Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020. The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment, wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment, while prices rise only gradually. Gold and Treasuries were the big winners and the dollar was the big loser in previous trade spats. Feature The dollar rose 1%, but gold, the S&P 500, and U.S. Treasury yields sunk last week amid a busy calendar of U.S. economic data and the Fed's new forecasts. The stats and the FOMC projections confirmed that the U.S. economy is already at full employment and that the market is underpricing the number of Fed hikes planned for this year. Meanwhile, U.S. President Trump's meeting with North Korea leader Kim Jong Un provided some relief on the geopolitical front, but there is still uncertainty on trade over impending tariffs on China. Chart 1Watch The 2.3% To 2.5% Level##BR##On TIPS Breakevens Watch The 2.3% To 2.5% Level On TIPS Breakevens Watch The 2.3% To 2.5% Level On TIPS Breakevens BCA's base case remains that U.S. equities will not be subject to an over-aggressive Fed until mid-2019 and that increasing bond yields are not a threat. That said, the timing is uncertain and depends importantly on how inflation and inflation expectations shift in the coming months. Inflation is only gradually moving higher at the moment and the Fed is willing to tolerate an overshoot of the 2% target. However, some inflation hawks at the Fed are worried given that the economy is already at full employment and expected to accelerate this year. The uptrend in inflation could suddenly become steeper in this macro environment. Alarm bells will ring when inflation hits 2.5% and the central bank will switch from normalizing policy to targeting slower growth, putting risk assets under pressure. We are also on the watch for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will become more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate (Chart 1). That would be an important signal to trim exposure to risk assets. Although Trump's meeting with Kim lowered geopolitical risk, BCA's strategists note that the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization"1 are more relevant subjects than what happens on the Korean peninsula. While North Korea may still stir up concern, we recommend that investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. Moreover, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects that trade-related uncertainty will persist at least until the U.S. mid-term elections in November.2 Two More In '18 As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020 (Chart 2). Chart 2FOMC And Market Mostly##BR##Aligned On Economy And Rates FOMC And Market Mostly Aligned On Economy And Rates FOMC And Market Mostly Aligned On Economy And Rates Instead of three, the Fed now expects to deliver a total of four rate hikes in 2018. For 2019, the Fed continues to project a further three rate hikes. And for 2020, the Fed now believes only one rate hike will be warranted, down from two hikes in its previous forecast. What this means is that the Fed has simply brought forward one rate hike from 2020 to 2018. It left its median projection for the level of the Fed funds rate in 2020 unchanged at 3.375%. Moreover, the Fed kept its estimate of the neutral rate unchanged at 2.875%. In other words, the Fed is forecasting a marginally faster pace to rate hikes, but it has not changed its outlook for the full extent of the tightening cycle. This minor change to the policy outlook should not disrupt financial markets. Prior to last week's FOMC meeting, Fed funds futures were already pricing a 50% probability of a fourth rate hike this year. The bigger question is whether more upward adjustments to the interest rate outlook lie ahead. On this front, there are inconsistencies in the Fed's economic projections. In terms of the long-run steady state, the Fed believes the potential growth rate of the economy is 1.8% and NAIRU is 4.5%. Yet the Fed is forecasting real GDP growth of 2.4% and 2.0% (i.e. above-trend) for 2019 and 2020, respectively, but expects both the jobless rate and core inflation to remain steady at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Above-trend growth should imply a further decline in the unemployment rate. And a jobless rate that's well below NAIRU should imply an acceleration in inflation. In turn, this should mean a higher path for interest rates. But rather than higher interest rates, the inconsistency in the Fed's economic forecasts can also be resolved in other ways. First, the Fed could simply be too optimistic on growth. If growth is weaker, then unemployment and inflation forecasts could be proven right. Second, the Fed's estimates of trend growth and NAIRU may be incorrect. If trend growth is higher and NAIRU is lower, the pressures on resource utilization and inflation will be less. Bottom Line: The tweaks to the Fed's interest rate projections are too small to have a material impact on financial market pricing. However, there is a risk that the inconsistencies in the Fed's economic forecasts will be resolved with more hawkishness in 2019. This could then prove problematic for global risk assets, depending on the evolution of inflation. Are We There Yet? The U.S. economy reached full employment in Q1 2017. The unemployment rate crossed below the Fed's measure of NAIRU in March 2017, a whopping 93 months after the start of the current expansion. Chart 3 shows that in the long expansions3 in the 1980s and 1990s, the economy reached full employment sooner; 54 months in the 1980s and 72 months in the 1990s expansion. After the economy attained full employment in the 1980s and 1990s, an average of another 27 months passed before the unemployment rate troughed. This means that the trough will occur in mid-2019 and our view is that the rate will bottom at around 3.5% in mid-2019.4 Moreover, the 1980s' economic recovery lasted another 34 months once the economy hit full employment and another 47 months once full employment was breached in the 1990s. If this historical pattern holds, then the next recession will begin in late 2020. This date is consistent with our prior work5 on the start date of the next downturn. Chart 3The Economy At Full Employment In Long Cycles The Economy At Full Employment In Long Cycles The Economy At Full Employment In Long Cycles The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment. Initial claims for unemployment insurance, as a share of the labor force, move lower for another two years, on average, after labor market slack disappears (Chart 4, panel 2). The monthly non-farm payrolls job count follows a similar pattern and it does not turn negative for another four years (panel 3). The Conference Board's jobs easy/hard to get shows that the labor market is hotter than in the previous long expansions (panel 4). The conclusion is that the labor market will continue to tighten for another year or so, consistent with our outlook. Wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment. Chart 5 shows increases in the average hourly earnings (AHE), the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and compensation per hour after the unemployment rate fell below NAIRU in the 1980s and 1990s. However, unit labor costs (ULCs) did not accelerate in those years until well after the economy hit full employment. Many of these measures of wage inflation are also on the upswing today. However, none of the indicators are rising as quickly as they did in the 1980s and 1990s (See Appendix Table 1 for more details on performance of labor market, wage and inflation metrics after the economy reaches full employment). Inflation initially remained tame even after labor market slack was taken up in the previous two long expansions. Chart 6 shows that neither headline nor core CPI accelerated sharply after the economy arrived at full employment in the '80s and '90s. However, headline CPI inflation began rising not long after full employment was reached. It took a little longer for core inflation to perk up. Moreover, inflation tends to peak as the unemployment rate troughs. This occurs, on average, about three years after the unemployment rate crosses below NAIRU. Chart 4The Labor Market When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment The Labor Market When The Economy Is At Full Employment The Labor Market When The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 5Wages And Compensation When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment Wages And Compensation When The Economy Is At Full Employment Wages And Compensation When The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 6Inflation When The Economy##BR##Is At Full Employment Inflation When The Economy Is At Full Employment Inflation When The Economy Is At Full Employment Bottom Line: The U.S. economy has been at full employment since early 2017, but investors should be patient if they expect a marked acceleration in inflation. Inflation is already at the Fed's target and BCA expects two more rate hikes this year and at least three more increases in 2019 as inflation moves closer to 2.5%. Stay underweight duration. The labor market is as tight as it was at this point of the previous two long expansions. Moreover, the trends in inflation and wages are similar, although from a lower level. That said, while inflation is more muted today, interest rates are much, much lower, and the Fed does not want a major overshoot. If we follow the same path as the previous two long expansions, then inflation will rise only gradually, and the next recession is a ways off. But watch for an acceleration in ULC, because in the average of the last two long expansions, an acceleration in ULC coincided with an acceleration in core CPI inflation. That would cause the Fed to become more aggressive. Trump's Focus On China The U.S. is an old hand at trade wars and economic conflicts, with an endgame of dollar depreciation and compromises on trade.6 Since 1970 there have been seven major trade disputes involving tariffs, including the one that began in March of this year. Some were brief and several of those periods overlapped. Moreover, many other factors affected investment returns, including recessions, wars, major terrorist attacks, and financial crises. As a result, these periodic trade tiffs make it difficult to discern the implications for the financial markets. During episodes of trade-related uncertainty, stocks underperform Treasuries, the dollar falls both pre- and post-dispute, and gold performs much better both during and after. Treasuries are the most consistent performer, and this asset class beat stocks during five of the six periods. Meanwhile, the dollar fell during 5 of the 6 trade spats (Table 1). Chart 7 shows the performance of a wider set of U.S. financial assets before, during, and after trade tensions erupt. Table 1U.S. Stocks, Treasuries, The Dollar, Gold And Trade Disputes The Economy At Full Employment The Economy At Full Employment Chart 7U.S. Financial Assets And Trade Spats U.S. Financial Assets And Trade Spats U.S. Financial Assets And Trade Spats We begin our discussion of trade spats and their implication for financial markets in the early 1970s. In August 1971, with the dollar steeply overvalued, President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard and imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable imports. The purpose of the tariff was to force the U.S. allies to appreciate their currencies against the dollar. Some appreciation occurred as a result of the Smithsonian Agreement, but the effects were short-lived. The U.S. could not afford to alienate its allies amid the Cold War and removed the restrictions four months later. Table 1 shows that S&P 500 increased by nearly 40% in the year prior to the 1971 trade spat, but the economy was recovering from the 1969-70 recession. Equities easily beat Treasuries (+17%), the dollar declined by 3%, and gold jumped by 22%. However, during late 1971, the S&P 500 underperformed Treasuries, the dollar dropped by 5%, and gold was little changed. In the 12 months after the trade issue was resolved, U.S. stocks beat bonds, the dollar continued to move lower, and gold surged. This occurred as inflation ramped up. In a trade dispute episode during the 1980s, then President Reagan and a Democrat-leaning Congress became concerned with trade deficits and a sharply rising dollar. The Plaza Accord in 1985 consisted of a German and Japanese promise, once again, to appreciate their currencies. From 1985-89, a U.S.-Japan trade war was waged over Japan's growing share of the U.S. market and certain unfair trade practices affecting goods such as cars, semiconductors, and electronics (Chart 8). The combination of yen appreciation, voluntary export restraints and tariffs, resulted in compromises, and in the early 1990s the U.S. removed Japan from its list of targets. Chart 8The U.S.-Japan Trade Spat In The 1980s The U.S.-Japan Trade Spat In The 1980s The U.S.-Japan Trade Spat In The 1980s During the 1985-89 dispute, the U.S. stock market crashed, economic growth surged, inflationary pressures mounted, and the Fed hiked rates. Nevertheless, stocks crushed bonds as the dollar tumbled by 40% and gold soared by 30% (Table 1). Note that gold fell in the year before the trade dispute began and in the year after it ended. In the late 1990s, a series of trade disputes erupted between the U.S. and the European Union, most significantly on a tax device that allowed companies reduced taxes on profits derived from export sales. The EU won its case against the U.S. at the WTO and the U.S. eventually repealed the offending provisions in its tax code. At the same time, from 1999-2001, the U.S. contested EU policies on banana imports. Then in March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs affecting Europe, but these were subsequently reversed in December 2003 in the face of retaliatory threats. Trade tension in the late 1990s and early 2000s developed alongside the tech boom, the 2001 recession and recovery, and the first Gulf War. The 10-year Treasury outperformed the S&P 500 as Bush's steel tariffs were in effect, but the early part of this period coincided with the accounting scandals that buffeted U.S. equity markets. The U.S. dollar dropped nearly 25%, although the Fed cut rates in 2002 and 2003. Gold climbed 34% in this period, outpacing both stocks and bonds. President Trump's trade positions are reminiscent of both Nixon's and Reagan's policies and his trade team includes a notable veteran of the U.S.-Japan trade war, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The focus, however, is not entirely the same. True, there is still a fixation on privileged manufacturing industries like steel and autos, both in the Section 232 actions on steel and aluminum and in the NAFTA renegotiation. But there is today a heightened focus on China's abuses of the international trade system, in particular its technology theft and intellectual property violations (the Section 301 actions). For investors, the critical issue is to separate the two areas of focus. The U.S. grievances with Europe, NAFTA, and Japan will cause more volatility this year and beyond, but are ultimately more manageable than those with China. U.S.-China trade tensions are caught up in a Great Power rivalry that will likely persist throughout this century, making trade tensions a permanent feature of the relationship going forward.7 China's rapid military growth and technological acquisition threaten U.S. global dominance. China will view any imposition of tariffs by the U.S., or demands for dramatic RMB appreciation, as a strategic attempt to derail China's rise. Moreover, while Congress will not attack President Trump for retreating from the trade war with the allies, it will attack President Trump for compromising on China. Recent U.S. elections have swung on Rust Belt Midwestern states that resent America's deindustrialization. In 2020, Democrats will attempt to reclaim their credibility as defenders of American workers and "fair trade," especially against China. President Trump stole their thunder with his protectionist platform. There is unlikely to be a "trade dove," and especially not a "China dove," in the White House from 2020-24. Bottom Line: The U.S. has historically used punitive trade measures to force its allied trading partners to appreciate their currencies versus the dollar. It has also sought to protect politically sensitive industries. Today, however, the trade war with China is inextricably tied to a strategic conflict that will play out over decades. Trump will likely impose Section 301 tariffs on China after June 15 and any deal to avoid confrontation will merely delay the decision on tariffs until after November's mid-term elections. Investors should recall that bonds beat stocks, the dollar fell, and gold rose during previous periods of trade tension. We also note that shifts in correlations between key U.S. asset classes tend to occur as trade spats begin and end, especially in the past 30 years (Chart 9). Moreover, gold usually continues to climb and the dollar falters even after these disputes are resolved. Chart 9U.S. Asset Class Correlations During Trade Disputes U.S. Asset Class Correlations During Trade Disputes U.S. Asset Class Correlations During Trade Disputes John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," published April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tightening Up", published May 14, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000," published March 30 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," published April 12, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," published March 14, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1Key Labor Market And Inflation Indicators At Full Employment The Economy At Full Employment The Economy At Full Employment

Highlights In line with our House view, we expect the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWIB) to continue to appreciate over the next six to 12 months, as U.S. growth outpaces that of other DMs, and the Fed's pace of rate hikes outpaces that of other systemically important central banks. Ordinarily, this would be bad news for the overall commodities complex. However, most commodity prices disconnected from the U.S. dollar in 2015 - 16. This disconnect produced a not-often-seen positive correlation between commodities and the USD, which remained in place into 2017. Fundamentals are keeping oil and base metals correlations weaker vs. the USD. Precious metals and ags are most vulnerable to a stronger USD. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Cracks in Nigeria's Bonny pipeline system will further delay loadings already curtailed by a force majeure declaration, according to local sources. Elsewhere, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) apparently boosted production ahead of the regularly scheduled OPEC meeting in Vienna on June 22, as mounting losses in Venezuela and U.S. sanctions against Iran loom.1 KSA and Russia are pushing for higher production from OPEC 2.0 ahead of the Vienna meeting. Base Metals: Neutral. Although union negotiators took a conciliatory tone in discussions, contract terms between it and BHP Billiton in Chile's Escondida mine still have not been resolved. Among other things, the union proposed a salary increase of 5% and a $34,000 one-off bonus for workers.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices held close to $1,300/oz going into this week FOMC meeting. Ags/Softs: Underweight: The USDA revised down its ending-stocks estimates for corn and soybeans for the 2017/18 and the 2018/19 crop years in its latest WASDE, which was released earlier this week. Feature Chart of the WeekUSD TWIB Vs. Chief Commodity Indices USD TWIB Vs. Chief Commodity Indices USD TWIB Vs. Chief Commodity Indices Broadly speaking, commodity prices are negatively correlated with the USD TWIB. The principal indices we follow - the CRB, Bloomberg and S&P GSCI index - all are cointegrated with the USD, i.e., they share a long-term trend, wherein commodity prices rise as the USD falls, and vice versa (Chart of the Week). Ordinarily, we would expect the near-term appreciation of the U.S. dollar to weigh on broad commodity indices' performance. These are not ordinary times. Surprisingly, what holds for these aggregate indices does not hold for individual commodity groups within the indices. We've ranked each commodity by industry group, and found that over the long term - and this is critical - oil and base metals are most sensitive to changes in the USD TWIB, while precious metals and ags are less sensitive. A 1% change in the U.S. dollar index leads to a change in the energy sub-index of the CRB of almost 5%, while a 1% change in the TWIB leads to a change of just under 4% for the base metals sub-index of the CRB. For the precious metals sub-index of the CRB, we would expect to see prices change by just under 3% for every 1% change in the dollar index, while for the ags sub-index of the CRB, broadly speaking, we could expect a change of just under 2.5%.3 USD's Complicated Relationship With Commodities To understand what's driving the broad indices and their component sub-indexes, we ran Granger-causality tests to get a better picture of what's driving what.4 On average, the U.S. dollar drives the broad indices, from a Granger-causality perspective. However, it does not drive the individual commodity sub-indexes in the same manner (Table 1). Table 1USD Vs. Commodities: What's Driving What? Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken We found an interesting relationship between copper and oil: Copper's relationship with oil is stronger than its relationship with the USD - likely because both commodities respond to the same demand factors (e.g., global industrial growth), and that mining and refining copper are energy-intensive processes. We still see a long-term underlying common relationship with the U.S. dollar, but copper is more strongly tied to oil. Bottom Line: We ranked the four main commodity groups with respect to their historical sensitivity to the USD using two distinct metrics. Over the long haul, we found the order from most to least sensitive is (1) Energy, (2) Base Metals, (3) Precious Metals, (4) Ags. USD And Commodities Out Of Whack While most commodity indices exhibit strong and stable negative correlations with the U.S. dollar, many of these relationships were pushed out of their long-term equilibria in 2016, and, importantly, have remained out of whack for an unusually long period (Chart 2).5 In fact, we found most individual commodities and commodity groups haven't converged back to their long-term equilibrium correlation levels with the USD TWIB, and their respective divergences are once again moving higher (Chart 3). Chart 2CRB Sub-Indices Out Of Whack With USD Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Chart 3Short-Term Correlations Remain In Disequilibrium Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken As we've shown in previous research, commodity prices can remain in disequilibrium with the dollar when important fundamental (supply - demand) shocks dominate price formation.6 Table 2 shows which commodity groups are most out-of-equilibrium since 2016 relative to their long-term historical correlation. Energy, especially oil, and base metals groups are at the top of this list. Despite the fact that both of these groups are the most sensitive to the USD, based on our long-term analysis discussed above, the fact that they remain in disequilibria with the USD suggests the increase in the U.S. dollar we expect over the next 6 months will have a limited impact on these commodities. This leaves ags and, notably, precious metals, most vulnerable to the USD appreciation foreseen in our House view. Table 3 shows how the sensitivities of the different commodity groups vs. the USD TWIB have changed from 2015 to now versus the 2000 to 2015 period preceding it.7 Moreover, we see that in the shorter period between 2015 and now, the base metals and oil sensitivities (in red) are not significant. Economically, this means prices have disconnected from the USD during this period, owing to the overwhelming influence of supply-demand fundamentals on the price-formation process. Table 2Rank Of Rolling Correlation Divergences##BR##In 6-Month Vs. 5-Year Rolling Correlations Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Table 3Fundamentals Overwhelm##BR##USD's Influence Since 2015 Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken The most plausible explanation for this is base metals and oil markets experienced fundamental shocks over the period - especially since 2016, e.g. OPEC launching a market-share war in 2014 and surging production, followed by the OPEC 2.0 production cuts still in force in the market. In theory, and absent important fundamental (supply-demand) shocks in base metals and energy markets (e.g., a strike at major copper mines or an unexpected outcome at the OPEC 2.0 meeting next week), these correlations should converge back to the long-term equilibrium. However, the speed of convergence is unknown. As long as we observe a disequilibrium in the short-term correlations, we can assume that the disequilibrium will be maintained over the short term. The short-term correlation movements show most of the commodity groups were converging toward equilibrium in recent months, but have since reversed course, particularly oil (Chart 4 and Table 2). Chart 4Short- Vs. Long-Term Correlations Divergence Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken We believe the historic correlation levels between base metals and oil prices and the USD TWIB gradually will be restored. However, a number of factors will have to be monitored in order to determine the timing and the level around which the correlations will stabilize - i.e., close to the 2008 - 2013 levels or to those of the 2000 - 2007 period (Chart 5). We found that the EM/DM business cycle - i.e., the relative performance of EM to DM economies - as well as the shape of the oil forward curve generally can act as mediating factors in restoring the correlations of the USD TWIB and commodity prices.8 The stronger EM economies are relative to DM economies, or the more in contango the oil forward curve is, the more negative the correlations between commodities, especially oil and base metals, and the USD TWIB. Obviously, should the opposite occur, we would expect the weaker correlations to persist, although this might not constitute a complete disequilibrium. The mediating factors we mentioned can diminish or enhance the USD - Commodity correlations, but that does not mean they completely break them down. Chart 5Oil Vs. USD TWIB Correlation Remains Out Of Whack Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Bottom Line: Commodity prices disconnected from the U.S. dollar in 2015 - 16, which led to a rare environment in which the correlations between the USD TWIB and commodities became positive. Surprisingly, this disconnect remained in place for an extended period, which led us to revise our USD-elasticity ranking of commodity groups. As long as the fundamental shocks in the energy and base metals groups continue to dominate price formation in these markets, precious metals and ags will remain the most vulnerable groups to U.S. dollar appreciation. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "More delays to Nigerian Bonny Light as crude pipeline closes," published by Naija247 in Nigeria on June 11, 2018, and "Saudis Start to Ramp Up Oil Output, Ahead of OPEC Meeting," published by The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2018. See also BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding to Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published on March 31, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the oil-producer coalition led by The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 Please see "Escondida Union to Copper Investors: Bet on Quick Wage Deal," published by bloomberg.com, June 7, 2018, and "BHP responds to contract proposal from union at Chile's Escondida mine," published by uk.reuters.com on 11 June 2018. 3 These elasticities are the average coefficients for each commodity group we calculated using two different cointegrating regressions - Dynamic Ordinary Least Square and Panel - covering Jan 2000 to now. 4 Granger-causality measures the extent to which changes in one variable cause (or allow one to predict) changes in another variable. This is based on the work of the 2003 Nobel laureate, Clive Granger, who began publishing on this in 1969. Please see "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods," Econometrica, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1969), pp. 424-438. 5 We make sure the correlations we estimate use cointegrated random variables, which means the empirical results we get provide consistent estimates of actual population correlations. Please see Johansen, Soren (2007), "Correlation, regression, and cointegration of nonstationary economic time series," published by the Center for Research in Econometric Analysis of Time Series at the Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "OPEC 2.0 Vs. The Fed," dated February 08, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 These sensitivities are coefficients in cointegrating regressions, which, given the construction of the regressions, are elasticities. 8 Using threshold regressions, we found the USD impact on BM and energy prices is, on average, weaker when DM stock prices outperform that of EM and when the oil forward curve is backwardated. These two variables act as mediators to the USD-Commodity relationship, and can be used to project the strength of the relationship. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Correlations Vs. USD Weaken Correlations Vs. USD Weaken

Highlights Neither the weakness in emerging market economies nor political turmoil in Europe are likely to significantly affect the U.S. economy. Although the U.S. economy is increasingly service-oriented, financial markets have become more bound to the manufacturing economy in the past 30 years. The U.S.'s large trade surplus in services fosters faster job creation and better pay than in the goods-producing area where the U.S. has a trade deficit. Our energy strategists believe that the risks for oil prices remain biased to the upside, although we are less bullish in view of OPEC 2.0's possible production increases in the near future. Feature U.S. risk assets are rebounding amid solid economic news and rising hopes that another Eurozone financial crisis has been averted. Still, investors remain concerned about rising rates, protectionist trade policies, and the health of emerging market economies. In addition, market participants continue to scan the U.S. economic data in both the manufacturing and service sectors looking for signs that the late-cycle phase of the expansion is ending and that a recession is nigh. The NASDAQ and small cap U.S. stocks rallied past their February peaks last week, but the S&P 500 remains 3.7% below its early 2018 heights. Moreover, BCA's stock-to-bond ratio continues in an uptrend and we expect stocks to beat bonds in the next year. However, neither U.S. high-yield spreads nor the VIX have returned to their January lows. 10-year Treasury yields are 53 bps higher and the dollar is up by 5%. West Texas Intermediate oil prices peaked at $72.26/bbl on May 21. We discuss BCA's latest view on oil later in this report. U.S. economic growth remains solid. May's reading (58.6) on the ISM non-manufacturing index released last week is consistent with 3.5% real GDP growth. Moreover, the May sounding (58.7) on manufacturing indicates that the U.S. economy is growing near 5%. We discuss the signal from both the ISM's manufacturing and non-manufacturing indicators in the next section. In any case, U.S. economic activity in 1H 2018 will easily surpass the FOMC's view of both potential GDP growth (1.8%) and its estimate for actual growth in 2018 (2.7%) (Chart 1). The Fed will provide a new set of dot plots and economic forecasts this week. BCA expects the Fed to bump up rates this week and then gradually during the next year. The Fed and the market's view of the path of rates in the next 12 months is aligned (Chart 2). However, BCA's stance is that inflation will accelerate in 2019, which would elicit a more aggressive response from the central bank starting in the second half of 2019. Our view is that the Fed will stick to its gradual path unless economic growth is much weaker than expected or inflation spikes higher. Moreover, because inflation is at the Fed's 2% target and the economy is at full employment, the price at which the Fed's "policy put" gets exercised is much lower than earlier in the cycle. The implication is that neither the weakness in emerging market economies nor political turmoil in Europe are likely to significantly affect the U.S. economy. Still, a wider trade war is a risk to U.S. and global growth, and we address this issue in the service sector below. Chart 11H GDP Tracking Well Above##BR##Potential & Fed's Forecast 1H GDP Tracking Well Above Potential & Fed's Forecast 1H GDP Tracking Well Above Potential & Fed's Forecast Chart 2Fed And Market Aligned##BR##On Rate Path In Next 12 Months Fed And Market Aligned On Rate Path In Next 12 Months Fed And Market Aligned On Rate Path In Next 12 Months On The Same Page The ISM surveys - manufacturing and non-manufacturing - are aligned. The top panel of Chart 3 shows that both metrics have climbed since their troughs in late 2015 (manufacturing) and early 2016 (non-manufacturing). These lows occurred amid EM-related economic and market turbulence. The 2015 nadir in the manufacturing series was more pronounced, thus the rise outpaced the non-manufacturing indicator (panel 2). U.S. financial markets, and the stock market more specifically, are sensitive to the performance of the manufacturing sector. The service sector accounts for 62% of U.S. economic activity and 86% of private-sector employment (Chart 4). Charts 5 and 6 show the relationship between the year-over-year change in BCA's stock-to-bond ratio and the level of manufacturing (Chart 5) versus non-manufacturing (Chart 6) composites. The relationship (r-squared 0.56) between our stock-to-bond ratio and the manufacturing sector is more robust that the r-squared (0.43) between the stock-to-bond ratio and the non-manufacturing sector. Chart 3Manufacturing And Non-Manufacturing ISM Are Aligned, But That's Not Always The Case Manufacturing And Non-Manufacturing ISM Are Aligned, But That's Not Always The Case Manufacturing And Non-Manufacturing ISM Are Aligned, But That's Not Always The Case Chart 4U.S. Economy Is 60% Services... U.S. Economy Is 60% Services... U.S. Economy Is 60% Services... Although the U.S. economy is increasingly service-oriented, Charts 7 and 8 show that the financial markets have become more bound to the manufacturing economy in the past 30 years. Between 1958 and 1988, the r-squared between our stock-to-bond ratio and manufacturing data was 0.19 (Chart 7). That increased to 0.34 from 1988 to 2018 (Chart 8). Chart 5Tighter Relationship Between##BR##Stock-To-Bond Ratio And Manufacturing ISM... At Your Service At Your Service Chart 6... Than With##BR##Non Manufacturing ISM At Your Service At Your Service Chart 7ISM Manufacturing Vs.##BR##Stock-To-Bond Ratio 1958-1988... At Your Service At Your Service Chart 8... And##BR##1988-2018 At Your Service At Your Service Chart 9 shows that there have been six other periods when the manufacturing index recovered more quickly than non-manufacturing. Five of the intervals were associated with EM stress.1 Moreover, as is currently the case, the economy was at or below full employment in four of the six occasions when manufacturing outpaced the service sector. Furthermore, the Fed initiated rate hikes in four of the seven episodes, including the current one (Appendix Chart 1). EM stocks tend to outpace U.S. equities as the non-manufacturing index rises faster than the manufacturing index. In addition, when the U.S. manufacturing sector is accelerating relative to the service sector, China's growth prospects (as measured by the LI Keqiang Index) improve. Chart 9Performance Of EM Assets When Manufacturing ISM Outpaces Service Sector ISM Performance Of EM Assets When Manufacturing ISM Outpaces Service Sector ISM Performance Of EM Assets When Manufacturing ISM Outpaces Service Sector ISM The peak in our Relative ISM composite index is consistent with BCA's view that the economic expansion that began in 2009 is nearing an end. Our Relative ISM Composite dipped prior to the 2001 recession, but began to rise as the 2007-2009 downturn commenced. Both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing indices collapsed at the same pace prior to the 2007-2009 recession, because the breakdown of the banking system related to the housing crisis weighed on the non-manufacturing data. Unfortunately, the ISM non-manufacturing data only begins in 1997. However, using the goods and service-sector GDP as proxies for the ISM metrics, we find that the manufacturing sector tends to underperform the service sector in the late stages of an expansion (Chart 10). Our earlier work2 details the performance of U.S. financial assets in a late-cycle environment. Chart 10Manufacturing Sector Tends To Underperform The Service Sector In Late Cycle Environments Manufacturing Sector Tends To Underperform The Service Sector In Late Cycle Environments Manufacturing Sector Tends To Underperform The Service Sector In Late Cycle Environments Bottom Line: Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. While the U.S. economy will enjoy a strong rebound in the second quarter, leading economic indicators in most of the other major countries have rolled over. The advanced stage of the U.S. business cycle, heightened geopolitical risks and our bias for capital preservation keep us tactically cautious on risk assets again this month. Service Sector: An Update Even with the increasingly dominant role of the service sector (Chart 4 again), the majority of high frequency economic data measures activity in the manufacturing sector. However, the Quarterly Services Survey (QSS) initiated in 2003-2004 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), measures the service sector which includes small- and medium-sized companies3 and produces timely revenue figures on a quarterly basis. The dataset is used primarily by the BEA to paint a more accurate picture of national accounts, notably personal consumption and the intellectual property segment of private-fixed investment. The survey is also essential for FOMC policymakers because it is very useful to track economic performance. Moreover, the QSS is an important source of revisions to real GDP because over 40% of the quarterly estimates of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) for services is based on the QSS. The "key services statistics" include information services, health care services, professional, scientific and technical services, administrative and support, and waste management and remediation services. The QSS for Q1 2018 found that total revenues for selected services fell by 1.2% over the previous quarter but rose 5.2% over the last four quarters (in nominal terms and only non-seasonally adjusted data available). Nominal GDP climbed 4.7% year-over-year in Q1 (Chart 11). Several areas of the service economy saw sales growth in Q1 outpace nominal GDP. Sales were strongest in finance and insurance (+7.8%) followed by information (+7%). Real estate and rental leasing sales increased by 4.7% in the past year while revenue in health care & social assistance rose +3.4%. Together, sales in finance & insurance and health care & social assistance make up about 50% of total revenues. Chart 11Many Areas Of Service Sector##BR##Advancing Faster Than Nominal GDP Many Areas Of Service Sector Advancing Faster Than Nominal GDP Many Areas Of Service Sector Advancing Faster Than Nominal GDP Chart 12Sales Growth In The Service Sector##BR##Is Broad Based Sales Growth In The Service Sector Is Broad Based Sales Growth In The Service Sector Is Broad Based However, revenue growth in several categories decelerated in Q1 and grew more slowly than nominal GDP. Arts, entertainment and recreation, administration support and waste management, and other services are in this category. Bottom Line: Given that the majority of service industries from the QSS sample survey continue to show upward momentum, perhaps we will see a similar revision to real consumer spending for services for the third estimate of Q1 real GDP in late June (Chart 12). We continue to expect U.S. GDP growth to match or exceed the Fed's modest target for 2018. This above-trend growth will continue to put downward pressure on the unemployment rate and push inflation higher, setting the stage for a more aggressive Fed next year and a recession in 2020. The Wrong Trade War? The large trade surplus in the U.S. service sector is a hidden source of strength for the economy and labor market (Chart 13). President Trump campaigned on his ability to create high-paying manufacturing jobs and he has focused his attention on the goods side of the U.S. trade deficit. Nonetheless, his America First rhetoric threatens jobs in the high-paying service sector. Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. has imported more than it has exported, acting as a drag on GDP growth. The trade gap reflects a large and persistent goods deficit, which more than offsets a growing trade surplus on the service side (Chart 14). U.S. imported goods exceeded exports by $807 billion in 2017. Service exports reached an all-time high of $798 billion in 2017 - $255 billion more than imports - up from $249 billion in 2016. It is too soon to tell if the smaller surplus in services is related to Trump's protectionist trade rhetoric. Exports of services have increased by 6% a year on average since 2000, which is nearly twice as fast as nominal GDP. Service exports expanded by just 4% in 2017 versus 2016, which is below the pace of nominal GDP (4.7%) The trade surplus in services subtracted 0.08% from real GDP in Q1 2018, but added 0.05% in 2017. Moreover, the trade surplus in services has consistently added to GDP growth over the past few decades, although the trade surplus in services is swamped by the large drag on GDP due to the trade deficit on goods. Industries where the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus have experienced job growth that is faster than in industries where the U.S. runs a deficit. In addition, median wages ($30.07 as of April 2018) among surplus-producing industries are more than 20% higher than in industries in the goods sector ($24.94) where there is a trade deficit. Moreover, wages in the trade-oriented service sector have escalated quicker than in the goods-producing sector in the past year (Chart 15). Chart 13The U.S. Runs Trade##BR##Surplus In Services... The U.S. Runs Trade Surplus In Services... The U.S. Runs Trade Surplus In Services... Chart 14...But It's Not Large Enough To Offset##BR##The Big Trade Deficit In Goods ...But It's Not Large Enough To Offset The Big Trade Deficit In Goods ...But It's Not Large Enough To Offset The Big Trade Deficit In Goods Chart 15Wages In Export-Led Service Industries##BR##21% Higher Than In Goods Sector Wages In Export-Led Service Industries 21% Higher Than In Goods Sector Wages In Export-Led Service Industries 21% Higher Than In Goods Sector Furthermore, exports in the U.S. service sector tend to compete on quality (not on price) and, therefore, will not be as affected as U.S. goods exports if the dollar meets BCA's forecast for a modest increase this year (Chart 16). That said, the Trump administration's trade policies threaten to reduce the U.S.'s global dominance in services. Chart 16Services Exports Compete On Quality, Not Price Services Exports Compete On Quality, Not Price Services Exports Compete On Quality, Not Price Table 1 shows that the U.S. has the largest trade surplus in travel ($82 billion surplus in 2016), intellectual property ($80 billion), financial services ($73 billion) and other business services ($43 billion), which includes legal, accounting, consulting and architectural services. The U.S. also runs a surplus in maintenance and repair services. Table 1Key Components Of U.S. Trade Surplus In Services At Your Service At Your Service Trump's trade and immigration policies put this trade surplus at risk. In 2016, foreigners spent $82 billion more to vacation in, travel to, and be educated in the U.S. than what U.S. citizens spent on those services overseas. Moreover, a recent U.N. report4 noted that "Global flows of foreign direct investment fell by 23 per cent in 2017. Cross-border investment in developed and transition economies dropped sharply, while growth was near zero in developing economies." If foreign governments continue to react to Trump's directives on trade and immigration, then the U.S. trade advantage in financial services ($73 billion), software services ($29 billion), TV and film rights ($12 billion), architectural services ($5 billion) and advertising ($10 billion) will also be at risk. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s large trade surplus in services fosters faster job creation and better pay than in the goods-producing area where the U.S. has a trade deficit. The Trump administration's rhetoric and actions on trade and globalism potentially risks America's dominance in the service sector. In theory, U.S. trade restrictions could add to U.S. GDP growth via increased manufacturing output and a smaller goods trade deficit. However, many U.S. trading partners have already announced tariffs on U.S. goods which will put the brakes on growth. Even so, any gains on the manufacturing trade front could be largely offset by damage to the U.S. surplus in services trade. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects that trade-related uncertainty will persist at least until the midterm elections in November.5 On a related note, an increase in onshore oil production in the past 10 years reduced the U.S's large trade deficit in petroleum and petroleum products. BCA's energy strategists recently updated their oil price and production forecasts for this year and next. Still Bullish On Oil BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service remains bullish on oil, although two key elements of the outlook makes forecasting particularly difficult.6 Our base case forecast has been bullish for some time, based on our assumption that OPEC 2.0 would retain its previous output cuts, at least through the end of 2018. Venezuela's production has contracted sharply and we penciled in a further modest decline. Iranian exports will also shrink due to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions. The only substantial growth on the production side is expected to come from U.S. shale producers. The supply/demand backdrop pointed toward higher prices with world demand projected to remain robust. We estimated that Brent could reach $90/bbl early next year. Chart 17Ensemble Forecast Accounts For##BR##Collapse In Venezuela's Exports Ensemble Forecast Accounts For Collapse In Venezuela's Exports Ensemble Forecast Accounts For Collapse In Venezuela's Exports However, some major oil consumers, including the U.S., are starting to complain. The U.S. has asked the OPEC 2.0 countries to increase output, which may remove further upward pressure on prices. OPEC 2.0's leadership has signaled that it will consider reversing the production cuts during the second half of this year. This could add an extra 870 b/d of production. The other major unknown is how much further Venezuelan production will slide. Our oil strategists have run alternative scenarios to gauge the risks to the base case. The optimistic case sees OPEC 2.0 retaining production cuts and Venezuelan production dipping by another 1m b/d. The pessimistic case sees OPEC 2.0 reversing the production cuts, while Venezuelan production erodes modestly compared with the base and optimistic cases. Chart 17 shows that Brent hits $100/bbl in 2019 in the optimistic case, but drops to $60 in the pessimistic scenario. The ensemble forecast, shown in red in Chart 17, is a weighted average of the three scenarios. It shows that the price of oil will be roughly flat over the next 18 months. Bottom Line: Our energy strategists believe that the risks for oil prices remain biased to the upside, although we are less bullish in view of OPEC 2.0's possible production increases in the near future. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Chart 1Fed Policy And Labor Market Slack When Manufacturing ISM Outpaces Service Sector ISM Fed Policy And Labor Market Slack When Manufacturing ISM Outpaces Service Sector ISM Fed Policy And Labor Market Slack When Manufacturing ISM Outpaces Service Sector ISM 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Cleanup On Aisle Two", published June 4, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View," published October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.census.gov/services/qss/about_the_survey.html 4 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2018_overview_en.pdf 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again", published May 31,2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Since the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 there have been five major episodes where U.S. dollar moves were not uniform across all currencies. These episodes share common features: a rallying broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar, desynchronized global growth and falling commodity prices. The above conditions will likely be met in the coming months, producing a period of global currency divergence. Commodity and EM currencies will weaken the most against the U.S. dollar, then against the yen, and finally depreciating the least against the euro. Feature It is often assumed that the dollar behaves like a monolith. However, this is not always the case: some currencies do manage to occasionally buck the dollar's general trend (Chart 1). Interestingly, the yen is most often the currency that manages to avoid the broad dollar's general directionality. Chart 1Episodes Of Currency Divergence ##br##Versus the Dollar Episodes Of Currency Divergence Versus the Dollar Episodes Of Currency Divergence Versus the Dollar Our view has been and remains that the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar still has meaningful upside this year, and that the EM currency complex will be under heavy selling pressure in the coming months. That said, it is worth asking whether all other currencies will share the same fate against a rising broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar, or whether some could diverge from the general dollar trend. This is essentially akin to trying to understand the pecking order of currencies outside the USD. To address these challenges, we believe it is important to understand how global growth will evolve, how relative growth dynamics among regions will shift, and how commodity prices will perform over the coming six to 12 months. When The Dollar Wears Many Masks There have been five major periods of currency divergence versus the U.S. dollar. These have lasted anywhere from one to three years (Table 1). Table 1Summary Of Currency Divergence Episodes Can There Be More Than One U.S. Dollar? Can There Be More Than One U.S. Dollar? Interestingly, they share some common features, heeding important insights for global investors. These features are as follows: 1) Common feature #1: A Rising Broad Trade-Weighted Dollar With the exception of the 2005-2007 episode, all other episodes where some currencies diverged from the general trend in the USD occurred when the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar was in a bull market. 2) Common feature #2: Desynchronized Global Growth All episodes of divergence in the FX market occurred when global growth was desynchronized. This underscores the importance of growth as a key driver of FX movements. During the 1991-1993 period, the yen was able to buck the dollar's strength (Chart 2) even though Japanese growth was falling quite fast relative to the U.S. Explaining this seeming inconsistency was the policy conducted by the Bank of Japan at the time. The BoJ was cutting rates, from 6% in 1991 to below 2% in 1993, but it was not doing so fast enough to alleviate budding deflationary pressures. As a result, Japanese real interest rates did not fall. This caused real rate differentials to move firmly in favor of the yen. In the final months of 1991, Japanese 2-year and 10-year real rate spreads versus the U.S. were 50 basis points and -75 basis points respectively, but by June 1993, these spreads became 145 basis points and 115 basis points. In the 1995-1996 episode, all the economic blocks experienced a slowdown in growth relative to the U.S. While this time the yen plunged versus the dollar, commodity currencies managed to appreciate against the dollar. This was because commodity prices rose during this timeframe, creating a positive terms-of-trade tailwind that lifted these currencies (Chart 3). Chart 2Episode 1: The Yen Diverges Episode 1: The Yen Diverges Episode 1: The Yen Diverges Chart 3Commodity Currencies Diverge Commodity Currencies Diverge Commodity Currencies Diverge In 1997 and 1998, the euro was the currency that managed to remain stable versus the U.S dollar, while the yen and commodity currencies sagged meaningfully (Chart 4).The euro was able to defy the gravity of a strong dollar because the euro area's relative growth differential versus the U.S. remained stable. Essentially, in the late '90s, as the euro area periphery was enjoying the full dividend of convergence toward the living standards of core Europe, European domestic demand was left unaffected by the Asian crisis. Meanwhile, commodity producers and Japan - two groups with much deeper links with EM economies - were experiencing deeper repercussions from the EM economic contraction. The 2005-2007 period of de-synchronized currency action against the dollar is somewhat of an outlier (Chart 5). First, this particular episode of currency divergence materialized in an environment where the dollar was weak. Chart 4Episode 3: The Euro Diverges Episode 3: The Euro Diverges Episode 3: The Euro Diverges Chart 5Episode 4: The Yen Diverges Again Episode 4: The Yen Diverges Again Episode 4: The Yen Diverges Again Second, the outlier was the yen, which managed to depreciate against the dollar while all other currencies were strengthening against the greenback. Chart 6Episode 5: The Euro Diverges again Episode 5: The Euro Diverges again Episode 5: The Euro Diverges again Third, while Japanese growth was below that of the U.S. it was not falling versus the U.S. However, this still caused Japan to be the odd man out in terms of growth performance, as other economic blocs delivered better growth than the U.S. Moreover, Japan was not experiencing the same growth dividend from China's miraculous boom as emerging Asian or commodity producers were. Adding fuel to the fire was the endemic implementation of carry trades. The low FX and rate volatility of that era was an invitation to engage in this kind of strategy.1 But Japan's deflation, along with its sub-par economic performance when compared to non-U.S. economies, re-assured investors that the BoJ would keep rates at rock-bottom levels for the foreseeable future. This was an invitation to investors to sell the yen to fund these carry trades in EM and commodity currencies as well as the euro. Finally, during the 2012-2013 episode the euro area was the global growth laggard. However, the euro was the currency that was able to strengthen against the dollar, defying the greenback's broad appreciation (Chart 6). It is true that euro area domestic demand growth was slightly improving versus the U.S. More importantly though, this was the time period that followed European Central Bank President Mario Draghi's "whatever it takes" speech. These soothing words caused the break-up risk premia across euro area member states to collapse, lifting the euro in the process. 3) Common feature #3: Commodity Prices Were Falling In three out of five episodes, commodity prices were falling, which is consistent with the fact that four out of the five episodes were periods of broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar strength. The only exceptions were the 1995-1996 and 2005-2007 episodes, where commodities rallied. The latter period was further marked by a weak broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar. Bottom Line: Looking back at history, there have been five episodes where some major currencies diverged from the U.S. dollar's broad trend. In the majority of these episodes, the broad trade-weighted U.S dollar was rising, global growth was desynchronized, and commodity prices were falling. When Is The Next Episode On The Air? The aforementioned three common features can be thought of as pre-conditions for some currency divergence to transpire. So, when can investors expect the next episode to hit the proverbial airwaves? In our view, this scenario is most likely to materialize over the coming six to 12 months. Our main macro themes have been and remain2 that the global macro landscape over the coming months will be shaped by two tectonic shifts: on the one hand, America's fiscal stimulus will sustain robust U.S. growth, and on the other hand, the continued slowdown in money and credit in China will culminate in a relapse in capital spending. The Chinese leg of the scenario will depress commodity prices and consequently emerging market economies; meanwhile, thanks to considerable fiscal stimulus, easy financial conditions and relative economic insularity, U.S. growth will remain steady, leaving it as the global growth outperformer. These dynamics are bullish for the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar: The U.S. economy is growing robustly despite rising interest rates. In fact, interest rate-sensitive sectors are showing no signs of slowing down, confirming the resilience of the economy at this stage of the cycle. Both the housing market and commercial lending standards are not flagging growth risks (Chart 7). Chart 8 demonstrates that BCA's broad money measure (M3) for China leads import volumes and industrial metals prices by about six months. Based on the indicator's track record, odds are that industrial commodity prices will fall meaningfully over the coming months. Chart 7U.S. Economy Is Weathering##br## Rising Interest Rates U.S. Economy Is Weathering Rising Interest Rates U.S. Economy Is Weathering Rising Interest Rates Chart 8China's Money/Credit Is Bearish ##br##For Industrial Metals bca.fes_sr_2018_06_08_c8 bca.fes_sr_2018_06_08_c8 While oil prices could hold out for longer due to supply dynamics and geopolitics, positioning remains extremely elevated. As such, we are not ruling out a meaningful pullback in crude as traders head for the exits - all in the context of slowing global demand. Bottom Line: Pieces are falling in place to create the conditions necessary for some currency decoupling: global growth is set to become desynchronized, and commodity prices are likely to weaken - all in the context of a rising broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar. A Reverse Currency Pecking Order Slowing global trade as well as a growth deceleration in China's capital spending and demand for commodities will have the biggest repercussions for commodity and EM Asian currencies (Chart 9). This leaves the euro and the yen as the two most likely candidates to potentially diverge from the broad U.S. dollar in this coming episode. In our view, we think the yen could win this title. First, while the euro area economy is less leveraged to a slowdown in China/EM than Japan, it is still extremely vulnerable. Investors are still very long the euro, and therefore are vulnerable to negative surprises. Euro area industrial production could be the impulse to continue generating underwhelming economic numbers, as it is very much leveraged to China (Chart 10), mainly due to Germany's own deep trade links with EM and China. Notably, the German IFO index for business expectations in German manufacturing - a good leading indicator for global trade - is pointing to a further slowdown in global exports (Chart 11, top panel). Furthermore, German manufacturing new orders from non-euro area countries are starting to roll over, suggesting German exports will weaken imminently (Chart 11, middle panel). Lastly, the Swiss KOF leading indicator has come in below 100 (Chart 11, bottom pane Chart 9EM Asia & Commodity Currencies To Remain Weak EM Asia & Commodity Currencies To Remain Weak EM Asia & Commodity Currencies To Remain Weak Chart 10When China Decelerates, So Does Europe When China Decelerates, So Does Europe When China Decelerates, So Does Europe Chart 11Global Trade Is Slowing Down Global Trade Is Slowing Down Global Trade Is Slowing Down Second, it seems that historically the yen has a greater ability to rally than the euro when commodity prices are falling or when the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar is in a bull market, highlighting the counter-cyclical nature of the Japanese currency. This happened in the early to mid-'90s and in 2008 (Chart 12). The only exception was in 1998, when the euro was able to rally amid a selloff in commodity prices and a strengthening dollar because domestic growth was so resilient. Today, euro area domestic growth is healthier than it was in 2012-2013, but it is still much weaker than is the case in the U.S., especially as the latter is receiving a shot in the arm thanks to a large dose of late-cycle stimulus. Chart 12The Yen Has Counter Cyclical Attributes The Yen Has Counter Cyclical Attributes The Yen Has Counter Cyclical Attributes Chart 13Euro Long Positioning Is Higher Than For The Yen Euro Long Positioning Is Higher Than For The Yen Euro Long Positioning Is Higher Than For The Yen As such, we believe the euro has more downside than the yen against the U.S. dollar in this coming episode. Furthermore, speculators remain too long the euro versus the yen (Chart 13). Third, the yen is a crucial funding currency in global carry trades, while the euro has not been used by traders for this purpose over the past 18 months.3 As such, a selloff in EM and commodity currencies, which is our base case, could spur a rush to the exits for short yen positions, while the euro is not likely to benefit from a similar short squeeze. Additionally, Japan sports a large positive net international investment position of US$3.1 trillion, while Europe's stands at -US$0.6 trillion. Consequently, Japanese investors have proportionally more funds held abroad than European investors to repatriate home in the event of an upsurge in global/EM market volatility, adding a further impetus for the yen to buck the dollar trend. One of the best currency valuation metrics is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs, because it takes into account both wages and productivity. Unfortunately, this data set does not exist for all countries. On this metric, the U.S. dollar is not expensive (Chart 14, top panel). Adding credence to our view that the yen will be more resilient than the euro this year, according to the unit labor costs-based measures, the JPY appears to be cheap in trade-weighted terms and relative to the EUR (Chart 14, bottom panel). Chart 14The Yen Is Cheaper Than the Euro,##br## Dollar Is Fairly Valued The Yen Is Cheaper Than the Euro, Dollar Is Fairly Valued The Yen Is Cheaper Than the Euro, Dollar Is Fairly Valued Chart 15The Korean Won##br## Is Expensive The Korean Won Is Expensive The Korean Won Is Expensive Chart 16Commodity Currencies ##br##Are Not Cheap Commodity Currencies Are Not Cheap Commodity Currencies Are Not Cheap The Korean won - the only emerging Asian currency for which this measure is available - seems to be expensive (Chart 15). Chart 16 demonstrates that commodity currencies including those of Australia, New Zealand and Chile are on the expensive side, while the Canadian dollar and the Colombian peso are fairly valued. Bottom Line: Putting all the pieces together, our reverse pecking order for global investors from the weakest to strongest currency against the U.S. dollar is as follows: commodity currencies, non-commodities EM currencies (primarily Asian), the euro, and the yen. Investment Conclusions We recommend the following strategy to best navigate the coming global currency divergence episode over the coming six to 12 months: Global asset allocators should underweight the following currencies, from most to least, in the following order: First, the extremely vulnerable commodity currencies (BRL, IDR, ZAR, CLP, COP, AUD, NZD, NOK, and CAD); second, the EM Asian currencies (KRW, MYR, SGD, TWD, and PHP); third, the euro; and lastly, the yen. Currency traders stand to benefit the most in this coming episode by going short commodity and EM Asian currencies versus the U.S. dollar. That said, Japanese and European investors also stand to benefit by selling or underweighting commodity and EM currencies. The yen and the euro will depreciate significantly less than commodity and EM currencies, with the yen potentially ending flat versus the U.S. dollar. To capture these dynamics we suggest a new currency trade: long JPY / short SGD. The rationale behind this trade is that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) manages the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of its major trading partners. Consequently, if as we anticipate the Japanese yen strengthens versus all other currencies with the exception of the greenback, the MAS will likely have to depreciate the Singapore dollar versus the yen. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Two Tectonic Macro Shifts", dated January 31, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Euro: Risk On Or Risk Off?", dated November 17, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict

Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update A Series Of Unfortunate Events Markets have taken a series of hits in recent months - sharp drops in emerging market currencies, a political crisis in Italy, and the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China - not to mention a slowdown in cyclical growth. But risk assets have been remarkably resilient: the U.S. stock market is in the middle of its year-to-date range, and U.S. small cap stocks (more attuned to domestic conditions) are at record highs (Chart 1). The uncertainty is set to continue for a while. But, with global growth likely to settle at an above-trend pace, fiscal and monetary policy still accommodative, and earnings continuing to grow strongly, the recent resilience says to us that risk assets are likely to grind higher and to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. A major underlying cause of the recent volatility has been the growing disparity between growth in the U.S. and in the rest of the world (Chart 2). This is partly due to the strength of the euro and yen last year, which is now dampening activity in these regions, but the slowdown in Chinese industrial growth and a higher oil price may also be having a disproportionate effect on growth outside the U.S. This growth disparity has widened interest rate differentials, which have again become the major driver of currencies, pushing up the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). Chart 1Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Chart 2Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Chart 3...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise ...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise ...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise In combination with rising U.S. interest rates (the 10-year Treasury yield rose above 3% last month, before correcting a little), dollar appreciation is a threat for emerging markets. EM assets have long shown a consistently strong inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 4). We expect the EM sell-off to continue. Further Fed hikes and rising inflation expectations in the U.S. (relative to the euro area and Japan) will increase interest-rate differentials and push the dollar up further: we forecast 1.12 for euro/dollar. Investors are still far from capitulating on EM assets after several years of large purchases (Chart 5). Many EM central banks are being forced to raise rates to defend their currencies, which will dent growth. Some may even be forced into reintroducing capital controls. Several emerging economies besides Argentina and Turkey remain vulnerable, having worryingly high amounts of foreign currency debt (Chart 6). Chart 4Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Chart 5Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Chart 6Worrying Levels Of FX Debt Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 7Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Geopolitics is likely to remain a drag on markets for a while, too. Italy remains the biggest threat. The discontent of the Italian population is unsurprising given the country's stagnation since it joined the euro (Chart 7). The probable coalition government of the Lega and Five Star Movement would introduce aggressive fiscal stimulus, putting it in confrontation with the EU's budgetary rules. But BCA's geopolitical strategists see little risk of Italy exiting the euro in the next two years (though 10 years might be a different story).1 Political gyrations may continue for some months, particularly if the new government persists with its plan to blow the fiscal deficit out to 7% of GDP, but the sell-off in short-term Italian bonds looks to be overdone. Developments in trade tariffs, Iran and North Korea could also weigh on markets in coming months. But ultimately economic fundamentals almost always outweigh geopolitical risk. Global growth is slowing, but to an above-trend pace. Fiscal policy is particularly stimulative this year, with 17 of the 33 OECD countries undertaking large fiscal easing, and a further 11 some easing. The overall cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance in OECD countries is forecast to ease by 0.5% of GDP this year and 0.4% next (Chart 8). Monetary policy remains accommodative almost everywhere. The FOMC, in its May statement, by adding the word "symmetric" to describe its 2% inflation objective, was clearly emphasizing that it sees no need to accelerate the pace of rate hikes, despite the recent pickup in core PCE inflation. We expect the Fed to continue to raise rates once a quarter, meaning that monetary policy will not become restrictive until around Q1 next year. With inflation expectations not yet fully normalized (Chart 9), the Fed could still exercise its "put option" by holding for a quarter or two if global risk were to rise significantly. Italy's problems also make it more likely that the ECB will stay easier for longer, and the probability is rising of its deciding to extend asset purchases into next year. Chart 8Fiscal Stimulus (Almost) Everywhere Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 9Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise With the consensus already forecasting global GDP to grow 3.4% this year, and U.S. earnings by 22%, there is no obvious catalyst for risk assets to rebound sharply (Chart 10). However, we find it inconceivable that equity markets will not be higher in 12 months' time - and will not have outperformed bonds over that time - if the macro environment plays out as we expect. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on equities and underweight on fixed income, but might start to turn more defensive around the end of the year if the signs are in place that the recession we expect in 2020 is still on the cards. Equities: For the reasons described above, we remain cautious on EM equities. Within EM, our preference would be for markets such as China, Korea and India, which are likely to be less affected by investors' concerns about current account deficits and foreign-currency denominated debt. In DM, our preference remains for late-cyclical sectors, especially energy, financials and industrials. We mainly view regional and country selection as a derivative of the sector call: this supports our preference for euro zone and Japanese stocks over those in the U.S. and U.K. Fixed Income: A combination of quarterly Fed rate hikes, a further normalization of inflation expectations, and moderate rises in the real rate and term premium are likely to push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield up to 3.5% by year-end (Chart 11). We, therefore, remain underweight duration and prefer TIPs to nominal bonds. We keep our overweights on spread product within the fixed-income bucket, since it should continue to outperform for another couple of quarters. U.S. high-yield spreads are likely to remain steady, giving an attractive carry even after accounting for defaults; investment grade spreads might start to recover, given that the sell-off of quality bonds by companies repatriating short-term investments held offshore ($35 Bn from the 20 largest U.S. companies in Q1) is now mostly over (Chart 12). Chart 10Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Chart 11Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Chart 12Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Currencies: Interest-rate differentials, as described above, are likely to push the dollar up further, especially against the euro. This should continue until the effect of a strong dollar/weak euro starts to rebalance growth surprises back to the euro area, perhaps around the end of the year. We see less chance of dollar appreciation against the yen (which is still undervalued against its PPP value of 98, and may benefit from its safe-haven status) and against the Canadian dollar (given the Bank of Canada's hawkish stance). Commodities: Industrial commodities are likely to continue to struggle against headwinds from the appreciating dollar, and the continuing moderate slowdown in China (Chart 13). The oil price has become a tougher call recently, with talk that OPEC may agree later this month to bring back as much as 1 million barrels/day in production, but Venezuelan and Iranian supply likely to exit the market. BCA's energy strategists now forecast WTI and Brent to average $70 and $78 in 2H18, and $67/$72 in 2019, but expect higher volatility in the price over coming months (Chart 14).2 Chart 13Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Chart 14Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!," dated 30 May 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output: Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," dated 31 May 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Italy is a live drama. However, both Italy and Brussels have constraints that should lead to a compromise on fiscal stimulus. Italy will not leave the euro in the foreseeable future, and the European Central Bank has little incentive not to continue accepting Italian bonds. With the recent capitulation in the Italian bond market, the euro could experience a brief respite, potentially rallying toward 1.18 to 1.19. However, for the euro to endure a more durable bottom, global bond yields need to stop falling. Until then, EUR/USD could move toward 1.12. Falling bond yields imply more downside for EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF as well. NOK/SEK is not yet a buy. The trend in gold prices can be used to gauge where the fed funds rate stands vis-à-vis r-star. Feature In July 64AD, the Great Fire of Rome erupted, causing untold damage to the great imperial capital. Various Roman sources suggest that Emperor Nero started the fire to clear land in order to build himself a new palace, the Domus Aurea.1 This fire was a calamity, and was followed by a period of economic tumult and currency debasement. However, Rome recovered, the empire conquered more nations, and ultimately survived another 412 years. We have held a bearish view on the euro for 2018, expressed by recommending investors buy DXY and sell EUR/CAD, EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF. However, this view is underpinned by economic divergences and a softening in global growth. Our negative bias on the euro has greatly benefited from the fire that has engulfed Italian politics and bond markets. Taking stock of this week's political theatre, does it still make sense to be short the euro, and by extension long the dollar? As we foresee more downside in global bond yields, we think yes. However, while Italy is currently burning, it is not at risk of causing a collapse of the euro area. Pricing an end to the "empire" is thus an inappropriate reason to stay short the euro. The Italian Job Italy has once again become a trouble spot for investors. The M5S / Lega Nord coalition's manifesto proposes blowing out the fiscal deficit to above 7% of GDP by instituting a flat tax regime, increasing spending and undoing pension reforms instigated by the Monti government in 2012. In response to these developments, president Mattarella has removed the proposed finance minister, Paolo Savona, arguing he was too anti-euro and that abandoning the euro area was unconstitutional. He went on to nominate Carlo Cottarelli, nicknamed "Mr. Scissors," as a caretaker prime minister tasked with leading a technocratic government until new elections are implemented. However, the coalition rightfully argued that this move was executed under a false pretext, as its current policy proposal does not include leaving the euro area. Even before the drama had fully blossomed, Italy on Monday had been put on downgrade watch by Moody's. In light of the political developments, investors then worried that a new election would result in Italy potentially exiting the euro area. Italian 2-year yields spiked to a spread of 350 basis points against German Schatz. This implied a perceived probability of 11% that Italy will choose to exit the euro area over the course of the next two years. Another possible outcome discounted by investors was that the European Central Bank would stop accepting BTPs as repo collaterals, or stop buying them in its Asset Purchase Program. Chart I-1Italian Support For The Euro##br## Is Low But Well Above 50% Italian Support For The Euro Is Low But Well Above 50% Italian Support For The Euro Is Low But Well Above 50% Which of these two risks is more likely to materialize? We think the current implied probability of Italy electing to leave the euro over the coming two years is very low. Italians exhibit the lowest support toward the euro of any eurozone member state. However, a majority of Italians, 59% of them, still support the common currency (Chart I-1). In response to this constraint, the very nimble Five Star Movement, while still hell-bent on fiscal profligacy, has already greatly downplayed its Euroscepticism. While Lega Nord still has more Eurosceptic inclinations, it has not put leaving the euro area at the core of its coalition agreement with M5S. BCA has a great degree of confidence in this view, but it is important to not be dogmatic. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service recommends investors closely follow the statements of these two parties over the course of the summer. The second risk is more real. The fiscal proposal of the coalition would blow the Italian budget deficit from 2.3% to more than 7% of GDP. Ratings agencies are already putting Italy on downgrade watch. Italy has a credit rating of Baa2, and only bonds with ratings of Baa3 or better are eligible at the ECB. It is possible that the central bank, in coordination with Brussels, exerts the same kind of pressure as it did in August 2011 when Jean Claude Trichet and Mario Draghi wrote a letter to Silvio Berlusconi demanding his resignation in exchange for financial market support for Italy. Despite this risk, we expect Italy to ultimately play ball and not blow up the deficit to 7% of GDP - simply because of economic constraints. These constraints are also likely to create an additional limit on the willingness and capacity of Italy to leave the euro area. The arguments we made in a joint Special Report with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service titled "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," published in June 2017, remain valid: Italy will feel the pain from its transgressions before it can implement them.2 This is happening today as we write. Essentially, Italy's problem is rooted in the poor health of its banking system. Italian banks have capital in the order of EUR165 billion and NPLs of EUR130 billion, leaving EUR35 billion in excess capital. However, Italian commercial banks hold approximately EUR350 billion in BTPs. Thus, any decline in BTP value of 10% or more would render the Italian banking system insolvent (Chart I-2). Since suggesting abandoning the euro or conducting policy that exclude Italian debt from the ECB's window would cause a greater than 10% fall in BTP prices, this would kill off credit issuance in Italy as the banking sector would not have the wherewithal to extend new loans. This would prompt a large collapse in the credit impulse, and thus GDP growth (Chart I-3). The ensuing painful recession would cause Italians to backtrack on their intentions to leave the euro area. If Italy's credit rating and its access to the ECB is the reason for the collapse in BTP prices, the same dynamics will also force the Italian government to adopt a more realistic fiscal policy. This is why we do not believe the current M5S/Lega Nord government will be able to blow up the budget by as much as it currently wants. Chart I-2The Italian Constraints Lies##br## In The Banking Sector The Italian Constraints Lies In The Banking Sector The Italian Constraints Lies In The Banking Sector Chart I-3Credit Trends Explain##br## Italian Growth Credit Trends Explain Italian Growth Credit Trends Explain Italian Growth There are, however, incentives for Brussels to be more lenient on Italy. Italy is not Greece. The Troika had room to play hardball with Greece. Greek debt was EUR346 billion, or 10% of Germany's GDP (the perceived ultimate backer). The same cannot be said about Italy. Rome's debt stands at EUR2383 billion or 70% of Germany's GDP. In other words, as J. Paul Getty once said, "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." Italy is the EU's problem. Chart I-4If You Owe The Bank 442 Billion, ##br##That's The Bank's Problem If You Owe The Bank 442 Billion, That's The Bank's Problem If You Owe The Bank 442 Billion, That's The Bank's Problem This problem is most evident in the Target 2 of the Bank of Italy. The Italian national central bank owes EUR442 billion to the Eurosystem, the most of any nation (Chart I-4). Claims on Italy can also be found on the balance sheets of commercial banks across Europe. French, Spanish, German, and Dutch commercial banks have Italian exposure of EUR426 billion, with EUR310 billion held by French banks alone. Italy's problems are definitely Europe's problem. A collapse of Italy could therefore impair the entire European banking sector. This means that the EU and the ECB have a strong built-in incentive to be lenient toward Italy. As a result, we expect that Brussels will be forced to accept a larger Italian deficit than 3% of GDP, as it did at the turn of the millennium when France and Germany were also in violation of the Stability and Growth Pact. The ECB could also make a conditional exception in terms of accepting Italian bonds. So What? The Italian situation remains fluid. While an election this summer, as early as July 29th, has been touted, efforts to form a government are still taking place. No matter what happens, the constraints on both Italy and the European institutions suggest that both sides of the table will have to come to a compromise regarding Italian public spending. The EU will have to tolerate a greater than 3% of GDP deficit, and the Five Star Movement, with whoever it coalesces, will not be able to blow up the budget deficit above 7% of GDP. Investors have made a mistake by pricing in an Italian exit. Hence, Italian 2-year yields could experience downside in the coming week. In fact, the daily move in Italian 2-year yields on Tuesday was the largest on record, despite what are still very low levels of interest rates by historical standards (Chart I-5). This suggests that May 29th represented a day of capitulation in the Italian bond market, at least on a short-term basis. As a result, the very oversold euro, which has declined more or less without a pause for the past 29 trading days, could stage a relief rally as investors re-evaluate the Italian risks (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Capitulation In The BTP Market Capitulation In The BTP Market Capitulation In The BTP Market Chart I-6The Euro Short-Term Rebound Can Continue The Euro Short-Term Rebound Can Continue The Euro Short-Term Rebound Can Continue This begs a crucial question: Is it time to bail on our various short bets on the euro as well as our long bet on the DXY? While a temporary resolution in Italy could easily prompt a euro rally toward 1.18-1.19, many issues that have prompted us to implement these views have yet to fully play out. For example, the euro's fair value, as implied by real short rate differentials, the slope of the euro area yield curve relative to the U.S. and growth differentials between the rest of the world and the U.S. - as captured by the price of copper relative to the price of lumber - still pegs an equilibrium for EUR/USD at 1.12 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Euro Has Yet To Purge Its Previous Excesses The Euro Has Yet To Purge Its Previous Excesses The Euro Has Yet To Purge Its Previous Excesses Additionally, while traders have capitulated on Italian bonds, investors have yet to capitulate on the euro. Speculators are still very long, and investor sentiment is still not consistent with a bottom (Chart I-8). Additionally, the trend in relative inflation still points toward a weaker euro, as it portends to an easing of European monetary policy relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). The tension in Italy and the widening spreads in innocent Spain could play toward the ECB adjusting its forward guidance toward no hike for longer than is currently priced into the EONIA curve. Chart I-8No Capitulation Here No Capitulation Here No Capitulation Here Chart I-9Inflation Dynamics Point To A Lower EUR/USD Inflation Dynamics Point To A Lower EUR/USD Inflation Dynamics Point To A Lower EUR/USD However, the most important question right now for the euro is the direction of bond yields. Much will depend on the performance of bonds over the course of the coming months. Bottom Line: Italy is a political landmine, and the recent drama has weighed on the euro, causing EUR/USD to depreciate much faster than we anticipated. However, markets are currently embedding too-large a risk premium of an Italian exit. Both Italy and the EU will not stay as intransigent as they currently pretend, suggesting the market action will force a political compromise on the thorny question of deficits. As a result, while a rally in coming weeks of EUR/USD toward 1.18-1.19 is a very probable scenario, we anticipate the euro's weakness to end closer to 1.12 than currently recorded levels. All About Bond Yields BCA believes that bond yields are globally on a cyclical upswing, being lifted by the fact that global central banks are slowly but surely exiting the emergency stimulus measures put in place directly after the great financial crisis. Moreover, we also expect inflation to slowly come back, especially in the U.S. and Canada, also justifying higher yields. In response to these forces, BCA's three factor bond model, based on global manufacturing PMIs, the U.S. employment-to-population ratio and the dollar's bullish sentiment, suggests the fair value of 10-year Treasurys is at 3.3%, 46 basis points above current yields. However, markets do not move in a straight line. The bond market is especially prone to reversals as interest rates are a key determinant of the cost of capital. Thus, higher yields slow global economic activity, diminishing the reason why yields increased in the first place, creating a stop-and-go pattern. This time is no exception. In fact, Ryan Swift has been arguing in BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service that after their sharp up-move from 2.04% to 3.11%, bond yields have downside on a short-term basis.3 A few factors explain why bond yields could experience a bit more downside in the coming months: Bond aggregates have been oversold (Chart I-10), with their 100-day rate of change hitting levels associated with a subsequent rebound in prices. This rebound is underway and doesn't look to have yet been fully played out. Chart I-10Bonds Were Too Oversold To Keep Falling In A Straight Line Bonds Were Too Oversold To Keep Falling In A Straight Line Bonds Were Too Oversold To Keep Falling In A Straight Line Positioning remains too skewed. Speculators are still very short Treasurys, and duration surveys conducted by J.P. Morgan Chase suggest there is still more room to surprise investors, prompting them to lighten their short-duration calls (Chart I-11). The changes in 10-year U.S. yields are very correlated with the U.S. surprise index. However, this economic indicator is highly mean-reverting. The increase in investors' expectations suggests there is room for disappointment on the economic front for market participants. Ryan's autoregressive model for economic surprises, which captures the mean-reverting behavior of this series, suggests that surprises will deteriorate further in the coming weeks (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Still No Capitulation In ##br##Bond Positioning Still No Capitulation In Bond Positioning Still No Capitulation In Bond Positioning Chart I-12Economic Surprise Index U.S. Surprise ##br##Index Can Mean-Revert Further Economic Surprise Index U.S. Surprise Index Can Mean-Revert Further Economic Surprise Index U.S. Surprise Index Can Mean-Revert Further Global growth continues to show signs of deterioration, as the diffusion index of our global leading economic indicators highlights that only 24% of the world's major economies are experiencing expanding LEIs (Chart I-13). Moreover, the deliquescence of EM carry trades funded in yen also points toward additional deceleration in global industrial activity, and export volumes growth out of Asia continues to slow (Chart I-13, bottom panels). Here, the recent performance of gold is most revealing. The yellow metal is a good gauge of global liquidity conditions, and it tends to perform well when bond yields, especially real rates, weaken. However, despite a fall in real yields in recent weeks, and despite the rising geopolitical risks associated with Italy and the re-emergence of trade wars, gold prices are softer than expected. This implies that bond yields have not yet fallen enough to put a floor under global growth. So why does the absolute trend in Treasury yields matter for EUR/USD? Simply because since 2008, EUR/USD has performed very poorly when bond yields have declined, displaying an average annualized rate of return of -6.3% as well as a median return of -9.7%, and weakening two-thirds of the time (Table I-1). This essentially confirms our previous analysis showing that generally, the euro is a rather pro-cyclical currency. This also suggests that even if the euro could experience a temporary rally in response to a re-pricing of Italian exit risk, it will be hard for the common currency to rally durably so long as bond yields have downside. Chart I-13Global Growth Is Slowing Signs##br## Of Soft Global Growth Global Growth Is Slowing Signs Of Soft Global Growth Global Growth Is Slowing Signs Of Soft Global Growth Table I-1Bond Rallies And The Currency Market Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? Table I-1 also shows that the yen has experienced large upside in a falling yield environment, and most importantly has risen in all instances against the USD. As a result, we remain comfortable with our January 12, 2018 recommendation to sell EUR/JPY.4 Not only does EUR/JPY weaken 83% of the time when bond yields fall, but as Chart I-14 shows, relative positioning in EUR/JPY has more room to deteriorate, as previous excesses on the long side tend to be followed by periods of excessive short positioning. Moreover, as the bottom panel illustrates, a reversal in the performance of momentum stocks also comes hand in hand with a weak EUR/JPY. Chart I-15 also highlights that rising dollar funding costs tend to lead to a weaker EUR/JPY. Chart I-14EUR/JPY Is Still Vulnerable EUR/JPY Is Still Vulnerable EUR/JPY Is Still Vulnerable Chart I-15Funding Pressure Point To A Weaker EUR/JPY Funding Pressure Point To A Weaker EUR/JPY Funding Pressure Point To A Weaker EUR/JPY Table I-1 further shows that despite our positive long-term view on EUR/CHF, if we believe that yields could correct further, it is intellectually coherent to be short EUR/CHF on a tactical basis, as the pair has also fallen in 83% of the occurrences of bond market rallies. We are thus sticking with this short-term trade. Chart I-16CAD Benefits From A Valuation Cushion CAD Benefits From A Valuation Cushion CAD Benefits From A Valuation Cushion Table I-1 however, is more mixed for our short EUR/CAD bet. EUR/CAD rallies on half the instances where bond yields weaken, and generates an average annualized gain of 1%. Yields are therefore an unreliable gauge of this cross's trend. Instead, we continue to favor the CAD over the EUR on the basis of relative monetary policy dynamics and valuations. The Canadian economy has no slack, core inflation is at 1.9%, and the Bank of Canada just re-opened the door to hiking rates this year - essentially a mirror image to the euro area. Also, while EUR/USD is overvalued by 4.9% based on our preferred model, USD/CAD is overvalued by 14% based on our model using oil and relative rate expectations (Chart I-16). We are therefore sticking with this position, even though we are likely to experience volatility after a straight move down from 1.61 to 1.5. Yesterday's announcement that the White House is imposing tariffs on steel and aluminium on Canada and the EU is likely to be a crucial contributor to this episode of volatility. Finally Table I-1 shows that our negative view on commodity currencies is the correct one to hold in the current context, especially regarding the AUD, which within this group suffers by the greatest extent when yields fall. Additionally, this analysis confirms our assessment regarding NOK/SEK. We were long this pair, and continue to foresee upside for the Norwegian krone relative to the Swedish krona on a cyclical basis. However, we closed this trade as NOK/SEK was getting very overbought. Adding another justification for this tactical decision, a falling yield environment has been associated with this cross weakening in 83% of cases and depreciating on average by a 4.9% annualized rate - or 5.7% if we take the median fall. We will therefore wait to see a stabilization in bond yields before re-opening our NOK/SEK trade. Bottom Line: The rebound in bond prices expected by our U.S. bond strategist has further to run, as the global economy is experiencing a soft patch and U.S. economic surprises have additional downside. This suggests that EUR/USD is likely to depreciate more, prompting us to stick with our 1.12 target for now. EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF possess ample downside as well. While commodity currencies all weaken when bond yields decline, the AUD declines most often, and by the greatest extent. NOK/SEK can correct further before resuming its uptrend; only once bond yields stabilize will we buy this cross again. Gold, The Fed And R-star Following last week's report where we discussed the interaction of the dollar, the fed funds rate, and r-star,5 we received a few questions regarding the implication of this analysis for the gold market. While the message of this analysis was very clear for the dollar - the dollar weakens when the Fed increases rates and the fed funds rate is below the r-star, but strengthens significantly when the Fed lifts rates above r-star - the implications for gold of the interaction between rates and r-star is much murkier. Table I-2 shows the returns of gold, as well as the batting averages of the results, under the four states explored last week. We use medians instead of means, as average returns have been distorted by a few outliers. Table I-2Gold And The Interaction Between ##br##Rates And R* Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? This table highlights that the best environment to hold gold has been the same environment that was harshest to the dollar: a rising fed funds rate, but one that stands below the neutral rate. Essentially, this suggests that in this environment, despite the efforts of the Fed to tighten monetary conditions, global liquidity remains plentiful, which fuels both global growth and gold prices. In this context, gold rallies 76% of the time by a median annualized rate of 14.4%. Chart I-17Gold As A Gauge For R* Gold As A Gauge For R* Gold As A Gauge For R* Perplexingly, there is no clear implications in the other states. When the fed funds rate rises and stands above the neutral rate, gold falls by a median annualized rate of 1.3%, but this only works 55% of the time. This probably reflects the fact that when the real fed funds rate rises in this environment, while in and of itself this should hurt gold, the growing incidence of accidents in global financial markets and the global economy helps gold, undoing the damage created by tighter monetary policy. When the fed funds rate is falling, gold's annualized returns are mixed, but most importantly the distribution of returns is no better than random. So while this analysis does not provide a clear signal for gold next year, it does help us generate a useful inference. If the Fed is indeed soon set to lift interest rates above the neutral rate, as the Laubach-Williams measure of r-star implies, the violent rally that gold experienced in 2017 should taper off. If gold were to continue to rally vigorously, maintaining its strong trend despite higher rates (Chart I-17), this would imply that the fed funds rate is still below r-star. As a corollary, the business cycle would have greater upside, the dollar greater downside, and EM assets should prove more resilient than we anticipate. Bottom Line: Where we stand in the interest rate cycle is less useful for calling the gold market than it is for calling the dollar. While a rising fed funds rate that stands below the neutral rate creates a very supportive environment for gold, other combinations are more opaque. However, this can help generate useful insights on the equilibrium rate. If faced with higher interest rates, gold remains on the strong upward trend it experienced in 2017, this would mean that U.S. policy is still accommodative as the fed funds rate would still be below r-star. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Tacitus, the main source describing the fire, was unsure of the veracity of these allegations. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, titled "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio", dated June 21, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, and the Weekly Report, titled "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now", dated February 16, 2018, both available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "This Time Is NOT Different", dated May 25 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was generally weak this week: Q1 GDP growth was revised down to an annualized pace of 2.2%, profit growth was weak; Core personal consumption expenditure grew at a 2.3% quarterly pace, underperforming expectations of 2.5%; Core PCE inflation came in line with expectations at 1.8%. The March number was revised down to 1.8% as well from 1.9% previously; However, the U.S. labor market continues to tighten, with both continuing and initial jobless claims falling more than expected. Washington is ramping up its hawkish stance on trade, implementing its steel and aluminum tariffs on the EU, Canada, as well as Mexico. The U.S. is nonetheless likely to fare better than the rest of the G-10 in the current soft patch for global growth as it is a less cyclical economy. Furthermore, with the dollar recoupling with rate differentials, Fed hikes will serve as an important tailwind for the greenback for the rest of this year. Report Links: This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Amidst the surfeit of political angst across Italy and Spain, some positive economic data have contributed to some relief to the euro's persistent decline this month. German headline and harmonized inflation surprised to the upside, both coming in at 2.2%; German unemployment declined to 5.2%; German retail sales increased by 2.3% on a monthly pace; Spanish harmonized inflation came in at 2.1%, beating expectations; Euro area headline and core inflation came in at 1.9% and 1.1%, respectively, an improvement over previous figures; Unemployment also declined to 8.5% from 8.6%, but came in higher than the expected 8.4%. In addition to abating political anxiety in Italy, ECB Executive Board Member Sabine Lautenschläger, noted that "all the conditions for inflation to kick in are in place". While these factors provided a relief for the euro, it is likely that interest rate differentials, waning global growth, and a labor market replete with slack will keep the upside in the euro capped for the remainder of this year. The longer-run outlook, however, is bullish, as the common currency remains cheap across several valuation metrics. Report Links: This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Retail trade yearly growth came in above expectations, coming in at 1.6%. It also increased from 1% last month. However, large retailer's sales growth surprised negatively, coming in at -0.8%. Moreover, the jobs/applicants ratio also underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.59. Finally, the consumer confidence index also surprised to the downside, coming in at 43.8. USD/JPY has fallen by roughly 1%, as political risks originating from Italy have helped safe heaven assets like the yen. Overall, we continue to be bullish on this cross on a tactical basis, given that we expect a slowdown in global growth to accentuate the current risk off environment. However the BoJ will likely intervene if the yen keeps going up, which makes a bearish stance on the yen appropriate on a cyc lical basis. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been negative Total Business Investment yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming it at 2%. Nationwide Housing Prices yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.4%. Finally, mortgage approvals also surprised to the downside, coming in at 62.455 thousand. GBP/USD has fallen by roughly 0.6% this week. As of this week, we have reached the target of our tactical short GBP/USD trade with a tk% gain. While the rally in the dollar could certainly continue, pushing cable lower in the process, it is more prudent to adopt a more neutral stance toward this cross, given that it has depreciated by more than 7% since its highs on mid-April. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics- March 30, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was on the weak side: Building permits contracted by 5% in monthly terms, and only increased by 1.9% in yearly terms, much less than the previous 15.6% and the expected 4.1%; Private sector credit grew by 0.4% in monthly terms, in line with expectations; Private capital expenditure also grew by only 0.4%, a weaker result than the expected 0.7%. After a meaningful fall, AUD/USD has been relatively flat for the last month. Markets seem to be fully aware of the slack currently hampering the Australian economy. The Australian interest rates futures curve continues to flatten, pricing in a lower probability of any hikes. Furthermore, U.S. trade protectionism is becoming more aggressive, which may pose a further threat to the AUD as Australian growth is highly levered to global trade. We remain bearish on this antipodean currency in both the short and the long term. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has rallied by roughly 1% this week. Overall, we are negative on the NZD versus the U.S. dollar, given that pro-cyclical currencies like the kiwi tend to suffer in periods of heightened volatility and increasing risks. Continued trade tensions, as well as slowing global growth and political risks emanating from Italy will likely perpetuate the current environment going forward, hurting the kiwi in the process. That being said we are positive on this currency against the Australian dollar, as Australia's economy is much more sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle than New Zealand's. Therefore a slowdown in emerging markets should weigh more heavily on the AUD than on the NZD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was disappointing this week: Industrial product price increased by 0.5% in monthly terms in April; The Raw Material Price Index increased 0.7%; The current account decreased to CAD-19.5 billion in Q1 of 2018; Quarterly GDP growth came in at 1.3%, disappointing expectations. On Wednesday, the CAD was buoyed by the BoC's hawkish monetary policy statement. According to the statement, the Governing Council will now take a "gradual" approach to policy adjustments, as opposed to the "cautious" one noted in previous statements. In addition, the reference to continued monetary accommodation and labor market slack was also removed. However, the White House announced on Thursday the imposition of tariffs on Canadian exports, which erased most of Wednesday's gain. While this adds substantial risk to the view, the outlook for trade negotiations is still murky, and could surprise on the upside. The CAD still remains cheap on key valuation metrics, with an economy exhibiting less slack than other G-10 counterparts. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The trade balance outperformed expectations, coming in at 2,289 million. This measure also came in above last month figure. However, the KOF leading indicator underperformed expectations, coming in at 100. It also decreased substantially from last month's reading. Finally, yearly GDP growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.2%. EUR/CHF has depreciated by roughly 1.5% this week. Overall, this cross should continue to depreciate given that we expect the current period of risk aversion to persist. Even if Italian political risks start to subside, investors will still have to worry about trade tensions, slowing global growth, and the deleterious impact of lower bond yields on this cross. This should help safe-haven assets like the franc outperform. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retail sales growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.5%. Moreover the Norges Bank credit indicator came in line with expectations, at 6.3%. USD/NOK has rallied by nearly 1.2% this week, as the rise in the dollar coupled with lower oil prices, have resulted in a toxic combination for the krone. Overall, we are positive on the krone relative to other commodity currencies. The krone has a large NIIP and current account surplus which makes it more resilient to terms of trade shocks. Moreover, oil should outperform other commodities given that it is more levered to DM growth than to the Chinese industrial cycle and given that the supply backdrop for crude is more favorable. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data from Sweden has improved: Retail sales beat expectations, growing at a 0.6% monthly pace and a 3.6% annual pace; GDP growth accelerated to 3.3% in Q1 of 2018, higher than the 2.9% growth recorded last year; The trade balance declined by SEK6.5 billion in May; Consumer confidence also suffered slightly to 98.5 from 101. The SEK has strengthened substantially against the euro since its multi-year lows this month. Political woes subsided the euro, while rosy data from Sweden lifted the krona. Against the dollar, the SEK has weakened in recent weeks, due to the greenback's recent surge. We expect the SEK to remain strong against the euro for the remainder of this year, owing to cheap valuations and resurging inflationary pressures. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Chart of the WeekBCA's Ensemble Forecast Vs. Base Case BCA's Ensemble Forecast Vs. Base Case BCA's Ensemble Forecast Vs. Base Case With OPEC 2.0 signaling it will consider raising production in 2H18 to cover unexpected losses from Venezuela, and rising odds that state's output will cease, we've adopted an ensemble approach to forecast benchmark crude oil prices. This ensemble includes: i) our existing base case - steady demand and a loss of 500k b/d from Iran; ii) OPEC 2.0 restoring production cuts in 2H18; and, iii) explicit odds Venezuela's ~ 1mm b/d of exports collapse (Chart of the Week).1 We expect definitive output guidance following OPEC 2.0's June 22 meeting. For now, our base case dominates our 2H18 forecast, given our expectation any increase in production will be slowly restored to the market. Next year we see a higher probability most of OPEC 2.0's cuts will be restored. The odds that Venezuela's exports collapse goes from 20% in 2H18 to 30% in 2019. This ensemble forecast takes our 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and our WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, our Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and our WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. We expect higher volatility, as well. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Spot Brent and WTI prices fell ~ 6% in the past week, as OPEC 2.0 signaled member states were considering restoring production. We remain long call spreads and the energy-heavy S&P GSCI, believing markets over-reacted to the news. Base Metals: Neutral. India's Tamil Nadu state government ordered the country's largest copper smelter shut, following rioting over alleged pollution from the plant, according to Bloomberg. This removes 400k MT of capacity from the market.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. Rising geopolitical risks in Italy are supporting gold prices, despite a stronger USD. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The re-emergence of U.S.-Sino trade tensions weighed on corn and soybean futures this week. This comes despite an ongoing truckers' strike in Brazil, which has been supporting soybean prices.3 Feature Just when it looked like OPEC 2.0 would keep its production cuts in place for the rest of the year, the coalition's leadership is signaling it will consider reversing production cuts during 2H18. Needless to say, this makes the task of forecasting prices more difficult. Guidance coming from the St. Petersburg Economic Forum at the end of last week was not definitive - it resembled more of a trial balloon. Press reports suggest as much as 1mm b/d of product cuts could gradually be restored to the market over 2H18, which would loosen global balances relative to our previous expectation (Chart 2). Still, Russia's energy minister Alexander Novak declined to confirm these cuts would be made.4 By our reckoning, some 1.2mm b/d of production actually has been cut by OPEC 2.0 since January 2017, mostly from KSA and Russia, which together account for close to 1mm b/d of the total. The big surprise on the production side has been the collapse of Venezuela, which went from just under 2.1mm b/d of crude output in Nov/16 - the month against which production targets were set under the OPEC 2.0 Agreement - to ~ 1.4mm b/d at present. We have Venezuela's production falling to 1.2mm b/d by the end of this year, and 1.0mm b/d by the end of 2019. We expect Iranian exports to fall ~ 200k b/d at the end of 2018, and another 300k b/d by the end of 1H19 in our base case model, as a result of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against it. This takes total Iranian export losses to 500k b/d by 2H19 in our base case. The only substantial growth on the production side is coming from U.S. shales in our base case, with production expected to be up 1.28mm b/d this year to 6.52mm, and 7.98mm b/d in 2019. Even this growth, however, could be constricted/delayed due to pipeline bottlenecks in the Permian. With demand expected to remain strong - growing at 1.7mm b/d this year and next in our models - market balances were tightening, and OECD inventories were falling appreciably (Chart 3). Chart 2Restoring OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts##BR##Would Loosen Global Balances Restoring OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Would Loosen Global Balances Restoring OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Would Loosen Global Balances Chart 3Inventories Would Draw Less If##BR##OPEC 2.0 Production Is Restored In 2018 Inventories Would Draw Less If OPEC 2.0 Production Is Restored In 2018 Inventories Would Draw Less If OPEC 2.0 Production Is Restored In 2018 The collapse of Venezuela's output did appreciably accelerate the tightening of the market, and lifted prices beyond the level that would have prevailed had this production not been lost to the market. This contraction, combined with the threatened re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, prompted leaders in important consumer markets to warn growth could be at risk with the oil-price rise potentially fueling inflation and inflation expectations - leading central banks, particularly the Fed, to continue tightening monetary policy. As gasoline, jet fuel and diesel prices rise, a greater share of household budgets goes toward purchasing hydrocarbons, which, all else equal, stifles growth if rising incomes cannot absorb the higher prices.5 Consumer Protests Registered With OPEC 2.0 Leaders in large oil-consuming states - particularly India, China and the U.S. - registered their dissatisfaction with high energy prices over the past month with OPEC 2.0, most notably when U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted his displeasure in April. OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo recalled the tweet at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum last week, saying, "I think I was prodded by his excellency Khalid Al-Falih that probably there was a need for us to respond. We in OPEC always pride ourselves as friends of the United States."6 Consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies.7 This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. KSA and Russia appear largely united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing motor fuels. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's Novak has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl.8 Moving To Ensemble Forecasts Reconciling OPEC 2.0's short- and long-term goals, particularly the coalition's apparent new-found desire to be responsive to consumer interests; rising geopolitical tensions involving significant exporting states; and rising odds Venezuela implodes, and its exports are lost to the market, complicates the price-forecasting process considerably. In order to give full account to the different paths these uncertain influences will have on prices, we've adopted an ensemble model, in which we forecast three separate price paths: A base case, using our existing fundamental inputs and econometric modeling, which we published last week; A production-restoration case, where 870k b/d of production is restored to markets by OPEC 2.0 over 2H18 to compensate for the unexpected loss of Venezuela's output; The complete collapse of Venezuela's oil exports - amounting to ~ 1mm b/d - which we also published last week.9 In our base case, we use our standard fundamental model inputs - global production, consumption and OECD inventories - to forecast prices for this year and next (Table 1). The production-restoration and the Venezuela-export collapse models are boundary cases for our ensemble forecast, which is particularly important in 2019. The production restoration case leads to 870k b/d of OPEC 2.0 production coming back on line over the course of 2H18, with Venezuelan production deteriorating slowly, which is bearish for prices. The Venezuela-export collapse case results in a significant loss in production - 1mm b/d of Venezuela exports beginning in Jun/18 - which is bullish for prices, even with 1.2mm b/d of output being restored by OPEC 2.0 over the course of 2H18. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again To generate the ensemble forecast, we weight the three cases above, with our base case dominating the model in 2H18, and falling off in 2019, while the production-restoration case dominates our outlook in 2019 (Chart 4). We also increase the probability of Venezuela's 1mm b/d collapsing over this interval - going from a 20% chance in Jun/18 to 30% in Dec/19. We will be continually updating these estimated probabilities (Table 2). Table 2BCA Ensemble Forecast Components OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again As we approach OPEC 2.0's June 22 meeting in Vienna, we expect more definitive guidance from KSA and Russia, which will allow us to refine these probabilities. In addition, we expect volatility to increase, as changes in forward guidance and uncertainty in physical markets increases the rate at which speculators react to the arrival of new information (Chart 5).10 Chart 4Ensemble Forecast Accounts For##BR##Collapse In Venezuela's Exports Ensemble Forecast Accounts For Collapse In Venezuela's Exports Ensemble Forecast Accounts For Collapse In Venezuela's Exports Chart 5Spec Positioning Will##BR##Push Volatility Higher Spec Positioning Will Push Volatility Higher Spec Positioning Will Push Volatility Higher Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0 injected a new element of uncertainty into the markets this past week by signaling it would consider restoring oil-production cuts over 2H18, which could be as high as 1mm b/d, in response to consumer complaints at the highest levels. The guidance from the coalition's leadership in these early days does not allow us to definitely adjust our oil supply estimates, so we're simulating what we consider to be a highly likely schedule of production restoration. In addition, we are assigning explicit odds to the collapse of Venezuela's exports, which would remove ~ 1mm b/d of exports from the market. We combine these separate assessments with our existing forecasting model to create an ensemble forecast for prices in 2H18 and 2019. In this approach, our existing base-case model, which assumes OPEC 2.0's production cuts will be maintained this year and slowly restored over 1H19 is maintained; a production-restoration case is introduced, which assumes 870k b/d of production is brought back on line over the course of 2H18. Lastly, we assume Venezuela's production is lost to the market in Jun/18, and that OPEC 2.0 restores the 1.2mm b/d of actual production cuts it made beginning in Jan/17 over 2H18. We weight these different cases to produce our ensemble forecast. Using this approach, we are revising our 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and our WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, we are lowering our Brent forecast to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and our WTI expectation to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. We expect higher volatility, as well. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which agreed to cut 1.8mm b/d of production. By our reckoning, some 1.2mm b/d have been cut voluntarily - mostly by KSA and Russia. Alexander Novak, Russia's oil minister, stated actual cuts are closer to 2.7mm b/d, mostly because of the freefall in Venezuela's production. Non-Gulf states also have seen significant production losses. 2 See "Copper Supply Shock Hits India As Top Plant Ordered To Close," published by Bloomberg.com, May 29, 2018. 3 See "GRAINS-Corn, Soybeans Sag On Renewed U.S.-China Trade Jitters," published by Reuters.com, May 29, 2018. 4 Please see "OPEC, Russia Prepared To Raise Oil Output Amid U.S. Pressure," published by uk.reuters.com on May 25, 2018. 5 The OECD makes this point explicitly in its just-released report "OECD sees stronger world economy, but risks loom large," published May 30, 2018. 6 Please see fn. 3 above. 7 Please see "With the Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014 - 16 Oil Price Collapse," published by the World Bank in January 2018. See fn. 11 for a list of EM countries that reformed their oil subsidies, which includes oil exporters in OPEC like KSA, Kuwait and Nigeria. 8 We discuss this at length in "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published February 22, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bacresearch.com. 9 We presented the Venezuela-production collapse simulation in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy. Please see "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 We explore the relationship between price volatility and spec positioning in "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," published May 10, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again

Highlights The risk/reward balance for risk assets remains unappealing this month, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The number of items that could take equity markets to new highs appears to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have eased, but the U.S./China trade war is heating up. Trump's voter base and many in Congress want the President to push China harder. Eurozone "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. The Italian President is trying to install a technocratic government, but the interim between now and a likely summer election will extend the campaign period during which the two contending parties have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. The next Italian election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked, especially since Italy's economic growth appears set to slow. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. One reason for the economic "soft patch" is that the Chinese economy continues to decelerate. Our indicators suggest that growth will moderate further, with negative implications for the broader emerging market complex. Dearer oil may also be starting to bite, although prices have not increased enough to derail the expansion in the developed economies. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. While the U.S. economy will enjoy a strong rebound in the second quarter, leading economic indicators in most of the other major countries have rolled over. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. U.S. inflation is almost back to target and the FOMC signaled that an overshoot will be tolerated. Policymakers will likely transition from "normalizing" policy to targeting slower economic growth once long-term inflation expectations return to the 2.3%-2.5% range. The advanced stage of the U.S. business cycle, heightened geopolitical risks and our bias for capital preservation keep us tactically cautious on risk assets again this month. Feature The major stock indexes are struggling, even though 12-month forward earnings estimates continue to march higher (Chart I-1). One problem is that a lot of good earnings news was discounted early in the year. The number of items that could take markets to new highs appear to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Not the least of which is ongoing pain in emerging markets and the return of financial stress in Eurozone debt markets. Last month's Overview highlighted the unappealing risk/reward balance for risk assets, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The advanced stage of the business cycle and our bias for capital preservation motivated us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. We also were concerned about a raft of geopolitical tensions. Fast forward one month and the backdrop has not improved. Our Equity Scorecard Indicator edged up, but is still at a level that historically was consistent with poor returns to stocks and corporate bonds (see Chart I-1 in last month's Overview). Our 'exit' checklist is also signaling that caution is warranted (Table I-1). Meanwhile, the "global synchronized expansion" theme that helped to drive risk asset prices higher last year is beginning to unravel and trade tensions are escalating. Chart I-1Struggling To Make Headway Struggling To Make Headway Struggling To Make Headway Table I-1Exit Checklist For Risk Assets June 2018 June 2018 U.S./Sino Trade War Is Back? The "on again/off again" trade war between the U.S. and China is on again as we go to press. Investors breathed a sigh of relief in mid-May when the Trump Administration signaled that China's minor concessions were sufficient to avoid the imposition of onerous new tariffs. However, the proposed deal did not go down well with many in the U.S., including some in the Republican Party. The President was criticized for giving up too much in order to retain China's help in dealing with North Korea. Trump might have initially cancelled the summit with Kim in order to send a message to China that he is still prepared to play hard ball on trade, despite the North Korean situation. We expect that U.S./North Korean negotiations will soon begin, and that Pyongyang will not be a major threat to global financial markets for at least the near term. It is a different story for U.S./China relations. Trump's voter base and many in Congress on both sides of the isle want the President to push China harder. This is likely to be a headwind for risk assets at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. The Return Of Eurozone Breakup Risk Turning to the Eurozone, "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. Italian President Sergio Mattarella's decision to reject a proposed cabinet minister has led to the collapse of the populist coalition between the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the euroskeptic League. President Mattarella's choice for interim-prime minister, Carlo Cottarelli, is unlikely to last long. It is highly unlikely that he will be able to receive parliamentary support for a technocratic mandate, given the fact that he cut government spending during a brief stint in government from 2013-14. As such, elections are likely this summer. Chart I-2Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Investors continue to fret for two reasons. First, the interim period will extend the campaign period during which both M5S and the League have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. Second, M5S has suggested that it will try to impeach Mattarella, a long and complicated process that would heighten political risk, though it will likely fail in our view. As our geopolitical strategists have emphasized throughout 2017, Italy will eventually be the source of a major global risk-off event because it is the one outstanding major European country capable of reigniting the Euro Area break-up crisis.1 While a majority of Italians support the euro, they are less supportive than any other major European country, including Greece (Chart I-2). Meanwhile a plurality of Italians is confident that the future would be brighter if Italy were an independent country outside of the EU. That said, the next election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. The current conflict arises from the coalition wanting to run large budget deficits in violation of Europe's Stability and Growth Pact fiscal rules. Given that the costs of attempting to exit the Euro Area are extremely severe for Italy's households and savers, and that even the Five Star Movement has moderated its previous skepticism about the euro for the time being, it is likely going to require a recession or another crisis to cause Italy seriously contemplate an exit. We are still several steps away from such a move. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked. Italy's leading economic indicator points to slowing growth, which will intensify the populist push for aggressive fiscal stimulus. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. Global Growth Has Peaked Chart I-3Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum, as highlighted by the indicators shown in Chart I-3. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. What is behind this year's loss of momentum? First, growth in 2017 was flattered by a rebound from the oil-related manufacturing recession of 2015/16. That rebound is now topping out, while worries regarding a trade war are undoubtedly weighing on animal spirits and industrial activity. Second, the Eurozone economy was lifted last year by the previous recapitalization of parts of the banking system, which allowed some pent-up credit demand to be satiated. This growth impulse also appears to have peaked, which helps to explain the sharp drop in some of the Eurozone's key economic indicators. Still, we do not expect European growth to slip back below a trend pace on a sustained basis unless the Italian situation degenerates so much that contagion causes significantly tighter financial conditions for the entire Eurozone economy. The third factor contributing to the global growth moderation is China. The Chinese economy surged in 2017 in a lagged response to fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2016, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) and import growth (Chart I-4). Both are now headed south as the policy backdrop turned less supportive. Downturns in China's credit and fiscal impulses herald a deceleration in capital spending and construction activity (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The LKI has a strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. In turn, the latter is important for the broader EM complex that trade heavily with China. Weaker Chinese import growth has also had a modest negative impact on the developed world (Chart I-5). We estimate that, for the major economies, the contribution to GDP growth of exports to China has fallen from 0.3 percentage points last year to 0.1 percentage points now.2 Japan and Australia have been hit the hardest, but the Eurozone has also been affected. Interestingly, U.S. exports to China have bucked the trend so far. Chart I-4China Growth Slowdown... China Growth Slowdown... China Growth Slowdown... Chart I-5...Is Weighing On Global Activity ...Is Weighing On Global Activity ...Is Weighing On Global Activity China is not the only story because the slowdown in global trade activity in the first quarter was broadly based (Chart I-5). Nonetheless, softer aggregate demand growth out of China helps to explain why manufacturing PMIs and industrial production growth in most of the major developed economies have cooled. Our model for the LKI is still moderating. We do not see a hard economic landing, but our analysis points to further weakening in Chinese imports and thus softness in global exports and manufacturing activity in the coming months. Oil's Impact On The Economy... Finally, oil prices are no doubt taking a bite out of consumer spending power as Brent fluctuates just below $80/bbl. Our energy experts expect the global crude market to continue tightening due to robust growth and ongoing geopolitical tensions. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude production and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we expect OPEC 2.0 to keep its production cuts in place in the second half of the year. Increasing shale output will not be enough to prevent world oil prices from rising in this environment, and we expect oil prices to continue to trend higher through 2018 and into early 2019 (Chart I-6). Brent could touch $90/bbl next year. There are a few ways to gauge the size of the oil shock on the economy. Chart I-7 shows the U.S. and global 'oil bill' as a share of GDP. We believe that both the level and the rate of change are important. Price spikes, even from low levels, do not allow energy users the time to soften the blow by shifting to alternative energy sources. Chart I-6Oil: Stay Bullish Oil: Stay Bullish Oil: Stay Bullish Chart I-7The Oil Bill The Oil Bill The Oil Bill The level of the oil bill is not high by historical standards. The increase in the bill over the past year has been meaningful, both for the U.S. and at the global level, but is still a long way from the oil shocks of the 1970s. U.S. consumer spending on energy as a share of disposable income, at about 4%, is also near the lowest level observed over the past 4-5 decades (Chart I-8). The 2-year swing in this series shows that rapid increases in energy-related spending has preceded slowdowns in economic growth, even from low starting points. The swing is currently back above the zero line but, again, it is not at a level that historically was associated with a significant economic slowdown. Chart I-8Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Moreover, the mushrooming shale oil and gas industry has altered the calculus of oil shocks for the U.S. The plunge in oil prices in 2014-16 was accompanied by a manufacturing and profit mini recession in the developed countries, providing a drag on overall GDP growth. Chart I-9 provides an estimate of the contribution to U.S. growth from the oil and gas industry. We have included capital spending and wages & salaries in the calculation, and scaled it up to include spillover effects on other industries. Chart I-9Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale The oil and gas contribution swung from +0.5 percentage points in 2012 to -0.4 percentage points in 2016. The contribution has since become only slightly positive again, but it is likely to rise further unless oil prices decline in the coming months. We have included the annual swing in consumer spending on energy as a percent of GDP in Chart I-9 (inverted) for comparison purposes. At the moment, the impact on growth from the shale industry is roughly offsetting the negative impact on consumer spending. The bottom line is that the rise in oil prices so far is enough to take the edge off of global growth, but it is not large enough to derail the expansion in the developed countries. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. ...And Asset Prices As for the impact on asset prices, it is important to ascertain whether rising oil prices represent more restrictive supply or expanding demand. A mild rise in oil prices might simply be a symptom of increased demand caused by accelerating global growth. Higher oil prices are thus reflective of robust demand, and thus should not be seen as a threat. In contrast, the 1970s experience shows that supply restrictions can send the economy into a tailspin. In order to separate the two drivers of prices, we regressed WTI oil prices on global oil demand, inventories and the U.S. dollar. By excluding supply-related factors such as production restrictions, the residual of the regression model gives an approximate gauge of supply shocks (panel 2, Chart I-10). This model clearly has limitations, but it also has one key benefit: it estimates not just actual disruptions in supply, but also the premium built into prices due to perceived or expected future supply disruptions. For example, the 1990 price spike appears as quite a substantial deviation from what could be explained by changes in demand alone. Similar negative supply shocks are evident in 2000 and 2008. Chart I-10Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market We then examined the impact that supply shocks have on subsequent period returns for both Treasury and risk assets. We divided the Supply Shock Proxy into four quartiles corresponding to the four zones shown in Chart I-10: strong positive shock, mild positive shock, mild negative shock and strong negative shock; the last of these corresponds to the region above the upper dashed line, which we have shaded in the chart. The performance of risk assets does not vary significantly across the bottom three quartiles of the supply shock indicator (Chart I-11). However, performance drops off precipitously in the presence of a strong negative supply shock. This is consistent with the "choke point" argument: investors are initially unconcerned with a modest appreciation in oil prices. It is only when prices are driven sharply above the level consistent with the current demand backdrop that risk assets begin to discount a more pessimistic future. The total returns to the Treasury index behave in the opposite manner (Chart I-12). Treasury returns are below average when the oil shock indicator is below one (i.e. positive supply shock) and above average when oil prices rise into negative supply shock territory. In other words, an excess of oil supply is Treasury bearish, as it would tend to fuel more robust economic growth. Conversely, a supply shock that drives oil prices higher tends to be Treasury bullish. This may seem counterintuitive because higher oil prices can be inflationary and thus should be bond bearish in theory. However, large negative oil supply shocks have usually preceded recessions, which caused Treasurys to rally. Chart I-11Effect On Risk Assets June 2018 June 2018 Chart I-12Effect On Treasurys June 2018 June 2018 The model clearly shows that the drop in oil prices in 2014/15 was a positive supply shock, consistent with the oil consumption data that show demand growth was fairly stable through that period. The model indicator has moved up toward the neutral line in recent months, suggesting that the supply side of the market is tightening up, but it is still in "mild positive supply shock" territory. The latest data point available is April, which means that it does not capture the surge in oil prices over the past month. Some of the recent jump in prices is clearly related to the cancelled Iran deal and other supply-related factors, although demand continues to be supportive of prices. The implication of this model is that it will probably require a significant further surge in prices, without a corresponding ramp up in oil demand, for the model to signal that supply constraints are becoming a significant threat for risk assets. A rise in Brent above US$85 would signal trouble according to this model. As for government bonds, rising oil prices are bearish in the near term, irrespective of whether it reflects demand or supply factors. This is because of the positive correlation between oil prices and long-term inflation expectations. The oil bull phase will turn bond-bullish once it becomes clear that energy prices have hit an economic choke point. Desynchronization Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. First quarter U.S. GDP growth was underwhelming, but the long string of first-quarter disappointment points to seasonal adjustment problems. Higher frequency data are consistent with a robust rebound in the second quarter. Forward looking indicators, such as the OECD and Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicators, continue to climb. This is in contrast with some of the other major economies, such as the Eurozone, U.K., Australia and Japan (Chart I-13). First quarter real GDP growth was particularly soft in Japan and the Eurozone, and one cannot blame seasonal adjustment in these cases. Chart I-13Growth & Inflation Divergences Growth & Inflation Divergences Growth & Inflation Divergences The divergence in economic performance likely reflects Washington's fiscal stimulus that is shielding the U.S. from the global economic soft patch. Moreover, the U.S. is less exposed to the oil shock and the China slowdown than are the other major economies. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. While U.S. inflation continues to drift higher, it has lost momentum in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. (Chart I-13). Renewed stresses in the Italian and Spanish bond markets have sparked a flight-to-quality in recent trading days, depressing yields in safe havens such as U.S. Treasurys and German bunds. Nonetheless, prior to that, the divergence in growth and inflation was reflected in widening bond yield spreads as U.S. Treasurys led the global yields higher. Long-term inflation expectations have risen everywhere, but real yields have increased the most in the U.S. (prior to the flight-to-quality bond rally at the end of May). This is consistent with the growth divergence story and with our country bond allocation: overweight the U.K., Australia and Japan, and underweight U.S. Treasurys within hedged global portfolios. The dollar lagged earlier this year, but is finally catching up to the widening in interest rate spreads. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. Expect More Pain In EM Dollar strength and rising U.S. bond yields are a classic late-cycle combination that often spells trouble for emerging market assets. We do not see the recent selloff across EM asset classes as a buying opportunity since markets have only entered the first stage of the classic final chapter; EM assets underperform as U.S. bond yields and the dollar rise, but commodity prices are resilient. In the second phase, U.S. bond yields top out, but the U.S. dollar continues to firm and commodity prices begin their descent. If the current slowdown in Chinese growth continues, as we expect, it will begin to weigh on non-oil commodity prices. Thus, emerging economies may have to deal with a deadly combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger greenback, falling commodity prices and slowing exports to China (Chart I-14). Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? BCA's Emerging Market Strategy services has ranked EM countries based on foreign funding requirements (Chart I-15). The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-14EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown Chart I-15Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding June 2018 June 2018 Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. These mostly stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen as it becomes more difficult to service the foreign debt.3 It is too early to build positions even in Turkish assets. Our EM strategists believe that it will require an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms, to create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial instruments. FOMC Expects Inflation Overshoot Escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could potentially lead the Federal Reserve to put the rate hike campaign on hold. However, that would require some signs of either domestic financial stress or slowing growth. The FOMC is monitoring stress in emerging markets and in the Eurozone, but is sticking with its "gradual" tightening pace for now (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter). May's FOMC minutes signaled a rate hike in June. However, the minutes did not suggest that the Fed is getting more hawkish, despite the Staff's forecast that growth will remain above trend and that the labor market will continue to tighten at a time when core inflation is already pretty much back to target. Some inflation indicators, such as the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, suggest that core inflation will overshoot. The minutes signaled that policymakers are generally comfortable with a modest overshoot of the 2% inflation target because many see it as necessary in order to shift long-term inflation expectations higher, into a range that is consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target on a "sustained" basis (we estimate this range to be 2.3-2.5% for the 10-year inflation breakeven rate). The fact that the FOMC took a fairly dovish tone and did not try to guide rate expectations higher contributed to some retracement of the Treasury selloff in recent weeks. Nonetheless, an inflation overshoot and rising inflation expectations will ultimately be bond-bearish, especially when the FOMC is forced to clamp down on growth as long-term inflation expectations reach the target range. As discussed in BCA's Outlook 2018, one of our key themes for the year is that risk assets are on a collision course with monetary policy because the FOMC will eventually have to transition from simply removing accommodation to targeting slower growth. Timing that transition will be difficult, and depends importantly on how much of an inflation overshoot the FOMC is prepared to tolerate. Is 2½% reasonable? Or could inflation go to 3%? The makeup of the FOMC has changed, but we expect Janet L. Yellen4 to shed light on this question when she speaks at the BCA Annual Investment Conference in September. Investment Conclusions The risks facing investors have shifted, but we do not feel any less cautious than we did last month. Geopolitical tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have perhaps eased. But trade tensions are escalating and investors are suddenly faced with another chapter in the Eurozone financial crisis. The major fear in the first and second chapters was that bond investors would attack Italy, given the sheer size of that economy and the size of Italian government debt. That dreadful day has arrived. The profit backdrop in the major economies remains constructive for equity markets. However, even there, the bloom is coming off the rose. Global growth is no longer synchronized and the advanced economies have hit a soft patch with the possible exception of the U.S. While far from disastrous, our short-term profit models appear to be peaking across the major countries (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking The typical U.S. late cycle dynamics are also threatening emerging markets, at a time when investors are generally overweight and many EM countries have accumulated a pile of debt. U.S. inflation is set to overshoot the target, the FOMC is tightening and the dollar is rising. Throw in slowing Chinese demand and the EM space looks highly vulnerable. If the global economic slowdown is pronounced and drags the U.S. down with it, then bonds will rally and risk assets will take a hit. If, instead, the soft patch is short-lived and growth re-accelerates, then the U.S. Treasury bear market will resume. Stock indexes and corporate bond excess returns would enjoy one last upleg in this scenario, but downside risks would escalate once the Fed begins to target slower economic growth. Either way, EM assets would be hit. Our base case remains that stocks will beat government bonds and cash on a 6-12 month horizon. However, the risk/reward balance is unattractive given the geopolitical backdrop. Thus, we remain tactically cautious on risk assets for the near term. We still expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will peak at close to 3½% before this economic expansion is over. Nonetheless, this would require a calming of geopolitical tensions and an upturn in the growth indicators in the developed world. The risk/reward tradeoff for corporate bonds is no better than for equities and we urge caution in the near term. On a 6-12 month cyclical horizon, we still expect corporate bonds to outperform government bonds, at least in the U.S. European corporates are subject to the ebb and flow of the Italian bond crisis, and face the added risk that the ECB will likely end its QE program later this year. Looking further ahead, this month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, analyzes the Eurozone corporate sector's vulnerability to the end of the cycle that includes rising interest rates and, ultimately, a recession. We find that domestic issuers into the Eurozone market are far less exposed than are foreign issuers. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2018 Next Report: June 28, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 This underestimates the impact on the major countries because it does not account for third country effects (i.e. trade with other countries that trade with China). 3 For more information, please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (2014-2018). II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs June 2018 June 2018 One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in May. We remain cautious, despite the supportive profit backdrop. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio fell a bit in May, but it remains well in positive territory. Forward earnings continued their ascent, and the net earnings surprise index rose further to within striking distance of the highest levels in the history of the series. Normally, an earnings backdrop this strong would justify an overweight equity allocation within a balanced portfolio. Unfortunately, a lot of good earnings news is discounted based on our Composite Valuation Indicator and extremely elevated 5-year bottom-up earnings growth expectations (see the Bank Credit Analyst Overview, May 2018). Moreover, our equity indicators are sending a cautious signal. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator continued to decline in May. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on its 'sell' signal in May, for the second month in a row. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Moreover, our composite equity Technical Indicator is on the verge of breaking down and our Monetary Indicator moved further into negative territory in May. Meanwhile, market froth has not been completely extinguished according to our Speculation Indicator (which is a negative sign for stocks from a contrary perspective). As for bonds, the powerful rally at the end of May has undermined valuation, but the 10-year Treasury is not yet in expensive territory. Our technical indicator suggests that previously oversold conditions are easing, but bonds are a long way from overbought. This means that yields have room to fall further in the event of more bad news on Italy or on the broader geopolitical scene. The dollar has not yet reached overbought territory according to our technical indicator. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Average Brent and WTI oil prices should rise to $80/bbl and $72/bbl in 2019 even without adding the full range of events that will drive up the geopolitical risk premium. Risks lie to the upside. Feature Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 To put some numbers on the difference between our view and the market's view, we rely on the implied option volatilities for crude oil futures.4 As Chart 2 illustrates, the oil markets are currently pricing in just under 30% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end, and merely 14% that they will touch $90/bbl in the same timeframe. We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Chart 2The Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.5 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.7 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."8 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).9 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.10 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.11 Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.12 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.14 In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Chart 6Great Power Competition Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.15 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.16 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. BOX 1 Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1 Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.17 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##br## Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##br## Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##br## 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" ##br##Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy therefore projects that the combination of stable global demand, steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output, and the loss of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions in 2019 will lift the average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl respectively (Chart 14).18 This forecast, however, represents our baseline based on fundamentals of global oil supply and demand (Chart 15) and does not include our potential scenarios outlined in Diagram 2, which would obviously add additional geopolitical risk premium. Chart 13Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 14Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 15Balances Tighter As Supply Falls Balances Tighter As Supply Falls Balances Tighter As Supply Falls For investors looking for equity-market exposure in this scenario, BCA's Energy Sector Strategy recommends overweighing U.S. shale producers and shale-focused service companies for investors looking for equity-market exposure to oil prices. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has broken down this recommendation into specific equity calls, which we encourage our clients to peruse.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We use Brent implied volatility - of at-the-money options of the selected futures contract - as an input to construct the cumulative normal density of future prices. Thus, the probability obtained is one where the terminal futures price, at the selected months, exceeds the strike price quoted. In order to derive this probability, we need the current market price of the selected future contract, the number of days to expiration, the strike price, and a measure of the volatility of this contract. 5 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 6 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 7 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 11 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 12 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019," dated May 24, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize