インカム市場を揺るがした。第一は中国が米国債の購入を減速または停止するという報道だ。中国の国家外為管理局（SAFE）はその報道を「フェイクニュース」と非難した。 騒ぎの中で見落とされがちなのは、中国の保有する米国債残高が2011年以降ほぼ横ばいで推移しているという事実である（チャート12）。中国は依然として高度に管理された通貨を持つ。資本流出がもはや発生していないため、中国人民銀行（PBoC）は外貨準備の再構築を始めるだろう。米国債市場が世界で最大かつ最も流動的であることを考えれば、中国が余剰外貨の多くを米国に置かざるを得ないのは避けがたいように思える。 第二は日本銀行が保有する国債の買入目標を引き下げると発表したことだ。これは既に1年以上続いている動きを形式化したに過ぎない。日本銀行のJGB買入は過去12か月で急減しており、主因は80兆円という目標が国債の年間ネット発行額30〜35兆円のほぼ2倍であるためだ（チャート13）。 チャート12 中国の米国債保有：##br##2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい チャート13 日銀は国債買入を##br##削減している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 最終的には、これらはそれほど重要ではないはずだ。日本銀行は価格（JGBの利回り）をターゲットにすることも、数量（保有国債の枚数）をターゲットにすることもできるが、両方を同時にターゲットにすることはできない。日銀がすでに前者を行っているという事実は後者を無意味にする。そして長期インフレ期待が日銀の目標からほど遠い現状では、前者が変わる見込みは低い。 では円には何を意味するのか。円は割安であり、経常収支の黒字はGDP比で4%に膨らんでいる（チャート14）。投機筋の円ショートも非常に大きい（チャート15）。これは短期的な上昇の可能性を高めるが、同僚のMathieu Savaryが今週指摘したように、6世界の国債利回りが上昇する一方で日本の利回りが据え置かれる場合、円が大きく上昇して持続するのは難しい。総合的には、今年はUSD/JPYがやや強含むと予想している。 チャート14 円は既に割安... 円はすでに安い… 円はすでに安い… チャート15 ...かつ不人気 ...そして愛されない ...そして愛されない 第三の項目はECBの12月議事録で、中央銀行が2018年初めにコミュニケーション方針を見直すと示唆された点だ。市場が織り込んでいるより速くECBが金融政策を正常化するという憶測がある。もしそうなればEUR/USDはさらに強含むだろう。 もちろんこれは起こり得るが、それにはユーロ圏の成長が上振れサプライズを出す必要があるだろう。それは決して確実ではない。ユーロ圏の経済サプライズ・インデックスは下落に転じ始めており、相対的には米国に対して急落している（チャート16）。米国とは異なり、ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスは現在マイナスである（チャート17）。ユーロ圏の金融環境も米国に比べて大幅に引き締まっている（チャート18）。 チャート16 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが##br##下落に転じ始めている ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 チャート17 ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスのマイナスは##br##成長の重しとなる ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう チャート18 金融環境の乖離は##br##米国をユーロ圏より有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 一方で、EUR/USDは2016年以降、金利差の変化から予想される以上に上昇している（チャート19）。ユーロに対する投機的ポジショニングも、2017年初頭の大幅ショートから今日では大幅ロングへと変化している（チャート20）。妥当な割安感と健全な経常収支の黒字はユーロに有利に働くが、我々の最良の見立てはEUR/USDが今後数か月で上昇分の一部を手放すだろうというものである。 チャート19 金利差で説明される以上にユーロは##br##強含んだ ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している チャート20 ユーロのポジショニング：大幅ショートから##br##史上最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ 最後に、今週は米国がNAFTA交渉から撤退するという報道を受けてカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソが圧迫された。ここで述べた4項目のうち、これが我々にとって最も懸念材料である。グローバルなサプライチェーンは高度に統合されている。それを破壊するものは大きな混乱を招くであろう。ある程度、トランプはこれを理解しているが、支持基盤は貿易に厳しくあってほしいと望んでおり、そうしなければ再選の見込みはさらに厳しくなることも彼は知っている。最終的には新たなNAFTA合意が成立すると期待しているが、そこに至る道のりはでこぼこだろう。 事務連絡 当社のグローバル・インダストリアルのロング／ユーティリティのショートのトレードは、9月29日に開始して以来12.4%の利益が出ている。利益保護のためストップを10%に引き上げる。2年物USD/サウジ・リヤルのフォワード契約のロングは損失2.9%で満了とし、サウジアラビアの財務状況が最近改善していることを踏まえ、同トレードは再導入しない。 ピーター・ベレジン, チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 本トピックに関する貴重な示唆を頂いたSHIG Partners LLC代表イゴール・ヴァッセルマン氏に感謝する。 2 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート「ビットコインのマクロ的影響（Bitcoin's Macro Impact）」、2017年9月15日付；およびグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「フラット化したイールドカーブを恐れるな（Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve）」、2017年12月22日付を参照されたい。 3 エネルギー・セクター・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「損益分岐点分析：シェール企業が自立するには約50ドルの原油が必要（Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient）」、2017年3月15日付を参照。 4 Dani Burger, "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash," Bloomberg, 2017年11月6日。 5 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・アラート「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉（End Of The 35-year Bond Bull Market）」、2016年7月5日付を参照。 6 フォーリン・エクスチェンジ・ストラテジー「円：QQEは死んだ！YCC万歳！（Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!）」、2018年1月12日付を参照。 タクティカル・グローバル・アセット・アロケーションの推奨 ストラテジー & マーケット・トレンド タクティカル・トレード 戦略的推奨 クローズド・トレード

ハイライト 中国での環境改革は製鋼能力を引き続き削減しています。中国における違法な誘導炉施設の閉鎖も市場を引き締めています。公式の中国の鉄鋼生産が増えているように見えるのは、違法な誘導炉からの生産が報告されず（したがって計上されず）、閉鎖によって生じたギャップを埋めるために合法的な製鉄所の生産が増加していることを反映している可能性が高いです。 鉄鋼メーカーの利益は急増しており、少なくとも2018年前半までは中国における鉄鉱石需要は堅調に推移するでしょう。銅は2017年6月以降、供給の混乱と世界的な景気回復に伴う強い需要成長を受けて堅調に買われています。建設プロジェクトの配線や配管工事が中国で本格化するため、2018年前半にさらに上昇するものと予想します。その後は世界的な成長が中国の減速分を補うでしょう。 我々の分析は、全球の鉄鋼市場が2018年前半に引き締まることを示しています。中国ですでに起きているのと一致して、我々は上海先物取引所の2018年3月限鋼筋先物（人民元/トン建て）でタクティカルなロングポジションを取り始めます。本推奨には10%のストップロスを設定します。 エネルギー: オーバーウェイト。かつてコンセンサスと異なっていた我々の原油見通しは現在コンセンサスとなっているため、今晩の取引終了時にブレントとWTIの55ドル対60ドル/バレルのコールスプレッド（5月・7月受渡し）で利益確定を行います。これらのポジションは火曜日の終値でそれぞれ109.2%と123.5%の含み益が出ていました。売りが出れば、これらのフォワードカーブに沿って再度ロングを構築する好機となるでしょう。 ベースメタル: ニュートラル。銅は世界的な景気回復が続く限り今年も堅調に買われるでしょう。鉱山での多数の契約再交渉が今年の銅価格に対する追加の上方リスクとなります。 貴金属: ニュートラル。FRBが年内に4回利上げすると予想しているため、金に対して強気になるのは難しいです。ただし、中央銀行がハト派に傾く兆候、特に今年インフレが高まらない場合は金が上昇するでしょう。 農産物／ソフトコモディティ: アンダーウェイト。市場は金曜日のUSDA WASDEまでは様子見になるでしょう。トウモロコシを除いてアンダーウェイトを継続します。 特集 今週のチャート 鉄鉱石と鉄鋼価格は2017年に乖離した 2017年、鉄鉱石と鉄鋼の価格は乖離した 2017年、鉄鉱石と鉄鋼の価格は乖離した 中国の環境政策の措置により、2016年前半から2018年前半の間に世界の製鋼能力は1億トン削減されました。これは中国の鉄鋼価格に最も明確に表れており、2016年にほぼ80%上昇した後、2017年には30%以上上昇しました。北京が鉄鋼市場改革に注力し始めて以来の鉄鋼価格の総上昇率は135%にも達します。 鉄鉱石価格は2016年に鉄鋼と同様の上昇を示しましたが、2017年には大きく乖離し、3月中旬から6月中旬にかけて40%以上下落し、通年では前年比でほぼ8%下落して終えました（今週のチャート）。急騰する鉄鋼価格は中国の製鋼所の利益率を押し上げ、年末に向けて鉄鋼の重要原料である鉄鉱石需要を刺激しました：鉄鉱石価格は2017年末の2か月で20%上昇しました。 どのようにここまで来たか？中国の鉄鋼部門改革の振り返り 大気汚染削減を目的とした旧式で過剰な産業能力の排除を目指す改革の一環として、北京は2016～2020年の期間に1億～1.5億トンの鉄鋼能力を削減することを約束しました。これまでに推定1億トンの能力が閉鎖されています。 これらの改革に加えて、北京はスクラップ鋼を溶かして品質の劣る鋼を生産している小規模の誘導炉を閉鎖することを約束しました。これらの誘導炉は年次能力で8,000万～1.2億トンを占めると推定されていますが、実際の生産ははるかに少なく、S&P Global Plattsによれば2016年の生産は推定3,000万～5,000万トンでした。1 これは中国の粗鋼生産全体の7%未満です。 誘導炉からの生産削減は公式データには明確に現れていません — 中国の粗鋼生産はこれらの削減の中でも増加を続けており、これは我々が以前のリサーチで議論した通りです（チャート2）。2 国際鉄鋼協会のデータは、2017年の最初の11か月間で世界の鉄鋼生産が過去最高水準にあり、前年比で5%以上増加したことを示しています。同様に、世界生産の50%を占める中国の粗鋼生産は8月にピークを迎え、同期間の生産は過去最高を記録し、2016年同期間比で5.28%増加しました。 この生産の逆説は、多くの中国の誘導炉が違法であるためにその生産が公式の生産データに計上されていないという事実に起因します。合法的な製鋼所が閉鎖された誘導炉の減少を相殺するために生産を増やすと、公式の粗鋼生産数値は上昇します。 実際、中国の鉄鋼データをさらに検討すると、粗鋼生産数値から推測されるよりも中国の鉄鋼市場が実際にはより引き締まっていることが明らかです（チャート3）。以下の観察は供給がひっ迫していることを示しています： 中国の粗鋼生産は新たな記録を塗り替えていますが、China Stat Infoのデータは鋼製品について矛盾する状況を示しています。2017年3月から11月の鋼製品生産は前年同期比で3.46%減少し、1995年以来この期間での初の前年比マイナスとなりました。 誘導炉で生産された粗鋼は公式の粗鋼統計には含まれない可能性がありますが、それらの金属は最終的にワイヤー、棒材、レール、バーなどの鋼製品の製造に使われ、これらはこのデータに表れます。したがって、鋼製品の減少は粗鋼供給の低下が鋼製品の生産を押し下げていることを示唆しています。 中国の鋼製品の輸出は下落傾向にあります。理論的にはこれは国内需要の増加か海外需要の減少のいずれかによります。世界経済が健全であること、及び中国の鉄鋼生産に関して我々が把握している事実を考えると、前者の理論が妥当だと考えます。 2017年の最初の11か月で中国の鋼製品の輸出は前年比で30%減少しています。2016年の3.04%の前年比減少を除けば、これは2009年以来初の輸出の年間減少を示しています。国内供給が減少している中で、中国は国内の鋼材使用者の需要を満たすために輸出を削減した可能性が高いです。 中国のスクラップ鋼の輸入は2017年後半に落ち込みました。鉄鉱石を主原料とする高炉とは異なり、閉鎖された違法製鉄所はスクラップ鋼を誘導炉で溶かしています。これらの炉の排除と一致して、中国のスクラップ鋼輸入は2017年後半に前年比で14.35%減少しました。これはこれらの炉からのスクラップ鋼需要の低下を示すさらなる証拠です。 中国の鋼在庫は減少しています。実際、主要工業都市の鋼製品在庫は記録的な低水準にあります（チャート4）。これは需要が供給を上回る引き締まった市場の症状であり、中国の粗鋼生産数値と矛盾します。 チャート2 中国の粗鋼生産は過去最高を記録##BR##一方で鋼製品生産は減少 鋼製品の生産が減少する中、中国の粗鋼生産が過去最高を記録 鋼製品の生産が減少する中、中国の粗鋼生産が過去最高を記録 チャート3 中国の貿易データが示す証拠##BR##引き締まった市場 中国の貿易データは市場の逼迫を示す 中国の貿易データは市場の逼迫を示す チャート4 中国の鉄鋼在庫は減少している 中国の鉄鋼在庫が減少している 中国の鉄鋼在庫が減少している さらに、World Steel Association（WSA）によれば、同協会がデータを収集している66か国の設備稼働率は2017年7月～11月期で前年同期比で3.12ポイント上昇し平均72.64%となり、2016年同期間の平均69.52%から上昇しました。これらの観察は、公式の粗鋼生産数値が増加している一方で、実際の生産は低下し供給は引き締まっている証拠です。 鉄鋼価格が供給のひっ迫で支えられ続けるかどうかは、中国が過剰能力や品質の劣る鋼メーカーを恒久的に閉鎖することに成功するか、あるいは誘導炉操業者がこうした政策を回避して違法な鋼を市場に戻せるかどうかにかかっています。 少なくとも今冬は中国の改革が鉄鋼市場を支配する 12月中旬の中央経済工作会議の終了を受けて、中国当局は今後3年間の「三つの重大攻防戦」を発表しました。これは将来の経済繁栄にとって重要と見なされるもので、(1) 大きなリスクの防止、(2) 的を絞った貧困削減、(3) 汚染対策と要約されます。国際エネルギー機関（IEA）は大気汚染が年間約100万人の早期死亡を引き起こし、家庭内大気汚染が追加で120万人の早期死亡をもたらしていると推定しています。3 したがって、中国の大気質改善は社会的かつ健康面での主要目標です。 チャート5 中国の生産減少は##BR##世界生産に影響を与える 中国の鉄鋼生産量の減少は世界の生産量に影響を与える 中国の鉄鋼生産量の減少は世界の生産量に影響を与える これは大気汚染を減らし中国の空を浄化するための措置が鉄鋼セクターにとって非常に重要になることを意味します。環境保護省によれば、中国はスモッグの影響を受けやすい北部28都市で直径2.5マイクロメートル以下の浮遊粒子（PM2.5）濃度を前年比15%削減することを約束しています。鉄鋼産業は主に北京・天津・河北の北部地域に集中しており、この地域での大気汚染の主要な発生源の一つです。実際、工業排出、特に鉄鋼やセメント部門の排出がこれらの微小粒子の40～50%を占めていると報告されています。 中国の冬季スモッグ「戦略」は、スモッグが発生しやすい11月中旬～3月中旬の期間に鉄鋼、セメント、アルミニウムの生産を削減すること、ならびに家庭用石炭の使用、ディーゼルトラック、建設プロジェクトを制限することでこれらの汚染産業を標的にします。鉄鋼生産の削減は30～50%の範囲をターゲットとしており、Plattsの推計によれば冬季に3,300万トンの鉄鋼生産（2017年の中国の粗鋼生産見通しの約3.9%に相当）が停止される見込みです。実際、中国の環境大臣李干杰は「これらの特別キャンペーンは一度限りのものではなく、長期的なメカニズムの模索である」と述べています。4 したがって、これらの削減は中国の鉄鋼部門で繰り返される出来事になる可能性があります。 中国の公式な粗鋼数値はこれらの削減の影響を示し始めており、11月の粗鋼生産は前月比で8.6%減少し、前年比ではわずか2.2%の伸びにとどまり、7月以降の平均7.6%の前年比伸びから大幅に鈍化しています。その結果、世界の他地域では粗鋼生産がこれまで通りの伸びを示した一方で、11月の世界の鉄鋼生産は前月比でほぼ6%減少し、前年比では3.7%増と、2017年下半期以降に観測された平均6.6%の前年比成長率から大幅に減速しました（チャート5）。 この見通しに対するリスクは、これらの削減に対する遵守の弱さから生じます。山東省のアルミと鉄鋼の生産者による回避の報告があります。それでも、中国がこれらの改革に注力していることを考えると、広範な違反が起こるとは見ていません。 もう一つのリスクは需要側から来ます。環境アジェンダの一環として、北京は都市の主要公共プロジェクト（道路や水関連プロジェクト）の着工を春まで延期する計画を発表しました。ただし、この停止は鉄道、空港、手頃な価格の住宅などの「主要な生活関連プロジェクト」には影響を与える意図はありません。 建設は鉄鋼の最大の最終需要先であり、WSAによれば世界の鉄鋼の半分以上が建築物とインフラに使用されます — 建設部門の減速は鉄鋼需要を抑制します。5 他の主要な建設地帯が同様の政策を採用すれば、供給減の影響は需要の弱さによって相殺され、鉄鋼市場全体への影響は和らぐでしょう。 結論：今後数か月で中国の鉄鋼生産と輸出は減少すると予想されます。習近平氏が大気質改善に強い決意を示していることから、今冬の製鋼所の環境改革遵守は強いと予想します。これと中国の誘導炉からの生産減少は、市場が少なくとも2018年前半に一般的に思われているよりも引き締まる可能性を示唆しています。世界経済の回復と拡張がおおむね2018年を通じて継続する可能性が高いことを考えると、特に我々が予想するように中国以外の成長が中国の減速分を埋める場合、2018年下半期も鉄鋼市場は引き続き堅調に推移する可能性があります。ただし、2018年3月の全国人民代表大会後に業界向けの実際の改革内容がどうなるかを見守る必要があります。6 鉄鋼の利益率が鉄鉱石需要を促す 過去2年間にわたる鉄鋼価格の著しい上昇と2017年の鉄鉱石の精彩を欠くパフォーマンスを受けて、中国の製鋼所の利益率は複数年ぶりの高水準に達しました（チャート6）。通常であれば、これは生産を促し、市場に供給が大量に流れ込み価格を押し下げるはずです。しかし、中国の環境改革は今後数か月で最も生産性の高い製鋼地域の生産を制限します。したがって、今冬に製鋼所による大規模な政策違反がない限り、価格が迅速に下落することは予想していません。 代わりに、製鋼所は生産制限が春に解除された際にフル稼働できるよう準備しています。そのため彼らは鉄鉱石在庫を積み増し、弱い鉄鉱石価格を利用しています。鉄鉱石市場が鉄鋼に追いつく前に、彼らは利益率を確保しようとしているのです。中国の鉄鉱石輸入は9月に過去最高を記録し、最新データでは輸入が前月比19%増となり、前年比では2.8%増となっています（チャート7）。 チャート6 健全な鉄鋼の##BR##利益率 鉄鋼の利益率は堅調 鉄鋼の利益率は堅調 チャート7 春に備え鉄鉱石を備蓄する鉄鋼メーカー 製鉄業者、春に備えて鉄鉱石の備蓄を増強 製鉄業者、春に備えて鉄鉱石の備蓄を増強 これは、抑制された鉄鋼生産期に我々が期待する動きと逆行しています。特に現在のように鉄鉱石在庫が健全な環境ではそうです。中国の在庫は年央のピークから下がりましたが、2017年第4四半期に再び上昇傾向に戻りました。これは冬季の生産能力削減と一致しており、製鋼所からの鉄鉱石需要の減少によるものと考えられます。この現象を説明する理論は二つあります： 1. 中国の製鋼所は安い鉄鉱石価格を利用して利益率をロックインしており、春に鉄鋼生産が再開した際に鉄鉱石価格が上昇すると見込んでいる。 2. 冬季の削減期間中、中国の製鋼所はブラジルやオーストラリアから輸入された高品位の鉄鉱石を要求している。これにより環境規制に違反せずに生産量を最大化できるようにしている。 環境配慮が鉄鉱石のスプレッドを拡大する 冬季の生産能力削減の結果として、最も汚染の激しい工程を削減するために高品位の原料に対する需要が強まっています。高品位の鉄鉱石は純度（鉄含有量）で定義され、高炉でより効率的に使用できるため、消費する鉄鉱石1トン当たりより多くの鉄鋼を生産でき、生産と利益を最大化します。これは引き締まった鉄鋼市場で利益率が高い状況では特に当てはまり、製鋼所は高品位を購入する余裕があり、生産効率を重視しています。 58%鉄含有の低品位ファインのディスカウントや、65%鉄含有の高品位のプレミアムは拡大しています（チャート8）。これは製鋼所が冬季の環境制限を法的に回避しつつもコンプライアンスを維持する方法を見つけたためです。さらに、より純度の高い鉱石は汚染が少なく、中国の環境方針に合致します。 また、鉄鉱石ペレットや塊鉱のプレミアムも拡大しています。塊鉱やペレットは高炉に直接投入できますが、ファインは高汚染の焼結工程が必要です。したがって、中国の環境改革はより高品位で汚染の少ない鉱石への需要を増加させています。 スプレッドを押し上げているもう一つの要因は、冶金コークス価格の上昇かもしれません（チャート6）。高品位の鉄鉱石はシリカが少ないため、精錬に必要な冶金コークスが少なくて済みます。中国の風聞では、最高の鉄含有量と最低のシリカ含有量を持つブラジルのカラジャス・ファインが高い需要にあると伝えられています。7 さらに、中国の輸入は低品位であるインド産の鉄鉱石が減少していることを示しています。7月～10月期でインドからの輸入は前年比で11.26%減少し、10月は前年比ほぼ25%、前月比で30%減となりました。これは製鋼所が低品位鉱石を敬遠しているという理論と一致します。一方で、ブラジルとオーストラリアからの輸入は引き続き堅調であると見込まれます（チャート9）。最新のAustralian Resources and Energy Quarterlyは、2018年にオーストラリアとブラジルの鉄鉱石輸出がそれぞれ5.4%と4.2%成長すると予測する一方、インドの輸出は前年比57.5%の減少が見込まれています。 チャート8 鉄鉱石の価格スプレッドは拡大 鉄鉱石の価格スプレッドの拡大 鉄鉱石の価格スプレッドの拡大 チャート9 環境懸念は高品位鉄鉱石の需要を支える 環境への懸念が高品位鉄鉱石の需要を支えるだろう 環境への懸念が高品位鉄鉱石の需要を支えるだろう 結論：冬季の生産削減に直面しても生産を高水準に保ち、強い鉄鋼価格から利益を得るために、製鋼所は高品位の鉄鉱石に頼り、その結果高品位と低品位のスプレッドが拡大しています。製鋼所が高品位鉱石で生産を維持できる程度が、冬季の生産削減が鉄鋼セクターに与える影響を和らげるでしょう。中国の環境重視が長期計画であることを考えると、これらのスプレッドは歴史的平均に戻るというよりは引き続き広い水準で推移すると予想します。 鉄鋼価格と銅市場 チャート10 鉄鋼消費は銅価格を予測するのに役立つ 鉄鋼の消費は銅価格の予測に役立つ 鉄鋼の消費は銅価格の予測に役立つ 銅市場は第4四半期に乱高下しました。赤色金属の価格は5月以降概ね上昇トレンドにあり、9月上旬には3.13ドル/ポンドで一度ピークに達し、同月後半には2.91ドル/ポンドまで下落しました。その直後、銅は10月中旬に3.22ドル/ポンドの新高値を付け、3年以上ぶりの高値となりました。第19回党大会のメッセージを受けた中国の減速懸念により、同金属は12月上旬に再びほぼ10%の下落を経験しました。実際、12月5日には4.65%の下落が見られました。この下落には明確な理由はないものの、LME在庫の約10万トンの増加、中国の減速懸念、及び年末前のポジション解消が混ざった影響と考えられます。それでも銅はその後これらの下落を取り戻し、年末は3.28ドル/ポンドで終えました。 我々の銅のモデリングでは、鉄鋼消費が将来の銅価格の挙動を予測する上で重要であることが分かりました。具体的には、中国の鉄鋼消費は6か月後の銅価格と有意な正の関係を持っています（チャート10）。これは建設部門が両金属の重要な最終需要先であることから説明できます。しかし、両素材は建設現場で必要とされるタイミングが異なります。鉄鋼製品は構造物の構築に使われ、プロジェクトの開始時点で必要となる一方、銅は電気配線や配管に使われ、プロジェクトの後半（およそ6か月後）に必要となります。 これは我々の発見と一致しており、鉄鋼は平均的に6か月のラグで最も重要であり — 構造物が建設されてから配管や配線が必要になるまでの平均期間を反映しています。需要側のファンダメンタルが鉄鋼と銅の市場を支配する場合、中国の鉄鋼消費は銅市場の有用な先行指標です。 政府の景気刺激と堅調な建設セクターが2017年の中国の鉄鋼需要を押し上げました。しかし、WSAの短期見通しによれば、今年は中国でのリフレーションの影響を受け需要は緩やかになる見込みで、世界的な強い成長がこれを一部相殺します。WSAは誘導炉の閉鎖が鉄鋼需要成長率を12.4%と過大に見せたと指摘し、2017年の中国の鉄鋼需要成長率はより妥当な約3%と見積もるべきであり、これにより世界の鉄鋼需要成長率は2.8%になると述べています。中国以外の鉄鋼需要は2017年に推定2.6%増加し、2018年には3%に達すると予想されています。一方で、中国の需要は2018年は横ばいと見込まれ、2018年の世界鉄鋼需要成長率は1.6%になると予想されています（表1）。 表1 鉄鋼需要（前年比成長率） 中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石をけん引 中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石をけん引 中国からの需要の緩和と供給側の安定性（あるいはその欠如）が今年の銅市場を支配します。需要面では、中国の鉄鋼市場は赤金属の将来の方向性に関する洞察を提供します。 結論：中国の鉄鋼需要はこれまで堅調に推移しており、今年も2017年の水準を維持すると見込まれるため、6か月の期間において銅価格が需要に起因して急落する可能性は低いと考えます。 ルカヤ・イブラヒム、アソシエイトエディター コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 S&P Global Plattsが2017年3月6日に発表した「Will China's induction furnace steel whac-a-mole finally come to an end?（中国の誘導炉鋼のいたちごっこはようやく終わるのか？）」をご参照ください。 2 BCAリサーチのコモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ウィークリーレポート「Slow-Down In China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore In 2018（中国のリフレーションの減速は2018年の鉄鋼・鉄鉱石を抑制する）」、2017年9月7日発行をご参照ください。ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。 3 IEAのWorld Energy Outlook 2016特別報告「Energy and Air Pollution（エネルギーと大気汚染）」をご参照ください。iea.orgで入手可能です。 4 「Provincial China officials used fake data to evade aluminium, steel capacity curbs - China Youth Daily（中国の地方当局がアルミと鉄鋼の能力抑制を回避するために偽データを使用）」、2017年12月26日発行をご参照ください。reuters.comで入手可能です。 5 worldsteel.orgの「Steel Markets（鉄鋼市場）」をご参照ください。 6 追加の議論については、BCAリサーチのコモディティ＆エネルギー戦略2017年11月9日号「Shifting Gears in China: The Impact On Base Metals（中国のギアチェンジ：ベースメタルへの影響）」をご参照ください。ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。 7 「High-medium grade iron ore fines spread widens to all-time high of $23.55/dmt（高中品位鉄鉱石ファインのスプレッドが史上最高の23.55ドル/乾燥トンに拡大）」、2017年8月22日発行をご参照ください。platts.comで入手可能です。 投資見解とテーマ 推奨 戦略的推奨 戦術的トレード コモディティ価格と取引参照表 中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石を牽引 中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石を牽引 2017年にクローズしたトレード

Overweight - High Conviction A cyclical over defensive sector preference is consistent with a capex upcycle and a simultaneous bond market selloff (please see the next Insight), both of which are our key 2018 investment themes. Our overweight recommendation on the S&P energy index is predicated on our cyclical preference, aided by much better fundamentals. The index has caught fire recently, lifted by a recovery in the price of oil (second panel) which has, in turn, been responding to a revving global economy and a sell-off in the US$ (top panel). However, the index has been diverging sharply from falling oil stocks (third panel), which are typically a harbinger of much better performance. This has created a buying opportunity as the energy index still sports a below-market valuation (a hard to find criteria in these heady times) that we expect to mean revert, driven by ongoing improvements in operating fundamentals. We reiterate our high conviction overweight recommendation.

Highlights Before re-capping the performance of our recommendations last year - up 77%, led by oil calls, which posted an average gain of 111% - we take a look at what the re-emergence of financial and monetary factors will mean for commodities this year. Fundamentals - supply, demand, inventories - drove the evolution of industrial commodity prices over the past two years, and will remain supportive for oil and, to a lesser degree, base metals in 1H18. Thereafter, in 2H18, we believe financial and monetary variables will begin to re-assert their importance in the evolution of commodity prices. Forecasting commodity prices becomes more difficult, as a result, as it is not clear the Fed or other systematically important central banks, understand what is driving their principal policy variables - particularly inflation - or how they are evolving. Despite these central-bank uncertainties, we remain long broad commodity exposure via the S&P GSCI (up 6.4% since it was recommended in Dec/17), long call spreads in Brent and WTI across 2018 deliveries (up 78%); and long gold (up 6.7%). 2018 Weightings Energy: Overweight. WTI and Brent crude oil forward curves will become more backwardated as the combination of OPEC 2.0 production discipline and continued strength in demand draws inventories lower. This will boost S&P GSCI returns.1 Base Metals: Neutral. Base metals will continue to be supported through 1Q18 by China's environmental reforms, which are reducing supply in the face of continued strength in global demand. Strong demand ex-China will offset weaker Chinese growth, supporting metals prices. Precious Metals: Neutral. While we expect four rate hikes by the Fed this year, we are wary of policy errors at systemically important central banks, which makes forecasting monetary policy highly uncertain. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Still-high supplies outside the corn market; policy uncertainty re NAFTA; and uncertainty over Fed policy likely keep grain prices weak. A stronger USD would weaken demand for U.S.-sourced grains and softs. Feature Chart of the WeekFundamentals Continue To##BR##Support Commodities That was quick! Oil prices are closely hewing to fundamentals as the year opens. We revised our Brent forecast to $67/bbl in early December (up from a $65/bbl forecast in mid-October 2017), based on our fundamental assessment of the market - supply, demand and inventories - and, voilà, contracts for Mar/18 delivery got there by the end of 2017. Our $63/bbl forecast for WTI is still ~ $2.50/bbl from being realized, but we continue to expect this gap to close. At the moment, fundamentals for industrial commodities - oil and, to a slightly lesser extent, base metals - will support firmer prices in 1H18 (Chart of the Week). For oil, this will be an extension of the fundamental realignment initiated by OPEC 2.0 at the end of 2016. The producer coalition agreed to remove ~ 1.1mm b/d from the market, which, along with another 300k to 400k barrels of natural declines, tightened the supply side considerably. On the demand side, the synchronized global economic upturn that powered consumption up by 1.65mm b/d last year, by our estimation, will push demand higher by 1.67mm b/d this year. Supply-side adjustments in base metals, particularly copper, where strikes and natural disasters combined to tighten markets, will be augmented by the ongoing environmental reforms in China (Chart 2). These supply-side effects in industrial commodities occurred against a backdrop of stronger-than-expected economic growth worldwide last year - the first such upturn since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008 (Chart 3). Chart 2Fundamentals Supported Metals Chart 3Global Upturn Powers Commodity Demand We expect this to continue. Part of the recovery in aggregate demand worldwide can be attributed to the massive monetary stimulus by systematically important central banks - led by the Fed, the ECB and BoJ. Lower energy prices last year, which acted like a tax cut, put more discretionary income in consumers' hands and also boosted aggregate demand.2 Monetary Policy Will Re-Assert Itself Chart 4The USD Will Re-Emerge As A##BR##Driver Of Commodity Prices The influence of monetary policy - chiefly how the Fed's actions affect the USD - has been de minimis over the past two years relative to fundamentals, which have driven price formation in industrial commodities (Chart 4). While the Fed raised its policy rate 3 times last year, monetary conditions remained relatively loose in the U.S., which was supportive of commodity prices. Looser monetary conditions kept the USD better offered than other major currencies in 4Q17, which allowed gold prices to recover late in the year. A weaker USD also supported grain markets, which also have staged a somewhat subdued recovery following a mid-2017 sell-off. For at least 1H18, we see commodities generally continuing to be supported by strong fundamentals and relatively accommodative monetary policy globally, even with the Fed lifting its policy rate as many as four times this year, per our House view. Inflation Pressures Could Start Building By 2H18, inflationary pressures could start to build: In the U.S., tax cuts coupled with fiscal stimulus from the federal government in the form of disaster relief and higher discretionary spending - could add ~ 0.5% to GDP growth this year, based on calculations by BCA's Global Investment Strategy team (Chart 5).3 This should, all else equal, increase demand for labor and push the U.S. unemployment rate lower, lifting wages, inflation and inflation expectations in turn (Chart 6). At least that's how it's supposed to work. Our colleagues in BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy note, the "dichotomy between stronger growth and a tight labor market on the one hand and low inflation on the other gets to the heart of the first big challenge that incoming Fed Chairman Jay Powell will face next year. Specifically, how much faith should the Fed have in its framework for forecasting inflation? Chart 5U.S. Inflation Is Ticking Higher Chart 6Still Waiting On The Phillips Curve "... Janet Yellen's Phillips Curve model of core inflation does not explain this year's decline.1 It also shows that inflation is close to 0.5% below fair value, almost the largest deviation since 1995."4 We're inclined to agree with former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke on this. In 2016, he noted that, given the years-long stretch of errors in forecasting key economic variables - output, unemployment and the Fed funds rate - "Fed-watchers should probably focus on incoming data and count a bit less on Fed policymakers for guidance."5 This is a mixed blessing (or curse) for commodity markets: Increased economic activity raises demand for commodities, so at least in 1H18, and most likely for the second half as well, commodity demand will remain well supported globally. If we do get higher inflation, the Fed likely would feel it could lean into its rate-normalization with greater vigor, and start guiding to more frequent or bigger rate hikes. If we don't see higher inflation - if, as Chicago Fed President Charles Evans fears, inflation expectations have been marked down in a meaningful way - and the Fed cannot justify further rate hikes, we could see the real side of the global economy take another leg higher, lifting commodity demand in the process.6 This is the big issue for the coming year. We cannot say at this point how it plays out, which is why we recommend commodity investors remain in tactical mode, as we did a year ago. Recapping 2017's Recommendations Our trade recommendations were up an average of 77% last year, led by a 111% gain in our oil calls. This was a touch better than the 95% average gain we posted on our oil recommendations in 2016 (Table 1). Table 1Average Quarterly Returns 2017 Without a doubt, most of our recommendations were in the oil markets, as the accompanying tables show, and we maintained an exposure of one sort or another in oil throughout the year (Table 2). Table 2Trades Closed In 2017 The big drivers of our view in oil markets were fundamentals: On the supply side, we maintained the view OPEC 2.0 would not waver in its commitment to draining global storage levels, particularly in the OECD commercial inventories via supply reductions. On the demand side, by mid-2017, it became apparent to us the big data providers - the U.S. EIA and the IEA in Paris - and most of the sell-side analysts were underestimating demand. Information flows during 1H17 were often contradictory, which injected enormous volatility in crude-oil spread markets - particularly the calendar spreads trading markets employ to take a view on the shape of the forward curve (e.g., long a near-term futures contract like Dec/17 Brent, vs. short a deferred delivery contract like Dec/18). This intense volatility drove us toward the relative safety of call-option spreads in 2H17, where the risk of loss is limited to the net premium paid for the call spread. As we did last year, we constructed an information ratio (IR) to determine whether the additional volatility produced by our recommendations was adequately compensated for by the returns (simple percent changes of the opening level for a recommendation vs. the closing level). Our IR uses the S&P GSCI as a benchmark, given it has a relatively high weight in energy-related exposures. Our ratio looks at the average excess return of the active portfolio against this benchmark. This average excess return is divided by its standard deviation (also referred to as the tracking error volatility) in order to generate a risk-adjusted metric to measure returns on our recommendations relative to the risk we took to generate them. BCA's IR thus is calculated as: The higher the IR, the better the risk-adjusted relative performance of the portfolio. Three elements can explain a high IR: High returns in the portfolio; low returns in the benchmark, or low tracking error volatility. Hence, this measure provides a numeric value to analyze the risk-reward trade-off; it tells us whether or not the risk assumed in our trades was compensated for by larger returns. Viewing our energy recommendations as a portfolio over the course of 2017, our average return was 111%, while the GSCI return was 5.8%. The tracking error volatility was 112%.7 Using these inputs, the IR of our recommendations was 0.94. While not as stellar as our 2016 IR of 1.47, this risk-adjusted return is still stout, and indicates the consistent positive excess returns of our portfolio relative to passive GSCI exposure compensated for the high volatility of those returns. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we've given the OPEC + non-OPEC producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 For a summary of our 2018 outlooks, please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Fundamentals Remain Bullish Heading Into 2018," published on December 21, 2017, and "Opposing Forces: Stay Neutral Metals In 2018" in the same issue. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve," published December 22, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?," published December 19, 2017. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "The Fed's shifting perspective on the economy and its implications for monetary policy," by Ben S. Bernanke, published by the Brookings Institution on its website August 8, 2016. 6 Please see "All Talk, Few Answers From FOMC for Yellen's Long Inflation Miss," published by bloomberg.com on January 3, 2018. 7 Note: In order to find the standard deviation of the portfolio's excess returns (tracking error volatility), we averaged the daily percentage change in each trade's underlying assets. Any given trade only weighed in the daily average return if it was open during that day of the year. We are not accounting for the type of trades (spreads, pairs or single trades), we only track the underlying asset returns. From these daily average returns we subtracted the daily return of the preferred benchmark to obtain the daily excess return. Using this, we computed an historical standard deviation (based on 20-day periods) for every day during which a trade was open in our portfolio (we had 224 days with at least one energy trade opened). Lastly, we annualized this standard deviation to obtain our tracking-error volatility. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017

Dear Client, This is our last report of 2017. We will be back on January 4, 2018, with our customary recap of recommendations made this year. We wish you and your loved ones the very best this lovely season has to offer. Sincerely, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Highlights With GDP growth accelerating in ~ 75% of countries monitored by the IMF, we expect commodity demand - particularly for crude oil and refined products - to remain strong in 2018. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will maintain its production discipline, which will force commercial oil inventories lower in 2018. As a result, we expect oil markets to continue to tighten in 2018, keeping upside risk to prices from unplanned production outages acute. This was clearly demonstrated in separate incidents in the U.S. and North Sea in the past two months, which removed more than 400k b/d from markets since November. Geopolitical risk will remain elevated, particularly in Venezuela, where operations at the state oil company were paralyzed after senior military officers assumed leadership positions there. Beyond 2018, we believe OPEC 2.0 will endure as a coalition. It will manage production and provide forward guidance consistent with a strategy to keep WTI and Brent forward curves backwardated. This will provide a supportive backdrop for the Saudi Aramco IPO, expected toward the end of next year, and will limit the volume of hedging U.S. shale-oil producers are able to effect. In turn, this will limit the number of rigs U.S. E&Ps can profitably deploy. Energy: Overweight. Our Brent and WTI call spreads in 2018 - long $55/bbl calls vs. short $60/bbl calls - are up an average 53.8%. We will retain these exposures into 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. We expect base metals to be supported through 1Q18, after which reform measures in China could crimp supply and demand, as we discuss below. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk, even though inflation remains quiescent (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. Fed policy will be critical to ag markets in 2018. We expect as many as four rate hikes next year, as the Fed continues with rates normalization (see below). Feature Our updated balances model indicates global oil markets will continue to tighten in 2018, as demand growth accelerates and OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - maintains production discipline (Chart of the Week). Earlier this week, IMF noted improving employment conditions globally, which will continue to support aggregate demand and the synchronized global expansion in manufacturing and trade (Chart 2 and Chart 3).1 This acceleration of GDP growth rates globally will continue to support income growth and commodity demand generally. Oil-exporters have not participated in the global economic expansion to the extent of other economies, according to the Fund, which can be seen in the trade data (Chart 3). However, imports by Middle East and African countries are moving higher, and look set to post year-on-year (yoy) growth in the near future. Chart of the WeekOil Balances Will Continue to Tighten In 2018 Chart 2Global Upturn Boosts Manufacturing, ##br##Commodity Demand... The combination of continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 and expanding incomes boosting demand will force crude and product inventories lower, particularly those in the OECD, which are the primary target of the producer coalition (Chart 4). Chart 3...And Global Trade Chart 4OECD Inventories Will Fall Below 5-year ##br##Average In BCA's Supply-Demand Assessment Unplanned Outages Mounting; Risk Remains Acute Unlike many forecasters, we continue to expect inventories to draw in 1Q18. This expectation is the direct result of our supply-demand modelling, and also is supported by our expectation that the risk of unplanned outages is increasing. This already has been demonstrated in the U.S. and U.K. North Sea, where more than 400k b/d of pipeline flows in November and December were lost. Of far greater moment, however, is the potential for unplanned outages in Venezuela. We believe the state-owned oil company there is one systemic malfunction away from shutting down exports entirely - e.g., a breakdown in pumping stations - as happened in 2002. Reuters reports the government of Nicolas Maduro appears to be consolidating power via an "anti-corruption" campaign, and is installing senior military officials with little or no industry experience in leadership roles inside PDVSA.2 Reuters notes, "The ongoing purge, in which prosecutors have arrested at least 67 executives including two recently ousted oil ministers, now threatens to further harm operations for the OPEC country, which is already producing at 30-year-lows and struggling to run PDVSA units including Citgo Petroleum, its U.S. refiner." The news service goes on to report, "Executives that remain, meanwhile, are so rattled by the arrests that they are loathe to act, scared they will later be accused of wrongdoing." We have Venezuela output at just under 1.90mm b/d, and expect it to decline to a little more than 1.70mm b/d by the end of 2018. Brent Expected To Average $67/bbl In 2018 We continue to forecast average Brent prices of $67/bbl and WTI at $63/bbl next year, given our assessment of global supply-demand balances, which drive our fundamental price forecasts: We expect global crude and liquids supply to average 100.23mm b/d in 2018, vs 100.01mm b/d expected by the U.S. EIA, while we have global demand coming in at 100.29mm b/d on average next year, vs the 99.97mm b/d expected by EIA (Chart 5 and Chart 6). Chart 5BCA's Expected Crude Oil Supply Vs. EIA's Chart 6BCA's Expected Demand Exceeds EIA's In 2018 Our expectations translate into a 2.55mm b/d increase in supply next year, vs a 1.67mm b/d increase in demand yoy (Table 1). Running the EIA's supply-demand assessments through our fundamental pricing models produces average Brent and WTI prices of $49/bbl and $47/bbl, respectively. EIA is expecting a 2.04mm b/d increase in supply next year, vs a 1.63mm b/d increase in demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) In line with our House view, we are expecting some USD strengthening on the back of as many as four interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in the U.S. (Chart 7). As we've noted in the past, we expect these effects to be felt more in 2H18. Along with higher U.S. shale-oil production driven by higher prices - we expect shale output to go up 0.97mm b/d next year to 6.64mm b/d - a stronger USD will keep Brent and WTI prices below $70/bbl next year. Oil Beyond 2018: OPEC 2.0 Endures OPEC 2.0 will remain an enduring feature of the oil market going forward, in our view. Allowing the coalition to fade away, and returning the global oil market to a production free-for-all once again serves neither KSA's nor Russia's interests. Following the IPO of Saudi Aramco toward the end of 2018, KSA will, we believe, want to maintain stability in the market, by demonstrating to capital markets that OPEC 2.0 can manage crude-oil supplies in a way that is not disruptive to its new-found investors. It is important to remember the Aramco IPO is only the beginning of the process of transforming KSA from a crude resource exporter into a vertically integrated global refining and marketing colossus. To eclipse Exxon as the world's largest refiner, Aramco would benefit from continued access to capital markets throughout the following decades, as well reliable cash flows to lower its cost of capital, service debt, and maintain whatever dividends it envisions. This cannot occur if oil markets are continually at risk of collapsing because production cannot be managed in a business-like manner. While Russia has not embarked on the same sort of transformation of its resource industry as KSA, it still has a very strong interest in maintaining stability in the crude oil markets, given its dependence on hydrocarbon exports. The Russian rouble moves in near-lock-step with Brent prices - since 2010, Brent prices explain ~80% of the movement in the rouble (Chart 8). It is obvious a collapse in global crude oil prices would, once again, have devastating effects on Russia's economy, as it did in 2009 and 2014. Such a collapse would trigger inflation domestically, as the cost of imports skyrockets, and threaten civil unrest as incomes and GDP are hobbled and foreign reserves evaporate. Chart 7Stronger USD Limits Oil-Price Appreciation In 2018 Chart 8Russia Cannot Afford An Oil Price Collapse Both KSA and Russia have a deep interest in maintaining oil's pre-eminent position as a transportation fuel for as long as possible. For this reason, neither wants to encourage prices that are too high - $100/bbl+ prices greatly encouraged the development of shale technology in the U.S. - nor too low, given the dire consequences such an outcome would have for both their economies. The common goals of KSA and Russia cannot be achieved by allowing OPEC 2.0 to dissolve, leaving member states to produce at will in the sort of production free-for-all that characterized the OPEC market-share war of 2014 - 15. To the extent possible, OPEC 2.0 must continue to manage member states' production in a manner that does not permit inventories to once again fill to the point where the only way to moderate over-production is to push prices through cash costs, so that enough output is shut in to clear the market. The most obvious way for these goals to be accomplished is by keeping markets relatively tight. This can be done by keeping commercial oil inventories worldwide low enough to keep Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated - particularly in highly visible OECD and U.S. storage facilities. A backwardated forward curve means the average price over a typical 2- or 3-year hedge horizon is lower than the spot price received by OPEC 2.0 producers. The deeper the backwardation, the lower the average price a U.S. shale producer can lock in by hedging. This limits the number of rigs that can be deployed by shale producers. This will require continual communication with markets to assure them sufficient spare capacity and easily developed production can be brought to market to alleviate any temporary shortage. In the meantime, OPEC 2.0 members with flexible storage will need to communicate these barrels will be readily available to the market. This management and forward-guidance should be easier for OPEC 2.0 to execute on, following its recent success in keeping some 1.0mm b/d of production off the market - largely in KSA and Russia - and member states' existing spare capacity and storage. We continue to expect the daily working dialogue of the OPEC 2.0 member states - most especially KSA and Russia - to deepen as time goes by, and for tactics and strategy to evolve as each gains comfort operating with the other. Whether OPEC 2.0 can pull this off remains to be seen. However, given the success of the coalition over the past two years, we are inclined to believe they will continue to develop a durable modus operandi supporting this outcome. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Opposing Forces: Stay Neutral Metals In 2018 Chart 9Strong Global Demand Will Neutralize ##br##Impact of China Slowdown While we expect more upside to metal prices in the first half of 2018, slowing growth in China and a stronger USD will prevent a repeat of this year's stellar performance. While a deceleration in China is - ceteris paribus - most definitely a headwind to metal prices, we believe the impact may pan out differently this time around. The silver lining comes from the Communist Party's commitment to environmental reforms, which, in many cases, will manifest themselves in the form of less supply of the refined product, or demand for the ores. Either way, this alone is a positive for metals. China's Environmental Reforms Will Dominate in 1Q18 China's commitment to cleaning its air is currently shaping up in the form of winter cuts in major steel- and aluminum-producing provinces. While policies are hard to predict, we will keep monitoring the development and implementation of reforms from within China to assess how they will impact the markets. Outcomes from the Annual National People's Congress in March will give us a clearer indication of what to expect in terms of policy. For now, we see these reforms putting a floor under metal prices, at least in the beginning of 2018. Robust Global Demand Offsets Stronger USD & Slower Chinese Growth Xi's reforms will turn into a headwind for metal prices as they begin to impact the real economy in 2H18. Signs of weakness have already emerged in measures of industrial activity such as the Li Keqiang and Chinese PMI (Chart 9). In addition, the real estate sector has been showing some weakness since the beginning of the year. Annual growth rates in real estate investment and floor-space started are decelerating - a worrisome sign. Nonetheless, domestic demand remains robust, and policymakers in Beijing are approaching economic reforms gradually and with caution. Consequently we do not expect a major policy mistake to derail the Chinese economy. While Chinese growth will likely slow from above trend levels, a hard landing is most probably not in the cards. Another bearish risk comes from a stronger USD. We see the Fed as more committed to interest-rate normalization than markets expect, and consequently would not be surprised to see up to four rate hikes next year. Inverting the yield curve is a policy mistake incoming Chair Jerome Powell will try to avoid; however, we expect inflation to bottom in the first half of next year, giving the Fed room to accelerate its path of rate hikes. This will result in a stronger USD, which is bearish for commodities priced in U.S. dollars. In any case, these bearish factors will likely be offset by strong global growth, supported by a robust U.S. economy. Bottom Line: Xi's reforms will dominate metal markets in 2018 as bullish supply side environmental reforms duel against bearish demand-side economic reforms. Robust global growth will neutralize the impact of downside pressures. Stay neutral, but beware of modest USD strength. Low Inflation Retards Gold's Advance Once again, reality confounded theory: Inflation failed to emerge this year, even as systematically important central banks remained massively accommodative, and some 70% of the economies tracked by the OECD reported jobless rates below the commonly used estimate of the natural rate of unemployment (Chart 10). Chart 10Massive Monetary Accommodation Failed ##br##To Spur Inflation In The U.S. These fundamentals should be inflationary and supportive of gold. To date, they haven't been. We Expect Inflation To Revive The global economy has endured decades of low inflation going back at least to the 1990s. This has been driven by numerous factors. First, the expansion of the global value chain (GVC) over the past three decades has synchronized inflation rates worldwide, as our research and that of the BIS has found. As a result, U.S. wages and goods' inflation are now more dependent on global spare capacity. With the global output gap now almost closed, this disinflationary force will dissipate.3 Second, most measures of labor-market slack are now pointing toward tighter conditions, which, we expect, will strengthen the Phillips curve trade-off between inflation and unemployment next year. Inflation is a lagging indicator: Wage inflation lags the unemployment rate, and CPI inflation lags wage inflation. Investors should expect inflation to show up in 2018.4 Lastly, one-off technical factors, which depressed inflation last year - e.g. drop in cellphone data charges and prescription drug prices - also will fade. Once these big one-offs are no longer in annual percent-change calculations, inflation rates will rise. The Fed's Choppy Waters Against this backdrop, the Fed is embarking on a rates-normalization policy, which we believe will result in U.S. central bank's policy rate being increased up to four times next year. The risk of a policy error is high. Should the Fed proceed with its rate hikes while inflation remains quiescent, real interest rates will increase. This would depress gold prices, and, at the limit, threaten the current economic expansion by tightening monetary conditions well beyond current levels, potentially lifting unemployment levels. If, on the other hand, the Fed deliberately keeps rate hikes below the rate of growth in prices - i.e., it stays "behind the curve" - it risks being forced to implement steeper rate hikes later in 2018 or in 2019 to get stronger inflation under control. This could tighten monetary conditions suddenly, and threaten the expansion, pushing the U.S. economy into recession. There's a lot riding on how the Fed navigates these difficult conditions. Geopolitical Risks Will Support Gold On the geopolitical side, the risks we've identified in our October 12, 2017 publication - i.e. (1) U.S.-North Korea tensions, (2) trade protectionism of the Trump administration, and (3) ongoing conflicts in the Middle East-- will add a geopolitical risk premium to gold prices, supporting the metal's role as a safe haven.5 Bottom Line: We remain neutral precious metals, but still recommend investors allocate to gold as a strategic portfolio hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk. U.S. Policies Will Weigh On Ags In 2018 U.S. monetary and trade policy will dominate ags next year. Our modelling reveals that U.S. financial factors - real rates and the USD - are significant in explaining ag price behavior (Chart 11).6 Given that we expect the Fed to hike interest rates more aggressively than what the market is currently pricing in, we see grains as vulnerable to the downside. In addition, the risk that NAFTA is abrogated by the U.S. would weigh on ag markets, as Canada and Mexico are among the U.S.'s top three ag export destinations. Chart 11Bearish U.S. Monetary And Trade Policies ##br##Amid Healthy Inventories Will Weigh On Ags We expect ag markets will remain well supplied next year, and inventories will moderate the impact of supply-side shocks - most notably in the form of a La Nina event. The probability of a La Nina currently stands above 80%, and is expected to last until mid-to-late spring. U.S. Monetary Policy Is Relevant With U.S. inflation rates still subdued, there has been much talk about how soon the Fed will be able embark on its tightening cycle. A weaker-than-expected USD has been favorable for ag markets this year, and thus kept U.S. ag exports competitive. However, if and when the economy reaches the kink in the Philipps Curve, and inflation begins its ascent, the Fed will be able to proceed with its rate-hiking cycle. With the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge at a cycle high, we expect this scenario to unfold in the first half of 2018. This would give incoming Fed Chairman Jerome Powell ample room to hike rates which would - ceteris paribus - bear down on ag prices. FX Developments In Other Major Exporters Will Also Be Bearish The effects of higher U.S. interest rates are translated to ag markets via the exchange-rate channel. Commodities are priced in USD, thus a stronger USD vis-à-vis the currency of a major ag exporter will, all else equal, increase the profitability of farmers competing against U.S. exporters in international markets. Among the ag-relevant currencies, we highlight the Brazilian Real, EUR, Russian Rouble, and Australian Dollar as most likely to depreciate vis-à-vis the USD in 2018. Termination Of NAFTA Is A Risk For American Farmers U.S. farmers are keeping a close eye on NAFTA renegotiations, and rightly so. Canada and Mexico are the U.S.'s second and third largest agricultural export markets - accounting for 15% and 13% of U.S. agricultural exports in 2016, respectively. In fact, corn, rice, and wheat exports to Mexico accounted for 26%, 15%, and 11% share of U.S. exports of those commodities, respectively. However, as BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service points out, the long-run impact depends on the underlying reason for the termination of the trade agreement. If Trump is merely a "pluto-populist" - as they expect - NAFTA will simply be replaced by bilateral trade agreements, with no lasting economic disturbance. The risk is that Trump is a genuine populist. If this turns out to be the case, tariffs and a rejection of the WTO would make U.S. exports less competitive, and would become a bearish force in ag markets.7 The risk of a collapse in the NAFTA trade deal would be devastating for U.S. farmers. In fact, in a bid to reduce reliance on the U.S., Mexican Economic Minister Ildefonso Guajardo recently announced that they are working on a Mexico-European Union trade deal.8 In addition, Mexico signed the world's largest free trade agreement with Japan, and is currently exploring the opportunity to join Mercosur. Bottom Line: Weather-induced volatility is possible in the near term, as a La Nina event threatens to reduce yields. Nevertheless, U.S. financial conditions and trade policy will dominate ag markets in 2018. With markets underestimating the Fed's resolve regarding interest rate hikes, we see some upside to the USD. This will keep a lid on ag prices next year. 1 Please see "The year in Review: Global Economy in 5 Charts," published on the IMF Blog December 18, 2017. https://blogs.imf.org/2017/12/17/the-year-in-review-global-economy-in-5-charts/ 2 Please see "Paralysis at PDVSA: Venezuela's oil purge cripples company," published by reuters.com December 15, 2017. 3 The IMF estimates the median output gap for 20 advanced economies reached -0.1% in 2017 and will rise to +0.3% in 2018. Please see BIS https://www.bis.org/publ/work602.htm. The Bank for International Settlements in Basel describes the GVC as "cross-border trade in intermediate goods and services." 4 The U.S. unemployment has been under its estimated NAIRU for 9 consecutive months now. 5 Please see Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold," dated October 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Our modelling indicates that U.S. financial factors are important determinants of agriculture commodity price developments. More specifically, a 1% move in the USD TWI and a 1pp change in 5 year real rates are associated with a 1.4%, and an 18% change in the CCI Grains & Oilseed Index, in the opposite direction. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "Mexico sees possible EU trade deal as NAFTA talks drag on," dated December 13, 2017, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q17 Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

In late-August we initiated a liquidity-to-growth handoff levered market-neutral trade: long S&P energy/short global gold miners. Over the past four months this trade is up 18.3% and we think the easy money has already been made in this market-neutral trade, despite the still favorable relative macro backdrop. The Fed and other G7 central banks are simultaneously tightening monetary policy, either through rate hikes or reduced asset purchases or a combination thereof. This is de facto negative for the shiny metal and gold mining equities as interest rates are headed higher (second panel). Meanwhile, on the relative operating front, energy stocks have the upper hand versus gold miners as global oil majors have returned to profitability in the new era of $50/bbl oil, suggesting that the worst is behind the industry. Notwithstanding the still-supportive context, this was a tactical three-to-six month pair trade that has mostly played out and we would not like to overstay our welcome. Should a broad market pullback to occur in the upcoming quarter, and the ratio to trade significantly lower, we would not hesitate to reinstate this pair trade. Our cyclical strategy is to "buy the broad market dip" and remain opportunistic on a tactical basis. Bottom Line: Lock in 18.3% profits in the long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade and move to the sidelines for now; see Monday's Weekly Report for more details.