Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights Weekly swings in U.S. inventories notwithstanding, we believe global storage is on track to draw ~ 10% by early- to mid-3Q17, which will have achieved the goal of the OPEC - Russia production Agreement negotiated late last year. This will not require an extension of the pact beyond June, based on our modeling. Unexpectedly high compliance by OPEC producers to agreed cuts is being offset somewhat by increased production in those states exempted from the deal. Strong oil consumption on the back of a synchronized global uptick in GDP growth, which started to emerge late last year, provides the impetus for sustained storage draws. Markets are overestimating offshore production's resilience, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, where we see material declines beginning to set in next year. Backwardation likely persists in 2018, absent a U.S. policy-induced USD rally that crimps EM demand and spurs production ex U.S. Energy: Overweight. The return of contango in the WTI forward curve gives us the opportunity to reset our strategic front-to-back position (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) at tonight's close. Our balances assessment supports our view backwardation will return in the deferred part of the curve. Our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread buy stop was elected at $0.07/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, but are keeping a close watch on copper. Unions working at BHP's Escondida mine, the world's largest, are set to strike today. Negotiations resumed this week, following BHP's request for government mediation. Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to look to get long gold at $1,180/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain fundamentals remain unsupportive for a rally. We remain underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Oil Storage On Track For 10% Drop Global oil storage levels remain on track to hit the ~ 10% draw targeted in last year's OPEC - Russia production Agreement by early- to mid-3Q17, weekly gyrations in U.S. inventories notwithstanding. This means an extension of the agreement beyond its June expiry will not be required. Early reports suggest compliance with the deal is unexpectedly high by OPEC states that agreed to cut production by up to 1.2mm b/d - exceeding 80% by various accounts. However, OPEC states not required to cut - Libya, Nigeria, and Iran - have increased production and partially offset those declines, which took total reductions in OPEC output to ~ 840k b/d, based on a Bloomberg tally last week.1 This brought total Cartel compliance to ~ 60% of the agreed cuts, which, as we noted in our 2017 Commodity Outlook in December, would be sufficient to achieve the Agreement's goal of pulling inventories in the OECD down by ~ 10% by 3Q17.2 Non-OPEC producers also appear to be complying with the Agreement. Notable among them is Russia, which is ahead of its commitment with cuts of close to 120k b/d in January, due partly to extreme cold in Siberian fields. We expect cuts in Russia to average 200k b/d in 1Q17, going to 300k b/d in 2Q17. These cuts will allow demand to outstrip supply in 1H17 and into year-end. By early- to mid-3Q17, draws to OECD storage of 300mm bbl can be expected, without extending the OPEC - Russia production agreement (Chart of the Week). We expect to see these cuts show up in OECD inventory data this month and next and continue into the end of 2017. For non-OECD states, the draws will show up in JODI data beginning in March.3 The physical deficits - i.e., supply less than demand - will force storage to draw, backwardating the WTI forward curve later this year (Chart 2).4 If markets are not surprised by a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of a U.S. border-adjustment tax (BAT), or a too-aggressive tightening by the Fed as it seeks to normalize monetary policy, we expect the drawdown in inventories to continue keeping markets backwardated. Even with production returning to pre-Agreement levels in 2H17 in states with the capacity to expand and reliably sustain production - Gulf Arab producers, Russia and U.S. shales - we expect storage to continue to draw through the year and into 2018 (Chart 3). Chart 2We Continue To Expect Backwardation Chart 3Storage Drawdown On Track In 4Q16 the impact of the higher Kuwaiti and UAE output is apparent, along with higher Russian production. This put more crude on the market, which found its way into storage late in 4Q16 and early 1Q17, reversing the trend in draws seen earlier in 2H16. This put the market back in a temporary surplus condition, with the result being more storage will have to be worked off in 1H17 than our earlier estimates indicated. But these draws will occur, following the implementation of the production accord. Extending The KSA - Russia Deal Beyond June Is Unnecessary In our estimates, OPEC crude production increases by ~ 850k b/d in 2H17 versus 1H17 levels. Despite this recovery, the storage drawdown continues. Our modeling assumes Gulf OPEC will account for slightly more than +1mm b/d growth, and non-Gulf OPEC will see production continue to fall by 170k b/d. Russia's total liquids production goes from 10.95mm b/d in 1H17 to 11.34mm b/d in 2H17. We estimate U.S. shale production grows at an average rate of ~ 300k b/d in 2H17, while total U.S. liquids production increases 720k b/d over the same interval. Setting aside the possibility of a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of too-aggressive Fed tightening or a border-adjusted tax becoming the law of the land, both of which would depress demand and raise production ex U.S., we expect the crude-oil market to remain backwardated next year. The globally synchronized upturn in GDP will keep demand robust, with growth coming in close to even with this year's rate of ~ 1.50mm b/d. We have global liquids production and OPEC crude output growing less than 1.0% next year. We believe the market is overestimating the resilience of offshore production next year, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, based on the stout performance put in last year and expected for this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, U.S. production growth since October has almost exclusively been from the Gulf of Mexico's new projects. Output in the Gulf continues to increase due to the lagged effect of final investment decisions made during 2012 - 2014, when WTI prices were consistently trading above $100/bbl. GOM production will peak in 2017 then decline in 2018 due to lack of new investments made since 2014. Indeed, as "increasing decline rates overwhelm a shrinking inventory of new projects, GOM production should peak sometime in 2017 and then start decreasing. The EIA's estimate for another 200,000 b/d increase in GOM production in 2017 seems overly-optimistic."5 Once this becomes apparent to the market, we believe backwardation will reassert itself and persist into 2018. The backwardation of the forward curve structure will affect U.S. shale production economics in 2018. However, our base case is for U.S. shale-oil production in the "Big Four" basins - Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara - to grow 700k b/d next year, given the current structure of the WTI forwards, which were taken higher along with the WTI price rally at the front of the curve. This triggered the revival of rig counts; however, we want to point out that different curve shapes at different price levels produce different expected rig-count responses.6 Chart 4Barring a Policy Shock Demand Will Remain Robust Global Demand Firing On All Cylinders Robust demand growth - ~ +1.50mm b/d in 2017 and 2018 in our modeling - provides the impetus for the continued draws in storage this year and next (Chart 4). We revised our demand estimates for 2015 - 16 in line with the IEA's just-revised assessment of global consumption published in its January 2017 Oil Market Report.7 The IEA brought 2016 oil demand growth up to 1.50mm b/d, in line with our earlier estimates, but significantly revised 2015 demand growth upward to 2.0mm b/d. The Agency expects higher prices to crimp demand this year, taking it to 1.30mm b/d; our estimate, however, is higher, largely on the back of the first global synchronized growth we've seen since the Global Financial Crisis, which will be supported by accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, all else equal.8 Investment Implications Our analysis suggests there will be no need to extend the OPEC - Russia production accord into 2H17. In addition, it reinforces our view markets will backwardate later this year and stay backwardated in 2018, provided we do not see a BAT-induced rally in the USD, or an overly aggressive Fed normalization trajectory. As we noted in previous research, a BAT would lift the value of the USD, which would lower demand ex U.S. and raise supply at the margin.9 We make the odds of a BAT becoming the law of the land in the U.S. this year 50:50, so this is a non-trivial risk. This would be unambiguously bearish for oil prices. While we do not expect oil to be included among the imported commodities subject to a BAT, we do, nonetheless, expect the imposition of a BAT to lift the USD by 10%. This, coupled with the 5% increase in the greenback we'd already penciled in due to the Fed's monetary-policy normalization, will lift the USD 15% if it goes through. Should this occur, we would be preparing for prices to again fall below $50/bbl and push back to the $40/bbl area, which would cause supply and capex to once again contract significantly. That said, we are reinstating our long front-to-back WTI recommendation (long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI), given our updated balances assessment. Our expectation for inventories to continue to draw after the OPEC - Russia production-cutting agreement expires in June supports this recommendation. In addition, if we do see a BAT in the U.S., we believe markets will take the deferred WTI curve significantly lower in expectation of reduced demand and higher marginal supplies that almost surely will ensue in 2018. While the Dec/17 contract also will trade lower, more damage to prices will occur in 2018 contracts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC Cuts Oil Output, But More Work Needed to Fulfill Deal," published by Bloomberg February 2, 2017. Iraq stands out among OPEC producers agreeing to cut, but apparently not following through as diligently as the rest of the Gulf Arab states; we are assuming production of 4.5mm b/d for 1H17, going to 4.6mm b/d in 2H17 for Iraq. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 JODI refers to the Joint Organisations Data Initiative, a supranational producer-consumer oil-market data provider headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4 "Backwardation" describes a forward price curve in which the price for a commodity for prompt delivery (e.g., tomorrow) exceeds the price of a commodity delivered in the future (e.g., next year). It is the opposite of a contango curve structure. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy "Gulf Of Mexico Oil Production Likely To Peak In 2017," dated January 11, 2017, available nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 In next week's report, we will present scenario analysis of shale-oil production as a function of WTI forward curve shape - i.e., the implications of backwardation for shale rig counts. This will update our assessments of price sensitivities to interest rates and USD movements. 7 Please see the IEA's Oil Market Report of 19 January 2017. 8 We discuss this in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy feature article entitled "Gold Will Perform...," dated February 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Taking A BAT To Commodities," dated January 26, 2017, 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

Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Overzealousness no longer exists, and a revival in market volatility and intensification in policy uncertainty have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. More recently, the yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month and may be signaling the start of another move up in gold shares. Importantly, sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower, reversing last summer's buying frenzy. Speculative positions have also been unwound. Against a positive structural backdrop for gold, we recommend reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Food price deflation bodes well for increased volumes, and by extension, packaging stocks. Upgrade to overweight. Prospects for intensifying market and economic volatility argue for reestablishing a portfolio hedge in gold shares. The tech sector underperforms when there is upward pressure on inflation, and the next twelve months is unlikely to prove an exception. Stay clear. Recent Changes S&P Containers & Packaging - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Gold Mining Shares - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Table 1 Feature Equity markets finally took a breather last week, as investors digested spotty earnings and began to discount the possible economic downside of U.S. isolationism. While profits should dictate the trend in stocks over the long haul, equity valuations have soared since the election, it is critical to consider the durability of this trend and other influences at this juncture. The recent string of positive economic surprises raises the risk that monetary conditions will tighten further, especially amidst rising inflation pressures and a tight labor market. As such, the broad market remains in a dangerous overshoot phase, predicated on hopes for a sustained non-inflationary global economic mini-boom. The risk is that these hopes are dashed by nationalistic policy blunders (i.e. protectionism and trade barriers) or a more muted and drawn out improvement in global economic growth than double-digit earnings growth forecasts would imply. There appears to be full buy-in to a durable bullish economic/profit outcome. We have constructed a 'Complacency-Anxiety' Indicator (CAI), using a number of variables that gauge investor positioning, sentiment and risk on/off biases (Chart 1). The CAI is at its highest level ever, signaling extreme confidence/conviction in the outlook for equities. While timing market peaks is difficult, because momentum can persist for longer than seems rational, the level of investor complacency is disturbingly high given that policy uncertainty is such a large economic threat. Global economic growth has never accelerated when global economic policy uncertainty has been this high (Chart 2, shown inverted). Chart 1Complacency Reigns Chart 2Uncertainty Is A Growth Impediment If rhetoric about anti-globalization measures turns into reality, that will deal a serious blow to burgeoning economic confidence before it translates into actual economic growth. Thus, the risk of sudden market downdrafts has risen to its highest level of this bull market. Chart 3 shows that positive economic surprises remain primarily sentiment/confidence driven, rather than from upside in hard economic data. To be sure, the stock market trades off of 'soft data' given its leading properties, but the size of the current gap is unusually large and reinforces that a big jump in 'hard data' surprises is already discounted. This gap represents a latent risk, as it did in the spring of 2011 just before the summertime equity market swoon. Chart 3A Big Gap Means Big Shoes To Fill Worryingly, the behavior of corporate insiders suggests that their confidence does not match their share price valuations. According to Barron's1, the insider sell/buy ratio has soared to an extremely bearish level for markets. For context, their gauge is close to 60; anything over 20 is deemed bearish while less than 12 falls into the bullish zone. Chart 4An Increasing Supply Of Stock The spike in secondary issuance corroborates insider selling (Chart 4). Insiders would not be unloading their shares if they felt earnings prospects would outperform what is discounted in current valuations. Even the pace of share buybacks has slowed considerably, to the point where the number of shares outstanding (excluding financials) has moved higher for the first time in 6 years (Chart 4). An increase in the supply of shares, from sources that have incentive to sell when the reward/risk tradeoff is unattractive, is a yellow flag. All of this argues for maintaining a capital preservation mindset rather than chasing market euphoria in the near run. Elevated complacency suggests that the consensus is focused solely on return rather than risk. It will be more constructive to put money to work when anxiety levels are higher than at present. This week we recommend adding a defensive materials sector gem, buying some portfolio insurance and we update our tech sector views. Packaging Stocks Are Gift Wrapped While our materials sector Cyclical Macro Indicator is hitting new lows, this is often a sign that the countercyclical S&P containers & packaging index deserves a second look. We have shown in past research that its strongest relative performance phases often occur when the overall materials sector is struggling. This group offers a more attractively valued alternative to play a transportation recovery than either rails or air freight, as discussed in last week's Report. From a macro perspective, deflation in global export prices should provide a strong tailwind. Why? Low prices spur volume growth. Global export volumes have begun to rebound, consistent with the increase in U.S. port traffic and intermodal (consumer) goods shipments (Chart 5). Any increase in global trade would bolster sentiment toward this high volume industry. Companies in this index are also highly exposed to the food and beverage business since the bulk of consumable non-durable goods products require packaging materials. As such, its fortunes rise and fall with swings in food prices. When food inflation is rising, consumers spend less in real terms, undermining the volume of food packaging demand. The opposite is also true. The current contraction in the food CPI has spawned a boom in food consumption, as measured by the surge in real (volumes) personal outlays on food & beverage products (Chart 6). This phenomenon is also true on a global basis, as food exports are booming (Chart 6, bottom panel), a remarkable development given U.S. dollar appreciation. Chart 5Stealth Play On Volume Growth Chart 6Booming Food Demand... Chart 7... Should Drive Up Multiples If food and beverage consumption stays robust, then the relative valuation expansion in packaging stocks will persist (food demand shown advanced, Chart 7). Increased demand for packaging products has become evident in the budding rebound in pricing power (Chart 8). The producer price index for containers has picked up nicely on a 6-month rate of change basis, albeit it is still low in annual growth terms. Nevertheless, any increase in pricing power would support profit margins if volume expansion persists, given the industry's disciplined productivity focus. Headcount remains in check, likely reflecting automation and investment, and is falling decisively relative to overall employment (Chart 8). The implication is that profit margins have a chance to outperform, particularly if energy prices stay range-bound (Chart 8). U.S. protectionism, and/or a continued rise in bond yields on the back of improving global economic momentum constitute relative performance risks to this position. Chart 9 shows that relative performance is mostly inversely correlated with global bond yields, given that it is a disinflationary winner. Chart 8Productivity Gains Chart 9A Risk Factor However, the global economy has already been through a phase of upside surprises. Moreover, now that China has moved to cool housing, investors should temper expectations for more stimulus to cause Chinese growth to accelerate. Conversely, economic disappointment could materialize before midyear if financial conditions tighten further. In sum, packaging stocks offer attractive exposure within an otherwise unattractive S&P materials sector. Bottom Line: Raise the S&P containers & packaging index to overweight. Gold: Back To Overweight As A Portfolio Hedge Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Thereafter, the equity risk premium melted, dimming appetite for portfolio insurance (Chart 10). Moreover, bond yields rose in response to firming economic expectations, increasing the opportunity cost of holding an income-free asset like gold. However, in the absence of a global economic boom, which seems unlikely, and if trade barriers are erected and policy uncertainty continues to escalate, there is a limit to how high real rates can rise. Potential GDP growth remains low throughout the world, weighed down by excessive debt, weak productivity and deflationary demographics (Chart 11, second panel). Chart 10End Of Correction? Chart 11Structurally Bullish A revival in market volatility and an unwinding of previously frothy technical conditions have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month (Chart 12). The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. If the yield curve does not steepen anew, and interest rate expectations move laterally, then the U.S. dollar is less likely to be a barrier to gold price gains. Sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower in recent months, reversing last summer's buying frenzy (Chart 12). Speculative positions have also been unwound (Chart 12). Netting it out, the surge in U.S. policy uncertainty, prospects for economic disappointment relative to increasingly elevated expectations and any pause in the U.S. dollar rally support reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge, especially now that overbought conditions have been unwound (Chart 13). Chart 12No Longer Frothy Chart 13Time To Buy Hedges Bottom Line: Return to an overweight position in gold mining shares, using the GDX as a proxy. A Tec(h)tonic Shift Our Special Report published in early-December showed that the tech sector underperforms when inflation pressures accelerate. Companies in the S&P technology sector are typically mature and have shifted from reinvesting for growth to paying dividends and buying back stock. Thus, the rise in bond yields and headline inflation imply higher discount rates and by extension, lower valuations, all other things equal, for the long duration tech sector (Chart 14). Tech companies exist in a deflationary business model mindset. While relative pricing power had been in an uptrend since 2011, it has recently relapsed into the deflationary zone (Chart 15, middle panel). As shown in last Monday's Weekly Report, the tech sector is one of the few suffering from deteriorating pricing power. Chart 14Stiff Headwinds Chart 15Pricing Power Disadvantage Among the broad eleven sectors, tech stocks have the highest international sales exposure, so a higher dollar is also a net negative for exports, revenues and by extension profit growth, relative to the broad market. Industry sales growth is nil, significantly trailing the S&P 500's recent pick up in top line growth rate. History shows that tech relative performance is negatively correlated with the U.S. dollar in the latter stages of a currency bull market. While the temptation to position for an increase in capital spending via the tech sector is high, data do not show any demand improvement. Tech new order growth is decelerating. The tech new orders-to-inventories ratio is on the verge of contracting, and further weakness would herald downward pressure on forward earnings estimates (Chart 16). Net earnings revisions have swung violently downward recently. Any prolonged de-rating would warn of negative share price momentum given the tight correlation between the two (Chart 16). Meanwhile, the loss of tech sector competitiveness and a retreat from globalization via protectionism de-globalization pose serious headwinds to the industry's longer-term prospects. Return on equity is already ebbing, reflecting more intense profit margin pressure from the surge in wage growth and a lack of revenue gains. As a result, EBITDA growth has been non-existent (Chart 17). Chart 16Momentum Is Fading Chart 17Growth Remains Elusive Chart 18Profits Set To Underperform All of these factors are encapsulated in our S&P technology operating profit model, which has an excellent record in forecasting tech earnings. Chart 18 shows that tech profits are likely to contract as the year progresses, a far cry from what is expected for the broad market and the 450bps of profit outperformance embedded in analyst forecasts in the coming 12 months. Bottom Line: Reducing tech exposure on price strength is a prudent strategy. Stay underweight. 1 http://www.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-instrans.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Highlights In line with our House view, we expect the USD will weaken near term, and are recommending a tactical long gold position if the metal trades to $1,180/oz. Longer term, the Trump administration's presumed fiscal-policy goals - e.g., lighter regulation, lower taxes - will be hitting an economy at or near full employment, and will run smack up against deflationary pressures if a border-adjusted tax (BAT) scheme is implemented. Expect higher volatility. Energy: Overweight. Fundamentals continue to point toward global oil storage drawing by ~ 300mm bbl by 3Q17. Brent was backwardated going to press in the Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 spread, while WTI is in contango.1 Our WTI backwardation trade (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) stopped out at -$0.05/bbl. Markets appear reluctant to take 2018 prices below 2017 levels, but we still like the position and will look to put it on again. Base Metals: Neutral. A weaker USD and marginally softer real rates will support base metals short term. We remain neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are going tactically long gold, and are bracing for more ambiguity in U.S. fiscal-policy. This will keep the Fed on hold till 2H17. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains and beans will remain under pressure with Argentine growing conditions improving. High stocks-to-use levels will remain a headwind. Feature Gold prices will get a short-term bounce from financial markets' recalibration of when fiscal stimulus in the U.S. actually will start contributing to growth. With nothing for the Fed to react to in terms of fiscal policy other than sundry indications the Trump administration favors lighter regulation, lower taxes and higher infrastructure spending, we believe the U.S. central bank will remain on the sidelines until mid-year before it starts guiding toward a rate hike. In the meantime, synchronized global growth (Chart of the Week) will continue to fan medium-term inflation expectations (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekSynchronized Global Growth... Chart 2...Is Lifting Inflation Expectations At this point in the cycle, it is unlikely the Fed or other systematically important central banks will tighten policy to arrest the emerging growth. Besides, the U.S. central bank is, for all intents and purposes, on hold until it sees the outlines of the fiscal policy to be proposed by the Trump administration, which has indicated strong preferences for lighter regulation, lower taxes and infrastructure spending. The market is putting the odds of a Fed rate hike by March at just over 20% (Chart 3). The odds of seeing a hike by June, on the other hand, increase to 64%. Chart 3Fed Most Likely On Hold Until June Given the constraints on the Fed for now, and indications of synchronized global growth, we expect some inflation pickup near term. This will lower real rates and weaken the USD over the short term, which will, in turn, support gold prices. Given this expectation, we are recommending a tactical long gold position if the spot contract trades to $1,180/oz. Because this is a tactical position, we will use a 5% stop-loss. Ambiguous Inflation Signals For 1H17, we expect inflation and inflation expectations to remain buoyant, given the synchronized global upturn we are seeing and the prospect - and so far it is only a prospect - for stimulative fiscal policy in the U.S. All else equal, with the U.S. labor market at or close to full employment, and the Trump administration signaling its desire for stimulative fiscal policy, we would be inclined to look for inflation hedges within commodities that are highly sensitive to rising inflation. The top candidates here would be gold and oil (WTI, in particular). But all else is not equal. President Trump and officials within the administration have floated the idea of a border-adjusted tax (BAT) scheme, which would tax imports into the U.S. and subsidize U.S. exports, and replace the existing corporate income tax. Our House view on the BAT is it has a 50% chance of becoming law. Even so, we believe there is a greater-than-50% chance apparel and energy products would be exempt from a BAT, if it became the law of the land, but we obviously cannot be sure this will occur. The first-round effects of a BAT would be felt domestically. U.S. inflation and inflation expectations would increase after it is rolled out, as prices on taxed imports rose by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate). As an indication, a 10% BAT would lift domestic prices of taxed items by ~ 11%. If the BAT were extended to oil, the domestic price lift there would incentivize higher domestic oil production, which also would find its way to export markets. Taken together, these domestic effects arising from the imposition of a BAT would cause the U.S. trade deficit to contract, which would rally the USD, in addition to lifting domestic inflation. As we noted last week, even under the assumption a somewhat watered down version of a BAT is passed, our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service anticipate the USD would rally another 10%.2 The second-round effects on the back of such an increase in the USD would be felt globally, particularly in oil markets and EM economies. In addition to the broad trade-weighted dollar rallying by 10%, we expected a 5% rise in the greenback prior to the discussion of the BAT. So, overall, we'd expect a 15% appreciation in toto following the implementation of a BAT in the U.S. This would stifle EM commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals, given the stronger USD would make these commodities more expensive in local-currency terms ex U.S. In addition, it would encourage higher commodity production in the U.S. (if a BAT were to be imposed on oil imports) and ex U.S., where local-currency drilling costs once again would fall, leading to increased supplies at the margin. The possibility of deflationary blowback to the U.S. is high in this scenario. Positioning In Ambiguous Markets Investors seeking to profit from rising inflation, which we would expect in the U.S. in the first round of adjustment to a BAT, or to hedge against it often turn to commodities expecting they will rally as inflation increases. They typically do this via index exposure or individual commodity exposure, e.g., going long gold or oil. In the current environment, we believe gold offers the best commodity alternative for participating in a rising inflation environment, or hedging against it, which is why we recommend a tactical long position if the market corrects to $1,180/oz. We compared the one-year return performance of gold and oil as inflation hedges by regressing annual returns of both commodities against annual core PCE and the broad trade-weighted USD returns (Chart 4).3 The R2 goodness-of-fit statistics for both were extremely close - 0.88 (oil) vs. 0.85 (gold), indicating core PCE and USD returns do a good job of explaining oil and gold returns. However, the volatility of the gold regression (its standard error) was half that of the oil regression (0.06 vs. 0.12), indicating gold's relationship is more stable vis-à-vis core PCE inflation and the USD (i.e., subject to less dispersion). This would indicate returns for an inflation hedge using gold would be less volatile than a hedge employing oil futures.4 These tests indicate both gold and oil are well suited to hedging inflation, and that gold hedges will perform as well as an oil hedge with far less volatility in the returns. Longer term, we're concerned with the second-round effects attending a stronger USD on the back of the BAT discussed above - i.e., lower commodity demand and higher commodity supply. Over the medium to longer term, the above dynamic suggests oil and gold volatility will increase (Chart 5). Chart 4Gold Hedges Inflation And USD Risk ##br##As Well As Oil, With Lower Volatility Chart 5Oil And Gold Vol Likely Rise Besides being an inflation hedge, gold, unlike oil, also functions as a store of value. In the event of deflationary blowback arising from the imposition of a BAT, we believe gold also would hedge investor portfolios against the possibility of currency debasement. That is to say, it would hold its value while central banks and governments rolled out fiscal and monetary policy responses to deflation. It is worthwhile recalling nominal gold prices held fairly steady during the Great Depression, while real gold prices appreciated. We believe the optimal vehicle for such a hedge would be call options, but we await clarity the likelihood of a BAT and its provisions before recommending such a position. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Backwardation and contango are terms describing the shape of commodity forward curves. When a curve is backwardated, prompt-delivery prices (e.g., oil delivered next week) exceed deferred-delivery prices (e.g., oil delivered next year), indicating supplies are tight. A contango curve describes a market in which deferred-delivery prices exceed prompt-delivery prices, which indicates supplies are relatively more abundant. 2 We discussed the implications of a possible border-adjusted tax scheme in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, in an article entitled "Taking A Bat To Commodities", dated January 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017" dated January 20, 2017, which examined the BAT in depth, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 We ran a simple regression of the percent returns of gold and oil against core PCE and USD annual returns over the 2001 - 2016 interval to assess the performance of each as inflation hedges. By using one-year returns, we were able to regress stationary variables and use an AR(1) model. 4 Along similar lines, the sum of squared residuals for the oil returns was almost 4x that of the gold returns, indicating far less dispersion in the errors and a tighter fit with gold vs. core PCE once again. The Durbin-Watson statistic measuring the degree of autocorrelation in the errors is was slightly > 2.0 for the gold regression, for the oil regression the DW statistic was < 2.0. This suggests the gold regression is better behaved in that the error terms more closely conform to the assumptions for them in the type of regression we're running. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017

Table 1Recommended Allocation The Reflation Trade Continues It is wrong to think that the recent rally in risk assets is mainly due to the election of President Donald Trump. Yes, since November 8, U.S. equities have risen by 7% and global equities by 3%. But the rally began as long ago as February last year, and since then U.S. and global equities have risen by 25% and 20% respectively. A more useful narrative is that the U.S. went through a "mini-recession" in late 2015/early 2016 (as indicated by the manufacturing ISM and credit spreads, Chart 1). Since then, assets have moved as they typically do in the first year of a cyclical recovery: small caps, cyclicals and value stocks have outperformed, bond yields risen, and equity multiples expanded in anticipation of a recovery in earnings. Expectations of Trump's fiscal stimulus and deregulation merely gave that momentum an extra boost. Our view is that global economic growth is likely to continue to accelerate. With the U.S. now at full employment, wage growth should rise further (Chart 2). Trump's policies are igniting animal spirits among companies, whose capex intentions have jumped sharply (Chart 3). U.S. real GDP growth this year could be 2.5-3%, somewhat above the consensus forecast of 2.3%. Meanwhile, Europe is growing above trend, and China will continue for a while longer to see the effects from last year's massive monetary stimulus (Chart 4). Chart 1One Year On From A Mini Recession Chart 2Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate Chart 3Comapanies' Animal Spirits On The Rise Chart 4China's Reflation Still Coming Through In the short term, a correction is possible: the rally looks technically over-extended, and investors have begun to notice that in addition to "good Trump" (tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending), there is also a "bad Trump" (market unfriendly measures such as immigration control, confrontation with China, and arbitrary interference in companies' investment decisions). But, on a 12-month view, our expectations of accelerating growth and only a moderate rise in inflation imply that the "sweet spot" for risk assets will continue, and so we maintain the overweight on equities and underweight on bonds we instituted in late November. What could end the reflation trade? The main risks we see (and the reasons we don't think they are serious enough to derail the rally for now) are: Extreme moves by the new U.S. administration. The biggest risk is a confrontation with China over trade. Our view is that Trump will use the threat of recognizing Taiwan to force concessions out of China. A precedent is the way the U.S. handled its trade deficit with Japan in the 1980s (note that new U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was deputy USTR at the time). China is unlikely to accept significant currency appreciation, understanding how this caused a bubble in Japan. But it might agree to voluntary export restrictions, to increasing investment in the U.S., opening the Chinese market more to foreign companies, and to stimulating domestic consumption, as Japan did in the 1980s (Chart 5). This may even chime with how Xi Jinping wants to reform the economy, though missteps by the U.S. could force him into a nationalistic position. Fiscal policy fails. The details of tax cuts are complex: alongside lowering the headline rate of corporate tax to 15% or 20%, for example, Republicans are discussing a border-adjustment tax, one-year depreciation, and an end of the tax offset for interest payments. Infrastructure spending won't happen quickly either, not least since it is disliked by Republican fiscal hawks (who are much less averse to tax cuts). BCA's geopolitical strategists, however, believe that Trump will able to get a program of personal and corporate tax cuts through Congress by August. Economic (and earnings) growth stumble. While corporate and consumer sentiment have picked up recently, hard data has not yet. U.S. 4Q GDP growth of only 1.9%, for example, was disappointing. Earnings growth will need to recover this year to justify elevated multiples. EPS growth for the S&P500 stocks in Q4 2016 looks to have been around 4% YoY according to FactSet. Stocks might fall if earnings do not come in somewhere close to the 12% that the bottom-up consensus forecasts for 2017. Inflation risks rise, triggering the Fed and the European Central Bank to rush to tighten monetary policy. Core U.S. PCE inflation, at 1.7% YoY, is not far below the Fed's 2% target and inflation could accelerate as fiscal policy stimulates an economy where slack has already disappeared. However, it is likely to take some time for inflation expectations to rise, and over the past few months core PCE inflation has, if anything, slowed (Chart 6). We expect the Fed to raise rates three times this year (compared to market expectations of twice) but not to move faster than that. German inflation, at 1.9% YoY, is starting to get uncomfortably high too, but the ECB will probably continue to set policy with more focus on the periphery, especially Italy. Chart 5When U.S. Pushed Japan In The 1980's Chart 6Inflation Has Been Slow To Pick Up Equities: We prefer U.S. equities over European ones in common currency terms. This is partly because we expect further U.S. dollar appreciation. But we also remained concerned about the structural weakness in the European banking system, and by the higher volatility of eurozone equities. Moreover, European earnings will not be boosted by currency depreciation as much as will Japanese earnings, since the euro has hardly weakened on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 7). We continue to like Japanese equities (with a currency hedge). The Bank of Japan remains committed to an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, which should weaken the yen and boost earnings. We are underweight Emerging Market equities: structural vulnerabilities remain, and the inverse correlation with the U.S. dollar is intact. Chart 7Euro Hasn't Weakened Much Fixed Income: For now, U.S. 10-year Treasury bonds are at around fair value. But we expect the yield to rise moderately further, as growth and inflation pick up, to about 3% by year-end. Yields on eurozone government bonds will also rise, but not by as much. This means that global sovereigns could produce a YoY negative return for the first time since 1994. In the U.S. we continue to prefer TIPS over nominal bonds: inflation expectations are still 30-40 bps below a normalized level (Chart 8). With risk assets likely to outperform, we recommend exposure to spread product, but find investment grade bonds more attractively valued than high-yield. Currencies: Short term, the dollar has probably overshot and could correct. But growth and interest rate differentials (Chart 9) suggest that the dollar will appreciate further until such time as Europe and Japan can contemplate raising rates. Additionally, if the proposal of a border-adjustment tax looks like becoming reality, the dollar could appreciate sharply: a BAT of 20% would theoretically be offset by a 25% rise in the dollar. The yen is likely to depreciate further (perhaps back to JPY125 against the dollar) as the Bank of Japan successfully maintains its target of a 0% 10-year government bond yield. The euro will fall by less, especially if the market begins to worry about ECB tapering in the face of rising inflation. Chart 8TIPS Have Further to Go Room To Rise Chart 9Interest Rate Differentials Suggest Stronger Dollar Commodities: The supply/demand picture for industrial metals looks roughly balanced for the year, with Chinese demand likely to remain robust, suppliers more disciplined, but the stronger dollar acting as a headwind. In the oil market, Saudi Arabia and Russia seem to be sticking to their commitment to cut supply, but U.S. shale oil producers are filling the gap, with the rig count up 23% in Q4 over the previous quarter. We continue to expect crude oil to average US$55 a barrel for the next two years. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In January, the model outperformed global equities and the S&P 500 in USD terms, but underperformed in local-currency terms. For February, the model cut its weighting in stocks and increased its allocation to bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, the weightings to both the U.S. and emerging markets were decreased. The model boosted its allocation to French bonds at the expense of Swedish and Canadian paper. The risk index for stocks, as well as the one for bonds, deteriorated in January. Feature Performance In January, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 1.4% in local-currency terms, and 3.6% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 3.2% for the global equity benchmark and a 2% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we provide other suggestions on currency risk exposure from time to time. The performance of bonds was a detractor from the model's performance in local currency terms in January. Chart 1Model Weights Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Weights The model decreased its allocation to stocks from 57% to 53%, and upgraded its bond weighting from 43% to 47% (Table 1). Table 1Model Weights (As Of January 26, 2017) The model increased its equity allocation to France, Italy, and Sweden by one point each. Meanwhile, weightings were cut by 2 points in the U.S., and by 1 point in Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Emerging Asia, and Latin America. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to French paper was increased by 6 points and the U.K. by 1 point. The model cut its exposure to Swedish bonds by 2 points and Canadian bonds by 1 point. Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time we do provide our recommendations. The dollar weakened in January and our Dollar Capitulation Index fell close to neutral levels. Uncertainty over the size of the fiscal push by the U.S. administration could prolong the dollar's consolidation phase, especially if coupled with any negative economic surprises. However, this would only be a pause since continued monetary policy divergence should translate into another leg up in the dollar bull market (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The deterioration of the value and cyclical components led to a higher risk index for commodities. The model continues to shun this asset class (Chart 4). The risk index for global equities increased to a 3-year high in January due to the deterioration in the value indicator. While the global risk index for global bonds also deteriorated, it remains firmly in the low-risk zone. The model slightly decreased its allocation in equities to the benefit of bonds (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk Following the latest uptick in the risk index for U.S. equities, the allocation to this asset class was trimmed. U.S. stocks have been propped up by the growth-positive aspects of the new U.S. administration's policies and are at risk should this optimism deflate (Chart 6). The risk index for Canadian equities improved slightly in January as the better readings in the liquidity and momentum indicators offset continued worsening in value. That said, the overall risk index remains at the highest level in this business cycle. This asset remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Canadian Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. equities deteriorated, reaching a post-Brexit high. For the first time in over two years, the value component crossed into expensive territory (Chart 8) The model trimmed its allocation to Emerging Asian stocks following the slight uptick in the risk index. While the global reflationary pulse should bode well for this asset class, rumblings about protectionism threaten to de-rate growth expectations (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Emerging Asian Stock Market And Risk The unwinding of oversold conditions was the main reason behind the deterioration in the risk index for bonds in January. However, the latter is still in the low-risk zone as the bond-negative reading from the cyclical indicator remains overshadowed by the ongoing oversold conditions in the momentum indicator (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys deteriorated in January on the back of a less-stretched momentum indicator. While the cyclical backdrop is bond-bearish, there is arguably more room for scaling down optimism over the economy than there is to having an even more upbeat outlook. As a result, any resumption of the rise in Treasury yields could end up being very gradual (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for euro area government bonds also deteriorated in January, but unlike the U.S., it is in the high-risk zone. There are notable differences in the risk readings within euro area markets (Chart 12). Given the upcoming presidential elections, France is next in line in terms of investors' focus on political risks. French bonds are heavily oversold based on the momentum indicator, pushing the overall risk index lower. An unwinding of the risk premium would bode well for French bonds, which the model upgraded in January (Chart 13). Chart 12Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13French Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for Spanish government bonds ticked down slightly reflecting minor improvements in all three of its components. However, it remains much higher than the risk index for the French paper, which is preferred by the model (Chart 14). With the risk index little changed in January, Swiss government bonds remain in the high-risk zone. The model continues avoiding this asset which possesses negative yields (Chart 15). Chart 14Spanish Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swiss Bond Yields And Risk Currency Technicals The dollar depreciated after the 13-week momentum measure indicated last month that the greenback could face near-term resistance. Further consolidation cannot be ruled out, but the 40-week rate of change measure is not signaling an end to the dollar bull market. The monetary policy divergence between the Fed and its peers provides underlying support for the dollar, while heightened uncertainty on the fiscal front implies more volatility going forward (Chart 16). EUR/USD was not able to stay below 1.05. The short-term rate-of-change measure is approaching neutral levels, which could test the EUR/USD bounce. A risk-off episode or continued solid economic data are two factors that could provide some support for the euro in the near term (Chart 17). The 40-week rate of change measure for GBP/USD continues to hover near the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). Meanwhile, the 13-week momentum measure crossed into positive territory, but is not extended. The pound will remain event-driven and possibly range-bound in the near term as the mood bounces within the hard Brexit / soft Brexit spectrum (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The evolution of U.S. tax policy - chiefly the border-adjustment tax (BAT) proposed by House Republicans - will preoccupy commodity markets for the balance of the year. Our House view gives 50-50 odds to the passage of a BAT, which, even though these are coin-toss odds, still are significantly higher than the consensus view of 20ish percent. While oil and apparel likely will be exempted from the BAT, steel, bulks, base metals, and ags probably won't be. The BAT's effect on the USD and EM commodity demand could be deflationary longer term. Energy: Overweight. The likelihood of crude oil and refined products being exempted from the BAT exceeds 50%, in our view, which means oil-market fundamentals likely will continue to be dominated by the supply-side adjustments. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese reflationary policies will dominate pricing short term. Longer term, markets will have to price in the effects of the U.S. BAT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold could trade higher in the near term (i.e., until Congress is done with the BAT), as the Fed holds off on any adjustments to policy rates until the Trump administration's fiscal policies come more clearly into view. Passage of a BAT will complicate monetary policy by lifting the broad trade-weighted USD and tightening monetary conditions in the U.S. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Heavy rains in Argentina could support soybeans. We remain underweight. Longer term, the BAT will be an important driver of prices. Feature We give 50-50 odds of BAT legislation passing in the U.S. Congress and being signed into law by President Trump this year. The BAT would tax imports into the U.S. and subsidize U.S. exports. This scheme would replace existing corporate income taxes.1 While apparel and energy products likely would be exempt, we think other commodities - chiefly base metals and ags - would be taxed, and would thus alter global trade flows in these commodities over the short run. Longer term, depending on how onerous the BAT legislation is, we would expect retaliatory taxes ex U.S., which could negate the initial benefits to U.S. commodity exporters. In addition, we would expect a stronger USD following passage of a BAT, which would be bearish for commodities generally. At this point it is impossible to know the tax rate that will be imposed on imports, as U.S. Congressional negotiations have yet to begin. President Trump, however, did tell business leaders he met with earlier this week to prepare for a "very major" border tax and significant deregulation, according to the Financial Times.2 The price effects for commodities subject to it are fairly straightforward: domestic prices will increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate). A 20% tax would increase domestic prices by 25%, which would benefit domestic commodity producers, and disadvantage commodity importers. The BAT would incentivize U.S. exports and narrow the U.S. trade deficit, as a result. This would, in theory, rally the USD as well. If the BAT were set at 20%, the USD would, in theory, appreciate by 25%.3 It is early days on the BAT. Based on our in-house assessment, we think the BAT scheme could rally the USD by as much as 15%. This 15% includes the 5% increase in the USD's trade-weighted value we expect this year, absent any BAT effects. A stronger USD would raise the price of commodities subject to the U.S. BAT outside the U.S. in local-currency terms, thus crimping international demand, but encouraging output ex U.S. to increase as local-currency production costs fall. Both effects are decidedly bearish longer term for commodities subject to the BAT. Servicing of USD-denominated debt would become more expensive for EM borrowers, as the USD appreciated, which also would negatively affect income growth. Oil Markets Handle The BAT While we believe oil and apparel will be exempt from a BAT, if such a tax did gain traction in Congress, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures, the U.S. benchmark, likely would trade at a premium to the global Brent benchmark, reversing years-long discount pricing. Indeed, markets already started pricing this potential outcome toward year-end 2016 (Chart of the Week), taking WTI delivering in Dec/17 from a roughly $2.00/bbl discount to parity with Brent, before retreating a bit in recent sessions. Clearly, markets have been attempting to discount the BAT, as the WTI - Brent differential shows, and this will continue as the debate and negotiations on the measure pick up in the near future. A BAT that included oil would super-charge U.S. exports, which already are growing, and domestic production (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekDeferred WTI Trades Flat To Brent Chart 2A BAT Applied To Oil ##br##Would Super-Charge U.S. Exports Bottom Line: We would fade any rally in the WTI - Brent spread toward the end 2017, or in the 2018 and '19 deliveries - selling the spread if it rallies significantly above flat (i.e., $0.00/bbl in the differential), given our expectation oil will be exempt from the BAT scheme. A BAT's USD Impact Will Matter For Commodities Generally Odds favor a USD rally - even if apparel and oil are excluded - given the BAT scheme would shrink the U.S. trade deficit. Our House view is the USD was on course to appreciate 5% this year anyway, on the back of the economy's relative performance and a continuation of the Fed's effort to normalize monetary policy. Even with a BAT becoming law in a somewhat watered down form, as our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service anticipate, the USD could rally another 10%, based on our assessment of the impact of the tax scheme. This would encourage higher production ex U.S., where local-currency drilling costs once again would fall (think Russia). And it would seriously dent EM commodity demand, particularly oil and base metals demand, as a stronger USD makes commodities more expensive in local-currency terms ex U.S. (Chart 3). The combination of higher output due to lower costs ex U.S., and lower EM consumption brought about by a stronger USD could unravel the production-cutting accord KSA and Russia agreed last year, as prices weaken once again and producers scramble to make up for lost revenue with higher volumes. Given these effects, there's a good chance the U.S. would see deflationary blowback from this, if oil and base metals prices resume their downtrend (Chart 4). Chart 3A Stronger USD Once Again ##br##Will Weaken Global Oil Prices Chart 4Lower Oil Prices Could Drag ##br##Inflation Expectations Lower BAT Effects On EM Commodity Demand Oil and base-metals demand are closely aligned with EM income growth. Indeed, the evolution of EM income maps closely to EM oil and base metals demand. This is important for the evolution of the Fed's preferred U.S. inflation gauge, the core PCEPI. Indeed, the co-movement between the core personal consumption expenditures index and EM demand for industrial commodities is extremely high. In earlier research, when we modeled EM oil demand as a function of U.S. financial variables, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWI) is consistent with a 23bp decrease (increase) in consumption. For global base metals, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI corresponds with a 27bp drop (increase) in demand. From this, our general rule of thumb is each 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI is roughly corresponds to a 25bp drop (increase) in EM demand for oil and base metals. We also found a 1% decrease in EM oil demand corresponds to nearly a 50bp decrease in the core PCEPI, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge.4 If the USD appreciates by 15% this year following the imposition of a BAT consistent with our in-house view, the effect on commodity demand and EM economic growth prospects would be unambiguously negative. If this was fully passed through to the core PCEPI, the gauge's yoy rate of change could drop more than 1.5%, pushing the yoy change in the Fed's preferred inflation index to just above zero, from its current level of ~ 1.65% yoy growth. We will be exploring the implications for this on the Fed's monetary policy in next week's publication, when we cover gold markets. However, it is worthwhile noting here that the BAT's effect on commodity prices and EM income could significantly restrain the Fed in its desire to normalize monetary policy. BAT Would Raise Volatility Following passage of a BAT consistent with our aforementioned expectations, higher commodity-price volatility would ensue: A sharply higher USD would crush EM oil and base metals demand. The import tax side of the scheme would incentivize additional supply (and exports) to come on line in the U.S. - domestic prices would rise faster than costs under the BAT - while, ex U.S., local-currency production costs would fall, leading to increased supplies. The import tax side of the BAT will create an umbrella for domestic oil and metals producers to lift prices to U.S. customers, since their only other choice for charging stocks and ore supplies are imports, which would be taxed under the scheme. In and of itself, this would be inflationary for the domestic U.S. economy. The only party that unambiguously wins in the short run in this scenario would be U.S. shale producers and domestic base-metals producers. In the case of the latter, copper, nickel and aluminum producers already supply more than 60% of domestic requirements, suggesting they have room to expand production at the margin, as tax-induced price hikes outpace cost increases (Charts 5 and 6). Chart 5U.S. Base Metal Production Could Expand Under A BAT Scheme Unstable Equilibrium At the end of the day, the BAT-induced changes in trade flows represent an unstable equilibrium. Second-round effects following the passage of the BAT - i.e., after the initial lift to domestic U.S. prices arising from the imposition of the BAT - are bearish. Chart 6U.S. Nickel And Copper Exports ##br##Could Expand Initially Under A BAT Scheme Recall that in the first round of price adjustment to the BAT, prices theoretically increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate), which most likely will be faster than the increase in domestic production costs. In the second round of price adjustment, production costs catch up to prices, narrowing profit margins and reducing the free cash flow that supports higher production. Domestic demand in the U.S. for refined products - oil and metals - will fall, as prices to consumers rise (e.g., gasoline prices will increase at the margin in line with the BAT tax rate). Meanwhile, ex U.S., as the local-currency costs of production fall, supply is increasing at the margin. And, the stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex U.S., thus reducing demand. The supply- and demand-side effects combine to lower prices, all else equal. In the case of oil, producers ex U.S. - most likely KSA and the Gulf Arab states, and Russia - would once again find themselves in a fight for market share as U.S. production and exports increased. Markets would, once again, have to contend with rising storage levels and lower prices, as supplies increase at the margin and demand falls. This likely happens in 2018, and would return oil prices to our lower trading range of $40 to $65/bbl. In addition, our central tendency for WTI prices would return to $50/bbl from $55/bbl now. Depending on how OPEC and non-OPEC producers respond to rising U.S. production and falling global demand, the downside volatility we saw in 2016 could easily be repeated in 2018 - 2020. In the case of base metals, China still accounts for ~ 50% of total demand. If the USD strengthens significantly, China's demand - along with other EM demand - will fall as local-currency prices rise. Potentially higher U.S. base metal exports on the back of higher domestic prices supporting expanded U.S. supplies will be competing for market share against, e.g., copper volumes from Chile and Peru displaced from the U.S. market. Bottom Line: The BAT scheme could incentivize higher U.S. production and exports, and rally the USD. Together, these effects would pressure commodity prices lower - particularly oil and base metals - as supply increased and demand decreased. This would lower inflation and inflation expectations, complicating the Fed's policymaking later this year. We will develop these themes in subsequent research. Next week, we take up gold markets and how they are likely to respond to the evolution of BAT legislation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Our colleague Peter Berezin last week published a Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017" in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy, which examined the BAT in depth, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Investors seek clarity from Trump on tax changes and trade restrictions" in the January 24, 2017, issue of the FT. 3 Please see p. 3 of the BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue for 2017" cited above, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see pp. 3 and 4 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Commodities Could Be Hit Hard By Fed Rate Hikes" in the September 1, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017

Highlights China's supply-side structural reforms will focus mainly on its coal and steel markets this year. In addition, environmental policies will become stricter in 2017, as Beijing puts more weight on environmental protection than economic development. As as result, supply growth will slow, particularly in steel markets, which will be good news for global steel producers and bad news for iron ore exporters in Australia and Brazil. While we are more bearish on iron ore than steel due to supply-side reforms and stricter environmental policies, we remain cautious getting short iron ore, given the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures are backwardated (prompt prices exceed deferred prices). This indicates buyers are willing to pay more for prompt delivery (e.g., next week) than they are for deferred delivery (e.g., next year). Energy: Overweight. The Saudi-Russia production deal will slow the rate of growth in supply relative to demand, which will tighten physical markets. This will cause inventories to draw, and the backwardation in crude to deepen. Our long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI recommendation is up 700%. We are long at +$0.04/bbl, and will risk the spread going to -$0.05/bbl. We will take profits at $0.50/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. Supply-side reforms, coupled with environmental restrictions will slow the growth of steel production in China this year, benefiting producers ex-China. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold markets will become increasing volatile, with the Fed likely to keep any rate-hike decision on hold until it has greater clarity re the incoming Trump administration's fiscal policy intentions. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's most recent supply-demand balances continue to paint a bearish picture for grains, with global ending stocks expected to grow. Feature China will continue its supply-side structural reforms this year, focusing mainly on its coal and steel markets. China environmental policies will become stricter in 2017. This year will mark the first time the central government puts more weight on environmental protection over economic development in evaluating officials' performance since 1949, when the People's Republic of China was established. Supply growth will be slower than last year due to continuing reforms, and stricter environmental policies in the country. Among base metals and bulks, the steel and iron ore markets will be most affected. This will be good news for global steel producers and bad news for global iron ore producers. We are more bearish on iron ore than steel strategically, due to these supply-side reforms, stricter environmental policies, scrap steel substitution, and rising global iron ore supply. That said, we remain cautious getting short iron ore, given the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures are backwardated (prompt prices exceed deferred prices). This indicates buyers are willing to pay more for prompt delivery (e.g., next week) than they are for deferred delivery (e.g., next year). We are downgrading nickel from bullish to neutral, both tactically and strategically. We also are downgrading our tactically bullish stance on aluminum to neutral, as the Indonesian government on January 12 unexpectedly allowed exports of nickel ore and bauxite under certain conditions. China's Supply-Side Reforms In 2017 In 2016, steel prices rallied more than 90% from year-end 2015 levels, but Chinese crude steel and steel products production rose a mere 0.4% and 1.3% yoy, respectively. Back in 2009, when steel prices rose about 30% from November 2008 to August 2009, production grew 12.9% and 17.8% yoy for Chinese crude steel and the output of steel products, respectively (Chart 1). Chart 1China: A Slower Steel Production##br## Recovery Than In 2009 One reason for these disparate performances can be found in the massive production cuts made in China last year to crude steel capacity. In February 2016, China's central government announced that it planned to cut 100 to 150 million metric tons (mmt) of crude steel capacity over the five-year period of 2016-2020. While the country aimed to cut 45 mmt in 2016, the actual reduction accelerated in 2016H2 making the full year decrease much larger. According to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), 70 mmt of crude steel capacity was taken off line last year, equivalent to 6.2% of total crude steel production capacity in China. This explains, in part, the much slower crude steel production recovery last year when compared to the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) recovery in 2009. How much crude steel production capacity will China cut in 2017? Even though last year's 70 mmt capacity cut means about half of the five-year 100-150 mmt capacity-cut target was already achieved, the Chinese government does not show any sign of moderating its desire to see additional cuts. The Chinese Central Economic Work Conference (December 14-16, 2016) emphasized that 2017 will be a year to deepen supply-side structural reforms. Although the central government still has not finalized its 2017 target, we believe a further 40-50 mmt cut in 2017 is possible. For example, China's largest steel producing province - Hebei - has already announced its 2017 crude steel capacity reduction target, which will be 14.39 mmt, similar to its 2016 target of 14.22 mmt. We would note here that the actual cut for the Hebei province in 2016 was 16.24 mmt, much higher than the target, indicating officials will seek to err on the high side when it comes to taking production off line. In December 2016, the country launched a nationwide crackdown on production of so-called shoddy steel, also known as ditiaogang in Chinese - low-quality crude steel made from scrap metal, which is commonly used to produce substandard construction steel products. This material accounts for about 4% of Chinese crude steel output. Last week, the Chinese government ordered a full ban on "shoddy steel" production to be completed before June 30, 2017. This month, 12 inspection groups were sent to major shoddy steel producing provinces to oversee the implementation of the directive. In 2017, the Chinese government also plans to: rein in new steel production capacity; scrutinize new projects; push for more mergers; and generally tighten supervision in the steel sector. In early January, China's top economic planner - the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) - toughened its tiered electricity pricing to limit availabilities to outdated steel producers, and to advance its goal of capacity cuts. According to the NRDC website, the new measures raised the price paid by "outdated" steelmakers by 66.7% to 0.5 yuan per kWh, effective on Jan. 1, 2017. Outdated steelmakers, in the government's reckoning, are those scheduled to be phased out - for example, those shoddy steel producers - most of which are privately owned small- or medium- scale mills. Bottom Line: A further capacity cut will limit Chinese steel production growth in 2017. China's Environmental Policies In 2017 In 2016, the Chinese government increased the frequency at which it sent environmental inspection teams to major metal-producing provinces and cities, to ensure the smelters and refiners comply with state environmental rules. Factories that failed to meet environmental standards were ordered to permanently or temporarily shut down, depending on the severity of their violations. This year, with persistent and intensifying smog becoming a greater threat to the health of China's population, environmental policies will only get stricter, resulting in more frequent supply disruptions, especially in its steel industry. In addition to plant-specific environmental measures, in late 2016, China rolled out rules to evaluate the "green" efforts of local governments. For the first time since 1949, when the People's Republic of China was established, the central government indicated it would put more weight on environmental protection than on economic development, as measured by GDP, in evaluating local government officials' performance. This likely will reduce the local governments' incentive to support unqualified or unprofitable steel/aluminum production. Bottom Line: China's stricter environmental policies will cause more supply disruptions and increase production costs for the Chinese metal sector, especially the steel industry. Our Views On Iron Ore And Steel In 2017 We are strategically neutral on steel prices and bearish on iron ore prices. Supply-side reforms and stricter environmental policies in China likely will result in zero growth or even a small contraction in Chinese steel production, which may well support steel prices while reducing iron ore demand. This will be good news for global steel producers ex-China, and bad news for global iron ore producers. China is determined to cull all "shoddy steel" production by the end of June, which will make considerable volumes of scrap steel available to be used in good-quality steel production. Chinese steel producers are currently willing to replace iron ore with scrap steel in their steel production, given scrap steel prices are cheap versus iron ore and steel product prices (Chart 2). In addition, using scrap as an input to produce crude steel will save steel producers money on coking coal, the price of which has surged over the past year. Chinese steel demand growth may remain robust in 2017H1. Last year's stimulus still has not run out of steam, and this year's fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative.1 Raw-material costs in the form of iron ore, coking coal and oil soared versus levels seen last year, which means the production costs of steel now are much higher than last year. This will support steel prices (Chart 3). Chart 2More Scrap Steel Will Replace##br## Iron Ore In Steel Production Chart 3Cost Push Will Support ##br##Steel Prices Steel product inventories at the major cities in China are still low; producers' inventory holdings have declined to levels last seen in 2014, which also will be supportive of steel prices (Chart 4). China's iron ore inventories are high, while domestic iron ore production is recovering (Chart 5, panels 1 and 2). With slowing domestic steel production, Chinese iron ore import growth likely will be subdued this year (Chart 5, panel 3). Global iron ore supplies are increasing. The "Big Three" producers - Vale, Rio Tinto, and BHP - all plan to boost production in response to profitable iron ore prices this year. Indeed, this month, Vale started its first iron-ore shipments from the giant new S11D mine. Chart 4Low Inventory Supports Steel Prices As Well Chart 5Limited Chinese Iron Ore Import Growth In 2017 Bottom Line: The outlook for steel prices this year is brighter relative to iron ore in 2017, although, the backwardation in the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures suggests markets may be pricing in tighter iron-ore supply in the near term. We will explore this in future research. Downgrading Our Nickel And Aluminum Views We are downgrading nickel from bullish to neutral, both tactically and strategically. Chart 6Downgrading Nickel And Aluminum View In November, we expected the global nickel supply deficit to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply. One major reason we were bullish nickel was that there was no sign Indonesia's export ban - imposed in January 2014 - would be removed. With elevated global nickel output, surging Chinese nickel pig iron (NPI) imports, and rebounding Indonesian nickel ore exports, Chinese NPI production will recover in 2017, which will reduce the country's need for refined nickel imports (Chart 6). Our long Dec/17 LME nickel contract versus Dec/17 LME zinc contract was stopped out for a 5.1% loss this week. We are no longer bullish nickel versus zinc. We also are downgrading our tactically bullish stance on aluminum to neutral, after the Indonesian government unexpectedly allowed exports of nickel ore and bauxite under certain conditions earlier this month. We are removing our buy limit order to go long Mar/17 aluminum contracts if it falls to $1,640/MT from our shopping list. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China Commodity Focus: How China's Monetary And Fiscal Policy Will Affect Metal Markets," dated January 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Grains/Softs Global Grain Stocks Set To Rise Overall: Despite some positive developments in the U.S. - where corn supplies are falling faster than demand - we remain underweight grains. This is largely because of the continued growth of production relative to consumption globally, which looks like it will lift global stocks by the end of the 2016-17 crop year in September. While we do expect a slight decrease in output this year, it is difficult to upgrade our view at this point (Table 1). Table 1World Grains Estimates - January 2017 Wheat: Worldwide, output growth in Argentina, Russia and the EU added 1.3mm tons of production to global supplies. In the U.S., ending stocks are projected to reach levels not seen since the late 1980s, according to the USDA. Global consumption, meanwhile, is projected to increase a mere 100k tons, according to the USDA, which will lift ending stocks 1.2mm tons by the end of the crop year to a record 253.3mm tons. Corn: U.S. production is expected to fall, which, along with higher usage in the ethanol market, will contribute to lower stocks. However, on a global basis, production is set to outstrip consumption resulting in higher ending stocks at the end of the crop year. Soybeans: Same story here: Production growth outstripping consumption, leaving ending stocks higher by close to 7% yoy, based on the USDA's estimates. Rice: In relative terms, the rice market has the most bullish fundamentals - global production and consumption are roughly balanced, leaving expected ending stocks slightly above last year's level. We continue to favor rice over the other grains (save wheat) for this reason. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017

Special Report

Dear Client, I am visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and India this week, and as such there will be no regular Weekly Report. Instead, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Senior Vice President, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the Middle East has reached a stable equilibrium, as much as is possible, and will not drive the news or markets in 2017. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights The Middle East is not a major geopolitical risk in 2017. Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions will de-escalate, for now. The OPEC production cut will go through; oil prices will average $55/bbl in 2017. Geopolitical risk continues to rotate to the Asia Pacific region. Trump, Iranian elections, and Iraqi instability pose risks to the view. Feature The Middle East has dominated the news flow for the past five years, for good reason. The carnage in Syria and Iraq is tragic and reprehensible. However, the investment relevance of the various regional conflicts is dubious. For all the attention paid to the rise of the Islamic State, we would remind clients that the group's conquest of Iraq's second-largest city Mosul in June 2014 did not cause a spike in oil prices but rather marked the end of the bull market (Chart 1)! From an investment perspective, the only dynamic worth watching in the Middle East is the "Great Game" between regional actors, which have been looking to fill the vacuum left by America's dramatic geopolitical deleveraging (Chart 2). The U.S. strategy is permanent and driven by global interests, namely the rise of China and the need to shift resources towards East Asia. Given the incoming Trump administration's laser focus on China, we expect that the U.S. will remain aloof from the Middle East. Chart 1Ironically, Worry About The Fall Of ISIS Chart 2While The U.S. Military Deleverages... Does the recent détente between Russia and Turkey in Syria, and between Iran and Saudi Arabia over OPEC production cuts, signal that the Middle East has finally found geopolitical equilibrium? We tentatively think the answer is yes. This will reduce the importance of the region as the primary source of geopolitical risk premia, which BCA's geopolitical strategists have expected to shift to Asia for some time.1 Saudi-Iranian Tensions Are On Ice Chart 3...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Up Since the U.S. decision to deleverage from the region in 2011, Saudi Arabia has leveraged up, becoming one of the world's largest arms purchasers and involving itself overtly and covertly in several regional conflicts in the process (Chart 3). Saudi insecurity deepened following President Barack Obama's decision to leave no troops in Iraq. The last U.S. soldier of the main occupation force left Iraq on December 18, 2011. The very next day, on December 19, Iraq's Shia Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a close ally of Iran, issued an order for the arrest of the Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi. The move by al-Maliki set off what essentially became a civil war in the country, with the Sunni minority eventually turning to ever-more radicalized militant groups for protection. From the Saudi perspective, Iraq is a vital piece of real estate as it is a natural buffer between itself and its Shia rival Iran. While the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy, based in Bahrain, continues to guard against any Iranian incursion via the Persian Gulf, there is very little space between the Saudi oil fields and Iran if Iraq falls into Iran's orbit. The subsequent five years saw Iran and Saudi Arabia fight several proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. These included direct military action by Iran in Iraq and Syria against Saudi-backed militants and by Saudi Arabia in Yemen against Iranian-backed militants. It also included oil politics, with Saudi Arabia announcing in November 2014 that it was ending years of its price-setting strategy. These strategies ultimately proved to be unsustainable and BCA's Geopolitical Strategy called the peak in Saudi-Iranian tensions in February 2016.2 Why? First, because oil prices collapsed! Geopolitical adventurism is a luxury afforded to those with the means to pursue adventures. The combination of low oil prices, domestic social outlays, and an expensive war in Yemen forced Saudi Arabia to burn through $220 billion of its foreign reserves between July 2014 and December 2016, equivalent to 30% of its central-bank holdings!3 There is a relationship between high oil prices and aggressive foreign policy in oil-producing states (Chart 4). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. As Chart 5 illustrates, petrol states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized international disputes.4 This relationship is particularly pronounced when oil sells at above $70 per barrel. At that price, oil producing states become more prone to disputes than non-oil states, regardless of leadership qualities. Second, Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen proved to be a disaster. The kingdom intervened in March 2015 to reinstate the democratically elected President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who had been removed from power by Iranian-linked Houthi rebels. The real reason for the intervention was for the Saudis to gauge their war-making capabilities, test their recently purchased military equipment, and put a check on Iranian influence in the region. A quick, successful war in Yemen would have been a template for future interventions in Iraq and Syria on behalf of Sunni allies, and would have cemented Saudi Arabia's position as a regional power in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy warned, however, defeating the experienced Houthis would not be easy and Saudi Arabia would ultimately hesitate to commit to a land war.5 The intervention has resulted in disaster for Saudi Arabia on several levels: Houthis remain in control of the capital Sana'a and largely the same territory that encompassed the former Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen); The Saudis, desperate for a ground-force presence, have turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda's and ISIS's control of almost a third of the country in the south and coastal regions; Saudi forces have taken considerable losses, including some high-tech and high-priced items; The conflict has exposed severe military deficiencies, from the low level of strategic and tactical planning of senior staff, to the poor communication of units at the middle level, to the pervasive low morale and training of the rank-and-file. The biggest loss for Saudi Arabia has been that of leadership. What began as a pan-Sunni intervention led by Riyadh, with considerable involvement by the UAE and Egypt, has seen the Saudis lose almost all their allies. The UAE removed its troops in mid-2016 (in somewhat of a diplomatic spat with Riyadh) and Egypt has subsequently held military exercises with Russia, a Saudi rival in the region, and decided in December to provide military advisors to the Syrian Arab Army. All the talk about a "Sunni NATO" is over. Saudi Arabia's experience in Yemen, combined with the decline in its currency reserves, forced it to come to terms with reality, and eventually agree to an oil production cut with Russia and Iran. Thus it took Saudi Arabia exactly five years, from the U.S. withdrawal in Iraq in 2011, to realize the limits of its regional power. Bob Ryan, Senior Vice President of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, correctly forecast the OPEC cut and expects the deal to be successfully implemented in 2017.6 One reason Bob is confident is that both Saudi Arabia and Russia are looking to privatize their energy sector significantly by 2018. Russia has sold 19.5% of Rosneft and the Saudis want to conduct an IPO of 5% of their state-owned oil company Aramco. It makes no sense to do this IPO in an environment of low oil prices. Furthermore, sovereign debt issuance to cover budget deficits will become cheaper when oil prices are higher. Geopolitics are aligning with Bob's view as well. Saudi Arabia's attempt to counter Iranian influence in the region has failed both militarily and via oil politics. Riyadh is focusing inwards, on its "Vision 2030" reforms, which will entail considerable domestic upheaval as a result of its comprehensive effort to remove the ultra-conservative religious establishment from power.7 This is now coming to light, with Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently announcing harsh punitive measures for any cleric who incites or resorts to violence against the reform agenda. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia's bid for regional hegemony is over, at least for now. The country is focusing inwards, on long-term political and social reforms and economic diversification. Its efforts to bring Iran to heel with low oil prices and with direct military confrontation in Yemen have failed. The oil production-cut deal between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia should hold as a result of the de-escalation of Saudi-Iranian tensions and the socio-economic priorities of all three states. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service is overweight energy relative to other commodities as a result.8 Is The Russia-Turkey Détente Sustainable? Turkey and Russia have concluded a political and military détente in Syria with surprising speed. This has made one of our major geopolitical risks for 2017 - a Turkish-Russian confrontation over Syria - already obsolete. Much as with Saudi Arabia, Turkey has had a bite of regional hegemony, did not like the bitter taste, and has decided to make a deal with its rivals instead. For Turkey, the real concern over the past five years has been American inaction in Syria. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has spent a lot of political capital opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He had hoped that a successful revolution would create a new client state for Turkey, yielding Turkey overland access to Persian Gulf energy sources. Erdogan was therefore beyond dismayed when President Barack Obama failed to intervene in Syria in 2013 following Assad's use of chemical weapons. The chronology of what happened next is important: Russia intervened two years later, in September 2015, to stem the progress of anti-Assad rebels and save the regime from collapse. Two months later, a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 was shot down by Turkish F-16s in the Turkey-Syria border area. Turkey and Russia broke relations for a while, but tensions did not escalate. Ankara faced a coup attempt in mid-July 2016, which the ruling party linked to the U.S.-based Islamist preacher Fethullah Gülen. The Obama administration refused to extradite Gülen without concrete evidence of his involvement. By late July, Turkish officials were calling Russia a "friendly neighbor" and a "strategic partner." In early August, Erdogan met Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, after issuing a letter with an apology to the family of the shot-down pilot. Then, on August 24, Turkey invaded Syria. The military intervention, dubbed "Operation Euphrates Shield," was officially launched to fight the Islamic State, a common pretext these past three years. Erdogan officially stated that he also aimed to fight Assad's regime, but this appeared to put Ankara and Moscow back on collision course, and statements from the Turkish side have since been "corrected." The real reason for the intervention was not to fight ISIS or Assad, but rather to curb the gains made by the various Kurdish militias on the ground in Iraq and Syria. In particular, Ankara intervened to prevent the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - the armed wing of the Syrian Democratic Union Party, which is affiliated with the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers' Party - from linking up with its now vast territory held in the north of Syria (Map 1). The territory, which our map shows has expanded considerably as the YPG has claimed mostly Islamic State-held areas, is split between Rojava, the main territory east of the Euphrates river, and the Afrin enclave near the Mediterranean Sea. For Turkey, the proximity of such a vast Kurdish-held territory so close to its own Kurdish southeastern region presents a national-security nightmare. The operation's strategic goal was to capture Al-Bab, the stronghold of the Islamic State in northern Syria and a strategic point between the two YPG-held swaths of territory. However, it has taught the Turks that they have no experience fighting a prolonged battle, especially against local insurgents and militants who know the region. Since the first attack on Al-Bab's western part, the Turkish army has suffered three defeats and retreated to initial positions. With Turkey stuck in Al-Bab, the Russian air force has now begun to bomb Islamic State positions to help their tentative new ally. This level of operational coordination is notable and important. It suggests that Turkey, a NATO member state, is now reliant on Russian air strikes for ground support rather than on American sorties flying out of NATO's air base in Incirlik, Turkey. Turkey even claims that U.S. presence in Incirlik is obsolete if it receives no help from the U.S. Air Force around Al-Bab. How sustainable is the Turkey-Russia détente? We suspect it will be quite sustainable, at least in the short term. Ankara has moved away from demands for Assad to step down, with the Deputy Prime Minister, Numan Kurtulmus, recently stating that Turkey would not "impose any decision" on the Syrian people regarding future leadership. The assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey also failed to derail Russo-Turkish cooperation. Beyond the short term, however, the question remains what Turkey intends to do about Kurdish gains, which are considerable in both Syria and Iraq. The town of Manbij, for instance, is strategically located west of the Euphrates and was supposed to be ceded to Turkey by the Kurds. The situation could grow even more complicated for Turkey as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq may proclaim independence after the Islamic State stronghold of Mosul is liberated in early 2017.9 The YPG in Syria could then ask to join their fellow Kurds in Iraq in forming a unitary state. Although unlikely, this scenario is probably on Turkey's mind, as it would mean that the Kurds inside Turkey may intensify their anti-government insurgency. Note, however, that this scenario does not bother Russia. As far as Moscow is concerned, it has succeeded in keeping Assad in power, its Syrian naval base in Tartus is secure, and it has proven its ability to project power outside of its immediate sphere of influence (Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, and the Caucasus), thus advertising its "Great Power" status. Bottom Line: For the time being, the Russian-Turkish détente will hold. The real risk is not a Turkish-Russian confrontation, but rather a wider Turkish engagement in both Syria and Iraq against the Kurds sometime in the future. We suspect that the Turkish military experience in Syria may make the Turks think twice about engaging in a large-scale war against the Kurds across three states. But given the erratic policymaking out of Ankara in recent years, it is difficult to say this with any confidence. The geopolitical risk of Turkish imperial overreach will continue to weigh on Turkish assets in 2017. Risks To The Sanguine View There are many reasons why investors should stay up at night in 2017, but the Middle East is not one of them. The process of U.S. deleveraging from the region has been painful and costly (from a human perspective especially), but it has ultimately forced regional powers to figure out how to carve out the leftover space between them. There are a few questions left to answer, starting with the Kurdish question. But, for the most part, we do not expect to see the major players - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, or Israel - come to blows with each other. There are three major risks to this sanguine view. The U.S. Is Back! The current semi-stable equilibrium will definitely be thrown off track if the Trump administration decides to sink its teeth fully into the Middle East. We expect President-elect Donald Trump to authorize greater military action against the Islamic State, including more intense air strikes. However, this is not a qualitative reversal of Obama's deleveraging policy. A real reversal would be if Trump decided to follow the advice of Iran hawks in his government - of whom there are several - and increase tensions with Tehran. This is unlikely, given Trump's focus on China and his willingness to improve ties with Russia, a nominal ally of Iran. In fact, there has been almost no talk of Iran from either President-elect Trump or any of his advisors since the election. Furthermore, while U.S. oil imports from OPEC are no longer declining, they are still massively down since their peak in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). It is unlikely that Trump will commit resources to a region of diminishing importance to U.S. interests. Change Of Guard In Tehran. While the risk of Washington saber-rattling with Iran is overstated, what happens if the moderate President Hassan Rouhani is defeated in the upcoming May election? Hardliners are arguing that the nuclear deal with the West has done nothing for the economy, the main pillar of Rouhani's 2013 platform. This is not true. Headline inflation ticked up in late 2016, but remains well off the 40% levels in 2013, while GDP growth has been in the black throughout Rouhani's term, and net exports have bottomed (Chart 7). However, the flow of FDI into the country has been tepid, probably due to ongoing uncertainty with the government transition in the U.S. Both European and Asian businesses are waiting to see if the incoming Trump administration wants to revive sanctions. Meanwhile, skirmishes between U.S. and Iranian vessels - purportedly controlled by the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - have increased in the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the hardliners in Tehran are hoping that they can bait the hardliners in D.C. into a pre-election confrontation that sinks Rouhani. Iraqi Instability. Although the Iraqi government is set to take over Mosul from the Islamic State some time in Q1 2017, the fact remains that the country is bitterly divided between Sunnis and Shia amidst sluggish oil revenues. While the production cut deal will raise revenues marginally, revenues will still be well below their highs (Chart 8). Defeating the Islamic State militarily is one thing, but the real challenge is for Baghdad to reintegrate the Sunni population, which largely lives in territory devoid of oil production. A renewal of civil strife and terrorism targeting Iraqi civilians, which could happen as the Islamic State militants blend back into the wider population, may be a risk in 2017. Chart 6U.S. Imports From OPEC Remain Low Chart 7Iranian Economy Improves Under Reformist Rule Chart 8Iraqi Oil Revenues Still Down From Highs A word on Israel may also be in order. Israel has not played a major geopolitical role in the region for the past five years and we suspect it will not in the next five. It is secure from its neighbours, who cannot match it in terms of military capability, and remains preoccupied with domestic politics and internal security. Meanwhile, the days when the region unified against Israel are over. Sectarian and ethnic conflicts have gutted Israel's traditional enemies. And former foes, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are now close allies. The one geopolitical threat that remains is Iran. However, that threat remains dormant as long as Israel maintains nuclear supremacy over Iran and as long as the U.S. remains a security guarantor for Israel. We do not see either changing any time soon. Investment Implications The main investment implication of our thesis that the Middle East has found a new equilibrium is that the region will not dominate the news flow in 2017. Short of a major Turkish blunder in Syria and Iraq, we see the current status quo largely frozen in place. Saudi Arabia appears to have conceded, for now at least, its inferior place in the geopolitical pecking order. Investors have plenty of things to worry about in 2017, such as general de-globalization, a potential Sino-American trade war, geopolitical tensions in East Asia, and elections in four of the five largest euro-area economies. Our geopolitical team's long-standing thesis that geopolitical risk is rotating out of the Middle East and into East Asia is therefore fully playing out.10 Chart 9KSA-Russia Production ##br##Pact Aims at Lowering Inventories In the near term, the geopolitical equilibrium should allow Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia to maintain their six-month agreement to cut production by up to 1.8 million b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 million b/d from OPEC, 300,000 b/d from Russia, and another 300,000 b/d from other non-OPEC producers. The goal of this agreement is to reduce global oil inventories to more normal levels, which our commodity strategists believe will happen by the end of 2017 (Chart 9). Bob Ryan, of the Commodity & Energy Strategy, forecasts U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl in 2017. The incoming Trump administration will focus its Middle East policy on cooperating with regional actors against the Islamic State. Investors should expect to see more American "muscle" dedicated to the fight, perhaps at the risk of causing civilian casualties (which the Obama White House was careful to avoid). The downside of this strategy is that as the Islamic State loses its territory and ceases to be a caliphate, it will revert to being a more conventional terrorist organization. Its foreign fighters may return home to Europe, Russia, and elsewhere, while home-grown militants will seek to sow further Sunni-Shia discord, especially in Iraq. Unfortunately, this trend will keep our thesis of "A Bull Market For Terror" intact, which lends support to U.S. defense stocks.11 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Middle East: Saudi-Iran Tensions Have Peaked," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 According to the estimates of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017," dated January 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behavior," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at iie.com. According to Hendrix, revolutionary leaders are "leaders who come to power by force and attempt to transform preexisting political and economic relationships, both domestically and abroad." The definition is broad and includes leaders who used force in order to gain prominence. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Does Yemen Matter?" dated March 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also Emerging Market Equity Sector Strategy, "MENA: Rise Early, Work Hard, Strike Oil," dated October 4, 2016, available at emes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017," dated January 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see P. Ronzheimer, C. Weinmann, and K. Mössbauer, "Kurden Brauchen Mehr Deutsche Abwehrraketen," Bild, dated October 28, 2016, available at http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/mossul/kurden-brauchen-dringend-milan-systeme-48495330.bild.html. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades