Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in China is now being priced into commodity markets, with comparisons to the 2003 SARS outbreak serving as an early benchmark.1 If it follows the SARS trajectory its impact likely will be limited, although oil demand could fall at the margin as global travel falls. The IMF expects growth in EM economies, the engine for commodity demand, to come in at 4.4% and 4.6% this year and next, respectively, down two-tenths of a percent from its previous forecast, but still up from 2019’s 3.7% rate. The Fund’s risk assessment tilts slightly to the upside, nonetheless, in the wake of global monetary and fiscal stimulus. We introduce our 2021 oil balances and price forecasts this week. We expect Brent crude oil to average $70/bbl next year, and for WTI to average $4/bbl below that. We are maintaining our $67/bbl Brent and $63/bbl WTI 2020 forecasts (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Price Forecasts For 2020, 2021 Crude Oil Price Forecasts For 2020, 2021 Crude Oil Price Forecasts For 2020, 2021 Feature In its latest World Economic Outlook – Tentative Stabilization, Sluggish Recovery? – the IMF flags key risks to EM growth, which will continue to feed the economic policy uncertainty that dogs commodity demand.2 The Fund’s “downward revision primarily reflects negative surprises to economic activity in a few emerging market economies, notably India, which led to a reassessment of growth prospects over the next two years. In a few cases, this reassessment also reflects the impact of increased social unrest.” That said, the Fund sees the balance of risk slightly tilted to the upside versus its earlier assessment in October, in the wake of global monetary and fiscal stimulus. This is in line with our view that the effects of monetary stimulus – deployed over the better part of last year and still expected to remain accommodative this year – will boost growth this year. Our view remains tempered by risks we’ve been highlighting that keep political and economic policy uncertainty elevated – e.g., trade tensions, civil unrest, and the still-underappreciated risks to oil markets arising from US-Iran tensions and social unrest in Iraq, which remains high (Chart 2). The loss of 800k b/d from Libya is significant, but the world does not lack spare light-sweet crude oil production capacity – the US shales, in particular, abound in this type of crude oil. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty Will Trend Lower, But Continues To Dog Commodities Policy Uncertainty Will Trend Lower, But Continues To Dog Commodities Policy Uncertainty Will Trend Lower, But Continues To Dog Commodities Oil Fundamentals Improving As is typically the case, we expect global oil-demand growth this year will be led by EM economies. Crude oil fundamentals continue to favor higher prices: Production management and capital discipline will constrain the rate of growth of oil supplies, and, as discussed above, demand will benefit from policy stimulus globally (Chart 3). Oil demand growth will recover this year, following a lower-than-normal rate of just 830k b/d last year, based on the US EIA’s most recent estimates of historical consumption. We continue to expect demand to grow 1.4mm b/d this year.  For 2021, we expect growth of just under 1.5mm b/d, reaching 103.65mm b/d globally. For its part, the EIA’s estimating growth of 1.34mm and 1.37mm b/d for 2020 and 2021, respectively. As is typically the case, we expect global oil-demand growth this year will be led by EM economies, proxied by non-OECD oil consumption, of 1.26mm b/d. For next year, we expect EM demand growth to come in at 1.34mm b/d, or just over 90% of global oil consumption growth in 2021. On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 output to increase slightly in 2Q20 and return to levels consistent with its previous agreement to cut 1.2mm b/d of production. Our modeling also assumes this level of production remains flat for the rest of 2020. Chart 3Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices Next year, we assume the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to increase production by 350k b/d in 1H21. In addition, we gradually remove 300k b/d of KSA’s overcompliance of 400k b/d next year, which moves its crude oil output in 2021 to 9.94mm b/d vs 9.76mm b/d this year. For Russia, we anticipate an increase in its condensate production, which it lobbied for last year. This will put our estimate of Russia’s crude and condensate production at 11.4mm b/d in 2020 and 11.64mm b/d in 2021.3 Most of the production cuts realized by OPEC 2.0 – ~ 2mm b/d – come at the expense of Venezuela and Iran, both of which are under sanctions limiting their production imposed by the US. We are holding Venezuela’s production at ~ 700k b/d in 2021, and will be monitoring this closely for any indication it is significantly changing. For Iran, we are keeping its production at 2.10mm b/d this year and next, assuming US sanctions remain in place. Oil production in both countries could be impacted by the outcome of US elections in November, and right now this is a near-impossible call to make. US Shales: No Longer A Growth Story? We continue to see slower production growth in the US than the EIA, particularly in the shales, as we expect capital markets to continue to discipline shale producers by only funding those firms that are able to return capital to shareholders or to deliver steady and increasing dividends. In our modeling, total US onshore production this year and next is expected to rise 800k b/d, and 310k b/d for 2021. We also continue to expect drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells to continue to make significant contributions to overall shale-oil production in the US. Indeed, we expect DUCs to continue to offset part of the decline implied by lower rig counts, as they require less capex than drilling and completing new wells. We add ~ 500k b/d of production from DUCs completion over 2020 and 2021. Future production will depend heavily on the Majors and on productivity and lateral length. Our US crude and condensate production estimates for 2020 and 2021 reflect these constraints, and the slowing rate of growth being imposed by capital markets. For 2020, we expect total US crude and condensate production of 13.16mm b/d, of which 9.20mm b/d will come from the main shale basins led by the Permian.4 Tighter Fundamentals, Steeper Backwardations Our fundamental supply-demand balances are tighter than those assumed by the US EIA and the Paris-based IEA (Table 1). We expect US crude and liquids production to grow 1.6mm b/d this year, and only 500k b/d next year. We see global production growing 1.15mm b/d and 1.39mm b/d in 2020 and 2021, respectively. With demand growing 1.4mm b/d and close to 1.5mm b/d in 2020 and 2021, respectively, against this supply backdrop, our balances point to a deficit this year vs. the surplus expected by the IEA  (Table 2 and Chart 4). Table 1Fundamentals Comparison Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Chart 4BCA Research's Balances Estimates Point To Falling Inventories BCA Research's Balances Estimates Point To Falling Inventories BCA Research's Balances Estimates Point To Falling Inventories Chart 5Tighter Storage, Steeper Backwardation Tighter Storage, Steeper Backwardation Tighter Storage, Steeper Backwardation For this reason, we continue to anticipate a steepening in the Brent and WTI forward curves – i.e., more backwardation – which will support our long 2H20 Brent vs. short 2H21 Brent curve trade (Chart 5). As a result of the steeper backwardation, we expect higher volatility, and will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls (Chart 6). Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude oil markets to tighten, given persistent production restraint by OPEC 2.0, capital-market-imposed restraint on US shale-oil producers, and revived global demand growth in 2020 and 2021. The IMF’s assessment re the balance of risk being tilted to the upside, in the wake of global monetary stimulus, is broadly consistent with our maintained view. While we expect global policy uncertainty to fall following the so-called phase-one US-China trade deal and a definitive Brexit vote in the UK, geopolitical tension remains high, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Chart 6Steeper Backwardation To Higher Implied Volatility Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 We will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls, in anticipation of higher volatility in the wake of lower inventories. As a result, we are keeping our 2020 Brent forecast at $67/bbl, and are expecting 2021 Brent to trade at $70/bbl; WTI is expected to trade $4/bbl below Brent this year and next, on average. At tonight’s close, we will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls, in anticipation of higher volatility in the wake of lower inventories.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices traded sideways ~ $64/bbl since last Tuesday, dismissing the US and China phase-one agreement and disruptions to Libyan production and exports which could total as much as 800k b/d.  Over the weekend, concerns re the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in China started being priced into commodities, particularly oil.  Separately, the US Treasury Department renewed Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela for another three months.  The company is scheduled to export 1mm barrels of oil produced by PDVSA via a joint-venture, partially dodging US sanctions on Venezuelan oil.5  We expect the country’s output to stabilize close to its current level of 710 kb/d this year. Base Metals: Neutral On Tuesday Beijing reported more than 400 people had been infected with the Wuhan coronavirus, confirming person-to-person transmission of the virus. Concerns that a wider spread over the lunar New Year holidays starting this weekend will impact economic growth in the world’s top metal consumer brought copper prices down 1.8% on Tuesday.  Zinc reached two-month highs this week amidst concerns of low LME warehouses stocks, now close to their 20-year lows at 50,900 MT (Chart 7).  Supply concerns stemming from low iron ore stocked in China’s ports, along with good Chinese macro data, lifted iron-ore prices. Precious Metals: Neutral The US dollar is a key missing piece needed to propel gold prices higher from current levels. The 2.4% decline in the trade-weighted dollar index supported gold’s 5% increase since October 1, 2019 (Chart 8).  We expect the dollar to continue depreciating in 2020, as global growth rebounds and the Fed remains accommodative, keeping gold prices well bid.  Most precious metals have followed gold’s lead this year; palladium and platinum are up 17.63% and 3.15%, respectively. Chart 7 Zinc LME Inventories Are At Their Lowest In 20 years Zinc LME Inventories Are At Their Lowest In 20 years Chart 8 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT Corn and soybeans futures traded lower on Tuesday as markets awaited evidence of China purchasing additional U.S. agricultural goods, fulfilling its commitment to buy $32 billion of agricultural goods over two years per the phase-one deal negotiated between China and the US earlier this month.  Corn traded lower, as US grain elevators have yet to confirm any Chinese buying.  Soybeans, further weakened by expectations of a massive harvest in rival exporter Brazil.  Wheat was the only ag posting gains early in the week on the back of strong Black Sea export demand.     Footnotes 1     Please see CDC SARS Response Timeline, published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The SARS outbreak was identified in February 2003 and lasted six months.  The CDC noted: “Globally, WHO received reports of SARS from 29 countries and regions; 8,096 persons with probable SARS resulting in 774 deaths. In the United States, eight SARS infections were documented by laboratory testing and an additional 19 probable SARS infections were reported.”  According to Chinese officials, there were 440 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus as of Wednesday; nine people were reported to have died thus far.  The World Health Organization met Wednesday to assess the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.  The 2003 coronavirus outbreak was minor compared to the typical influenza outbreak: by way of comparison, every year there are an estimated one billion cases of influenza, resulting in 290,000 to 650,000 deaths, according to the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations in Switzerland. 2               Economic policy uncertainty is a recurrent theme in our research.  It has been driving safe-haven demand for the USD and gold for months, as we recently discussed in Iran Responds To US Strike; Oil Markets Remain Taut.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3     We use World Bank growth estimates to drive our EM demand forecasts.  Earlier this month, the Bank forecast EM GDP growth of 4.1% for 2020 and 4.3% for next year.  This will outpace last year’s growth rate of 3.5%. 4     US production growth, particularly in the Permian and Bakken basins, could be constrained by environmental restrictions, if state regulators crack down on the massive flaring occurring in both states.  Please see Lingering Oil-Demand Weakness Will Fade, published November 21, 2019, where we discuss this risk in more depth. 5     Please see Exclusive: PDVSA's partners act as traders of Venezuelan oil amid sanctions - documents, published by reuters.com January 13, 2020.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021 Despite New Demand Threat To Oil, Higher Prices Highly Likely In 2021

Stick With Refiners Stick With Refiners Overweight US refiners enjoyed a solid run for the better part of 2019, but over the past three months have retraced roughly a third of those relative gains. Nevertheless, we remain overweight the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing (O&G R&M) index for three reasons. First, US gasoline inventories are on the cusp of contracting anew. Whittled down inventories have historically underpinned US refiners’ margins (gasoline inventories shown inverted, second panel). Second, historically rising crack spreads have been synonymous with expanding relative forward earnings growth. Thus, an inventory-led boost to refining margins should continue to underpin relative profit growth (third panel). Finally, the dollar is a key driver behind the entire commodity complex as well as commodity exposed equities. Since the 2015 manufacturing recession, US refiners have been tightly inversely correlated with the greenback and the current message is that the sell-off in the S&P O&G R&M index is near exhaustion (US dollar shown inverted, bottom line). Bottom Line: We remain overweight the S&P O&G R&M index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5OILR – MPC, VLO, PSX, HFC.

Highlights The World Bank lowered its growth forecast for EM economies – the growth engine for commodity demand – to 4.1% from 4.6% for 2020, which still will outpace last year’s rate of 3.5%. Our high-conviction call remains intact: The combination of expansionary monetary and fiscal policy will support commodity demand growth this year in excess of last year’s paltry rate. The Bank highlights policy uncertainty as a key risk, cautioning renewed trade tensions could derail the already-fragile global economy. The other side of this coin is: Lower policy uncertainty – particularly in the US – would provide a significant boost to global growth. This is in line with our long-standing assessment of the global economy. We continue to expect a revival in industrial commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals, where we remain long. We see risk to the upside, if demand expands sooner or stronger than what the Bank – and the market – are pricing in. Feature We see upside risks arising from demand recovering sooner and stronger than markets are currently pricing. The title of the World Bank’s January 2020 Global Economic Prospects – Slow Growth, Policy Challenges – summarizes our maintained view for commodity markets this year. However, the Bank stresses downside risks to markets arising from policy uncertainty, whereas we see upside risks arising from demand recovering sooner and stronger than markets are currently pricing. In its current report, the Bank revised its 2020 real GDP growth estimates for EM economies to 4.1% p.a. from 4.6% p.a. previously. This still represents a rebound in growth vs. last year’s paltry 3.5% p.a. growth estimate. Still, growth will not approach the 6.2% rate seen in the 2005 – 2009 period, or the 5.7% rate seen in 2010 – 2014. The Bank’s forecast is a key input to our global commodity demand assessment, particularly for EM economies. The Bank’s view in its current report is consistent with our view that economic growth globally will accelerate modestly this year, fueled by accommodative monetary policies globally for the better part of last year (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect a modest increase in fiscal stimulus in major economies this year, particularly in the US, China and Germany. Chart of the WeekGlobal Monetary Accommodation Will Lift Manufacturing Global Monetary Accommodation Will Lift Manufacturing Global Monetary Accommodation Will Lift Manufacturing Our proprietary indicators – Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index, Global Commodity Factor (GCF), and EM Import Volume Model (EMIV) – continue to signal industrial growth will be lifting as global policy stimulus kicks in (Chart 2).1 Chart 2BCA Research Prop Indicators Continue To Signal Higher Growth BCA Research Prop Indicators Continue To Signal Higher Growth BCA Research Prop Indicators Continue To Signal Higher Growth This pick-up will become apparent in manufacturing and EM trade data over the course of 1H20. This pick-up will become apparent in manufacturing and EM trade data over the course of 1H20 – most global trade is in manufactured goods, which is important for EM economies (Chart 3). This will translate to higher demand for industrial commodities – mainly base metals and oil (Chart 4). Industrial-commodity demand also will get a boost at the margin from the phase-one trade deal signed in Washington, DC, this week, which reduced tariffs the US and China imposed on each others’ imports. Chart 3Global PMIs Will Recover In 2020 Global PMIs Will Recover In 2020 Global PMIs Will Recover In 2020 Chart 4Stronger Manufacturing Lifts Demand For Industrial Commodities Stronger Manufacturing Lifts Demand For Industrial Commodities Stronger Manufacturing Lifts Demand For Industrial Commodities It is important to note that supply is tightening for these industrial commodities. OPEC 2.0’s production discipline, coupled with reduced growth in US shale-oil output due to capital constraints, and tighter copper and aluminum supplies – will continue to leave these markets open to short-term price spikes should demand recover sooner and stronger than expected.2 Policy Uncertainty Continues To Hinder Growth The World Bank’s growth estimate for EM economies remains low vs. its historical average. The World Bank’s growth estimate for EM economies remains low vs. its historical average (Chart 5, top panel). The effect of elevated Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) continues to plague EM economies. It has extracted a heavy toll on EM commodity exporters via a strong USD (Chart 5, top panel). This weaker GDP growth for EM generally over the 2015 – 2019 period reflects the market-share war launched by OPEC in late 2014, which saw global benchmark oil prices fall from more than $110/bbl in 1H14 to close to $25/bbl by January 2016, and the deleterious effects caused by safe-haven demand for the USD, which is partly driven by global policy uncertainty.3 Reduced policy uncertainty – particularly in the US – would go a long way to restoring EM economic growth, as the bottom panel of Chart 5 demonstrates: According to the World Bank’s calculations, a 10% reduction in US policy uncertainty would add 0.6% to EM investment growth. This would lift growth closer to its long-term average rate of 5.4% for 2000 – 2019 from the Bank’s currently projected rate of 4.3% for 2020 – 2022. Chart 5Lower Uncertainty Would Boost Growth World Bank Lowers Growth Forecast; Commodity Demand Will Pick Up World Bank Lowers Growth Forecast; Commodity Demand Will Pick Up Bottom Line: The World Bank’s and our forecasts both point to a modest pick-up in EM growth this year, which will lift industrial-commodity demand. While the Bank continues to flag risks to this recovery arising from renewed policy uncertainty – e.g., the resumption of the Sino-US tariff increases – we continue to see risks to the upside in our short term outlook, particularly if demand revives sooner and stronger than markets currently are pricing in.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com       Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight.  OPEC crude production is estimated at 29.55mm b/d in December 2019, down 100k b/d from November levels, according to Platts. Iraq appears to be converging to quota and is expected to fully comply this month, according to Saudi Arabia officials.4 This implies a 180k b/d reduction in supply vs. November, assisting Saudi Arabia in its long attempt at balancing the oil market. Downside risks to Iraqi supply are mounting as continued internal discontent and ongoing tensions with the US – the Iraqi Parliament demand the US withdraw its troops from Iran – draws attention to the vulnerability of the country’s oil output. Base Metals: Neutral LME copper inventories stand at 130k MT, the lowest level since March 2018. (Chart 6). Tuesday, China reported a 9% month-to-month increase in copper imports. The most active copper future on the LMEX was up 1.5% at market close. Chinese iron-ore imports rose 11.8% to 101.3mm MT in December, the highest level in more than two years. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices remain above $1,550/oz, reflecting residual geopolitical tensions in the wake of the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the former commander of Iran’s elite Quds force. Our gold models suggest prices are ~ $120/oz above a model based on US real rates and the broad trade-weighted dollar. This highlights gold’s ability to hedge against geopolitical tensions (Chart 7). We are moving our stop to $1,500/oz from $1,450/oz at tonight’s close. Chart 6LME Copper Stocks Resume Drawing LME Copper Stocks Resume Drawing LME Copper Stocks Resume Drawing Chart 7Gold Proves Its Worth As A Portfolio Hedge Gold Proves Its Worth As A Portfolio Hedge Gold Proves Its Worth As A Portfolio Hedge Ags/Softs:  Underweight Expectations of a US-China trade deal are boosting demand for soybeans. China’s soybean imports jumped to a 19-month high of 9.54mm tons in December, a 67% year-on-year increase, as trade tensions recede. The USDA’s WASDE report on Friday showed yield increases more than offset a decline in area harvested for both corn and soybeans. For corn, the increase in production was not enough to keep up with the rise in use, mainly driven by higher feed, yet the average price for the 2019/20 season was unchanged at $9.00/bu. Higher feed usage levels drove U.S. wheat ending stocks below expectations. CBOT March Wheat futures were up 6.25 cents/bu on Tuesday.   Footnotes 1     Our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data, and Chinese industrial activity statistics to gauge current global industrial activity. These statistics are highly correlated with trade-related activity, which, since most of this involve trade in manufactured goods, is important to global industrial activity. The Global Commodity Factor (GCF) uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different real commodity prices. The EM Import Volume Model (EMIV) model tracks EM import volumes which are reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which we update to current time using FX rates for trade-sensitive currencies, commodity prices and interest rates variables. We are also following shipping indexes, which are highly correlated with global trade volumes. 2     Please see On OPEC 2.0’s Agenda In Vienna: More Production Cuts, Longer Deal, published December 5, and Godot … Trade Deal … Wait For It … Base Metals Are Primed For A Rally, published November 28, 2019 for additional discussion. NB: We will be updating our global oil supply-demand balances and price forecasts next week. 3     This remains a major theme in our analysis, and one of the key risks we highlighted going into 2020. This policy uncertainty is transmitted to commodity markets globally via FX markets – as policy uncertainty rises, the broad trade-weighted USD for goods (TWIBG), our preferred benchmark, rises, as can be seen in the middle panel of Chart 5. We have shown that safe-haven demand strengthens the TWIBG index maintained by the Fed, which elevates the local-currency cost of commodities – most of which price and are invoiced in USD – which reduces demand at the margin; it also lowers the local-currency cost of production for commodities ex-US, which, at the margin, incentivizes supply. Please see 2020 Key Views: Policy Uncertainty Continues To Drive Commodity Markets, which we published December 19, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4     Please see Saudi energy minister: We want sustainable oil prices published January 13, 2020 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 World Bank Lowers Growth Forecast; Commodity Demand Will Pick Up World Bank Lowers Growth Forecast; Commodity Demand Will Pick Up Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2019 Summary of Closed Trades World Bank Lowers Growth Forecast; Commodity Demand Will Pick Up World Bank Lowers Growth Forecast; Commodity Demand Will Pick Up

In Gold We Trust In Gold We Trust Overweight This week we reintroduced a modest portfolio hedge via augmenting exposure to global gold miners to overweight. Global gold miners have a lot going for them. Rising global policy uncertainty plays to their strength as investors seek the refuge of safe haven assets especially when geopolitical risks flare up (top panel). Importantly, real US bond yields have also taken a beating recently underpinning gold prices and gold mining equities. This is significant, as bullion yields nothing and gold miners next to nothing so from an opportunity cost perspective it pays to hold a zero yielding asset when competing yields fall and vice versa (middle panel). Worrisomely, this fall in real US yields is de facto pushing global real yields lower, which might indicate that investors worry that the global economy has more downside. In fact, economists’ estimates for GDP growth (as compiled by Bloomberg, bottom panel) continue to decelerate globally, and they forecast below-trend real output growth in the US for 2020. Bottom Line: Boost global gold miners to an above benchmark allocation via the long GDX/short ACWI exchange traded funds.  

Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Bond Bear On Pause Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Global PMI Ticks Down Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Coefficients Stable Over Time Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Betas Mostly Positive Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Bond Market Implications Of An Oil Supply Shock Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification