Emerging Markets

Highlights So What? The U.S.-China tariff ceasefire is a net positive, but a final deal is by no means assured. Why? In the near term there may be a play on global risk assets, but beyond that we remain cautious. Global divergence remains the key theme, and China now has less reason to stimulate. What to watch for a final deal: Trump’s approval rating, China’s structural concessions, and geopolitical tensions. We recommend booking gains on our long DM / short EM trades. Go long EM oil producers on OPEC 2.0 cuts. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have agreed to a trade truce at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. The deal includes: Tariff Ceasefire: A 90-day ceasefire – until March 1 – on hiking the second-round tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese imports. Substantive Talks: The talks will center on structural changes to the Chinese economy, including forced tech transfer, IP theft, hacking, and non-tariff barriers. Vice-Premier Liu He, Xi Jinping’s key economics and trade advisor, may visit Washington in mid-December. Imports: China has agreed to import more goods to lower the U.S. trade deficit, including agricultural and capital goods. This harkens back to the failed May 20 “beef and Boeings” deal. As with the previous deal, there are no deadlines or quantities promised. Not included in the two-and-a-half-hour dinner between Trump and Xi was a substantive discussion on geopolitical tensions. While Chinese statements following the summit did reaffirm Chinese commitment to the U.S.-North Korean diplomacy, there was no broader agreement on tensions, particularly in the South China Sea. The U.S. has recently demanded that China demilitarize the area. Should investors “play” the summit? Tactically, there is an opportunity to play global risk assets in the near term. Cyclically and structurally, however, both economic fundamentals and the underlying trajectory of U.S.-China relations call for caution over the course of 2019. Will The Truce Hold? There are five reasons to doubt the sustainability of the truce: Trade imbalance: It is highly unlikely that the trade imbalance between China and the U.S. can be substantively altered over the course of 90 days. The U.S. economy is in “rude health,” the USD is strong, unemployment is low and pushing up wages, and the output gap is closed. These are the macroeconomic conditions normally associated with an elevated trade imbalance (Chart 1). Chart 1Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues throughout the election season, but not on the issue of his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair, unlike trade with other countries (Chart 2). As such, President Trump will have to produce a convincing deal in order to ensure that his base, and many Democrats, support the deal. Chart 2Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Structural tensions: U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the G20 summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.1 The report was an update to the original investigation that launched the Section 301 tariffs against China. Lighthizer’s report therefore provides a road-map for what the U.S. will want to see over the course of 90 days. High-tech transfers: The Department of Commerce announced on November 19 a “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies.” This review will conclude on December 19 when the public comment period ends. In the report, the federal government lists biotech, AI, genetic computation, microprocessors, data analytics, quantum computing, logistics, 3D printing, robotics, hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials, and advanced surveillance as technologies with potential “dual-use” that may be critical to U.S. national security and thus might merit consideration for export control.2 As such, the U.S. may decide to impose export controls on technologies that China deems critical to accomplishing its “Made in China 2025” goals within the period of the 90 day talks. If those export controls were to include critical items – such as semiconductors, which are critical to China’s export-oriented manufacturing (Chart 3) – negotiations may become more complicated. Geopolitics: The trade truce did not contain any substantive resolution to ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China. These tensions precede President Trump: we have detailed them in these pages since 2012.3 As such, the U.S. defense and intelligence community will have to be on board with any trade deal and that may suggest that Beijing will be asked to make geopolitical concessions over the course of the next 90 days. Chart 3China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Despite the above, the trade truce is a meaningful and substantive move away from an open trade war. Yes, the U.S. will retain tariffs on $250bn Chinese imports, with China maintaining tariffs on $66bn of U.S. imports (Chart 4). No, the U.S. did not rule out a third round of tariffs covering the remaining $267 billion of Chinese imports, if things go awry. Nevertheless, the 90-day truce implies that the U.S. will not ratchet up the tensions for now. Chart 4U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? The truce also allows China to make substantive changes to its domestic economic policies that may satisfy some of the structural concerns cited in the above U.S. Trade Representative report. The soundest basis for a durable deal lies in China recommitting to structural reforms: this would both be positive for China’s productivity and would assuage some of Washington’s underlying anxieties about China’s state-backed industrial policies. Significantly, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs now says that it will “gradually resolve the legitimate concerns of the U.S. in the process of advancing a new round of reform and opening up in China.” When would this new round of reform occur? The upcoming Central Economic Work Conference, and the 40th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, should be watched closely for new initiatives. Also, the new March 1 tariff deadline lines up with the calendar for China’s National People’s Congress (NPC). The NPC meets every year and is the occasion when any major new domestic reforms would need to be laid out. Thus, any Chinese compromises on structural issues could be rolled out as part of a more general reform agenda in March. This is important because the U.S. administration is determined to focus on implementation and not to let China delay resolution of differences through endless rounds of dialogue. As such, investors should watch the following issues over the course of the next three months in order to gauge the likelihood of a substantive deal that not only rules out new tariffs but also rolls back the existing ones: Polls: President Trump is focused on his 2020 reelection. As such, he will want to see political gains from the easing of pressure on China, both in the general populace and amongst his GOP base (Chart 5). A slump in the polls, or a threatening turn in the Mueller investigation, may justify a shift in the narrative come March-April and thus end the truce. Chart 5Trump’s Approval Will Affect Trade Talks Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Big ticket announcements: China is going to have to make big-ticket item purchases. A huge order of Boeing airplanes, a massive ramp-up in the purchase of agricultural products, a raft of direct investments in manufacturing in the heartland … these are the type of announcements that President Trump could use to sell a substantive deal to his base. Structural changes to the Chinese economy: China will have to prove that it is addressing the concerns outlined in the U.S. Trade Representative report. We suspect that Lighthizer issued the report ahead of the G20 summit so as to set the benchmark for what the U.S. wants to see from Beijing. It is a high benchmark as it includes: An end to cyber theft, hacking, and corporate espionage; Substantive, rather than merely “incremental,” improvements to U.S. market access, including increased ownership of ventures; Serious changes to state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen technology, particularly the so-called “Strategic Emerging Industries” program and “Made in China 2025”; An end to China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley. No new U.S. embargoes: The public comment period for the newly proposed U.S. export controls ends on December 19. That suggests that high-tech restrictions could emerge over the course of the first quarter of 2019. These could exacerbate tensions. No new geopolitical tensions: Geopolitical tensions, such as over human rights in Xinjiang or the militarization of the South China Sea, would obviously make a deal less likely.  Bottom Line: The trade truce could lead to a substantive trade deal between China and the U.S. However, many impediments remain. Investors have to answer three key questions: is the deal politically useful for President Trump ahead of the 2020 election? Does the deal resolve the concerns laid out in the U.S. Trade Representative’s Section 301 report? And will geopolitical and national security tensions ease? Since 2012, we have had a structurally bearish view of the Sino-American relationship. This view is based on long-term structural factors that we do not think can be resolved over the course of 90 days. That said, every structural view can have cyclical deviations. The question we now turn to is how to play such a cyclical deviation in terms of the markets. What Does The Truce Mean For The Markets? In our view, the trade war has been of secondary importance to global markets. Far more relevant to the BCA House View that DM assets will outperform EM has been our conclusion that U.S. and Chinese economies would experience policy divergence. The U.S. economy has been buoyed by pro-cyclical stimulus, whereas Chinese policymakers have created a macro-prudential framework that has impaired the country’s credit channel. This divergence has led to the outperformance of the U.S. economy over the rest of the world, leading to a substantive USD rally (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD While this view has worked out well in 2018, it appears to be fraying as the year comes to the end: Chart 7U.S. Growth Weakening? U.S. Growth Weakening? U.S. Growth Weakening? Fed dovishness: Our recent travels to Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Midwest have revealed unease among investors regarding the health of the U.S. economy. Some recent data, such as the woeful core durable goods orders (Chart 7) and weak housing, have prompted calls for a more dovish Fed. On cue, Fed Chair Jay Powell delivered what was perceived as a dovish speech. BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes a strong case for why investors should fade the enthusiasm.4 Specifically, Peter thinks that investors are focusing too much on the unknown – the neutral rate – and not enough on the known – the budding inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Nonetheless, in the near-term, the narrative of a “Fed pause” may overwhelm the data. Chart 8Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Chart 9Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Chinese stimulus: Evidence of a broad-based, irrigation-style, credit stimulus is scant in China’s data. Nonetheless, many investors we have met on the road are latching on to higher local government bond issuance (Chart 9) and a positive M2 credit impulse (Chart 10). Moreover, Q1 almost always brings a boost in new lending in China. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, has recently pointed out that the global credit impulse has hooked up, suggesting that EM underperformance is over (Chart 11).5 We do not think that China can turn the corner on a slumping economy without a substantive increase in its total social financing, which remains subdued both in growth terms and as a second derivative (Chart 12). However, we concede that the narrative may have shifted sufficiently in the near term to warrant some tactical caution on our cyclical House View. ​​​​​​​Chart 10China's M2 Turned Positive China's M2 Turned Positive China's M2 Turned Positive Chart 11An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM Trade truce: Trade concerns have had a clear impact on the outperformance of U.S. equities relative to the rest of the world (Chart 13). As such, a trade truce may alter the narrative sufficiently in the near term to change the direction. In this report, we cite why we are cautious regarding the truce leading to a substantive deal. However, we are biased by our structural perspective that Sino-American tensions are unavoidable. The vast majority of our clients and global investors does not share this view. In fact, the trade war has caught the investment community by surprise. As such, we would argue that investors are biased towards a “win-win” scenario. Therefore, investors may not be cautious, but may in fact project a much higher probability of a final deal into their market decisions. Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak Chart 13U.S. Is Winning The Trade War U.S. Is Winning The Trade War U.S. Is Winning The Trade War Over the course of 2019, we do not think the global risk asset bullishness is sustainable. In fact, a reprieve rally now is going to make global growth resynchronization less likely and continued policy divergence more likely. Why? First, Chinese policymakers will have less of a reason to deploy an irrigation-style credit stimulus if fears of an accelerated trade war abate. Second, the Fed will have less of a reason to back off from its hiking trajectory if both the DXY rally and equity market volatility ease. That said, we are going to close our long DM / short EM trades for the time being. This includes: Our long DM equities / short EM equities, for a gain of 15.70%; Our long U.S. Dollar (DXY) index for a gain of 0.56%; Our long USD / Short EM currency basket for a loss of 0.76%; Our long JPY/GBP call, for a gain of 0.32%. Our hedge of being long China play index ought to outperform on a tactical horizon, so we are leaving it open despite its paltry return so far of 0.32%. Also, we are keeping our long Chinese equities ex. Tech / short EM equities trade, as Chinese assets should rally on the back of the truce. Note that, as outlined above, China’s tech sector is not out of the woods yet. Our decision to close these recommendations is to preserve profits, not change our investment stance. On a cyclical horizon, we remain skeptical that global risk assets will outperform DM, and U.S. assets in particular, over the course of 2019. In the end, we do not believe that a mere narrative shift will be sustainable, especially given the robustness of the U.S. labor market (Chart 14) and the tepidness of Chinese stimulus (Chart 15). Chart 14A Tight Labor Market A Tight Labor Market A Tight Labor Market Chart 15Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Finally, a word on oil prices. The G20 was crucial for the oil call, as well as the trade war, given that Saudi Arabia and Russia suggested that their OPEC 2.0 union would produce supply cuts at the upcoming Vienna meeting on December 6. This proves that fundamentals were more important than the narrative that Saudi leadership “owed” a favor to President Trump. In particular, the Saudis have fiscal constraints given their budget breakeven oil price is around $80-$85 per barrel. As such, we are reinitiating our long EM energy producers (ex-Russia) / short broad EM (ex-China) equity call. We are excluding Russia from the “long” due to lingering geopolitical concerns – sanctions and Ukraine – and China from the “short,” as we are now tactically bullish on China.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 2      Please see The Federal Register, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” dated November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 3      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?,” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas,” dated November 22, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 30, 2018.  The quant model further downgraded U.S. in favor of the non-U.S. block, especially Germany, the Netherlands, Swiss, Spain and Canada as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1 -  3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI world benchmark by 1 bp in November, with a 27 bps of outperformance from Level 2 model offset by a 10 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 46 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 156 bps and level 1 underperforming by 12 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates   Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World   Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model   Dear Client, As advised in our October 2018 Special Alert, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understand will be in December. We thank you for your understanding.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Dear Client, In addition to today’s report, we sent you our 2019 Outlook earlier this week, featuring a discussion between BCA editors and Mr. and Ms. X. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Today’s macroeconomic backdrop of slowing global growth, plunging oil prices, falling equity prices, widening credit spreads, and a strong dollar is reminiscent of what transpired in 2015. We do not expect global capital spending to contract as much as it did back then, partly because Saudi output cuts should preclude the need for shale producers to slash capex plans. Nevertheless, global growth is likely to slow further into the first half of next year, suggesting that equities and other risk assets could face renewed near-term pressures. The sell-off in the dollar following Powell’s speech is unwarranted. We expect the DXY to reach 100 by early next year. Global bond yields will rise by more than currently discounted over a 12-to-18 month horizon, but are likely to fall somewhat over the next few months. Feature Echoes From The Past Today’s macroeconomic backdrop is starting to look increasingly similar to 2015, a year when the global economy slowed sharply and commodity prices took it on the chin. In 2014, the Fed was gearing up to raise rates while other central banks were still in full-out easing mode. The divergence in monetary policies between the U.S. and the rest of the world caused the U.S. dollar to surge. The broad trade-weighted dollar strengthened by 16% between July 2014 and March 2015 (Chart 1). Chart 1Current Dollar Strength: Replay Of 2015? Current Dollar Strength: Replay Of 2015? Current Dollar Strength: Replay Of 2015? The effects of the stronger dollar rippled across the global economy. Notably, since China had a de facto currency peg to the dollar at the time, the resurgent greenback made Chinese companies less competitive in global markets. The appreciation of the yuan came at a time when the Chinese government was tightening both monetary and fiscal policy. The year-over-year change in total social financing (TSF) reached as high as 23% in April 2013 but fell to 12% in May 2015 (Chart 2). Chart 2Just Like Today, China Was Tightening Monetary And Fiscal Policy Going Into 2015 Just Like Today, China Was Tightening Monetary And Fiscal Policy Going Into 2015 Just Like Today, China Was Tightening Monetary And Fiscal Policy Going Into 2015 Eager to give its export sector a competitive boost, China allowed the currency to weaken by about 4% in August 2015 (Chart 3). The “mini-devaluation” backfired. Rather than instilling confidence in the economy, it caused investors to bet on further currency declines. Capital outflows intensified as the yuan came under further pressure. Between June 2014 and January 2016, China lost almost US$1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. Chart 3China's Mini-Devaluation Backfired China's Mini-Devaluation Backfired China's Mini-Devaluation Backfired The combination of a stronger dollar and sagging Chinese growth led to a steep decline in commodity prices. The London Metals Exchange index fell by nearly 40% between July 2014 and January 2016. Brent crude oil prices plunged from $110/bbl to as low as $26/bbl during this period (Chart 4). Capital spending in the commodity sector collapsed. Fears over the financial health of commodity producers and related firms caused credit spreads to widen (Chart 5).  Chart 4Stronger Dollar And Soggy Chinese Growth Were A Bad Combination For Commodity Prices Stronger Dollar And Soggy Chinese Growth Were A Bad Combination For Commodity Prices Stronger Dollar And Soggy Chinese Growth Were A Bad Combination For Commodity Prices Chart 5Weakness In The Commodity Complex Weighed On High-Yield Bonds In 2015 Weakness In The Commodity Complex Weighed On High-Yield Bonds In 2015 Weakness In The Commodity Complex Weighed On High-Yield Bonds In 2015 Throughout the course of 2015, the Fed refused to back off from its plans to start raising rates. It hiked rates in December of that year and signaled four more hikes for 2016. However, as markets continued to swoon, the FOMC quickly backed off. The Fed would not raise rates again for a full 12 months. The Federal Reserve’s decision to temper its hawkish rhetoric, along with China’s decision to ramp up stimulus in early 2016, put a floor under risk assets. Fast forward to the present and investors are again wondering if the Fed is about to blink and whether the Chinese authorities are set to deliver a massive dose of global reflationary stimulus. We would not exclude either option. However, we think that a lot more pain is required before either occurs. China’s Begrudging Stimulus Program The Chinese government’s reform agenda remains focused on curbing credit growth and reducing excess capacity. China has historically stimulated its economy with ever-more debt and investment spending (Chart 6). There is an obvious tension here – one that is likely to make the authorities reluctant to turn on the credit spigot unless the economy slows further. Chart 6China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand Of course, China can try to stimulate its economy without relying on more debt-financed investment spending. In particular, it can try to boost consumption or net exports. The problem is that neither of these two options would be welcome news for other nations. Capital goods and raw materials account for more than 80% of Chinese imports. The rest of the world relies on Chinese investment, not Chinese consumption. Similarly, while stricter capital controls have given the authorities greater scope to weaken the yuan than they had in 2015, such a move would only hurt China’s competitors and curb Chinese imports.  The Fed Will Keep Hiking Stocks rallied and the dollar sold off on Wednesday after Chairman Powell seemingly suggested that the fed funds rate was already close to neutral. This appeared to be a sharp recanting of his statement in early October that the Fed was a “long way” from neutral. We think the financial media and many pundits overreacted to Powell’s remarks. What he actually said was that “interest rates are still low by historical standards, and they remain just below the broad range of estimates of the level that would be neutral for the economy.”1 The “broad range” of estimates that Powell was referring to is drawn from September’s Summary of Economic Projections, which showed that FOMC members saw the appropriate “longer run” level of the fed funds rate as ranging between 2.5% and 3.5%. Given that the current target for the fed funds rate is 2%-to-2.25%, Powell was merely stating a fact about the current position of the Fed dots, not offering new forward guidance. In any case, investors are focusing too much on what Powell may or may not be thinking. The Fed does not know where the neutral rate is. True to its “data-dependent” approach, it will keep raising rates until the economy slows by enough that it needs to stop. Our base-case scenario envisions only a modest slowdown in U.S. growth, driven in part by increasing capacity constraints (the latter should make the Fed more, not less, eager to raise rates). So far, the data are consistent with this benign slowdown scenario. Holiday sales have been stronger than expected, based on data from Johnson-Redbook and Adobe Digital Insights. According to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, real GDP is on track to increase by 2.6% in the fourth quarter. Net exports and inventory destocking are expected to shave about half a percentage point off growth. This means that real final domestic demand is still growing at a healthy 3% pace. GDP growth could slow to about 2.5% next year as the fiscal impulse declines and the lagged effects from the recent tightening in financial conditions make their way through the economy. Nevertheless, given that most estimates peg potential growth at around 1.7%-to-1.8%, this should still be enough to push the unemployment rate towards 3% by the end of 2019, bringing it to the lowest level since the Korean War. This should keep price and wage inflation on an upward trajectory (Chart 7). Chart 7Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? The “dots” in the September Summary of Economic Projections foresaw one rate increase this December and three additional hikes next year. The market is currently pricing in only two hikes through to end-2019 and no hikes beyond then (Chart 8). If our baseline scenario for the U.S. economy unfolds as expected, the Fed will raise rates four times next year, which will keep the U.S. dollar well bid.  Chart 8The Market Does Not Buy The Dots Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 Oil And The Global Economy: Why It Will Not Be As Bad This Time Around As in 2015, a key question today is how the recent drop in oil prices will affect both the U.S. and the global economy. Here there is some good news. The balance sheets of U.S. energy companies have improved markedly over the past few years. Rapid productivity has allowed shale producers to boost production to record levels without having to incur substantially higher costs. In fact, capital spending in the energy sector is far lower as a share of GDP today than it was in the lead-up to the 2015 shale bust (Chart 9). Chart 9Energy Sector Capex Is Far Below Its 2014 Peak Energy Sector Capex Is Far Below Its 2014 Peak Energy Sector Capex Is Far Below Its 2014 Peak Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the slide in oil prices is also likely to be different this time around. In 2015, the Saudis refrained from cutting output in the hope that this would undermine Iran and decimate the fledgling U.S. shale industry. In the end, the Iranian regime endured, and while U.S. production did fall temporarily, it quickly rebounded (Chart 10). Chart 10Who Won The Market Share War Of 2015? Who Won The Market Share War Of 2015? Who Won The Market Share War Of 2015? Going into September, the Saudis ramped up production after President Trump indicated his intent to tighten sanctions on Iranian oil exports. In the end, Trump declined to reimpose the sanctions. This left the market with a surfeit of crude. There is a limit to how much Saudi Arabia can cut output. Now that the stock market is well off its highs, President Trump has started to take credit for low oil prices. Nevertheless, the Saudis are keenly aware that they need crude to trade at about $83 per barrel just to balance their budget. Our geopolitical and energy strategists expect the Kingdom to cut production by enough to push up prices from current levels. Russia has also hinted at restraining supply. If U.S. producers fill part of the void created by Saudi and Russian production cutbacks, U.S. energy sector capital spending will hold up much better than it did in 2015. Provided that oil prices do not return all the way to their September highs, U.S. consumers will also benefit from an increase in spending power. Investment Conclusions We do not expect the global economy to weaken as much as it did in 2015. Nevertheless, most forward-looking economic indicators point to slower growth over the next few quarters (Chart 11). Global growth will likely bottom out by the middle of 2019, but until then, investors should continue to favor developed over emerging market stocks. They should also overweight defensive equity sectors, such as consumer staples and health care, relative to deep cyclicals, such as materials and industrials. Given sector skews, this implies a regional preference for the U.S. over Europe and Japan. Chart 11Global Growth Is Slowing Global Growth Is Slowing Global Growth Is Slowing As far as the near-term absolute direction of stocks is concerned, the equity score from our MacroQuant market-timing model has risen from its recent lows thanks to an improvement in sentiment/technical components. Nevertheless, the model is still pointing to heightened downside risks to global equities over the remainder of the year and into early 2019 due to slowing growth and the lagged effects of the recent tightening in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 12MacroQuant Equity Model* Score Is Off Its Lows, But Is Still Warning Of More Downside For Stocks Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 Slower global growth and ongoing Fed rate hikes should keep the dollar well bid. Consistent with our qualitative analysis, our model is currently sending a very bullish signal on the greenback (Chart 13). We expect the DXY to reach 100 by early next year. Chart 13MacroQuant U.S. Dollar Model Is Pointing To Further Upside For The Greenback Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 The model’s near-term outlook on bonds has improved greatly in recent weeks after having spent the better part of the last 18 months in bearish territory (Chart 14). To be clear, this is a tactical signal: The model’s cyclical fair-value estimate for the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield stands at 3.71% – 67 basis points above current levels – which implies that the 12-to-18 month path for yields remains to the upside (Chart 15). Nevertheless, with global growth slowing and lower energy prices dragging down inflation, there is a good chance that the 10-year yield will temporarily fall below 3% before resuming its structural uptrend. Chart 14MacroQuant Recommended Portfolio*: Tactically Favor Bonds Over Stocks Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015   Chart 15MacroQuant U.S. Bond Model*: Treasury Yields Are Still Well Below Fair Value, But The Upside Is Capped Tactically Shades Of 2015 Shades Of 2015 Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Jerome H. Powell, “The Federal Reserve’s Framework for Monitoring Financial Stability,” Federal Reserve, November 28, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

OPEC 2.0’s meeting next week in Vienna once again will feature a full cast of dignitaries representing member states, including the energy ministers from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, Khalid al-Falih and Alexander Novak. They have led the coalition since it was formed two years ago to halt a destructive oil-price collapse occasioned by the disastrous OPEC market-share war, which was launched at a similar gathering in November 2014. U.S. President Donald Trump will be present in Vienna, if only in spirit; and via Twitter, of course, continuing to press the oil exporters to maintain production at record high levels. We expect Trump’s demands to go unheeded. The leaders of OPEC 2.0 – and their bosses – likely will agree to production cuts in Buenos Aries at the G20 meeting starting tomorrow, which energy ministers will ratify in Vienna. If they don’t, the 30.2% decline in Brent since early October will mark a stopping-off point in a larger down move (Chart 1). Chart 1Another Price Collapse Looms, Without An OPEC 2.0 Production Cut Another Price Collapse Looms, Without An OPEC 2.0 Production Cut Another Price Collapse Looms, Without An OPEC 2.0 Production Cut Our 2019 Brent forecast remains at $82/bbl, with WTI $6/bbl lower. We expect OPEC 2.0 will agree to cut 1.0 – 1.4mm b/d of production, to undo the supply shock delivered via waivers on the U.S. export sanctions against Iran.1 Without production cuts our forecast will be lowered. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Canadian crude oil prices likely will remain depressed, as takeaway pipeline capacity remains fully booked and producers are forced to use expensive rail transport to move their barrels south (see below). The WCS – WTI differential recently traded close to -$50/bbl, due to pipeline constraints. Base Metals: Neutral. Zinc’s near-record physical-to-prompt futures backwardation remains close to recent highs, on the back of sharply lower stocks at the LME and SHFE. 2 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold remains in the middle of the range it’s occupied since 2013, on either side of $1,225/oz going into the G20 meeting. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybeans recovered slightly ahead of the G20 meeting in Buenos Aries tomorrow. Markets will be watching for any sign of a thaw in the Sino – U.S. trade war. Feature Two years into the oil-price recovery, OPEC 2.0 member states continue to suffer from post-traumatic budget disorders (PTBD). The coalition’s leaders need higher prices, as do the rest of its members. KSA, Russia and the other OPEC 2.0 member states are coming off weak recoveries from the oil-price collapse of 2015 – 16. The oil price required to balance KSA’s budgetary obligations – its fiscal breakeven (FBE) price – averages $82.90/bbl this year and next, according to the IMF’s most recent estimates.3 If prices remain lower for longer, KSA’s official reserves will continue to fall, as its sovereign wealth fund continues to be tapped to fill budget gaps. The Kingdom’s official reserves, which stand at ~ $495 billion by the IMF’s reckoning, have fallen by almost one-third versus their 2014 peak, as a result of the lingering effects of the oil-price collapse.4 The Kingdom needs higher prices to transition to a less oil-dependent economy, and to meet its budget obligations in the present. Lastly, if it ever hopes to IPO its state oil company, Aramco, to fund its diversification efforts, KSA will have to have higher prices. The Middle East oil exporters as a group (ex Libya and Yemen, which are failed states), also are especially vulnerable to another oil-price collapse. The IMF estimates that every $10/bbl reduction in oil prices translates into 3 percentage-point drop in these states’ GDPs, and spawns untoward economic ramifications – e.g., tightening financial conditions leading to asset-price corrections, deterioration of banks’ assets, and slower growth. 5 As for Russia, it only started recovering last year from the oil-price shock of 2015 – 16 and the imposition of Western sanctions following its annexation of Crimea. Prior to that, real wages fell precipitously, and the government was required to tighten fiscal and monetary policy to control inflation following the collapse of the rouble, when the central bank stopped defending it in the wake of falling oil prices. Real GDP fell 2.5% in 2015 and 0.2% in 2016, then grew at a 1.5% rate last year, which was below expectations, according to the IMF. Growth is expected to come in at 1.7% this year, although the recent collapse in oil prices and renewed tensions with Ukraine could temper this outlook.6 The IMF warned in its July 2018 assessment of the economy, that “structural constraints” – high levels of state control, economic concentration and regulation, weak institutions and infrastructure – and geopolitical tensions “raised uncertainty and dampened domestic and foreign private investment.” Against this backdrop, President Trump’s insistence upon keeping KSA’s and OPEC’s production higher to keep U.S. gasoline prices lower puts his “oil policy” directly in opposition to the interests of KSA and its Gulf allies. Even though Russia has geared its budget to withstand oil prices as low as $40/bbl, lower prices will impact it, albeit to a lesser extent than the Middle East OPEC states. These states are not alone in being disadvantaged by President Trump’s insistence on lower-for-longer oil prices. U.S. shale-oil producers, which are driving the country’s oil output surge, do not benefit from lower prices. WTI prices in the low-$50s – and West Texas Midland prices trading ~ $6/bbl below that, because of pipeline constraints in the Permian Basis – will reduce capex in the shales and imperil growth (Chart 2). Chart 2Bottlenecks Pressure Spreads Bottlenecks Pressure Spreads Bottlenecks Pressure Spreads In addition, the U.S. defense contractors, whose interest President Trump recently cited as his principal foreign policy driver when he was demanding higher OPEC production, know that without stronger oil prices, KSA will not be able to follow through on the $110+ billion of arms deals contained in various letters of intent signed last year during the president’s visit to the Kingdom.7 Net, we expect OPEC 2.0 to agree on production cuts of between 1.0mm and 1.4mm b/d at its December 6 meeting. In our balances modeling, to be conservative, we assume OPEC 2.0 (ex Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela) production next year will be 900k b/d below the peak reached this month (Chart 3). This, along with steady demand – we assume growth of 1.46mm b/d next year, which takes global demand over 101.6mm b/d next year – drives our $82/bbl forecast for Brent. We expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent next year. Chart 3Lower OPEC 2.0 Production Expected Lower OPEC 2.0 Production Expected Lower OPEC 2.0 Production Expected In addition to the above assumptions, we also believe KSA and its Gulf allies will maintain their production cuts in 2H19, to make room for higher U.S. shale production once Permian Basin pipeline transportation is de-bottlenecked. With the exception of the 2014 – 16 price collapse, which resulted from the ill-fated market-share war launched by OPEC in an attempt to limit Iran’s revenues when it returned to export markets following the removal of export sanctions in 2015, OPEC’s modus operandi has been to reduce production to make room for non-OPEC production increases.8 Canada’s Takeaway Dilemma Unlike the Permian Basin, Canada’s takeaway bottlenecks – i.e., insufficient pipeline capacity to move all of the oil-sands crude it can produce south to the U.S. refining or Gulf Coast export market – are not likely to be resolved in the near future. This will reduce investment in oil-sands development, and keep pressure on oil producers selling their crude on a Western Canadian Select (WCS) basis, the Canadian benchmark. At present, there is a large takeaway deficit in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Pipeline capacity has been maxed out since 2H17. There were five planned pipeline projects in the basin, four of which have been either cancelled or indefinitely delayed – i.e., the Trans Mountain Expansion, Northern Gateway, Energy Est and Keystone XL – while one is expected to be constructed in 4Q19 (i.e., the Line 3 Replacement). The outlook for pipeline capacity does not bode well for WCS prices. Since 2017, around 3mm b/d of needed pipeline infrastructure has been cancelled/delayed. The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement is expected to increase crude delivery to Superior, WI, in 4Q19, by ~ 370k b/d. Absent a major policy or court ruling U-turn, projected pipeline additions will be insufficient to cover Alberta’s growing oil sands surplus until 2022, and possibly beyond (Chart 4).9 Chart 4Expected Pipeline Additions In Canada Fall Short The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting This persistent takeaway deficit pushed the WTI – WCS spread past the crude-by-rail cost range (Chart 5). This means prices are signaling the need for additional takeaway capacity – i.e., building additional pipeline, or importantly, additional trains/crews/rail infrastructure – and that production should be reduced. Chart 5WCS Differentials Signal More Takeaway, Less Production Is Required The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting Our analysis of takeaway capacity in the WCSB leads us to believe investments in oil sands will be curtailed, which will lead to a slowdown in production starting in 2021 (Chart 6). According to IHS Markit, production growth this year and next is expected to come mainly from projects under construction before 2014. Capex is still low compared to pre-2014 levels (Chart 7). The current WTI – WCS spread should limit production growth to ~ 600k b/d between 2018 and ~ 2022. If, as we expect, the delayed pipelines are built in late 2021- early 2022, investment should start to rise again prior to this. Hence, production growth could resume close to 2022, or slightly thereafter. This is in line with the Canadian National Energy Board’s low-price scenario, in which oil production increases by 600k b/d from now to 2021, and plateau/declines afterward due to lack of investments. Chart 6Expect Lower Oil-Sands Capex Expect Lower Oil-Sands Capex Expect Lower Oil-Sands Capex Chart 7Capex Below Pre-2014 Levels The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The lack of pipeline takeaway capacity has forced crude producers to pay higher rates to move their oil out of the provinces via rail. In the short-term, this is a reasonable – although partial – solution. In theory, Saskatchewan and Alberta have enough loading-terminal capacity to transport all of the excess crude supply above pipeline capacity (Chart 8). Chart 8Takeaway Capacity Can Be Found The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting However, loading-terminals are currently underutilized and shared with other commodities produced in the regions.10 Hence, crude-by-rail can only increase by: Taking capacity from other commodities currently using the rail cars, crews and locomotives. However, most of these substitute transportation modes are in already-agreed long- and medium term contracts with the railroad companies (Chart 9). Railroad companies are not willing to give away space paid for by grain shippers, which are long-term reliable customers – as opposed to uncertain crude-oil customers. Earlier this year, railroads said they would only pursue multi-year contracts with oil producers to finance new crews, locomotives, and track capacity: Short-term contracts are too risky, in the event oil shipments stop suddenly. This is ongoing; crude-by-rail volume should continue to rise through the end of the year, and part of next year.11 The fact that there is a low level of uncertainty around the lack of pipeline capacity for the next 3-4 years helps increase rail investments. Chart 9Railroads Make Grain Contracts First Priority The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting Investing in new equipment, crews and infrastructures. The Alberta Government recently announced it wants the Federal government to invest in new rail cars and infrastructure to increase takeaway capacity by 120k to 140k b/d. However, those new rail cars are only projected to start moving oil in 2H19.12 We expect crude-by-rail volumes to increase in the next few months, but the growth should slow or even flatten in 1H19, given new capacity takes time to be brought on line and other commodities already have a claim on most of the rail space.13 Crude-by-rail growth should resume in 2H19, however. We expect crude-by-rail volume to reach ~ 300k b/d by year-end and ~ 450k b/d by 4Q19. This will help alleviate some of the pressure on WCS prices (Chart 10). The fact that no pipelines are expected in the next 3 years or so suggests the WCS discount to WTI will remain in the crude-by-rail price range shown in Chart 5 – i.e., a $15-to-$22/bbl discount over the quality discount for heavy sour crude vs. the light-sweet WTI benchmark.14 Chart 10Crude-by-rail Should Increase In 2H19 The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting As bad as things sound for Canadian producers, there are two potentially important – and conflicting – regulatory and policy wildcards that could affect our projections. First the good news, then the bad news: Government-imposed production cuts: The current abnormally wide WCS spreads are caused by the marginal excess production above pipeline and rail capacity. We estimate this excess to be ~ 200k b/d. This means the marginal price received for producing these volumes sets the selling prices of the other ~ 4mm b/d produced in Canada by ~ $10-15/bbl. Therefore, as suggested by two leading Canadian oil producers, a relatively small government-imposed production reduction would have a large positive effect on WCS prices (Chart 11). As present, we assign a low probability to this outcome. Chart 11Government-Imposed Production Cut Would Lift Prices The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting IMO 2020 regulation: The January 1, 2020, implementation of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) sulphur cap on marine fuels of 0.50% could contribute to widening the WCS price discount. A recent study by CERI concluded the new regulation would decrease prices of heavy sour crude, by driving down demand for these grades. This would significantly affect Canadian oil, as it competes with other heavy streams for limited complex refining capacity worldwide. According to CERI’s analysis, IMO 2020 regulation alone could maintain the differential at $31-33/bbl. We will be exploring the implications of IMO 2020 in future research. Bottom Line: Canada’s oil industry faces a Herculean lift if it is to attract capital to grow. Pipeline constraints limiting crude takeaway capacity to the south in the WCSB strongly suggest investment in oil sands will be curtailed, which will lead to a slowdown in production starting in 2021. Crude-by-rail is a palliative, which does not fully address the underlying transportation bottlenecks limiting the growth of the Canadian crude-oil industry.     Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “All Fall Down: Vertigo In The Oil Market … Lowering 2019 Brent Forecast To $82/bbl,” published November 15, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     LME stocks are at 10-year lows, and the SHFE’s are just over 20% of their August levels. Please see “METALS – Zinc falls as weaker Chinese demand outweighs supply fears,” published by reuters.com November 26, 2018. 3      This assumes average crude-oil production of 10.1mm b/d by the IMF. Please see the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook Update for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, for May 2018, Statistical Appendix Table 6. 4      Please see the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook Update for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, for May 2018, Statistical Appendix Table 22. 5      Please see the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook Update for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, for May 2018 (p. 8). 6      The Russian seizure of Ukrainian ships and sailors earlier this week could prompt additional sanctions from the West. In its immediate aftermath, the ruble fell, credit-default insurance rates rose and the yield on local-currency bonds approached 9% p.a. Please see “Russian Assets Retreat as Ukraine Clash Revives Sanctions Risk,” published by bloomberg.com November 26, 2018. See also the IMF’s Country Report No. 18/275, Russian Federation, published in September 12, 2018, press release, and the full report published July 17, 2018. 7      Please see “In Trump’s Saudi Bargain, the Bottom Line Proudly Wins Out,” published by the nytimes.com October 14, 2018. 8      A failure by OPEC 2.0 to cut production and an extension of waivers on the Iran sanctions could add as much as 1.2mm b/d of oil to the market next year, which would renew the global inventory-building cycle and push Brent prices down by $20/bbl versus our forecasts, in our estimation. 9      Prior to the cancellation/delay by U.S. and Canadian Courts of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain and TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline projects – and before the record blow-out of the WTI – WCS basis – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) projected Canadian production would grow from 4.5mm b/d in 2018 to 6.1mm b/d in 2035. All of this growth is projected to come from the WCSB oil sands. On August 30, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The National Energy Board (NEB) now has to conduct a new review, which will require it to increase consultations with indigenous groups, and to assess the impact of marine shipping before submitting the project. On November 8, U.S. District Judge in Montana issued a ruling on the Keystone XL pipeline forcing the State Department to analyze new information in the environmental assessment of the project. The project is not cancelled, but it now needs a new environmental impact assessment. Please see the CAPP’s July report entitled 2018 Crude Oil Forecast. 10     Please see the CAPP’s July report entitled “2018 Crude Oil Forecast: Markets And Transportation,” for more details. 11     Cenovus signed three-year deals to transport approximately 100,000 barrels per day (bbls/d) of heavy crude oil from northern Alberta to the U.S. by rail. (https://www.cenovus.com/news/news-releases/2018/09-26-2018-cenovus-signs-rail-deals-to-transport-oil-to-u.s.-gulf-coast.html). GE Transportation announced CN ordered 60 new locomotives on top of an order of 200 made in December 2017 (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/09/05-cn-orders-60-locomotives-from-ge). 12     Please see “Desperate to move crude, Alberta may buy trains alone if Canada balks,” published November 22, 2018, by ca.reuters.com. The odds of the Federal government participating in this investment are low: First, the request wasn’t mentioned in the most recent Federal economic statement. Second, the Federal government already stepped in to buy the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline; Ottawa is now focused on making sure this will be approved in court challenges. 13     Both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railroads mentioned their priority was to handle the Canadian grain harvest during the “challenging winter months” before allocating rail space to crude oil. Grains-to-oil rail space substitution should increase in spring 2019. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/11/14-cn-and-cp-expect-to-bring-on-even-more-crude-oil-traffic-next-year 14     The discount to get Canadian crude to Cushing, OK, where the NY Mercantile Exchange’s WTI futures contract delivers, can increase by $5/bbl for Gulf deliveries. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed In 2018 The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting The Third Man At OPEC 2.0's Meeting