Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights Dear Client, We will not be publishing next week, as BCA Research's Investment Conference is being held in New York City. We will be back the following week with a Special Report on global agricultural markets, and a recap on the performance of our 3Q17 recommendations. Kind regards, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Our new supply-demand balances indicate OPEC 2.0 will have to extend its production cuts to June 2018 to meaningfully reduce global oil inventories, even with demand growth exceeding 1.60mm b/d this year and 1.70mm b/d next year. This will lift average Brent prices to ~ $59/bbl and WTI to just under $57.50/bbl next year. We continue to expect Brent to trade to $60/bbl by year-end 2017, and for WTI to trade ~ $3.00/bbl under that. Higher prices will incentivize higher production from U.S. shale operators. This is a risk OPEC 2.0 will have to manage, as it develops a modus operandi that allows it to co-exist with shale and still maintain adequate revenues for its member states. Energy: Overweight. We are taking profit on our Brent options positions at today's close, since December options will have only three weeks to trade when we return. These positions, recommended in May and June, were up 116.3% on average by Tuesday's close. We will initiate positions in May and December 2018 Brent call spreads, going long the $55/bbl strike vs. short the $60/bbl strike at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. Our tactical COMEX copper short is up 5.5% since inception on September 7. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long COMEX Gold hedge is up 6.2% since it was initiated May 4, 2017. We are retaining the position as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Corn is having a tough time holding a bid following last week's USDA's Crop Report, which called for higher production and ending stocks, and lower prices. We will be updating our global ags assessment in a Special Report October 5. Feature OPEC 2.0 will have to extend its 1.8mm b/d production cuts to end-June 2018, in order to bring global inventories closer to levels it considered necessary to clear the market when it embarked on its 1.8mm b/d production-cutting Agreement at the end of last year, based on our most recent supply-demand balances modeling (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0 Needs To Extend Cuts,##BR##To Reduce Global Inventories As a result, our base case for balances reflects the OPEC 2.0 Agreement being extended to end-June (Chart 2). As we noted in our assessment last week, compliance with the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting Agreement remains high.1 All told, we see global production growing 0.83mm b/d this year, and 2.13mm b/d next year, based on our expectation of the OPEC 2.0 Agreement being extended to end-June. On the demand side, our most recent assessment of global demand leads us to expect growth of 1.62mm b/d this year and 1.72mm b/d in 2018 (Table 1). Chart 2Base Case For BCA Oil Supply-Demand Balances Reflects June 2018 Expiry Of OPEC 2.0 Cuts Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Fundamentals Point To Higher Oil Prices Based on our latest assessment of the global oil market, we believe OPEC 2.0 will fall short of reducing visible inventories back to their 5-year average levels if the coalition's production-cutting agreement expires at end-March 2018 (Chart of the Week, top panel). In fact, we believe that the Agreement will have to be extended to at least June 2018 - assuming no change in OPEC 2.0 country-specific production quotas - in order to draw OECD inventories down to their 5-year average levels (Chart of the Week, middle panel). An extension of the cuts to December 2018 would push OECD commercial inventories closer to levels originally targeted by OPEC 2.0 when its Agreement was reached at the end of last year. There is a higher risk prices will exceed the upper end of the range we assume WTI will trade in - $45/bbl to $65/bbl - with greater frequency next year, given we expect WTI prices will average slightly less than $57.50/bbl and Brent prices will average just under $59.00/bbl. Given the draws we expect in global inventories, the likelihood the WTI forward curve trades in backwardation next year also is elevated. We expect Brent to continue to trade in backwardation next year, which we believe will benefit OPEC 2.0 member states, since it allows them to realize higher spot prices - against which term contracts mostly are written - and will limit the volume of hedging U.S. shale producers can effect. Given our updated balances, we re-estimated our oil fundamentals models, accounting for the higher demand we expect (Chart 3), and continued production restraint by OPEC 2.0 on the supply side (Chart 4). These are markedly different to the EIA's estimates. Chart 3BCA Expecting Stronger Oil Demand Than EIA Chart 4Oil Supply Evolution Under Different Scenarios Using these fundamental inputs, we derived forecasts for the WTI and Brent prices.2 The four scenarios we analyzed are: Expiry of OPEC 2.0 Agreement in March 2018; Expiry of OPEC 2.0 Agreement in June 2018; Expiry of OPEC 2.0 Agreement in December 2018; The U.S. EIA Short-term Energy Outlook (STEO) supply-demand assumptions. The estimated results are presented in Table 2 and Chart 5. Table 2Fundamentally Derived##BR##Price Expectations Chart 5Oil Prices Will Lift As OPEC 2.0##BR##Agreement Restricts Supply Interestingly, the 4Q17 WTI futures curve appears to be priced much closer to Scenario No. 4, the EIA's assumptions. This is something we have observed in the past - i.e., the market has a tendency to price to the EIA's supply-demand balances, in the short term. As far as we can tell, the EIA's estimates assume less steep cuts than we do, and appear to be projecting visible inventories will begin to rise starting next month - (Chart 6). Chart 6EIA Assumes OECD Inventories Will Rise Under the EIA scenario, the average WTI futures price for 4Q17 is $50.40/bbl. Under BCA Base Case Scenario, which assumes the OPEC 2.0 Agreement will be extended to end-June, we estimated WTI prices would average $54.00/bbl over the same period. For 2018, the divergence between the EIA and BCA base cases is even more dramatic: Under the EIA's assumptions, our fundamental model estimates WTI prices will average $45.55/bbl in 2018, while under our new base case scenario, which projects the OPEC 2.0 deal will be extended through June, we estimate WTI prices will average $57.44/bbl next year. In its September Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the EIA substantially lowered its U.S. shale production growth estimates for this year. Our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy highlight this revision in this week's report, noting that 3Q17 U.S. onshore production levels will be 540k b/d higher yoy, versus an earlier expectation of a 730k b/d increase. This represents a ~ 25% reduction in the yoy growth rate. In addition, EIA's forecasted 3Q17 quarter-on-quarter oil production growth was cut by 40%, with sequential production growth now estimated at 197k b/d.3 The EIA's estimate now is more in line with BCA's assessment. These revisions will be supportive of prices, once market participants realize the EIA's scaling back on its growth expectations. BCA Lifts Estimate Of Demand Growth In our revised supply-demand balances, we expect 2017 global oil consumption will increase 1.62mm b/d, while 2018 demand will be up 1.72mm b/d. This reflects the strong growth reported by the OECD, which we noted last week, and the IMF.4 Strong growth momentum also can be seen in the continued performance of world trade volumes (Chart 7). The trade expansion is led by EM economies, with EM Asia, Latin America and Central Europe all posting yoy growth of ~ 10% at mid-year. EM also drives most of global oil-demand growth (Chart 8).5 Chart 7Global Growth Reflected##BR##In Increased Trade Volumes Chart 8EM Import Volumes##BR##Remain Strong Our expectation is EM oil demand will grow 1.20mm b/d this year and 1.30mm next year, accounting for the bulk of the 1.62mm and 1.72mm of overall demand growth we expect in 2017 and 2018, respectively. We will continue to follow demand trends in EM closely, particularly China and India, given its importance to overall global oil demand growth. Backwardation Will Persist In Brent, Arrive Sooner In WTI The direct implication of our results is backwardation will become more pronounced going forward. In the Brent market, the forward curve is backwardated to the end of 1Q18 then pretty much flattens out, based on mid-week settlements. In the WTI curve forwards, WTI futures carry to June 2018 then backwardate slightly to the beginning of 4Q19. We expect both to backwardate next year as storage draws and markets tighten. We have maintained OPEC 2.0 member states would benefit from a strategy under which they manage production and storage in such a way as to backwardate Brent and WTI curves. This would allow member states to realize higher revenues from spot prices, which are referenced in long-term supply contracts and are received on outright spot sales, and limit the amount of hedging U.S. shale producers can do: Lower deferred prices are not as profitable for producers, since they result in less revenue per barrel hedge in the future. Upward-sloping forward curves - i.e., contango market structures - allow producers to hedged at higher prices in the future, providing higher revenues, assuming the starting point is the same as in a backwardated market. We expect that as 2017 winds down and we approach the end of 1Q18, it will become apparent to OPEC 2.0's leadership their production-cutting agreement needs to be extended in order to drain global storage and get prices to lift. This is particularly true for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which most likely will IPO Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company toward the end of next year. If OPEC 2.0's production-management agreement is not extended and inventories do not draw sufficiently to lift prices and backwardate the Brent forward curve, KSA most likely will have to push its IPO into 2019. Given the country's keen desire to raise funds to support its diversification away from its oil dependency, we believe its leaders would prefer to get the funds raised by the IPO in the door and begin allocating them. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0 will extend the expiry of its production-cutting agreement from end-March to end-June 2018. This will force global inventories to fall to levels closer to those expected when the coalition agreed to jointly manage production at the end of last year. Demand growth will exceed 1.60mm b/d this year and 1.70mm b/d next year. This, along with the extension of the OPEC 2.0 cuts to end-June, will lift average Brent prices to ~ $59/bbl and WTI to just under $57.50/bbl next year. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance," published September 14, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 We estimate WTI and Brent prices for the balance of 2017 and 2018 with respect to their fundamentals. The adjusted R2 for the WTI and the Brent regressions are 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. 3 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The "Shalepocalypse," published September 20, 2017. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Hurricane Recovery obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance," published September 14, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also "A Firming Recovery," in the IMF's World Economic Outlook Update published July 24, 2017. We use IMF global GDP growth estimates as an input to our oil-demand modelling. 5 We have found EM imports to be a good explanatory variable for oil and base metals demand, as well as inflation in the U.S. and EU. Please see, e.g., BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Trade And Commodity Data Point To Higher Inflation," published July 27, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights U.S. Treasury yields should continue to rise as investors price-out doomsday risk; Tensions surrounding North Korea will continue, but there are signs that negotiations have started and that China is playing ball on sanctions; Meanwhile, our view that tax cuts are coming is finally coming to fruition; Fade renewed European risks regarding Brexit and Catalan independence; But the independence push by Kurds in Iraq could have market impact. Feature Early in the second quarter, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy made two predictions. First, we said that summer would be a time to stay invested in U.S. equities and largely ignore domestic politics.1 Second, that North Korea would become an investment-relevant risk and buoy safe-haven plays but would not lead to a full-scale war (and hence not cause a global correction).2 The summer proved lucrative for both risk-on and risk-off trades, best emblemized by solid returns for both the S&P 500 and 10-year U.S. Treasury (Chart 1 A & B). Chart 1ARisk Assets Have Rallied... Chart 1B...At The Same Time As Safe Havens Can this continue? We do not think so. Geopolitics can influence the 10-year Treasury yield via two mechanisms: safe-haven flows and fiscal policy. On both fronts, we see movements that should support a pickup in yields over the rest of the year, a view corroborated by our colleagues on the fixed-income team. First, investors finally have progress on tax legislation that we have been forecasting since President Trump's election. Given the markets' collective pessimism on corporate tax reform (Chart 2), we expect any good news to change the current narrative. While it is still difficult to envision tax legislation that massively stimulates the economy, it is also difficult to imagine tax legislation that is revenue-neutral. As such, fiscal policy in the U.S. should be at least mildly stimulative in 2018, supporting higher yields. Second, we remain concerned that North Korea could escalate the ongoing tensions in East Asia.3 However, Pyongyang is constrained by its military capacity, which limits what it can realistically do to threaten its neighbors. As we discuss below, there are emerging signs of both diplomatic negotiations and Chinese pressure, key signposts that we have passed the peak on our "Arc of Diplomacy." As such, investors should prepare for the bond rally to reverse and the broader risk-on phase to extend through the end of the year. We expect the "Trump reflation trade" - USD appreciation, yield-curve steepening, and small-cap outperformance (Chart 3) - to restart if our views on the U.S. legislative agenda and North Korean tensions hold. Chart 2Investors Remain Pessimistic On Tax Reform... Chart 3...And On Trump's Policy In General U.S. Treasuries: Fade The Doomsday Trade Our colleagues at BCA's fixed-income desk have shown that flows into safe havens over the summer have widened the disconnect between global yields and economic fundamentals (Chart 4).4 Chief Fixed-Income Strategist Rob Robis points out that BCA's own valuation model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield indicates that "fair value" sits at 2.67%, nearly 55bps higher than current market levels (Chart 5).5 This is a level of overvaluation that even exceeds the extreme levels seen after the U.K. Brexit vote in July of 2016. Rob believes that the summer bond rally is about safe-haven demand, depressed investor sentiment, and underwhelming inflation, in that order. It is certainly not about growth expectations, which remain buoyant (Chart 6). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Save Haven Demand,##br## Not Slower Growth Chart 5U.S. Treasuries ##br##Are Overvalued Chart 6Global Growth##br## Remains Buoyant To prove that underwhelming inflation has not spurred the latest rally in Treasuries, Rob decomposes developed market bond yield changes since the July 7 peak in U.S. yields. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen 20bps off those September lows as investors have priced out doomsday risk. Table 1 shows that yields declined everywhere but Canada (where the central bank has been hiking interest rates). Yet the vast majority of the yield decline has come from falling real yields and not lower inflation expectations, which have actually stabilized over the summer. This has also occurred via a bull-flattening move in government bond yield curves, which suggests it is risk-aversion that has driven yields lower. Table 1Changes In DM Bond Yields Over The Summer (From July 7th Peak In U.S. Treasury Yields) The conclusion of our fixed-income team is that there is now considerable upside risk in global yields. We agree. While North Korea could retaliate against the just-imposed UN sanctions in various ways, it is difficult to see the market reacting with the same vigor as it did in July and August. Investors are becoming desensitized to North Korean provocations, especially as the latter remain confined to "expected and accepted" forms of belligerence, even in the current context of heightened tensions. Future North Korean safe-haven rallies will be of shorter amplitude and duration. The September 15 missile launch over Japan (the fourth time this has happened) has shown this to be the case. Chart 7Position For A Tactically Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: BCA's bond team remains short duration, a position that our political analysis supports. We will keep our 2-year/30-year Treasury curve-steepener trade open, despite it being in the red by 34.3bps. In addition, we are closing our short Fed Funds January 2018 futures position (for a gain of 0.51bps) and opening a new short Fed Funds December 2018 position. Any sign of emerging bipartisanship should also favor higher fiscal spending, as policymakers almost always come together to spend money rather than cut spending. In addition, we are recommending that our clients put on a U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade.6 Rob has pointed out that this is a way to profit directly from higher fiscal spending in the U.S., particularly since there is no sign that Germany will change its government spending following its unremarkable election campaign. The data also supports a tactical widening of the Treasury-Bund spread, which is correlated with the relative data surprises (Chart 7). U.S. Politics: From Impeachable To Ingenious The crucial moment for the Trump presidency was the White House purge of the "Breitbart clique" following the social unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11-12.7 That move has made headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio. While some investors saw the racially motivated rioting in Virginia as a harbinger of a major risk-off episode, we saw it essentially as a "Peak Stupid" moment in U.S. politics. We may not know precisely what goes on in President Trump's mind, but we know that he likes polls. And his polling with Republican voters suffered appreciably following the Charlottesville fiasco (Chart 8). Strong Republican support for President Trump is the main source of his political capital. He can use it to cajole and influence Republicans in Congress via the upcoming Republican primary process ahead of the midterm elections. If he loses that support, his political capital will erode and he could become the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. Worse, if support among Republicans were to fall below 70%, Trump could embark upon a Nixonian trajectory that could indeed lead to impeachment (Chart 9). Chart 8Trump's Support With GOP Voters Suffered... Chart 9... But Remains Well Above Nixonian Levels Many clients have asked us about the debt ceiling deal that President Trump made with Democrats and whether it signals a radical shift towards bipartisanship. We do not think so. In fact, we think the deal is mostly irrelevant. As we argued throughout the summer, the idea that there would be another debt ceiling crisis this year was always a figment of the media's imagination. There was never any evidence that a sufficient number of members of the House of Representatives wanted to play brinkmanship with the debt ceiling. First, Democrats in both houses of Congress have been clear throughout the year that they would not play politics with the debt ceiling. Second, investors and the media continuously overestimate the strength of the Freedom Caucus, the fiscally conservative grouping of Tea Party-linked representatives. There are 41 members of the Freedom Caucus, whereas 55 Republicans in the House sit in districts that are at least theoretically vulnerable to a Democratic challenge (Table 2).8 The danger for House Speaker Paul Ryan is not that the Freedom Caucus abandons the establishment line, but that the 55 Republicans listed in Table 2 abandon the Republican line. This, in fact, happened throughout the Obama presidency, with centrist Republicans voting with Democrats in the House on a number of key legislative bills (Chart 10). Table 2Plenty Of Vulnerable Republican Representatives Chart 10The Obama Years: A Governing 'Grand Coalition' This is why Speaker Paul Ryan largely ignored the Freedom Caucus and proposed an eighteen-month extension of the debt ceiling. He was never going to allow the Freedom Caucus to play brinkmanship. That President Trump picked the shorter Democrat version is significant only in so far as it signaled that he was willing to work with Democrats. In other words, the move was a "shot across the bow" of Republicans, a message that they had better get started on tax legislation, or else ... What should investors watch now? There are three main issues to follow: Tax legislation outline: House Speaker Paul Ryan has set the week of September 25 as the deadline for Republicans to outline their tax policy plan. The good news for investors is that the outline will supposedly include an already agreed-upon framework by both the House Ways and Means Committee - Chaired by Representative Kevin Brady (R, TX) - and the Senate Finance Committee - Chaired by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT). Brady and Hatch are serious players and their comments on tax policy should be followed closely. Both favor legislation that would be retroactively applied to FY 2017, even if the bill is actually passed in 2018. They are also part of the Republican "Big Six" group on tax policy, along with Speaker Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Reconciliation instructions: The House Budget Committee passed a FY 2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. These instructions allow Republicans to use the reconciliation procedure - a process that allows the Senate to pass legislation without needing 60 votes.9 However, the House version of the budget resolution also included over $200 billion of spending cuts, which is unlikely to pass in the Senate. As such, investors have to carefully watch for the House and Senate Republicans to pass a final budget resolution in order to kick off the reconciliation process. This process will likely happen in October, after the tax legislation package is presented by the Big Six. At that point, the Freedom Caucus will have the ability to extract concessions from establishment Republicans as their votes are needed to pass the budget resolution. We suspect that no Democrats will support the budget resolution given that they have not been involved in the tax policy process thus far. Trump's involvement: President Ronald Reagan's personal support and lobbying for the 1986 tax reform proved critical in getting the bill through Congress.10 President Trump's focus and energy will have to be on par with that of Reagan's if he plans to accomplish the same. A headwind for Trump is the lack of legislative experience in his White House (Chart 11). However, since the appointment of Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly, there has been a clear shift of focus on the legislative process. Chart 11Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Bottom Line: We expect investors to start gleaning the outlines of tax policy by late September, with the budget resolution containing reconciliation instructions being passed by both houses of Congress by the end of November. It may be too much to ask Congress to have an actual bill ready to pass by the end of the year, as we originally expected,11 particularly as there is now a potential immigration deal to negotiate with Democrats and last-minute effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. As such, we still think that it will take until the end of Q1 2018 for tax legislation to pass Congress (Q2 in the worst-case scenario for Republicans). Investors, however, will begin to price in a higher probability of tax policy as soon as the outline of the bill emerges in October. As such, we are reiterating our recommendation that investors go long U.S. small caps relative to large caps. Tax policy should overwhelmingly benefit small caps, which actually pay the 35% corporate tax rate. In addition, we would expect the USD to arrest its decline and rally by the end of the year. North Korea: At The Apogee Of "The Arc Of Diplomacy" To illustrate the current North Korean predicament to readers, we have referred to an "arc of diplomacy" (Chart 12), which we illustrate by referencing the rise and fall of U.S. tensions with Iran from 2010-15. The pattern is for the U.S. to increase tensions deliberately in order to convince its enemy that the military option is "on the table." Only once a "credible threat" of war has been established can the negotiations begin in earnest. Chart 12A Lesson From Iran: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin We are at or near the peak of this process. First: what is the worst-case scenario for markets if the North causes a crisis short of a devastating war? Using our short list of geopolitical crises (Table 3),12 our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, chief strategist of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that while the average peak-to-trough drop of a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis. To illustrate the trend, Anastasios has constructed an S&P 500 profile of the average geopolitical crisis, and the picture is encouraging (Chart 13). It shows that the market is likely to grind higher even if North Korea does something truly out of the box. Table 3Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Nor is a geopolitical incident (again, short of total war) likely to cause a U.S. or global recession. Aside from direct shocks to oil, such as in 1973 and 1990, only the U.S. Civil War (that is, a war waged on U.S. turf) caused a recession at the outset. Other major wars (WWI, WWII, the Korean War) caused recessions when they concluded because of the sharp drop in federal spending as a result of reduced military spending. What makes us think we are at or near the peak of North Korea's belligerent threats? China appears to be enforcing sanctions: at least according to China's official statistics (Chart 14). There is no doubt there are discrepancies and black market activity, but it makes sense for China to dial up the pressure (while never imposing crippling sanctions) and that appears to be occurring. China and Russia agreed to reduce fuel supplies. Both sides agreed to new UN sanctions on September 11 that would partially cut off North Korean fuel. This is a significant step, given that Chart 14 indicates China is already moving in this direction. The U.S. and North Korea have begun diplomatic talks. According to Japan's NHK press on September 14, former U.S. diplomat Evans Revere met with Choe Kang-Il, the deputy director general of the North American bureau of North Korea's foreign ministry in Switzerland over the past week. The U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert all but confirmed that some kind of communication is underway, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described his diplomatic initiative as highly active. The last efforts at negotiations, via the longstanding New York channel, were discontinued in June after the death of a U.S. prisoner in North Korea. Those were focused on retrieving U.S. citizens, whereas the new talks allegedly centered on the latest UN sanctions, i.e. a crux of the relationship. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. South Korea is offering aid. South Korea's new government is looking to give the North humanitarian aid, as expected, and will decide on September 21 about a special package for pregnant women and infants. It is suggesting that such aid has no conditionality on the North's behavior. At the same time, the U.S. administration is talking down Trump's recent threat to discontinue the U.S.-South Korean free trade agreement - meaning that the U.S. may even condone the South Korean administration's more diplomatic approach to the North. Chart 13Who Is Afraid Of Geopolitical Crises? Chart 14Is China Finally Playing Ball? At the same time, North Korea is running out of options for provocations that it can commit without provoking a costly response from the U.S. and its allies. The September 15 missile test over Japan was essentially the fourth of its kind, and the market shrugged it off. Here are some options, drawn from our list of scenarios and probabilities (Table 4): Table 4North Korean Scenarios Over The Next Year More of the same: Nuclear and missile tests could continue, or be conducted at higher frequencies or simultaneously. While technical advances may become apparent, they will not change the game. U.S. Territory: The North could create a bigger risk-off move than we saw in July-August if it shot ICBMs toward Guam, or other U.S. territories, as it has suggested it might do. This is especially risky because the U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has repeated Trump's warning to North Korea to not even threaten the United States. However, as long as no such missile actually strikes U.S. territory, the U.S. is unlikely to respond with an attack, and thus such a scare seems likely to fade like the others. Attacking South Koreans: The North has a history of state-backed terrorist actions and military actions. An attack limited to South Korea will cause a shock, in the current context, but the military consequences are still likely to be contained given the extensive history of such attacks. If it is an attack against South Korean civilians in a non-disputed territory, it will leave a bigger mark than it otherwise would, but the South is still likely either to retaliate in strict proportionality, or to refrain from action and use the event as a way of galvanizing international sanctions. Attacking Americans or U.S. allies: The true danger in the current climate is an attack that kills U.S. citizens, or U.S. allies who are not as, shall we say, understanding as the South Koreans (such as the Japanese). This could cause the U.S. or Japan or another ally to take a retaliatory action. Even if limited, this could cause a deep correction in the market. The U.S. response would likely still be limited and proportional. Then the question would be whether the North Koreans can afford to escalate. They can't. The military asymmetry is excessive. This is not the case of the Japanese in 1941, who believed they had the potential of defeating the U.S. if they acted quickly enough and the U.S. was distracted in Europe (Diagram 1). Diagram 1North Korea Crisis: A Decision Tree As the foregoing demonstrates, there could still be big ups and downs between now and the resumption of formal international negotiations, let alone a satisfactory diplomatic accord. The tensions could yet reach another peak. Nevertheless, our sense is that the pieces are falling into place for the North to moderate its behavior, sending the signal that it is ready to engage in real negotiations. Since the U.S. has consistently shown its readiness to talk directly with the North - coming from both Trump and Tillerson - we think we could see shuttle diplomacy taking place as early as this winter. Here are some dates and events to watch: Military exercises: Will the U.S., South Korea, and Japan stop or slow down the pace of military exercises? This could open space for North Korea to offer an olive branch in return. October 10 - anniversary of the Worker's Party of Korea: The North may take an extraordinary action, no action, or familiar actions like missile tests. October 11-25 - China's party congress: The North could fall silent ahead of the big event, or could attempt to disrupt it. China, in turn, could take action around this time (particularly afterwards) to send a signal to the North to tone down the belligerence. In previous periods of tension, China has reputedly drawn a harder line on North Korea in the month of December, when end-of-year quotas made certain trade measures more convenient. Late October - Japanese snap election? Rumor has it that Shinzo Abe is thinking of calling a snap election as early as this month. We normally dismiss such rumors but this time there is a certain logic: two North Korean missiles have flown over Hokkaido in as many months, while the Japanese opposition is in total disarray. If Abe calls early polls, it suggests that he thinks Korean fears are peaking. If he delays, and exploits these fears by pushing constitutional revisions through the Diet (our base case), then he may provoke a North Korean response, given that the revisions pave the way for Japan to "re-militarize." November 1 - APEC and Trump's visit to China: Trump is supposed to head to Vietnam for the APEC summit and to China to visit President Xi Jinping. Xi has recently shown his sensitivity to such summits by concluding the Doklam dispute with India just days ahead of the BRICS summit in Xiamen, China in order to ensure that Indian President Narendra Modi would attend. Xi may have also wanted to advertise his ability to negotiate solutions to international showdowns for the world (and U.S.) to see. Thus, progress on North Korea before or after Trump's arrival could improve Xi's authority both with Trump and the rest of the world. November 23 - U.S. Thanksgiving: North Korea likes to be "cute," so we cannot rule out attempts to unsettle the Americans on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day, as with the July 4 ICBM launch. Trump's visit is very consequential and it is more likely under the circumstances that China will receive him warmly, like Nixon, rather than coldly, like Obama last year. Trump is holding serious trade negotiations (via Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) and at the same time threatening to sanction Chinese companies and imports (via Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin). There are many reasons for Beijing to cooperate on North Korea in order to get advantageous treatment on the economic front. Bottom Line: The market is already discounting North Korea. We may be wrong temporarily if the North ups the ante yet again, but we are very near the peak of the latest round of tensions. The North is running out of options short of instigating a fight it would lose, while China is enforcing sanctions more seriously (including fuel), and Washington has apparently opened direct talks with Pyongyang. We will maintain our portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, for now. We are also re-opening our long CBOE China ETF volatility index to account for potential rising political uncertainty surrounding the coming October Party Congress and possibly for further North Korea related risks. However, we are closing our short KRW / THB trade for a gain of 5.33%. Europe: More Red Herrings Brexit is no longer market-relevant. Its economic effect was fully priced in when Prime Minister Theresa May announced on January 17 that the U.K. would not seek membership in the Common Market. Since then, the pound has effectively bottomed against both the dollar and the euro, as we argued it would (Chart 15).13 This does not mean that investors should necessarily go long the pound. Rather, we are pointing out that the moves in the U.K. currency have ceased to be Brexit-related since we called its bottom in January. Going forward, investors should make bets on the pound based on macroeconomic fundamentals, not on the U.K.-EU negotiations. The one political risk to the pound going forward is the potential for the Labour Party, headed by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, to come to power in the U.K. in the near term. Corbyn is the most left-of-center leader of a developed world economy since French president François Mitterrand in 1981. And he symbolizes a leftward shift on economic policy by the median voter. Nevertheless, the risks to PM May are overstated, for now. A key test for the Prime Minister, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, passed its first parliamentary hurdle in Westminster on September 12. No Conservatives rebelled, with seven Labour politicians defying Corbyn's instructions to vote against the bill. The bill still faces several days of amendments, but it largely gives May a free hand to negotiate with Europe going forward. Bremain-leaning Tory backbenchers could have posed problems for May had they decided to obstruct the bill. That they did not tells us that nobody wants to challenge May and that she will likely remain the prime minister until the eventual deal with the EU is reached. Our clients often balk at our dismissal of Brexit as an investment-relevant geopolitical event. However, the crucial question post-Brexit was whether any other EU member states would follow the U.K. out of the bloc. We answered this question in the negative, with high conviction, the day of the U.K. referendum.14 Not only did no country follow U.K.'s lead, but the effect of Brexit was in fact the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom, with a slew of defeats for populists around Europe following the referendum. For the U.K. economy and assets, the key two Brexit-related questions were whether the economy's service sector would have unfettered access to the European market via membership in the Common Market (Chart 16); and whether the labor market would have access to the European labor pool (Chart 17). Both questions were answered by May during her January 17 speech in the negative, which is why we continue to cite that moment as the date when U.K. assets fully priced in Brexit. Chart 15Is Brexit##br## Still Relevant? Chart 16U.K. Needs A Free Services Agreement##br## With The EU, Not An FTA! Chart 17Intra-EU Migration Boosts ##br##Labor Force Growth What could change our forecast? We would need to see the negotiations with Europe become a lot more acrimonious. Disputes over the amount of the "exit bill" or the status of the Irish border simply do not count as acrimony. We need to see the threat of a "Brexit cliff" - where the EU-U.K. trade relationship reverts to "WTO rules" - emerge due to a conflict between the two powers. However, this is unlikely to happen as the EU greatly values its trade relationship with the U.K. And London's demand for an FTA actually plays to the EU's strengths, since FTAs normally privilege trade in goods (where Europe is competitive) relative to trade in services (where the U.K. has an advantage). Bear in mind, as well, that the U.K. and EU are negotiating an FTA from a starting point of a high degree of economic integration: this is not the equivalent of two separate economies pursuing an FTA for the first time. Similarly overstated as a risk is the upcoming Catalan independence referendum. As we argued this February, the referendum is a non-event.15 Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 18). And as we argued in our net assessment of the issue in 2014, a surge in internal migration since the Second World War has diluted the Catalan share of the total population.16 In fact, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish.17 Another 10% identify non-Iberian languages as their first language, suggesting that migrants will further dilute support for sovereignty, as they have done in other places (most recently: Quebec). Chart 18Catalans Do Not Want Independence We expect the turnout of the upcoming referendum to be low. Given that Madrid will not recognize it, the only way for the Catalan referendum to be relevant is if the nationalist government is willing to enforce sovereignty. What does that mean precisely? The globally recognized definition of sovereignty is the "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a defined territory." To put it bluntly: the Catalan government has to be willing to take up arms in order for its referendum to be relevant to the markets. Without recognition from Spain, and with no support for independence from fellow EU and NATO peers, Catalonia cannot win independence at the ballot box. Bottom Line: Fade Brexit and Catalonia risks. Iraq: An Emergent Risk In 2014, we wrote the following about the future of Iraq:18 "Furthermore, the recent Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk - nominally to secure it from ISIS, in reality to (re)claim it for the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) - will not be acceptable to Baghdad. In our conversations with clients, too much optimism exists over the stability of Kurdistan and its expected oil output. While we are broadly positive on the KRG, there are many challenges. First, three-quarters of Iraqi production is, in fact, located in the Southern part of the country, far from Iraqi Kurdistan. Second, Kirkuk and its associated geography has the potential to boost production, but the Kurds (and their ally Turkey) will eventually have to face-off against Baghdad (and its ally Iran) for control over this territory. Just because the KRG secured Kirkuk today does not mean that it will stay in their control in the future. We are fairly certain that once ISIS is defeated, Baghdad will ask for Kirkuk back." In 2016, we followed up again on the situation in Iraq by pointing out that a series of defeats for the Islamic State were raising the probability that a reckoning was coming between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurds.19 Now that the Islamic State threat is in the rear-view mirror, our forecast is coming to fruition. On September 25, Kurds in Iraq will hold an independence referendum. Opposition to the referendum is uniform across the region, with the U.S. - Kurds' strongest ally - requesting that it not take place. Why should investors care? First, there is the issue of oil production. There are no reliable figures regarding KRG production, but it is thought to be around 550,000 bpd, although KRG officials have themselves downplayed their production. This figure includes production from the Kurdish-controlled Bai Hassan and Avana fields in the Kirkuk province, which is not formally part of the KRG territory but which Kurds nominally control due to their 2014 anti-ISIS intervention. A conflict over Kurdish independence could impact this production, particularly if war breaks out over Kirkuk. However, the bigger risk to global oil supply is what it would do to future efforts to boost Iraqi production. Iraq is the last major oil play on the planet that can cheaply and easily, with 1920s technologies, access significant new production. If a major war breaks out in the country, it is difficult to see how Iraq would sustain the necessary FDI inflows to develop its fields to boost production, even if the majority of production is far from the Kurdish region. Given steady global oil demand, the world is counting on Iraq to fill the gap with cheap oil. If it cannot, higher oil prices will have to incentivize tight-oil and off-shore production. Second, there are problematic regional dynamics. There are about six million Kurds in Iraq, about 20% of the total population. The Kurdish Regional Government controls the northeast corner of Iraq, but fighting against the Islamic State has allowed the Kurds to extend their control further south and almost double their territory (Map 1). Turkey has largely supported the KRG over the years, as the ruling party in the autonomous province is relatively hostile to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. However, Turkey is opposed to the independence of the KRG due to fears that it would start the ball rolling on the independence of Kurds in Syria and potentially one day in Turkey as well. Also opposed to KRG secession are Iran (Baghdad's closest ally) and Syria (which is dealing with its own Kurdish question). Map 1Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey On the other hand, the KRG does have international support. Russia just recently concluded a major oil deal with KRG, promising to buy Kurdish oil and refine it in Germany. Moscow will also invest US $3 billion in KRG territory. Russia also supplied the KRG Peshmerga - armed forces - with weapons during their fight against the Islamic State. From Russia's perspective, any conflict in the Middle East is a boon. It stalls investment in the region, curbs its oil production, and potentially adds a risk premium to oil prices. In addition, a close alliance with the KRG would allow Russia to gain another ally in the region. Bottom Line: While it is difficult to see how the independence referendum will play out in the short term, we have had a high-conviction view that Iraq's stability will not improve with the fall of the Islamic State. For investors, rising tensions in Iraq are significant because they could curb investment in the long term and potentially even impact production in the short term. Unlike the Islamic State, which never threatened oil production in the Middle East in any significant way, Iraq and the KRG are both oil producers. In fact, their main conflict is over an oil-producing region centered on Kirkuk. Tensions in the region support BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy's bullish view on oil prices.20 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017; "North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2017; and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy 10-year Treasury yield model only uses the global manufacturing PMI and sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as inputs. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Duration 'Hot Potato' Shifts Back To The U.S.," dated August 8, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The 'Trump Put' Over?" dated August 23, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We use the Cook Political Report for their assessment of how U.S. electoral districts lean. Charlie Cook is Washington's foremost election handicapper with a long record of accomplishment. Anyone interested in closely following the U.S. midterm elections should consider his research, which is found on http://www.cookpolitical.com/ 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see footnote 3 above. 13 The GBP/USD bottomed then and there. The GBP/EUR has recently hit a new low, for reasons other than Brexit. This bottom is only slightly below its previous lows in October 2016, when May confirmed that her government would seek to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum result, and in January 2017, when May admitted what the GBP/EUR had already reflected, that this meant leaving the Common Market. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming EXITentialist Crisis," dated June 24, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Language Use of the Population of Catalonia," Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'Estadustuca de Catalunya, dated 2013, available at web.gencat.cat 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance," dated September 14, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Finally, an upside surprise on inflation. Recent significant developments reinforce BCA's bullish view on crude oil. Investors should consider the Monthly Report on personal income and spending, and not the quarterly GDP data, to gauge hurricanes' impact on economy. While the Fed will consider impact of Harvey and Irma, policy will ultimately be made on health of underlying economy. Feature Chart 1Rally For Risk Assets##BR##A Week Before The FOMC Risk assets and oil prices rose last week along with Treasury yields ahead of this week's FOMC meeting. Both the S&P 500 and the Dow hit new highs last week as the dollar moved lower. The stock-to-bond ratio also climbed, approaching the highs it reached earlier this year (Chart 1). All of this occurred amid an absence of any meaningful news on corporate earnings, aside from Apple's launch of the latest iPhone. Q3 earnings season is still a month away. Our base case projects stocks outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months, but in early September we recommended that clients be prudent, pare back any overweight positions and hold some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. The most significant movement in assets prices last week came in the U.S. Treasury market. Aided by hints of some progress on tax cuts in Washington less damage than initially feared from Hurricane Irma's impact on Florida, and despite another rocket launch by North Korea, the 10-year Treasury yield moved from near 2.0% in the first week of September to 2.20% on September 15. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service notes1 that bond markets are priced as though the link between growth and inflation is broken. We expect they will be proven wrong as inflation regains its uptrend during the next few months. Finally A Surprise On Inflation Chart 2Does One Month Make A Trend? After five months of downside surprises, U.S. core CPI met expectations in August. It is still too soon say that this is enough for the Fed to raise rates again this year. To get a better sense of the underlying trends, we like to break core CPI into three sub-groups: shelter, core goods and core services ex-shelter and medical care. Shelter, which accounts for over 40% of core CPI, rose 0.4% m/m in August. This was the biggest contributor to core CPI during the month. Our shelter model suggests that this strength is unlikely to persist. On the flip-side, core goods prices (25% of core CPI) fell 0.1% m/m. Given the weakness in the dollar, core goods prices should soon begin to rise. To some degree, a slowdown in shelter and a pick-up in core goods could offset each other over the coming months (Chart 2). Therefore, a sustained pick-up in overall core inflation requires an upturn in core services ex-shelter and medical. This sub-component of core CPI is the most tightly correlated with wage inflation. There was a slight tick higher in annual core services ex-shelter and medical inflation in August. However, it is still near a 25-year low of just 1.1%. Bottom Line: Following five months of persistent downside surprises, the 0.2% m/m increase in core CPI during August was a welcomed change for the Fed. However, one month does not make a trend and Fed will need to see more evidence of inflation turning the corner before raising interest rates again. Any rise in oil prices would also give inflation a lift, although it would affect the headline more than the core inflation rate. Bullish Oil Supply And Demand Recent significant developments reinforce BCA's bullish view on crude oil. The International Energy Agency (IEA) revised its forecasts for global oil demand. Oil consumption will be 100,000 bpd higher this year than the IEA's previous projection. Furthermore, renewed turmoil in Libya curbed production by 300,000 bpd from a 4-year high of more than 1 million bpd. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service states that while predicting OPEC compliance is tricky, little to no cheating will occur. At worst, Saudi Arabia will step in and curtail production if Libya and/or Iraq begins to pump oil above quota. Finally, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the U.S. lowered its estimated shale oil output by 200,000 bpd for this year's third quarter. The decreased estimation confirms BCA's assertion that the EIA has overestimated the pace of the shale production response during 2017. Chart 3Drawdown In Global Oil##BR##Inventories Is Underway Taken together, these factors will help to improve the global net demand/supply balance by 600,000 bpd, if the current situation remains unchanged. As a result, global oil inventories will continue to be drawn down (Chart 3). Severe weather in the U.S. has temporarily distorted the energy markets. Crack spreads have widened in the U.S. as product inventories have declined along with Brent - WTI spreads. Nonetheless, BCA's commodity strategists remain bullish on crude oil, forecasting a rise in WTI to over $55/bbl and Brent to $60/bbl by year-end. Looking to next year, crude prices could go higher with an extension of the OPEC/Russian production cuts beyond March 2018 and continued strong growth in global oil demand. A sudden jump in the U.S. dollar could risk BCA's bullish view. Bottom Line: There is a disagreement between the market's view of the fundamentals of the global oil balance, which is guided by the EIA data, and BCA's view that is driven by the OPEC 2.0 framework.2 Oil prices could spike higher if the market adheres to the OPEC framework. BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service recommends an overweight to the S&P 500 Energy Sector and initiated an overweight in the Oil and Gas Refining and Marketing sub-group on September 11, 2017.3 Hurricane Redux Turning to the U.S. hurricane destruction, history shows that natural disasters have only a passing effect on the U.S. economy, the financial markets and the Fed.4 Ultimately, the macro environment in place before the storm will reassert itself. Nonetheless, it may be a few months before investors determine the long-term impact of the storms on Houston, Florida and nearby southern states. The U.S. data gathering agencies (BEA, BLS and Census) have processes to ensure that the storm's sway is reflected in the economic data. In the past, all three have produced post-disaster evaluations and will likely release the same type of information in the months ahead. Most of the storms' effects will be felt in the September data, but have already affected the initial claims data for the last week in August and the first week of September. The storms will also buffet the Q3 GDP (due out in late October). However, GDP data may not provide a comprehensive picture; GDP is not directly affected by natural disaster losses involving property, plants, equipment and structures. However, GDP can take a direct hit from the loss of productive capacity linked to a storm. The BEA notes that "while GDP may be affected by the actions that consumers, businesses, and governments take in response to a disaster, these responses are generally not separately identifiable, and they may be spread out over a long period of time." Investors should consider the monthly report on personal income and spending, and even more, the regional accounts by state, and not the quarterly GDP data, for details on the storms' economic fallout. Only hurricanes Katrina and Rita warranted a mention in the Q3 2005 GDP release, and none of the other major storms since that time have been noted by the agency. On the other hand, the personal income and spending reports released after all the major hurricanes since 2005 have provided key specifics on incomes. For example, the BEA stated that "work interruptions" linked to Hurricane Sandy reduced wages by $18 billion in October 2012 when the storm hit the northeastern U.S. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) also tends to note a storm's influence on other primary income categories including personal rental incomes, proprietors' incomes, and other current transfer receipts (i.e. insurance payments received). Table 1Total Federal Spending And Total Economic Damage For Selected Hurricanes, 2000 To 2015 A 2016 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that federal spending after major hurricanes can add as much as 0.6% to GDP growth (Table 1). CBO notes that most of the economic impact is in the first year after a storm, with most of those expenditures helping victims to obtain food and shelter, fund search and rescue operations, and protect critical infrastructure. Federal outlays for public infrastructure occur after the first year and provide a much smaller lift to GDP (Chart 4). Chart 4Federal Government Outlays For Hurricane Relief The severe weather in the U.S. has raised the odds that the Trump administration and Congress will make progress on fiscal policy this fall. We think that the outlines of a tax bill will emerge in the next month or so, and while the probability of passing legislation this year is still low, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects the market to react when it sees the bill. The implication for investors is that the President Trump trades (Chart 5) that have unwound since the start of the year may soon become profitable again. The recent agreement between Trump and the Democrats to extend the debt ceiling and avoid a government shutdown support our stance. Chart 5Trump Trades Making A Comeback? Bottom Line: The hurricanes may have a bearing on the economic data for the next few months. Investors should closely monitor the input data to GDP, but not GDP itself. However, we do not anticipate that any economic disruptions from the storms will have a meaningful influence on near-term Fed monetary policy. Disasters And The Fed The hurricanes will probably play a supporting role in the Fed's outlook on the economy, inflation and labor market at this week's meeting. The FOMC statement will mention the storms and Fed Chair Yellen may include them in her opening remarks. Moreover, the news conference will provide another opportunity to discuss the issue. For example, the FOMC statement released in mid-December 2012, six weeks after Sandy, stated that "economic activity and employment have continued to expand at a moderate pace in recent months, apart from weather-related disruptions". Fed staff noted that manufacturing production was held down by Sandy and that household spending, notably vehicle sales, declined in October due to the storm (Table 2). Similarly, the wrath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was noted in FOMC statements and minutes in the fall and early winter of 2005. For example, in the statement released at the meeting after Katrina hit in August 2005, the FOMC observed: "The widespread devastation in the Gulf region, the associated dislocation of economic activity, and the boost to energy prices imply that spending, production, and employment will be set back in the near term." Fed policymakers made similar observations in the aftermath of other natural and man-made disasters in the past 25 years (Table 2). Table 2FOMC Reaction To Disasters, Natural And Man Made Bottom Line: Fed officials will consider the disruptions to the economy and economic data caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but ultimately make policy decisions based on the underlying strength of the economy, labor market and inflation. FOMC Preview The FOMC will initiate shrinking its balance sheet at this week's meeting, but neither BCA nor the market anticipate that the Fed will bump up rates. Moreover, the Fed will need more evidence that inflation, inflation expectations and/or inflation surprise has turned higher before resuming its rate hike regime. Furthermore, there is still a significant disconnect between the market and the Fed concerning rates for the next 12 months, and how that gap closes could be crucial for the financial markets, especially the bond market. At 43 basis points, the gap between the June dot plots and the market on the Fed funds rate in the next 12 months remains near its widest level of the year. The market is currently predicting only 30 bps in increases in the next 12 months. However, an uptick in inflation could quickly change that view (Chart 6). Despite the disagreement on rates, the Fed and the market are mostly aligned on the economy, the labor market and inflation, at least in 2017. For the first time, the FOMC will provide projections for 2020 at this week's meeting. At 4.4% in August, the unemployment rate is a mere tenth above the Fed's end-2017 forecast, but it is 0.2% below the central bank's latest estimate of full employment (4.6%). The Fed's measure of full employment has declined in recent years and we would not be shocked to see a drop again this week. The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate matches the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 7 and Chart 8). Chart 6Big Disagreement Between The Fed ##br##And The Market On Rates Chart 7The Fed Vs. The Market Chart 8The FOMC's "Long Run"##BR##Forecasts Since 2012 The economy is on pace this year to grow at the Fed's 2.2% projection but is running above the FOMCs long-run calculation of 1.8%, which is the low point since the Fed started publishing these long-run projections in 2009. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is slightly above the upper end of the Fed's range set in June (Chart 7 and Chart 8). The Fed and the market are relatively close on inflation this year, but there is still a wide gap in 2018 and beyond. In June, the Fed lowered its inflation forecast for 2017 to 1.6% from 1.9% in March. PCE inflation is at only 1.4% (year-to-date in 2017), so there is not much disagreement in this regard. The market does not agree with the Fed's view that inflation will return to 2.0%, and this is a key reason why the 10-year Treasury yield recently touched a new post-election low at 2.0%, although geopolitical tensions also played a role. The central bank's view of inflation in the long run has not deviated from 2.0% since 2012. Bloomberg consensus estimates for core inflation for this year and next are below the low end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 7 and Chart 8). Market participants and some Fed officials are still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with an unemployment rate that is below the Fed's estimate of full employment. (Please see a BCA Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?").5 Who Will Be The Next Fed Chair? As some investors consider the Fed's next policy move, others are taking a longer view and thinking about Fed Chair Yellen's replacement. Yellen's term as Chair will end in February 2018, and the markets have not yet shown any concerns about her potential replacement. Until last month, the frontrunner to replace Yellen was Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee; his appointment would conform to some historical precedents but violate others.6 Several new names have emerged as possible Fed nominees as Cohn fell out of favor in the White House in early September. Kevin Warsh, Glen Hubbard and John Taylor, are all high-profile economists with links to the GOP, but Warsh stands out because he served on Trump's Strategic and Policy forum before it disbanded in August, and was a Fed Governor in the early 2000s (Table 3). Hubbard, who is currently an academic, was President George W. Bush's chief economist. However, he has not worked with Trump and has no Fed experience. John Taylor is well known in monetary policy circles, but has no Fed or government background, nor has he served with Trump. Taylor advocates for rules-based monetary policy.7 Another possible name, Larry Lindsey, an advisor to George W. Bush's campaign in 2000, a Fed Governor in the 1990s, and worked in the Reagan White House but he has no connection to Trump. He has recently spoken in favor of the House tax plan. Table 3Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 The other two names under consideration - Richard Davis and John Allison - may have difficulty winning confirmations by the Senate. Both men were CEOs at major banks although neither have directly served Trump, nor been at the Fed or in government. Allison, a former president of the Libertarian Cato Institute, has argued that the Fed should be abolished and blamed the Fed for the financial crisis. The timing of Trump's announcement on Yellen's replacement may be critical. As a reminder, names floated by the Obama White House in the summer of 2013 were mainly rejected by the markets. Yellen's official announcement came in early October 2013. In August 2009, President Obama reappointed Bernanke for a second four-year term. Bernanke was initially nominated to be Fed Chair by George W. Bush in October 2005. If the appointment comes in October and the nominee is perceived to be hawkish, the risk is that markets may begin to price in the regime change sometime in the next few months. As we noted in the sections above, there is already a wide discrepancy between the Fed and the market over the pace and timing of rate hikes in the coming year. BCA's fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) currently places fair value at 2.67%.8 Moreover, our 3-factor version of the model (which includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index), puts fair value slightly higher at 2.68%. Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Bottom Line: Markets will be increasingly concerned in the next six weeks about the next Fed Chair and his or her policies. While the reappointment of Fed Chair Yellen for another term would please the markets, several other possible successors would not. We anticipate that the President will make a choice within the next month. Taking a longer view, the next Fed chair will oversee the policy response to the next recession and its aftermath. Investors should understand how the next Chair views the Fed's role in the business cycle. Economy Focus: Some Good News From The Quarterly Services Survey Even with the increasingly dominant role of the service sector's contribution to the economy (~69% of GDP), most of the high-frequency data are related to the manufacturing sector (~12% of GDP) (Chart 9, top panel). However, the Quarterly Services Survey (QSS), initiated in 2003-2004 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), measures the services sector of the economy, including companies of all sizes (small- and medium-sized). It produces the most timely revenue data, on a quarterly basis, within the flourishing service sector. The dataset is used primarily by the BEA to estimate a more accurate picture of the national accounts, notably personal consumption and the intellectual property segment of private fixed investment. The survey is also essential for FOMC policymakers as it is very useful to track current economic performance. Even more, during the financial crisis, the BEA "aggressively responded to policymakers' needs for data on financial services". The QSS is a significant source of revisions to real GDP, as about 42% of the quarterly estimates of PCE for services is now based on QSS data. The "key services statistics" include information services; health care services; professional, scientific, and technical services; administrative and support and waste management and remediation services (Chart 9). For the first half of 2017, upward revisions to second and third estimates to real GDP stemmed from revisions to PCE services and nonresidential fixed investment, namely: health care services, financial & insurance services and intellectual property products (specifically software) and other services accounted for by cellular telephone services. The most recent QSS for 2017Q2 showed U.S. selected services total revenue rising by 3.2% over the last quarter and 6.2% over the last four quarters (in nominal terms and non-seasonally adjusted data only available). The strongest growth came from revenues of Other Services (9.4% QoQ% and 18.4% YoY) followed by Arts, Entertainment & Recreation and Administration, Support & Waste Management. Sales in Finance & Insurance and Health Care & Social Assistance, which make up about 50% of total service revenues, are advancing at a sturdy pace, as is revenue in Information services (Chart 9). Chart 9Growth For Service Sector##BR##Industries Is Broad-Based Chart 10QSS Survey Heralds Some##BR##Upward Revision To Real GDP Bottom Line: Given that the majority of service industries from the QSS sample survey continue to show upward momentum, perhaps we will see some upward revision to real consumer spending for services for the third estimate of real GDP next week (Chart 10). We continue to expect U.S. GDP growth to match or exceed the Fed's modest target for 2017. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Open Mouth Operations", published September 12, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance", published September 14, 2017. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Still Goldilocks", published September 11, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Shelter From The Storm", published September 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?", published August 31, 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration", published July 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump And The Fed", published March 6, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On", published September 5, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights U.S. product inventories - particularly gasoline and distillates - will show sharp declines over the balance of September, as refining capacity continues to trail demand in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. U.S. crude inventories will accumulate as refineries slowly come back on line. This will keep the Brent vs. WTI spreads and crack spreads elevated, as refiners outside the U.S. Gulf scramble for crude (Chart of the Week).1 Global product storage facilities will be drained to more normal levels responding to this imbalance. It is understandable that the significance of the increased frequency of messaging from OPEC 2.0's leadership re its willingness to extend production cuts beyond March 2018 would be secondary to hurricane recovery. Nonetheless, we advise investors to stay focused on OPEC 2.0's evolution, particularly next year, as it develops a modus operandi for providing forward guidance to markets and investors. Energy: Overweight. Brent futures are backwardated to January 2018, reflecting a tight market as refiners, particularly in Europe, scramble for barrels to meet U.S. and Latin American product demand. We remain long Brent and WTI $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl call spreads in Dec/17, which are up 183.8% and 30.2%, respectively, since inception. Base Metals: Neutral. Our tactical COMEX copper short initiated last week is up 3.4%. Precious Metals: Neutral. The Dec/17 COMEX Gold contract gapped lower earlier in the week, as a strengthening USD, and a 15 - 0 vote Monday by the UN Security Council to adopt sanctions proposed by the U.S. against N. Korea took some of the luster off the metal. Our long strategic portfolio hedge is up 8.0% since it was initiated May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains appear to be finding support around current levels. We are bearish, but do not advise shorting the complex, especially with erratic weather as a backdrop. Feature Chart of the WeekBrent - WTI Spread,##BR##Cracks Reflect Refining Scramble The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, the putative leaders of what we've dubbed OPEC 2.0, are taking every opportunity to signal their willingness to consider an extension of their production-cutting agreement beyond March 2018, when it is scheduled to expire.2 We believe this to be part and parcel of an evolving forward guidance strategy, which KSA and Russia will deploy to signal their production intentions over the near term. This is consistent with our view such a strategy is necessary to keep the producer coalition durable, and to work out an even larger plan to begin messaging firms and institutions allocating capital to oil and natural gas markets globally. This is critical for KSA, which will be looking to IPO Saudi ARAMCO next year, and Russia, which is preparing for elections in March and still relies heavily on hydrocarbon exports to fund its government.3 The last thing either needs is out-of-control oil production tanking the market, as it almost did at the beginning of 2016. Other members of the OPEC 2.0 coalition seeking foreign direct investment (FDI) - e.g., Gulf Arab producers and non-OPEC states like Mexico and Kazakhstan - benefit from an oil-production-management framework as well. The significance of OPEC 2.0's emerging forward guidance strategy could be lost amid the devastation of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which is understandable. But it will be critical to understanding the coalition's strategy regarding how it intends to manage its own production, now that U.S. shale is the marginal barrel in the world, even after Hurricane Harvey disrupted production and refining in Texas, and U.S. crude and product exports from the Gulf. Thus far, OPEC 2.0 continues to deliver on its production cuts, and global demand - which we expect will dip by less than 1mm b/d over the next few weeks due to the hurricanes - remains strong. In a month or two, we expect hurricane recovery efforts will restore lost refining capacity and product demand. As rebuilding goes into high gear, we expect product demand to get a significant boost. OPEC 2.0 Maintains Discipline We will be updating our oil supply/demand balances next week, but so far it appears KSA and Russia are honoring their commitments to restrain production. This allows them to maintain credibility with their respective OPEC and non-OPEC allies within OPEC 2.0, and with the market in general (Chart 2). KSA, in particular, has led the way among OPEC members of the coalition, according to a tally done by S&P Global's Platts, which put KSA's average crude oil production over the January - August 2017 period at 9.97mm b/d vs. its quota of 10.06mm b/d. This is up slightly over the 9.93mm b/d average production for January - June 2017 reported by JODI. KSA's August production reported in the September OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report was 9.95mm b/d. For the January - August 2017 period, Russia's total crude and liquids production averaged 11.22mm b/d, according to U.S. EIA estimates. For the May - August period, it averaged 11.16mm b/d, putting total output 300k b/d below its October 2016 level, against which OPEC 2.0 benchmarks. Russia committed to reducing output by 300k b/d under the OPEC 2.0 Agreement as part of an overall effort to remove 1.8mm b/d of production from the market to end-March 2018. Russia's crude oil production averaged 10.38mm b/d over the January - June 2017 period, according to JODI data, vs. an October level of 10.51mm b/d. For 2Q17, Russia's average production reported to JODI was 10.31mm b/d, or 200k b/d below its Oct/16 output. Overall OPEC compliance of members with quotas was 112% of agreed volumes last month, meaning OPEC members with quotas under the OPEC 2.0 Agreement are producing 630k b/d below agreed volumes, according to Platts.4 Seven of the OPEC states still covered by the Agreement are producing below quota. Iraq leads in over-production at 4.46mm b/d on average in the January - August period, or 82k b/d over quota. Overall, however, production discipline is holding (Chart 3, panel 2). Chart 2KSA, Russia Leading##BR##OPEC 2.0 By Example Chart 3Production Discipline, Strong Demand##BR##Will Continue To Support Prices Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0's forward guidance to markets, firms and institutions allocating capital in the energy sector has featured frequent re-statements of the coalition's leaders' willingness to extend their production cuts if inventories have not drawn sufficiently by March 2018, when their Agreement is due to expire. We believe this reflects the desire of OPEC 2.0's leadership to maintain the coalition as a long-term production-coordinating body. This will allow the major oil producing nations to communicate production plans and allay investor fears of out-of-control production in the future. Global Demand Will Remain Strong We have noted repeatedly global economic growth has been firing on all cylinders, which will keep global oil demand robust for at least the balance of 2017, and likely into 2018 (Chart 3, panel 3). This is particularly evident in global trade data, which we also will be updating next week.5 Global economic data continue to support this thesis: All 46 countries monitored by the OECD are on track to grow this year, the first time this has happened since 2007, according to BCA's Global Investment Strategy (GIS).6 In addition, BCA's Global Investment Strategy notes U.S. growth projections have been broadly stable, but these likely will be revised higher. The easing in U.S. financial conditions since the start of the year should boost real GDP growth over the next few quarters, which, along with the expected boost to product demand coming on the back of hurricane-recovery efforts, will continue to be bullish for refined product demand. Global Product Inventory Draws Will Accelerate OPEC 2.0's efforts to draw global inventories - particularly in the OECD - received an unexpected assist from hurricanes Harvey and Irma. We expect the trend of drawdowns seen over the past few months to accelerate (Chart 4). This will return global product inventories to more normal levels, and, with crude oil inventories accumulating, favor refiners as they scramble to meet demand. Our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy upgraded U.S. refiners last week to overweight in line with their view Harvey has the "potential to finally normalize bloated refined product inventories. Over two weeks since the hurricane made landfall, the industry still has 1.0 MMb/d of refining capacity shut down (5 refineries), 2.15 MMb/d of capacity not operating but working on restarting operations (6 refineries), and 1.4 MMb/d of capacity operating below full capacity (5 refineries). Over the past 16 days, at least 55 million barrels of refined product have not been generated, which will result in increased crude inventories and shrinking refined product inventories, benefitting refiners" (Chart 5).7 Chart 4OECD Oil Inventory Declines Will Accelerate Chart 5Refinery Outages From Harvey Persist Over the short term, Brent crude - and related streams pricing off Brent - and products will remain bid, keeping refiner crack spreads elevated, as operations return to normal, and Florida emerges from the economic damage and dislocations caused by Irma. Typically, product demand falls immediately after severe storms, and recovers as rebuilding begins and progresses. We will be updating our balances model next week to reflect the effects of hurricanes and the continued indications of strong global growth. Bottom Line: Demand for refined products will dip slightly - likely less than 1% of global demand - as hurricane-ravaged markets recover. As rebuilding progresses, product demand likely will be boosted. This will drain OECD product inventories in the short term, providing an unexpected assist to OPEC 2.0's efforts to bring global stocks down to five-year average levels. This evolution will favor refiners, as well. OPEC 2.0's forward guidance to markets continues to evolve. In recent weeks, it has featured frequent re-statements of the coalition's leaders' willingness to extend their production cuts if inventories have not drawn sufficiently by March 2018. We believe this messaging is designed to allay fears of another production-free-for-all of the sort that threatened to take global benchmark crude oil prices below $20/bbl last year. It is too early to expect OPEC 2.0 will replace the original OPEC Cartel. But, we believe KSA and Russia are signaling their common desire to make OPEC 2.0 a durable feature of budgeting and investment considerations over the medium term. Actions speak louder than words, in this regard. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 A "crack spread" refers to the difference in refined-product prices and crude oil prices. It takes its name from the "cracking" long-chain hydrocarbon bonds in crude oil required to produce refined products like gasoline and diesel fuel. The Brent - WTI spread is the price difference in USD/barrel ($/bbl) between the global benchmark crudes. 2 Please see, for example, "Saudi Arabia Says It's Open to Another OPEC Cuts Extension," updated on bloomberg.com September 11, 2017; "Saudi, UAE agree extension of oil cuts may be considered - statement," published on the same day on reuters.com's U.K. service; and "Russia's Novak says to consider extension of oil cut deal if glut persists" published on reuters.com September 6, 20107. We have repeated noted markets are looking for OPEC 2.0 to provide forward guidance, if the principals to the deal intend to maintain a durable coalition. Please see, e.g., "KSA's Tactics Advance OPEC 2.0's Agenda," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report August 10, 2017, and available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 The U.S. CIA estimates Russia exported 5.1mm b/d of crude oil in 2016, roughly half of crude production. This squares with exports reported by the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI), a transnational agency headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Last year, Russia also exported 223 billion cubic meters of natural gas. KSA exported 7.65mm b/d of crude oil last year, according to JODI, or close to 75% of KSA's production. 4 Please see S&P Global Platts OPEC Guide published September 7, 2017, online. 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Trade And Commodity Data Point To Higher Inflation," published on July 27, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Central Bank Showdown," published on September 8, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "Rebalancing Recommendations," published on September 13, 2017. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Special Report

Highlights We estimate total Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investment will rise from US$120 billion this year to about US$170 billion in 2020. The size of BRI investments is about 47 times smaller than China's annual gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). Therefore, a slump in domestic capital spending in China will fully offset the increase in demand for industrial goods and commodities as a result of BRI projects. Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Ghana will benefit the most among major frontier markets from BRI. Investors should consider buying these bourses in sell-off. On a positive note, BRI leads to improved global capital allocation, allows China to export its excess construction and heavy industry capacity, and boosts recipient countries' demand for Chinese exports. Feature China's 'Belt and Road' Initiative (BRI) is on an accelerating path (Chart I-1), with total investment expected to rise from US$120 billion to about US$170 billion over the next three years. Chart I-1Accelerating BRI Investment From China The BRI has been one of the central government's main priorities since late 2013. The primary objectives of the BRI are: To export China's excess capacity in heavy industries and construction to other countries - i.e., build infrastructure in other countries; To expand the country's international influence via a grand plan of funding investments into the 69 countries along the Belt and the Road (B&R) (Chart I-2); To build transportation and communication networks as well as energy supply to facilitate trade and provide China access to other regions, especially Europe and Africa; To facilitate the internationalization of the RMB; To speed up the development of China's poor (and sometimes restive) central and western regions, namely by turning them into economic hubs between coastal China and the BRI countries in the rest of Asia; To boost China's strategic position in central, south, and southeast Asia through security linkages arising from BRI cooperation, as well as from assets (like ports) that could provide military as well as commercial uses in the long run. From a cyclical investment perspective, the pertinent questions for investors are: How big is the current scale of BRI investment, and where is the funding coming from? Will rising BRI investment be able to offset the negative impact from a potential slowdown in Chinese capex spending? Which frontier markets will benefit most from Chinese BRI investment? Chart I-2The Belt And Road Program China's BRI: Scale And Funding Scale China has been implementing its strategic BRI since 2013. To date it has invested in 69 B&R countries through two major approaches: infrastructure project contracts and outward direct investment (ODI). The first approach - investment through projects - is the main mechanism of BRI implementation. BRI projects center on infrastructure development in recipient countries, encompassing construction of transportation (railways, highways, subways, and bridges), energy (power plants and pipelines) and telecommunication infrastructure. The cumulative size of the signed contracts with B&R countries over the past three years is US$383 billion, of which US$182 billion of projects are already completed. However, the value of newly signed contracts in a year does not equal the actual project investment occurred in that year, as generally these contracts will take several years to be implemented and completed. Table I-1 shows our projection of Chinese BRI project investment over the years of 2017-2020, which will reach US$168 billion in 2020. This projection is based on two assumptions: an average three-year investing and implementation period for BRI projects from the date of signing the contract to the commercial operation date (COD) of the project, and an average annual growth rate of 10% for the total value of the annual newly signed contracts over the next three years. Table I-1Projection Of Chinese BRI Project Investment Over The Years 2017-2020 The basis for the first assumption is that the majority of the completed BRI projects were by and large finished within three years, and most of the existing and future BRI projects are also expected to be completed within a three-year period.1 The second assumption of the 10% future growth rate is reasonable, given the 13.5% average annual growth rate for the past two years, but from a low base. These large-scale infrastructure projects were led mainly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and often in the form of BOTs (Build-Operate Transfers), Design-Build-Operate (DBOs), BOOT (Build-Own-Operate-Transfers), BOO (Build-Own-Operate) and other types of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). After a Chinese SOE successfully wins a bid on an infrastructure project in a hosting country, the company will typically seek financing from a Chinese source to fund the project, and then execute construction of the project. After the completion of the project, depending on the terms pre-specified in the contract, the company will operate the project for a number of years, which will generate revenues as returns for the company. The second approach - investing into the recipient countries through ODI - is insignificant, with an amount of US$14.5 billion last year. This was only 12% of BRI project investment, and only 8.5% of China's total ODI. Chinese ODI has so far been mainly focused on tertiary industries, particularly in developed countries that can educate China in technology, management, innovation and branding. Besides, most of the Chinese ODI has been in the form of cross-border M&A purchases by Chinese firms, with only a small portion of the ODI targeted at green-field projects, which do not lead to an increase in demand for commodities and capital goods. Therefore, in this report we will only focus on the analysis of project investment as a proxy of Chinese BRI investment, as opposed to ODI. The focal point of this analysis is to gauge the demand outlook for commodities and capital goods originating from BRI. The Sources Of Chinese Funding The projected US$120 billion to US$170 billion BRI investment every year seems affordable for China. This is small in comparison to about US$3-3.5 trillion of new money origination, or about US$3 trillion of bank and shadow-bank credit (excluding borrowing by central and local governments) annually in the past two years. The financing sources for China's BRI investment include China's two policy banks (China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China), two newly established funding sources (Silk Road Fund and Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank), Chinese commercial banks, and other financial institutions/funds. Table I-2 shows our estimate of the breakdown of BRI funding in 2016. Table I-2BRI Funding Sources In 2016 China Development Bank (CDB): As the country's largest development bank, the CDB has total assets of US$2.1 trillion, translating into more than US$350 billion of potential BRI projects over the next 10 years, which could well result in US$35 billion in funding annually from the CDB. The Export-Import Bank of China (EXIM): The EXIM holds an outstanding balance of over 1,000 BRI projects, and has also set up a special lending scheme worth US$19.5 billion over the next three years. This will increase EXIM's BRI lending from last year's US$5 billion to at least US$6.5 billion per year. Silk Road Fund (SRF): The Chinese government launched the SRF in late 2014 with initial funding of US$40 billion to directly support the BRI mission. This year, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged a funding boost to the SRF with an extra 100 billion yuan (US$15 billion). Therefore, SRF funding to BRI projects over the next three years will be higher than the US$6 billion recorded last year. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): The AIIB was established in October 2014 and started lending in January 2016. It only invested US$1.7 billion in loans for nine BRI projects last year. The BRI funding from the AIIB is set to accelerate as the number of member countries has significantly expanded from an original 57 to 80 currently. Chinese commercial banks: Chinese domestic commercial banks, the largest source of BRI funding, have been driving BRI investment momentum. Chinese commercial banks currently fund about 62% of BRI investment and the main financiers are Bank of China (BoC) and Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC). After lending about US$60 billion over the past two years, the BOC plans to provide US$40 billion this year. The ICBC has 412 BRI projects in its pipeline, involving a total investment of US$337 billion over the next 10 years, which will likely result in an annual US$34 billion in BRI investment. The China Construction Bank (CCB) also has over 180 BRI projects in its pipeline, worth a total investment of US$90 billion over the next five to 10 years. Only three commercial banks will likely fund US$80 billion of BRI projects over the next three years. A few more words about the currency used in BRI funding. The U.S. dollar and Chinese RMB will be the two main currencies employed in BRI funding. Chinese companies can get loans denominated either in RMBs or in USDs from domestic commercial banks/policy banks/special funds/multilateral international banks to buy machinery and equipment (ME) from China. For some PPP projects that involve non-Chinese companies or governments (i.e. those of recipient countries), the local presence can use either USD loans or their central bank's Chinese RMB reserves from the currency swap deal made with China's central bank. China has long looked to recycle its large current account surpluses by pursuing investments in hard assets (land, commodities, infrastructure, etc.) across the world, to mitigate its structural habit of building up large foreign exchange reserves that are mostly invested in low-interest-bearing American government securities. Risky but profitable BRI infrastructure projects are a continuation of this trend. China had so far signed bilateral currency swap agreements worth an aggregate of more than 1 trillion yuan (US$150 billion) with 22 countries or regions along the B&R. The establishment of cross-border RMB payment, clearing and settlement has been gaining momentum, and the use of RMB has been expanding gradually in global trade and investment, notwithstanding inevitable setbacks. Bottom Line: We estimate total BRI investment with Chinese financing will rise from US$120 billion this year to about US$170 billion in 2020, and Chinese financial institutions will be capable of funding it. Can BRI Offset A Slowdown In China's Capex? From a global investors' perspective, a pertinent question around the BRI program is whether the BRI-funded capital spending can offset the potential slowdown in China's domestic investment expenditure. This is essential to gauge the demand outlook for industrial commodities and capital goods worldwide. Our short answer is not likely. Table I-3 reveals that in 2016, gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) in China was estimated by the National Bureau of Statistics to be at RMB 32 trillion, or $4.8 trillion. Table I-3China's GFCF* Vs. China's BRI Investment Expenditures Meantime, China-funded BRI investment expenditure amounted to US$102 billion in 2016. In a nutshell, last year GFCF in China was about 47 times larger than BRI investment expenditures. The question is how much of a drop in mainland GFCF would need to take place to offset the projected BRI investment. The latter will likely amount to US$139 billion in 2018, US$153 billion in 2019 and US$168 billion in 2020. Provided estimated sizes of Chinese GFCF in 2017 are RMB 33.5 trillion (US$4.9 trillion), it would take only 0.4% contraction in GFCF in 2018, 0.3% in 2019 and 2020 to completely offset the rise in BRI-related investment expenditure (Table 3). Chart I-3Record Low Credit Growth... We derive these results by comparing the expected absolute change in BRI capital spending expenditures with the size of China's GFCF. The expected increases in BRI in 2018, 2019 and 2020 are US$20 billion, US$14 billion and US$15 billion. Given the starting point of GFCF in 2017 was US$4.9 trillion, it will take only about 0.4% of decline in $4.9 trillion to offset the $20 billion rise in BRI. In the same way, we estimated that it would take only an annual 0.3% contraction in nominal GFCF in China to completely offset the rise in BRI capital spending in both 2019 and 2020. To be sure, we are not certain that the GFCF will contract in each of the next three years. Yet, odds of such shrinkage in one of these years are substantial. As always, investors face uncertainty, and they need to make assessments. Is an annual 0.4% decline in China's GFCF likely in 2018? In our opinion, it is quite likely, based on our money and credit growth, as illustrated in Chart I-3. Importantly, interest rates in China continue to drift higher. A higher cost of borrowing and regulatory tightening on banks and shadow banking will lead to a meaningful deterioration in China's credit origination. The latter will weigh on investment expenditures. The basis is that the overwhelming portion of GFCF is funded by credit to public and private debtors, and aggregate credit growth has already relapsed. Chart I-4 and Chart I-5 demonstrate that money and credit impulses lead several high-frequency economic variables that tend to correlate with capital expenditure cycles. Chart I-4Negative Money Credit Impulses Point To... Chart I-5...Slowing Capital Expenditure Therefore, we conclude that meaningful weakness in the GFCF is quite likely in 2018, and that it will spill out to 2019 if the government does not counteract it with major stimulus. By and large, odds are that a slump in domestic capital spending in China offset the rise in BRI-related capital expenditures. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service has written substantively on motives surrounding China's capital spending and how it is set to slow, and we will not cover these topics. Some reasons why investment spending is bound to slow include: considerable credit excesses/high indebtedness of companies; misallocation of capital and resultant weak cash flow position of companies; non-performing assets on banks' and other creditors' balance sheets and their weak liquidity position. To be sure, investors often ask whether or not material weakness in mainland growth will lead the authorities to stimulate. Odds are they will. Yet, before the slowdown becomes visible in economic numbers, financial markets will likely sell-off. In brief, policymakers are currently tightening and will be late to reverse their policies. Finally, should one compare the entire GFCF, or only part of it? There is a dearth of data to analyze various types of capital spending. In a nutshell, Chart I-6 reveals that installation accounts for roughly 70% of investment, while purchases of equipment account for the remaining 18%. Therefore, we guess the composition of BRI projects will be similar to structure of investment spending in China, and hence it makes sense to use overall GFCF as a comparative benchmark. In addition, the GFCF data is a better measure for Chinese capital spending over Chinese fixed asset investment (FAI) data, as the FAI number includes land values, which have risen significantly over the years and already account for about half of the FAI (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Chinese Fixed Investment Structure Chart I-7GFCF Is A Better Measure Than FAI Bottom Line: While it is hard to forecast and time exact dynamics over the next several years, odds are that the next 12-24 months will turn out to be a period of a slump in China's capital spending. This will more than offset the increase in demand for industrial goods and commodities as a result of BRI projects. Implication For Frontier Markets The BRI, which currently covers 69 countries, will keep expanding its coverage for the foreseeable future. Insofar as it is a way for China to create new markets for its exports, Beijing has no reason to exclude any country. In practice, however, certain countries will receive greater dedication, for the simple reason that their development fits into China's political, military and strategic interests as well as economic interests. As most of the investments are infrastructure-focused, aiming to improve transportation, energy and telecommunication connectivity as well as special economic zones, the recipient countries, especially underdeveloped frontier markets, will benefit considerably from China's BRI. Table I-4 shows that Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Ghana will benefit the most among major frontier markets, as the planned BRI investment in those countries amounts to a significant amount of their GDP. Chart I-8 also shows that, in terms of current account deficit coverage by the Chinese BRI funding, the three countries that stand to benefit most are also Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Ghana. Table I-1The B&R Countries That Benefit From ##br##China's BRI Investment (Ranged From High-To-Low) Chart I-8Chinese BRI Funding's Impact On ##br##External Account Of B&R Countries Of these, clearly Pakistan and Kazakhstan have the advantage of attracting China's strategic as well as economic interest: Kazakhstan offers China greater access into Central Asia and broader Eurasia; Pakistan is a large-population market that offers a means of accessing the Indian Ocean without the geopolitical complications of Southeast and East Asia. These states also neighbor China's restive Xinjiang, where Beijing hopes economic development can discourage separatist and terrorist activities. Pakistan Pakistan is a key prospect for China's exports in of itself, and in the long run offers a maritime waystation and an energy transit hub separate from China's other supply lines. For China, it is a critical alternative to Myanmar and the Malacca Strait. In April 2015, China announced a remarkable US$46.4 billion CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) investment plan in Pakistan, equal to 16.4% of Pakistani GDP. It is expected to be implemented over five years. In particular, the planned US$33.2 billion energy investment will increase Pakistan's existing power capacity by 70% from 2017 to 2023. On the whole, China's CPEC plan will be significantly positive to economic development in Pakistan in the long run, but in the near term it is still not enough to boost the nation's competitiveness (Chart I-9A, top panel). Chart I-9AOur Calls Have Been Correct Chart I-9BTop 3 Frontier Markets Benefiting Most ##br##From Chinese BRI Investment Also, as about 40% of the investment has already been invested over the previous two years, odds are that China's CPEC investment will go slower and smaller this year and over the next few years. BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy service's recent tactical bearish call on Pakistani stocks has been correct, with a 25% decline in the MSCI Pakistan Index in U.S. dollar terms since our recommendation in March (Chart I-9B, top panel).2 We remain tactically cautious for now. Kazakhstan Kazakhstan is a key transit corridor for Chinese goods to enter Europe and the Middle East. In June 2017, Chinese and Kazakh enterprises and financial institutions signed at least 24 deals worth more than US$8 billion. China's BRI investment in Kazakhstan facilitated the country's accelerated economic growth (Chart I-9A, middle panel). BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy service reiterates its positive view on Kazakhstan equities because of a recuperating economy, considerable fiscal stimulus and rising Chinese BRI investment (Chart I-9B, middle panel).3 Ghana Ghana is not strategic for China (it is a minor supplier of oil). Instead, it illustrates the fact that BRI is not always relevant to China's strategic or geopolitical interests. Sometimes it is simply about China's need to invest its surplus U.S. liquidity into hard assets around the world. Of course, Ghana itself will benefit considerably from the committed US$19 billion BRI investment, which was announced only a few months ago. This is a huge amount for the country, equaling 45% of Ghana's 2016 GDP. This massive fresh investment will boost Ghana's economic growth in both the near and long term (Chart I-9A, bottom panel). BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy service upgraded its stance on the Ghanaian equity market from negative to neutral in absolute terms at the end of July, and we also recommended overweighting the bourse relative to the broader MSCI EM universe (Chart I-9B, bottom panel).4 Our positive view on Ghana remains unchanged for now and we are looking to establish a long position in the absolute terms in this bourse amid a potential EM-wide sell-off. Other Macro Ramifications Industrial goods and commodities/materials are vulnerable. BRI will not change the fact that a potential relapse in capital spending in China will lead to diminishing growth in commodities demand. If there is a massive slowdown in property market like China experienced in 2015, which is very likely due to lingering excesses, Chinese commodity and industrial goods demand could even contract (Chart I-10). Notably, mainland's imports of base metals have been flat since 2010, and imports of capital goods shank in 2015 even though GDP and GFCF growth were positive (Chart I-11). The point is that there could be another cyclical contraction in Chinese imports of commodities and industrial goods, even if headline GDP and GFCF do not contract. Chart I-10Chinese Capital Goods Imports Could Contract Again Chart I-11Imports Of Metals Could Slow Further As China accounts for 50% of global demand of industrial metals and it imports about US$ 589 billion of industrial goods and materials annually, either decelerating growth or outright demand contraction will be negative news for global commodities markets and industrial goods producers. China's Exports Have A Brighter Outlook China's machinery and equipment (ME) exports account for 47% of total exports, and 9% of its GDP (Table I-5). The BRI investment will boost Chinese ME exports directly through large infrastructure projects. Table I-5Structure Of Chinese Exports (2016) Meantime, robust income growth in the recipient countries will boost their demand for household goods (Chart I-12). China has a very strong competitive advantage in white and consumer goods production, especially in low-price segments that are popular in developing economies. Therefore, not only is China exporting its excess construction and heavy industry capacity, but the BRI is also boosting recipient countries' demand for Chinese household and other goods exports. Adding up dozens of countries like Ghana can result in a meaningful augmentation in China's customer base. Notably, Chinese total exports have exhibited signs of improvement as Chinese ME exports and exports to the major B&R countries have contributed to a rising share of total Chinese exports since 2015 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12BRI Will Lift Chinese Exports Of ##br##Capital And Consumer Goods Chart I-13Signs Of Improvement In Chinese Exports ##br##Due To Rising BRI Investment BRI Leads To Improved Global Capital Allocation BRI is one of a very few global initiatives that improves the quality of global capital allocation. Therefore, it is bullish for global growth from a structural perspective. By shifting capital spending from a country that has already invested a lot in the past 20 years (China) to the ones that have been massively underinvested, BRI boosts the marginal productivity of capital. One billion dollars invested in the underinvested recipient countries will generate more benefits than the same amount invested in China. Risks To BRI Projects Notable deterioration in the health of Chinese banks may meaningfully curtail BRI funding, as Chinese non-policy banks will likely need to provide 60% of BRI projects' funding. Political stability/changes in destination countries: As most infrastructure projects have been authorized by the top government and need their cooperation, any changes in the recipient countries' governments or regimes may slow down or deter BRI projects. China already has a checkered past with developing countries where it has invested heavily. This is because of its employment of Chinese instead of local labor, its pursuit of flagship projects seen as benefiting elites rather than commoners, its allegedly corrupt ties with ruling parties, and perceived exploitation of natural resources to the neglect of the home nation. As China's involvement grows, local politics will be more difficult to manage, requiring China to suffer occasional losses due to political reversals or to defend its assets through aggressive economic sanctions, or even expeditionary force. For now, as there are no clear signs that any these risks are imminent, we remain positive on the further implementation of China's BRI program. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 China has long been known to use three-year periods - as distinct from its better known "five year plans" - for major domestic initiatives. In 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission re-emphasized three-year planning periods for "continuous, rolling" implementation. 2 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "Pakistani Stocks: A Top Is At Hand", published March 13, 2017. Available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "Kazakhstan: A Touch Less Dependent On Oil Prices", published March 28, 2017. Available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "Ghana: Sailing On Chinese Winds", published July 31, 2017. Available at fms.bcaresearch.com.

Feature The Brazilian economy is finally improving following a devastating depression of about 3 years, where real GDP dropped by a whopping 7.4%. Does the current economic revival warrant a bullish stance on its financial markets? If the global risk-on trade persists among EM risk assets and commodities and there are no domestic political blunders in Brazil, the country's financial markets will continue to rally as economic growth improves. If the EM and commodities rallies wane and an EM risk-off cycle develops, Brazilian risk assets will sell off, regardless of domestic economic recovery. Provided economies around the world have become interconnected, it is often difficult to separate global economic and financial market impact from domestic economic dynamics. Yet, it is possible to do so in Brazil in the latest cycle. Chart I-1 demonstrates that the Brazilian real bottomed with iron ore prices on December 21, 2015 - not with the bottom in the Brazilian economy in early Q1 2017 (Chart I-1, bottom panel). In turn, the currency's rally amid the collapse in domestic demand has led to a material drop in inflation and allowed the central bank to cut interest rates aggressively. The exchange rate is the main variable driving financial markets in many developing countries, including Brazil. In these countries, it is the exchange rate that causes swings in interest rate expectations, not the other way around. Furthermore, other important variables that led to the bottom in iron ore prices and the BRL were the Chinese manufacturing PMI and money growth, both of which bottomed in the second half of 2015 (Chart I-2). Chart 1BRL Correlates With Commodities ##br##Not Domestic Demand Chart 2Chinese Data Led##br## The Bottom In BRL In short, economic recovery arrived much later in Brazil, and so far it has been exceptionally tame and tentative (Chart I-3). Brazil's domestic demand performance has in no way justified the rally in its financial markets since January 2016. If anything, it is the opposite: the domestic economic recovery emerged too late, and has been extremely subdued compared with the sizable gains in share prices. For example, banks' EPS bottomed only in May 2017, while their share prices troughed in January 2016 (Chart I-4). Similarly, Brazil's fiscal outlook and debt profile has continued to deteriorate, even though the country's sovereign spreads have tightened substantially (Chart I-5). Chart 3Brazil: Economic Recovery Is Exceptionally Tame Chart 4Brazil: Bank Share Prices And EPS Chart 5Brazil's Fiscal And Debt Profiles Have Deteriorated Hence, one can safely argue that economic growth and domestic fundamentals were not the basis behind why Brazilian financial markets found a bottom and rallied starting January 2016. Rather, the critical driving force has been commodities prices, China, the U.S. dollar and global risk appetite. This is consistent with the defining features of bull and bear markets: In a bull market, liquidity lifts all boats, and all flaws are overlooked or discharged while minor positives are magnified by the market. In a bear market, even marginal negatives are overblown, and the market punishes severely for minor missteps. In short, global risk assets have been in a genuine bull market since early 2016, and that has overridden Brazil's poor domestic fundamentals. Going forward, we recommend avoiding Brazilian risk assets - not because we do not expect an economic recovery in Brazil to progress, but because our view on China's impact on commodities and the potential U.S. dollar rebound will curb overall risk appetite toward EM. We discussed this EM/China/commodities outlook at length in last week's report.1 Timing a shift in financial market regimes is always a difficult task, but our sense is that a top in EM risk assets will likely occur between now and the end of October, as China's Communist party Congress reiterates its focus on containing financial risk and leverage, as well as the authorities' marginal tolerance for slightly slower growth. Furthermore, our broad money (M3) impulse for China suggests an imminent relapse in Goldman Sach's current economic activity indicator for the mainland economy (Chart I-6). Our assumption is that commodities prices will drop due to potential weakness in China, and that the U.S. dollar and U.S. bond yields are oversold and will recover, respectively. Altogether, these views warrant a cautious stance on EM currencies. The real has historically been correlated with commodities prices, and this positive correlation will likely continue. As and when the Brazilian currency resumes its depreciation, the risk-on trade in Brazilian equities and credit markets will end. As for Brazilian financial markets, a few relationships are worth highlighting: Since early this year, iron ore prices have been inversely correlated with Chinese money market rates (Chart I-7). A possible explanation is that iron ore and other commodities prices trading on Chinese exchanges have been driven by meaningful speculative buying that negatively correlates with borrowing costs on the mainland. Chart 6China's Growth Is Set To Slow Chart 7Iron Ore Prices Are Vulnerable Given the latest relapse in Brazil's nominal GDP growth, the pace of amelioration in private banks' NPL and NPL provisions could stall (Chart I-8). In turn, Brazilian banks' share prices seem to move inversely with the rate of change in private banks' NPL and NPL provisions (Chart I-9A & Chart I-9B). If these relationships hold, we might be close to a peak in Brazilian bank share prices. Chart 8Brazil: Is The Improvement In NPL Cycle Over? Chart 9ABrazil: NPL Cycles and Bank Stocks Chart 9BBrazil: Provisions Cycles And Bank Stocks Finally, the pace of economic recovery will likely disappoint because the Brazilian economy is facing numerous headwinds: High borrowing costs - the real prime lending rate is 12.5% and the policy rate in the real terms is 6.8%, while public banks' lending rates are set to rise due to the TJLP reform that will remove the government budget's subsidy for borrowers. With 50% of outstanding credit being earmarked credit (previously subsidized by the government and provided by public banks), the impact on economic activity will be non-trivial; Lower government spending, as 2018 government expenditure growth cannot exceed the 2017 June headline inflation rate of 3%. Besides, the fiscal balance is so disastrous that risks to taxes are to the upside, not downside. Furthermore, the recently augmented 2017 year-end fiscal primary deficit target of BRL 159 billion is smaller than the deficit of BRL 182 billion for the past 12 months. This entails government spending cuts are likely this year, which will weigh on growth. The Brazilian exchange rate is not cheap. The nation needs a cheaper currency to reflate its economy. Lingering political uncertainty amid the corruption scandals and upcoming presidential elections in fall 2018 will continue to weigh on capital spending and employment, which have not yet recovered. Bottom Line: Our overarching negative view on EM, China and commodities heralds staying cautious on Brazil's financial markets despite the early signs of domestic economic recovery. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Copper Versus Money/Credit In China - Which One Is Right?", dated September 6,. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Overweight In early July, we lifted refiners to neutral but refrained from turning outright bullish for three reasons: all-time high refining production, high refined product stocks and breakneck pace refinery runs were offsetting the nascent recovery in gasoline consumption, rising crack spreads and a mini V-shaped recovery in industry shipments. Hurricane Harvey has significantly changed this calculus; severe refinery shutdowns are likely to represent a major, albeit temporary, setback. This production curtailment will result in sizable petroleum products inventory drawdowns and a significantly positive pricing backdrop. Indeed, refining margins have jumped recently and will likely remain elevated as the Brent/WTI spread is widening anew (second panel). Nevertheless, the refining supply disruptions only tell half the story. Refined product demand is exploding higher, pushing all-time highs and signaling that a substantial supply/demand imbalance is in the works. Typically this gets resolved via higher gasoline prices, further boosting industry EPS prospects (bottom panel). As a result, we expect a re-rating phase in relative valuations in the coming months, reversing the year-to-date deflation in the relative price-to-sales ratio. Bottom Line: A playable rally in refiners is in the offing on the back of a budding profit recovery. Boost the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, ANDV.

Highlights Bonds As A Safe Haven: Global bond yields have been driven lower by safe haven buying, despite ample evidence of faster global growth and central bankers that are still biased to shift to a less easy policy stance. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields over the next 6-12 months from these current depressed levels. ECB: The ECB is giving strong indications that a decision on tapering its asset purchase program will be made next month. With the Euro Area economy growing at a solid pace, and with inflation creeping higher, a reduction in the pace of bond buying in 2018 is highly probable. Canada: The Bank of Canada will continue to deliver on rate hikes without decisive signs that the current booming Canadian economy is slowing down, which leading indicators do not suggest is imminent. Stay underweight Canadian government debt, with a curve flattening bias. Feature Fade The Doomsday Trade Investors have had a lot of depressing news to process over the past several weeks. From threats of nuclear war with North Korea, to fears of a U.S. government shutdown over the debt ceiling, to the potential of Biblical flooding from hurricanes in Texas and Florida, the environment has not been conducive to risk-taking. This has triggered a flight into safe-haven assets like gold and U.S. Treasuries as investors have looked to protect portfolios from "existential" risks (Chart of the Week). Yet despite this rapid run-up in the value of save-havens, risky assets like equities and corporate credit have performed relatively well since the most recent peak in bond yields in early July (Table 1). Chart of the WeekFalling Yields Reflect Save Haven Demand,##BR##Not Slower Growth Table 1Changes In Risk Assets Since##BR##U.S. Treasury Yields Peaked On July 7th This move toward safety and risk aversion has widened the disconnect between global bond yields and economic fundamentals - specifically, growth momentum and central bank guidance - to extreme levels. Investors are now underestimating the potential for additional rate hikes in the U.S. in 2018, and are not fully appreciating the likelihood that the European Central Bank (ECB) will slow the pace of its asset purchases next year. Investors plowing money into government bonds now can only be rewarded if global monetary policy was set to ease, which would only be the case if global growth was slowing. That is not happening right now, even in the U.S. where the most apocalyptic headlines have been occurring. While the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma will likely weigh on U.S. growth in the next few months, the underlying trend remains one of steady above-potential growth that is boosting both corporate profits and household incomes. More globally, depressed investor sentiment, indicated by measures such as the global ZEW survey, has helped drive bond yields lower despite the steady upturn in leading economic indicators (Chart 2). When looking at indicators of actual economic activity, like manufacturing PMIs, the growth story looks far stronger. As a sign of how much this "sentiment versus reality" divergence has distorted bond yields, look no further than our own valuation model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield. This model, which only uses the global manufacturing PMI and sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as inputs, indicates that the current "fair value" of the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.67%, nearly 60bps higher than market levels seen as this publication went to press (Chart 3). This is a level of overvaluation that even exceeds the extreme levels seen after the U.K. Brexit vote in July of 2016. Chart 2Bond Investors Are##BR##Ignoring Strong Growth Chart 3U.S. Treasuries Are##BR##Now Extremely Overvalued In Table 2, we present a decomposition of the 10-year yield changes in the major Developed Markets since that recent peak in U.S. Treasury yields on July 7th. As can be seen in the first two columns of the table, yields declined everywhere but Canada where the central bank has been hiking interest rates (as we discuss later in this report). Yet the vast majority of the yield decline has come from falling real yields and not lower inflation expectations. This has also occurred via a bull-flattening move in government bond yield curves (again, ex-Canada where the curve has bear-flattened), which suggests it is risk-aversion that has driven yields lower. Table 2Developed Market Bond Yield Changes Since U.S. Treasury Yields Peaked On July 7th The relative lack of movement in inflation expectations is a bit surprising given how strongly global oil prices have risen, denominated in any currency (see the final column of Table 2). When plotting the Brent oil price (in local currency terms) vs. the 10-year market-based inflation expectations (from inflation-linked bonds or CPI swaps), some notable divergences stand out. Inflation expectations in the U.S., U.K., Australia and even Japan look around 10-20bps too low relative to where they were the last time oil prices were at current levels (Charts 4 & 5). Meanwhile, inflation expectations are largely in lines with levels implied by oil and currency levels in the Euro Area and Canada. Most importantly, expectations are depressed in all countries, largely because actual inflation has stayed stubbornly low. Chart 4Inflation Expectations Vs. Oil Prices (1) Chart 5Inflation Expectations Vs. Oil Prices (2) The lack of realized inflation in places with allegedly "full employment" economies like the U.S. has led to questions over the usefulness of frameworks like the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) in predicting inflation. A reduced link between the NAIRU and inflation does appear in many countries, but not necessarily in all countries when viewed in aggregate. Chart 6The NAIRU Concept Is Not Dead Yet In Chart 6, we present an indicator that shows the percentage of OECD economies (34 in total) that have an unemployment rate below the NAIRU rate. Currently, there are 67% of the countries in this list with unemployment rates under the OECD estimate of NAIRU, which is back to levels seen before the 2009 Great Recession. During that pre-crisis period, global inflation rates were accelerating for both goods and services inflation (bottom two panels). While the correlation between this global NAIRU indicator and realized inflation rates declined in the years after the recession, the linkages have improved over the past couple of years. This may be a sign that there is a "global NAIRU level" (or global output gap) that is more important in determining global inflation rates than individual country NAIRU measures. Or put more simply, investors are downplaying the NAIRU concept just at the time when it could be expected to strengthen. If that were the case, inflation expectations around the world would be too low, although it will take some evidence of faster realized inflation (especially in the U.S. and Europe) before the markets begin to discount that in bond yields. In the meantime, markets have become even too pessimistic on growth prospects and the implications for bond yields. Investors have driven down rate hike expectations in the U.S. and U.K. (and, to a lesser extent, the Euro Area) during this latest bond market rally, dragging longer-term bond yields down with them (Chart 7). Yet growth in the developing world is showing little signs of slowing down outside of the U.K., with leading economic indicators still pointing to a continued steady expansion (Chart 8). Even if central bankers are starting to question how fast their economies can grow before inflation pressures pick up in a meaningful way, they are unlikely to stand by and see faster growth prints without responding with less stimulative monetary policies. Chart 7Not Much Tightening Priced##BR##(Except For Canada)... Chart 8...Despite Improving Growth##BR##In Most Countries Net-net, bond markets are now discounting too pessimistic of an outcome for both global growth and inflation. We continue to see more upside risks for global yields on a 6-12 month horizon, although it will take some signs of faster global inflation (not just growth) before bond yields respond. Bottom Line: Global bond yields have been driven lower by safe haven buying, despite ample evidence of faster global growth and central bankers that are still biased to shift to a less easy policy stance. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields over the next 6-12 months from these current depressed levels. September ECB Meeting: All Systems Go For A 2018 Taper Last week's ECB meeting provided no changes on interest rates or the size of asset purchases, but plenty of clues on the central bank's next move. A reduction in the size of the ECB's asset purchase program in 2018, to be announced next month, is now highly probable - even with a strengthening euro. The ECB's GDP forecast for 2017 was revised higher from the June forecasts (2.2% vs. 1.9%), while the projections for 2018 (1.8%) and 2019 (1.7%) were unchanged. Meanwhile, the inflation forecast for 2017 was left unchanged at 1.5% and the forecasts for the next two years were only revised slightly lower (2018: 1.2% vs. 1.3%, 2019: 1.5% vs. 1.6%). The fact that the 14% rise in euro versus the U.S. dollar seen so far in 2017 was not enough to move the needle much on the ECB's projections speaks volumes about the central bank's confidence in the current European economic expansion, as well as its comfort level with the rising currency. That makes sense when looking at the euro rally more broadly, as the currency has only gone up 6% in trade-weighted terms year-to-date. Simply put, the ECB does not yet seem overly worried that the strengthening euro represent a serious threat to the economy that could cause a more prolonged medium-term undershoot in Euro Area inflation. ECB President Mario Draghi did make references to currency volatility as being something that should be closely monitored with regards to the growth and inflation outlook. Right now, the realized volatility of the euro has been quite subdued, even as the currency has steadily appreciated (Chart 9). At the same time, our Months-to-Hike indicator has also fallen as the market has pulled forward the date of the next ECB rate hike. That hike is still not expected until late 2019 - pricing that we agree with. However, the fact that the euro can appreciate with such low volatility alongside a slightly-more-hawkish repricing of ECB rate expectations suggests that the market thinks that a move towards reduced monetary stimulus in the Euro Area is credible. That will remain true until the rising euro starts to become a meaningful drag on the economy or inflation, which is not evident in the broad Euro Area data at the moment (Chart 10). Chart 9A "Credibly Hawkish" ECB? Chart 10No Impact (Yet) From A Stronger Euro Draghi did note that the "bulk of decisions" regarding the ECB's asset purchase program would likely take place in October. That means a reduction in the size of the monthly purchases starting in January of next year, but without any changes in short-term interest rates (the ECB reiterated that rates will stay at current levels until after the end of the asset purchase program). Nonetheless, the ECB is incrementally moving towards a less accommodative policy stance that will continue to put upward pressure on the euro and, eventually, trigger a move toward higher longer-term Euro Area bond yields. Bottom Line: The ECB is giving strong indications that a decision on tapering its asset purchase program will be made next month. With the Euro Area economy growing at a solid pace, and with inflation creeping higher, a reduction in the pace of bond buying in 2018 is highly probable. Maintain an underweight medium-term stance on Euro Area government debt. Bank Of Canada: Shock Hawks The Bank of Canada (BoC) continues to confound investors with a surprisingly hawkish policy bias. Another 25bp rate hike was delivered at last week's monetary policy meeting, a move that was not fully discounted by the market, bringing the BoC Overnight Rate up to 1%. The Bank cited the impressive strength of the Canadian economy, as well as the more synchronous global expansion that was supporting higher industrial commodity prices, as reasons for the rate hike. With Canadian real GDP growth surging to a 3.7% year-over-year pace in the 2nd quarter, in a broad-based fashion across all components, perhaps policymakers can be forgiven for feeling that interest rate settings are still too stimulative for an economy with a potential growth rate of only 1.4% (the most recent BoC estimate). In the statement announcing the rate hike, it was noted that the level of Canadian GDP was now higher than the BoC had been expecting after the last Monetary Policy Statement (MPS) published in July. The BoC was already projecting that the output gap in Canada would be closed by the end of 2017. Thus, a higher realized level of GDP suggests an output gap that will be closed even sooner than the BoC was forecasting. This alone would be enough to move sooner on rate hikes for a central bank that focuses so much on its own measures of the output gap when making inflation projections. However, at the moment, there is not much inflation for the central bank to worry about. Chart 11The Great White North Headline CPI inflation sits at 1.2%, well below the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band, while the various measures of core inflation that the BoC monitors are between 1.3% and 1.7%. Annual wage growth accelerated to the faster growth rate of the year in August, but still only sits at 1.7% even with the unemployment rate now down to a nine-year low of 6.2%. Meanwhile, the Canadian dollar has appreciated 13% vs. the U.S. dollar, and 10% on a trade-weighted basis, since bottoming out in early May. This move has been supported by growth and interest rate differentials that favor Canada. This is especially true versus the U.S. where the 2-year gap between Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates is now positive at +21bps - the highest level since January 2015 (Chart 11). The BoC acknowledged this in last week's policy statement, suggesting acceptance of a strong loonie as a reflection of a robust Canadian economy that requires higher interest rates. The strength in the Canadian dollar will likely weigh on import price inflation in the coming months, and act as a drag on overall inflation. This will not trigger any move by the BoC to back off from its hawkishness unless there is also some weakness in the Canadian economic data. For a central bank that focuses so much on the output gap in its assessment of its own policy stance, the inflationary impact from a booming economy will far outweigh the disinflationary effects of a stronger currency. It remains to be seen if the BoC will be proven right on delivering actual rate hikes with inflation well below target. This is a problem that many central banks are facing at the moment, but the robust Canadian economy is forcing the BoC's hand. An appreciating currency may limit the number of rate hikes that the BoC eventually undertakes, but given its own assessment that that terminal interest rate is around 3%, there are plenty of additional hikes that the BoC can deliver before getting anywhere close to "neutral". The key risk will come from the spillover effects on the overheated Canadian housing market from the interest rate increases. Already, house prices are coming off the boil in the most overheated markets like Toronto, where median home values are down 20% since April due to regulatory changes aimed at reducing leveraged speculation in Canadian housing. It remains to be seen how much the BoC hikes will exacerbate the latest downturn in house price inflation and, potentially, have spillover effects on consumer confidence given high levels of household indebtedness. For now, we do not recommend fighting the BoC, with Canadian leading economic indicators still accelerating and the BoC's own business surveys showing that the economy is likely to remain strong. While there are already 50bps of rate hikes priced next twelve months, this would only take the Overnight Rate to 1.5% - still a stimulative level in the eyes of the central bank. This could also create additional strength in the loonie, although that impact should be lessened if the Fed comes back into play and delivers additional rate hikes in 2018, as we expect. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance on Canadian government bonds, with yields likely to surpass the relatively modest increases currently priced into the forwards (Chart 12, top panel). We also continue to advise an underweight allocation to Canadian government bonds in hedged global fixed income portfolios (middle panel). We also are staying with our winning Canadian trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, where are positioned for wider Canada-U.S. bond spreads and a flatter Canadian yield curve (Chart 13). Chart 12Stay Underweight##BR##Canadian Government Bonds Chart 13Sticking With Our Tactical##BR##Canadian Bond Trades Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada will continue to deliver on rate hikes without decisive signs that the current booming Canadian economy is slowing down, which leading indicators do not suggest is imminent. Maintain an underweight stance on Canadian government debt, with a curve flattening bias. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy A supply/demand imbalance has created a playable opportunity in the niche refining energy sub-index. Increase exposure to overweight. Safe haven demand is supporting gold mining equities, but shifting macro forces suggest that it will soon be time to move to the sidelines. Global gold miners are now on downgrade alert. Recent Changes Lift the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to overweight today. Put the global gold mining equity index (ticker GDX:US) on downgrade alert. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 moved laterally last week as sustained geopolitical uncertainty offset encouraging economic data. Synchronized global growth coupled with the related global liquidity-to-growth transition remain the dominant macro themes. Dovish Fed speeches triggered a recalibration of market rate hike expectations and a lower 10-year Treasury yield. As long as lower bond yields reflect a less hawkish Fed rather than a deflationary relapse, they should underpin stock prices. Encouragingly, the latest ISM manufacturing survey catapulted higher to a level last seen in early 2011, diverging steeply from the bond market, as manufacturing optimism reigns supreme (Chart 1). The labor market confirmed this data. The most cyclical parts of the U.S. economy are firing on all cylinders, with manufacturing and construction job creation comprising 1/3 of nonfarm payroll growth last month (Chart 2). This is the highest reading since July 2011. Chart 1Unsustainable Divergence Chart 2Manufacturing Flexing Its Muscle Meanwhile, despite the Trump administration's shortcomings, America's CEOs are going against the grain. Capex is up smartly for the second consecutive quarter adding to real GDP growth and our capital spending model remains upbeat heralding additional outlays for the remaining two quarters of the year (Chart 3). Similarly, regional Fed surveys of capex intentions point to a sustainable pickup in capital spending in the coming months (Chart 3). Still generationally low interest rates, a less hawkish sounding Fed, coupled with a tamed greenback (Chart 4) and synchronized global growth have combined to revive animal spirits. The implication is that profit growth rests on solid foundations, a message corroborated by our S&P 500 EPS growth model (Chart 5). Chart 3CapEx To The Rescue Chart 4Dollar... Chart 5...And EPS Model Waving Green Flag Adding it up, the macro backdrop remains favorable for stocks. In fact, it represents a goldilocks equity scenario. This week we continue to add some cyclicality to our portfolio by further boosting a niche energy play. We also update our view on a portfolio hedge. Buy Refiners For A Trade In early July, we lifted refiners to neutral and locked in impressive gains for our portfolio, but three reasons kept us at bay and prevented us from turning outright bullish on this niche energy sub-sector.1 Namely, all-time high refining production, high refined product stocks and breakneck pace refinery runs were offsetting the nascent recovery in gasoline consumption, rising crack spreads and a mini V-shaped recovery in industry shipments. Net, we posited that a balanced EPS outlook would prevail in coming quarters. Hurricane Harvey has significantly changed this calculus and now clearly refiners are in a sweet earnings spot for at least the remainder of the year, compelling us to lift exposure to overweight. Severe refinery shutdowns are likely to return industry production levels to what prevailed early in the decade, representing a major, albeit temporary, setback (Chart 6). This production curtailment will result in sizable petroleum products inventory drawdowns and a likely halt (if not reversal) in refined product net exports in order to satisfy domestic demand. The longer it takes for refinery production to return to normalcy, the greater the inventory whittling down. Historically, relative share price momentum has been inversely correlated with inventory growth and the Harvey-related inventory clear-out is heralding additional relative performance gains (bottom panel, Chart 7). It is notable that both industry net exports and inventories had already been receding since the beginning of 2017, suggesting that hurricane Harvey will only accelerate a downtrend that was already in place. Chart 6Hurricane Related Blues... Chart 7... Are A Boon For Crack Spreads Taken together, this represents an ultra-bullish pricing power backdrop for the U.S. refining industry, at a time when capacity additions are also likely to, at least, pause for breath (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 8Brisk Demand Indeed, refining margins have jumped recently and will likely remain elevated as the Brent/WTI spread is widening anew (middle panel, Chart 7). Surging crack spreads are synonymous with higher earnings for this extremely capital-intensive and high operating leverage industry. Nevertheless, the refining supply disruptions only tell half the story. Refined product demand is exploding higher, pushing all-time highs and signaling that a substantial supply/demand imbalance is in the works (top panel, Chart 8). Typically this gets resolved via higher gasoline prices, further boosting industry EPS prospects (third panel, Chart 8). As a result, we expect a re-rating phase in relative valuations in the coming months, reversing the year-to-date deflation in the relative price-to-sales ratio. The second panel of Chart 8 shows that relative valuations and refined product consumption move in lockstep, and the current message is to expect a catch up phase in the former. In sum, a playable rally in refiners is in the offing on the back of a budding profit recovery that has yet to filter through analysts' EPS estimates (bottom panel, Chart 8). The longer-than-usual hurricane Harvey-related refining production disruptions, along with the spike in refined product demand, have created an exploitable opportunity. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index (PSX, VLO, MPC, ANDV) to overweight. What To Do With Gold Mining Equities? Gold and gold mining equities serve as great portfolio hedges especially in times of duress. Recent geopolitical jitters surrounding North Korea along with inaction in Washington and the substantial year-to-date selloff in the U.S. dollar have served as catalysts for gold to shine anew, hitting one-year highs. So is it time to trim exposure to shiny metal equities? The short answer is not yet. Real yields are sinking courtesy of a moderately less hawkish Fed (top panel, Chart 9). The probability of a December Fed hike has now collapsed to 30%, and the 5th hike this cycle is only priced in for next June. This is keeping a bid under gold and gold miners, as zero yielding bullion and near-zero yielding gold mining equities appear at the margin relatively more appealing. The equity risk premium has also stopped falling owing largely to the lower 10-year Treasury yield (bottom panel, Chart 9), representing another source of support for global gold miners. Meanwhile, policy uncertainty in the U.S. and around the globe is hooking up especially given North Korea's unpredictability, Washington's polarization, the upcoming German elections and, most importantly, the looming Chinese Congress. Historically, the policy uncertainty index and relative performance have been joined at the hip and the current message is positive for bullion related stocks (middle panel, Chart 9). Similarly, the Philly Fed's Partisan Conflict Index2 ("The Partisan Conflict Index tracks the degree of political disagreement among U.S. politicians at the federal level by measuring the frequency of newspaper articles reporting disagreement in a given month. Higher index values indicate greater conflict among political parties, Congress, and the President.") and bullion enjoy a tight positive correlation since the early 1980s (Chart 10), likely warning that the precious metal's run has more upside in the short term. Chart 9Shining Chart 10Increase In Partisanship Is Bullish Gold Moreover, demand for safe haven assets remains upbeat as evidenced by recent flows into gold-related ETFs. Positioning in the commodity pits are also signaling that more gains are in store for gold and the relative share price ratio (Chart 11). Nevertheless, there are some pockets of weakness that are pointing to a more cautious stance toward this portfolio hedge. The improving U.S. economic backdrop is weighing on gold mining equities (ISM manufacturing shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 12). Not only U.S. growth, but also synchronized global growth suggests that eventually demand for bullion will subside. In fact, global growth expectations continue to perk up (GDP expectations shown inverted, Chart 12), and G10 economic surprises are also shooting higher, anchoring gold and gold related equities (economic surprise index shown inverted, top panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Safe Haven Demand Comeback Chart 12Not All The Glitters Is Gold Tack on the inevitable liquidity withdrawal once the Fed starts to wind down its balance sheet later this month, and the handoff from liquidity-to-growth represents a bearish backdrop for gold and gold mining equities. Chart 13 shows that the Fed's balance sheet is positively correlated with bullion's relative performance versus the broad commodity complex, warning that the recent push toward multi-decade highs in relative performance are on borrowed time. Finally, our relative EPS model for the global gold mining index encapsulates most of these macro forces and suggests that relative profit growth will gravitate lower in the coming months (Chart 14). Chart 13Watch The Fed's Balance Sheet Chart 14EPS Model Is Outright Bearish Bottom Line: While our confidence in maintaining the gold-related equity portfolio hedge has fallen a notch, we are staying patient before moving to the sidelines. Put the global gold mining index (ticker GDX:US) on downgrade alert. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the July 10, 2017 U.S. Equity Strategy Report titled "SPX 3,000?", available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/real-time-center/partisan-conflict-index Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Chinese monetary conditions have tightened on the margin, but have remained fairly stimulative compared with previous years, likely the key reason why overall growth has remained reasonably robust. Listed Chinese firms reported strong and broad based H1 earnings growth. The profit recovery is of fundamental importance to the Chinese economy, and the positive feedback between profits and business activity has further to run. Collectively the markets are likely flashing further upside in China’s growth cycle. At a minimum, there is no sign of an imminent downturn. The macro backdrop of economic and market fundamentals are conducive for higher equity prices in general, and Chinese equities in particular. Feature Recent manufacturing PMIs from a number of major countries confirm that the global economy is on a synchronized upturn. As an increasingly important driving force of the world economy, how China's growth outlook pans out matters materially. On this front, the most recent news has been encouraging. Chinese manufacturing PMIs, both official and private, accelerated in August and remained above the expansion/contraction threshold. Meanwhile, earnings of Chinese-listed companies in the first half of the year increased strongly from a year earlier across all major sectors, with both stronger sales and higher margins, confirming that the Chinese profit cycle upturn is firmly in place. This should further support business activity, especially among private enterprises. In addition, some market signals from global assets that are traditionally sensitive to Chinese growth trends have been fairly strong of late, likely signaling further upside in the Chinese business cycle. All of this is conducive for higher prices for Chinese equities, and paints a bullish backdrop for global risk assets. A Closer Look At The PMI The stronger-than-expected August Chinese PMI numbers set a firmer tone for the economic data to be released in the coming weeks. They also herald that economic growth in the third quarter will likely remain comfortably above the government's target, setting an ideal political environment for the country's top leadership going into the 19th Communist Party Congress in October. The policy setting will likely be maintained at status quo, and downside risks remain low. It is important to note that the recent rise in PMI has occurred in tandem with a continued decline in Chinese broad money growth, suggesting the improvement in Chinese industrial activity has little to do with money and credit stimuli (Chart 1). Some analysts have been preoccupied with inventing some obscure measures of "credit impulse" to guestimate China's near-term growth outlook, which in our view is misguided.1 Instead, China's growth improvement since last year has to a larger extent been due to marked easing in monetary conditions - a combination of lower real rates and a cheaper trade-weighted RMB. In this vein, Chinese monetary conditions have begun to tighten on margin, but have remained fairly stimulative compared with previous years. This is likely the key reason why overall growth has remained reasonably robust, despite falling monetary aggregates. It is particularly noteworthy that the trends of new orders and finished products inventory have diverged of late. New orders have stayed at close to multi-year highs, while inventory PMI has remained well below 50 since 2012, and has relapsed anew in recent months, leading to a significant rise in the new orders-to-inventory ratio (Chart 2). In other words, manufacturers remain decisively in a destocking mood, despite the improvement in new orders. Looking forward, this should supercharge production should new orders remain strong, and create a buffer for manufacturing activity should orders roll over. Chart 1Chinese PMI: Monetary Conditions ##br##Matter More Than Money Supply Chart 2Manufacturers Remain Decisively ##br##In Destocking Mood Another important development is that there appears to be some regained pricing power among service providers, which historically has been a leading indicator for manufacturers' producer prices (PPI), as shown in Chart 3. It appears that PPI may continue to downshift toward year end and regain some strength early next year. PPI has been a key signpost for China's reflation trend, and matters materially for manufacturers' profit margins and the real cost of funding. Any sign of PPI improvement will likely be viewed as a positive development from a market perspective. The market relevance of the PMI survey is that it often leads net earnings revisions of listed Chinese companies by bottom-up analysts (Chart 4). If history is any guide, net earnings revisions will likely improve further, notwithstanding earnings of listed companies have already recovered strongly in the first half of the year. Chart 3Early Signs Of PPI Bottoming? Chart 4PMI Leads Net Earnings Revisions Earnings Reality Check Chart 5A Sharp Profit Upturn By now, all listed firms in Chinese domestic stock exchanges have released financial statements for the first half of the year. Our calculations show that total earnings increased by 18% year-over-year for all listed firms, or 36% if banks and petroleum firms are excluded - both sharply higher compared with a year earlier. This is largely in line with the profit upturn reported by the national statistics agency2 (Chart 5, top panel). A few observations can be made: First, the sharp increase in earnings is due to a combination of rising sales and improving margins, underscoring a marked ease in deflationary pressures and a significant pickup in business activity in nominal terms. (Chart 5, bottom two panels). It is noteworthy that revenue growth stagnated for several consecutive years before the strong recovery since mid-last year. Similarly, profit margins dropped to close to record low levels between 2012 and mid-2016, and have since largely recovered. Profit margins, however, do not yet look overly excessive from a historical perspective. Second, the improvement in earnings is broad-based, as shown in Table 1. Materials producers and energy concerns have experienced a massive profit boom, particularly steelmakers. With the only notable exception being utilities, largely thermal power plants, whose profit margins have been squeezed by rising coal costs, most other sectors have also booked healthy profit gains. This means the profit upturn has been driven by improvement in the broader economy rather than specific government policies that benefit select industries. Finally, the banking sector has also experienced a pickup in earnings growth, especially among large state-controlled banks. More importantly, asset quality of bank loans has also improved, albeit marginally. Our calculation shows that non-performing loans (NPL) and "special-mention-loans," which banks place closer scrutiny on as borrowers face higher risks of default, have both begun to decline (Chart 6). This should not be surprising, given the corporate sector's rising profits. Leaders in the current profit recovery are mining companies, materials producers and some industrial firms, all of which have been regarded as major trouble spots in banks' loan books.3 It may be premature to declare the peak of China's NPL problem, but the profit improvement has certainly helped banks mend their balance sheets. Table 1Earnings Scorecard Chart 6Marginal Improvement##br## In Banks' Asset Quality In short, we maintain the view that profit recovery is of fundamental importance to the Chinese economy, a key pillar in our positive stance on China's cyclical outlook.4 Rising profits restore entrepreneurial confidence, boost private-sector capital spending, ease balance sheet stress of asset-heavy enterprises and de-escalate banking sector risk. It is certainly unrealistic to expect profit growth to perpetually accelerate, but there are no signs of a sudden contraction in profits anytime soon. We expect the positive feedback loop between profits and business activity has further to run. Reading Market Tea Leaves Stronger Chinese growth is also reflected in asset prices well beyond its borders. Some asset classes that are traditionally highly sensitive to Chinese growth cycles have been showing remarkable strength of late. Metals prices have been firm across the board. The London Metal Exchange Index has historically been a reliable leading indicator of China's business cycle (Chart 7). Stock prices of metals producers in major producing countries have significantly outperformed their respective benchmarks, likely pointing to an imminent upturn in China's leading economic indicator (Chart 8) The Baltic Dry Index, the benchmark for bulk shipping rates that is largely driven by Chinese materials demand, has stayed elevated, probably a sign that China's bulk commodities intake has remained fairly robust (Chart 9) Turning to the Chinese equity market, real estate developers have been among the star performers in the Chinese equity universe so far this year - historically, the relative performance of Chinese developers has been an excellent leading indicator for home sales, which in turn drives real estate investment (Chart 10). Chart 7Metals Point To Further Upside##br## In Chinese Business Cycle... Chart 8...So Do Metal Producers Chart 9Baltic And Chinese Commodity Imports Chart 10Developers' Relative Performance ##br##Leads Home Sales Collectively the markets are likely flashing further upside in China's growth cycle. At a minimum, there is no sign of an imminent downturn. Currently, global equity markets, including those in the Greater China region, are clouded by the escalating geopolitical risk over the Korean Peninsula, where the near term outlook remains volatile and unpredictable.5 Barring an extreme scenario, the macro backdrop of economic and market fundamentals are conducive for higher equity prices in general, and Chinese equities in particular. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Chinese Slowdown: How Much Downside?" dated June 8, 2017, and Special Report, "Focusing On Chinese Money Supply", dated July 27, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Closer Look At Chinese Equity Valuations", dated August 31, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Stress-Testing Chinese Banks", dated July 27, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard", dated January 12, 2017, and "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Geopolitical Pressure Points: Knowns, Unknowns And A Hedge", dated August 17, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations