Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights The Fed Vs. The Market: The market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" rate hike pace in a status quo economic scenario. But investors also view the odds of the Fed slowing the pace of hikes as greater than the odds of it hiking more quickly. Dovish Catalysts: The most likely catalyst for the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy in the next 6-12 months is a persistent divergence between U.S. and foreign economic growth that leads to a stronger dollar and culminates in significantly tighter financial conditions, as in 2014/15. Hawkish Catalysts: A significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target would cause the Fed to increase its pace of rate hikes, but the odds of this occurring during the next 6-12 months are low. An upside break-out in the price of gold would suggest that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised higher, and could lead to a more rapid pace of hikes. Feature In last week's report we recommended that nimble investors should position for a near-term (0-3 month) decline in Treasury yields.1 Since then, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen from 3.06% to 2.93% but we are not yet ready to remove our recommendation. The two criteria we named in last week's report - extended net short bond positioning and a high likelihood of negative data surprises - remain in place. As such, we expect bond yields to fall further in the near-term, though we remain bond bears on a cyclical (6-12 month) investment horizon. This week we turn to Fed policy, and specifically the following three questions: What does the Fed mean when it says it will make "further gradual adjustments" to the stance of monetary policy? How do "gradual adjustments" relate to what is currently priced in the market? What factors would cause the Fed to deviate from its "gradual" path, leading to either a faster or slower pace of tightening? The Market Trusts The Fed...To A Point We have noted in previous reports that the Fed's "gradual" pace of rate hikes is quite clearly defined as one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter. The Fed has tightened policy at this pace since December 2016, with the exception of last September when it announced the winding down of its balance sheet in place of a hike. It seems to us that the Fed's policy intentions have rarely been more transparent. The Fed will continue to lift rates by 25 bps per quarter until either (i) something breaks in the economy causing the Fed to slow down, or (ii) inflation pressures mount causing the Fed to speed up. But what about market pricing? To be consistent with the Fed's "gradual" pace of one hike per quarter the market would need to be priced for 50 bps of tightening during the next six months, 100 bps of tightening during the next 12 months, etc... Chart 1 shows that the market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" pace for the next six months, but that it will fall somewhat short during the next year. Looking beyond the next 12 months, the market is not priced for the Fed to deliver on its "gradual" hike pace during the next 18 or 24 months either (Chart 2). Chart 1The Fed Versus The Market Part I The Fed Versus The Market Part I The Fed Versus The Market Part I Chart 2The Fed Versus The Market Part II The Fed Versus The Market Part II The Fed Versus The Market Part II A more realistic interpretation of Charts 1 and 2 is that while the market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" hike pace in a status quo economic scenario, investors also view the odds of something breaking in the economy as greater than the odds that inflation will force the Fed to move faster. We also agree that the odds of something breaking are greater than the odds that inflation will force the Fed's hand. However, we would still favor a cyclical (6-12 month) below-benchmark duration stance because the market is not priced for the most likely status quo / "gradual" rate hike environment. Identifying Breaking Points How will we be able to tell if something is breaking in the economy that will cause the Fed to slow its pace of hikes? Candidate 1: Domestic Economic Growth One way is to simply monitor leading indicators of U.S. economic growth, particularly the contribution of cyclical spending to overall GDP (Chart 3). The cyclical sectors of the economy (consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and investment on equipment & software) are most sensitive to interest rates and often provide an early warning sign for the overall economy. At the moment we see no evidence that cyclical spending is poised to slow meaningfully. Recent data showed solid gains in April retail sales, while consumer sentiment remains near its all-time high (Chart 4, panel 1). On the investment side, core durable goods orders were stronger than expected in April and the regional manufacturing PMIs that have been released so far in May (Philadelphia, New York, Richmond and Kansas City) have all increased (Chart 4, panel 2). Recent housing data have been more disappointing relative to expectations, but even here we continue to see steady growth in building permits and a continued contraction in outstanding supply. Supply increases typically precede a decline in construction activity (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Domestic Economy Looks Strong Domestic Economy Looks Strong Domestic Economy Looks Strong Chart 4Focus On Cyclical Sectors Focus On Cyclical Sectors Focus On Cyclical Sectors Candidate 2: The Financial Markets Even if U.S. economic growth is robust, it is conceivable that a sharp tightening of financial conditions - a falling stock market, widening credit spreads and/or an appreciating dollar - could cause the Fed to slow its pace of hikes. After all, the Fed would interpret a large enough tightening of financial conditions as a signal that economic growth will slow in the future. To assess this risk we turn to our Fed Monitor (Chart 5). Our Fed Monitor is a composite of many different variables that fall into one of three categories (i) economic growth, (ii) inflation and (iii) financial conditions. It is constructed in such a way that a reading above zero means the Fed should be tightening policy and a reading below zero means the Fed should be easing. Chart 5Fed Monitor Recommends Tighter Policy Fed Monitor Recommends Tighter Policy Fed Monitor Recommends Tighter Policy The bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that we have in fact seen a relatively large tightening of financial conditions since the equity market sold off in February. However, our overall Fed Monitor has barely ticked down, and remains solidly above zero. There is an important message here. The Fed can tolerate more tightening in financial conditions when economic growth and inflation are higher. When a similar tightening of financial conditions occurred in 2015, it did in fact drive our overall Fed Monitor below zero. This is because the economic growth and inflation components of the Monitor provided less of an offset (Chart 5, panels 3 & 4). Now, with stronger readings from those components, the Fed will need to see a much larger tightening of financial conditions before reacting. We will pay close attention to our Fed Monitor going forward for any signs that a sell-off in financial markets might be severe enough to spook the Fed. Another financial market signal that bears monitoring is the slope of the yield curve (Chart 6). It is no secret that an inverted yield curve always precedes a recession, and the Fed could interpret a very flat curve as a signal that monetary policy is becoming restrictive. In fact, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said two weeks ago that: Chart 6Not Flat Enough To Worry The Fed Not Flat Enough To Worry The Fed Not Flat Enough To Worry The Fed I have had extended conversations with my colleagues about a flattening yield curve. It is my job to make sure that [yield curve inversion] doesn't happen. In contrast, the minutes from the May FOMC meeting reveal a more balanced tone from the committee as a whole. "Several" participants thought "it would be important to monitor" the slope of the curve, while "a few" thought that the slope of the curve could be less important this cycle because of several special factors. These factors include: depressed term premiums because of large central bank balance sheets and reductions in investors' estimates of the longer-run neutral real interest rate. Our sense is that the yield curve is a good economic indicator simply because it reflects market expectations about the path of the fed funds rate. When the curve is inverted, and long-maturity yields are below short-maturity yields, it means that investors expect rate cuts to occur in the future. In contrast, a very steep yield curve indicates that the market expects a large number of rate hikes. When the stance of monetary policy is perceived to be close to neutral, investors will expect very little future movement in the fed funds rate and the yield curve will be very flat.2 In an ideal world, the Fed will move the funds rate close to its neutral level by the time that inflation stabilizes around its 2% target. In other words, the Fed will not be overly concerned with a very flat yield curve as long as inflation is close to its target. A very flat curve will only worry policymakers if it coincides with below-target inflation, because that would suggest that the market does not believe that the Fed will hit its inflation goal. With inflation already close to the Fed's target, we don't think a flat yield curve will cause the Fed to turn dovish any time soon. Candidate 3: Foreign Economic Growth One final factor that could eventually cause the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes is weak foreign economic growth. Here we already see mounting signs of stress. Chart 7 shows that while the U.S. Leading Economic Indicator is the strongest it has been in several years, our Global Leading Economic Indicator excluding the U.S. has begun to contract. This divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world is reminiscent of the 2014/15 period when the dollar came under strong upward pressure. Not surprisingly, the dollar is once again starting to appreciate (Chart 7, panel 2). Much like in 2014/15, a strengthening dollar is already putting pressure on Emerging Markets where CDS spreads are widening and currencies are weakening (Chart 7, bottom panel). As an aside, while USD-denominated Sovereign bond spreads have widened, they remain expensive compared to similarly-rated U.S. corporate bonds (Chart 8). We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Turning back to U.S. monetary policy, the key reason the Fed might concern itself with weak foreign economic growth is that the resultant strengthening of the dollar will eventually cause financial conditions to tighten and domestic economic growth to slow. This is exactly what occurred in 2014/15, though unfortunately the Fed waited until the strong dollar culminated in a sell-off in equity and credit markets before it adopted a more dovish policy stance (Chart 9). We would once again expect the Fed to wait for divergent growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world (and the resultant stronger dollar) to be reflected in financial conditions indexes and domestic equity and credit markets before it responded by slowing the pace of hikes. Chart 7Global Growth Divergences##br## Are Back Global Growth Divergences Are Back Global Growth Divergences Are Back Chart 8Sovereigns Still##br## Expensive Sovereigns Still Expensive Sovereigns Still Expensive Chart 9Growth Divergences Led To ##br##Market Turmoil In 2014/15 Growth Divergences Led To Market Turmoil In 2014/15 Growth Divergences Led To Market Turmoil In 2014/15 Bottom Line: The Fed would slow its pace of rate hikes if the cyclical sectors of the U.S. economy started to slow, financial conditions tightened significantly, or if the slope of the yield curve moved close to zero while inflation was below the Fed's target. The most likely catalyst for the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy in the next 6-12 months is a persistent divergence between U.S. and foreign economic growth that leads to a stronger dollar and culminates in significantly tighter financial conditions, as in 2014/15. What Would Make The Fed Hike More Quickly? The most obvious factor that would make the Fed increase its pace of rate hikes to greater than 25 bps per quarter would be if inflation rose above its 2% target and continued to accelerate. It is unclear how much of an inflation overshoot the Fed is willing to tolerate before it increases the pace of hikes, but our sense is that it's fairly substantial. The Fed has gone out of its way in recent months to stress the "symmetric" nature of its 2% inflation target and, as long as inflation expectations remained well contained, we think the Fed would stick with its "gradual" rate hike pace as long as core PCE inflation is below 2.5%. Inflation pressures in the economy would have to change dramatically for core PCE inflation to break above 2.5%. Chart 10 shows two hypothetical scenarios for year-over-year core PCE inflation. One scenario where core PCE inflation rises 0.2% every month going forward, and another where it rises 0.15% every month. In the 0.2% per month scenario, year-over-year core PCE inflation eventually levels off at around 2.4%. In the 0.15% per month scenario it levels off at 1.8%. Monthly core PCE inflation has only printed above 0.2% seven times since 2015 (Chart 11), meaning that we would need to see a huge shift in the inflation data for it to start worrying policymakers. Chart 10How Much Overshoot Will Fed Tolerate? How Much Overshoot Will Fed Tolerate? How Much Overshoot Will Fed Tolerate? Chart 11Prints Above 0.2% Have Been Rare Prints Above 0.2% Have Been Rare Prints Above 0.2% Have Been Rare Another important factor that we have flagged in recent research is the price of gold.3 We noted that the gold price tends to rise when Fed policy eases and fall when it becomes more restrictive. We also observed that Fed policy can ease/tighten in two ways: The Fed can alter market expectations about the pace of rate hikes The market can revise its assessment of the equilibrium (or neutral) fed funds rate Chart 12Gold Has Led The Fed Gold Has Led The Fed Gold Has Led The Fed Notice that the decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 foreshadowed downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate, and that those estimates have leveled-off alongside the price of gold since then (Chart 12). It follows that an upside break-out in the price of gold would be a signal that monetary policy is becoming easier, and that current estimates of the equilibrium fed funds rate need to be revised up. This is another signal we are monitoring that could lead to a quicker pace of rate hikes from the Fed. Bottom Line: A significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target would cause the Fed to increase its pace of rate hikes, but the odds of this occurring during the next 6-12 months are low. An upside break-out in the price of gold would suggest that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised higher, and could lead to a more rapid pace of hikes. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 In practice, the term premium in long-dated Treasury yields will lead to a slightly positive yield curve slope when monetary policy is perceived to be neutral. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights China's industrial sector will continue decelerating, while consumer spending is so far booming. The world economy in general and EM in particular are exposed much more to China's industrial sector than to its consumer spending. The U.S. dollar will continue strengthening, regardless of the trend in U.S. bond yields. The reason is slowing global trade. The dollar rally and weakening global demand will ultimately lead to lower commodities prices. Stay put on / underweight EM financial markets. Turkey will need to hike interest rates more before a buying opportunity in its financial markets emerges. Feature The two key elements affecting the performance of EM financial markets are the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. The combination of a weak U.S. dollar and higher commodities prices is typically bullish for EM. The opposite also holds true: A strong dollar and lower commodities prices are bearish for EM. But what about the recent dynamics - the rally in the greenback and strong commodities prices? This combination is unlikely to be sustained. Historically, the divergence between the dollar's exchange rate and commodities prices has never lasted long (Chart I-1). The fundamental linkage between the U.S. dollar and commodities prices is global growth: improving global growth is positive for resource prices, and the U.S. currency has historically been negatively correlated with global trade - the trade-weighted dollar is shown inverted in this chart (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Commodities And The Dollar Commodities And The Dollar Commodities And The Dollar Chart I-2Global Growth And The Dollar Global Growth And The Dollar Global Growth And The Dollar Hence, if global growth stays strong, the U.S. dollar will pare its recent gains and commodities prices will stay well-bid. Conversely, if global trade decelerates commodities prices will inevitably have to change direction. We expect the dollar to stay well-bid because the current phase of dollar rally will at some point be followed by a second phase where the greenback's strength is driven by a slowdown in global trade. In this phase, commodities prices and U.S. bond yields will drop alongside a strengthening U.S. dollar. Weaker growth in China and in other EMs is the key reason we expect global trade volumes to slow. Is China Slowing? Making sense of growth conditions in China is never easy, but it is particularly confusing these days. We maintain that there is growing evidence that China's industrial segment is slowing and will continue doing so, yet consumer spending is still booming. The basis for the industrial slowdown is a deceleration in both money and credit growth, which has been taking place over the past 18 months or so. With respect to households, the borrowing binge continues. The unrelenting 20%+ annual growth in household credit continues to fuel the property bubble. In turn, a rising wealth effect from real estate as well as decent income growth are the underpinnings behind the booming consumer sector. The main and relevant point for investors from the perspective of China's impact on broader EM is as follows: the drop in the credit and fiscal impulse is heralding a deceleration in capital expenditures/construction. That, in turn, will lead to fewer imports of commodities and materials. Imports are the main transmission mechanism from China's economy to the rest of the world. Mainland imports in RMB terms have indeed decelerated meaningfully, yet import values in U.S. dollar terms have not (Chart I-3). So, what explains the recent gap between imports in yuan and dollar terms? The RMB's rally versus the U.S. dollar in the past 15 months has been responsible for this gap between import values. As one would expect, the spending power of mainland industrial companies has moderated because less credit and fiscal expenditures are being injected into the system (Chart I-4). Yet because the RMB now buys 10% more U.S. dollars than it did a year ago, mainland buyers' purchasing power of foreign goods that are priced in dollars has improved. As a result, the pace of growth of the value of U.S. dollar imports has remained buoyant. Chart I-3Chinese Imports In RMB & USD Terms Chinese Imports In RMB & USD Terms Chinese Imports In RMB & USD Terms Chart I-4Weaker Purchasing Power ##br##In China Will Hurt Imports Weaker Purchasing Power In China Will Hurt Imports Weaker Purchasing Power In China Will Hurt Imports If the RMB's exchange rate versus the dollar remains flat over the next 12 months, the growth rates of both imports in RMB and dollar terms will converge. In this case, a further slowdown in import spending in RMB terms will translate into considerable deceleration in mainland imports in U.S. dollar terms. In brief, the exchange rate is important because the U.S. dollar's depreciation versus the RMB since January 2017 has prevented the spillover from a slowdown in China's imports in local currency terms to the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. Chart I-5Goods And Services Imports: China And U.S. Goods And Services Imports: China And U.S. Goods And Services Imports: China And U.S. If and as the dollar continues to rally versus the majority of currencies, China could allow its currency to slip versus the greenback to assure a flat trade-weighted exchange rate and preserve its competitiveness. In such a scenario, China's purchasing power of goods and services from the rest of world will be impaired - which in turn means this economy will be remitting fewer dollars to the rest of the world. This will reduce the flow of U.S. dollars from China to EMs, adversely impacting the latter's financial markets and economies. Chart I-5 illustrates that China's imports of goods and services amount to $2.3 trillion compared with U.S. imports of goods and services of $3.1 trillion. Therefore, in terms of importance in global imports, China is not too far behind America. This holds true with respect to remitting dollars to the rest of the world. Provided that China imports more from EM - both from Asian manufacturing economies and commodities producers - than the U.S. does, then less mainland imports will entail fewer dollars flowing to EM. In short, the continued slowdown in China's purchasing power in U.S. dollar terms will negatively affect the rest of EM. This rests on our baseline view that mainland credit growth will continue slowing and the RMB will weaken against the dollar, albeit modestly for now. Mirroring the divergence between industrial sectors and consumers in the Middle Kingdom, there has been an equally clear divergence within imports: Imports of industrial supplies excluding machinery have slumped, while imports of household goods have continued to flourish. Chart I-6 demonstrates that imports have decelerated for base metals, chemicals, wood, mineral products and rubber. Even oil and petroleum products imports have slowed (Chart I-7). Yet imports of consumer goods are roaring (Chart I-8). Chart I-6China: Industrial Imports Are Slowing China: Industrial Imports Are Slowing China: Industrial Imports Are Slowing Chart I-7Chinese Fuel Imports Are Slowing Chinese Fuel Imports Are Slowing Chinese Fuel Imports Are Slowing Chart I-8Chinese Consumer Goods Imports Are Robust Chinese Consumer Goods Imports Are Robust Chinese Consumer Goods Imports Are Robust Which one is more important for EM: the industrial sector or consumer spending? Many developing economies in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East as well as countries such as Russia, Indonesia and Malaysia are very dependent on their commodities exports. These economies do not benefit much from booming Chinese consumers. For them, the critical variable is the mainland's industrial sector and its absorption of minerals and resources. In terms of size, Table I-1 illustrates that non-food commodities, industrial goods, machinery, equipment and transportation make up overwhelming majority of China's total imports. Meanwhile, consumer goods imports, excluding autos, comprise 15% of total imports. Hence, their impact on the rest of the world is small. Table I-1Structure Of Chinese Imports The Dollar Rally And China's Imports The Dollar Rally And China's Imports Further, most of consumer goods that households in China consume are produced locally rather than imported. That is why the world economy at large and EM in particular are more exposed to the mainland's industrial sector than its consumer one. Aside from imports, there are several other variables that validate our thesis of an ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector. In particular: Total floor space sold (residential plus non-residential) has rolled over, heralding weakness in floor space started and, eventually, construction activity (Chart I-9). Growth rates of total freight traffic, diesel consumption, electricity and plate glass output have slumped (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Slowdown In Chinese Real Estate Slowdown In Chinese Real Estate Slowdown In Chinese Real Estate Chart I-10China: Industrial Economy Is Weakening China: Industrial Economy Is Weakening China: Industrial Economy Is Weakening Nominal manufacturing production is decelerating in response to a weaker broad money impulse (Chart I-11). The Komatsu Komtrax index - which measures average hours of machine use per unit of construction equipment (excluding mining equipment) - has begun contracting (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Downside Risks In Manufacturing China: Downside Risks in Manufacturing China: Downside Risks in Manufacturing Chart I-12China: Sign Of Construction Slump China: Sign Of Construction Slump China: Sign Of Construction Slump Even though China's spending on tech products has been vibrant, the global semiconductor cycle - a harbinger of overall tech industry growth - is clearly downshifting as evidenced by declining semiconductor prices (Chart I-13). Finally, narrow money (M1) growth has historically correlated with Chinese H-share prices, and is currently pointing to considerable downside risk for Chinese equity prices (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Semiconductor Prices Are Falling Semiconductor Prices Are Falling Semiconductor Prices Are Falling Chart I-14Chinese Share Prices Are At Risk Chinese Share Prices Are At Risk Chinese Share Prices Are At Risk Bottom Line: China's industrial sector has been decelerating, a trend that will persist. Meanwhile, consumer spending is so far booming. The former is more important to the rest of the world in general and EM in particular than the latter. EM Selloff: Two Phases While it is impossible to forecast the timing and character of market dynamics and mini-cycles with precision, our assessment is that two phases of an EM selloff are likely. Phase 1: A relapse in EM financial markets occurs on the back of rising U.S. bond yields, a strong dollar, amid resilient commodities prices. This phase is currently underway. Phase 2: U.S. bond yields peter out and drift lower, yet the U.S. dollar continues to firm up, commodities prices relapse and the EM selloff progresses. This stage has not yet commenced. The driving force behind these dynamics would be slower global demand growth emanating from China and spreading to other developing countries. In between Phases 1 and 2, it is possible that EM will stage a temporary rebound. Yet the duration and magnitude of such a rebound are impossible to gauge. Because of its transient nature, barring precise timing, the rebound will be very difficult to play profitably. It is not impossible to envision that the escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could at some point lead the Federal Reserve to sound less hawkish. That could mark a top in U.S. bond yields. In such a scenario, will a peak in U.S. bond yields mark a bottom in EM currencies? It may do so temporarily, but the sustainability of a rally in EM currencies and risk assets would be contingent on global growth in general and commodities prices in particular. Chart I-15An Unsustainable Rebound ##br##In EM Stocks In 2014 An Unsustainable Rebound In EM Stocks In 2014 An Unsustainable Rebound In EM Stocks In 2014 As a matter of fact, a similar two-phase selloff with a rebound in between occurred in 2013-'15. Chart I-15 illustrates that EM currencies and stocks staged a short-lived rebound after U.S. bond yields peaked in late 2013. Yet this rally proved transient. The underlying impetus behind the resumption in the EM downtrend back in 2014-'15 was weakening growth in China, falling commodities prices and poor domestic fundamentals. Similar to the 2013-'15 episode, any rebound in EM risk assets resulting from lower U.S. bond yields will likely be fleeting if commodities prices drop, the dollar continues to firm up and global growth disappoints. To sum up, a potential rollover in U.S. bond yields in the coming months will not automatically entail an ultimate bottom in EM risk assets. Trends in global growth - particularly in China - and commodities prices will be critical to the outlook for EM. As per our themes and discussion above, we maintain that China's industrial growth and construction will surprise on the downside. Consequently, China's commodities imports will moderate, which will weigh on commodities prices. In the interim, weak global trade dynamics stemming from EM/China will benefit the dollar, which is a countercyclical currency. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar will continue strengthening regardless of the trend in U.S. bond yields because of slowing global trade. The dollar rally and weakening global demand will ultimately lead to lower commodities prices. EM financial markets will remain under selling pressure as long as global growth continues slowing. EM Foreign Funding Vulnerability Ranking Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? Chart I-16 presents ranking of EM countries based on foreign funding requirements. The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-16Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding The Dollar Rally And China's Imports The Dollar Rally And China's Imports Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. Mostly, these 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. The basis for this is depreciating currencies will make their foreign debt liabilities more expensive to service. Besides, as these debtors allocate more resources to service foreign debt, their spending will be negatively impacted and their domestic economies will weaken. Investment Conclusions Chart I-17Downside Risks In EM Share prices Downside Risks In EM Share prices Downside Risks In EM Share prices The dollar's strength will be lasting. Stay short a basket of select currencies such as the BRL, TRY, ZAR, CLP, IDR, KRW and MYR versus the U.S. dollar. For portfolios that need to overweight some EM currencies relative to the rest, our favorites are MXN, RUB, PLN, CZK, TWD, THB and SGD. CNY will for now modestly weaken versus the dollar but outperform many other EM peers. The biggest risk to the U.S. dollar in our opinion is the Trump administration's preference for a weaker greenback. Therefore, "open-mouth" operations by the U.S. administration to weaken the dollar are possible, and the dollar could experience temporary setbacks. Yet the path of least resistance for the dollar remains up, for now. There is considerable downside in EM share prices. Stay put and underweight EM versus DM in general and the S&P 500 in particular. Chart I-17 illustrates that rising EM sovereign bond yields and U.S. corporate bond yields (both shown inverted on the chart) herald a further selloff in EM stocks. Our equity overweights are Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, India, central Europe, Chile and Mexico, and our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Peru, Malaysia and Indonesia. For fixed-income investors, defensive positioning is warranted. As EM currencies continue to depreciate, sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen further. Credit portfolios should continue underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit relative U.S./DM corporate credit. Foreign holdings of EM local currency bonds remain massive. EM currency depreciation versus DM currencies will erode returns for foreign investors and could spur some bond selling, exerting upward pressure on local yields as well.1 Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Is The Worst Over? After having dropped 30% in U.S. dollar terms since their peak in late January, Turkish equity prices are beginning to look depressed, begging the question whether a buying opportunity is in the cards. Our assessment is as follows: the nation's financial markets are not yet at the point to warrant an upgrade (Chart II-1). Judgment on Turkish markets is contingent on three questions: Has the lira become cheap? Are real interest rates sufficiently high to depress domestic demand and reduce inflationary pressures? Are equity valuations cheap enough to warrant buying despite the poor cyclical profit outlook? First, the lira needs to get cheaper. Our favorite measure of currency valuation is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This takes into account both wages and productivity. Hence, it gauges competitiveness much better than the measures of real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices. Using this measure, as of May 23 the lira is one standard deviations below its historical mean (Chart II-2). For it to reach one-and-half or two standard deviations below its fair value, it would roughly take another 10%-20% depreciation, versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro. Chart II-1Turkish Financial Markets ##br##Have More Downside Turkish Financial Markets Have More Downside Turkish Financial Markets Have More Downside Chart II-2The Turkish Lira Is Not That Cheap The Turkish Lira Is Not That Cheap The Turkish Lira Is Not That Cheap Second, in regard to monetary policy, our view is that it would take an increase of around 200-250bps in the policy rate in addition to yesterday's hike of 300bps to stabilize financial markets. Core inflation will likely rise to at least 14-15% from the current level of 12% in response to the ongoing currency depreciation. With the effective policy rate (the late liquidity window rate) now at 16.5%, another 200-250 basis points hike would push the nominal rates to 18.5-19% and real policy rate to 3.5-4%, a minimum level that is likely required to depress excessive domestic demand growth. Finally, equity valuations are reasonably appealing but not cheap enough to put a floor under share prices given the outlook for contracting corporate and bank profits. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for Turkish stocks is now about 6, compared with the historical average of 8. Although this bourse is already one standard deviation cheap, the outlook for profit recession likely warrants even lower valuation to justify buying. Chart II-3Turkish Equities Could Get Cheaper Turkish Equities Could Get Cheaper Turkish Equities Could Get Cheaper An approximate 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms will bring the CAPE to 4.8, one-and-half standard deviation below the fair value. On the whole, 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 will likely create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial markets. That said, it is doubtful whether there is the political will - to tolerate another 15% drop in the currency from current levels or more tightening in monetary conditions in the very near run ahead of the upcoming June parliamentary elections. Given the authorities' tolerance for higher borrowing costs is low, investors should not rule out the potential for capital controls to be imposed. In fact, to protect assets against possible capital control, we would recommend investors who are short to consider booking profits if the exchange rate surpasses 5 USDTRY in a rapid manner. Our open directional trades at the moment remain: Short Turkish bank stocks Short TRY / long USD Non-dedicated long-only investors should for now stay clear of Turkish financial markets. As to dedicated EM equity and fixed income portfolios (both credit and local currency bonds), we continue recommending underweight positions in Turkey. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 We discussed EM currencies and bonds in details in May 10, 2018; the link is available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Stable global demand; steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output; and the cumulative loss of 500k b/d of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions by 2H19 will lift average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl in 2019, respectively (Chart of the Week). Brent prices will average $78/bbl in 2H18, while WTI goes to $72/bbl, as these supply-side effects are not material to prices this year. We lowered our estimate of Venezuela output to 1.2mm b/d by end-2018 (vs. 1.3mm b/d previously), and to 1.0mm b/d by end-2019 (vs. 1.2mm b/d). Offsetting these losses and continued deterioration in non-Gulf OPEC supply in 2019, we assume OPEC 2.0 slowly restores 1.2mm b/d in 1H19, and U.S. shale oil grows 1.4mm b/d. Even so, balances tighten significantly (Chart 2).1 Chart of the WeekBrent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 2Balances Tighter As Supply Falls Balances Tighter As Supply Falls Balances Tighter As Supply Falls If Venezuela collapses, and its ~ 1mm b/d of crude exports are lost, Brent crude oil could go to $100/bbl by end 2019, in the simulation we ran assuming exports collapse in 2H18. Uncertainty over supply and demand responses to higher prices makes this difficult to model. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Our options recommendations - long Brent call spreads spanning Dec/18 to Aug/19 delivery - are up an average 50.5%. Our long S&P GSCI position, recommended Dec 7/17 to take advantage of increasing backwardation, is up 18.9%.2 Base Metals: Neutral. Copper rallied earlier this week on an apparent easing of trade tensions between the U.S. and China. However, a statement by U.S. President Trump suggesting uncertain progress in talks led to a reversal in most of these gains by mid-day Wednesday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long gold portfolio hedge and tactical long silver position were relatively flat over the past week, as the broad trade-weighted USD moved higher. Ags/Softs: Underweight. China's Sinograin, the state grain buyer, reportedly was in the market this week showing interest in purchasing U.S. soybeans, according to agriculture.com's Successful Farming website. Feature Barring the immediate collapse of Venezuela's oil industry and the loss of its ~ 1mm b/d of oil exports, which we discuss below beginning on page 7, the global crude market will continue to tighten from the supply side, on the back of ratcheting geopolitical pressures. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude oil production, which, even without a total collapse that wipes out its ~ 1mm b/d of exports, will see production fall to 1.2mm b/d by the end of this year from ~ 1.44mm b/d at present. This represents a decline in our previous estimate of 100k b/d. By the end of 2019, we expect Venezuela production to fall to 1.0mm b/d, 200k b/d below our previous estimate. One year ago, Venezuela was producing just under 2.0mm b/d of crude. The other supply source affected by geopolitics is Iran, where we expect export volumes to fall later this year, due to the re-imposition of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions (Chart 3). We are modeling a loss of 200k b/d by year-end 2018, and a cumulative loss of 500k b/d by the end of 1H19.3 Lastly, we have raised the probability OPEC 2.0 keeps its production cuts in place in 2H18 to 100% from 80%. This added $2/bbl to our 2018 Brent forecast. We expect a wider Brent - WTI differential this year, and left our 2018 WTI forecast at $70/bbl. Chart 3Iran Exports Down 500k b/d By 2H19, In BCA Model Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019 Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019 The steady decline in Venezuelan production and the loss of Iranian exports, coupled with an extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018, will take total OPEC crude oil production to 32.0mm b/d this year (down 300k b/d y/y), and 31.7mm b/d next year. Non-Gulf OPEC production also falls: coming in at 7.5mm b/d this year, these producers account for a 300k b/d y/y loss, and, at 7.0mm b/d next year, a 500k b/d y/y loss in 2019. Once again this leaves non-OPEC production as the leading source of new supply: We have total non-OPEC liquids (crude, condensates and other liquids) up 2.12mm b/d to 60.7mm b/d this year, and up 2.11mm b/d next year. This is led - no surprise - by U.S. shales, which we expect to increase by 1.3mm b/d this year to 6.52mm b/d, and 1.5mm b/d next year to 7.98mm b/d, respectively (Chart 4). Net, we expect global crude and liquids supply to average 99.73mm b/d this year, and 101.76mm b/d in 2019. On the demand side, our growth estimates are unchanged in our latest balances model. We continue to expect global demand growth of 1.7mm b/d this year and next - the prospects of which strengthened with an apparent dialing back of U.S. - China trade animosities over the past week (Chart 5). This will move the level of global consumption up to 100.3mm b/d this year and 102mm b/d next year, as can be seen in Table 1. Chart 4Steady Decline In Venezuela Exports,##BR##Iran Sanctions Tighten Markets Steady Decline In Venezuela Exports, Iran Sanctions Tighten Markets Steady Decline In Venezuela Exports, Iran Sanctions Tighten Markets Chart 5Global Demand Remains Strong In##BR##Our Updated Balances Models Global Demand Remains Strong In Our Updated Balances Models Global Demand Remains Strong In Our Updated Balances Models The effect of the supply-side adjustments to our model - holding our demand assumptions pretty much constant - can be seen in the new path of OECD inventories vis-à-vis the 2010 - 2014 five-year average level of stocks (Chart 6). OPEC 2.0's strong compliance with its production-management agreement, along with losses of Venezuelan and Iranian exports and above-average demand growth caused estimated OECD commercial inventories to fall ~ 303mm bbls versus Jan/17 levels. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019 Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019 Chart 6Tighter Markets, Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets, Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets, Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Keeping OECD inventories below their 2010 - 2014 average levels means Brent and WTI forward curves will remain backwardated at least to the end of 2019, which, we believe, is OPEC 2.0's ultimate goal. This will ensure the coalition's member states receive the highest price along these forward curves, while the coalition's U.S. shale-oil rivals are forced to hedge at a lower price a year or two forward. Backwardation also works to the advantage of commodity index investors, particularly when the investable index is heavily weighted to oil and refined products like the S&P GSCI.4 This recommendation is up 18.9% since it was recommended Dec 7/17. Net, we expect Brent prices to average $78/bbl in 2H18, while WTI goes to $72/bbl. For next year, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl and WTI to average $72/bbl. Simulation Of A Venezuela Supply Shock To Oil Markets The likelihood Venezuela manages to maintain exports of ~ 1mm b/d this year and next falls daily.5 Were markets to lose these export volumes, they initially would scramble to replace them, leading to a short-term price spike, in our view. We simulated the loss of Venezuela's ~ 1mm b/d of exports, assuming these volumes fall off in June, and starting, in Jul/18, OPEC 2.0 gradually restores the 1.2mm b/d it actually cut from production over 2H18. By Jan/19 OPEC 2.0's 1.2mm b/d cuts are fully restored, in our simulation. However, the loss of Venezuela exports is only fully realized in 2H19, assuming oil consumption stays strong. Brent prices end 2019 ~ $100/bbl (Chart 7). OECD inventories fall to ~ 2.65 billion bbls by end 2018, and to ~ 2.32 billion bbls by end-2019 (Chart 8). This is not unreasonable, given the inelasticity of demand to price over the short term, but we would expect that in 1H20, demand would fall in response to higher prices. Chart 7Oil Prices Move Higher In Our Simulation,##BR##If Venezuela's Exports Collapse... Oil Prices Move Higher In Our Simulation, If Venezuela"s Exports Collapse... Oil Prices Move Higher In Our Simulation, If Venezuela"s Exports Collapse... Chart 8... OECD Inventories Drop Sharply,##BR##As Well ... OECD Inventories Drop Sharply, As Well ... OECD Inventories Drop Sharply, As Well Of course, by that time, the supply side likely would have adjusted as well. We will be exploring this further and developing additional simulations to understand the evolution of prices beyond 2020. How this plays out is unknowable at present. But, as a starting point for understanding the implications of losing Venezuela's exports, this is a reasonable set of assumptions, given the challenges in not only returning OPEC 2.0 volumes removed from the market, but getting them to refining centers in 2H18. What is unclear at present is how governments will use their strategic petroleum reserves (SPRs), and whether OPEC will fire up spare capacity to handle the loss of Venezuela's exports, should this occur. Much will depend on how OPEC 2.0 and consumer governments' SPRs interact if exports collapse. Production Cuts, Inventories, SPRs And Spare Capacity In the simulation above, we reckon OPEC 2.0 flowing production can be brought back to market in fairly short order, and that still-ample inventories and spare capacity would be available to cover the sudden loss of Venezuela's exports, to say nothing of strategic petroleum reserves held in the U.S., China, Japan, and the EU. The key, though, is how long it would take to get this supply to market, and how governments holding SPRs react. We estimate it will take anywhere from one to three months to begin to restore the volumes OPEC 2.0 took off the market if Venezuela goes offline. It will take a few months for the restored crude production to start flowing into pipelines and on to ships, followed by 50- to 60-day journeys from the Gulf to be delivered to refining centers. Chart 9OPEC Spare Capacity ~ 2% Of Global Supply,##BR##Lower Than 2003 - 2008 Price Run-Up OPEC Spare Capacity ~ 2% Of Global Supply, Lower Than 2003 - 2008 Price Run-Up OPEC Spare Capacity ~ 2% Of Global Supply, Lower Than 2003 - 2008 Price Run-Up In the meantime, refiners would continue to draw crude inventory to supply product markets, along with product inventories, a critical consideration going into the northern hemisphere's summer driving season. In a short-term pinch, governments could draw their strategic petroleum reserves to fill the gaps while OPEC 2.0 production is being restored, and markets get back to the status-quo ante prevailing prior to the loss of Venezuela's exports.6 OPEC's ~ 1.9mm b/d of spare capacity - most of which is located in KSA - could be called upon in an emergency; however, this requires 30 days to be brought on line, per U.S. EIA, and can only be sustained for at least 90 days (Chart 9). The EIA is forecasting OPEC spare capacity will fall from current levels of 1.9mm bbls to ~ 1.3mm bbls by end-2019.7 Given these uncertainties, we continue to recommend investors remain long Brent crude oil option call spreads, which we recommended over the course of the past few months.8 We expect prices and volatility to move higher, both of which are positive for option positions. Bottom Line: Venezuela's crude oil production is in free-fall. We estimate it will drop to 1.2mm b/d by the end of this year, and to 1.0mm b/d by the end of next year. Iran's exports could fall 500k b/d by the end of 1H19, as a result of the re-imposition of nuclear sanctions by the U.S. These geopolitically induced supply losses tighten markets in 2019, raising our prices forecasts for Brent and WTI to $80 and $72/bbl, respectively. We are raising our Brent forecast for 2018 by $2/bbl, expecting prices to average $76 and $70/bbl, respectively, since these risks likely do not kick in until late in 2018. A collapse in Venezuelan production could spike prices to $100/bbl by the end of 2019, even as OPEC 2.0 restores the 1.2mm b/d of production it removed from markets beginning in 2H18. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.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. Its production cuts of ~ 1.2mm b/d and natural declines have removed ~ 1.8mm b/d from the market. 2 Backwardation is a term of art used in commodity markets to describe an inverted forward price curve - i.e., prompt-delivery commodities trade higher than the same commodity delivered in the future. The opposite of backwardation is contango. 3 There is an extremely high degree of uncertainty around this estimate, which is why we are treating it as our Bayesian prior, and will be revising it as additional information becomes available. We do not believe all of the production restored by Iran post-sanctions - 1mm b/d - will be lost to export markets, but starting with a prior of ~ half of it being lost due to less-than-full re-imposition of sanctions is reasonable. 4 Commodity-index total returns are the sum of price appreciation registered by being long the index; "roll yield," which comes from buying deferred futures in backwardated markets, letting them roll up the forward curve as they approach delivery, selling them, then replacing them with cheaper deferred contracts in the same commodity; and collateral yield, which accrues to margin deposits on the futures comprising the index. Roll yield can be illustrated by way of a simplistic example: Assume the oil exposure in an index is established in a backwardated market - say, spot is trading at $62/bbl and the 3rd nearby WTI future trades at $60/bbl. Assuming nothing changes, an investor can hold the 3rd nearby contract until it becomes spot, then roll it (i.e., sell it in the spot month and replace it with another 3rd nearby contract at $60/bbl) for a $2/bbl gain. This process can be repeated as long as the forward curve remains backwardated. 5 Matters have only gotten worse since the Council on Foreign Relations published its so-called Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 33 February 13, 2018, titled "A Venezuelan Refugee Crisis," which opened with the following: Venezuela is in an economic free fall. As a result of government-led mismanagement and corruption, the currency value is plummeting, prices are hyperinflated, and gross domestic product (GDP) has fallen by over a third in the last five years. In an economy that produces little except oil, the government has cut imports by over 75 percent, choosing to use its hard currency to service the roughly $140 billion in debt and other obligations. These economic choices have led to a humanitarian crisis. Basic food and medicines for Venezuela's approximately thirty million citizens are increasingly scarce, and the devastation of the health-care system has spurred outbreaks of treatable diseases and rising death rates. The CFR's memo is available at https://www.cfr.org/report/venezuelan-refugee-crisis 6 There is no way to model exactly how this will play out, absent a detailed plan put forward by the IEA and China, where the largest SPRs reside. IEA members have bound themselves to hold reserves equal to 90 days of net petroleum imports. Among the largest SPRs, U.S. holds just over 660mm barrels of oil in its SPR; China held ~ 290mm barrels at the end of last year, based on IEA estimates. Germany and Japan together hold close to 550mm bbls, according to the Joint Organizations Data Initiatives (JODI). KSA's crude oil inventories - not exactly SPRs - stood at ~ 235mm barrels in March, according to JODI. We are highly confident disposition of these reserves in the event of a shock to Venezuela's exports is being discussed in Washington, Paris, Riyadh and Beijing. Please see p. 2 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's Testimony Before the subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, "Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Preliminary Observations on the Emergency Oil Stockpile," released for publication Nov. 2, 2017. 7 This actually is a fairly low level of spare capacity, amounting to ~ 2% of global supply. During, the price run-up of 2003 - 2008, OPEC's total spare capacity was near or below 3% of supply and that was considered tight at the time. 8 Please see p. 11 for a summary of these trades' performance. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019 Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019 Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019

As with all bull markets, the question on investors' minds has never been if it would end but when it will end as the former is a certainty and the latter is the source of alpha. We have previously noted that by almost all measures, this is the longest bull market in history1 and, with its age starting to show, it is time to focus on late-cycle dynamics. Our preferred leading indicator for declines in U.S. equity markets has been the ISM manufacturing composite index. The ISM has, despite a few false positives, led both recessions and S&P 500 troughs with remarkable accuracy (Chart 1). Chart 1Our Preferred Leading Indicator Our Preferred Leading Indicator Our Preferred Leading Indicator When gains in the S&P 500 are broken into their respective components, it becomes apparent that the ISM is a strong predictor of both sentiment, as measured by changes in the valuation multiple (Chart 2), as well as profit prospects, as measured by earnings growth (Chart 3). Chart 2ISM Leads Valuation... ISM Leads Valuation... ISM Leads Valuation... Chart 3...And Earnings ...And Earnings ...And Earnings Still, valuations and earnings eventually, and invariably, converge, usually explosively so in a recession. Accordingly, measuring the ISM's lead time should provide some insight into the duration of the economic expansion as well as appropriate sector allocation. In our last Weekly Report,2 we examined how in the late/later stages of economic expansion, banks, representing a prototypical early-cyclical sector, underperformed the broad market. In this report, we are broadening the analysis to all of the GICS1 sectors of the S&P 500. Timing Is Everything We begin our analysis by examining the duration of leads between the cyclical peak of the ISM and the end of economic expansion (i.e. the start of recession as defined by the NBER) going back to the 1960s with our results summarized in Table 1. These results are somewhat unhelpful as the durations range from as short as 8 months at the beginning of the 1980s to more than 3 years, as in the period preceding the Great Recession. With the hypothesis in mind that the market would have sniffed out a recession before economic activity actually began to contract, we split the duration into two periods: the time between the peak of the ISM and the peak of the S&P 500 and the time between the peak of the S&P 500 and the beginning of the recession (Table 2). While the duration inconsistency between iterations argues against using this data to forecast the longevity of an equity bull market, a closer examination of the periods yields a key insight: The duration of the blow off phase of the bull market is on average more than three times longer than the fall before the recession. Table 1ISM Peak To Recession Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Table 2Late Cycle Can Be Split in Two Phases Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Still, the purpose of this report is not to estimate the length of time between the most recent ISM peak (March, 2018) and recession; as shown above, such an exercise would be meaningless as history has never rhymed in this regard. Rather, this Special Report should offer a portfolio allocation roadmap if, as we believe, the ISM has peaked but the S&P 500 has yet to see its cyclical highs.3 Riding The Wave Chart 4S&P 500 Cycle-On-Cycle Returns Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Chart 4 shows a cycle-on-cycle analysis of S&P 500 returns in the periods between the peak of the ISM and the beginning of the recession, across the seven iterations since the 1960's. This chart requires some explanation; because the time frames between ISM peak and recession vary so substantially per iteration, we have segmented each period into eight parts. Each part can represent a time frame as short as one or as long as eight months; what matters is the direction of the market, not the time frame. We have overlaid this cycle-on-cycle chart with the S&P 500, indexed to 0 at the most recent ISM peak in March of this year. It is worth qualifying that the S&P 500 peaked before the ISM in two of the seven iterations we have examined and, by overlaying the year-to-date S&P 500 over this curve, we are explicitly stating that we expect the S&P 500 peak in the current cycle to follow the peak in the ISM, as happened in five iterations, including the most recent three (please refer to our recent publication where we lifted our SPX peak target to 32004). Despite the machinations in creating Chart 4, the pattern is remarkably consistent; the S&P 500 falls modestly after the ISM peaks but then delivers one last hurrah, before the end of the cycle. Once again, however, the trick to securing the excess returns earned in the fat times is timing, as the fall after the S&P 500 peak is precipitous. Further, given the much shorter time frame on the back end of the curve, haste is of the essence. Sector Winners & Losers As shown in Table 3, the average return of the S&P 500 from the peak of the ISM to the beginning of the recession is a fairly modest 6.7% (non-compounded). That return appears even more modest in the context of an average 25 month duration. When the returns are split into the periods before and after the peak of the S&P 500, the 25% gain before the peak and the 12% decline after (Tables 4 and 5) are more significant and underscore the role of timing for capital preservation in the late cycle. Table 3Health Care Outperforms In The Late Cycle Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Table 4High Beta Stocks Outperform Early... Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Table 5...Defensive Stocks Beat Late Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge The top performers in the first phase of the late cycle equity market surge are some of the highest beta sectors, including energy and technology. Also, unsurprisingly, these sectors have performed poorly in the latter phase we examined when the market slides toward recession. Still, we would highlight the S&P energy index as a portfolio overweight in the late cycle. Energy has historically been the top performer from the peak of the ISM to the peak of the S&P 500 and, while it is a sub-par performer in the latter stages, it continues to outperform the falling broad market. Further, energy registered relative performance gains in every iteration we examined and was the only sector to consistently repeat its performance, positive or negative. The current iteration of the late cycle should probably see stellar returns in this sector as crude oil prices have only recently broken out, a pattern that has repeated following other ISM peaks (Chart 5); BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy expects this trend to continue in 2018. As such, the nascent turnaround in sector performance (Chart 6) should have long legs; we reiterate our high-conviction overweight in this deep cyclical sector. Chart 5Oil And ISM Move In Sync... Oil And ISM Move In Sync... Oil And ISM Move In Sync... Chart 6...And So Do Energy Equities ...And So Do Energy Equities ...And So Do Energy Equities Another interesting insight from this research is the strong performance of the S&P health care sector in both phases we examined (Chart 7). This is largely due to the high-beta biotech sub-sector outperforming early (Chart 8) with the more defensive managed health care and pharma sub-indexes sustaining the outperformance following the SPX peak (Chart 9). Chart 7Health Care Is A Resilient Late Cycle Performer Health Care Is A Resilient Late Cycle Performer Health Care Is A Resilient Late Cycle Performer Chart 8Biotech Leads Early Biotech Leads Early Biotech Leads Early In light of this research and given recent pricing power developments, we are adding an upgrade alert to the pharma and biotech groups and thus to the broad S&P health care index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5BIOT - ABBV, AMGN, GILD,CELG, BIIB, VRTX, ALXN, REGN, INCY and BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, LLY, AGN, ZTS, MYL, NKTR, PRGO. Chart 9...While Pharma Outperforms Late ...While Pharma Outperforms Late ...While Pharma Outperforms Late Stay Cyclical (For Now) The current backdrop of a Fed that seems likely to be permissive of an inflation overshoot (or at least not too hawkish), combined with a strong domestic fiscal thrust in the form of tax cuts and a potential infrastructure bill, supports our thesis that, despite being past the peak of the ISM, the S&P 500 has not yet seen its best days. Accordingly, the upshot of our analysis is that it pays to maintain a cyclical portfolio bent to capture the most lucrative phase of the bull market. This is reflected in our overall portfolio allocation; we note that the top and bottom performers in this analysis (S&P energy and S&P telecom services, Table 3) are overweight and underweight, respectively, on our high conviction list. Still, our upgrade alerts in the health care sector should stand as a caution to readers that we are prepared to reduce beta in our portfolio allocation should our other leading indicators flash yellow. For now, however, we continue to believe the odds of recession are close to nil on a 9-12 month horizon and, accordingly, remain positive on the broad market's prospects with a cyclical portfolio allocation over defensive. Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Sector Winners & Losers When Fiscal Easing Offsets Monetary Tightening," dated April 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Resilient," dated May 14, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Ibid.

Highlights Copper has been stuck in the $2.90-$3.30/lb trading range since late August, 2017. Offsetting supply- and demand-side effects are keeping us neutral: Concerns over restrictions on China's scrap imports and possible industrial action in Chile, along with continued worries over a slow-down in China will keep prices range-bound until we see a fundamental catalyst on one side of the market. Our updated balances model shows a physical surplus in 2018, followed by a deficit in 2019. Energy: Overweight. Rising crude oil prices and steepening backwardation in Brent and WTI, to a lesser extent, will be supportive of our energy-heavy S&P GSCI recommendation, as we expected. The position is up 17.1% since it was initiated on December 7, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Our updated balances model points to a physical surplus in the copper market by year end (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. A stronger USD and higher real rates are pressuring precious metals lower. Our long gold and silver positions are down 1.8% and 0.8%, respectively, over the past week. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects Brazil to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest soybean producer in the upcoming crop year, for the first time in history. Nevertheless - and despite U.S.-Sino trade tensions - the report also predicts record U.S. exports of the bean in the 2018/19 crop year. Feature Chart of the WeekStuck In A Trading Range Stuck In A Trading Range Stuck In A Trading Range Copper on the COMEX averaged $3.12/lb since the beginning of the year - slightly higher than our $3.10/lb expectation published in January (Chart of the Week).1 Fears of a slowdown in China -suggested by weaker readings of the Li Keqiang Index - as well as a stronger dollar have been headwinds to further upside. On the flip side, upcoming contract renegotiations at Escondida, China's ongoing environmental efforts, and global PMI readings above the 50 boom-bust line have kept bulls interested in the red metal. Our estimate of the refined copper balance is for a physical surplus this year (Chart 2). Strong demand from Asia, and to a lesser extent North America, will support a moderate pickup in consumption this year. This will be met by greater refined output - a ramp in primary refined output will more than offset the expected decline in secondary production (i.e. refined copper produced from the scrap metal). Upside risk to this outlook comes from supply-side disruptions at the ore mines - particularly in Chile - and at refined levels. The biggest downside risk remains China's growth trajectory: If policymakers are unable to manage the transition to sustainable, consumer- and services-led growth in the market that accounts for 50% of global demand, prices will fall. Longer term, our models point to a physical refined-copper deficit on the back of stronger consumption growth vis-à-vis output growth. The key to a breakout - up or down -lies in the evolution of financial and fundamental factors. On the financial side, the USD has been edging higher since mid-April. Absent an upward copper price catalyst, a continuation in the USD's path will prevent the metal from booking strong gains. On the fundamental side, we expect copper markets to be in surplus this year. However, downside risks from a greater-than-expected slowdown in China could easily tilt the balance. Ongoing Chinese tightening of scrap copper imports will resist sharp moves to the downside. Chart 2Updated Balances: Expect A Refined Copper Surplus This Year Copper: A Break Out, Or A Break Down? Copper: A Break Out, Or A Break Down? Any of these factors may emerge as a catalyst for a breakout or a breakdown in the copper market this year. Yet for now our model is pointing to a physical surplus and we are comfortable with our neutral outlook. We expect near term prices to trade in the $2.90 to $3.15/lb range. Nevertheless, the evolution of these known unknowns may tilt our balances to either side. A break lower would be reason to sell, while a break above the upper bound would support an outlook for higher prices. Geopolitical Risks On The Horizon Political tensions are spilling into the copper market, threatening supplies, and bringing with them the prospect of higher prices. This is not without reason: Supply-side shocks to mined output have historically been a source of upside risk to prices. Foremost among the potential shocks is labor action at the Escondida mine in Chile, the world's largest. June 4 is the deadline for contract renegotiations to begin. These talks will follow last year's contract renewal efforts, which led to a 44-day strike, a 63% y/y decline in the mine's copper output in 1Q17, and eventually, an 18-month contract extension. As the world's largest mine, Escondida accounts for 1.27mm MT out of the 22mm MT of world capacity, and contributes ~5% of global supply. Efforts to lock in an advance deal ended late last month to no avail.2 Nevertheless, Escondida's production in 1Q18 has been exceptional - more than triple the same period last year. Furthermore, copper was among the metals that caught a bid last month amid fears of further rounds of U.S. sanctions on Russian companies. Russian oligarch Vladimir Potanin has a 33% stake in Norilsk, one of the world's largest copper mines - accounting for 388k MT of output last year. While sanctions against Potanin have not been announced, he was named in the U.S. Section 241 Foreign Asset Control filing, suggesting that he may be targeted in future sanctions, putting Norilsk's future at risk, à la Rusal. While fears of U.S. sanctions on Russia appear to have eased, the risk of such action on global copper supply was a tailwind to the copper market last month. In addition to the upside from these potential supply-side shocks, ongoing environmental reform efforts in China remain a theme in metals markets globally. In the case of the red metal, restrictions on Chinese access to "foreign waste" will curtail scrap shipments going forward. World secondary refined production from scrap accounts for almost 20% of global refined copper. China produces more than half of the world's secondary refined copper. This means that China's secondary output makes up 10% of all world refined copper production (Chart 3). Chart 3China's Secondary Output Important To Refined Copper Supply... Copper: A Break Out, Or A Break Down? Copper: A Break Out, Or A Break Down? As such, scrap copper imports play an important role in China - they act as a buffer against high prices, rising when prices lift, and dwindling in times of low prices. Among the measures implemented to gain more control over scrap markets in China are the following: 1. For the period between May 4 and June 4, the Chinese customs inspection firm - China Certification and Inspection Group North America - announced it would suspend the issuance of export certificates for scrap material shipments, including scrap copper.3 The aim of the suspension is to inspect the waste material and ensure it complies with China's new environmental regulations. In general China imports 15% of its copper scrap from the U.S. - purchasing more than 500k MT of scrap copper from the U.S. last year (Chart 4). Since the U.S. is China's top supplier of scrap copper, this specific initiative and China's ongoing efforts for environmental reform could be consequential to secondary refined output. 2. This move comes in addition to ongoing restrictions on imported solid waste. Starting in 2019, Category 7 scrap copper imports - i.e., solid waste, which account for ~20% of all scrap - will be banned.4 Since the beginning of the year, import licenses were granted only to scrap end-users and, since March 1, hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports were limited to 1% by weight. A Metal Bulletin report late last month estimated import quotas for scrap copper were 84% lower so far this year.5 As such, Jiangxi Copper - the largest copper refinery in the world - estimates that these restrictions will culminate in a 500k MT decline in scrap copper imports this year. In fact, scrap copper imports have already been falling significantly, with Chinese purchases down 40% y/y in 1Q18. The near-term implication of these restrictions on China's scrap copper imports would be to raise imports of refined copper, or of ores and concentrates. Scrap copper displaced from these restrictions will likely be diverted to other countries where they will be refined and shipped to China for final consumption. While an eventual move by Chinese companies to Southeast Asian countries in a bid to set up processing facilities there would eliminate the long term price impact, there may be some upside to prices during the transition phase. As such, China's imports of copper ores and concentrates, and of the refined metal, have been strong. During the first four months of the year, imports of ores and concentrates were up almost 10% y/y, while inflows of the refined metal are 15% above last year's levels (Chart 5). Chart 4...But Scrap Imports Are Restrained ...But Scrap Imports Are Restrained ...But Scrap Imports Are Restrained Chart 5China's Copper Imports Still Going Strong China's Copper Imports Still Going Strong China's Copper Imports Still Going Strong As these policy measures have been known to the public for quite some time, we suspect they are already priced into markets, and do not foresee further upside risk arising from this source. Nevertheless, their impact will remain significant, given that limited ability to produce scrap copper, which will restrict supply, will keep the market resistant to significant downward price pressure. Moderate Consumption Growth This Year Our updated balances model does not include any significant changes to our demand outlook from our January estimate. This is consistent with our consumption estimates for other industrial commodities that share strong co-movement properties with copper demand. We expect lower global consumption and growth than what's being projected by the International Copper Study Group (ICSG) and the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in its Resources & Energy Quarterly report. While China will remain the world's major copper consumer, a slowdown in its economy remains the foremost demand-side concern for us this year. DM economies appear to be comfortably perched at an above trend level. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and solid growth figures from the rest of the world will help keep demand in DM economies supported (Table 1). Table 1Strong Global Growth Will Support##BR##Copper Consumption Copper: A Break Out, Or A Break Down? Copper: A Break Out, Or A Break Down? However, Chinese demand growth remains vulnerable to a slowdown. As we outlined in our March 29 Weekly Report, while there are fundamental reasons to be concerned about Chinese growth going forward, there are no signs of alarm just yet.6 Manufacturing PMIs have come down in recent months, but they remain above the 50 boom-bust mark. That said, it is worth pointing out that the most significant indicator of the Chinese economy we track - the Li Keqiang index -has also been slowing as of late. We continue to expect the government to be able to pull off the managed slowdown it has embarked on. However, we are alert for any sign the Chinese economy is sharply decelerating, as it would lead us to revise our consumption forecast. A Surplus...At Least This Year Our demand and supply expectations lead us to call for a surplus of refined copper this year. Further out, we expect consumption growth to outpace production next year. The upward adjustment in our balance to a surplus since January is a result of upside revisions to supply amid a stable consumption growth path (Chart 6). Copper inventories remain elevated (Chart 7). While current levels of inventories are not a predictor of future price movements, they do indicate there is sufficient cushion in the market to withstand near-term supply disruptions. Chart 6Solid Production Path Amid Stable Consumption;##BR##Surplus Will Emerge Solid Production Path Amid Stable Consumption; Surplus Will Emerge Solid Production Path Amid Stable Consumption; Surplus Will Emerge Chart 7Inventories Will Cushion##BR##Against Supply Shocks Inventories Will Cushion Against Supply Shocks Inventories Will Cushion Against Supply Shocks Of course, along with other commodity markets, copper prices remain vulnerable to USD movements. In fact, the red metal's performance over the past month is especially impressive given the relative strength in the USD as of late. BCA expects the USD will appreciate in the coming months. Absent fundamental changes - i.e. supply- or demand-side shocks - copper markets will likely be restrained from staging a break-out rally by a stronger USD going forward. Bottom Line: Fundamental and financial risks to the copper market are slightly skewed to the downside this year. We expect a physical surplus to emerge by year-end, given slightly higher output and slower demand growth as China slows. On the downside, prices are vulnerable to a stronger USD and muted demand growth in China. On the upside, they are supported by supply-side concerns, chiefly at the Escondida mine and due to restrictions on China's imports of scrap copper. Stay neutral the red metal. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see p.11 of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper," dated January 25, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Union at BHP's Escondida copper mine in Chile says no advance deal likely," dated April 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "China to suspend checks on U.S. scrap metal shipments, halting imports," dated May 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 4 Please see "China scrap metal firms face pressure from import curbs: official", dated April 26, 2018, available at reuters.com and BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Copper Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated August 24, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "FOCUS: China's copper scrap import quotas down 84% so far this year," dated April 23, 2018, available at metalbulletin.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

Overweight Quarter-to-date the S&P energy services index is up 12% compared with the 2% rise in the broad market. While the steep rebound in oil prices primarily lies behind such stellar outperformance (top panel), our capex upcycle theme for 2018 should support this nascent recovery. Energy related capital spending budgets are not only rising in the U.S. (primarily in shale oil), but also globally. The global rig count is breaking out, and declining OECD oil stocks suggest that drilling activity will remain robust (second and third panels). Relative share price momentum does not yet fully reflect the rebound in industry investment (using national accounts) that remains in a V-shaped recovery since the Q1/2016 oil market trough (bottom panel). In sum, there are more gains in store for the S&P energy services index. Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy service index and see our Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE: NOV, SLB, FTI, BHGE, HAL, HP. CHART 12 Energy Servicers: The Phoenix Is Rising CHART 12 Energy Servicers: The Phoenix Is Rising

Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? EM Breakdown? EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Global Growth On A Knife Edge Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... German Data... German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks ...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks ...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has 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 has achieved (Chart 14). 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 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 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 15Secondary 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 Third, 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 1.23 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 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Is Erdogan In Trouble? Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 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. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Our confidence in additional significant bank relative price gains has decreased. There is budding evidence that the bank/yield curve correlation is getting re-established, as we had posited last autumn, and coupled with later cycle dynamics signal that the bank outperformance is getting long in the tooth. Recent Changes Crystalize gains of 6% in the S&P banks index and remove from the high-conviction overweight call list. Put the S&P banks index on downgrade alert. Prefer large caps to small caps (please refer to the May 10th Sector Insight). Table 1 Resilient Resilient Feature Equities staged a breakout attempt last week and the SPX reclaimed the 50-day moving average, with the energy sector leading the pack. However, the lateral move in place over the past quarter is not over yet as the market is still digesting the February 5th drawdown. Importantly, EPS euphoria cannot last forever and the inevitable profit growth deceleration post the calendar 2018 onetime tax reform fillip is weighing on the market. The 12-month forward EPS growth rate has come down to 15%, and as we move into the back half of 2018 it will continue to glide toward a still impressive 10% (or two times nominal GDP growth), which is where the calendar 2019 estimate currently stands (Chart 1). Following up from last week's 'Til Debt Do Us Part' Special Report, the overall market's (ex-financials and ex-real estate) 'Altman Z-score' is waving a mini yellow flag. Cyclical momentum in this indicator is giving way and the broad market's deteriorating creditworthiness is also, at the margin, anchoring profit growth (Chart 2). Chart 1Unsustainable EPS Euphoria Unsustainable EPS Euphoria Unsustainable EPS Euphoria Chart 2Watching Balance Sheets... Watching Balance Sheets… Watching Balance Sheets… Nevertheless, we remain constructive on the broad market from a cyclical 9-12 month horizon as the odds of recession are close to nil, and interpret recent market action as a sign of resiliency. The SPX refuses to give way to the bearish narrative plagued by geopolitical uncertainty/fears and slowing global growth. Chart 3 shows an extremely economically sensitive indicator, lumber, alongside the ISM manufacturing survey. Since 1969 when lumber futures first commenced trading, these two series have been tightly positively correlated. Recently, a rare and steep divergence is visible and our inclination is to expect all-time high lumber prices to arrest the ISM's fall in the coming months. True, lumber prices reflect a NAFTA-related premium and at the current juncture cannot be fully trusted that they are emitting an accurate economic signal. We, thus, resort to another - daily reported - global growth barometer, the Baltic Dry Index (BDI). The third panel of Chart 3 shows that a wide gap has opened between the ISM manufacturing index and the BDI. If our assessment is correct and this global growth soft patch is transitory, then the ISM will remain squarely clear of the 50 boom/bust line. Taken together, these two economically sensitive high frequency series comprise our Global Trade Indicator which is underscoring that global export growth will pick up in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 3). Finally, on the domestic freight front,1 the composite freight index is also reaccelerating, signaling that domestic demand conditions are firing on all cylinders (fourth panel, Chart 3). Circling back to profit growth, long-term S&P 500 EPS growth expectations have vaulted to the highest level since the dotcom bubble (bottom panel, Chart 4). While in isolation, this measure signals we are in overshoot territory and such breakneck EPS growth is clearly unsustainable, the SPX PEG ratio tells a different story (we divide the 12-month forward price to earnings ratio by the long-term EPS growth rate to arrive at the current reading near 1 on the S&P 500 PEG ratio, Chart 4). Chart 3...But Economy Is Humming …But Economy Is Humming …But Economy Is Humming Chart 4Market Is Cheap According To PEG Ratio Market Is Cheap According To PEG Ratio Market Is Cheap According To PEG Ratio On this valuation measure the SPX appears cheap. Historically, every time the PEG ratio has sunk to one standard deviation below the mean, at least a reflex rebound ensued. Table 2 summarizes the five most recent iterations we included in the analysis since 1985. While we cannot rule out a steep undershoot, if history at least rhymes, the S&P should be higher in the subsequent 12 months (Chart 5). Chart 5SPX Cycle-On-Cycle Return Profile When The PEG Ratio Gets Depressed SPX Cycle-On-Cycle Return Profile When The PEG Ratio Gets Depressed SPX Cycle-On-Cycle Return Profile When The PEG Ratio Gets Depressed Table 2S&P 500 Yearly Returns* Resilient Resilient This week we are removing an early cyclical index from our high-conviction call list, locking in handsome profits, and updating a high-beta energy sub-index. Put Banks On Downgrade Watch Despite a blockbuster earnings season, banks have come under pressure recently. Worrisomely, they have not followed the 10-year Treasury yield higher and that is cause for concern. We first cautioned last October that banks would shatter their near one-to-one relationship with the 10-year UST yield and re-establish it with the yield curve likely in the back half of 2018 as the Fed would further lift the fed funds rate away from the zero lower bound.2 This positive correlation shift from interest rates to the yield curve slope is important as it will likely squeeze banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver (Chart 6). Charts 7 & 8 show that there is increasing empirical evidence that banks have already started making this transition away from the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve, and we are thus compelled to book profits of 6% and remove this early cyclical index from the high-conviction overweight call list. The S&P banks index is now also on downgrade alert. Chart 6NIM Trouble? NIM Trouble? NIM Trouble? Chart 7Monitoring Shifting... Monitoring Shifting… Monitoring Shifting… Chart 8...Correlations …Correlations …Correlations What would cause us to change our yearlong cyclical constructive view and move to a benchmark allocation, is a lack of relative price outperformance in the next 10-year Treasury yield jump. Crudely put, if banks fail to best the market when the bond market further sells off roughly to 3.25%, as BCA's fixed income strategists expect, we will pull the trigger and downgrade to a neutral stance. Another reason we are likely to become more wary of bank relative performance in the coming quarters is the stage of the business cycle. Importantly, we wanted to test our hypothesis that in the late/later stages of the expansion early cyclicals, banks included, fare poorly. Therefore, at some point we should move away from our sanguine view on this index and not overstay our welcome as the current expansion has become the second longest on record according to the NBER designated recessions. In more detail, what we did to test this hypothesis was to document relative bank performance from when the ISM manufacturing peaked for the cycle until the recession commenced going back to the 1960s (Chart 9). Table 3 aggregates the results using monthly data. What is clear is that if the recession is a financial crisis related recession, then shy away from banks. But, in 4 out of the 7 last cycles dating back to the 1960s, banks outperformed the broad market in the later stages of the business cycle. Chart 9Banks Tend To Slump In Later Stages Of The Cycle Banks Tend To Slump In Later Stages Of The Cycle Banks Tend To Slump In Later Stages Of The Cycle Table 3Late Cycle Analysis Resilient Resilient Nevertheless, breaking down the results in two periods is instructive. One period recalibrates the bank relative returns from the ISM peak until the SPX peak, and the second one from the SPX peak until the recession commences (Table 3). Banks clearly underwhelm 4 out of the 7 iterations as the SPX crests, confirming our negative return hypothesis. Subsequently, as the SPX deflates when the economy heads into recession, relative bank performance significantly improves with the caveat that during financial crises, banks continue to bleed (in an upcoming Special Report we will be performing the same analysis on the GICS1 U.S. equity sectors, stay tuned). Two weeks ago we lifted our peak SPX target to 3200,3 and the implication is that banks' best days have likely passed, if history at least rhymes. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks for now, but lock in gains of 6% and remove the S&P banks index from the high-conviction overweight call list, as our confidence is not as high as in late-November.4 Further, we are putting this key financials sub index on downgrade alert reflecting the negative implication from our later stages of the business cycle analysis. We are closely monitoring the yield curve slope and interest rate correlation with bank performance, and if banks refrain from participating in the next leg up in interest rates it will serve as a catalyst to prune exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB. Energy Servicers: The Phoenix Is Rising Quarter-to-date the S&P energy services index is up 12% compared with the 2% rise in the broad market. Even year-to-date, oil servicing companies have bested the market by 600bps. The steep rebound in oil prices primarily lies behind such stellar outperformance, and BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy still-upbeat crude oil view is a harbinger of even brighter days ahead for this high-beta energy sub sector (Chart 10). While we are exploring our capex upcycle theme via a high-conviction overweight in the broad S&P energy index, oil services companies are also a prime beneficiary of our synchronized global capital outlays upcycle theme. In fact, relative share price momentum does not yet fully reflect the rebound in industry investment (using national accounts) that remains in a V-shaped recovery since the Q1/2016 oil market trough (second panel, Chart 11). Importantly, OPEC 2.0 and $70/bbl oil prices have resulted in a semblance of normality in the E&P space (a key industry client) that has lifted spending budgets (bottom panel, Chart 11). The upshot is that energy services revenues will continue to expand (Chart 11). Energy related capital spending budgets are not only rising in the U.S. (primarily in shale oil), but also globally. The global rig count is breaking out, and declining OECD oil stocks suggest that drilling activity will remain robust (top and second panel, Chart 12). Chart 10Catch up Phase Catch up Phase Catch up Phase Chart 11Capex Upcycle... Capex Upcycle… Capex Upcycle… Chart 12...Beneficiary …Beneficiary …Beneficiary Taking the pulse of oil services industry slack is extremely important for profitability. Our global idle rig proxy is also making a breakout attempt following a massive two year plus retrenchment phase (top panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind that energy servicers have only recently exited deflation, that wreaked havoc in the sector's financial metrics. Now as a renormalization period is unfolding with higher underlying commodity prices breathing life into industry new order growth, even a modest pricing power rebound will go a long way in lifting depressed profits. In fact, new orders-to-inventories are in a reflex rebound. While such an exponential rise is unsustainable, firming oil services demand should continue to remove excess slack, a boon for industry selling prices and profits (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Sentiment toward this energy sub-index remains bombed out and there is widespread disbelief that this rebound is sustainable. Rather, the risk of a deflationary relapse has kept investors at bay pushing relative valuations deep into undervalued territory. Both our composite relative Valuation Indicator (VI) and relative price-to-book are hovering near all-time lows (bottom panel, Chart 12). Technicals are not as depressed as the VI reading, with the recent relative share price bounce lifting our relative Technical Indicator to the neutral zone (Chart 14). Chart 13Deflation Is Over Deflation Is Over Deflation Is Over Chart 14Unloved And Underowned Unloved And Underowned Unloved And Underowned In sum, there are more gains in store for the S&P energy services index. Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy service index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE -NOV, SLB, FTI, BHGE, HAL, HP. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 The freight transportation services index consists of: For-hire trucking (parcel services are not included); Freight railroad services (including rail-based intermodal shipments such as containers on flat cars); Inland waterway traffic; Pipeline movements (including principally petroleum and petroleum products and natural gas); and Air freight. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Later Cycle Dynamics," dated October 23, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights At just under 3-in-10 odds, the probability Brent crude oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end is now more than double what it was at the beginning of the year, following President Trump's announcement he would withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and re-impose all economic sanctions against Iran (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekProbability Brent Exceeds $90/bbl Is Understated By Markets Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility We believe these odds are too low. Indeed, we think the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are higher than the 1-in-8 chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. We also expect sharper down moves going forward, as news flows become noisier. Speculators have loaded the boat on the long side, and they will be exquisitely sensitive to any unexpected softening in fundamentals - e.g., a supply increase or the whiff of lower demand - given their positioning (Chart 2). Chart 2Specs Have Loaded the Boat##BR##Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Specs Have Loaded the Boat Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Specs Have Loaded the Boat Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Our research indicates that spec positioning in the underlying futures can, under some circumstances, dominate the evolution of oil options' implied volatility, the markets' key gauge of risk and the essential component of option pricing. As new risk factors arising from Trump's decision emerge, we expect option implied volatility to increase, as the frequency of spec re-positioning increases. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectation. We also recommend getting long Aug/19 $75 Brent calls vs. short Aug/19 $80/bbl calls. We already are long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short $70/bbl calls expiring at the end of Oct/18, which are up 74.2% since they were recommended in Feb/18. Rising vol favors long options positions. The new positions will put on at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. Refined copper imports in China grew 47% y/y in March. For the first four months of 2018 they are up 15% y/y. Imports of copper ores and concentrates were up 9.7% y/y in the January - April period. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain strategically long gold and tactically long spot silver. A stronger USD continues to weigh on both. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's weekly Crop Progress report indicates farmers in the U.S. are catching up in their spring planting, converging toward averages for this time of year. Nevertheless, the condition of winter wheat remains a concern. Feature The wild swings in crude oil prices following President Trump's decision not to waive nuclear-related sanctions against Iran - down ~ 2% after Trump's announcement Tuesday, then up more than 2.5% the following morning - resolved one of the more important "known unknowns" ahead of schedule - to wit, would the U.S. re-impose nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, or continue to waive them.1 Ahead of Trump's announcement this week, speculators clearly were building long positions in Brent and WTI, as seen in Chart 2. Among other things, stout fundamentals, which we have been highlighting, and a possible tightening of supply on the back of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions were obvious catalysts for building the bullish positions. We find specs do not Granger-cause oil prices, and typically these traders are reacting to fundamental news.2 This is consistent with other research into this topic.3 In other words, we find specs essentially follow the fundamentals, they don't lead them, and, as a result, the level of oil prices largely is explained by supply, demand and inventories. Based on the Granger-causality tests and our fundamental modeling, we believe oil markets are, to a very large extent, efficient in the sense that prices reflect most publicly available information.4 This is not to say, however, that the role of speculation can be dismissed as trivial to price formation. Spec Positioning Matters For Implied Volatility In Oil Our most recent research, building on earlier work on speculation in oil markets, finds that the concentration of speculators on the long side or the short side of the market actually does play a significant role in how volatility evolves (Chart 3, bottom panel).5 Other factors are important to the evolution of volatility, as well - i.e., U.S. financial conditions, particularly the stress in the system as measured by the St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index; EM equity volatility; and y/y percent changes in WTI oil prices themselves (Chart 3). But spec positioning clearly dominates: In periods of rising or elevated volatility, it explains most of the change in WTI option implied volatilities (Chart 4). This can push volatility higher when it occurs. However, on the downside, this does not hold - Working's T Index is not material to the evolution of implied volatility when uncertainty about future oil prices is low or decreasing. Chart 3Key Variables##BR##Explaining Volatility Key Variables Explaining Volatility Key Variables Explaining Volatility Chart 4Spec Positioning Dominates##BR##Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Spec Positioning Dominates Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Spec Positioning Dominates Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Working's T Index and implied volatility are independent of price direction - they are directionless, therefore they cannot be used to forecast prices.6 These variables tend to increase when the quality of information available to the market deteriorates - i.e., when it becomes more difficult to form expectations about future oil prices. This is, we believe, an attractive time for informed speculators to enter the market and use their information to make profits. We find two-way Granger-causality between WTI implied volatility and Working's T, when the annual change in excess speculation is one-standard deviation above or below its mean. This means the more specs are concentrated on one side of the market in the underlying futures - long or short - the more influence their positioning has on volatility, and that the higher volatility is the more specs are drawn to the market. Given that specs' beliefs are different, this means there is a rising number of long or short spec contracts relative not only to specs on the other side of the market, but also to long and short hedgers. Why Speculation Is Important Prices do not suddenly manifest themselves in markets fully aligned with fundamentals. They are made efficient by hedgers off-loading risk based on their marginal costs, and speculators uncovering information that is material to the level at which prices clear markets. The goal of speculation is to buy low and sell high. Hedging and speculation are both done in the presence of noise, or pseudo-information that has no real connection with where markets clear.7 Information is to noise as substance is to a void. Noise can look like information, as Black (1986) notes, and people can trade on it, but they will lose money and eventually go out of business. Information, on the other hand, is costly, as Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) point out. To incentivize someone (a speculator) to gather it and feed it into prices via the market clearing - i.e., buying and selling based on information - they have to be able to make a profit. Speculators supply the liquidity necessary for trading - and, most importantly, hedging - to occur. Successful speculators make profits. Therefore, the information on which they trade is more often germane to the market-clearing process than not. To be successful they have to be willing to buy when prices are low, expecting them to go higher, and to sell when prices are high, expecting them to go lower. As Paul Samuelson wryly observed, "Is there any other kind of price than 'speculative' price? Uncertainty pervades real life and future prices are never knowable with precision. An investor is a speculator who has been successful; a speculator is merely an investor who last lost his money."8 Known Unknowns Will Keep Vol Elevated Chart 5BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged,##BR##Following Trump's Iran Announcement BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged, Following Trump's Iran Announcement BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged, Following Trump's Iran Announcement In the wake of Trump's announcement, the fundamental and geopolitical landscape has been re-cast, creating additional "known unknowns", particularly re how the U.S. will implement the renewed sanctions and the timing of these moves. Among the new known unknowns, which can only be resolved with the passage of time, are: The precise timing and extent of the re-imposed sanctions on the part of the U.S., which will evolve over the next 90 to 180 days. Demand-side implications of higher prices, particularly in EM economies where policymakers used the low prices following OPEC's 2014 - 16 market-share war to eliminate fuel subsidies, which prevented high prices from being experienced by their citizens. The supply-side implications of higher prices on U.S. shale production - does production and investment, including pipeline take-away capacity, take another leg higher? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) ability to raise output, given the Kingdom said it would be raising output in the event Iranian volumes are lost to export markets. The fate of the Saudi Aramco IPO, and how the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. on Iran affects the royal family's decision on whether to float 5% of the company publicly. Will production in distressed states in- and outside of OPEC be negatively affected by increasing geopolitical risk?9 Among the "known unknowns," Iran's next moves rank high, as do responses to such moves by the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. and its Gulf allies clearly view Iran as a threat and, with the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran, are confronting it. Iran has a similar view vis-à-vis the U.S. and its Gulf allies. Left to be determined: Does Iran increase its level of direct action against KSA, upping the ante, so to speak, in its ongoing proxy wars with the Kingdom? Is Gulf production threatened? Are U.S. - European relations threatened by Trump's action? Thus far, European leaders have indicated they remain committed to the sanctions deal Trump walked away from. What would it take for OPEC 2.0 to restore actual production cuts we estimate at 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d to the market? What would it take to trigger a release of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), estimated at just under 664-million-barrel, which could be released to the market at a rate of 500k to 1mm b/d? These known unknowns are not causing us to change our price forecast for this year - $74/bbl for Brent and $70/bbl for WTI, based on our fundamental modeling (Chart 5). However, we do think price risk is to the upside in both markets, given the elevated geopolitical tensions in the market. We continue to expect more frequent prices excursions to and through $80/bbl for the balance of the year, particularly for Brent. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 We lay out some of these "known unknowns" in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," published April 19, 2018. In addition to the Iran issues, which have been resolved, Venezuela looms large. Oil production declined by 900k b/d between December 2015 and March 2018, with half of that occurring in the past six months. We are carrying Venezuela's current production at ~ 1.5mm b/d, although other estimates have it lower. With the country moving closer to collapsing as a functioning state, the risk to its oil output and exports is high. 2 Granger-causality refers to an econometric test developed by Clive Granger, the 2003 Nobel laureate in economics. It determines whether past values of one variable can be said to predict, or cause, the present value of another variable. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also the International Energy Agency's "Oil: Medium-Term Market Report 2012;" and "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" by Bassam Fattouh, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies. Also, see "Speculation, Fundamentals, and The Price of Crude Oil," by Kenneth B. Medlock III, published by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, August 2013. 4 This is the semi-strong form of market efficiency. For a discussion of how markets impound information in prices, please see Eugene Fama's Noble lecture, "Two Pillars of Asset Pricing," which was reprinted in the June 2014 issue of The American Economic Review (p. 1467). 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, in which we introduce Holbrook Working's "T Index," a measure of speculative concentration in futures and options markets. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Briefly, Working's T Index shows how much speculative positioning exceeds the net demand for hedging from commercial participants in the market. Excessive speculation - spec positioning in excess of hedging demand by commercial interests - could be read into index values above 1.0. However, the U.S. CFTC notes values of Working's T at or below 1.15 do not provide sufficient liquidity to support hedging, even though "there is an excess of speculation, technically speaking." Formally, Working's T Index looks like this: Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility 6 Please see Irwin, S. H. and D. R. Sanders (2010), "The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results", OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 27. 7 Please see Black, Fischer (1986), "Noise," in the Journal of Finance, 41:3; and Grossman, Sanford J., and Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1980), "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," in the June issue of the American Economic Review. 8 Please see Samuelson, Paul A. (1973), "Mathematics Of Speculative Price," in the January 1973 SIAM Review, 15:1. 9 Please see "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," published by BCA's Energy Sector Strategy on May 9, 2018, which discusses these production risks in depth. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility

There is scant evidence that the character of the equity market advance is changing and the fact that weak balance sheet stocks are no longer outperforming strong balance sheet stocks is giving us pause (Chart 1). Chart 1Time To Pause And Reflect Time To Pause And Reflect Time To Pause And Reflect Using the Goldman Sachs equity baskets - that utilize the 'Altman Z-score' framework to select stocks - via Bloomberg, we find that the weak balance sheet over strong balance sheet share price ratio leads the broad market at both peaks and is coincident at troughs. The most recent peak occurred in early 2017 and it is rather surprising that a proxy for this ratio using the fixed income market, i.e. the total return high yield bond index versus the total return investment grade bond index, is moving in the opposite direction and not confirming the equity market's message (Chart 2). This begs the question: Which market signal is right, stocks or fixed income, and what are the equity sector investment implications? But before trying to answer these questions, we first zoom out and look at the broad U.S. debt picture. How Will It All End? In our travels and conference calls one common question keeps coming up: What will end all this? The short answer is that rising interest rates will eventually deal a blow to the debt overhang and the expansion will give way to a fresh deleveraging cycle. In other words, a whiff of inflation will entice the Fed to keep on raising the fed funds rate to the point where the business cycle turns down. As demand falters, a decreasing cash flow backdrop will not be able to service the debt overload, as both coupon payments and principal repayments will become a big burden. This will ignite a jump in the default rate, a message the yield curve is already sending (Chart 3). Chart 2Which Market Is Right? Which Market Is Right? Which Market Is Right? Chart 3Has The Junk Default Rate Troughed? Has The Junk Default Rate Troughed? Has The Junk Default Rate Troughed? Peering back to the onset of the GFC, a U.S. financial sector debt crisis engulfed the world. Subsequently, this morphed into a government sector debt problem in the Eurozone and more recently into a non-financial corporate sector debt overhang mostly in the commodity complex and the emerging markets. Debt Supercycle Lives On The investment world is obsessed with China's excess debt uptake and that is a valid concern. However, investors should also be aware that U.S. debt has not been fully purged. Rather, it has moved around between different domestic sectors. The debt supercycle lives on.1 The implication is that an interest rate-induced debt bubble pricking would be deflationary, and thus identifying the U.S. domestic sector most exposed to such risk is important. Chart 4 breaks down U.S. total debt into the four largest sectors using flow of funds data. While households and the financial sector have significantly de-levered, the government and the non-financial business sector have been picking up the slack and aggressively re-levering. While the Trump Administration has embarked on a two-year fiscal policy easing period that will add to the government debt profile, the nonfinancial corporate debt overhang is more vulnerable and thus troublesome in our view (fed funds rate shown inverted, Chart 5). Worrisomely, since the GFC, nonfinancial corporates have been issuing debt and partially using this debt to retire equity and pay handsome dividends. According to the flow of funds data, the cumulative nonfinancial net equity retirement figure stands near $4tn over the past decade (middle panel, Chart 6). Undoubtedly, this has been a large contributor to equity market returns (top panel, Chart 6), and will likely gain further momentum this year on the back of the tax repatriation holiday. Some sell side equity retirement estimates for the S&P 500 hover around $800bn for calendar 2018 or roughly twice the past decade's annual average. AAPL's recent announcement of a $100 billion share repurchase program confirms that the buyback bonanza is persevering and will continue to boost equities. Clearly, such breakneck equity retirement pace is unsustainable and will converge down to a lower trend rate in 2019 and beyond, especially given the drying liquidity as the Fed continues to pursue a tighter monetary policy. Chart 4Debt Is Moving Around Debt Is Moving Around Debt Is Moving Around Chart 5Tight Monetary Policy Pricks Bubbles, And... Tight Monetary Policy Pricks Bubbles, And… Tight Monetary Policy Pricks Bubbles, And… Chart 6...Threatens To End The Equity Retirement Binge …Threatens To End The Equity Retirement Binge …Threatens To End The Equity Retirement Binge Introducing BCA's Sector Insolvency Risk Monitor (IRM) The purpose of this Special Report is to identify debt soft spots and outliers in the U.S. GICS1 equity sectors. What follows is a financials statement-heavy analysis of sector indebtedness. We introduce the 'Altman Z-score' sector analysis that gauges sector credit strength, with a rising score indicating improving health and a declining Z-score signifying deteriorating health.2 In absolute terms, a score below 1.8 warns of a possible credit event, whereas any reading above 3 signals that bankruptcy risk is very low (see appendix below). Our analysis includes our flagship Bank Credit Analyst's Corporate Health Monitor framework that breaks down corporate health in the different sectors3 (see appendix below). We also sift through a number of different stock market reported ratios/data to gauge each sector's health, with net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage at the forefront of our analysis, and try to identify outliers (see appendix below). Finally, with the invaluable help of BCA's Chief Quantitative Strategist, David Boucher, we created our new insolvency risk monitor (IRM) per U.S. equity sector incorporating the respective 'Altman Z-scores', BCA's corporate health monitor readings and net debt-to-EBITDA ratios. In more detail, we ranked each sector (ex-financials and real estate) on a monthly basis on each of these three measures. Then we used a simple average of the ranked measures per sector to come up with the final sector ranking. We also selected the median sector ranking per measure and used the average of the three metrics as a proxy for the broad market.4 This way we were able to compare each sector IRM to the overall market. Note that the IRMs are designed so that a higher IRM ranking means better solvency. Charts 7 & 8 summarize the results and showcase this new all-inclusive relative ranking alongside relative share price performance. Chart 7Unsustainable... Unsustainable… Unsustainable… Chart 8...Divergences ...Divergences ...Divergences Sector Outliers Consumer discretionary stocks are the clearest outliers and the message from the relative IRM is to expect a significant underperformance phase in the coming quarters (top panel, Chart 7). AMZN's juggernaut is blurring the discretionary landscape given its 20% index weight, and artificially boosting relative share prices. Ex-AMZN, this early cyclical sector is behaving similar to previous episodes when the Fed embarked on a tightening interest rate cycle. We reiterate our recent downgrade to a below benchmark allocation.5 Consumer staples equities are steeply deviating from their increasing relative IRM score, underscoring that investors are unduly punishing staples stocks (second panel, Chart 8). We maintain our overweight stance and treat this sector as a small portfolio hedge to our otherwise general dislike of defensives (as a reminder we are underweight both the S&P health care and the S&P telecom services sectors). Chart 9Cyclicals Have The Upper Hand Cyclicals Have The Upper Hand Cyclicals Have The Upper Hand The utilities share price ratio is also deviating from the IRM relative reading (fourth panel, Chart 8). The implication is that extreme bearishness toward the sector is overdone and we reiterate our mid-February upgrade to a neutral stance.6 Energy stocks have fallen behind the energy IRM rebound reading (top panel, Chart 8). We expect a catch up phase on the back of the global capex upcycle, still improving debt profile, favorable underlying commodity supply/demand dynamics and firming oil prices. The S&P energy sector remains a high-conviction overweight. The niche materials sector is also trailing the sector's slingshot IRM recovery. Keep in mind that, as expected, the materials IRM is one of the most volatile series (second panel, Chart 8). Materials manufacturers are capital intensive and high operating leverage businesses and despite the debt dynamic betterment since the recent global manufacturing recession, this sector is still saddled with a large amount of debt that makes it extremely sensitive to the ebbs and flows of global economic growth. We continue to recommend a benchmark allocation. The remaining sectors' (tech, health care, telecom services and industrials) relative share prices are moving in tandem with their respective IRM readings (Charts 7 & 8). In addition, we have complied all the cyclical and defensive IRMs in two distinct series and the relative IRM ratio is giving the all-clear sign to continue to prefer cyclicals over defensives on a 9-12 month time horizon (Chart 9). So What? In sum, the IRM is one new additional metric we are using to gauge the validity of our sector positioning and should not be used in isolation. To answer our original question, while the weak balance sheet versus strong balance sheet stock underperformance is alarming and we will continue to closely monitor this stock price ratio, it is premature to change our constructive overall equity market view on a 9-12 month horizon. We therefore continue to recommend a cyclical over defensive portfolio bent. Finally, for completion purposes, the appendix below shows a number of debt-related indicators we track, including the absolute 'Altman Z-score' and corporate health monitor readings, in two charts per sector along with the cyclicals over defensives compilation and the overall market (ex-financials). Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 For a primer on the debt super cycle please refer to Box 1 in the BCA Special Year End Issue: "Outlook 2013: Fewer Storms, More Sunny Breaks," dated December 19, 2012, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Altman Z-Score = 1.2A + 1.4B + 3.3C + 0.6D + 1.0E. Where: A = working capital / total assets, B = retained earnings / total assets, C = earnings before interest and tax / total assets, D = market value of equity / total liabilities and E = sales / total assets. Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/altman.asp 3 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Report, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade," dated January 28, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 We refrained from using the top down computed S&P 500 'Altman Z-Score' and net debt-to-EBITDA as the financials sector really skewed the results and therefore opted to use the median sector 'Altman Z-score' and net debt-to-EBITDA as a proxy for the broad market because using the mean also skewed the results largely because of the tech sector. Staying consistent in our analysis, we also used the median sector BCA corporate health monitor to proxy the broad market. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Manic-Depressive?" dated February 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market I U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market I U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market I U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market II U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market II U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market II U.S. S&P Industrials I U.S. S&P Industrials I U.S. S&P Industrials I U.S. S&P Industrials II U.S. S&P Industrials II U.S. S&P Industrials II U.S. S&P Energy I U.S. S&P Energy I U.S. S&P Energy I U.S. S&P Energy II U.S. S&P Energy II U.S. S&P Energy II U.S. S&P Consumer Staples I U.S. S&P Consumer Staples I U.S. S&P Consumer Staples I U.S. S&P Consumer Staples II U.S. S&P Consumer Staples II U.S. S&P Consumer Staples II U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Utilities I U.S. S&P Utilities II U.S. S&P Utilities II U.S. S&P Utilities II U.S. S&P Utilities II U.S. S&P Utilities II U.S. S&P Materials I U.S. S&P Materials I U.S. S&P Materials I U.S. S&P Materials II U.S. S&P Materials II U.S. S&P Materials II U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary I U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary I U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary I U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary II U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary II U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary II U.S. S&P Telecom Services I U.S. S&P Telecom Services I U.S. S&P Telecom Services I U.S. S&P Telecom Services II U.S. S&P Telecom Services II U.S. S&P Telecom Services II U.S. S&P Health Care I U.S. S&P Health Care I U.S. S&P Health Care I U.S. S&P Health Care II U.S. S&P Health Care II U.S. S&P Health Care II U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives I U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives I U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives I U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives II U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives II U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives II