Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights U.S. consumption remains robust despite the recent intensification of global growth headwinds. The G-20 meeting will not result in an escalation nor a major resolution of Sino-U.S. tensions. Kicking the can down the road is the most likely outcome. China’s reflationary efforts will intensify, impacting global growth in the second half of 2019. Fearful of collapsing inflation expectations, global central banks are easing policy, which is supporting global liquidity conditions and growth prospects. Bond yields have upside, especially inflation expectations. Equities have some short-term downside, but the cyclical peak still lies ahead. The equity rally will leave stocks vulnerable to the inevitable pick-up in interest rates later this cycle. Gold stocks may provide an attractive hedge for now. A spike in oil prices creates a major risk to our view. Stay overweight oil plays. Feature Global growth has clearly deteriorated this year, and bond yields around the world have cratered. German yields have plunged below -0.3% and U.S. yields briefly dipped below 2%. Even if the S&P 500 remains near all-time highs, the performance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones is corroborating the message from the bond market. Bonds and stocks are therefore not as much in disagreement as appears at first glance. To devise an appropriate strategy, now more than ever investors must decide whether or not a recession is on the near-term horizon. Answering yes to this question means bond prices will continue to rise, the dollar will rally further, stocks will weaken, and defensive stocks will keep outperforming cyclical ones. Answering no, one should sell bonds, sell the dollar, buy stocks, and overweight cyclical sectors. The weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy. We stand in the ‘no’ camp: We do not believe a recession is in the offing and, while the current growth slowdown has been painful, it is not the end of the business cycle. Logically, we are selling bonds, selling the dollar and maintaining a positive cyclical stance on stocks. We also expect international equities to outperform U.S. ones, and we are becoming particularly positive on gold stocks. Oil prices should also benefit from the upcoming improvement in global growth. Has The U.S. Economy Met Its Iceberg? Investors betting on a recession often point to the inversion of the 3-month/10-year yield curve and the performance of cyclical stocks. However, we must also remember Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that “markets have predicted nine of the five previous recessions.” In any case, these market moves tell us what we already know: growth has weakened. We must decide whether it will weaken further. A simple probit model based on the yield curve slope and the new orders component of the ISM Manufacturing Index shows that there is a 40% probability of recession over the next 12 months. We need to keep in mind that in 1966 and 1998, this model was flagging a similar message, yet no recession followed over the course of the next year (Chart I-1). This means we must go back and study the fundamentals of U.S. growth. Chart I-1The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer Chart I-2Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment On the purely domestic front, the U.S. economy is not showing major stresses. Last month, we argued that we are not seeing the key symptoms of tight monetary policy: Homebuilders remain confident, mortgage applications for purchases are near cyclical highs, homebuilder stocks have been outperforming the broad market for three quarters, and lumber prices are rebounding.1 Moreover, the previous fall in mortgage yields is already lifting existing home sales, and it is only a matter of time before residential investment follows (Chart I-2). Households remain in fine form. Real consumer spending is growing at a 2.8% pace, and despite rising economic uncertainty, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model expects real household spending to expand at a 3.9% rate in the second quarter (Chart I-3). This is key, as consumers’ spending and investment patterns drive the larger trends in the economy.2 Chart I-3Consumers Are Spending Consumers Are Spending Consumers Are Spending Chart I-4The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... Going forward, we expect consumption to stay the course. Despite its latest dip, consumer confidence remains elevated, household debt levels have fallen from 134% of disposable income in 2007 to 99% today, and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.9% of after-tax income, a multi-generational low. In this context, stronger household income growth should support spending. The May payrolls report is likely to have been an anomaly. Layoffs are still minimal, initial jobless claims continue to flirt near 50-year lows, the Conference Board’s Leading Credit index shows no stress, and the employment components of both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM are at elevated levels (Chart I-4). If these leading indicators of employment are correct, both the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers and salaries have upside (Chart I-5), especially as productivity growth is accelerating. Despite these positives, the weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy, and force the ISM non-manufacturing PMI to converge toward the manufacturing index. If global growth worsens, the dollar will strengthen, quality spreads will widen and stocks will weaken, resulting in tighter financial conditions. Since economic and trade uncertainty is still high, further deterioration in external conditions will cause U.S. capex to collapse. Employment would follow, confidence suffer and consumption fall. Global growth still holds the key to the future. Chart I-5 Following The Chinese Impulse As the world’s foremost trading nation, Chinese activity lies at the center of the global growth equation. The China-U.S. trade war remains at the forefront of investors’ minds. The meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping over the next two days is important. It implies a thawing of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations. However, an overall truce is unlikely. An agreement to resume the talks is the most likely outcome. No additional tariffs will be levied on the remaining $300 billion of untaxed Chinese exports to the U.S., but the previous levies will not be meaningfully changed. Removing this $300 billion Damocles sword hanging over global growth is a positive at the margin. However, it also means that the can has been kicked down the road and that trade will remain a source of headline risk, at least until the end of the year. Chart I-6The Rubicon Has Been Crossed The Rubicon Has Been Crossed The Rubicon Has Been Crossed Trade uncertainty will nudge Chinese policymakers to ease policy further. In previous speeches, Premier Li Keqiang set the labor market as a line in the sand. If it were to deteriorate, the deleveraging campaign could be put on the backburner. Today, the employment component of the Chinese PMI is at its lowest level since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart I-6). This alone warrants more reflationary efforts by Beijing. Adding trade uncertainty to this mix guarantees additional credit and fiscal stimulus. More Chinese stimulus will be crucial for Chinese and global growth. Historically, it has taken approximatively nine months for previous credit and fiscal expansions to lift economic activity. We therefore expect that over the course of the summer, the imports component of the Chinese PMI should improve further, and the overall EM Manufacturing PMI should begin to rebound (Chart I-7, top and second panel). More generally, this summer should witness the bottom in global trade, as exemplified by Asian or European export growth (Chart I-7, third and fourth panel). The prospect for additional Chinese stimulus means that the associated pick-up in industrial activity should have longevity. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. We are already seeing one traditional signpost that Chinese stimulus is having an impact on growth. Within the real estate investment component of GDP, equipment purchases are growing at a 30% annual rate, a development that normally precedes a rebound in manufacturing activity (Chart I-8, top panel). We are also keeping an eye out for the growth of M1 relative to M2. When Chinese M1 outperforms M2, it implies that demand deposits are growing faster than savings deposits. The inference is that the money injected in the economy is not being saved, but is ready to be deployed. Historically, a rebounding Chinese M1 to M2 ratio accompanies improvements in global trade, commodities prices, and industrial production (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World Chart I-8China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact   To be sure, China is not worry free. Auto sales are still soft, global semiconductor shipments remain weak, and capex has yet to turn the corner. But the turnaround in credit and in the key indicators listed above suggests the slowdown is long in the tooth. In the second half of 2019, China will begin to add to global growth once again. Advanced Economies’ Central Banks: A Brave New World Chart I-9The Inflation Expectations Panic The Inflation Expectations Panic The Inflation Expectations Panic While China is important, it is not the only game in town. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. It seems they have stopped targeting realized inflation and are increasingly focused on inflation expectations. The collapse in inflation expectations is worrying central bankers (Chart I-9). Falling anticipated inflation can anchor actual inflation at lower levels than would have otherwise been the case. It also limits the downside to real rates when growth slows, and therefore, the capacity of monetary policy to support economic activity. Essentially, central banks fear that permanently depressed inflation expectations renders them impotent. The change in policy focus is evident for anyone to see. As recently as January 2019, 52% of global central banks were lifting interest rates. Now that inflation expectations are collapsing, other than the Norges Bank, none are doing so (Chart I-10). Instead, the opposite is happening and the RBA, RBNZ and RBI are cutting rates. Moreover, as investors are pricing in lower policy rates around the world, G-10 bond yields are collapsing, which is easing global liquidity conditions. Indeed, as Chart I-11 illustrates, when the share of economies with falling 2-year forward rates is as high as it is today, the BCA Global Leading Indicator rebounds three months later. Chart I-10Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere The European Central Bank stands at the vanguard of this fight. As we argued two months ago, deflationary pressures in Europe are intact and are likely to be a problem for years to come.3 The ECB is aware of this headwind and knows it needs to act pre-emptively. Four months ago, it announced a new TLRTO-III package to provide plentiful funding for stressed banks in the European periphery. On June 6th, ECB President Mario Draghi unveiled very generous financing terms for the TLTRO-III. Last week, at the ECB’s Sintra conference in Portugal, ECB Vice President Luis de Guindos professed that the ECB could cut rates if inflation expectations weaken. The following day, Draghi himself strongly hinted at an upcoming rate cut in Europe and a potential resumption of the ECB QE program. These measures are starting to ease financial conditions where Europe needs it most: Italy. An important contributor to the contraction in the European credit impulse over the past 21 months was the rapid tightening in Italian financial conditions that followed the surge in BTP yields from May 2018. Now that the ECB is becoming increasingly dovish, Italian yields have fallen to 2.1%, and are finally below the neutral rate of interest for Europe. BTP yields are again at accommodative levels. Chart I-11This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects With financial conditions in Europe easing and exports set to pick up in response to Chinese growth, European loan demand should regain some vigor. Meanwhile, the TLTRO-III measures, which are easing bank funding costs, should boost banks’ willingness to lend. The European credit impulse is therefore set to move back into positive territory this fall. European growth will rebound, and contribute to improving global growth conditions. The Fed’s Patience Is Running Out Chart I-12 The Federal Reserve did not cut interest rates last week, but its intentions to do so next month were clear. First, the language of the statement changed drastically. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” Second, the fed funds rate projections from the Summary of Economic Projections were meaningfully revised down. In March, 17 FOMC participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the remainder of 2019, while six foresaw hikes. Today, eight expect a steady fed funds rate, but seven are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one member is still penciling in a hike. Moreover, nine out of 17 participants anticipate that rates will be lower in 2020 than today (Chart I-12). The FOMC’s unwillingness to push back very dovish market expectations signals an imminent interest rate cut. Like other advanced economy central banks, the Fed’s sudden dovish turn is aimed at reviving moribund inflation expectations (Chart I-13). In order to do so, the Fed will have to keep real interest rates at low levels, at least relative to real GDP growth. Even if the real policy rate goes up, so long as it increases more slowly than GDP growth, it will signify that money supply is growing faster than money demand.4 TIPS yields are anticipating these dynamics and will likely remain soft relative to nominal interest rates. Chart I-13...As Inflation Expectations Plunge ...As Inflation Expectations Plunge ...As Inflation Expectations Plunge Since the Fed intends to conduct easy monetary policy until inflation expectations have normalized to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, our liquidity gauges will become more supportive of economic activity and asset prices over the coming two to three quarters: Our BCA Monetary indicator has not only clearly hooked up, it is now above the zero line, in expansionary territory (see Section III, page 41). Excess money growth, defined as money-of-zero-maturity over loan growth, is once again accelerating. This cycle, global growth variables such as our Global Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, or worldwide export prices have all reliably followed this variable (Chart I-14). After collapsing through 2018, our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is rebounding sharply, and the imminent end of the Fed’s balance sheet runoff will only solidify this progress. This indicator gauges how cheap and plentiful high-powered money is for global markets. Its recovery suggests that commodities, globally-traded goods prices, and economic activity are all set to improve (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Excess Money Has Turned Up Excess Money Has Turned Up Excess Money Has Turned Up Chart I-15Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up... Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up... Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up...   The dollar is losing momentum and should soon fall, which will reinforce the improvement in global liquidity conditions. A trough in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is often followed by a weakening dollar (Chart I-16). Moreover, the Greenback’s strength has been turbocharged by exceptional repatriations of funds by U.S. economic agents (Chart I-17). The end of the repatriation holiday along with a more dovish Fed and the completion of the balance sheet runoff will likely weigh on the dollar. Once the Greenback depreciates, the cost of borrowing for foreign issuers of dollar-denominated debt will decline, along with the cost of liquidity, especially if the massive U.S. repatriation flows are staunched. This will further support global growth conditions. Chart I-16...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... ...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... ...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... Trade relations are unlikely to deteriorate further, China is likely to stimulate more aggressively; and easing central banks around the world, including the Fed, are responding to falling inflation expectations. This backdrop points to a rebound in global growth in the second half of the year. As a corollary, the deflationary patch currently engulfing the world should end soon after. As a result, this growing reflationary mindset should delay any recession until late 2021 if not 2022. However, as the business cycle extends further, greater inflationary pressures will build down the road and force the Fed to lift rates – even more than it would have done prior to this wave of easing. Chart I-17...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow ...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow ...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow Investment Implications Bonds BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy service relies on the Golden Rule of Treasury Investing. This simple rule states that when the Fed turns out to be more dovish than anticipated by interest rate markets 12 months prior, Treasurys outperform cash. If the Fed is more hawkish than was expected by market participants, Treasurys underperform (Chart I-18). Today, the Treasury market’s outperformance is already consistent with a Fed generating a very dovish surprise over the next 12 months. However, the interest rate market is already pricing in a 98% probability of two rates cuts this year, and the December 2020 fed funds rate futures imply a halving of the policy rate. The Fed is unlikely to clear these very tall dovish hurdles as global growth is set to rebound, the fed funds rate is not meaningfully above neutral and the household sector remains resilient. Chart I-18Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Reflecting elevated pessimism toward global growth, the performance of transport relative to utilities stocks is as oversold as it gets. The likely rebound in this ratio should push yields higher, especially as foreign private investors are already aggressively buying U.S. government securities (Chart I-19). As occurred in 1998, Treasury yields should rebound soon after the Fed begins cutting rates. Moreover, with all the major central banks focusing on keeping rates at accommodative levels, the selloff in bonds should be led by inflation breakevens, also as occurred in 1998 (Chart I-20), especially if the dollar weakens. Chart I-19Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Chart I-201998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting 1998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting 1998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting     Equities A global economic rebound should provide support for equities on a cyclical horizon. The tactical picture remains murky as the stock market may have become too optimistic that Osaka will deliver an all-encompassing deal. However, this short-term downside is likely to prove limited compared to the cyclical strength lying ahead. This is particularly true for global equities, where valuations are more attractive than in the U.S. Chart I-21Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Even if the S&P 500 isn’t the prime beneficiary of the recovery in global growth, it should nonetheless generate positive absolute returns on a cyclical horizon. As Chart I-21 illustrates, a pickup in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index often precedes a rally in U.S. stocks. Since the U.S. Financial Liquidity Index has done a superb job of forecasting the weakness in stocks over the past 18 months, it is likely to track the upcoming strength as well. A weaker dollar should provide an additional tailwind to boost profit growth, especially as U.S. productivity is accelerating. This view is problematic for long-term investors. The cheapness of stocks relative to bonds is the only reason why our long-term valuation index is not yet at nosebleed levels Chart I-22). If we are correct that the current global reflationary push will build greater inflationary pressures down the road and will ultimately result in even higher interest rates, this relative undervaluation of equities will vanish. The overall valuation index will then hit near-record highs, leaving the stock market vulnerable to a very sharp pullback. Long-term investors should use this rally to lighten their strategic exposure to stocks, especially when taking into account the risk that populism will force a retrenchment in corporate market power, an issue discussed in Section II. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” In this environment, gold stocks are particularly attractive. Central banks are targeting very accommodative policy settings, which will limit the upside for real rates. Moreover, generous liquidity conditions and a falling dollar should prove to be great friends to gold. These fundamentals are being amplified by a supportive technical backdrop, as gold prices have broken out and the gold A/D line keeps making new highs (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Chart I-23Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold   Structural forces reinforce these positives for gold. EM reserve managers are increasingly diversifying into gold, fearful of growing geopolitical tensions with the U.S. (Chart I-24). Meanwhile, G-10 central banks are not selling the yellow metal anymore. This positive demand backdrop is materializing as global gold producers have been focused on returning cash to shareholders instead of pouring funds into capex. This lack of investment will weigh on output growth going forward. Chart I-24EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold This emphasis on returning cash to shareholders makes gold stocks particularly attractive. Gold producers are trading at a large discount to the market and to gold itself as investors remain concerned by the historical lack of management discipline. However, boosting dividends, curtailing debt levels and only focusing on the most productive projects ultimately creates value for shareholders. A wave of consolidation will only amplify these tailwinds. Our overall investment recommendation is to overweight stocks over bonds on a cyclical horizon while building an overweight position in gold equities. Our inclination to buy gold stocks transcends our long-term concerns for equities, as rising long-term inflation should favor gold as well. The Key Risk: Iran The biggest risk to our view remains the growing stress in the Middle East. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team assigns a less than 40% chance that tensions between the U.S. and Iran will deteriorate into a full-fledged military conflict. The U.S.’s reluctance to respond with force to recent Iranian provocations may even argue that this probability could be too high. Nonetheless, if a military conflict were to happen, it would involve a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a bottleneck through which more than 20% of global oil production transits. In such a scenario, Brent prices could easily cross above US$150/bbl. Chart I-25Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline To mitigate this risk, we recommend overweighting oil plays in global portfolios. Not only would such an allocation benefit in the event of a blow-up in the Persian Gulf, oil is supported by positive supply/demand fundamentals and Brent should end the year $75/bbl. After five years of limited oil capex, Wood Mackenzie estimates that the supply of oil will be close to 5 million barrels per day smaller than would have otherwise been the case. Moreover, OPEC and Russia remain disciplined oil producers, which is limiting growth in crude output today. Meanwhile, in light of the global growth deceleration, demand for oil has proved surprisingly robust. Demand is likely to pick up further when global growth reaccelerates in the second half of the year. As a result, BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy currently expects additional inventory drawdowns that will only push oil prices higher in an environment of growing global reflation (Chart I-25). A falling dollar would accentuate these developments.   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 27, 2019 Next Report: July 25, 2019   II. The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. Chart II-3 The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Chart II-7 Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-9 Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years. The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector. Chart II-13 Chart II-14     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II- Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Chart II-16 Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. Chart II-17 In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity. Chart II-20 Chart II-   Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar? The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22). Chart II-21 Chart II-22     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Over the past two weeks, the ECB has made a dovish pivot, President Trump announced he would meet President Xi, and the Fed telegraphed a rate cut for July. In response, the S&P 500 made marginal new highs before softening anew. This lack of continuation after such an incredible alignment of stars shows that the bulls lack conviction. These dynamics increase the probability that the market sells off after the G-20 meeting, as we saw last December following the supposed truce in Buenos Aires. The short-term outlook remains dangerous. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) confirms this intuition. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if stong market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Cheaper valuations, a pick-up in global growth or an actual policy easing is required before stocks can resume their ascent. The cyclical outlook is brighter than the tactical one. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan continues to improve. However, it remains flat in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. In aggregate, the WTP currently suggests that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Hence, we expect global investors will continue to buy the dips. Our Monetary Indicator is moving deeper into stimulative territory, supporting our cyclically constructive equity view. The Fed and the ECB are set to cut rates while other global central banks have been opening the monetary spigots. This will support global monetary conditions. The BCA Composite Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, is in overvalued territory, but it is not high enough to negate the positive message from our Monetary Indicator, especially as our Composite Technical Indicator remains above its 9-month moving average. These dynamics confirm that despite the near-term downside, equities have more cyclical upside. According to our model, 10-year Treasurys are now expensive. Moreover, our technical indicator is increasingly overbought while the CRB Raw Industrials is oversold, a combination that often heralds the end of bond rallies. Additionally, duration surveys show that investors have very elevated portfolio duration, and both the term premium and Fed expectations are very depressed. Considering this technical backdrop, BCA’s economic view implies minimal short-term downside for yields, but significant downside for Treasury prices over the upcoming year. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains very expensive. Additionally, after forming a negative divergence with prices, our Composite Technical Indicator is falling quickly. Being a momentum currency, the dollar could suffer significant downside if this indicator falls below zero. Monitor these developments closely. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Give Credit Where Credit Is Due," dated November 27, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Europe: Here I Am, Stuck In A Liquidity Trap," dated April 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4       Money demand is mostly driven by the level of activity and wealth. If the price of money – interest rates – is growing more slowly than money demand, the most likely cause is that money supply is increasing faster than money demand and policy is accommodative. 5       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 6       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 7       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 8       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 9     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 10     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 11     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 12    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 13     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 14     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 15     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16     Productivity can be written as: Image 17     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights A rare market trifecta – propelled by investors seeking safe-haven assets, inflation hedges in the wake of the Fed’s dovish turn this past week, and portfolio diversification – will continue to keep gold well bid. It would only be natural for gold to have an episode of profit taking in the short term, following its 6.4% jump from ~ $1,340/oz beginning in mid-June. That said, we would use any profit-taking episode to get long gold, following its decisive break through resistance at $1,365/oz to a six-year high of $1,423.44/oz in New York spot trading on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg. The next significant resistance we see is at $1,790/oz. Energy: Overweight. Iran’s oil exports have fallen to ~ 300k b/d so far in June, according to Refinitiv Eikon, a data provider owned by Blackrock and Thomson Reuters. In mid-2018, exports exceeded 2.5mm b/d. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) re-assured markets its spare capacity allows it to meet customer demand. Separately, the U.S. EIA reported commercial crude oil inventories in the fell 12.8mm bbl, during the week ended June 21, 2019. This likely reflects the end of the longer-than-usual refinery turn-around season in the U.S. Base Metals: Neutral. Reduced copper concentrate supplies on the back of strike action at Codelco’s Chuquicamata mine in Chile have clobbered the Fastmarkets MB Asia – Pacific treatment and refining index, which stood at $53.50/MT June 21, its lowest level since 2013. A low index level indicates tight physical supplies. We are taking profits on our long September $3.00/lb COMEX copper calls vs. short September $3.30/lb COMEX copper calls at tonight's close. The position was up 192% at Tuesday's close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Markets await a possible re-start of Sino – U.S. trade talks at this weekend’s meeting in Osaka between presidents Xi and Trump at the G20. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA Crop Progress again showed corn planting behind schedule, clocking in at 96% vs. 100% on average this time of year. Corn emergence also is behind schedule, at 89% vs. an average 99% at this time of year. Only 56% of the crop was reported to be in good or excellent condition, vs. 77% last year at this time. We expect corn to remain well bid. Feature The three main drivers of gold demand – safe-haven buying, inflation hedging and portfolio diversification – will continue to sustain the metal’s powerful rally. Safe-haven demand propelled gold toward long-term resistance at $1,365/oz in mid-June, as the U.S. – Iran showdown in the Persian Gulf intensified. As U.S. messaging becomes more internally inconsistent – particularly the resolve of America to continue to safeguard freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz – uncertainty as to how the showdown will resolve increases. In response to recent attacks on commercial oil-product tankers near the Strait of Hormuz – where close to 20% of the world’s oil supply transits daily – the U.S. has deployed close to 30,000 military personnel to the Persian Gulf region, the highest level of sailors deployed anywhere in the world. However, President Trump has said he is willing to leave the U.S.’s resolve to defend freedom of navigation through the Strait “a question mark.”1 This will continue to keep a safe-haven bid under gold, until markets receive clarity on the U.S.’s commitment to its historical role, and resolution in one form or another on the showdown in the Gulf. Fed’s Dovish Turn Bullish For Gold As unnerving to markets as the showdown in the Gulf is, it was the Fed’s unexpectedly dovish turn this past week that really turbo-charged gold prices, pushing them through $1,400/oz. Although inflation does not appear to be a huge risk to the U.S. economy, we do expect the U.S. CPI to move higher in 2H19. With the U.S. economy remaining at or close to full employment, investors realized the “insurance cut” telegraphed by the U.S. central bank for next month’s Board of Governors meeting stands a very good chance of finally goosing inflation higher, and re-anchoring inflation expectations later this year, which have been moving lower since 2H18 (Chart of the Week). Indeed, as Peter Berezin notes, “The fact that market-based inflation expectations have dropped sharply since last autumn has clearly influenced the Fed’s thinking.”2 The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge (UIG) already is registering a build-up in U.S. inflationary pressures (Chart 2). Although inflation does not appear to be a huge risk to the U.S. economy, we do expect the U.S. CPI to move higher in 2H19, something we believe investors already are embedding in gold prices. Chart of the WeekThe Fed Wants Inflation Expectations Higher The Fed Wants Inflation Expectations Higher The Fed Wants Inflation Expectations Higher Chart 2Underlying Inflation Trends Indicate Higher U.S. Inflation Underlying Inflation Trends Indicate Higher U.S. Inflation Underlying Inflation Trends Indicate Higher U.S. Inflation   USD Weakness Will Support Gold Chart 3Weaker USD Will Boost Gold Prices Weaker USD Will Boost Gold Prices Weaker USD Will Boost Gold Prices The Fed’s more accommodative policy also will push the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWI) lower, which will be bullish for gold as well (Chart 3). U.S. CPI and the broad USD TWI are two of the strongest explanatory variables for gold prices we have found in our modeling, along with real U.S. interest rates.3 Expect Profit-Taking Technically, the sharp rally in gold prices over the short term is pushing gold prices toward “overbought” territory, which is why we are expecting a round of profit-taking in the near term (Chart 4). Our Gold Composite Indicator moved up half a standard deviation since the start of the year, thanks to the above-mentioned trifecta. This move took the metal from a neutral position at the beginning of the year into a relatively mild overbought level. With the sharp rally over the past two weeks, gold now appears to be mildly overbought.4 Gold’s price performance is outstripping our equity risk-premium indicator, which measures the difference between the S&P 500 earnings yield (i.e., the inverse of the forward price/earnings ratio) and real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 5). This is not unexpected, and may be something of a catch-up following the strong gains put up by the equity index relative to gold last year. Chart 4Short-Term Profit-Taking Likely In Gold Market Short-Term Profit-Taking Likely In Gold Market Short-Term Profit-Taking Likely In Gold Market Chart 5Gold Price Gain Outstrips Equity Risk Premium Gold Price Gain Outstrips Equity Risk Premium Gold Price Gain Outstrips Equity Risk Premium Gold’s price performance is outstripping our equity risk-premium indicator. Bottom Line: Gold prices to remain well supported by a rare market trifecta – investors seeking safe-haven assets, inflation hedges following the Fed’s dovish turn this past week, and portfolio diversification. We are expecting a round of profit taking in gold over the short term. We would use these brief selloffs to get long gold. The next significant resistance we see is at $1,790/oz.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the June 20, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices" – particularly the section entitled “Will The U.S. Defend Gulf Sea Lanes?” beginning on p. 3. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also More U.S. Navy Personnel Deployed to Middle East Than Anywhere Else published by usni.org June 24, 2019. 2 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Gentle Jay," for BCA Research’s appraisal of last week Fed board of governors meeting. Published June 21, 2019. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. In it, our Chief Global Investment strategist Peter Berezin notes, “Right now, rising inflation is not much of a risk. However, the Fed’s dovish turn almost guarantees that the U.S. economy will overheat.” See also “The Fed’s Got Your Back,” published by BCA Research’s U.S. Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy June 25, 2019. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 We have found inflation and U.S. financial variables – particularly the USD broad trade-weighted index, and real U.S. interest rates – are the chief variables explaining gold prices. Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold,” published by October 12, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Our Gold Composite Indicator combines sentiment, speculative-position levels, relative strength, and momentum gauges to characterize overbought and oversold conditions. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 The Gold Trifecta The Gold Trifecta Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades The Gold Trifecta The Gold Trifecta

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Yield Curves Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Highlights So What? Geopolitical risks are not about to ease. Why? Fiscal policy becomes less accommodative next year unless politicians act. Financial conditions give President Trump room to expand his tariff onslaught. Our Iran view is confirmed by rapid escalation of tensions – war risk is high. The odds of a no-deal Brexit have risen. Feature The AUD-JPY cross and copper-to-gold ratio – two market indicators that flag global growth and risk-on sentiment – are hovering over critical points at which a further breakdown would catalyze a renewed flight to quality (Chart 1). Chart 1Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Global sentiment remains depressed amid a rash of negative economic surprises and bonds continue to rally despite a more dovish outlook from the Fed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed The cavalry is on the way: European Central Bank President Mario Draghi oversaw a dramatic easing of monetary policy on June 18, driving the Italian-German sovereign bond spread down to levels not seen since before the populist election outcome of March 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). The Federal Reserve adjusted its policy rate projections to countenance an interest rate cut in the not-too-distant future. More needs to be done, however, to sustain the optimism that has propelled the S&P 500 and global equities upward since the volatility catalyzed by President Donald Trump’s announcement of a tariff rate hike on May 6. Political and geopolitical risks are higher, not lower, since that time as market-negative scenarios are playing out with U.S. policy, Iran, and Brexit, while we take a dim view of the end-game of the U.S.-China negotiations despite recent improvements. Fiscal And Trade Uncertainties This year’s growth wobbles have occurred in the context of expansive fiscal policy in the developed markets. Next year, however, the fiscal thrust (the change in the cyclically adjusted budget balance) is projected to decline in the U.S. and Japan and nearly to do so in Europe (Chart 3). We expect President Trump and the House Democrats to raise spending caps (or at least keep spending at current levels) and thus prevent the budget deficit from contracting in FY2020 – this is their only substantial point of agreement. But this at best neutralizes what would otherwise be a negative fiscal backdrop. Meanwhile it is not at all clear that Brussels will relax its scrutiny of member states seeking to cut taxes and boost spending, such as Italy. Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo would need to arrange for the Diet to pass a new law to avoid the consumption tax hike from 8% to 10% on October 1. He can pull this off, especially if the U.S. trade war escalates – or if he decides to turn next month’s upper house election into a general election and needs to boost his popularity. But as things currently stand in law, the world’s third biggest economy will face a deep fiscal pullback next year (Chart 3, bottom panel). In short, DM fiscal policy will not really become contractionary in 2020, but this is a view and not yet a reality (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Chart 4Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Meanwhile China’s stimulus is still in question – in fact it remains the major macro question this year. The efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining ... An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems.  Since February we have argued that the Xi administration has shifted to sweeping fiscal-and-credit stimulus in the face of the unprecedented external threat posed by the Trump administration (Charts 5A and 5B). We expect China’s credit growth to continue its upturn in June and in H2. Ultimately, we think the whole package will be comparable to 2015-16 – and anything even close to that will prolong the global economic expansion. We do not see a massive 2008-style stimulus occurring unless relations with the U.S. completely collapse and a global recession occurs. Chart 5AStimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Chart 5 The catch – as we have shown – is that the efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining over time because of over-indebtedness and bearish sentiment in China’s private sector. These tepid animal spirits stem from epochal changes: Xi’s reassertion of communism and America’s withdrawal of strategic support for China’s rise. An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems. The magnitude of the tariffs that President Trump is threatening to impose on China, Mexico, the EU, and Japan is mind-boggling. We illustrate this with a simple simulation of duties collected as a share of total imports under different scenarios (Chart 6). Chart 6 China and Mexico are fundamentally different from the EU and Japan and hence the threat of tariffs will continue to weigh on markets for Trump’s time in office – China because of a national security consensus and Mexico because of the Trump administration’s existential emphasis on curbing illegal immigration. But we still put the risk of auto tariffs (or other punitive measures) on Europe at 45% if Trump seals a China deal. The odds are lower for Japan but it is still at risk. Global supply chains are shifting – a new source of costs and uncertainty for companies – as a slew of recent news has highlighted. Already 40% of companies surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in China say they are relocating to Southeast Asia, Mexico, and elsewhere (Chart 7). If the G20 is a flop – or results in nothing more than a pause in tariffs for another three-month dialogue – relocations will gain steam, forcing companies’ bottom lines to take a hit. Chart 7 Even in the best case, in which the Trump-Xi summit produces a joint statement outlining a “deal in principle” accompanied by a rollback of the May 10 tariff hike, uncertainty will persist due to President Trump’s unpredictability, China’s incentive to wait until after the U.S. election, and Trump’s incentive to corner the “China hawk” platform prior to the election. We maintain that, by November 2020, there is a roughly 70% chance of further escalation. At least the U.S.-China conflict is nominally improving. The same cannot be said for other geopolitical risks discussed below: the U.S. and Iran are flirting with war; the U.S. presidential election is injecting a steady trickle of market-negative news; the chances of a no-deal Brexit are rising; and Trump may turn on Europe at a moment when it lacks leadership. This list assumes that Russia takes advantage of American distraction by improving domestic policy rather than launching into a new foreign adventure – say in Ukraine or Kaliningrad. If there is any doubt as to whether political risk can outweigh more accommodative monetary policy, remember that President Trump actually can remove Chairman Jerome Powell. Legally he is only allowed to do so “for cause” as opposed to “at will.” But the meaning of this term is a debate that would go to the Supreme Court in the event of a controversial decision. Meanwhile the stock market would dive. Now, this is precisely why Trump will not try. But the implication, as with Congress and the border wall, is that Trump is constrained on domestic policy and hence tariffs are his most effective tool to try to achieve policy victories. With an ebullient stock market and a Fed that is adjusting its position, Trump can try to kill two birds with one stone: wring concessions from trade partners while forcing the FOMC to keep responding to rising external risks. Bottom Line: Central banks are riding to the rescue, but there is only so much they can do if global leaders are tightening budgets and imposing barriers on immigration and trade. We remain tactically cautious. Oh Man, Oh Man, Oman Iran has swiftly responded to the Trump administration’s imposition of “maximum pressure” on oil exports. The shooting down of an American drone that Tehran claims violated its airspace on June 20 is the latest in a spate of incidents, including a Houthi first-ever cruise missile attack on Abha airport in Saudi Arabia. Two separate attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) demonstrate that Iran is threatening to play its most devastating card in the renewed conflict with the U.S. Chart Chart 8 Hormuz ushers through a substantial share of global oil demand and liquefied natural gas demand (Chart 8). The amount of spare pipeline capacity that the Gulf Arab states could activate in the event of a disruption is merely 3.9 million barrels per day, or 6 million if questionable pipelines like the outdated Iraqi pipeline in Saudi Arabia prove functional (Table 1). Table 1No Sufficient Alternatives To Hormuz Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere A conflict with Iran could cause the biggest oil shock of all time. Even if this spare capacity were immediately utilized, a conflict could cause the biggest oil shock of all time – considerably bigger than that of the Iranian Revolution (Chart 9). Chart 9 We have shown in the past that Iran has the military capability of interrupting the flow of traffic in Hormuz for anywhere from 10 days to four months. A preemptive strike by Iran would be most effective, whereas a preemptive American attack would include targets to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate via Hormuz. The impact on oil prices ranges from significant to devastating. Needless to say, blocking the Strait of Hormuz would initiate a war so Iran is attempting to achieve diplomatic goals with the threats themselves – it will only block the strait as a last resort, say if it is convinced that the U.S. is about to attack anyway. As the experience of President Jimmy Carter shows, Americans may rally around the flag during a crisis but they will also kick a president out of office for higher prices and an economic slowdown. President Trump cannot be unaware of this precedent. The intention of his Iran policy is to negotiate a “better deal” than the 2015 one – a deal that includes Iran’s regional power projection and ballistic missile capabilities as well as its nuclear program. The problem is that Trump has already been forced to deploy a range of forces to the region, including additional troops (albeit so far symbolic at 2,500) (Chart 10). He is also sending Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, to the region to rally support among Gulf Cooperation Council. The week after Hook will court Britain, Germany, and France, three of the signatories of the 2015 deal. Trump ran on a campaign of eschewing gratuitous wars in the Middle East – a popular stance among war-weary Americans (Chart 11) – but there is a substantial risk that he could get entangled in the region. First, he is adopting a more aggressive foreign policy to attempt to compensate for the lack of payoff in public opinion from the strong economy. Second, Iran is not shrinking from the fight, which could draw him deeper into conflict. Third, there is always a high risk of miscalculation when nations engage in such brinkmanship. Chart 10Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Chart 11 The Iranian response has been, first, to reject negotiations. When Trump sent a letter to Rouhani via Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, Abe was rebuffed – and one of the tankers attacked near Oman was a Japanese flagged vessel, the Kokuka Courageous. This is a posture, not a permanent position, as the Iranian release of an American prisoner demonstrates. But the posture can and will be maintained in the near term – with escalation as the result. Second, Iran is increasing its own leverage in any future negotiation by demonstrating that it can sow instability across the region and bring the global economy grinding to a halt. Iran cannot assume that Trump means what he says about avoiding war but must focus on the United States’ actions and capabilities. Cutting off all oil exports is a recipe for extreme stress within the Iranian regime – it is an existential threat. Therefore, the Iranians have signaled that the cost of a total cutoff will be a war that will cause a global oil price shock. The Iranian leaders are also announcing that they are edging closer to walking away from the 2015 nuclear pact (Table 2). If so, they could quickly approach “breakout” capacity in the uranium enrichment – meaning that they could enrich to 20% and then in short order enrich to 90% and amass enough of this fuel to make a nuclear device one year thereafter. The Trump administration has reportedly reiterated that this one-year limit is the U.S. government’s “red line,” just as the Obama administration had done. Table 2Iran Threatens To Walk Away From 2015 Nuclear Deal Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere This Iranian threat is a direct reaction to Trump’s decision in May not to renew the oil sanction waivers. Previously the Iranians had sought to preserve the 2015 deal, along with the Europeans, in order to wait out Trump’s first term. These developments push us to the brink of war. Iran is retaliating with both military force and a nuclear restart. This comes very close to meeting our conditions for an American (and Israeli) retaliation that is military in nature. Diagram 1 is an update of our decision tree that we have published since last year when Trump reneged on the 2015 deal. The window to de-escalate is closing rapidly. The Appendix provides a checklist for air strikes and/or the closure of Hormuz. Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere At very least we expect to see the U.S. attempt to create a large international fleet to assert freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. While Iran may lay low during a large show of force, it will later want to demonstrate that it has not been cowed. And it has the capacity to retaliate elsewhere, including in Iraq, an area we have highlighted as a major geopolitical risk to oil supply. The U.S. government has already reacted to recent threats there from Iranian proxies by pulling non-essential personnel. Iran has several incentives to test the limits of conflict if the U.S. insists on the oil embargo. First, tactically, it seeks to deter President Trump, take advantage of American war-weariness, drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, and force a relaxation of the sanctions. This would also demonstrate to the region that Iran has greater resolve than the United States of America. This goal has not been achieved by the recent spate of actions, so there is likely more conflict to come. Second, President Hassan Rouhani’s government is also likely to maintain a belligerent posture – at least in the near term – to compensate for its loss of face upon the American betrayal of the 2015 nuclear deal. Rouhani negotiated the deal against the warnings of hardline revolutionaries. The 2020 majlis elections make this an important political goal for his more reform-oriented faction. Negotiations with Trump can only occur if Rouhani has resoundingly demonstrated his superiority in the clash of wills. Structurally, Iran faces tremendous regime pressures in the coming years and decades because of its large youth population, struggling economy, and impending power transition from the 80 year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. A patriotic war against America and its allies – while not desirable – is a risk that Khamenei can take, as an air war is less likely to trigger regime change than it is to galvanize a new generation in support of the Islamic revolution. For oil markets the outcome is volatility in the near term – reflecting the contrary winds of trade war and global growth fears with rising supply risks. Because we expect more Chinese stimulus, both as the trade talks extend and especially if they collapse, we ultimately share BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy view that the path of least resistance for oil prices is higher on a cyclical horizon, as demand exceeds supply (Chart 12). We remain long EM energy producers relative to EM ex-China. Chart 12Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Bottom Line: The risk of military conflict has risen materially. This also drastically elevates the risk of a supply shock in oil prices that would kill global demand. The U.S. Election Adds To Geopolitical Risk The 2020 U.S. election poses another political risk for the rising equity market. The Democratic Party’s first debate will be held on June 26-27. The leftward shift in the party will be on full display, portending a possible 180-degree reversal in U.S. policy if the Democrats should win the election, with the prospect of a rollback of Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation of health, finance, and energy. The uncertainty and negative impact on animal spirits will be modest if current trends persist through the debates. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner despite having naturally lost the bump to his polling support after announcing his official candidacy (Chart 13). Biden is a known quantity and a centrist, especially compared to the farther left candidates ranked second and third in popular support– Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Chart 13 Chart 14 Biden is not only beating Sanders in South Carolina, which underscores the fact that he is competitive in the South and hence has a broader path to the White House, but also in New Hampshire, where the Vermont native should be ahead (Chart 14). These states hold the early primaries and caucuses and if Biden maintains his large lead then he will start to appear inevitable very early in the primary campaign next year. Hence a poor showing in the debate on June 27 is a major risk to Biden – he should be expected to be eschew the limelight and play the long game. Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, has the most to gain as she appears on the first night and does not share a stage with the other heavy hitters. If she or other progressive candidates outperform then the market will be spooked. The market could begin to trade off the polls. All of these candidates are beating Trump in current head-to-head polling – Biden is even ahead in Texas (Chart 15). This means that any weakness from Biden does not necessarily offer the promise of a Trump victory and policy continuity. Chart 15 The Democrats also have a powerful demographic tailwind. The just-released projections from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal how Trump’s narrow margins of victory in the swing states in 2016 are in serious jeopardy in 2020 as a result of demographics if he does not improve his polling among the general public (Chart 16). Chart 16 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt as the incumbent president amid an expanding economy, but it is essential to recognize that his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession – i.e. one who is about to lose the White House for his party (Chart 17). Chart 17 Even if there is not a recession, an increase in unemployment is likely to cost him the election – and even a further decrease in unemployment cannot guarantee victory (Chart 18). This is why we see Trump making a bid to become a foreign policy president and seek reelection on the basis that it is unwise to change leaders amid an international crisis. Chart 18 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt ... but his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession. The race for the U.S. senate is extremely important for the policy setting from 2021. If Republicans maintain control, they will be able to block sweeping Democratic legislation – which is particularly relevant if a progressive candidate should win the White House. However, if Democrats can muster enough votes to remove a sitting president with a strong economy – including a strong economy in the key senate swing races (Chart 19) – then they will likely win over the senate as well. Chart 19Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Bottom Line: The 2020 election poses a double risk to the bull market. First, the Democratic primary campaign threatens sharp policy discontinuity, especially if and when developments cause Biden to drop in the polls (dealing a blow to centrism or the political establishment). Second, Trump’s vulnerability makes him more likely to act aggressive on the international stage, whether on trade, immigration, or national security, reinforcing the risks outlined above with regard to China, Iran, Mexico, and even Europe. Rising Odds Of A No-Deal Brexit Former Mayor of London and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson looks increasingly likely to seal the Conservative Party leadership contest in the United Kingdom. It is not yet a done deal, but the shift within the party in favor of accepting a “no deal” exit is clear. None of the remaining candidates is willing to forgo that option. The newest development advances us along our decision tree in Diagram 2, altering the conditional probabilities for this year’s events. We expect the next prime minister to try to push a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May before attempting any kamikaze run as the October 31 deadline approaches. The attempt to leverage the EU’s economic weakness will not produce a fundamental renegotiation of the exit deal, but some element of diplomatic accommodation is possible as the EU seeks to maintain overall stability and a smooth exit if that is what the U.K. is determined to accomplish. Diagram 2Brexit Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere Hence the prospect of passing a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal is about 30%, roughly equal to the chance of a delay (28%). These options are believable as the new leader will have precious little time between taking the reins and Brexit day. The EU can accept a delay because it ultimately has an interest in keeping the U.K. bound into the union. Public opinion polling is not conducive to the new prime minister seeking a new election unless the change of face creates a massive shift in support for the Conservatives, both by swallowing the Brexit Party and outpacing Labour. If the purpose is to deliver Brexit, then the risk of a repeat of the June 2017 snap election would seem excessive. Nevertheless, the Tories’ working majority in parliament is vanishingly small, at five MPs, so a shift in polling could change the thinking on this front. The pursuit of a no-deal exit would create a backlash in parliament that we reckon has a 21% chance of ending in a no-confidence motion and new election. Bottom Line: The odds of a crash Brexit have moved up from 14% to 21% as a result of the leadership contest. The threat that the U.K. will crash out of the EU is not merely a negotiating ploy, although it will be a last resort even for the new hard-Brexit prime minister. Public opinion is against a no-deal Brexit, as is the majority of parliament, but the risk to the U.K. and EU economies will loom large over global risk assets in the coming months. Investment Conclusions Political and geopolitical risks to the late-cycle expansion are rising, not falling. U.S. foreign policy remains the dominant risk but U.S. domestic policy pre-2020 is an aggravating factor. Easing financial conditions give President Trump more ammunition to use tariffs and sanctions. Meanwhile our view that this summer will feature “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran has been confirmed by the tanker attacks in Oman. Tensions will likely escalate from here. Ultimately, we believe Trump is more likely to back off from the Iran conflict than the China conflict. This is part of our long-term theme that the U.S. really is pivoting to China and geopolitical risk will rotate from the Middle East to East Asia. But as highlighted above, the risk of entanglement is very high due to Trump’s approach and Iran’s incentives to raise the stakes. Oil prices will not resume their upward drift until Chinese stimulus is reconfirmed – and even then they will continue to be volatile. We remain cautious and are maintaining our safe-haven tactical trades of long gold and long JPY/USD.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Image

Supply - demand fundamentals point to higher oil prices going forward. Our expectation regarding OPEC production remains unchanged: The original cartel led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) will maintain production discipline this year – likely continuing to over-comply with quotas agreed at the start of the year – to support its long-standing goal to reduce oil inventories globally. Non-OPEC member states in OPEC 2.0 led by Russia also will maintain lower output this year. The OPEC 2.0 coalition will meet July 1 - 2 in Vienna to determine whether it will extend production cuts. On the demand side, we lowered our expectation for this year and next, following the World Bank’s recent downgraded assessment of global GDP growth. Our expectation remains slightly above the EIA’s and the IEA’s. Globally, central bank easing will support demand. Following these adjustments, we are keeping our Brent forecast at $73/bbl this year and lowering our forecast for next year to $75/bbl from $77/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The balance of risk is to the upside. The risk of hybrid warfare (see below) in the Persian Gulf -- and the wider region -- will increase, as Iranian and U.S. positions harden. Highlights Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. Central Command released photos supporting an analysis claiming Iran was responsible for two attacks on commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf last week. The Pentagon deployed an additional 1,000 troops to the region, following this assessment. President Trump, meanwhile, downplayed the attacks, calling them a “very minor event.”1 Base Metals: Neutral. Copper speculators lifted their short position 6k lots to 51.7k lots on CME last week. This is a record short. But the cash market is getting tighter. Treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) moved lower last week, as Fastmarkets MB’s TC/RC Asia – Pacific index hit $54.10/MT, $05.41/lb. This is the lowest level on record for the index, which was launched in June 2013. A low index reading means copper concentrate is in short supply, forcing refiners to lower the price of their services. We remain long the September 2019 $3.00/lb Calls vs. short the September 2019 $3.30/lb calls. Precious Metals: Neutral. Safe-haven demand continues to support gold prices, although news of a Trump – Xi meeting at the G20 in Japan to re-start trade talks reduced the urgency of buying earlier this week. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Rain continued to soak the U.S. Midwest this past week, putting a bid under grains – particularly corn – and beans. This week’s USDA Crop Progress report showed corn planting still behind schedule (at 92% vs. 100% on average in the 2014 – 18 period in the 18 states that accounted for 92% of total acres planted last year). Feature The information flows to oil markets are becoming internally contradictory. On the one hand, recent attacks on commercial oil-product tankers near the Strait of Hormuz – where close to 20% of the world’s oil supply transits daily – raised the ante in the U.S.-GCC-Iran stand-off.  The attacks follow earlier aggression against shipping and pipelines in the region, and prompted KSA’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih to call for a collective response to keep Gulf sea lanes open to allow oil to flow freely worldwide.2 In the post-WWII era, the U.S. has willingly taken on the responsibility of keeping the world’s sea lanes open for the free flow of commodities and finished products. However, based on remarks U.S. President Donald Trump made to Time magazine this week, it would appear the U.S. no longer is willing to shoulder the burden of defending freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.3 The presidential sangfroid in the wake of last week’s attacks in the Gulf – which Pentagon analysts insist were launched by Iran – might be explained by the Trump administration’s belief the global oil market is “very well-supplied,” as U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette contended in an S&P Global Platts interview this past weekend.4 Indeed, this has become part of the narrative whenever the administration discusses oil markets. Brouillette said abundant crude availability prevented oil prices from spiking to $140/bbl in the wake of the attacks on the two commercial tankers. Will The U.S. Defend Gulf Sea Lanes? The global oil market is “well supplied” as long as the Strait of Hormuz – the most critical chokepoint in the world – stays open. Freedom of navigation on the open seas is the sine qua non of a well-functioning oil market – everything from getting supplies to refiners to getting products to consumers depends on it. Oil is a globally traded, waterborne commodity: ~ 60% of all crude exports are loaded on a ship and sent to refiners, directly or via trading companies.5 A liquid crude market requires an unimpeded shipping market, so that refiners can run their operations in a routine manner. In addition, a smoothly functioning shipping market allows refiners to pick and choose among various grades that can be arbitraged against each other, so they can optimize charging stocks. The market cannot absorb the loss of close to 20mm b/d of crude and refined products, which is what would happen if the Strait shut down. It is the most important choke point in the world (Map 1). Chart We’re sure the White House knows this. President Trump’s professed desire to leave the U.S. commitment to maintaining the free flow of oil out of the Gulf is a “question mark” that might be taken as a taunt to up the ante with Iran. Already, in response to the U.S. re-imposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports after unilaterally abrogating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, Iran announced it will resume production of enriched uranium for its nuclear program on June 27.6 As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated. The growing tension in this standoff increases the risk of hybrid warfare in the Persian Gulf, which, should it continue to escalate, increases the risk to global oil flows, as Anthony H. Cordesman at the Center For Strategic & International Studies in Washington recently noted: First, the military confrontation between Iran, the U.S., and the Arab Gulf states over everything from the JCPOA to Yemen can easily escalate to hybrid warfare that has far more serious forms of attack. And second, such attacks can impact critical aspects of the flow of energy to key industrial states and exporters that shape the success of the global economy as well as the economy of the U.S.7 There is a risk this hybrid warfare metastasizes into a full-on war in the Gulf, which would threaten the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Should the Strait be closed, a global oil-price shock almost surely would occur, which most likely would send oil prices through $150/bbl. At that point either the warfare is contained and resolved quickly, or the world has to line up 20mm b/d of crude oil and refined products to replace the lost supply from the Gulf. As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekVolatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Production Discipline Even as tensions in the Persian Gulf escalate, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline. While the producer coalition agreed to remove 1.2mm b/d of production from the market last December, we estimate year-on-year (y/y) year-to-date (ytd) production of OPEC is down ~ 1.4mm b/d in the January-to-May period. For Russia, production over that period y/y is up 310k b/d ytd. For all of OPEC 2.0, we have the group increasing production in 2H19, but we have it ending 2019 with production 480k b/d lower than last month’s forecast. The increase is mainly from Saudi Arabia, which averages ~ 10.2mm b/d of production in 2H19, roughly 130k b/d below quota. We have Russian production averaging ~ 11.5mm b/d, which is close to quota, in 2H19 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices For the year as a whole, we are forecasting OPEC production will fall 1.6mm b/d this year versus 2018 levels, while Russia’s production grows slightly (~ 80k b/d). For next year, OPEC’s production will stay relatively flat (falling ~ 70k b/d), while we expect Russia’s production to increase 230k b/d (Table 1). Outside OPEC 2.0, the U.S. continues to dominate the production-growth story, led by increasing shale-oil output (Chart 2). We expect shale output to grow ~ 1.2mm b/d this year and just over 1mm b/d in 2020. Chart 2U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth Global Demand Is Holding Up While we do expect somewhat lower demand this year and next versus where we were earlier this year, we still expect consumption to remain fairly robust. We expect demand to grow ~ 1.35mm b/d this year and 1.55mm b/d next year, down from 1.50mm and 1.60mm b/d, respectively, in our base case. As always this is led by non-OECD demand growth, which we expect will clock in with an increase of just over 1mm b/d this year versus last year, and 1.3mm b/d next year on average. EM commodity importers will dominate growth, as usual (Chart 3). Trade-war concerns will continue to dominate headlines, but even so, demand remains reasonably stout. While it always is possible the U.S. and China will be able to resolve their trade war – perhaps in dramatic fashion following the G20 meeting in Japan – our colleagues in BCA Research’s doubt it.8 Continuing Sino – U.S. and Iranian – U.S. tension could keep the USD relatively well bid, which will present a headwind to oil demand.  That said, we believe central banks generally will feel compelled to remain accommodative so long as trade wars persist. This accommodation, coupled with fiscal stimulus in many of the systemically important economies, will be supportive of demand overall, EM demand in particular. Chart 3EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World Bottom Line: Supply – demand balances indicate crude oil prices still have room to run in 2H19 and next year. We are maintaining our forecast of $73/bbl for Brent this year. We are lowering our forecast for 2020 to $75/bbl (Chart 4). We expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The combination of stout demand growth, production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers will allow inventories to resume drawing this year (Chart 5). Chart 4Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Chart 5Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Analyst: New Photos Are ‘Smoking Gun’ Proving Iranian Involvement in Tanker Attack published by USNI News, and Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. 2      Please see Saudi Energy Minister calls for collective effort to secure shipping lanes published by reuters.com June 17, 2019. 3      Please see Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. Tessa Berenson reported: “Facing twin challenges in the Persian Gulf, President Donald Trump said in an interview with TIME Monday that he might take military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but cast doubt on going to war to protect international oil supplies.“I would certainly go over nuclear weapons,” the president said when asked what moves would lead him to consider going to war with Iran, “and I would keep the other a question mark.” 4      Please see Interview: Abundant oil supply prevented spike to $140/b after ship attacks - US DOE deputy published by S&P Global Platts June 16, 2019. 5      Please see World Oil Transit Chokepoints published by the U.S. EIA. 6      Please see Iran nuclear deal: Enriched uranium limit will be breached on 27 June published by bbc.co.uk June 17, 2019.  JCPOA agreement between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations – China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. – allowed Iran to return to global markets in exchange for limiting its nuclear development.  Please see The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) at a Glance published by Arms Control Association in May 2018.    7      Please see The Strategic Threat from Iranian Hybrid Warfare in the Gulf published by CSIS June 13, 2019. 8      Please see Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy May 30, 2019, where we reprise the different policy risks oil markets are contending with at present, particularly the trade war.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Closed Image

Highlights The report reviews our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and documents the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We also review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. Energy and consumer discretionary in both markets, along with real estate and financials in the domestic market, have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. Compared with these sectors, investable telecom stocks have exhibited a weaker link between sector and index earnings, but this has occurred because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth. As such, telecom stocks are reliably defensive, but only in the investable market. We conclude by noting the extreme nature of long-term de/re-rating trends that have occurred for several of China’s equity sectors, and argue that the strength of the relationship between earnings and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise over a secular time horizon. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, as further multiple expansion/contraction is unlikely to drive future returns (without an earnings catalyst). Feature Last week’s joint report with our Geopolitical Strategy service provided investors with an update on the trade war in the lead up to the G20 meeting in Osaka.1 While a new tariff ceasefire may emerge from the meeting, the report underscored why the odds are skewed against a positive outcome over the coming 18 months. Our bet is that investors are unlikely to assume that a deal will occur merely in response to a new timetable for talks, implying that any near-term boost to stock prices will be minimal until negotiators provide market participants with evidence (rather than hope) that a deal is achievable. This means that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months, and that a cyclically bullish stance towards Chinese stocks rests on the likelihood of a major policy response in China to counter the likely shock to its export sector. During times of high policy uncertainty, we often take the opportunity to review and update our framework for key asset drivers. In today’s report we review our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and then document the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. We conclude with a summary of what our results would imply over the tactical and cyclical investment horizons given our view of China’s likely growth trajectory, and highlight why several sectors may see a stronger relationship between their earnings and stock prices over the secular horizon. The report illustrates our key conclusions in the body of the text, but reference charts for each sector/industry group in both the investable and domestic market are provided as a convenience on pages 12 - 23. Predicting Chinese Equity Index Earnings Our framework for predicting index EPS is straightforward but reliable. Chart 1Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Chart 1 presents the first element of our framework for predicting Chinese investable earnings per share (EPS) growth. The chart illustrates the strong leading relationship between our BCA China Activity Indicator and the year-over-year growth rate of investable EPS, which underscores that the fundamental performance of Chinese equities is still predominantly driven by China’s “old economy”. The leading nature of our activity index partly reflects the fact that earnings per share are measured on a trailing basis; the key point for investors is that indicators such as our Activity Index have been more successful at capturing the coincident trend in China’s economy than, for example, real GDP growth has over the past several years. Chart 2illustrates that the earnings cycle for the investable and domestic equity markets is the same, with the magnitude of a given cycle accounting for the difference between the two markets. This means that investors exposed to the Chinese equity market should be focused heavily on predicting the coincident trend in the economy, as doing so will lead investors to the same conclusion about the trend in H- and A-share EPS growth. Chart 2Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Chart 3Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity In turn, Chart 3 presents our framework for predicting Chinese economic activity, which we originally laid out in our November 30, 2017 Special Report.2 The chart shows that our leading activity indicator has reliably predicted inflection points in actual activity over the past several years, including the slowdown of the past two years (the leading indicator peaked in Q1 2017). As detailed in the report, our indicator is based on monetary conditions and money & credit growth. Panel 2 of Chart 3 shows that monetary conditions are very easy and credit growth is picking up, though it needs to continue to improve alongside a forceful pickup in money growth in order for the economy to strengthen. The key takeaway for investors is that the overall earnings cycle in China is strongly linked to “old economy” economic activity, which in turn appears to reliably predicted by our indicator. This provides us with a stable platform from which we can examine (and ultimately predict) equity sector EPS. Sector Earnings: Predictability And Cyclicality Given the strong link between Chinese economic activity and equity market EPS that we noted above, the question for equity-oriented investors is then to identify the relationship between sector and overall index EPS. In other words, to what degree are sector EPS in China linked to the overall earnings trend (versus being driven by idiosyncratic factors), and is this relationship pro- or counter-cyclical in nature? Charts 4 and 5 present the answers to these questions, based on the 2011 – 2018 period.3 The charts present the highest R-squared value resulting from a regression of detrended sector EPS versus broad market EPS for both the investable and domestic markets, after accounting for any leading/lagging relationships. The color/shading of each bar denotes whether the beta of the relationship for each sector or industry group is above or below 1. Chart 4 Chart 5 The charts present a mix of surprising and unsurprising results. Among the latter in the investable market, the cyclicality of typically high-beta sectors such as energy, materials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and technology would be readily accepted by most investors, as would the defensive characteristics of financials, telecom services, health care, utilities, and consumer staples. Investable consumer staples, health care, and utilities EPS are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. However, there were several less-intuitive results that emerged from our analysis, related to both the investable and domestic markets: Chart 6 Within the investable market, the low predictability of health care, utilities, and consumer staples EPS is somewhat difficult to explain. A weak relationship would easily be explained if EPS growth for these sectors were somewhat constant in the face of fluctuations in overall index EPS, but Chart 6 shows that the volatility in EPS growth for these sectors are not bottom-ranked (see also pages 16, 17 and 22). In fact, utilities EPS growth vol has been relatively high, and it is higher for health care and consumer staples than it is for financials and banks, whose EPS growth are highly linked to the overall earnings cycle. This result suggests that the determinants of earnings for these sectors are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. The low predictability of consumer staples and utilities EPS observed in the investable market is also evident in the domestic market, suggesting that this finding is not the result of quirky data. We noted earlier that overall index earnings are highly correlated with our BCA China Activity Index, and we have noted in past reports that China’s business cycle continues to be subject to its “old” growth model centered on investment and exports rather than the services and consumer sectors.4 This may explain the relatively idiosyncratic EPS profile for consumer staples, although it still fails to explain the low predictability and relatively high volatility of utilities earnings. Telecom services and technology earnings also have a very low correlation with overall earnings in the domestic market, which is similar to the investable market but more extreme. On the tech front, this is explained by the fact that Alibaba and Tencent, China’s tech giants, are not listed in the domestic market, underscoring that investable tech and domestic tech should be considered by investors to be distinctly separate sectors. In the investable market the low predictability and defensive characteristic of telecom services EPS can be explained by stable, low-volatility growth, but this is not true in the domestic market. In fact, over the past several years the volatility of domestic telecom EPS growth has been among the highest of any of China’s domestic equity sectors, and it has been cyclical rather than defensive in nature. These findings are difficult to explain from a top-down perspective. Finally, while Charts 4 and 5 show a difference in the cyclicality of real estate earnings between the investable and domestic markets, the difference is not substantial: the beta of the former is 1.03 versus 0.94 for the latter. The truly surprising result from real estate stocks is that their EPS growth is not considerably high-beta, given the boom & bust nature of Chinese property prices and the enormous amount of activity that has occurred in Chinese real estate over the past decade. Given that beta is determined relative to the overall index, this is emblematic (and an important reminder) of the underlying cyclicality of China’s economy and its financial markets relative to its global counterparts. Sector Earnings: Relevance For Stock Prices Following our review of the predictability and cyclicality of Chinese sector EPS, Charts 7 and 8 illustrate the relationship between relative EPS and relative stock price performance for these sectors. The charts highlight several notable points: Chart 7 Chart 8 In both the investable and domestic markets, the relative performance of energy and consumer discretionary stocks have been highly explained by the trend in relative EPS. Both of these sectors have also shown reasonably high EPS predictability (based on overall index EPS), suggesting that these two sectors have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. The relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks reflects the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. Chart 9Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Within the investable market, relative EPS has not been successful at predicting relative stock price performance for financials/banks, health care, consumer staples, and industrials. This means that multiple expansion/contraction has been a relatively more important factor in driving returns, which can clearly be seen in Chart 9. The chart shows that investable banks, health care, and industrials have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years, whereas the relative P/E ratio for consumer staples stocks has risen (albeit in a choppy fashion). Domestic consumer staples have also benefited from re-rating, although it has occurred entirely within the past three years and has merely made up for the substantial de-rating that took place in 2012 (Chart 9, panel 2). Taken together, the relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks and industrials reflects, at least in part, the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. The relative EPS trend of utilities in both markets and that of telecom services stocks in the investable market have done a decent-to-good job of predicting relative stock price performance. We noted earlier that investable telecom services earnings appear to have a weak relationship with overall index earnings because of their low variability, meaning that they have also been a good top-down rotation candidate on the defensive side of the spectrum. The high responsiveness of the relative equity performance of Chinese utilities to relative EPS raises the importance of predicting the latter, which is likely to be a topic of future reports for BCA’s China Investment Strategy service. Finally, Chart 7 shows that the most important sector trend in the investable market over the past several years, the outperformance of information technology, has been strongly explained by the trend in relative EPS. This is good news for investors, as it suggests that relative tech returns can be reasonably predicted by accurate earnings analysis. From a top-down perspective, we noted earlier that the relationship between tech and overall index EPS has not been extremely high, which raises the bar for investors to understand the idiosyncratic drivers of earnings for the BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) stocks. Chinese consumer spending remains the most important macro factor for these stocks, but our understanding of this relationship is not complete and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. Investment Conclusions Chart 10 summarizes the results of Charts 4-5 and 7-8, by grouping investable and domestic equity sectors into four quadrants based on top-down EPS predictability (x-axis) and the impact of the trend in relative EPS on relative stock price performance (y-axis): Chart 10 Over a multi-year time horizon, the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices is likely to rise for several sectors. As we noted above, energy and consumer discretionary in both markets along with real estate and financials in the domestic market have had the strongest relationship across both dimensions (top-right quadrant). The EPS relationship is cyclical in both markets in the case of energy and consumer discretionary, whereas it is modestly cyclical for domestic real estate and defensive for domestic financials. Sectors in the top-left quadrant have shown a strong link between earnings and stock price performance, but a weaker link between sector and index earnings. This is the case for telecom services because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth, meaning that telecom stocks are reliably defensive. Fluctuations in the growth of index EPS do not explain the majority of changes in investable tech EPS, but it is an important driver in a cyclical relationship. Sectors in the bottom-right quadrant have a predominantly strong and defensive relationship with index earnings growth (with the exception of domestic industrials), but have experienced significant changes in multiples over the past several years that have materially impacted their relative stock price performance. We showed in Chart 9 that banks have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years; this process appears to have halted at the end of 2017, suggesting that the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices may be stronger going forward. Chart 11Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Finally, sectors in the bottom left quadrant have had relatively idiosyncratic earnings trends, and relative EPS have not explained a majority of the trend in relative performance. We would draw a distinction between investable industrials, real estate, and materials and the rest of the sectors shown, as they are on the cusp of being in the top-right or bottom-right quadrants, and all three appear to have suffered from meaningful de-rating. Investable real estate and materials now trade at over a 40% discount to the overall index (Chart 11), raising a serious question as to whether relative P/Es can continue to compress and explain the majority of relative equity performance. However, investable consumer staples and health care, along with domestic technology and telecom services stocks, do appear to be legitimately idiosyncratic, suggesting that an equity beta approach (regressing sector returns against index returns) is the best top-down method available to investors when allocating to these sectors. For investable staples and health care their equity return betas are clearly defensive, whereas domestic tech and telecom services stocks are market neutral. What does this all mean for investors? Our findings above lead us to some specific conclusions over the tactical (0-3 months), cyclical (6-12 months), and secular (multi-year) horizons: Over the cyclical horizon, we expect Chinese co-incident economic activity to pick up and for overall index EPS to improve, suggesting that global investors have a fundamental basis to be overweight investable energy, consumer discretionary, materials, media & entertainment (within the new communication services sector) and industrial stocks, at the expense of telecom services and financials.5 Investable health care, consumer staples, and utilities stocks are also likely to underperform, although this view is based on a statistical/empirical relationship rather than a fundamental one. In the domestic market, our findings support substituting real estate for technology in comparison to the investable sectors we listed above, but we are concerned that policymakers may crack down more heavily on the property sector if they allow overall credit growth to rise meaningfully as part of a stimulative response. For now, we would not recommend aggressive bets in favor of the domestic real estate sector. Chart 12Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Over the tactical horizon, however, we would advise either the opposite stance, or a benchmark sector allocation. In addition to our view that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months to force policymakers to address the economic weakness that an escalated tariff scenario would entail, broad-market Chinese EPS growth continues to decelerate (Chart 12). We see this continued slowdown as a lagged response to past economic weakness, which we expect will be reversed over the coming year due to stronger money & credit growth. However, sectors with pro-cyclical earnings growth may fare poorly in the near term until investors gain confidence that the (inevitable) policy response will stabilize the earnings outlook. Over the secular horizon, the most important conclusion is that there have been several long-term sectoral de/re-rating trends within China’s equity market. In the investable market, health care, consumer staples, and consumer discretionary (of which Alibaba is heavily represented) trade at 100-200% of a premium relative to the broad equity market on a trailing earnings basis, whereas financials, materials, and real estate stocks trade at a 40-60% discount. These divergences also exist in the domestic market, although the range is somewhat less extreme. A simple contrarian instinct might be to strategically overweight/underweight expensive/cheap sectors, but to us the simpler conclusion is that the extreme nature of these trends means that the strength of the relationship between EPS and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, a question that is very likely to be the topic of additional China Investment Strategy reports this year. Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Reference Charts Energy Chart 13 Energy Energy Chart 14 Energy Energy Materials Chart 15 Materials Materials Chart 16 Materials Materials   Industrials Chart 17 Industrials Industrials Chart 18 Industrials Industrials   Consumer Discretionary Chart 19 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Chart 20 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary   Consumer Staples Chart 21 Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Chart 22 Consumer Staples Consumer Staples   Health Care Chart 23 Health Care Health Care Chart 24 Health Care Health Care   Financials Chart 25 Financials Financials Chart 26 Financials Financials   Banking Chart 27 Banking Banking Chart 28 Banking Banking   Information Technology Chart 29 Information Technology Information Technology Chart 30 Information Technology Information Technology   Telecom Services Chart 31 Telecom Services Telecom Services Chart 32 Telecom Services Telecom Services   Utilities Chart 33 Utilities Utilities Chart 34 Utilities Utilities   Real Estate Chart 35 Real Estate Real Estate Chart 36 Real Estate Real Estate   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong”, dated June 14, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      S&P Dow Jones and MSCI Inc. implemented major structural changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) in Q4 2018 that substantially altered the sector composition of the MSCI China Investable index. The weight of the information technology sector in the investable index dropped dramatically after the GICS changes occurred. Investors should note that we used Q3 2018 as the end date of our analysis in order to remove any impact from the GICS sector change; the reference charts shown on pages 12 – 23 provide all data since 2011. 4     Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Three Pillars Of China’s Economy”, dated May 16, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Due to the changes to the GICS classification structure noted in footnote 3, the tech sector relationships that we highlighted above now apply to the consumer discretionary sector (level 1) and media & entertainment industry-group (level 2, within the new level 1 communication services sector. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Few issues in the global oil and gas markets are as closely followed as the development of the U.S. shales. In this Special Report, we examine the extent to which the growth of oil and gas production in the shales will be constrained by capital discipline in the U.S. – something unheard of in years past. For the E&P companies large and small comprising this sector, success will depend on their ability to manage investors’ expectations for competitive returns – not their ability to grow production simply for the sake of growing production. We see early signs these companies – majors and independents alike – are behaving like capital-constrained firms that must provide a return greater than their cost of capital to attract and retain the funding necessary to ensure their growth and survival (Chart of the Week). Chart 1 Feature Since the 2014-15 global oil-price collapse, U.S. shale production has been driving non-OPEC liquid fuels production growth, expanding by an annual average ~ 1.13mm b/d vs. 0.61mm b/d for the other non-OPEC producers.1 We expect U.S. shale to remain the main vehicle of production growth over the next 2 years (Chart 2, panel 1). Our latest expectations for global supply – demand balances remain positive for the U.S. shale-oil producers. We have U.S. lower 48 production expanding by 1.3mm b/d in 2019, and 0.9mm b/d in 2020, led by shale production. This is slightly above the EIA and OPEC forecasts (Chart 2, panel 2). We have consistently exceeded the EIA’s and IEA’s production estimates for U.S. onshore production since August 2016 (Chart 3). This is not to say we believe the E&Ps will once again recklessly expand production in excess of the ability of their free cash flow (FCF) to support. In the past, we have tended to fade the independent E&Ps’ declarations of capital-discipline – e.g. in 2017 – 2018. We’ve staunchly maintained higher oil prices would compel the E&Ps to grow production beyond the ability of their FCF to support it. Nonetheless, this time could be different. Chart 2U.S. Shales Vs. Non-OPEC Production U.S. Shales Vs. Non-OPEC Production U.S. Shales Vs. Non-OPEC Production Chart 3 In point of fact, we now believe the independent E&P model is transitioning to a mature business model – i.e., these companies will, over time, look more like firms in other industries that seek to maximize shareholder value in order to retain their access to capital to grow and invest (Charst 4A &  4B). If the sector evolves in this direction, we could witness a sea change in the development of the U.S. shales, which leads to lower production growth. Chart 4AMajors Sensitive To Shareholder Concerns ... Majors Sensitive To Shareholder Concerns ... Majors Sensitive To Shareholder Concerns ... Chart 4B... As Are Independent E&Ps ... As Are Independent E&Ps ... As Are Independent E&Ps In this 2-part Special Report, we review our forecasting methodology for U.S. shale production, assess whether capital discipline demands by investors will affect current production forecasts, and explore ongoing logistical constraints in the Permian Basin and the U.S. Gulf Coast. E&Ps Transitioning To A Mature Business Model Historically, the U.S. E&P model prioritized sharp production growth above all else, making these companies highly dependent on external capital to finance that growth. In fact, since 2011, public E&Ps outspent their operating cash flow by ~ 40% on average, using a mix of debt, asset sales and equity financing (Chart 5).2 Chart 5 Efficiency gains allowed producers to be almost as profitable in 2018, with oil prices hovering around $65/bbl, as they were in 2014 with prices above $100/bbl. Since 2016, equity financing and asset sales have supported most of the over-spending. The equity financing window appears to have closed in 2018, as a large part of the equity issuance of smaller E&Ps was forced on them by banks to reduce leverage following their semi-annual credit re-determinations. Still, most E&Ps stock prices have remained depressed during the 32% surge in WTI prices in 1Q19 (Chart 6, panel 1). Investors remain skeptical about the E&P model, and are demanding proof this sector is moving toward a business model that can withstand the oil-price volatility that is endemic to these markets. This has – and will continue to – limited E&Ps’ ability to easily source funding from Wall Street via equity and debt financing. In fact, investors are demanding a higher premium to hold high-yield energy debt (Chart 6, panel 2), in the wake of the recent exceptional volatility oil markets have experienced. Chart 6Equities, Oil Prices Disconnected Equities, Oil Prices Disconnected Equities, Oil Prices Disconnected Ideally, the independent E&P cohort’s behavior would move closer to that of the Majors – i.e. spend less on capex than is generated via operating cash flow (OCF), using this margin to support dividends, and return of capital to shareholders via share buybacks. We expect most U.S. E&Ps to meet investors’ expectations, and to register positive FCF growth this year.3 Efficiency gains allowed producers to be almost as profitable in 2018, with oil prices hovering around $65/bbl, as they were in 2014 with prices above $100/bbl (Chart 7). Chart 7Efficiency Gains Drive EBIT Efficiency Gains Drive EBIT Efficiency Gains Drive EBIT E&P 2019 Production And Spending Guidance The last time BCA examined E&Ps’ finances – and their ability to sustain profitable growth – was in April 2018. At that time, we identified a sharp divergence in production vs. capex intentions. We argued then that these numbers were incompatible, and that E&Ps’ capital expenditures would have to increase above guidance to sustain the large production increases these firms were projecting. Actual 2018 numbers confirmed our thesis: E&P capex grew by ~ 16% y/y. Nonetheless, despite outspending their 2018 guidance, these producers needed only a limited amount of external capital. Most of the additional capex was financed from higher-than-expected operational cash flow, due mostly to higher WTI prices, cost reductions and productivity gains. Output per well slipped, all the same, while rig turnover increased, resulting in higher overall production (Chart 8). Our updated analysis for 2019 shows our group of producers is guiding toward ~ 14% y/y increase in production, and ~ 17% y/y decrease in capex. Again, these expectations are inconsistent, in our estimation. We calculate E&Ps’ production guidance is in line with our 15% y/y shale production growth forecasts. Achieving this growth will require flat to higher capex. Chart 8Well Output Down; Rig Turnover Up Well Output Down; Rig Turnover Up Well Output Down; Rig Turnover Up We estimate the exploration and development cost of adding a new barrel of oil-equivalent production in 2018 was around $32,100 for our group of 41 E&P companies (ex-property purchase and other expenses)(Chart 9). Assuming ~ 5-10% cost-inflation  and an estimate of property purchase for 2019, the ~ 1.7mm b/d of new production expected from our group – including the replacement of legacy production declines (more on this below) – would cost > $60 billion. This is above the companies’ current guidance. Achieving this would require further efficiency gains from technology improvement and geology high-grading – i.e., producers would have to focus their drilling activity on their best geologies to increase production per well, while reducing overall activity/expenditure in second-tier regions. Chart 9 We doubt this can happen. Our concerns about new wells’ productivity are increasing. The spacing of new wells appears to interfere with nearby older wells’ output, decreasing the overall pressure and productivity for both the newer and older wells. This often is referred to as the “parent-child” problem. The jury is still out re whether the industry has reached a tipping point in terms of well proximity that lies at the heart of this problem. However, reverting to wider spacing between wells would effectively reduce available drilling acreage in E&Ps’ tier-1 locations. Based on the most recent U.S. EIA Drilling Productivity Report (DPR) data, we cannot entirely substantiate these concerns – it is too early to detect a tipping point in the data (Chart 10). Nonetheless, we believe efficiency gains will be limited from here on, as the inventory of tier-1 wells has been decreasing in the past few year, and lateral and proppant growth slows. Importantly, this means the accelerating decline rates of U.S. production, as the share of new oil production coming from shale increases, will require more drilling and capex as new wells risk being less productive. Even in the prolific Permian Basin, new production per new well appears to have peaked in 2018. Moreover, there are growing risks of logistical bottlenecks in U.S. Gulf Coast exporting facilities that could further limit growth, a subject we will address in next week’s report. Chart 10Tipping Point For Productivity? Tipping Point For Productivity? Tipping Point For Productivity? Increasing Decline Rates Require More Capex With tight-oil production as a share of total production increasing, overall production decline rates are increasing – i.e. the downhole pressure which pushes the oil out of the well against the force of gravity dissipates much faster in shale oil wells.4 This is an underappreciated aspect of E&P production forecasts. In our view, attaining the production levels E&Ps currently are guiding toward, while accounting for massive production decline rates, will require capex to surprise to the upside and grow y/y.  Shale technology does allow for a more elastic oil supply, as it can be brought on line quickly in response to rising prices. However, the associated production declines can exceed 70% in the first year – i.e., production at a specific well (in b/d) will fall by 70% from its peak in the first year of operation – and another ~ 30% in the second year, compared to an average <10% for conventional onshore wells. This as large consequences for rig count in the U.S. Chart 11 Our updated decline-curve estimates show U.S. shale production will fall by ~ 37% in the next 12 months (Chart 11). This implies ~ 2mm b/d will be lost by the end of 2019. Hence, maintaining a flat level of production would require 750 rigs on average per month – given current well-per-rig and new-production-per-well rates. Accounting for the 14% y/y growth based on production guidance, this implies a total of 3.3mm b/d of new onshore U.S. production (Chart 12). In our view, attaining the production levels E&Ps currently are guiding toward, while accounting for massive production decline rates, will require capex to surprise to the upside and grow y/y. Chart 12Higher Rig Counts Needed Higher Rig Counts Needed Higher Rig Counts Needed Producers Will Remain Profitable, And Within OCF We expect U.S. E&P spending to remain within the limits of the operating cash flow. This will allow E&Ps to deliver on investors’ expectations of higher FCF and return on capital employed (ROCE). Two points support this expectation: (1) higher WTI prices, and (2) a higher inventory of Drilled-but-Uncompleted (DUCs) wells. Higher WTI prices. Our most recent oil price forecast sees WTI prices averaging $66/bbl in 2019, and $72/bbl in 2020, vs. $65/bbl in 2018.5 Most public E&Ps base their capex projection on a $50 - $55/bbl WTI price. The higher prices we expect will allow capex to increase above guidance while remaining within the limits of cash flow. Assuming no efficiency gains, this alone would increase OCF by ~ 20% compared with a $55/bbl price – depending on each company's hedging program. Including the expected 14% y/y volumes increase in 2019 adds another 14% to OCF. Hence, we believe there is room for an additional ~ $10 billion capex increase by our group of producers vs. last year solely based on our oil price and production projections. This outcome is highly contingent on our prices forecast. If prices remain in the low $50s/bbl, most producers’ cash flow will fall below the capex required to achieve current production growth forecasts. In this scenario, smaller shale producers would scramble to raise external funding to cover their expenses. As mentioned above, debt and equity financing will remain scares this year as investors demand financial discipline. This would either result in lower production growth or additional asset sales and increasing drilling partnerships. DUCs completion. Since mid-2018, Permian production has been constrained by a lack of pipeline takeaway capacity to move increasing oil production out of the basin. This put pressure on Midland, TX, prices, and incentivized additional truck and rail transportation (Chart 13, panel 1). Not unexpectedly, this led to a slowdown in completions relative to drilling activity (Chart 13, panel 2), and increased the number of DUCs. As a result, Permian producers built an inventory of excess DUCs awaiting pipeline expansions (Chart 13, panel 3). The process of drilling and completing wells produces a normal inventory of uncompleted wells, because of the time lag between the moment wells are drilled and the time they are completed. The development of multi-well pad drilling in U.S. shale basins structurally increased the time lag between drilling and completion to ~ 5 months. This implies a normal level of DUC inventory that corresponds to ~ 5 - 6 months’ worth of drilling activity. We define any DUC above our estimate of normal as an excess DUC well. It also implies that, as rig count expands, the normal level of DUCs will rise accordingly. Hence, simply looking at the absolute level of DUCs can be misleading. DUCs should be analyzed in relation to drilling. Chart 13Expect More From DUCs Expect More From DUCs Expect More From DUCs We estimate current excess DUCs to be ~ 1,700 in the top five shale basins, and 1,100 in the Permian alone. If completed, this represents a potential 1mm b/d and 700k b/d of additional production in top five basins and the Permian, respectively – at current well productivity. On average, completion accounts for ~ 65% of the total well costs. This implies adding new production from the 1mm b/d inventory of DUCs would require a 35% lower capital expenditure. This will support our expectation of higher E&P production while keeping expenses within OCF. In our projections, we include a monthly increase of 40k b/d of oil production from DUC completions from October 2019 to end-2020, given the 1.8mm b/d of additional pipeline capacity from the Permian to Gulf Coast that will be built before the end of the year, along with another 1.5mm b/d of new pipe that will be operational by 2021 (Chart 14). Additionally, 2mm b/d of additional takeaway capacity projected to be built from Cushing to the Gulf by 2021. This will completely relieve the transportation constraint and allow the > 900k b/d of additional production we expect by December 2020 to be moved toward export facilities. Chart 14 Beyond 2020, our group of E&P companies could be forced to raise external financing, as a large portion of their long-term debt will need to be paid off, or re-financed (Chart 15). This alone could capture more than 50% of E&Ps’ FCF, leaving little room to expand production within cash flow from operations. Chart 15 Permian Natgas Bottlenecks Remain A Risk To Oil Production Growth The exceptional growth in Permian tight oil production was mirrored by a glut in the volume of associated gas output (Chart 16, panel 1). While oil-takeaway investment has proceeded apace to get those molecules out of the Basin, supporting infrastructure development failed to produce the necessary natural-gas pipeline-takeaway capacity. This pushed gas supply above local demand and pipeline capacity, forcing natgas prices at Waha Hub lower – at times, to less than zero (e.g., in April and May 2019) (Chart 16, panel 2). In other words, producers are willing to pay midstream companies to move their gas out of the Permian. Delays in pipeline completion in Mexico led to an under-utilization of the current capacity from the Waha Hub to the Mexican border via the Trans-Pecos, Comanche Trail and Roadrunner pipelines (Chart 17). Chart 16Associated Gas Production Soars Associated Gas Production Soars Associated Gas Production Soars The completion of the Fermaca pipelines carrying gas toward central Mexico; and gas pipelines from the Permian to the U.S. Gulf Coast are expected to start coming on line in 2H19, which ultimately will bring an additional 9.8 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity to this market by 4Q20. This lack of capacity forced oil producers either to flare their additional gas or to reduce oil production – thereby reducing associated gas production. Most producers chose the former. As a result, flaring in the Permian reached ~ 610 MMcf/d in 4Q18 and a record high of 661 MMcf/d in 1Q19.6 By comparison, total residential natgas consumption in the entire state of Texas averaged 544 MMcf/d over the 2010 – 17 period, according to the U.S. EIA.7 Chart 17 When accounting for flaring and low Mexican pipelines utilization, we expect a marked supply-surplus until the end of the year, which will keep downward pressure on Waha prices (Chart 17, panel 2-3). Over the next 12 months, additional natgas pipeline takeaway will allow more gas to be shipped out of the Permian Basin: The completion of the Fermaca pipelines carrying gas toward central Mexico; and gas pipelines from the Permian to the U.S. Gulf Coast are expected to start coming on line in 2H19, which ultimately will bring an additional 9.8 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity to this market by 4Q20. This will provide the required feedstock for the ongoing Gulf Coast LNG buildout centered around Corpus Christi, TX. We expect > 5 Bcf/d of export capacity will be completed by end-2021. Nonetheless, the resumption of tight-oil production in the Permian in 2H19 is expected to build before the natgas system takeaway capacity comes on line. This will once again pressure natgas prices, and could stymie the growth in oil production in the Permian at the margin, given this would require additional flaring. How these issues are resolved partly depends on the Texas Rail Road Commission’s (RRC), which will have to rule on exemptions from the state’s Rule 32. Operators in Texas are allowed to flare gas while drilling, and for up to 10 days after completion. After this, each well’s owner must apply for a 45-day flare permit, and prove it is necessary for it to flare gas at specific wells. Texas RRC staff can issue these permits for a maximum of 180 days, beyond which an extension has to be approved via a Commission Final Order.8 Despite this strict process, YTD, none of the more than 20 requests for exception to Rule 32 in the main Permian Districts (7C, 08 and 8A) have been rejected.9 In general, the lack of existing pipeline capacity has been treated as a reasonable cause to grant exceptions to Rule 32. As long as the RRC allows these exceptions, oil production growth in the Permian will be primarily restrained by oil-pipeline takeaway constraints in the Basin, and export constraints in the Gulf. Nonetheless, these abnormal levels of flaring and venting are already gaining exposure in the media. The public opinion could switch rapidly and environmental protests could emerge, demanding the RRC enforces Rule 32 to E&P companies. This remains a risk to monitor. Bottom Line: The growth in U.S. shale-oil production could be slowing as E&P companies exercise greater capital discipline, and productivity gains begin to level off. It is still early days on the capital-discipline front – we have been here before – but we believe E&Ps are behaving in a manner consistent with that of other capital-constrained companies, and are prioritizing shareholder interests over their desire to increase production. The next big step in this evolution will be demonstrating to investors that lower-risk plays like the Permian Basin can provide the long-term returns necessary to sustain E&Ps access to capital. This will be critical as decline curves steepen in the Permian Basin and the other big U.S. shale plays.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com  Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      U.S. shale production denotes the sum of Anadarko, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Permian and Niobrara crude oil production. In this analysis, non-OPEC liquid fuels production excludes Russia, as it jointly leads the producer coalition we’ve dubbed OPEC 2.0, which was formed at the end of 2016 to manage global oil production and drain the unintended inventory accumulation resulting from OPEC’s 2014 – 16 market-share war. 2      Our analysis is based on a group of 41 public U.S. E&P companies. As a group, these companies represent ~3.3mm b/d of production (or around 38% of U.S. onshore production). 3      Not all E&Ps will perform similarly. Well-capitalized shale producers are on track to reach positive FCF by year-end. However, smaller companies with weak fundamentals will continue to face increasing default risk as external funds from Wall Street dry up. Indeed, a management premium – well-run vs. poorly run firms – almost surely will be a defining feature of the E&P market. 4      This downhole pressure is crucial for oil production. In general, wells are not abandoned when oil is completely depleted, but when pressure reaches levels so low that almost no oil is naturally pushed up the wellbore. Pass this point, artificial lifts or re-pressurization methods are needed to continue extraction from this well, requiring additional capex. 5      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Oil Market Volatility Reflects Recession Fears,” dated June 6, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6       Please see Permian "Natural Gas Flaring And Venting Reaching All-Time High," published by rystadenergy.com, June 4, 2019. 7      Based on EIA data, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_CONS_SUM_DCU_STX_A.htm. 8      Please see Texas Railroad Commission's flaring regulation, https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/resource-center/faqs/oil-gas-faqs/faq-flaring-regulation/. 9      Based on Texas Railroad Commission data, https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/hearings/dockets/oil-gas-proposals-for-decision-and-orders/index-for-332/.