Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights The political economy of oil will become even more complicated, following remarks by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov over the weekend, which suggested policymakers there are considering another market-share war to crash prices to limit the growth of U.S. shales. The logic appears to be that by abandoning OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal and pushing Brent prices below $40/bbl once again for a year or so, Russia will severely reduce investment flow to the U.S. shale-oil patch, allowing it to retake global market share ceded mostly to Texas oil producers.1 The threat of a market-share war was proffered on top of stepped-up rhetoric by senior government officials – ranging from Igor Sechin, head of state-owned Rosneft Oil, to Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) – indicating Russia will be pushing for higher production by OPEC 2.0 in 2H19 at the coalition’s upcoming June meeting. We agree with this assessment: The market will require OPEC 2.0 to lift production in 2H19, given our assessment of supply-demand balances. In our estimation, OPEC 2.0’s position has been strengthened considerably by policy-induced disruptions to the oil market.2 As such, we believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint, particularly since Russia has benefited greatly from higher prices (see below). Our balances and price forecasts this month are largely unchanged (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl. WTI will trade $7 and $5/bbl lower (Chart 2). The balance of price risk has shifted slightly to the left side of the distribution, driven by policy risk and potential miscalculation by the dramatis personae on the international stage, chiefly leaders in the U.S., Russia and China. Chart of the WeekMarkets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Markets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Markets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Chart 2...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts ...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts ...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts Highlights Energy: Overweight. Tensions in Libya could keep ~ 300k b/d of supply from reaching global markets via its Zawiya port near Tripoli. We closed our long June 2019 $70/bbl vs. short $75/bbl call spread last Thursday with a gain of 87.7%.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s latest credit data confirms our view the country’s credit cycle bottomed earlier this year: March Total Social Financing (TSF) increased CNY 2.8 trillion month-on-month vs. consensus expectation of CNY 1.7 trillion. This will support base metals in the coming months. We continue to expect Chinese authorities to expand credit in 2H19.Our long copper trade is up 0.7% since inception on March 7, 2019. We are closing out our tactical iron-ore trade – long 65% Fe vs. short 62% Fe at tonight’s close; it was up 22.9% at Monday’s close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell 4% from its February high on easing inflation concerns and as fears of an equity correction subsided. March U.S. PCE ex-food and -energy dropped to 1.79% yoy from 1.95% in February, while global equities rose 14% YTD. Our long gold recommendation is down 2.4% since last week, but is still up 3.6% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. U.S. corn and wheat farmers are behind schedule in their spring planting, according to USDA data. The top four American corn-producing states had not started planting by last week, while spring and winter wheat producing states are 11% and 3% behind schedule, mostly due to weather conditions. While delays in planting are always cause for concern, we are still early in the planting season, which gives farmers time to catch up. Feature Policy uncertainty vis-à-vis global oil supply was elevated by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov’s comments indicating policymakers are considering reviving an oil market-share war directed at U.S. shale-oil producers. Siluanov said prices could fall to $40/bbl or less, in the event. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now His remarks come on the back of statements from Russian government and oil company officials lobbying for higher output. These comments suggest there is a heavyweight Russian contingent fully supporting these demands for OPEC 2.0 to increase production in 2H19 when it meets in June. Otherwise, the threat implies, Russia will seriously consider leaving OPEC 2.0, and will launch its own market-share war against U.S. shale-oil production, led by the fast-growing Permian Basin in Texas. Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now – nicely above $70/bbl in the Brent market. He also wants to maintain cooperation with OPEC 2.0, particularly its other putative leader, KSA. We continue to believe, however, KSA and Russia become less comfortable with Brent prices moving sharply above $80/bbl.4 Nonetheless, the threat posed by the U.S. shales is non-trivial: In our latest balances estimates, we raised our 2H19 U.S. output estimates to 12.53mm b/d, and slightly decreased our 2020 estimates to 13.35mm b/d”, led by a 1.17mm b/d and 0.84mm b/d increase in shale output this year and next (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales And GOM U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales And GOM However, Russia – and OPEC 2.0 generally – may be overestimating the rate of growth from U.S. shales going forward: In future research, we will be exploring the extent to which capital markets will restrain growth in the U.S. shales, as investors continue to demand higher returns. The days of growing shale production at any cost may be coming to an end. Russia’s Threat Is A Feint We believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint: A market-share war would damage the Rodina’s economy more than the balance sheets of U.S. shale producers, particularly those that hedge the first year or two of their production. The threat needs to be understood in the context of the deterioration of Russia’s position in Venezuela; the increasing tempo of U.S. military operations in its near abroad; and rapidly evolving global oil and gas trade flows, all of which are working against Russian interests and investments.5 The threat appears to be a not-too-subtle reminder of the havoc Russia still can create globally, should it choose to do so, as Vladimir Rouvinski noted recently re Russia’s Venezuela policy.6 Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. Russia’s GDP elasticity to oil prices is more than twice that of KSA’s, which we demonstrated last week.7 This means, from an economic standpoint, it benefits more from higher prices than the Kingdom, based on our modeling. Russia’s oil is exported to refiners and trading companies who pay whatever price is clearing the market, versus KSA, which relies more on direct investments in end-use markets to serve captive demand, and whose GDP has a higher sensitivity to EM economic growth. Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. The coalition’s production-cutting deal this year has reduced global supplies by 1.0mm b/d since the beginning of the year, lifting price from below $50/bbl to more than $70/bbl, in line with our forecast. These production cuts have been supported by strong global demand this year this, which, we expect, will persist in 2020. Of course, Russia could abandon the production-cutting deal with KSA, in the hope of severely reducing investment in U.S. shale-oil production. However, it also would accelerate the loss of foreign direct investment (FDI) in its own hydrocarbons sector, along with those of other OPEC 2.0 member states (Chart 4). Bottom Line: A Russian market-share war aimed at U.S. shale producers would run the very real risk of tanking Russia’s GDP and those of the rest of OPEC 2.0’s member states, as these economies lack the resilience and diversification of the U.S.’s GDP, particularly Texas’s. Even if its fiscal balances are in better shape now, Russia’s economy remains highly sensitive to Brent crude oil prices – moreso than KSA’s, and far moreso the U.S.’s (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Chart 5Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices BCA’s Balances Mostly Unchanged Our updated balances reflect the lower Venezuelan and Iranian output reported by OPEC’s survey of secondary sources (Table 1). As we have noted previously, we believe OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is sufficient to cover the loss of Venezuelan output, and the limited losses on Iranian exports imposed by U.S. sanctions (Chart 6). Beyond that, however, the market will be severely stretched if an unplanned outage removes significant production from global supply. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Russia Posits Oil Market-Share War: Red Herring Or Real Threat? Russia Posits Oil Market-Share War: Red Herring Or Real Threat? On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC and Russia to lift supply in 2H19, following the successful draining of global inventories (Chart 7). We expect OPEC ex-Iran, Libya and Venezuela, led by KSA, will lift 2H19 supply by ~ 400k b/d vs. 1H19 levels, while we expect Russia’s output to rise 200k b/d. Chart 6 Chart 7Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by the renewed easing of monetary policy globally, which will redound to the benefit of EM demand, which also will benefit from the bottoming of China’s credit cycle. Indeed, the EIA added 130k b/d to its estimate of non-OECD demand for this year, on the back of stronger expected growth. We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, with EM growth accounting for 1.1mm b/d of growth this year and 1.3mm b/d next year. In levels, global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. Waivers On U.S. Iran Sanctions Will Be Extended We continue to expect waivers on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil imports will be extended on May 2, owing to the still-tight supply conditions globally with Venezuela output collapsing and ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian oil already forced off the market. This has, as we’ve noted in our discussions of the New Political Economy of oil, strengthened OPEC 2.0’s hand. This will become apparent when the coalition meets in June to consider whether to increase production in 2H19, in line with our expectation. KSA, Russia and OPEC 2.0 member states will have sufficient data on hand to determine whether and by how much to lift output, in a manner that supports their GDPs. Indeed, on Wednesday, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said, “We should do what is more expedient for us.”9 KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not. We also expect U.S. President Donald Trump to try to jawbone OPEC 2.0 into increasing production again, as he did in 2H18. However, we expect those demands to fall on deaf ears, unless fundamental supply dislocations warrant such action. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s strategy is working – it will have maximum flexibility re how it handles its production in 2H19, following the U.S. decision on waivers to its Iran oil-export sanctions on May 2. As we noted last month, KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/Non-OPEC oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It agreed in November to remove 1.2mm b/d off the market, in order to balance global supply and demand and reduce inventories.  Please see “Russia, OPEC may ditch oil deal to fight for market share: Russian minister,” published April 13, 2019, for a re-cap of Siluanov’s remarks. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019; and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’s Price Fulcrum,” published March 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “Oil steadies as market focuses on supply risks,” published April 15 2019 by reuters.com 4      Please see “Putin Says No Imminent Decision on Oil Output Cuts,” published April 10, 2019, by The Moscow Times. 5      Please see for example, “Pentagon developing military options to deter Russian, Chinese influence in Venezuela,” published by cnn.com April 15, 2019; “Destroyer USS Ross Enters Black Sea, Fourth U.S. Warship Since 2019,” published by news.usni.org April 15, 2019; and “U.S. LNG exports pick up, with Europe a major buyer,” published by reuters.com March 7, 2019. 6      Please see “Russian-Venezuelan Relations at a Crossroads” by Vladimir Rouvinski, published by the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute in its February Latin American digest. 7      Please see “Sussing Out OPEC 2.0’s Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy April 11, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8      We discuss the impact of higher oil prices on Russia’s economy in last week’s report, which is cited in footnote 6 above.  Russia’s GDP in 2017 was ~ U.S. $1.6 trillion, according to the World Bank, while the GDP of Texas was ~ $1.7 trillion, American Enterprise Institute. 9      Please see “Russia’s Novak: early to speak about options for oil output deal,” published reuters.com April 17, 2019. 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 Image

Takeout Premiums Are Back In E&P Takeout Premiums Are Back In E&P Overweight The S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) index received a much needed boost last week when the blockbuster acquisition of Anadarko by Chevron (at a 37% premium to the stock’s previous close) was announced, triggering a wave of M&A premia being added to stocks in the index. This valuation lift looks reasonably well deserved in our opinion, considering the degree to which the integrated oil majors are moving in to shale gas plays with a focus on the Permian basin. A narrowing of junk bond spreads is confirming the resurgent optimism in the sector (second panel). Our investment thesis is based on our sister publication, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, and their bullish WTI view, which is the fundamental growth driver in the sector (WTI shown advanced six months, bottom panel). We continue to expect a recovering energy price to drive a reversal of the recent moderation in oil & gas production, delivering a double dose of growth and margin improvement, goosing sector earnings and share prices. Bottom Line: We reiterate our overweight recommendation on the S&P oil & gas E&P index and our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the broader S&P energy index that we added this week.1 The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, CXO, HES, FANG, DVN, MRO, APA, NBL, COG, XEC.   1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “ Show Me The Profits” dated April 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Yield curve dynamics, higher oil prices, recovering balance sheets, and compelling valuations and technicals all suggest that energy stocks will burst higher in the coming months.  Melting medical cost inflation, BCA’s rising interest rate expectations along with an economy running at full steam, all suggest that managed health care margins and profits will overwhelm in the coming quarters. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P managed health care index to overweight today. Add the S&P energy index to the high-conviction overweight list today. Table 1 Show Me The Profits Show Me The Profits Feature On the eve of earnings season, the SPX ended last week higher as bank profits delivered and allayed fears of recession. All-time absolute highs in the S&P tech sector and in the Philly SOX index suggest that global growth will likely reaccelerate in the back half of the year, vaulting the broad market to new highs. In addition, the suppressed Treasury term premium1 signals that the path of least resistance for equities is higher on a cyclical time horizon (term premium shown inverted, Chart 1). Chart 1All Clear... All Clear... All Clear... Nevertheless, some caution is still warranted from a tactical perspective. Since March 4 when we first turned short-term cautious on the broad equity market,2 the SPX has moved roughly 100 points both ways. Internal market moves, financial conditions, fund flows, complacency and the current economic backdrop all signal that stocks are not out of the woods yet. Namely, the S&P high beta versus the S&P low volatility tilt has failed to confirm the slingshot in the SPX (Chart 2). Similar to the small cap underperformance, mega cap tech is trouncing small cap tech stocks (Chart 3). Not only do large cap technology stocks have pristine balance sheets, but they also have earnings. In contrast, from the 89 S&P 600 tech constituents 54 have no forward profits. The weak over strong balance sheet underperformance is emitting the same signal (top panel, Chart 3). Chart 2...But Some... ...But Some... ...But Some... Chart 3...Caution... ...Caution... ...Caution... The bond market is also sending a warning shot. High yield corporate bonds are underperforming long-dated Treasurys (middle panel, Chart 2). And, the junk bond option adjusted spread has not fallen to the 2018 lows, let alone all-time lows (not shown). While a lot has been said on easier financial conditions, they have yet to return to the early-2018 lows. In fact, similar to the non-confirmation of the all-time SPX highs in late-September, the GS financial conditions index (FCI) is tracing a higher low, warning that equities have room to fall (FCI shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2). Mutual fund flows on all equity related products are contracting on a net sales basis. Historically, fund flows and equity returns are joined at the hip and the current divergence suggests that equity prices will likely succumb to deficient demand (top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4...Is Warranted ...Is Warranted ...Is Warranted On the economic front, last Wednesday we highlighted in an Insight Report, that lumber – a hyper sensitive economic indicator – failed to corroborate the recent equity market euphoria. The weak Citi Economic Surprise Index, also warns that the economic data has yet to turn the corner and should weigh on equities (bottom panel, Chart 4). What ties everything together is SPX profits. The news on this front is mixed, at least for the next little while: EPS will most likely contract in the first half of the year, but equity investors are looking through this earnings recession. Last year’s U.S. dollar appreciation will dent both revenues and EPS, and Q1/2019 is the first quarter where such greenback strength will subtract from corporate P&Ls (Chart 5). Chart 5Dollar Trouble? Dollar Trouble? Dollar Trouble? What worries us most is the sectorial concentration of 2019 profit growth in one sector, financials. Another source of concern is the heavyweight tech sector’s negative profit path for calendar 2019. Such sudden internal profit moves both in magnitude and in a short time frame are far from reassuring, especially given that overall profit estimates are still trimmed. Chart 6A depicts the current sector profit contribution to 2019 growth, and compares it with the January 22nd iteration (Chart 6B). What a difference three months make. Chart 6 Chart 6 In sum, internal equity and bond market dynamics, financial conditions, the economic soft-patch and the looming profit recession all signal that short-term equity market caution is still warranted. This week we upgrade a health care subsector and reiterate our bullish stance on a deep cyclical sector. Catch Up Phase Looms For Energy Stocks Last week we broadened out our research on the yield curve (YC) inversion beyond the S&P 500 to the GICS1 sectors.3 As a reminder, the SPX peaks following the yield curve inversion and on average the S&P energy sector performs the best from the time the YC inverts until the S&P 500 peters out (please refer to Table 3 from the April 8, Special Report). While every cycle is different, if history at least rhymes, deep cyclical energy stocks will likely outperform as the SPX eventually breaks out to fresh all-time highs. Already, year-to-date the S&P energy sector is the third best performing sector, besting the SPX by over 200bps. More gains are in store, especially given the big dichotomy between the oil price recovery and the relative share price ratio (Chart 7). What is perplexing is the ingrained sell-side analyst pessimism (Chart 6A) and lack of belief that oil prices will remain near current levels or even continue their ascent as our sister Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) service publication predicts. Not only are EPS forecast to contract in every quarter this year, or 10% year-over-year according to IBES, but also revenues are slated to fall in every quarter in 2019. We would lean against this extreme analyst bearishness. While the $3.5/bbl backwardation in WTI oil futures prices one year out, and more than twice that 24-months out, underpins Wall Street’s gloomy energy sector outlook, U.S. oil extraction productivity reinforces sector profits. As U.S. crude oil production hits new all-time highs this is extracted by fewer oil rigs (bottom panel, Chart 7). If BCA’s CES constructive oil price expectation pans out, then energy stocks will easily surpass the profit and revenue bar that analysts have set extremely low for the sector. Delivering on the profit front will likely serve as a catalyst to rerate these deep cyclical stocks higher (Chart 8) and thus a catch up phase looms for energy stocks, at least up to the current level of WTI crude oil prices (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Catch Up Catch Up Catch Up Chart 8Bombed Out Valuation Bombed Out Valuation Bombed Out Valuation Granted, the U.S. dollar is a key determinant of oil prices and if BCA’s view proves accurate that global growth will return in the back half of the year (second panel, Chart 9), that is synonymous with a depreciating greenback, which in turn is bullish the broad commodity complex in general and oil prices (and thus energy stocks) in particular (middle panel, Chart 7). As a reminder, oil prices are an excellent global growth barometer, similar to their sibling Dr. Copper. Recovering global growth will boost energy stocks in an additional way: via a favorable supply/demand crude oil balance. Not only is OPEC rebalancing the global oil market through a reduction on the supply front, but a trio of potential supply shocks from Iranian sanctions, Venezuelan infrastructure and Libyan conflict are providing price support. Further, global growth has historically been tightly correlated with rising non-OECD oil demand (Chart 10). Chart 9Global Growth Beneficiary Global Growth Beneficiary Global Growth Beneficiary Chart 10Favorable Supply/Demand Dynamics Favorable Supply/Demand Dynamics Favorable Supply/Demand Dynamics Meanwhile, the broad energy sector is still licking its wounds from the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession and is stabilizing debt and increasing EBITDA (fifth panel, Chart 11), thus the net debt/EBITDA ratio for the index has collapsed from over 11 to around 2, a level similar to the broad market (second panel, Chart 11). Interest coverage (EBIT/interest expense) is also renormalizing higher and is no longer sending a default warning for the energy space as a whole (third panel, Chart 11). The junk energy bond market corroborates/reflects this balance sheet improvement and is no longer flashing red (bottom panel, Chart 9). Finally, bombed out technical conditions are contrarily positive, and such extreme negative readings have marked the start of playable and sizable relative outperformance periods (Chart 12). Chart 11No Red Flags No Red Flags No Red Flags Chart 12Contrary Alert: Depressed Technicals Contrary Alert: Depressed Technicals Contrary Alert: Depressed Technicals Netting it all out, YC dynamics, higher oil prices on the back of rising global growth and a favorable supply/demand crude oil backdrop, recovering balance sheets, and compelling valuations and technicals suggest that energy stocks will burst higher in the coming months. Bottom Line: We reiterate our above benchmark recommendation in the S&P energy sector and today we are adding it to our high-conviction overweight list. Buy Into Managed Health Care Weakness A little over a year ago we moved to the sidelines in the S&P managed health care index, crystalizing significant relative profits of 28% for our U.S. equity portfolio.4 Now the time has come anew to explore this niche health care index from the long side. While we left some money on the table since our late-May 2018 move, relative share prices have come full circle, valuations have fallen roughly 18% from the late-2018 peak and analysts’ euphoria has been reined in (Chart 13). Chart 13Reset Reset Reset The inter- and intra-industry M&A fever has died down from mid-2018 and the rising momentum of a “Medicare For All” bill has weighed negatively on HMO sentiment. With regard to the latter, our geopolitical strategists believe that passage is possible. If the Democrats can unseat an incumbent president in 2020, they will also likely take the Senate and keep the House. This means they will be in the position to pass a major piece of legislation. While Trump is favored to win, barring a recession, the risk of both a Democratic sweep and a push for “Medicare for All” could be as high as 27%, and this would have a dramatic impact on the health care sector.5 Tack on the near 90bps drop in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield since the November 2018 peak, and factors have fallen into place for a bearish raid in this pure play health insurance index. Thin managed health care margins and profits move in close lockstep with interest rates as roughly 10% of the industry’s operating income is tied to “investment income”. In other words, as insurers receive the premia they typically invest it in Treasurys and that explains the high EPS and margin sensitivity on interest rate moves (Chart 14). While at first sight, the outlook for profits appears grim, BCA’s bond strategists expect a selloff in the bond market to materialize in the back half of the year simultaneously with a pick-up in global growth which will prove a tonic to both margins and EPS. In addition, leading indicators of heath care insurance profit margins are flashing green. Not only are medical costs melting including drug price inflation (second & bottom panels, Chart 15), but also industry cost structures are kept at bay with wages climbing below a 2%/annum rate growth and trailing overall wage inflation (third panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Overdone Overdone Overdone Chart 15Melting Cost Inflation Melting Cost Inflation Melting Cost Inflation On the demand front, as the economy is running at full employment, with unemployment insurance claims probing 60-year lows and with wages representing a headache for small and medium business owners, enrollment should stay healthy (Chart 16). Most importantly, the combination of decreasing medical cost inflation and a healthy overall labor market herald a steep decline in the industry’s medical loss ratio. All of this is unambiguously bullish for margins and profits. Finally, relative valuations and technicals have both corrected from previously stretched levels and offer a compelling entry point for fresh capital (Chart 17). Chart 16Full Employment Is Bullish Full Employment Is Bullish Full Employment Is Bullish Chart 17Unloved And Under-Owned Unloved And Under-Owned Unloved And Under-Owned Netting it all out, despite the risks that “Medicare For All” pose, melting medical cost inflation, BCA’s rising interest rate expectations along with an economy running at full steam, all suggest that managed health care margins and profits will overwhelm in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P managed health care index to overweight today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, ANTH, HUM, CNC, WCG.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      According to the NY Fed: “Treasury yields can be decomposed into two components: expectations of the future path of short-term Treasury yields and the Treasury term premium. The term premium is the compensation that investors require for bearing the risk that short-term Treasury yields do not evolve as they expected.” https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/treasury-term-premia-1961-present.html 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly” dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, “10 Most FAQs From The Road” dated April 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Seeing The Light” dated May 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5      If there is a 60% chance the Democrats nominate a left-wing candidate, and a 45% chance they win the election, then there is a 27% chance that they are in a position to push for “Medicare for All” with fair odds of passage. Everything will depend on the specific outcomes of the Democratic primary, presidential campaign, general election, post-election government policy priorities, and congressional passage. Stay tuned as in the coming months we will be publishing a Special Report on “Medicare For All” and health care sector implications co-authored with our sister Geopolitical Strategy service. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights OPEC 2.0 will meet in June to decide whether to continue its production cuts into 2H19. Once again, the leaders are sending conflicting signals – KSA is subtly indicating OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts will need to be extended to year-end. Russia, not so much. Much will depend on whether the U.S. extends waivers on Iran oil-export sanctions when they expire May 2. Not surprisingly, Trump administration officials also are not providing much in the way of forward guidance to markets, other than to insist they want Iran’s exports at zero. Our modeling indicates OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – will need to raise production in 2H19, as markets tighten on the back of Venezuela’s collapse, continued unplanned outages (most recently in Libya) and still-strong demand. This aligns our view somewhat with that of Russia. That said, OPEC 2.0’s leaders – and member states – all benefit from higher prices, as we show below. Some, like Russia, more so than others – e.g., KSA, hard as that is to reconcile with their respective stances on production cuts. But none benefits if EM demand is crushed by high prices. It’s a delicate balancing act, given the aggregate GDP of EM commodity-importing countries exceeds that of commodity-exporting countries (Chart of the Week).1 Chart of the WeekEM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand EM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand EM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand We continue to expect Brent to trade at $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, given our expectation for global supply and demand. KSA and Russia remain the fulcrum of the oil market, as we argued recently, and anticipating their decision-making process remains the critical task for understanding the new political economy of oil.2 Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded opposing forces in Libya cease fighting this week. The country recently lifted oil production over 1mm b/d, but renewed fighting threatens this output. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) earlier this week tee’d up markets to expect higher infrastructure and transportation spending, which lifted steel and iron ore markets. Markets continue to tighten on the back of the Vale high-grade iron-ore supply losses, which could lift prices above $100/MT in the short term. Precious Metals: Neutral. Central banks continued buying gold in February, the World Gold Council reported this week. Central-bank holdings rose a net 51 tonnes in February bringing total additions to 90 tonnes in the first two months of the year. Agriculture: Underweight. The USDA lifted its estimate of global ending stocks for corn by 5.5mm tons for the 2018/19 crop year. With total use estimates unchanged at 1.13 billion tons, this raises ending stocks-to-use estimates, which will continue to exert downward pressure on prices. Feature KSA and Russia share a common feature in that both are petro states, and thus heavily dependent on crude and product exports to fund their governments and economies. Both suffered a near-death experience during the 2014-16 oil-market-share war launched by OPEC, and both have seen their GDPs slowly recover, following the successful production-cutting agreements they jointly engineered to drain excess inventories and restore balance to the market beginning in 2017 and renewed this year (Chart 2). Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. At first blush, it would be logical to assume KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs are driven by the same economic forces of oil supply and demand. In broad terms, they are. Both benefit from higher oil prices, given they are predominantly petro-economies, although Russia tends to benefit more as prices rise (Chart 3). In the post-GFC era, we find that a 1% increase in Brent prices lifts Russia’s GDP ~ 0.07%, while KSA’s goes up ~ 0.03%. Another way of saying this is Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. Chart 2KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Chart 3Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Looking a bit deeper into KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs’ sensitivities to Brent prices, we modeled income growth for both using our Brent forecast (Table 1), the futures markets’ forward curve and compare both to the World Bank’s expectation (Chart 4, bottom panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Given our expectation for EM GDP growth (Chart of the Week), we expect KSA’s GDP to show relatively strong growth with GDP up ~ 5.4% this year and ~ 3.5% next year, propelled partly by higher oil prices (Chart 4, top panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Russia’s GDP goes up ~ 0.25% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. We expect Russia’s GDP to dip then recover in 4Q19, then rise 3.5% by the end of 3Q20 before tapering off toward the end of 2020. This is not surprising given the trajectory for Brent prices in our forecasts and in the futures curves, and the sensitivity of Russia’s GDP to oil prices.We found a similar impact of EM oil demand on Russia and KSA GDPs when controlling for EM FX rates instead of Brent prices (Chart 5).3 Chart 4Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Chart 5While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand U.S. Waivers Dictate OPEC 2.0’s Decision On Production KSA has indicated it sees a need to extend OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal into 2H19, when the coalition’s ministers meet in June. Of late, Khalid al-Falih, KSA’s oil minister, is indicating no further cuts in the Kingdom’s output are needed, however. Russia’s a bit of a cipher. President Vladimir Putin this week stated Russia will continue to cooperate with KSA vis-à-vis managing production, although his energy minister, Alexander Novak, has indicated he sees no reason for extending OPEC 2.0’s production deal. Both sides are waiting on fundamental data, and the decision of the U.S. on its waivers on Iranian oil-export sanctions. There’s also the ever-likely collapse of Venezuela to consider, and renewed violence in Libya, both of which argue against letting the waivers expire. The Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. The countries granted waivers on U.S. sanctions against Iranian crude oil imports appear to be exercising their option to lift additional barrels, based on data showing loadings out of Iran increased for the fourth consecutive month (Chart 6 and Table 2).4 Loadings out of Iran rose to 1.30mm b/d in March, from 1.24mm b/d in February. Chart 6 Table 2Iran Exports By Country 2018-2019 (‘000 b/d) Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Bottom Line: We continue to expect U.S. waivers on Iranian oil sanctions will be extended to year end in some form. The collapse of Venezuela and renewed violence in Libya show how tenuously balanced oil markets are at present. Going into a general election in the U.S. next year, the Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. When they meet in June, ministers from OPEC 2.0 member states will be ideally set up to respond to the Trump administration’s decision on waivers for Iranian oil imports, which expire May 2. We are closing our June 2019 $70 vs. $75/bbl call spread, as the position is close to expiry.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      In the post-GFC world, we find total EM oil demand rises ~ 0.4% for each 1% rise in EM commodity-importers’ GDP, while it only rises ~ 0.3% for each 1% rise in EM commodity exporters’ GDP, based on our modeling. According to World Banks’ constant 2010 USD series, EM commodity importers’ GDP represented 66% of total EM GDP in 2018, up from 56% in 2010. The EM income elasticity of oil demand has remained at roughly ~ 0.60 from 2000 to now, meaning a 1% increase in EM GDP – hence EM income – lifts oil demand by ~ 0.6%. This has been remarkably stable pre-GFC, post-GFC and from 2000 to now. 2      The new political economy of oil is a continuing theme in our research. For an extended discussion of this theme, please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy on February 21 and March 21, 2019. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      When using EM FX rates instead of Brent prices as an explanatory variable, we find KSA’s GDP still increases a little more than 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand, but Russia’s rises closer to 0.6%. NB: All GDP measures use historical World Bank data, and BCA Research estimates using the Bank’s projections in constant 2010 USD.  We proxy EM oil demand using non-OECD oil consumption.  KSA’s production is crude oil only, while Russia’s production is crude and liquids. 4      For a discussion of the waivers’ optionality, please see our BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published on March 21, 2019, 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 Image

Lumber is a hyper-sensitive variable that has historically moved in lockstep with the SPX, its momentum (bottom panel) and of course EPS. Lumber’s leading properties are tied to the housing market link and the recent plunge in lumber futures is disconcerting. The top panel of the chart shows that lumber peaked in mid-May and then the SPX followed suit in late-September. Similarly, lumber troughed in late-October again leading the SPX trough. Currently this economically sensitive indicator is not confirming the bullish SPX run as it peaked in early February. We reiterate our view held since early-March that at least some short-term equity market caution is warranted, especially given the negative EPS backdrop on the eve of earnings season.   Lumber And The S&P 500 Lumber And The S&P 500    

Highlights As long as Chinese policymakers remain committed to their anti-pollution campaign, we believe high-grade iron ore prices will remain supported by demand from newer steelmaking technologies. A continuation of the much-needed consolidation in steelmaking capacity in China – wherein larger, more efficient operators force their less competitive rivals from the market – will reinforce this trend (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekChina's Steel Sector Will Continue Consolidating China's Steel Sector Will Continue Consolidating China's Steel Sector Will Continue Consolidating Over time, the iron ore market will resemble other developed markets – e.g., crude oil – where higher- and lower-grades of the commodity are regularly traded against each other (Chart 2). As this develops, hedgers and investors will be able to fine tune exposures with greater precision, and prices from these markets will better reflect supply-demand fundamentals. The central and local governments also will have a valuable window on how policy is affecting fundamentals as they pursue their “blue skies” policies. We are initiating tactical spread, getting long spot high-grade 65% Fe vs. short spot 62% Fe at today’s Custeel Seaborne Iron Ore Price Index levels, consistent with our view.1 Chart 2Iron Ore Spread Markets Will Continue To Develop Iron Ore Spread Markets Will Continue To Develop Iron Ore Spread Markets Will Continue To Develop Highlights Energy: Overweight. The Trump administration is reviving the Monroe Doctrine with its demand Russia remove its troops and advisors from Venezuela immediately, based on comments by the U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton. In addition, a “senior administration official” said waivers for eight of Iran’s largest crude oil importers could be allowed to expire May 4, and that the administration is considering additional sanctions against Iran.2 Brian Hook, the special U.S. envoy for Iran, this week said three of eight countries granted waivers to U.S. sanctions agreed to take oil imports to zero.3 In a related development, OPEC crude oil output fell to a four-year low of 30.4mm b/d in March, according to a Reuters’s survey, as Venezuelan output falls and Saudi Arabia continues to over-deliver on its production cuts. Base Metals: Neutral. Codelco’s mined copper ore output fell to 1.8mm MT last year, down 1.6% vs. 2017 levels. This took refined output down almost 3% to 1.7mm MT, according to Metal Bulletin. The Chilean state-owned company cited reduced ore content in its mined production as a reason for the decline. MB’s copper treatment and refining charges index for the Asia Pacific region is at its lowest level since March 26, 2018, reflecting the lower concentrate supplies. We remain long spot copper on the back of low inventories, and an expected recovery in demand. Precious Metals: Neutral. Strength in equities has taken some of the luster off gold’s rally in the near term as investors move to increase stock exposures, but we continue to favor gold as a portfolio hedge and remain long. Agriculture: Underweight. USDA’s corn planting intentions report released last week came in much stronger than earlier estimates. Corn and soybeans traded lower following the release of the report, but recovered some this week on the back of positive news from Sino - U.S. trade talks. The USDA estimated farmers intended to plant 92mm acres of corn, and 85mm acres of soybeans this year. Ahead of the report, a Farm Bureau survey estimated corn and soybean acreage would average 91.3mm acres of corn and 86.2mm acres of beans. Trade Recommendations: Our 1Q19 trade recommendations were up an average of 41% at end-March (Quarterly Performance Table below). Including recommendations that were open at the beginning of 1Q19, the average was 31%. Feature China’s push to reduce pollution in its steelmaking sector will continue to support demand for Brazil’s high-grade ores – i.e., ores with iron (Fe) content higher than 65%. Transitory Brazilian iron ore supply losses notwithstanding, China’s push to reduce pollution in its steelmaking sector will continue to support demand for Brazil’s high-grade ores – i.e., ores with iron (Fe) content higher than 65%. This will allow the continued development of an active spread market, not unlike spread markets in commodities like oil, which will expand hedging and trading opportunities for producers, consumers and investors (Chart 2). Older, more polluting steelmaking technology in China will continue to be replaced by plants that favor Brazil’s high-grade ores, then Australia’s benchmark-type grades (62% Fe), then, as a last resort, the lower quality domestic ores. In a steelmaking market still suffering significant overcapacity, we expect policymakers will, at some point, discover the benefit of letting markets forces do the work of forcing older technology offline, as happened with the country’s domestically produced lower-quality iron ore, which has lower iron content and higher impurities than Brazilian and Aussie imports.4 We believe growth in China’s steel and steel products demand – hence iron ore demand – likely has peaked and is in the process of flattening or declining slightly, which will alter the composition of iron ore imports and tilt them in favor of high-grade Fe imports from Brazil over the next 3 - 5 years (Chart 3). This leveling off in steel demand growth will put a premium on more efficient technology to meet future demand, particularly with the pollution constraints that will, we believe, be an enduring feature of this market.5 Chart 3China's Steel Demand Growth Likely Has Peaked China's Steel Demand Growth Likely Has Peaked China's Steel Demand Growth Likely Has Peaked Impurities found in lower-grade iron ore raise steelmaking costs by increasing unwanted mineral build-ups in blast furnaces, increase pollution and lower mills’ efficiency.  With inventories re-building following the winter steelmaking hiatus in China, imports will continue to grow market share at the expense of indigenous lower-quality ores (Chart 4). Imports from Australia, which mostly price to the 62% Fe benchmark, will continue to grow, but we strongly believe that in China’s post-anti-pollution-campaign market, Brazilian imports will see growth increasing (i.e., the 2nd derivative) at a higher rate (Chart 5). Chart 4Chinese Iron Ore Inventories Fall Relative To Steel Production Chinese Iron Ore Inventories Fall Relative To Steel Production Chinese Iron Ore Inventories Fall Relative To Steel Production Chart 5China's Brazil, Australia Import Growth Will Recover China's Brazil, Australia Import Growth Will Recover China's Brazil, Australia Import Growth Will Recover These imports are lower in cost, and higher in quality than the domestic iron ore. This is particularly important when it comes to keeping costs under control – impurities found in lower-grade iron ore raise steelmaking costs by increasing unwanted mineral build-ups in blast furnaces, increase pollution and lower mills’ efficiency. Extended Output Cuts Favor High-Grade Ores The biggest reason supporting our view high-grade iron ores will continue to grow market share at the expense of lower-quality domestic supply and benchmark 62% Fe material is the recent behavior of the central government and local governments vis-a-vis pollution. Both have shown they are not averse to extending operating restrictions on high-polluting industrial plants, even in provinces where steelmaking is a large employer. Last year, major steel producing regions– Hebei, Jiangsu, Shandong, Liaoning – increased production during the winter months, likely driven by higher margins at the steelmakers (Chart 6). This indicates compliance with anti-pollution regulations fell significantly (Chart 7). In turn, this led to higher pollution, according to the latest available data from China’s National Environmental Monitoring Centre, which shows concentrations of particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (i.e., PM2.5) rose again this year (Chart 8). Chart 6Higher Margins, Higher Output Higher Margins, Higher Output Higher Margins, Higher Output Chart 7 Consequently, Chinese authorities decided to tighten anti-pollution measures by extending production cuts beyond the heating season into 3Q and 4Q19.6 Furthermore, the top producing city, Tangshan, in the province of Hebei extended its most elevated level of smog alert on March 1 and deepened production cuts to 70% from 40%, with reported cases of complete operations being halted. Chart 8China's Pollution Is Increasing; Steelmaking Curbs Will Persist China's Pollution Is Increasing; Steelmaking Curbs Will Persist China's Pollution Is Increasing; Steelmaking Curbs Will Persist Last month, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials in Hebei announced plans to cut steel production by 14mm MT this year and next. Going forward, China’s environment ministry said winter restrictions will be extended for a third year during the 2019-2020 winter period. As we argued last year, winter curbs likely will become a permanent feature of China’s steelmaking landscape. Combined with China’s steel de-capacity reforms, iron ore and steel markets will continue to evolve to a less-polluting presence in the country.7 As a consequence, IO grade and form differentials are now crucial input in our analysis.8 We believe a wider than usual premium will remain until new high-grades and pellets supplies come on line in the next few years. Credit Stimulus Vs. Battle For Blue Skies The reversal in China’s credit cycle and in the Fed’s monetary policy stance will be supportive of steel and iron ore prices going forward. In fact, our credit cycle proxy suggests global industrial activity will increase in the next few months (Chart 9).9 Additionally, our geopolitical strategists’ base case suggests a resolution of the Sino-U.S. trade war likely will occur this year. This will support EM income growth, which will stimulate commodity demand generally at the margin. Chart 9Upturn in China's Credit Cycle Will Support Iron Ore Prices Upturn in China's Credit Cycle Will Support Iron Ore Prices Upturn in China's Credit Cycle Will Support Iron Ore Prices We believe China’s credit cycle bottomed in 1Q19 and that Chinese authorities will modestly increase stimulus in 2H19.10 As discussed previously, we do not expect this new round of stimulus to be as large as previous rounds; China’s economy is in better shape now than it was at the start of previous expansionary credit cycles, hence the magnitude of the stimulus needed to revive the economy is lower. Nonetheless, this stimulus will be sufficient to strengthen China’s and EM’s steel-intensive activities in the coming months. As long as China maintains its anti-pollution drive, high-grade iron ore will continue to grow market share. Historically, these sectors correlated positively with the 62% Fe content benchmark (Chart 10). However, the expected stimulus works against Beijing’s critically important battle for blue skies. A revival of China’s industrial activity would increase PM2.5 concentrations above targets. Chart 10China's Stimulus Will Stoke Iron Ore Demand China's Stimulus Will Stoke Iron Ore Demand China's Stimulus Will Stoke Iron Ore Demand These constraints, we believe, mean China’s policymakers will have to incentivize steelmakers to favor lower-polluting high-grade iron ore (Fe > 65%), in order to maximize steel output subject to their emissions target. This will widen the form and grade premiums ahead of next year’s winter period. Bottom Line: As long as China maintains its anti-pollution drive, high-grade iron ore will continue to grow market share, as steelmakers upgrade their technology and inefficient mills are shuttered. This will favor Brazilian exports going forward, and we expect the rate of growth in these imports to increase. In line with our view, we are opening a long 65% Fe spot vs. a short 62% Fe spot position at tonight’s close. This is a tactical position, but could easily become a strategic recommendation.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      This index is published by Beijing Custeel E-Commerce Co., Ltd. 2      We flagged this risk in our February 21, 2019, report entitled “The New Political Economy of Oil.” We noted the odds of a U.S. – Russia military confrontation are low, and that “the U.S. would revive the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and that Russia and China most likely would concede Venezuela is within the U.S.’s sphere of influence, as neither intends to project the force and maintain the supply lines … a confrontation would require.” That said, there is always the risk such a confrontation could go kinetic, or that either or both sides could lunch a cyberattack to disable its adversary. The Roosevelt Corollary refers to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s extension of the Monroe Doctrine at the beginning of the 20th century, which has been used by the U.S. to justify the use of military power in the Western Hemisphere. Our February 21 report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com, as is a Special Report on Venezuela published November 22, 2018, entitled “Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop,” which discusses Venezuela’s debts to China and Russia, et al. See also “Exclusive: Trump eyeing stepped-up Venezuela sanctions for foreign companies – Bolton” and “Oil hits 2019 high on OPEC cuts, concerns over demand ease,” published by reuters.com March 29 and April 2, 2019, respectively. 3      Please see “Three importers cut Iran oil shipments to zero - U.S. envoy” published April 2, 2019, by reuters.com. 4      According to Platts, “at least half of China’s previous 300 million mt plus iron ore mining capacity has left the market for good.” Please see “China’s quest for cleaner skies drives change in iron ore market,” published January 30, 2019, by S&P Global Platts. CRU estimates average iron content in China’s ores is 30%, which means they must undergo costly upgrading to be useful to steelmakers. 5      Australian miners are expected to bring on significant volumes of high-grade iron ore beginning in 2022 - 23, with Fe content as high as 70%, according to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s March 2019 Resources and Energy Quarterly. 6      Please see “Tangshan mulls output curbs for 2nd, 3rd quarters of 2019” published January 22, 2019, by metal.com. 7      Please see China to extend winter anti-smog measures for another year published March 6, 2019, by reuters.com. 8      Grade premium: The chemistry of iron ore supply varies widely in terms of Fe content. Higher Fe content reduces production cost and pollution per unit of steel output. The higher the quality, the higher the volume of steel produced relative to energy consumed. The current global benchmark iron ore is 62% Fe, but China’s evolution to a less-polluting steelmaking sector will raise the importance of higher-grade markets. Form premium: A steelmaker’s blast furnace typically consumes iron ore in pellets, fines or lumps combined with coking coal. Fines are the most common form of iron ore, and account for ~ 75% of total seaborn IO market. This form cannot be directly fed in the blast furnace and requires an extra sintering step. Sintering is highly polluting and coal-intensive process that compresses fines into a more useable form. This process is usually conducted on-site at steel mills. On the other hand, lumps and pellets are direct feedstock and therefore completely avoid the highly polluting sintering step. Both types of premium are primarily affected by environmental policies in consuming countries, coke prices and steelmills’ profitability. 9      Modeling historical iron ore prices remains difficult because of the short sample available for spot iron prices – i.e., the benchmark 62% Fe. Before 2009, iron ore prices were determined using a producer pricing system. Once a year, prices were negotiated by miners and steelmakers and would be fixed for the remaining of the year. Given that iron ore supply was plentiful relative to demand, prices were fairly stable and this mechanism was used for over four decades. The rapid rise of emerging economies – mainly China – during the 2000s forced the pricing system to adjust toward a spot-market pricing system. The short spot-price time series available for analysis increases the distortion of policy-driven exogenous shocks like China’s de-capacity and winter restriction policies. This makes it difficult to identify the underlying relationships between its price and potential explanatory variables, and forces us to rely on theory and analogous experience in other markets like crude oil. 10     Please see BCA Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Bottoming Of China’s Credit Cycle Bullish For Copper Over Near Term,” published March 14, 2019. 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 Image