Commodities & Energy Sector

President Trump’s announcement this week of a new deployment of aid to U.S. farmers, to offset China’s retaliation to steeper tariffs, highlights that agriculture has been the sacrificial lamb in the U.S.’s hawkish trade policy. The $15 billion announcement follows last year’s $12 billion disbursement, and suggests that the path to a trade agreement with China remains fraught. Although China and the U.S. continue to negotiate, and President Trump has indicated that “maybe something will happen” within a “three or four week” timeframe, last week’s events indicate that a resolution is far from guaranteed. Both positive and negative trade war news will dominate the near term evolution of ag prices – stay on the sidelines as negotiations will sway markets. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices are up ~2% since the beginning of the week on escalating tensions in the Middle East, as expected. Two Saudi oil-pumping stations were targeted in a drone attack on Tuesday. This follows attacks on four oil tankers – including two Saudi ships – off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. These events highlight the increased risk of supply outages since the U.S. decision not to extend waivers on Iran sanctions.1 Base Metals: Neutral. The recent escalation in Sino-U.S. trade tensions pushed LMEX prices down 2% since the beginning of last week. Nevertheless, we believe that in the medium term Chinese authorities will manage to offset the negative economic impact on metals by ramping up fiscal-and-credit stimulus.2 Precious Metals: Gold’s geopolitical risk premium is rising amid escalating trade tensions. Gold rallied ~2% since May 3, amid declining global equities. Our gold trade is up 5.3% since inception. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Sino-U.S. trade tensions are weighing heavily on agriculture commodities. The grains and oilseed index is down 9% since the beginning of the year. Continued trade war uncertainty will keep risks elevated in the ags space (see below). Feature Several factors – including dollar strength and bearish fundamentals – have come together to drive down ag prices so far this year. However, the latest plunge highlights that trade risks remain a real threat to ag markets. This is in line with the sharp cutback in Chinese imports of U.S. ags, which make up a large share of Chinese imports from the U.S. and have been hit hard by tariffs (Chart of the Week). Soybeans in particular have become the poster child of the dispute. Uncertainty has taken their prices down to 10 year lows. In 2017, they accounted for $12.4 worth, or 9.3%, of U.S. exports to China. However, since the onset of the dispute, American soybean farmers have been struggling to market their crops. U.S. exports to China are down more than 80% y/y since 2H18 (Chart 2), and while there have been efforts to find other markets, they have yet to offset the impact of lower trade with China (Chart 3). Chart 2Soybeans Are The Poster Child Of The Conflict A long-term solution is necessary to support the agriculture industry and prices of grains and oilseeds. In fact, the Chinese tariffs add to ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and some of its other major ag markets (Charts 4A & 4B). Canada, Mexico, and the EU have placed tariffs on a range of U.S. agricultural goods in response to the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. As such, American farmers are suffering the brunt of the trade war’s burden. Chinese retaliation comes at a time when U.S. ag stockpiles are already elevated (Chart 5). Inflation-adjusted farm income had been deteriorating prior to the trade dispute, falling to about half its 2013 level (Chart 6). The trade dispute has only reinforced this trend. In its most recent Ag Credit Survey, the Kansas City Fed found the pace of decline in farm loan repayment rates increased, while carry-over debt increased for many borrowers, ultimately causing a deterioration in ag credit conditions. Given that exports account for 20% of U.S. farm income, according to USDA estimates, a long-term solution is necessary to support the agriculture industry and prices of grains and oilseeds. Otherwise, tariffs will simply be another constraint on U.S. ag exports, which have been losing global market share since the mid-1990s (Chart 7). Chart 5U.S. Stocks Are Relatively Elevated Chart 6Farmers Suffering The Brunt Of The Burden Chart 7U.S. Agriculture Losing Global Market Share Even though China briefly resumed some purchases of U.S. ags this year as a goodwill gesture during negotiations, these purchases stand significantly below those of previous years. They resulted from one-time purchases by Chinese state-owned enterprises, and barriers to trade remain in place. Such ad hoc attempts at reconciliation will not be sufficient to support a distrustful market going forward. The trade war is just one facet of a broader strategic U.S.-China conflict. This means a reso­lution would be only a cyclical improvement in an ongoing structural deterioration in relations. A number of potential outcomes can result from the ongoing negotiations: Most bearish: China raises the tariff rate on U.S. ag exports even further. A situation in which a fallout in the negotiations leads to strategic tensions – a scenario to which BCA’s geopolitical strategists attribute a 50% chance – could result in further ratcheting up of tariffs by China. Given that Chinese imports of U.S. ags are approaching zero, there is limited significant further downside even in this most pessimistic scenario. However, unless the U.S. is able to smoothly market its crops in other regions, upside will also be limited for some time. Since trade tariffs have already been initiated with many of the U.S.’s major ag consumers, securing reliable alternative markets may prove a challenge. Especially since Trump’s hawkish foreign policy raises risks and uncertainties for America’s trade partners. Bearish: Tariffs remain at current levels. Similar to the most bearish scenario, given that the U.S. is already having a difficult time marketing its crops abroad, significant further downside from current levels is also limited. However, any premium priced on the expectation of a resolution of the trade conflict will be eliminated. Again, as in the most bearish scenario, the loss of the Chinese market may be mitigated by an expansion of alternative markets, but challenges will remain. Bullish: Tariffs are cut back to pre-trade war levels. In this scenario, the tariffs imposed since the onset of the trade war will be unwound. This would once again raise the competitiveness of American crops in Chinese markets, and would entail higher ag prices as demand channels are re-established. Most Bullish: Tariffs fall to equalized levels. One of Trump’s key complaints is that U.S. and Chinese tariffs are not “reciprocal in nature and value” (Chart 8). Given that Chinese tariffs are above those of the U.S., this would entail a reduction in Chinese tariffs to below trade war levels (Table 1). Table 1... And They Have Gone Up A lasting trade deal will likely include measures to close the bilateral trade deficit, which in 2018 stood at $379 billion. Last year Trump called on Beijing to reduce this deficit by $200 billion over two years. If we make the overly simplistic assumption that the share of imports remains unchanged, such a reduction would lead to an additional $19 billion in soybeans, $0.54 billion in wheat, and $0.23 billion in corn imports. This back of the envelope calculation implies a doubling of these U.S. exports to China, relative to 2017 levels. As we highlighted in our March ags update, investors had become overly optimistic with their expectation of a swift resolution of the trade war.3 In fact, according to BCA’s geopolitical strategists, the trade war is just one facet of a broader strategic U.S.-China conflict. This means a resolution would be only a cyclical improvement in an ongoing structural deterioration in relations. They assign only 40% odds that a deal will be finalized by year-end, with 30% odds that the frictions will escalate into strategic tensions. In the meantime, Trump’s palliatives – which include a “trade relief” program, an EU promise to purchase more U.S. soybeans, and last week’s suggestion of government purchases for humanitarian aid – are unlikely to lift ag prices. Bottom Line: The U.S.-China trade war has weighed on American ag exports. The impact on farmers – in terms of lower incomes, and higher stockpiles – has been significant. Granting that odds of a resolution this year are no greater than 40%, we recommend a cautious stance on ag markets. However, a trade deal that entails Chinese promises to import U.S. ags – either through more favorable tariff rates or commitments to purchase large volumes – would provide a buying opportunity. In any case, we suspect that prices are near the bottom, but will require a significant catalyst – in the form of a trade deal – to begin to climb materially. No Relief From Fundamentals, Either With spring planting underway, the recent escalation in trade tensions comes at a busy time of year for U.S. farmers. According to the USDA’s annual Prospective Planting Report, released at the end of March, the planted area of corn will likely increase by 4% in 2019, while soybean and wheat will fall 5% y/y and 4% y/y, respectively. If realized, the planting area that farmers intend to dedicate to wheat will be the lowest on record – that is, since 1919 (Chart 9). However, farms in the Midwest were hit by a “bomb cyclone” in March, which has damaged crops and delayed planting. Inundated fields mean farmers are forced to push back their schedule. The latest Weekly Crop Progress Report from the USDA, indicates that farmers have fallen behind relative to typical progress at this time of year (Table 2). Although farmers’ current lack of headway is cause for concern, they may still be able to catch up and attain their targeted acreage. Chart 9Record Low Wheat Acreage Table 2Flooding Has Delayed Spring Planting Given that stockpiles are full, due to years of surplus, the impact of the flooding is unlikely to move international ag prices. Nevertheless, planting delays raise the possibility that corn farmers will switch to soybeans, which can be planted later in the season. In the May update of the World Supply And Demand Estimates – which includes the first estimates for the 2019/20 crop year — the USDA projected a decline in U.S. soybean ending stocks on the back of lower production and a pickup in exports. The switch in planting intentions towards soybeans at the expense of corn may at least partially reverse this expectation, raising global soybean inventories which are expected to remain unchanged (Chart 10). In addition to trade war, the African swine fever has hit pig herds in China – the main consumers of soybeans. According to China’s official statistics, more than a million pigs have been culled, and Chinese pork production is expected to be slashed by between a quarter and a half this year. This will depress demand for soybeans, further weighing on prices. So far this year the greenback has been a source of bearishness toward ags. Since the epidemic has spread to other Asian neighbors including Hong Kong and Vietnam, soybean demand from Asia will be reduced, regardless of the outcome of the trade war. This will also weigh on other major producers such as Brazil and Argentina, which have so far benefited from China’s shunning of the American crop. South American producers are also at risk if a positive outcome emerges from the negotiations. Chart 10No Change In Soybean Inventories Expected In The Coming Crop Year Chart 11Preliminary Projections Of Uptick In 2019/20 Wheat Inventories On the other hand, according to the latest USDA estimates, both global and U.S. year-end wheat inventories are expected to pick up in the 2019/2020 crop year (Chart 11). Greater European production will add to already elevated supplies. While global corn inventories are projected to come down, U.S. inventories will likely rise amid greater production and weaker exports. However, these acres are at risk given the flood delays (Chart 12). In addition to these supply-demand fundamentals, U.S. financial conditions – especially the U.S. dollar – will remain a key driver of ag prices. So far this year the greenback has been a source of bearishness toward ags. Ag prices have an inverse relationship with the U.S. trade-weighted dollar (Chart 13). While in our earlier report we had expected the dollar to peak by mid-year, the May 5 escalation in the trade war poses a risk to this view by threatening the global trade and growth outlook and spurring risk-off sentiment. Chart 12Another Deficit Expected ##br##For Corn Bottom Line: Farmers in the U.S. Midwest facing inundated fields are behind schedule in their spring planting. This poses a risk that a greater number of soybeans will be planted at the expense of corn – weighing down on an already depressed soybean market and potentially requiring the USDA to revise down its U.S. bean ending stocks in its next WASDE report. Chart 13U.S. Financial Conditions Continue To Weigh On Ags What is more, the African swine fever, which is spreading across East Asia, is reducing demand for animal feed there. Unless the trade conflict is resolved, we expect corn and wheat to outperform the soybean market.   Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report titled “U.S.-Iran: This Means War?” dated May 3, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Expanded Sino-U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals,” dated May 9, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Financial Conditions, Trade War Continue To Dominate Ag Market,” dated March 28, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearh.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

While we remain bullish on global equities and other risk assets over 12 months, we went tactically short the S&P 500 last Friday following the market’s complacent reaction to the Trump Administration’s further tariffs increases on Chinese imports. While a moderate trade war would still produce more economic damage than standard economic models imply, this would be greatly mitigated by significant Chinese economic stimulus and a Fed that is in no hurry to raise rates and could even cut rates. Barring any further major developments, we recommend investors start increasing risk exposure if the S&P 500 falls to 2711. A dip in global bourses would also create an opportunity to go overweight EM/European equities. Favor gold over government bonds as a low-cost hedge against trade war risks for now.

Highlights Coming up on the deadline for President Trump’s China – U.S. tariff ultimatum, tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports could go to 25% from 10% on Friday – the outlook for base metals remains complicated, particularly for aluminum and copper.1 Of course, the U.S. and China could have a meeting of the minds and agree to resolve the outstanding issues in the trade negotiations. This would be supportive of continued global supply-chain expansion, EM income growth and base metals prices generally. On the downside, an escalation of the Sino – U.S. trade war could retard investment in global supply chains, as firms hunker down for an extended and contentious contraction in global trade.2 This would be bearish for EM income growth, which would translate directly into lower base metals demand and, all else equal, depress prices. Still, a breakdown in trade talks could be bullish for base metals, as China likely would increase its fiscal, monetary and credit stimulus, in an attempt to offset the income-suppressing effects of reduced global trade and investment. As we said, it’s complicated. Two of the three outcomes above are supportive of base metals prices – i.e., a deal is agreed, and increased Chinese stimulus in the event of a breakdown in negotiations. Against this backdrop, we are closing our long tactical trading recommendations in copper and aluminum at tonight’s close, and replacing them with a call spread on July CME COMEX copper, in which we will get long $3.00/lb calls vs. short $3.30/lb calls. The call spreads are a low-risk way of positioning in a volatile market for a likely price-supportive outcome in these talks – the max loss on this position is the net premium paid to get long the spread. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Supply-side fundamentals continue to dominate oil price formation. An unplanned outage in Russia that took ~ 1mm b/d of oil off the market this week, following the contamination of exports with organic chloride left in shipments via Transneft’s European pipeline system. Russia’s Energy Ministry is guiding markets to expect the contamination will be cleared up toward the end of this month.3 Base Metals: Neutral. We are closing our tactical aluminum and copper trade recommendations at tonight’s close. We do see the potential for higher base metals prices – particularly copper – if China expands fiscal and monetary stimulus in the wake of a breakdown in trade talks with the U.S., or both sides can resolve their differences. We expect copper will benefit most from such outcomes. However, we believe a call spread – long July $3.00/lb CME COMEX calls vs. short $3.30/lb calls expiring in July – is a lower-risk way of expressing this view. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold could rally in the wake of an expanded trade war, if the Fed and the PBOC – along with other systemically important central banks – adopt more accommodative monetary policies in anticipation of a widening trade conflict. Greater fiscal, credit and monetary stimulus by China in response to a breakdown in trade talks also could boost safe-haven demand for gold. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The risk of a wider Sino – U.S. trade war – particularly the likely retaliation by China if U.S. tariffs are raised to 25% on already-targeted exports of $200 billion – would be especially bearish for soybeans and grain exports from the U.S. We remain underweight. Feature In the wake of President Donald Trump’s ultimatum to China to resolve trade talks by tomorrow, BCA Research’s geopolitical strategists give 50% odds to a successful trade deal being concluded by end-June. The odds of an extension of trade talks are 10%; and the odds of no deal on trade, 40% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities (May 2019) Of these possible outcomes, the no-deal scenario – i.e., an escalation in the trade war including raising tariffs on imports from China to 25% on the $200 billion of goods now carrying a 10% duty – would be the most volatile, and likely would push base metals’ prices lower in the short-term. A trade deal would set markets to estimating the extent of supply-chain investment and trade-flow revival, as the drawn-out uncertainty around the outcome of the Sino – U.S. trade war fades. Given the slim wedge our geopolitical strategists see between the deal and no-deal outcomes to these trade talks, we believe the implications of the latter need to be sorted. An agreement to extend trade talks likely would be welcomed with the same aplomb shown by markets prior to this current level of high drama. In this scenario, markets likely would price in an economically rational outcome to the U.S. – China trade negotiations, which resolves the uncertainty around tariffs and other investment-retarding policies. Given the slim wedge our geopolitical strategists see between the deal and no-deal outcomes to these trade talks, we believe the implications of the latter need to be sorted. In the short term – i.e., following a breakdown in the talks – market sentiment likely would become more negative, as traders priced in the implications for reduced global supply-chain investment and trade flows, particularly re China and EM exporters. In addition, base metals markets would discount the income hit to EM these effects would feed into, raising the likelihood commodity demand growth would slow. News flow would then dictate price action for the metals over the short term. As markets discount these expectations, we believe Chinese policymakers would act to increase the levels of fiscal, credit and monetary stimulus domestically, to counter the hit to domestic income. The lagged effects of this stimulus will have a strong influence on base metals’ price formation, and, depending on the level of stimulus, could be bullish for metals prices. China’s Influence on Base Metals Higher Post-GFC In previous research, we found copper, and to lesser extent aluminum and the LMEX index, which is heavily weighted to both, benefit most from monetary, credit and fiscal stimulus in China.4 Other metals also experience a lift when the level of these Chinese policy variables rises; however, their relationship with EM and China’s industrial production cycle is weaker and time varying (Chart of the Week). In Table 2, we show how different policy and macro factors affect various base metal prices and the LMEX; these models generate the output for the curves in the Chart of the Week. The table show the coefficients of determination for single-variable regressions for each metal on the EM- or China-focused factor shown in the columns for the period 2000 to now, and 2010 to now. Within the base metals complex, copper, the LMEX index and aluminum exhibit the strongest and most reliable relationships with the explanatory variables shown at the top of each column. Table 2Coefficients Of Determination: Base Metals Prices (yoy) Vs. Key Factors The biggest takeaway from this analysis is that, for each individual metal, Chinese economic activity in particular, and EM income dynamics generally dominate price determination. The importance of these factors increased considerably post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC). As was the case with our correlation analysis, this is best captured by our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index (Chart 2, panel 1). This is clearly seen in the co-movement of our GIA index and copper prices (Chart 2, panel 2), and EM GDP.5 Chart 3 shows the GIA index disaggregated in its four main components. Chart 2BCA's GIA Index Vs. EM GDP, Copper Prices Chart 3BCA GIA Index Components' Performance Our analytical framework for base metals in China holds the nonferrous “pillar industries” behave as vertically integrated conglomerates. The influence of China’s economy on base metals prices is not unexpected: As China’s relative share of base metals supply and demand versus the rest of the world has grown, the marginal impact of its fiscal, credit, monetary and trade policies increased (Chart 4). The principal effect would be visible in China’s demand-side effects, to which the supply side would respond. That is to say, China’s monetary, credit and fiscal policies post-GFC lifted domestic incomes, which lifted demand domestically. In addition, aggressive export-oriented trade policy contributed to income growth, as well. This prompted increased base metals and bulk (e.g., steel) output on the supply side. A large part of this dynamic likely is explained by the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in the base-metals markets in China. It is important to note these SOEs are strategic government holdings, responding to and directing government policy, as was recently noted in a University of Alberta study on SOEs:      … the government maintains control over a number of economically significant industries, such as the automobile, equipment manufacturing, information technology, construction, iron and steel, and nonferrous metals sectors, which are all considered to be ‘pillar industries’ of the Chinese economy. The government, as a matter of official policy, intends to maintain sole ownership or apply absolute control over only what it considers to be strategic industries, but also maintains relatively strong control over the pillar industries.6 Our analytical framework for base metals in China holds the nonferrous “pillar industries” behave as vertically integrated conglomerates – ranging from firms refining of raw ore to those producing finished products used in infrastructure, construction, etc. In this framework, nonferrous metals in China are not commodity markets per se, but vertically integrated policy-driven industries responding to directives from the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Politburo through to the State Council and the various ministries directing production and consumption.7 At the heart of this is the CCP’s efforts to direct economic growth. Investment Implications The implication of our policy-focused research is investors should focus on metals for which a large share of the variance in y/y prices can be explained by movements in Chinese economic activity. The no-deal outcome could be positive for base metals prices. To get a handle on this, we looked at the variance decomposition of each metal’s price in response to exogenous shocks originating from (1) Chinese economic activity, (2) EM (ex-China) and Complex Economies industrial activity, (3) U.S. industrial activity, and (4) the U.S. trade weighted dollar (Table 3).8 Using this approach, we found that: Copper, aluminum and the LMEX’s variances are mostly explained by China’s economic activity (~ 25%); specifically, shocks to the state’s industrial activity and credit cycle. This corroborates our earlier research, in which we focused on correlations between base metals and these factors. Idiosyncratic factors seem to account for a large part of nickel, lead and zinc’s price formation. This is seen by the large proportion of their variances that is unexplained by our selected explanatory variables. Given the opacity of fundamental data in these markets, we tend to avoid positioning in them. On average, EM ex-China and U.S. industrial activity account for a similar proportion of the variance in metal’s prices (~ 8%). While the U.S. dollar appears to be the second most important variable (~ 14%). Table 3China’s Economic Activity Drives Metals’ Return Variability Our analysis indicates that, as a group, base metals will be supported by the ongoing credit stimulus in China. Each metal is positively correlated with China’s credit cycle and industrial activity. Nonetheless, from our correlation, regression and variance-decomposition analysis, we believe copper and aluminum provide a better and more reliable exposure, as does exposure to the LMEX index, because of its high aluminum and copper weightings. Bottom Line: Approaching the ultimatum set by U.S. President Trump for a resolution to the Sino – U.S. trade war, markets are understandably taut. The odds of a deal vs. no-deal outcome by end-June are close, while the odds trade talks are extended account for the difference. In our estimation, the no-deal outcome could be positive for base metals prices, given our expectation Chinese policymakers will lift the amount of stimulus to the domestic economy to offset the negative effects of an expanded trade war. A deal would remove a lot of the uncertainty currently holding back global supply-chain capex and trade flows, which also would be bullish for base metals.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For further discussion, please see “U.S. And China Get Cold Feet,” a Special Alert published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy May 6, 2019. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Our geopolitical strategists give the odds of a successful trade deal being concluded by end-June 50%; that trade talks continue, 10%; and the odds of no deal on trade, 40%. 2      Please see “Global market structures and the high price of protectionism,” delivered at the Jackson Hole central bank conference August 25, 2018, by Agustín Carstens, General Manager, Bank for International Settlements. 3      Please see “Russia sees oil quality normalizing in late May after contamination, output drops,” published May 7, 2019, by reuters.com. 4      Please see our Weekly Report of April 25, 2019, entitled “Copper Will Benefit Most From Chinese Stimulus.” It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5      BCA’s GIA index is heavily weighted toward EM industrial-commodity demand. Please see “Oil, Copper Demand Worries Are Overdone,” where we introduce and discuss the GIA index, published February 14, 2019, in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see “State-Owned Enterprises in the Chinese Economy Today: Role, Reform, and Evolution,” China Institute, University of Alberta, May 2018. 7      Something approximating a pure commodity market is crude oil – the supply and demand curves of many globally distributed sellers and buyers meet and clear the market. As such, a reasonable explanatory model for the evolution of prices can be generated using fundamental inputs (i.e., supply, demand and inventories). Fitting such models to base metals has proved difficult. We have better success explaining base metals prices using macro economic policy variables we believe are important to CCP policymakers – trade, credit, domestic GDP, etc. This is a new avenue of research, which we hope to use to hone in on a good explanatory model to account for ~ 50% of global base metal demand, and, in some instances (e.g., copper and steel, respectively) close to 40% - 50% of supply, as seen in Chart 4. Our current base metals research is focused on trying to disprove the hypothesis these are policy-directed markets within China. This aligns with Karl Popper’s falsifiability condition, which states a theory must be subject to independent, disinterested testing capable of refuting it, to be considered scientific. Please see “Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery,” (reprinted 2008), Routledge Classics, particularly Chapter 4. 8      Complex economies are countries ranking at the top of MIT’s Economic Complexity Index (ECI), and which export industrial goods to EM and China. The EM (ex-China) and Complex Economies variable is the first principal component extracted from a group of ~60 series related to industrial production in these countries. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights So What? The Trump administration’s decision to apply maximum pressure to Iran fundamentally changes the investment landscape in 2019-20. Why? The impact of the Iran sanctions on a stand-alone basis can easily be handled given OPEC 2.0’s current spare capacity. However, not only Iranian and Venezuelan oil but also Iraqi oil could be pulled off the market in a full-fledged conflict. Policy-induced volatility and the oil risk premium will rise. Geopolitical tail risks have gotten fatter and the odds of a recession have also increased. Feature What are the Trump administration’s foreign policy objectives? First, to confront the U.S.’s greatest long-term competitor, China, by demanding economic reforms and greater market access. Second, to force a decision-point upon rogue regimes with significant ballistic missile programs and nuclear-weapon aspirations: North Korea and Iran. Third, to maintain credible deterrence in Russia’s periphery. Fourth, to reassert the Monroe Doctrine through regime change in Venezuela. The common thread, even with Russia, is confrontation. It is not necessary for President Trump to pursue all of these objectives at once. So his decision last November to issue waivers for eight importers of Iranian oil suggested to us that he was prioritizing – and becoming more risk averse ahead of the 2020 election. Full enforcement of the oil sanctions at that time threatened to push oil prices up at the same time as the Fed was raising rates, a pernicious combination late in the cycle (Chart 1). Thus, after walking away from the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, it made sense for Trump to delay any confrontation with Iran until his hoped-for second term in office. He could focus on building the border wall, resolving trade tensions with China, and making peace with North Korea instead. Chart 1Full Sanctions Enforcement Was Too Risky Last November Chart 2Sanctions Will Raise Risk   This view has now been proved wrong. The oil waivers apparently represented only a temporary delay in the administration’s hawkish Iran policy. Now that financial conditions have eased and growth has stabilized, Trump has declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization and announced that he will discontinue the waivers, demanding full compliance on energy sanctions from all states by the end of May. Volatility will move higher (Chart 2). Trump is emboldened by America’s newfound energy independence (Chart 3). While the shale boom can be used to reduce U.S. strategic commitments in the Middle East, it can also encourage Washington to believe it is invulnerable to traditional Middle Eastern risks. Trump’s advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, apparently have won the Iran policy debate on this basis. Since Trump’s reelection is far from guaranteed, it would appear his advisers view re-imposing sanctions against Iran as a rare opportunity to achieve long-term strategic objectives. They may not have the chance in 2021. Chart 3The U.S. Is Energy Independent Chart 4Trump's Reelection At Risk If Oil Spikes All the same, the problem for Trump is that, while the U.S. will survive any chaos ensuing from an Iran confrontation, his presidency may not. Full enforcement of the sanctions could spiral out of control and, through the oil price channel, come back to hurt Trump’s economy – and hence his re-election odds (Chart 4). The implication is that Trump has either been misled about the risks of his Iran policy, or he does not care as much about his re-election odds as we believed. Either way, the result is aggressive policy, which increases the geopolitical risk premium in oil prices. We can see this in our simulations (below), which are based entirely on spare capacity and compliance by consumers to the sanctions. We did not include an Iran-retaliation scenario in this modeling. Therefore, any threat to Iraqi supplies, or talks of disrupting the Strait of Hormuz will add to our prices forecasts. U.S. Administration Sailing Close To The Wind From their public comments, it would appear the U.S. administration has convinced itself the global oil market can absorb a disruption from the loss of production in Iran and Venezuela. For the Trump administration, this view is supported by growing U.S. shale-oil supplies, and the administration’s belief the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and its Gulf allies stand ready to increase production to cover any losses arising from the re-imposition of Iranian oil-export sanctions by the U.S. This belief supports the administration’s end-game, which appears to be regime change in Iran, a position long favored by Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton. Frank Fannon, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources, succinctly captured the administration’s view when he declared, “We are doing this ... in a favorable market condition with full commitment from producing countries.” He further stated, “We think this is the right time.”1 We believe the Trump administration is sailing close to the wind here. The U.S. administration has convinced itself the global oil market can absorb a disruption from the loss of oil production in Iran and Venezuela. While increasing U.S. shale output does provide something of a cushion to global oil markets, it is not a substitute for the heavy-sour crude produced by Iran and Venezuela (and others), which is favored by refiners with complex units. The loss of Iranian exports hits these refiners harder than those able to process lighter, sweeter crude of the sort exported by the U.S. (Chart 5).2 As Iranian and Venezuelan barrels are lost to the market, these heavier crudes are getting more scarce relative to the crude produced in U.S. shales – typically classified as West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil. This can be seen in tighter light-versus-heavy crude oil spreads, and the wider Brent-WTI spreads, which indicate WTI is relatively more plentiful (Charts 6A & 6B). Chart 6AWTI Relatively More Plentiful… Chart 6B…As Heavier Crudes Become More Scarce It is true U.S. production continues to grow, which is causing crude oil inventories to increase as sanctions on Iran are being re-imposed. We expect U.S. shale-oil output to grow 1.2mm b/d this year – taking it to a record 8.4mm b/d on average – and 800k b/d next year. Caution is required regarding inventories, however: U.S. refiners are in the thick of their plant maintenance – known as turn-around season – and have loaded a lot of the maintenance they would normally have done in the Fall into Spring. As a result, U.S. refiners are running at reduced rates preparing for the Northern Hemisphere’s summer driving season and the January 1, 2020, implementation of the U.N. IMO 2020 regulations, which will require shippers to use lower-sulfur fuel to power their vessels worldwide.3 OPEC 2.0 Gains Control Of Brent Forward Curve Growing U.S. production and inventories might give the Trump administration comfort the market can absorb the loss of Iran’s exports – some 1.3mm b/d at present. However, our base case holds that Iran’s exports will stabilize at ~ 600k b/d after sanctions fully kick in. In most of the scenarios we run (Table 1), the impact of Iran sanctions on a stand-alone basis can easily be handled given OPEC 2.0’s current spare capacity (Chart 7).4 Indeed, many of the low-probability scenarios we run – including the “maximum pressure” scenario, in which the Trump administration succeeds in removing all of Iran’s exports – can be accommodated by current supply and spare capacity without sending Brent prices through $100/bbl (Chart 8). OPEC 2.0 holds ~ 1.5mm b/d of what we would describe as readily available spare capacity – mostly in KSA – that can be brought to market fairly quickly, as the ramp-up last year ahead of the first round of sanctions in November amply demonstrated. Another 1.5mm b/d or so is held by the Kingdom and its GCC allies, but it would take longer to bring on line. Table 1BCA Oil Market Scenarios Chart 7OPEC 2.0 Can Handle Iranian Losses Chart 8Brent Unlikely To Surpass $100 In reality, once refiners are up and running at max capacity in the U.S. in a few weeks, U.S. inventories will begin to draw hard. This will support what we believe to be OPEC 2.0’s goal of backwardating the Brent curve – perhaps sharply. This will allow it some breathing space to gradually add barrels to the market in 2H19 as needed, as our balances and forecasts assume. It is important to remember OPEC 2.0 was formed to drain the massive storage overhang that resulted from the 2014-16 market-share war launched by KSA. The Kingdom’s energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, is in no hurry to reverse OPEC 2.0’s strategy now. Throughout the ramp to renewed sanctions, he has steadfastly maintained the Kingdom will provide oil as Aramco’s customers need it, following the blind-side hit KSA took from the Trump administration in November when it granted Iran’s largest customers waivers on its export sanctions. U.S. Pressure On OPEC To Raise Output Will Grow We expect the Trump administration to continue to pressure OPEC – the old cartel, not OPEC 2.0 – to boost production post-sanctions. However, it is not entirely clear that this time OPEC’s – particularly KSA’s – interests are 100% aligned with President Trump’s. KSA and other producers were shocked by the administration’s decision to grant waivers after lifting supply sharply in response to Trump’s demands. This time around, we believe OPEC – KSA in particular – will be more cautious lifting output, even as the U.S. Navy very publicly displays its ability to project and sustain force in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf regions (Map 1). With good reason: The U.S. holds ~ 650mm barrels of oil in its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which can be released at a rate of 1mm to 1.3mm b/d for a year or so. Realistically, it is probably more like six to nine months, since, by the time much of the oil has been released to the market the reserves that are left likely will have higher concentrations of contaminants (e.g., metals and solids that migrated to the bottom of the storage while it was sitting idle), making buyers way more leery of using it. After the shock of the waivers, KSA likely will minimize its exposure to another surprise from the U.S. as sanctions take hold. The risk to OPEC – KSA in particular – is that Trump again will pull a fast one as the U.S. general election approaches. Given Trump’s demonstrated sensitivity to U.S. gasoline prices approaching elections, it is not unlikely that he would hold on to the SPR barrels until mid to late summer 2020, then release them in time to reduce prices further. If, in the run-up to U.S. elections, OPEC has steadily increased production to build precautionary inventories then it runs a non-trivial risk the crude oil price would once again crash as SPR barrels are released. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, is in no hurry to reverse OPEC 2.0’s strategy now. In this iteration of Iranian export sanctions, we expect KSA to adopt a just-in-time inventory management strategy, so that it is not caught out once again over-supplying the market ahead of a U.S. surprise. U.S. Shales Will Figure Into OPEC 2.0’s Calculus Chart 9U.S. Export Capacity Is Constrained The other big fundamental OPEC 2.0 will be considering is the rate at which U.S. shale oil can be exported. Export capacity still is constrained by the shortage of deep-water harbor facilities in the U.S. Gulf. This is being addressed, but it has been slowed by additional requests for environmental impact statements from the federal and state governments. If prices start moving higher because KSA and OPEC 2.0 are responding to tightening markets with caution (and slowly), we’d likely see WTI production increase – it’ll have 2mm b/d of new pipe in the Permian to fill by end-2019 – but that crude could start backing up as storage in the U.S. Gulf fills. This would again widen the Brent vs. WTI - Houston spread, which will benefit refiners in the U.S. Gulf, but will lower prices received by U.S. shale producers (again) (Chart 9). Bottom Line: Trump’s decision not to extend the Iranian oil waivers suggests that he has plenty of risk appetite ahead of the 2020 election. His Iran policy is now the biggest geopolitical risk to the late-cycle bull market. It also risks tightening the oil market considerably as the election approaches. Can Iran’s Regime Withstand The Sanctions? Iran’s economic weakness was an added inducement for the Trump administration to take an aggressive turn. The sanctions against Iran’s crude oil exports have not yet been implemented in full force, but the economy is already showing signs of distress. For one, inflation is back near 40% – levels only reached during the previous round of sanctions (Chart 10). Given that food, beverages, and transportation are among the sectors experiencing the fastest growing prices, lower income groups – which the World Bank estimates spend almost half their income on food alone – will suffer disproportionately. Economic dissatisfaction has catalyzed protests in Iran in the past, and the squeeze from the U.S. sanctions could propel further unrest. Chart 10Iran's Economy Already Showing Signs Of Distress Moreover, soaring prices are coinciding with a slowdown in activity and consumption. On the surface Iran appears relatively well protected given that its economy is not as directly correlated with oil exports as some of its peers (Chart 11). However, Iran’s oil and non-oil sectors are actually closely intertwined. This is evident from weakness in the non-oil sector during the previous round of sanctions (Chart 12). The IMF expects the economy to contract by 6% this year – faster than its 3.9% estimate for last year – leaving Iranians to face a period of deepening stagflation. The jump in consumer prices is a reflection of the ongoing collapse of the currency. Despite the government’s best efforts to stabilize the foreign exchange market, heightened demand for foreign currencies caused a nearly 30% depreciation in the unofficial exchange rate vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar since the beginning of the year (Chart 13). Chart 13Unofficial Exchange Rate Continues To Weaken Chart 14Debt Burden Is Manageable To soften the impact of the weaker currency and the potential shortage of essential goods, authorities have introduced a three-tier exchange rate system, and banned the export of several products including grains and seeds, powdered milk, butter, and tea. Since the level of external debt remains manageable (Chart 14) the weak currency will pressure the economy through its impact on prices (highlighted above), with imported inflation eroding purchasing power. Furthermore, Iran will not benefit from any additional export competitiveness due to currency depreciation. The current account surplus is expected to deteriorate and eventually flip to a deficit amidst weak exports, and despite declining imports (Chart 15). The fact that Iran runs a non-energy trade deficit does not help. Chart 15Trade Surplus At Risk Chart 16Rising Budget Deficit Is A Constraint In terms of the fiscal purse, under normal circumstances, a weaker rial would raise government revenue from oil exports. However, given the restrictions on oil exports, the fiscal budget will not benefit from this relationship. Instead, the dominant impact will be greater government spending. Historically, expenditures tend to be countercyclical, aiming to mitigate the impact of the deteriorating economic environment on Iranian households (Chart 16). In the past, the Iranian government’s healthy fiscal balance allowed policymakers to implement social protection schemes to combat poverty and revitalize the economy. Now, however, the fiscal coffers are no longer so well-cushioned and the deficit will constrain this option. Stimulative fiscal policy in this environment would only raise inflation further. Furthermore, given that the lion’s share of Iran’s imports are capital and intermediate goods, the currency depreciation will spill over into the domestic industry and weaken demand, even for domestically produced goods. Investments have been lacking in many of the most essential services. The electricity sector is a prime example: while demand is rising, spare capacity is dwindling and causing recurring outages. Similarly, foreign direct investment will likely fall in this uncertain political environment. With the economy on the brink, Iran is not in a position to confront the United States directly. It must take total sanctions enforcement as a very grave risk and seek delaying actions and negotiations. However, this vulnerability will turn into desperation if the Trump administration proceeds with a full embargo without any “off ramp” for negotiations. Bottom Line: Full enforcement of sanctions threatens to destabilize Iran’s already vulnerable economy. Inflation is soaring, the currency is plunging, and the economy will likely be plagued by a twin deficit going forward. The implication is that Iran will eschew direct confrontation unless forced. Will Iran Retaliate In Iraq? Iran is also at risk of losing one of its great sources of leverage: Iraqi stability. Given its gloomy economic outlook, Iran is looking to expand ties with its neighbors in an attempt to soften the blow from the sanctions. Earlier this year president Hassan Rouhani and Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi signed several preliminary trade deals, with the ultimate aim to boost bilateral trade to $20 billion from its current ~$12 billion. However, natural gas exports to Iraq – a major traded good – are covered by the sanctions, so this target is probably unattainable. Although Iran is currently the only foreign supplier of natural gas and electricity to Iraq, the temporary halt in electricity supplies last summer coincided with violent protests in Southern Iraq.5 Growing anger over Iran’s inability to satisfy its commitments to Iraq highlights the tensions in the Iraq-Iran relationship. What’s more, the U.S. is pressuring Iraq to turn to other neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait for its electricity needs.6 In March, it renewed a three-month waiver allowing Iraq to import Iranian gas. Then Saudi Arabia promised to connect Iraq to the Saudi electricity grid during a visit by its economic delegation to Baghdad on April 4.7 At that meeting, the Saudi delegation also agreed to provide Iraq with $1 billion in loans, $500 million to boost exports, and a sporting complex as a gift. Additionally, the Saudi consulate in Baghdad – which had been closed for almost 3 decades – reopened last month. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are starting to cooperate. Iraq’s new government is clearly taking a pragmatic approach to its regional relationships. This is also largely in line with growing domestic opposition to Iranian interference within Iraq. Influential Shia leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani have been voicing concerns about Iran’s influence in Iraqi politics. As such, the new Iraqi government is attempting to walk a tight rope between placating Iran and taking advantage of new opportunities with its Arab neighbors to rebuild its economy. This trend raises the risk that Iran will strike rapidly in Iraq if it believes Trump’s maximum pressure strategy is succeeding in bringing oil exports to zero. Iraq is the logical target as Iran has great political and sectarian influence there, it is the geographic buffer with Saudi Arabia, and it is the necessary launchpad for Iran’s strategic opponents to undermine or attack the Iranian regime (Map 2). Thus, not only Iranian and Venezuelan oil but also Iraqi oil could be pulled off the market in a fullfledged conflict. Thus, not only Iranian and Venezuelan oil but also Iraqi oil could be pulled off the market in a full-fledged conflict. About 85% of Iraq’s crude exports flow through the southern port city of Basra (Chart 17). It is already home to recurrent protests and any disruptions there threaten around 3.5mm bbl shipping to international markets daily. Bottom Line: Iraq is caught in the strategic tug-of-war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the latter gaining influence at present. Sanctions could compel Iran to retaliate in Iraq, jeopardizing up to 3.5mm b/d of supply. What Comes Next? The latest data suggest that Japan is in full compliance with the U.S. sanctions against Iran as of April and that China has been front-running the sanctions and is now reducing imports, as it was at the time the waivers were first introduced. China may not go to zero, but it is apparently complying. This is important given that the Trump administration has essentially introduced a bold new demand – cut off all energy imports from Iran – at the eleventh hour of the U.S.-China trade negotiations. Our projections of spare capacity suggest that the Trump administration will believe it has room to enforce the sanctions fully (Chart 18). This is a risky approach, as a fairly standard unplanned outage anywhere else in the world could bring spare capacity much lower, but the data suggest that Trump’s team will not see it as a hard constraint. If necessary, the administration can later choose to soft-pedal enforcement on black market activity so as to calibrate the global impact. The Iranians, for their part, are unlikely to leap to the most aggressive forms of retaliation immediately – such as fomenting unrest in Iraq – because of their economic vulnerability. Small acts of sabotage or subversion are a way to send the U.S. a warning signal, but generally Iran will want to signal defiance while shifting the emphasis to negotiations. Hence it will primarily retaliate through diplomatic actions and calculated displays of force. A limited response enables Iran to appear innocent, divide the U.S. and EU, and thus isolate the U.S. over its belligerent policies. Previously, Trump has sought to negotiate with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The Iranians have so far rebuffed him, but Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif’s initial response to the waiver announcement was to blame Trump’s advisers, instead of Trump himself, and offer an exchange of prisoners (And release of detained Americans happen to be one of the Trump administration’s key demands – see Table 2.) Negotiations could begin through back channels and an uneasy period of tensions could thus ensue without a full-blown war. Table 2Trump Administration’s 12 Demands On Iran The problem is that negotiations cannot work if Trump fully and immediately enforces the sanctions without offering Iran an “off ramp.” If the administration backs Iran into a corner it will have no option but to strike out forcefully. Negotiations also cannot work if Iran joins the U.S. in withdrawing from the 2015 deal and reactivating its nuclear program, specifically the suspected military dimensions of that program. This would force Trump to respond (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree In short, a period of “fire and fury” is about to ensue between Trump and Rouhani. It will be even more uncertain and disruptive than the summer 2017 showdown between Trump and Kim Jong Un of North Korea (Chart 19), which drove a 35 bps decline in the 10-year Treasury yield. Chart 19Upcoming "Fire And Fury" Will Be More Disruptive Than 2017 Trump-Kim Showdown There is a pathway for Trump’s pressure tactics to succeed: Iran is vulnerable and the United States and its allies are in a position of relative strength in terms of global oil supply. Therefore, it is possible that Trump could fully enforce the sanctions and yet avoid any uncontrollable crisis or oil shock. However, this pathway, at a subjective 26% probability, is less likely than the combined 48% probability of the alternatives: either escalation short of war, or ultimatums leading to Middle Eastern instability and much higher odds of war. Bottom Line: The geopolitical risk of U.S.-Iran confrontation is not contained. But we do not expect Iran to overreact unless Trump plows forward with full and immediate sanctions enforcement and offers no realistic “off ramp” for negotiations. At that point Iranian retaliation will be concrete and escalation could spiral out of control. Investors should keep in mind that Iran is not North Korea. Unlike the hermit kingdom, Iran has the ability to retaliate with a number of different levers. Indeed, it has threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz in the past, and could, at the limit, be backed into that corner. While the risk of this is extremely low, should it occur the consequences would be huge – close to 20% of the world’s daily oil supply passes through the Strait daily. Indeed, just this week Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh again threatened to take action against any OPEC member working against its interests. Following a meeting with the Cartel’s president, he is reported to have said, “Iran is a member of OPEC because of its interests, and if other members of OPEC seek to threaten Iran or endanger its interests, Iran will not remain silent.”8 Investment Conclusions The Trump administration’s decision to apply maximum pressure to Iran is a significant and unexpected injection of geopolitical risk that we believe fundamentally changes the investment landscape in 2019-20. While our base case is that the U.S. will enforce the oil sanctions gradually and in such a way as to avoid causing an oil shock, policy-induced volatility and the oil risk premium will rise. Geopolitical tail risks have gotten fatter and the odds of a recession have also increased. Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Humeyra Pamuk and Timothy Gardner, “How Trump’s hawkish advisors won debate on Iran oil sanctions,” Reuters, May 1, 2019, available at reuters.com. 2 Heavy-sour crudes are those with low API gravity (a measure of how easily a crude flows) and higher sulfur content. Light-sweet crudes have higher API gravity and lower sulfur content. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “IMO 2020: The Greening Of The Ship-Fuel Market,” February 28, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia, which was formed in 2016 to manage global crude oil output. Its goal is to drain the massive storage overhang caused by the market-share war launched by KSA in 2014. 5 Iran cited dissatisfaction with Iraq over the accumulation of unpaid bills as the cause of the halt in electricity exports to Iraq. This prompted Iraqi authorities – under pressure from domestic unrest – to send a delegation to Saudi Arabia in attempt to negotiate an electricity agreement. 6 Please see Edward Wong, “Trump Pushes Iraq to Stop Buying Energy From Iran,” The New York Times, February 11, 2019, available at nytimes.com. 7 Please see Geneive Abdo and Firas Maksad, “Iraq’s Place in the Saudi Arabian-Iranian Rivalry,” The National Interest, April 15, 2019, available at nationalinterest.org. 8 Please see Babk Dehghanpisheh, “Iran will respond if OPEC members threaten its interests: oil minister,” Reuters, May 2, 2019, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Feature What Could Sour The Sweet Spot? This continues to look like a very benevolent environment for risk assets. Growth in the U.S. remains decent, with Q1 GDP growth beating expectations at 3.2% QoQ annualized (albeit somewhat distorted by rising inventories). Leading indicators point to U.S. GDP growth of around 2.5% for 2019. The rest of the world is showing the first “green shoots” of economic recovery. China continues to expand credit, and the effects of this are starting to stabilize growth in Europe, Japan, and the Emerging Markets (Chart 1). Recommended Allocation Chart 1China Reflation Helping Growth To Bottom At the same time, central banks everywhere have turned accommodative. Following the Fed’s dovish shift late last year, the market has priced in rate cuts by end-2019. The ECB is about to relaunch its TLTRO funding program, and is expected to keep rates in negative territory for at least another year (Chart 2) – though there are worries whether Mario Draghi’s successor as ECB president might be more hawkish. The Bank of Canada and Bank of Japan, among others, have recently reemphasized monetary caution. Chart 2No Rate Hikes Anywhere Chart 3Term Premium Keeping Down Yields This goes some way to explain the biggest puzzle in markets currently: why, despite global equities being less than 1% below a record high, long-term interest rates remain so low, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 2.5%, and yields in Germany and Japan hovering around zero. There are other explanations too. A decomposition of the U.S. 10-year yield shows that most of the downward pressure has come from a sharp drop in the term premium (Chart 3). This is partly because lousy growth in other developed economies, such as Germany and Japan, has pushed down yields in these countries and, given that spreads to the U.S. were at record highs, depressed U.S. rates too. It also reflects a lingering pessimism among investors who bought Treasuries at the end of last year to hedge against recession and who remain concerned about the economy. This is evidenced by continuing strong flows into bond funds in 2019 (Chart 4). A decomposition of the U.S. 10-year yield shows that most of the downward pressure has come from a sharp drop in the term premium. Chart 4Investors Buying Bonds, Not Equities Chart 5Why Has Inflation Fallen? A further explanation is the recent softness in inflation, with the Fed’s focus measure, core PCE inflation, slowing to an annual rate of only 0.7% over the past three months (Chart 5). This is probably mostly due to the economic slowdown late last year. But it may also have structural causes: the recent improvement in labor productivity can perhaps allow wages to rise without feeding through into consumer price inflation (Chart 6). Chart 6Maybe Because Of Better Productivity Chart 7Indicators Suggest Inflation Will Still Trend Up How is this all likely to pan out?  We think it improbable that inflation will stay low for long if growth is as robust as we expect. Leading indicators of inflation continue to suggest prices will trend higher (Chart 7). The Fed may not rush to raise rates (not least since, with the lower inflation recently, the Fed Funds Rate in real terms is now at neutral according to the Laubach-Williams model, Chart 8). But we also find it inconceivable that the Fed will cut rates, if growth remains strong, stocks continue to rise, and global risks recede. By the end of this year, it should be able to make a renewed case for a further hike. But even if it doesn’t do that – and permits either inflation to overheat for a while, or asset bubbles to form – these scenarios should be more conducive to equity outperformance, than bond outperformance. Global equities have already risen by 22% since last December’s low and may struggle to make rapid progress over the next few months. The key to further upside for stocks will be earnings: since analysts have cut EPS forecasts for S&P 500 companies for this year to only 4%, those expectations should not be hard to beat. In the Q1 earnings season, for instance, 79% of companies have so far come in ahead of the consensus EPS forecast. For global asset allocators, the key decision is always at the asset-class level. Will equities outperform bonds over the coming 12 months? Equities should have further upside if our macro scenario proves correct. On the other hand, we find it hard to imagine that global bond yields will not rise moderately if global growth recovers, the Fed refrains from cutting rates, inflation rises somewhat, and investors turn less wary of equities. We continue, therefore, to expect the stock-to-bond ratio (Chart 9) to rise further over the next 12 months. We think it improbable that inflation will stay low for long if growth is as robust as we expect. Chart 8Is Fed Now At Neutral? Chart 9Stock-To-Bond Ratio Can Rise Further   Chart 10Europe And EM Outperform Only Briefly Equities: We remain overweight global equities, but are reluctant to take higher beta country exposure until there is greater clarity on the bottoming out of ex-U.S. growth. Moreover, the structural headwinds that have prevented anything more than short-term outperformance for eurozone stocks (banking sector weakness) and Emerging Markets (excess debt and poor productivity) since 2010 remain powerful negative factors (Chart 10). Our moderately pro-cyclical sector recommendations (overweight energy and industrials) should hedge us against upside risk emanating from a strong rebound in Chinese imports. Fixed Income: Over the past few years, periods where equities have decoupled from bond yields have been resolved with bond yields playing catch-up (Chart 11). We expect the same to happen over the next few months, with global government bond yields rising moderately. The risk-on environment continues to be positive for credit. We prefer credit to government bonds within fixed income, but are only neutral within our overall recommended portfolio. U.S. high-yield bonds in particular look attractively valued, as long as growth continues and default rates don’t start to rise too much (Chart 12). Chart 11When Bonds And Equities Diverge… Chart 12Junk Bonds Attractively Valued Currencies: A pick-up in global growth would be negative for the U.S. dollar, typically a counter-cyclical currency (Chart 13). BCA’s currency strategists have slowly been moving towards a more positive stance on some currencies versus the dollar, particularly the euro and Australian dollar. We would expect to see the trade-weighted dollar start to depreciate in H2 once global growth accelerates, fueled by the very skewed long-dollar positioning currently. However, this may be only a six- to 12-month move, since growth and interest-rate differentials suggest that the structural dollar bull market that began in 2012 has not yet fully run its course. Commodities: Oil remains dominated by supply-side dynamics. How much the ending of waivers on Iranian oil sanctions, plus troubles in Venezuela and Libya, push up oil prices will depend on whether President Trump can persuade Saudi Arabia and UAE to increase production. BCA’s energy team expects he will be only partially successful in doing so, and see Brent reaching $80 a barrel and WTI $77 (from $72 and $64 currently) during 2019. Industrial commodities prices will depend on the strength and nature of China’s reflation: our commodities strategists see copper, the most sensitive metal to Chinese demand, as the best way to play this.1 Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Chart 13Stronger Growth Would Be Dollar Negative   Footnotes 1       Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Copper Will Benefit Most From Chinese Stimulus,” dated April 25, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights Oil & Bond Yields: Global growth indicators are starting to rebound, risk assets have returned to previous cyclical highs, and oil prices remain buoyant. This is a combination that will eventually result in rising global bond yields, but more through higher inflation expectations that will bear-steepen yield curves. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration, but enter new reflationary trades in core Europe (long inflation breakevens) and Australia (yield curve steepeners). EM vs DM Credit: Signs of a pickup in Chinese growth will be more supportive for growth in EM economies. Hedging against an extended downturn in China is no longer needed. Upgrade EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral (3 of 5), at the expense of a smaller overweight position in U.S. investment grade corporates. Feature Chart of the WeekA Consistent Message On Rebounding Growth Evidence is starting to point to a bottoming in global economic momentum. Credit growth has notably picked up in China, global leading economic indicators are stabilizing and sentiment measures like our Duration Indicator have started to climb (Chart of the Week). While it is still early in this reflation process, the leading data is now moving in a direction that bodes well for continued gains in global equities and growth-sensitive spread product. The sharp rallies across risk assets seen so far this year have merely retraced the stinging losses incurred in the final months of 2018. Those moves were fueled by a combination of slowing global growth and overly hawkish central bankers. Now that policymakers have “course corrected” towards dovishness, led by the Fed’s 180-degree turn on the outlook for rate hikes in 2019 that drove U.S. Treasury yields lower, the next leg of the risk rally can begin, led by improving global growth. At some point, looser financial conditions – higher equity prices, tighter credit spreads and lower market volatility – will require global central bankers to retreat from dovish forward guidance (Chart 2). Policymakers who have been focused on sluggish global growth, “persistent uncertainty” (as ECB President Mario Draghi has described it), and falling inflation expectations will eventually have to adjust their policy bias once those factors reverse. On that front, the combination of improving global growth, rising oil prices and an increasingly likely U.S.-China trade deal will help boost global bond yields through rising inflation expectations first and higher interest rate expectations later (Chart 3). Chart 2A Full Unwind Of Late-2018 Moves...Except For Inflation Chart 3Get Ready For A Bond-Bearish Turn In Growth We continue to recommend a high-level fixed income portfolio construction that will benefit from these trends: below-benchmark on overall duration exposure with overweights on global corporate debt versus government bonds. We also see a case to selectively position for steeper yield curves and higher inflation expectations in countries more sensitive to higher oil prices and where central banks will be less hawkish/more dovish. Most importantly, we no longer see a need to maintain a defensive underweight in emerging market (EM) hard currency spread product, as we discuss later in this report. Yes, Oil Prices Still Matter For Bond Yields Global oil prices hit a new 2019 high last week on news that the Trump administration was letting waivers expire on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil exports. Coming on top of the lost output from Venezuela, increased tensions in Libya and persistent production discipline from the major oil players (OPEC, the so-called “OPEC 2.0” of Russia and Saudi Arabia, and even U.S. shale producers), a boost to global oil demand from faster global growth is likely to result in even higher oil prices in the next 6-9 months. The combination of improving global growth, rising oil prices and an increasingly likely U.S.-China trade deal will help boost global bond yields. Our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy remain steadfast bulls on oil prices, with a year-end price target of $80/bbl on the Brent crude benchmark. They view the supply constraints as large and persistent enough to cause oil prices to continue rising alongside firmer global demand. Our most optimistic forward-looking growth indicator, the diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, is now calling for a sharp rebound in cyclical data like the global manufacturing PMI in the latter half of 2019. A move back to the 55-60 range for the global PMI, which the diffusion indicator is pointing towards (Chart 4, bottom panel), would be consistent with the +50% year-over-year growth rates in oil prices implied by BCA’s bullish oil forecasts (middle panel). Chart 4The 2019 Oil Rally Is Not Over Yet Over the past several years, there has been a strong correlation between oil prices and government bond yields in most developed economies (Chart 5). Since the most recent bottom in global yields back on March 27, that behavior has persisted. Longer-term bond yields have risen more than shorter-dated yields, alongside higher inflation expectations further out the yield curve (Table 1). Chart 5Inflation Expectations Still Driving Bond Yields Such “bear-steepenings” do not usually last for long periods of time. Inflation targeting central banks typically look at the reflationary implications of higher oil prices – faster economic growth with more future inflation as energy costs seep into core inflation measures – as a sign to maintain a more hawkish bias for monetary policy. That is not the case today, though, as data dependent central bankers have been more focused on past soft readings on both growth and inflation momentum. This should support a growth-driven rise in global oil prices in the coming months, as policymakers will be reluctant to alter the current dovish guidance without signs of both faster growth and higher realized inflation. Within the major developed markets, the recent correlations between oil prices (in local currency terms) and inflation expectations have been weakest in regions where central banks are most likely to keep policy interest rates stable. In the euro area, Japan and Australia – where core inflation rates are well below central bank targets and money markets are discounting flat-to-lower interest rate expectations over the next 1-2 years – market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap rates have diverged from the rising path of local-currency denominated oil prices (Chart 6). In the U.S. and Canada, which have only recently paused their rate hike cycles, the correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations has been a bit more in line with the experience of the past several years. The same goes for the U.K., although inflation expectations there seem more driven by currency weakness stemming from the Brexit uncertainty rather than a central bank that is perceived to be too hawkish (even though the Bank of England only recently shifted away from its past language signaling a desire to start normalizing very low interest rates). Table 1A Reflationary Bear-Steepening Of Yield Curves Since Yields Troughed In March Correlations between longer-term inflation expectations and the slopes of government bond yield curves have also become less consistent across countries (Chart 7). In particular, 2-year/10-year yield curves been more positively correlated to inflation expectations in the euro zone, Australia and even Japan (where the BoJ is actively targeting the yield curve) than in the U.S., U.K. and Canada. Chart 6Higher Oil, Higher Inflation Expectations Chart 7Position For Reflationary Yield Curve Steepening Given BCA’s bullish oil forecast, we recommend positioning for higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves in selected countries based on the above correlations. We are already doing this in the U.S., where we are running a long position in U.S. 10-year TIPS breakevens. This week, we are entering the following new positions in our Tactical Trade portfolio (see page 15): Long 10-year CPI swaps (or inflation-linked bonds versus nominal debt) in Germany A 2-year/10-year government bond curve steepener in Australia We are not confident enough about the growth outlook in Canada and Japan, and the political outlook in the U.K., to recommend inflation-focused trades in those markets at the present time. We recommend positioning for higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves in selected countries. Bottom Line: Global growth indicators are starting to rebound, risk assets have returned to previous cyclical highs, and oil prices remain buoyant. This is a combination that will eventually result in rising developed market global bond yields, but more through higher inflation expectations that will bear-steepen yield curves. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration, but enter new reflationary trades in core Europe (long inflation breakevens) and Australia (yield curve steepeners). Upgrade EM U.S. Dollar Denominated Debt To Neutral Chart 8A Cyclical Rebound In China Is Underway Back in January, we upgraded our recommended allocation for global corporate debt to overweight, while downgrading developed market government bonds to underweight.1 That decision was in response to the Fed’s dovish turn, which lowered the risk of a monetary policy-induced U.S. recession that spooked investors in late 2018. Yet while a more accommodative Fed meant an extension of the U.S. business cycle expansion, it did not solve the problems of slowing growth elsewhere in the world – most notably in China and Europe. For that reason, we have maintained a preference for U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate debt relative to European and EM spread product, even within an overall overweight recommended allocation to global corporates. In particular, we maintained an outright underweight stance on EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereigns and corporates within our model bond portfolio. That tilt served as a hedge to the risk of persistent softening growth in China – the nation to which EM economies remain most highly levered. It is the pickup in the China credit impulse that is most relevant for EM growth and asset markets. Now, amid signs that Chinese policy stimulus is starting to show up in faster credit growth – a reliable precursor to greater Chinese domestic demand (Chart 8) – that EM hedge to our overweight stance on global corporates is no longer needed. Thus, this week, we are upgrading our recommended exposure on EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral, while reducing the size of our recommended overweight in U.S. investment grade corporates in our model bond portfolio (see the changes on page 14). The broadening rebound in Chinese economic data makes us more confident that growth there has turned the corner (Chart 9): Aggregate government spending is up 15.5% on a year-over-year basis. Infrastructure spending is now starting to grow again after the sharp slowdown seen in 2018. The China manufacturing PMI rose sharply in March, with the surge in the import sub-component of the overall PMI suggesting that domestic demand may be improving. In addition, with all signals pointing to a U.S./China trade deal being signed by the end of May, a major source of uncertainty weighing on the Chinese (and global) economy will soon be lifted. It is the pickup in the China credit impulse that is most relevant for EM growth and asset markets. Over the past decade, the credit impulse has led both the EM (ex-China) manufacturing PMI and annual growth in overall EM corporate earnings by around 9-12 months (Chart 10). The credit impulse bottomed back in October 2018, which means EM growth should begin to improve in the third quarter of 2019. Financial markets will discount that improvement in advance, however, which is why it makes sense to increase EM credit allocations today. Chart 9The Arrows Are Pointing 'Up' For Chinese Growth Chart 10EM Growth Is Highly Dependent On China   As can be seen in the bottom panels of Chart 11 and Chart 12, there is a strong correlation between Chinese credit (as a % of GDP) and the relative performance of EM U.S. dollar denominated spread product versus U.S. investment grade corporates. Our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy recently noted that if the pace of China’s credit expansion seen in Q1 were to be maintained over the rest of 2019, this would imply a credit overshoot beyond the stated medium-term goal of Chinese policymakers to avoid significant further increases in leverage.2 Such additional stimulus would very beneficial for EM growth (via strong Chinese import demand), supporting continued EM credit market outperformance. Chart 11Upgrade EM USD Sovereigns Vs U.S. IG Corporates Chart 12Upgrade EM USD Corporates Vs U.S. IG Corporates By moving our EM credit allocation only to neutral, we are merely responding to the pickup in Chinese credit growth seen over the past several months. The increasingly positive cyclical story is not yet bullish enough to justify a full-blown overweight stance on EM credit, however, for several reasons: Past periods of EM credit market outperformance have typically occurred during periods of U.S. dollar weakness. Chart 13A Weaker USD Is Good For EM Markets The amount of policy stimulus likely to be delivered in China in 2019 will be more limited than in past cycles, given policymakers’ concerns over high Chinese debt levels and excess industrial capacity. A U.S.-China trade deal may not involve the swift reduction in U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, if the White House chooses to use tariffs as the mechanism to ensure Chinese compliance with the terms of an agreement. “Hard data” in China that measures private sector spending (retail sales, autos sales, etc.) has yet to bottom, which may indicate that the improvement seen in the credit aggregates and survey data like the manufacturing PMI is overstating the growth rebound. The U.S. dollar remains firm, and past periods of EM credit market outperformance have typically occurred during periods of dollar weakness (Chart 13). We do anticipate moving to an overweight position sometime in the next several weeks, after getting more Chinese economic data to confirm the improvement seen in March. This also lines up with the timetable for a potential trade deal, the details of which will be critical for boosting investor sentiment towards assets sensitive to Chinese demand, like EM credit. We will also look for signs of the U.S. dollar breaking to the downside to confirm any decision to upgrade EM credit. One final point – we are only reducing our recommended overweight on U.S. investment grade credit in our model bond portfolio as part of this EM upgrade. We are leaving our U.S. high-yield credit overweights untouched, as U.S. investment grade is much closer to the spread targets laid out by our colleagues at BCA U.S. Bond Strategy than U.S. high-yield. Bottom Line: Signs of a pickup in Chinese growth will be more supportive for growth in EM economies. Hedging against an extended downturn in China is no longer needed. Upgrade EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral (3 of 5), at the expense of a smaller overweight position in U.S. investment grade corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “In The Wake Of An Upgrade: An Investment Strategy Post-Mortem”, dated April 17th, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns