Emerging Markets

Highlights So What? More downside to CNY/USD ahead. Why? The trade war is spilling into political and military arenas, making it harder to de-escalate and negotiate a trade deal. Official U.S. and Chinese rhetoric is increasingly antagonistic, reflecting once-in-a-generation policy shifts toward a new Cold War. Tensions will not subside after the U.S. midterm election - neither the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement nor any quick deals with Japan and the EU will speed up U.S.-China negotiations. Feature Clients know that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been alarmist on U.S.-China relations since we started as a service in 2012.1 This structural view is based on the long-term decline of U.S. power relative to China and the emergence of global multipolarity.2 However, the rise of General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2012 and President Donald Trump in 2016 have reinforced our view that "Sino-American conflict is more likely than you think."3 This includes military as well as economic conflict. Setting aside the risk of war, a geopolitical "incident" of some kind is becoming increasingly likely. As the two sides engage in brinkmanship, the probability of a miscalculation or provocation rises, and the probability of a grand new compromise falls. For investors, the takeaway is supportive of Geopolitical Strategy's current stance: long U.S. dollar, long U.S. stocks relative to DM, and long DM stocks relative to EM. We expect CNY/USD to fall further as markets question the ability to discount trade uncertainties via tariff rates alone (Chart 1). We continue to recommend a "safe haven" hedge of Swiss bonds and gold. Chart 1CNY/USD Has More Downside CNY/USD Has More Downside CNY/USD Has More Downside The risk is that China could respond to U.S. pressure by stimulating its economy aggressively. So far, the "China Play Index," devised by our Foreign Exchange Strategy, does not signal reflation. Nor do Chinese domestic infrastructure stocks relative to global, which our China Investment Strategy watches closely (Chart 2). Chart 2Small Stimulus Thus Far Small Stimulus Thus Far Small Stimulus Thus Far Trade Tensions Are Spilling Over A corollary of our view that U.S.-China tensions are secular and strategic in nature - i.e., not limited to the U.S. trade deficit - is the view that trade tensions will spill over into strategic areas, exacerbating those tensions and generating negative outcomes for investors exposed to the U.S.-China economic partnership.4 This strategic spillover is now taking shape. Since President Trump went forward with the second round of tariffs - 10% on $200 billion worth of imports, to ratchet up to 25% on January 1, 2019 - a series of negative events have taken place in U.S.-China relations (Table 1), culminating in the USS Decatur incident on September 30. Table 1Trade War Spills Into Strategic Areas A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force? The Decatur, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, was conducting operations in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea when it sailed within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson Reefs, which China claims as sovereign islands. At around 8:30am that Sunday morning, a Luyang-class destroyer from China's People's Liberation Army Navy "approached within 45 yards of Decatur's bow, after which Decatur maneuvered to prevent a collision," according to the U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman. This was not an unprecedented incident in itself, but it came very close to a collision that could easily have resulted in a shipwreck, a full-blown U.S.-China crisis, and a global risk-off event in financial markets. The Decatur sailed close to the Chinese-claimed reefs because it was conducting a "Freedom of Navigation Operation" (FONOP) to assert the international right of free passage. A major point of contention between China and the U.S. (and between China and most of its neighbors and the western world) is that China claims outright sovereignty over about 80% of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands. In July 2016, the International Court of Arbitration ruled that none of the contested rocks and reefs in the sea qualify as islands and hence that they are not entitled to 12 nautical miles of "territorial" sea. China rejects this ruling and asserts sovereignty over the maritime features and much of the sea itself.5 In Diagram 1 we illustrate how a FONOP works based on a similar operation last year. The U.S. has conducted these operations for decades, but in late 2015 it began a series of FONOPs focusing on countering China's excessive claims in the South China Sea.6 This was also a way of opposing China's construction, reclamation, and "militarization" of the reefs under its possession. Diagram 1What Is A 'Freedom Of Navigation Operation'? A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force? It is not remotely a surprise that this year's trade tensions came close to exploding in the South China Sea. It is the premier geographic location of U.S.-China strategic friction: a hub for international trade; a vital supply route for all major Asian economies; and the primary focus of China's attempt to rewrite global rules (Diagram 2).7 The Appendix updates our list of clashes in this area. Diagram 2South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force? The takeaway is that, far from capitulating to the Trump administration's trade demands, China is taking a more aggressive stance - and it is doing so outside the trade context. The U.S., for its part, has not diminished the significance of this incident, as it has often done on similar occasions.8 Instead, Vice President Mike Pence gave a remarkable speech at the Hudson Institute on October 4 in which he highlighted the Decatur, among a range of other "predatory" Chinese state-backed actions, to make a comprehensive case that China is a geopolitical rival seeking to undermine the United States and specifically the Trump administration.9 Pence's comments reflect a decision to "go public" with a shift in national strategy that has been developing in recent years, beginning - albeit tepidly - even in the Obama administration. A similar shift is underway in China - and has accelerated with the U.S.'s implementation of tariffs. Official Communist Party rhetoric increasingly characterizes the U.S. as an enemy whose real intention is to "contain" China's rise and has recently called for Chinese "self-reliance" in the face of U.S. sanctions.10 The two sides are bracing for conflict and are now seeking to mold public opinion more actively. Bottom Line: Investors should take note: markets were 45 yards away from a significant correction! The U.S.-China trade tensions are spilling outside of economic relations into political and military domains, as we expected. The South China Sea remains a hot zone that could be the setting of a geopolitical incident as tensions mount. What Is A Show Of Force? Notably, the U.S. military is said to be considering a "global show of force" during an unspecified week in November in order to deter China from its current policy trajectory. If this occurs, it will be market-relevant as it will be seen as a provocation by China and other U.S. rivals. A "show of force" is a formal military operation conducted by a nation with the purpose of demonstrating that it has both the will and the ability to use force in defense of its interests. It is fundamentally a political action, even though it utilizes military resources. The declared intention is to demonstrate resolve and prevent or deter an undesirable course of action by a rival state.11 Nevertheless, it is the equivalent of a dog baring its teeth and should not be taken lightly, especially when conducted by one major power against another. The U.S. holds shows of force fairly frequently. Over recent decades it has been the third most common type of operation for U.S. forces.12 However, for most of the past several decades, the U.S. conducted very few operations in the Asia Pacific not pertaining to the Vietnam War, and these were usually of limited length and intensity. They were often shows of force to deter North Korea from various acts of terrorism and sabotage. China was rarely involved - there was, for example, no U.S. deployment during the Tiananmen crisis. Nevertheless there are a few highly relevant precedents: By far the most important exception is the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996. This was a major show of force - and one whose shadow still hangs over the Taiwan Strait. In July 1995, Beijing launched a series of missile tests and military exercises, hoping to discourage pro-independence sentiment and dissuade the Taiwanese people from voting for President Lee Teng-hui - who was rightly suspected of favoring independence - ahead of the 1996 elections. The United States responded on March 1, 1996 by deploying two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Independence, and various warships to the area. The Nimitz even sailed through the strait. Tensions peaked ahead of the Taiwanese election on March 23, 1996 - in which voters went against China's wishes - and the show of force concluded after 48 days on April 17. Of course, tensions simmered for years afterwards. The Taiwan incident was the only operation involving China in the 1990s, and the first to do so since a minor contingency operation upon the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979. It is generally deemed successful in demonstrating U.S. commitment to Taiwan's security - but it also spurred a revolution in Chinese military affairs, such that China is today in a far better position to attack Taiwan than ever before.13 The market effects were pronounced: Chinese and Taiwanese equities sold off. American stocks were unaffected (Chart 3). Chart 3Naval Shows Of Force Can Rattle Markets Naval Shows Of Force Can Rattle Markets Naval Shows Of Force Can Rattle Markets The second major exception was the Hainan Island Incident, or EP-3 Incident. On April 1, 2001 a Chinese jet struck a U.S. EP-3 ARIES II signals reconnaissance plane in the skies over the South China Sea. The U.S. plane landed on China's island province of Hainan, where its crew was detained and interrogated for 10 days while their aircraft was meticulously disassembled. Ultimately the U.S. issued a half-hearted apology and the crew was released. This was a much smaller show of force than the third Taiwan crisis. The U.S. Navy positioned three destroyers in the area for two days. Chart 4A South China Sea Incident Helped Kill The Bull Market A South China Sea Incident Helped Kill The Bull Market A South China Sea Incident Helped Kill The Bull Market This incident marked the peak of the cycle in U.S. equities ex-tech (Chart 4). In China, both A-shares and H-shares experienced volatility before selling off in subsequent months (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 5Volatility And Selloffs Amid Asian Shows Of Force Volatility And Selloffs Amid Asian Shows Of Force Volatility And Selloffs Amid Asian Shows Of Force The Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island incidents occasioned a show of force. On March 26, 2010 a North Korean miniature submarine conducted a surprise torpedo attack against the Cheonan, a South Korean Corvette, sinking it and killing 46 sailors. The U.S. intended to respond by positioning the USS George Washington in the Yellow Sea, but was intimidated from doing so by China's fiercely negative diplomatic reaction. Instead it deployed the carrier to the Sea of Japan. Later that year, however, after North Korea shelled Yeonpyeong Island and killed four South Koreans, the U.S. responded with a beefed up version of regular military drills, including the George Washington, for four days in the Yellow Sea. This incident is significant in showing how aggressively China will oppose demonstrations of American naval power in its near abroad. Unlike in 1996, China is today much better positioned to react to U.S. naval action in its neighborhood. If Beijing was so resistant to a U.S. show of force against North Korea in the wake of a North Korean attack, it will be even more resistant to a U.S. display of might in China's nearby waters aimed at China in response to what China views as a defense of maritime-territorial sovereignty. Chinese A-shares sold off, while H-shares were somewhat more resilient, during this episode (Chart 5, second panel). Fire and Fury: The United States' latest significant show of force occurred in 2017 when the navy positioned three aircraft carrier strike groups in the region to deter North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric against the United States. This action ultimately led to Chinese enforcement of sanctions and North Korean capitulation to U.S. demands. Chinese stocks only briefly sold off during this episode (Chart 5, third panel). However, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield fell during the peak of tensions in the summer. So what about the global show of force that the U.S. is considering in November? Details on the specific operation under consideration are scant because they fall under a "classified proposal," written by members of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command and only partially leaked to the press (apparently to coincide with Vice President Pence's speech).14 The proposal is still being discussed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community, so nothing is final. From the information that is publicly available, it is highly significant that the proposed show of force is supposed to be "global" in range. It would reportedly involve a "series" of military missions on "several fronts," including the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, an unspecified area near Russia, and the west coast of South America. It would also involve multiple military services - the navy, the air force, the marines, and potentially cyber and space capabilities. While the various missions would reportedly be "concentrated" and "focused," implying that the U.S. wants to manage the escalation of tensions carefully, the locations that have been named are extremely sensitive. A show of force in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea would be provocative enough. A simultaneous show of force against both China and Russia in today's context would be truly extraordinary.15 In short, if the report is accurate, the U.S. is contemplating a rare and provocative display of its global power projection capabilities. Why would the U.S. stage such a grand demonstration merely because of a taunt by a Chinese ship? The Decatur incident is only the proximate cause. Washington is in the midst of attempting a very dangerous "two-front war" against China and Iran, the latter of whom faces oil sanctions from November 4.16 Moreover, this is a "three-front war" if today's historically bad relations with Russia are taken into account. Indeed, the U.S. may well be responding to the joint show of force by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi in their own large-scale military exercises in September, in which Chinese soldiers participated in a Russian drill outside the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for the first time.17 As such, we would not put any stock in the idea that a sudden drop-off in geopolitical tensions, with China or anyone else, will occur after the U.S. midterm election on November 6. Rather, investors should expect an increase in geopolitical risk. There is no combination of midterm election results in which Trump will be forced to pull back on his "Maximum Pressure" doctrine. The proposal is not final, and the idea alone is a low-level threat that could be used in negotiations. But under the circumstances, we think it more likely than not that the U.S. will go forward with it. Ultimately, the U.S. proposal epitomizes our mega-theme of multipolarity. The U.S. is in relative decline and is reasserting itself with a muscular national security policy, particularly against China and Iran but also against Russia. However, its actions are highly unlikely to cause a change in China's behavior now that Beijing has determined that the U.S. is seeking Cold War-style strategic containment. Instead, China will hasten its efforts to become self-reliant and to deter U.S. aggression in its near abroad. Global economic policy uncertainty, and trade policy uncertainty, are likely to increase, not decrease, in such an environment. Saber-rattling and supply-chain risk will weigh on EM Asia in particular. Bottom Line: The U.S. government is contemplating an extraordinary "global show of force" that could involve a series of joint military operations across the globe. The chief focus is China, but the unknown array of operations could also target Russia or Iran. We think such operations are plausible and will increase global economic uncertainty. We would expect them to create volatility in global markets, adding to jitters over China tariffs (supply-chain risks) and Iranian sanctions (oil prices). How Will China Retaliate? China does not have the ability to respond proportionately to the U.S. - it cannot hold a global show of force of its own. Because its own shows of force will appear diminutive next to American fireworks, it may not react immediately. Beijing is more likely to respond by changing its policies to address the underlying increase in antagonism with the United States and improve its national security. We would classify its potential responses into two main groups: the low road and the high road. The low road consists of policies meant to confront the U.S. directly and forcefully. In our view, these policies bring significant costs that will make China reluctant to embrace them fully: Raise the stakes in the South China Sea: China could go for broke and deploy the full range of military assets in the islands that it has repurposed. This would provoke an even larger international naval response from the U.S. and its allies.18 Remove sanctions on North Korea: China could reverse sanctions enforcement on North Korea (Chart 6) and undermine President Trump's signature foreign policy overture. The problem is that China would then provide the U.S. with a pretext for an even greater military presence in Northeast Asia. Chart 6China Could Reverse Sanctions Enforcement China Could Reverse Sanctions Enforcement China Could Reverse Sanctions Enforcement Flout sanctions on Iran: China could subsidize Iran (Chart 7) in the hopes of helping to create a huge American distraction comparable to the second Iraq war. But this confrontation would threaten China with an oil shock and economic dislocation, an even greater conflict with the U.S., and the risk of regime change in Iran.19 Chart 7China Could Flout Iran Sanctions China Could Flout Iran Sanctions China Could Flout Iran Sanctions Punish U.S. companies: China could raise the pressure on U.S. companies doing business on its territory. The problem is that the U.S. has already demonstrated, through the ZTE affair this year, that it can inflict devastating reprisals against the tech champions on whom China's economic future depends (Chart 8). Chart 8U.S. Could Punish Chinese Tech Firms U.S. Could Punish Chinese Tech Firms U.S. Could Punish Chinese Tech Firms Thus China is most likely to take the "high road," i.e. seeking alternatives to the United States throughout the rest of the world: Chart 9China's Market Is Its Biggest Advantage China's Market Is Its Biggest Advantage China's Market Is Its Biggest Advantage Import more goods: China's greatest strength in winning friends is that its domestic demand remains relatively robust (Chart 9). China can substitute away from the U.S. by shifting to other developed markets. Emerging markets are becoming more connected with China and less so with the U.S. (Chart 10). Chart 10China's Trade Ties Grow, Ex-U.S. China's Trade Ties Grow, Ex-U.S. China's Trade Ties Grow, Ex-U.S. Maintain outward investment: China's outward investment profile is expanding rapidly (Chart 11), but there is potential for a negative political backlash - as has occurred in Malaysia.20 China will need to focus on improving relations with those countries where it expands investment, including in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).21 Chart 11China's Outward Investment Strategy: Priorities Over The Past Decade A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force? Court U.S. regional allies: Relations with South Korea have already improved; Shinzo Abe of Japan is soon to make a rare state visit to China; and trilateral trade talks between these three have revived for the first time since 2015 (Chart 12). Both the Philippines and Thailand currently have governments that are friendly to China. Beijing will need to ensure that its growing trade surpluses do not get out of whack. Chart 12Can China Court U.S. Allies? Can China Court U.S. Allies? Can China Court U.S. Allies? Sign multilateral trade pacts: China is trying to position itself as a leader of free trade. This is a tough sell, but a successful completion of negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) will generate some momentum. This Asia Pacific trade grouping is far larger in terms of total imports than its more sophisticated rival, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the latter being shorn of U.S. participation (Chart 13). Chart 13RCEP Is Bigger Than CPTPP RCEP Is Bigger Than CPTPP RCEP Is Bigger Than CPTPP Play nice in the South China Sea: Now that the U.S. is proposing to push back against Chinese militarization of the islands, it makes sense for China to take a conciliatory approach. It is proposing joint energy exploration with the Philippines and others at least as long as offshore activity is depressed (Chart 14). China might also try to settle a diplomatic "Code of Conduct" for the sea with its neighbors. Chart 14A Reason For China To Play Nice A Reason For China To Play Nice A Reason For China To Play Nice The most important consequence is an alliance with Russia, whether formal or not. The security agenda of these two powers is increasingly aligned with their robust economic partnership (Chart 15).22 The differences and distrust between them cannot override their need to guard themselves against a more assertive United States. Chart 15Embrace Of Dragon And Bear Embrace Of Dragon And Bear Embrace Of Dragon And Bear Bottom Line: China's "high road" strategies are its best options when more aggressive options have higher risks of undermining China's own long-term interests. But an alliance with Russia is quickly becoming inevitable. Investment Implications A global show of force targeting China's "core interests" in Taiwan and the South China Sea will make trade negotiations even more difficult. China is not going to offer concessions when facing U.S. military intimidation in addition to tariffs.23 Investors should watch closely for any signs that nationalist protests and boycotts of U.S. goods are developing in China. Such a movement would not be allowed to continue for long without the Communist Party condoning it. A boycott would mark a form of retaliation that is much more impactful than tariffs. A deterioration in cultural ties is also in the cards. The United States is reported to be considering restrictions on Chinese student visas after intelligence assessments of non-traditional technological and intellectual property theft via graduate students in advanced programs such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.24 U.S. markets remain insulated today, as in the last big rupture in U.S.-China relations in 1989, so we continue to expect U.S. equities to outperform Chinese (and global) stocks amid trade tensions and saber-rattling. Chart 16Last U.S.-China Crisis Prompted Stimulus... Last U.S.-China Crisis Prompted Stimulus... Last U.S.-China Crisis Prompted Stimulus... However, an important takeaway from the 1989 episode is that China stimulated the economy (Chart 16). This time we think stimulus will remain lackluster, reflecting Xi's need to keep overall leverage contained (Chart 17). But conflict escalation with the U.S. is clearly the biggest risk to this view. Chart 17...But Stimulus Muted Thus Far ...But Stimulus Muted Thus Far ...But Stimulus Muted Thus Far One oft-discussed retaliatory option is that China could sell off its vast $1.17 trillion holdings of U.S. treasuries. Rapidly dumping them is not effective, but slowly tapering is precisely what China has been doing since 2011 (Chart 18). This will accelerate its need to invest in real assets abroad and to purchase alternative reserve currencies, such as the euro, pound, and yen. Chart 18China Weans Itself Off Treasuries China Weans Itself Off Treasuries China Weans Itself Off Treasuries Ultimately, the significance of Vice President Pence's speech is that the U.S. now views China as both a great power and a threat to U.S. supremacy. This raises the potential for a large share of the $33 billion in cumulative U.S. direct investment in China since 2006 to become, effectively, stranded capital (Chart 19). If that is indeed the case, it would mean that investors in S&P 500 China-exposed companies would have to take note and re-rate their investments. Companies with significant investment in China may have to make capital investments in alternative supply-chain options, leading to a significant hit to their profit margin. Chart 19Stranded Capital In China? A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force? Other countries in Europe and the rest of Asia stand to benefit from the U.S. getting squeezed out of China's market, unless and until the new Cold War forces them to choose sides. Their choice is by no means a foregone conclusion, underscoring that China's policy response will be to seek better bonds with its neighbors and non-U.S. partners. Over the longer term, we think that our mega-theme of multipolarity will produce the bifurcation of capitalism. Within each sphere of influence globalization will continue to operate, but between spheres, or in the border areas, it will become a much less tidy affair. In addition to our recommendations above on page 2, we are reinitiating our short U.S. S&P 500 China-exposed stocks relative to the broad market. These companies have sold off heavily in recent months but the negative backdrop suggests that there is farther to go. Housekeeping On a separate note, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is closing our long U.S. high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 trade for a gain of 8.26%. This was a play on the Trump tax cuts that we initiated in April 2017. Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, and "The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea," May 29, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Comparable incidents in December 2013, August 2014, May 2016, December 2016, August 2017, and March 2018 did not receive such a high-level response from U.S. leaders, reflecting both the seriousness of the Decatur incident and the administration's sense of political expediency amidst the trade conflict and midterm election cycle. 9 Pence criticized Chinese President Xi by name for allegedly breaking his word on the militarization of the Spratly Islands. He suggested that China's outward investment should be understood in strategic rather than economic terms, implying that the Belt and Road Initiative is a Soviet-style plan to organize a "bloc" of nations under Chinese hegemony. And he hinted at a new defense of the Monroe Doctrine in his criticism of China's recent assistance to the collapsing socialist regime in Venezuela. Please see the White House, "Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration's Policy Toward China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 10 The Trump administration's key document is Secretary of Defense James Mattis, "Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America," Department of Defense, 2018, available at dod.defense.gov. For the Xi administration, see Orange Wang and Zhou Xin, "Xi Jinping says trade war pushes China to rely on itself and 'that's not a bad thing,'" South China Morning Post, dated September 26, 2018, available at www.scmp.com; and the Information Office of the State Council, "The Facts and China's Position on China-US Trade Friction," September 2018, available at www.chinadaily.com. 11 For this discussion of shows of force please see W. Eugene Cobble, H. H. Gaffney, and Dmitry Gorenburg, "For the Record: All U.S. Forces' Responses to Situations, 1970-2000 (with additions covering 2000-2003)," Center for Strategic Studies, May 2005, available at www.dtic.mil. 12 See footnote 11 above. 13 Please see William S. Murray, "Asymmetric Options for Taiwan's Defense," Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, June 5, 2014, available at www.uscc.gov. 14 Please see Barbara Starr, "US Navy proposing major show of force to warn China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.cnn.com. 15 Even the South American location implies that Chinese, Russian, and Iranian influence on that continent is now deemed meaningful enough to require a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine. Over the past decade, the U.S. has tended to regard these activities as limited, but now that may be changing. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "2019: The Geopolitical Recession?" dated October 3, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Russia Holds Massive War Games, As Putin And Xi Tout Ties," Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, September 11, 2018, available at www.rferl.org. 18 Australia, Japan, and the U.K. have already begun enforcing freedom of navigation alongside the U.S. 19 The U.S. could also impose secondary sanctions on China for non-compliance. State-owned energy firm Sinopec, for instance, was said to be reducing imports of crude from Iran by half in the month of September. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that Chinese refiners, like other Asian refiners, are preparing to run more light-sweet crude from the U.S. in the future, which gives a good yield in high-value-added products like gasoline. So far China has not imposed retaliatory tariffs on these imports from the U.S. Please see Chen Aizhu and Florence Tan, "China's Sinopec halves Iran oil loadings under U.S. pressure: sources," Reuters, dated September 28, 2018, available at uk.reuters.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'," dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown?" dated September 13, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, and "The Embrace Of The Dragon And The Bear," dated April 11, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Xi Jinping's refusal to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over the past weekend, and decision to visit North Korea for the first time in his term, underscores this point. 24 Please see Demetri Sevastopulo and Tom Mitchell, "US considered ban on student visas for Chinese nationals," Financial Times, dated October 2, 2018, available at www.ft.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force? Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force? Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) A Global Show Of Force? A Global Show Of Force?

Highlights Duration: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. High-Yield: A supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to steep backwardation in the oil futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. Emerging Market Sovereigns: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Feature Bond Breakout Chart 1The Long End Breaks Out The Long End Breaks Out The Long End Breaks Out Bond markets sold off sharply last week and long-dated Treasury yields took out some noteworthy technical levels in the process. The 10-year Treasury yield broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.11% and settled at 3.23% as of last Friday. The next big test for the 10-year's cyclical uptrend is the 2011 peak of 3.75% (Chart 1). The 30-year yield similarly broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.25%, settling at 3.39% as of last Friday. The next resistance for the 30-year occurs at the early-2014 peak of 3.96%. Removing our, admittedly uncomfortable, technical analysis hat, it is instructive to note which macro factors were responsible for last week's large bear-steepening of the Treasury curve and which weren't. Strong U.S. economic data - the non-manufacturing ISM survey hit its highest level since 1997 (Chart 2) - and Fed Chairman Powell commenting that the fed funds rate is "a long way from neutral at this point, probably" were the key drivers of the move.1 Taken together, these two developments suggest that the Fed is further behind the curve than was previously thought. This is consistent with an upward revision to the market's assessment of the neutral fed funds rate, which explains why the yield curve steepened and the price of gold edged higher.2 But it's equally important to note the factors that didn't drive the increase in yields. In this case, yields weren't driven by a rebound in growth outside of the U.S., which continues to flag (Chart 2, panel 2). The Global Manufacturing PMI fell for the fifth consecutive month in September. While our diffusion index based on the number of countries with PMIs above versus below the 50 boom/bust line ticked higher (Chart 2, panel 3), our diffusion index based on the number of countries with rising versus falling PMIs remained deeply negative (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Growth Divergences Deepen Growth Divergences Deepen Growth Divergences Deepen Chart 3Global PMIs Global PMIs Global PMIs Taken together, our diffusion indexes are consistent with an environment where most countries are experiencing decelerating growth from high levels. This message is confirmed by looking at the PMIs from the five largest economic blocs (Chart 3). The Eurozone PMI continues to fall rapidly, though it remains well above 50. The Emerging Markets (ex. China) PMI is also trending lower from a relatively high level, while the Chinese PMI is threatening to break below 50. Only the U.S. and Japan have healthy looking PMIs. The precariousness of non-U.S. growth leads us to reiterate the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration view. The risk is that weak foreign growth eventually migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar and forces the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. If current trends continue, it is highly likely that U.S. growth will slow in the first half of next year, though it is unclear whether such a slowdown would be severe enough for the Fed to pause rate hikes.3 In any event, the bond market is only priced for the Fed to maintain its quarterly rate hike pace until June of next year (3 more hikes) before going on hold (Chart 4). Essentially, the market already discounts a rate hike pause, even after last week's large increase in yields. Chart 4Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low For this reason, we prefer to maintain our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, and to hedge the risk of weakening foreign growth by owning curve steepeners,4 and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. Bottom Line: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. In Case You Needed Another Reason To Be Nervous About Junk As Treasury yields broke higher last week, the average high-yield index option-adjusted spread tightened to a fresh cyclical low of 303 bps. It has since rebounded to 316 bps (Chart 5). Our measure of the excess spread available in the high-yield index after adjusting for expected default losses is now at 196 bps, well below its historical average of 247 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). We have previously pointed out that even this below-average excess spread embeds a very low 12-month default loss expectation of 1.07%.5 Rarely have default losses been below that level. With job cut announcements forming a tentative bottom (Chart 5, bottom panel), we see high odds that default losses surprise to the upside during the next 12 months. In the absence of further spread tightening, that would translate to 12-month excess junk returns of 196 bps or less. But this week we want to highlight an additional risk to junk spreads. That risk being our Commodity & Energy Strategy service's view that crude oil prices could experience a positive supply shock in the first quarter of next year. At present, our strategists see high odds of $100 per barrel Brent crude oil in the first quarter of next year, and are forecasting an average price of $95 per barrel for 2019. At publication time, the Brent crude oil price was $85.6 At first blush it isn't obvious why high oil prices would pose a risk to junk spreads, and in fact there is no consistent correlation between the level of oil prices and junk spreads. However, there is a correlation between implied volatility in the crude oil market and junk spreads, with higher implied vol coinciding with wider spreads and vice-versa (Chart 6). Chart 5Default Loss Expectations Too Low Default Loss Expectations Too Low Default Loss Expectations Too Low Chart 6Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Would higher oil prices necessarily induce a spike in implied volatility? Not necessarily. It turns out that what matters for implied oil volatility is the slope of the futures curve.7 A contangoed futures curve where long-dated futures trade at a higher price than short-dated futures tends to be associated with high implied volatility. A steeply backwardated futures curve where long-dated futures trade well below short-dated futures is equally associated with elevated implied vol (Chart 7). Implied volatility tends to be lowest when the futures curve is in mild backwardation. A mild backwardation is typical when crude prices are in a gradual uptrend, as is the case at present. All in all, the following features provide a reasonable description of the current environment: Gradual uptrend in crude oil price Mild oil futures curve backwardation Low implied crude volatility Tight junk spreads However, as we head into next year, our commodity strategists anticipate that supply constraints will bite in the oil market. The U.S. is poised to implement an oil embargo against Iran in November, and Venezuela - another important oil exporter - remains on the brink of collapse. With global oil inventories already tight, and the loss of further production from Venezuela and Iran looming, our strategists anticipate that the number of days of demand covered by crude oil inventories will decline sharply. This decline will lead to a steep backwardation of the futures curve (Chart 8). Chart 7Brent Crude Oil Volatility Vs. Forward Slope Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Chart 8Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation The bottom line for junk investors is that a supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to a steep backwardation in the futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. We continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield in U.S. bond portfolios. We will await a signal that profit growth is set to deteriorate before advocating for a further reduction in exposure. Still No Buying Opportunity In EM Sovereigns Chart 9EM Index Spread Looks Cheap EM Index Spread Looks Cheap EM Index Spread Looks Cheap As growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world increase, we are on high alert for an opportunity to shift some allocation out of U.S. corporate credit and into USD-denominated emerging market (EM) sovereign debt. However, so far EM spreads are simply not wide enough to merit attention from U.S. bond investors. This is not apparent from the average index spreads. In fact, a quick glance at the indexes shows that EM sovereign spreads have widened a lot relative to duration- and quality-matched U.S. corporates, and actually offer a healthy spread pick-up (Chart 9). However, a more detailed look at the spreads from individual countries shows that the spread advantage in EM is only available in a select few markets (Charts 10A & 10B). At the lower-end of the credit spectrum: Turkey, Argentina, Ukraine and Lebanon all offer higher breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. In the upper credit tiers: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates (UAE) look attractive. All other EM countries off lower breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. Chart 10ABreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Chart 10BBreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk We would be very reluctant to shift any allocation out of U.S. corporates and into either Turkey or Argentina. Both of those countries are highly exposed to the tightening in global liquidity conditions that occurs alongside a strengthening U.S. dollar. Our Foreign Exchange and Global Investment Strategy teams created a Vulnerability Heat Map to identify which EM countries are likely to struggle as the U.S. dollar appreciates (Chart 11).8 These tend to be countries with large current account deficits and high external debt balances, though several other factors are also considered. The results show that Argentina and Turkey are the two most exposed nations. Chart 11Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, the USD bonds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE are more interesting. Our geopolitical strategists anticipate an escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the U.S. midterm elections, and such tensions could increase the political risk premium embedded in all Middle Eastern debt. But for longer-term U.S. fixed income investors, it is worth noting that extra spread is available in the hard currency sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE compared to A-rated U.S. corporates. Bottom Line: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Powell's full interview can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CqaBSSl6ok 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com, where we note that every time the Global (ex. US) LEI has dipped below zero since 1993, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Calm Before The Storm In Oil Markets", dated August 2, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Heightening geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China, higher U.S. bond yields, tightening U.S. dollar liquidity and weakening EM/China growth - all combined - constitute a bitter cocktail for EM. Barring a meaningful improvement in Chinese growth, higher U.S. bond yields will be overwhelming for EM financial markets. U.S. banks are not creating new dollars sufficiently. In addition, they are shrinking their claims on EM. The U.S. dollar is primed for another upleg. Downgrade Indian stocks from overweight to underweight within a dedicated EM equity portfolio. Feature As China becomes more assertive and slightly hostile toward the U.S., this will likely mark a paradigm shift in the macro landscape and asset valuations and, hence, could become a grey swan1 event for emerging markets (EM). Investors remain complacent about the ongoing geopolitical confrontation between these two economic giants as well as other headwinds that China and EM are facing. The decision by the Trump administration to raise import tariffs to 25% on $200 billion of China's exports to the U.S. as of January 1, 2019 is an unambiguous signal that U.S. trade confrontation with China is not a pre-mid-term election political plot. Instead, it is the beginning of a long-term geopolitical battle between an existing and rising superpower. Remarkably, the just-concluded trade deal between the U.S., Mexico and Canada (USMCA) includes language that requires signatories to give notice if they plan to negotiate a free trade deal with a "non-market" economy.2 Provided "non-market" country is for now implied to be China, this corroborates that confrontation with the latter is a new long-term strategy for the U.S. In addition, investors should not expect China to be constantly on the defensive. Both the political leadership and people in China have realized that trade is not the only aspect where the U.S. is likely to challenge the Middle Kingdom, and they recognize it will be a long-term battle. Therefore, the communist party and President Xi will counter the U.S. with reasonably tough actions. Quite simply, failure to do so will place the political leadership's credibility in question. President Xi understands this well, and will not allow it to happen. It is hard to forecast the avenues and approaches that Chinese leadership will explore to confront the U.S. Yet the recent navy incident in the South China Sea exemplifies that China will not be silent in this row.3 More generally, EM financial markets are not ready for such negative surprises. For example, there has been little capitulation on the part of asset managers with respect to EM equities. In fact, they have lately been buying EM ETF futures (Chart I-1). Global financial market volatility calculated as an equally weighted average of volatility in U.S. and EM equities, U.S. bonds, various currencies, oil and gold are near its historic lows (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Asset Managers Have Been Buying EM Equity Futures Asset Managers Have Been Buying EM Equity Futures Asset Managers Have Been Buying EM Equity Futures Chart I-2Financial Markets Volatility Is Very Low Financial Markets Volatility Is Very Low Financial Markets Volatility Is Very Low Remarkably, the U.S. bond market volatility is at an all-time low while bond yields are breaking out (Chart I-3). Odds are the U.S. yields will move up considerably. The basis is that strong growth and rising inflation in the U.S. warrant considerably higher bond yields and more Fed rate hikes than are currently priced in. Barring a meaningful improvement in Chinese growth and global trade, higher U.S. bond yields will be overwhelming for EM financial markets. In particular, higher U.S interest rates could trigger another downleg in the value of Chinese yuan. Chart I-4 illustrates that the China-U.S. interest rate differential has been instrumental to moves in the RMB/USD exchange rate. Chart I-3A Breakout In U.S. Bond Yields A Breakout In U.S. Bond Yields A Breakout In U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-4China Vs. U.S.: Does Interest Rate ##br##Differential Explain Exchange Rate? China Vs. U.S.: Does Interest Rate Differential Explain Exchange Rate? China Vs. U.S.: Does Interest Rate Differential Explain Exchange Rate? Apart from the heightening geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China and higher U.S. bond yields, weakening EM/China growth, tightening global U.S. dollar liquidity and a strong U.S. dollar all combined will constitute a bitter cocktail for EM. We discuss some of these negatives below. All in all, financial markets could be on the cusp of a volatility outbreak, and EM will still be at the epicenter of the storm. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service continues to recommend short positions in EM risk assets and an underweight allocation versus DM. A Dead Cat Bounce... Emerging markets share prices have attempted to stage a rebound lately, but so far it appears to be nothing more than a dead cat bounce. Even thought the aggregate EM equity index managed a 5% bounce in recent weeks, both the EM equally weighted equity and small-cap indexes have failed to rebound at all (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Similarly, EM bank stocks - which make up 17% of the MSCI market cap and are the key to the benchmark's performance - have not rallied (Chart I-5, bottom panel). This is occurring at a time when the S&P 500 is at all-time highs. These are very unhealthy signs for EM risk assets. ...As China/EM Growth Continues To Downshift The premise behind the lack of meaningful rebound in EM equities in our view is that both global manufacturing and world trade growth continue to downshift (Chart I-6, top panel). The epicenters of the slowdown are China and other emerging economies (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-5No Confirmation Of EM Rebound No Confirmation Of EM Rebound No Confirmation Of EM Rebound Chart I-6EM/China Growth Is Decelerating EM/China Growth Is Decelerating EM/China Growth Is Decelerating Importantly, the Markit PMI manufacturing surveys suggest export orders contracted in September in the world's important manufacturing hubs, including China, Japan, Taiwan and Germany. The last time such poor export performance was registered was more than two years ago. The slump in the aggregate EM manufacturing PMI explains not only the EM equity selloff but also EM credit spreads widening and EM currency depreciation since the beginning of this year (Chart I-7). So long as the weakening trend in EM/China and global trade growth persist, EM risk assets and currencies will continue to sell off. Regarding China, growth deceleration was already occurring before the initial import tariffs took hold. Specifically, not only are overseas orders weak, but also domestic orders have rolled over decisively, as indicated by the People's Bank of China's (PBoC) 5000 industrial enterprise survey (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Weakening Growth Explains Selloff In ##br##EM Credit And Currencies Weakening Growth Explains Selloff In EM Credit And Currencies Weakening Growth Explains Selloff In EM Credit And Currencies Chart I-8China: Domestic And Overseas Orders China: Domestic And Overseas Orders China: Domestic And Overseas Orders In the mainland, the boost to infrastructure spending in the coming months will likely be offset by a slump in property construction and other segments of the economy. We discussed this angle in our recent report,4 but in recent days there has been more real estate market tightening. Specifically, the authorities are considering the cancellation of the housing pre-sale system in Guangdong province - a policy that could be applied to other geographies. The motive of this tightening is to curb both the land-buying frenzy and Ponzi financing schemes that many developers are involved in. This fits the policy script of dealing with and purging speculation and excesses early to prevent a bust later. These policy measures will cut off property developers from their primary source of funding - presales - and force them to reduce their construction volumes. As an unintended consequence of this announcement, some developers have already begun cutting house prices to accelerate pre-sales and raise funds. Given already bubbly property valuations and the existence of substantial speculative buying, house price deflation could set off a domino chain effect of lower prices, reduced speculative investment purchases and financial strains on developers, leading them in turn to offer even larger price discounts to generate funds faster, and so on. Forecasting the exact trajectory of a downturn and the speed of its adjustment is impossible. This is why we focus on the presence of major imbalances/excesses and policy tightening that could cause disentangling of these excesses. Given the still-considerable property market excesses5 prevalent in China and the money/credit tightening that has already occurred in the past two years, we reckon the odds of a material property market downtrend are substantial. On the whole, our main theme for China and EM remains that mainland construction activity will continue to downshift, with negative implications for countries that supply construction goods, materials and equipment. U.S. Dollars Shortages? The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and inflationary pressures continue to rise. Barring a deflationary shock from China/EM, the Federal Reserve has little reason to halt its rate hikes or abandon its policy of shrinking its balance sheet. Not only are U.S. interest rates rising, but there are also budding U.S. dollar shortages that will get worse: The U.S. banking system's excess reserves at the Fed are dwindling, as the latter continues to shrink its balance sheet (Chart I-9). U.S. banks' dollar-denominated claims on foreign entities in general and emerging markets in particular are shrinking (Chart I-10). Thus, EM debtors in particular have found themselves short of dollars. Chart I-9The U.S. Dollar Is Primed For Another Upleg The U.S. Dollar Is Primed For Another Upleg The U.S. Dollar Is Primed For Another Upleg Chart I-10U.S. Dollar Shortages In Rest Of World U.S. Dollar Shortages In Rest of World U.S. Dollar Shortages In Rest of World Finally, U.S. banks are not creating enough dollars - their total assets are growing at a paltry rate of 1%, and U.S. broad money (M2) growth is expanding at 4% annually - the slowest pace in the past 14 years excluding the aftermath of the 2008 credit crisis (Chart I-11). Bottom Line: The Fed is shrinking its balance sheet, and high-powered money/liquidity in the banking system is falling. This and other factors are discouraging U.S. banks from creating new U.S. dollars. Along with rising U.S. interest rates, this will propel the greenback higher, which will be detrimental for EM risk assets. Equity Portfolio Rotation Amid High Oil Prices Given the recent breakout in oil prices, we make the following changes to our country equity allocation: Upgrade Russia from neutral to overweight.4 October 2018 Orthodox macro policy and high oil prices will help this bourse to outperform the EM benchmark (Chart I-12, top panel). We have already been overweight Russia within EM local bonds, currency and credit portfolios.6 Chart I-11U.S. Banks Are Not Creating Sufficient Amount Of Dollars U.S. Banks Are Not Creating Sufficient Amount Of Dollars U.S. Banks Are Not Creating Sufficient Amount Of Dollars Chart I-12Upgrade Russian And Colombian Equities ##br##From Neutral To Overweight Upgrade Russian And Colombian Equities From Neutral To Overweight Upgrade Russian And Colombian Equities From Neutral To Overweight Upgrade Colombian equities from neutral to overweight. Like Russia, high oil prices and orthodox macro policies justify an upgrade (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Upgrade Malaysia from underweight to neutral.4 October 2018 High energy prices, hope for structural changes and low inflation do not justify an underweight stance. Still, Malaysia is vulnerable to slowdown in global trade and credit excesses of the past years that have not yet been worked out. This prevents us from upgrading this bourse to overweight. Downgrade Philippines equities from neutral to underweight.4 October 2018 Inflation is breaking out and the central bank is behind the curve.7 Downgrade India from overweight to underweight. More detailed analysis on India starts on the following page. Our equity overweights are Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, South Africa, India, the Philippines, Indonesia and Peru. The complete list of our equity, fixed-income, credit and currency allocations are always presented at the end of our Weekly Reports, please refer to page 16. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Downgrade Indian Equities 4 October 2018 We are downgrading our allocation to Indian stocks from overweight to underweight within an EM-dedicated equity portfolio (Chart II-1). Rising stress in the country's non-bank finance companies - the recent default of finance company Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited and the fire-sale of Dewan Housing Finance bonds by a mutual fund - has been responsible for escalating financial risks, and will have ramifications for overall macro stability and growth. Stress Among Finance Companies: Liquidity Or Solvency? Finance companies account for about 12% of the MSCI India Stock Index. Further, there are deep interlinkages between them and mutual funds. Chart II-2 shows that mutual funds have exponentially increased their claims on non-bank finance companies by purchasing commercial paper (short-term debt obligations) issued by the latter. Chart II-1Failure To Break Out Is A Bad Omen Failure To Break Out Is A Bad Omen Failure To Break Out Is A Bad Omen Chart II-2Mutual Funds' Exposure To Finance Companies Mutual Funds' Exposure To Finance Companies Mutual Funds' Exposure To Finance Companies Further signs that the non-bank finance sector is having difficulties rolling over or repaying their debt obligations will hurt mutual funds. This might trigger redemptions from the latter by their own investors. Importantly, mutual funds' net purchases of equities as well as bonds has been very strong in recent years, often outpacing that of foreigners (Chart II-3). Given the former's large holdings of various securities, forced selling by mutual funds can often create an air pocket for Indian financial markets: local investors will be selling at a time when foreign investors are not yet ready to buy. Odds are considerable that stress will continue to escalate in the non-bank financial sector. Short-term interest rates and corporate bond yields are rising (Chart II-4). This is occurring at a time when non-bank finance companies are very vulnerable because of their liquidity mismanagement. Chart II-3Indian Mutual Funds Are Large Investors In Stocks And Bonds Indian Mutual Funds Are Large Investors In Stocks And Bonds Indian Mutual Funds Are Large Investors In Stocks And Bonds Chart II-4Rising Borrowing Costs Rising Borrowing Costs Rising Borrowing Costs Financial data from six non-bank finance companies included in the MSCI India Equity Index reveals that short-term debt levels for these companies are extremely elevated (Chart II-5, top panel) and their liquidity situation is grim. A measure of liquidity risk, calculated as short-term investments (including cash) minus short-term borrowing, has plummeted and is in deep negative territory (Chart II-5, bottom panel). In short, these finance companies have been borrowing short term and lending long term. Additionally, these entities will soon have to deal with surging non-performing assets (NPAs). Total assets for large finance companies - including the six companies included in the MSCI Equity Index - have grown at an annual average of around 20% since 2010. It is difficult to lend or invest at such a rapid pace while avoiding capital misallocation and the accumulation of bad assets. Crucially, the current level for NPAs for these six finance companies is 2.3% of risk-weighted assets, but could rise much further. Their provisions stand 2.1%, which barely covers existing NPAs. Hence, provisions have to rise multi-fold. For example, if NPAs rise to 12%, that would wipe out 32% of these companies' equity. We assume a recovery ratio of 30% on these bad assets. For comparison, the NPA ratio for overall the banking system has already surged to about 12%. Finally, commercial banks' lending to finance companies has been excessive in recent years (Chart II-6). Commercial banks are already swamped with rising non-performing loans, and any additional stress among finance companies will damage investor sentiment and negatively impact banks' share prices. Chart II-5Finance Companies: Liquidity Strains Are ##br##Rooted In Maturity Mismatches Finance Companies: Liquidity Strains Are Rooted In Maturity Mismatches Finance Companies: Liquidity Strains Are Rooted In Maturity Mismatches Chart II-6Banks' Exposure To Finance Companies Banks' Exposure To Finance Companies Banks' Exposure To Finance Companies Bottom Line: Odds are that the liquidity stress among finance companies will escalate and turn into a solvency problem. This will harm mutual funds in particular and cause them to liquidate their equity and bond holdings. Indian financial markets will selloff further. Limited Maneuvering Room For Central Bank High crude prices, rising inflation and mounting financial stress are placing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in an extremely precarious position: If the central bank provides sufficient liquidity or reduces interest rates to deal with budding stress in the financial system, the currency will plunge further; If the RBI does not provide sufficient liquidity or hikes rates to put a floor under the rupee, the stress in the financial system will worsen. It seems the central bank is currently biased to providing liquidity to contain financial system stress. In fact, the central bank has already injected bank reserves through the liquidity adjustment facility. In addition, it announced upcoming purchases of government securities in October in the order of Rs. 360 billion and has stressed its willingness to provide more injections if the need arises. This is negative for the currency which will continue to tumble, especially at a time when the U.S. dollar is well-bid worldwide. In turn, continued currency depreciation will make foreign investors net sellers of stocks and bonds. Bottom Line: We recommend investors downgrade India from overweight to underweight. We are also closing our long Indian banks / short Chinese banks at a 2% loss. Concerning equity sectors, we are reiterating our long Indian software companies' stocks / short EM overall equity benchmark. This trade is up 22%, and a cheaper rupee and strong DM growth herald further gains. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 A grey swan is an event that can be anticipated to a certain degree but is considered unlikely to occur and would have a sizable impact on financial markets if it were to occur. 2https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/united-states-mexico# 3https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/china-us-warship-unsafe-encounter/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Desynchronization Compels Currency Adjustments," dated September 20, 2018, a link available on page 16. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?," dated April 6, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, link available on ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The Philippines: Duterte's Money Illusion," dated April 25, 2018, link available on ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Chart of the WeekIncreasing Gas-On-Gas Pricing Will Disrupt Global LNG Markets U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Growth in the global Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) market will be fuelled by surging U.S. natural gas production, which will allow consumers in Asian and European markets to diversify away from oil-indexed pricing - with its attendant geopolitical risks - and falling European gas production. As a result, markets will move toward short- and long-term contracts priced in USD/MMBtu (Chart of the Week). This will favor gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, where production is growing at double-digit p.a. rates (Chart 2). Well-developed trading and risk-management markets in the U.S. - centered on Henry Hub, LA - will incentivize consumers to shorten the tenor of oil-indexed contracts, replacing them with hedgeable futures-based contracts. These markets allow producers and merchants to offer short- and long-term contracts that meet consumer preferences. As the global LNG market grows, shipping companies, along with producers and merchants with worldwide trading and transport capabilities - or access to such capabilities - will grow market share at the expense of exporters tied to the more rigid oil-indexing regime (Chart 3). Energy: Overweight. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve over February - August; these positions are up an average 88.4% since inception, basis Tuesday's close. The long S&P GSCI position we recommended in December is up 21.8%, on the back of higher oil prices and backwardated crude-oil forward curves. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper is holding on to recent gains - up ~ 11% from its mid-August trough, following oil higher. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold hovers around $1,200/oz, following the Fed's meeting last week, which resulted in a 25bp increase in fed funds to 2.25%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The trade agreement to be signed by U.S. officials at the end of November with their counterparts in Mexico and Canada removes some of the uncertainty weighing on ag markets. Upward revisions to 2017 carry-out estimates by the USDA continue to pressure corn and beans. Chart 2Surging Production, Market Depth Favor U.S. Gas Producers And Merchants U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Chart 3Growing LNG Imports Will Favor Shippers, Producers And Merchants U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Feature Surging U.S. natural gas production will continue to find its way to global LNG markets over the next decade. The persistence of oil-indexing in Asian LNG contracts will fuel the growth of U.S. exports, given the arbitrage between cheaper natural gas - priced basis supply-demand fundamentals for gas - and more expensive oil-indexed contracts.1 Added to this cost advantage, U.S. exports can be linked to hedgeable futures prices, using NYMEX Henry Hub, LA, contracts. These stability-of-supply and pricing advantages also allow LNG buyers in Asia and Europe to diversify away from oil-production disruption risks, which can send prices sharply higher, and being overly reliant on Russian imports. Chart 4U.S. LNG Exports Will Surge U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market This will give global consumers an incentive to continue shortening the tenor of more rigid oil-indexed LNG contracts, and to replace them with hedgeable contracts referencing Henry Hub, LA, futures contracts priced in USD/MMBtu. While a fairly stout increase of U.S. LNG exports already is expected by the EIA and IEA, we believe this dynamic likely results in export volumes that are higher than the ~ 10 Bcf/d expected by 2023, and close to 15 Bcf/d toward the end of the 2020s (Chart 4).2 Increasing volumes of associated natural gas production in the Permian Basin in west Texas, which will have to be transported from the basin so that it does not curtail oil production, will drive a large part of this growth. We expect a significant LNG export center to be developed in South Texas in Corpus Christi over the next five years or so, just as the U.S. surpasses 10 Bcf/d of exports in the middle of the next decade.3 Flexible pricing of LNG contracts basis Henry Hub already is supporting the buildout of Gulf Coast exports via take-or-cancel contracts. These contracts are replacing the more restrictive take-or-pay contracts still used in Asia.4 This will continue to evolve, allowing supply development to be hedged via Henry Hub natgas futures. Consumers ultimately benefit from cheaper supplies and hedgeable risks. This is not to say other benchmarks will fall away. There is always room for regional benchmarks - even oil-based benchmarks such as the Japan Crude Cocktail (JCC), or the spot- and swaps-market reference Japan/Korea Marker (JKM).5 The global crude oil market accommodates such regional benchmarks: WTI crude oil futures are the benchmark for oil markets in the Americas, while Brent crude oil futures serve as the benchmark for global markets. Crude oils with different chemical properties can be priced relative to these benchmarks for delivery anywhere in the world. The global LNG market could retain an Asian benchmark, but a lot of work needs to be done in terms of building the supporting infrastructure - pipelines, regasification facilities, deep futures markets, etc. - to make that happen.6 We are inclined to believe the build-out of U.S. LNG export capacity will occur before these pieces fall into place: Scale has never been an issue in the U.S. oil and gas patch. Global Supply - Demand Overview Chart 5Global LNG Demand Growth Likely Outpaces Current Expectations U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Global LNG demand is expected to rise at an impressive 1.7% p.a. out to 2040 (Chart 5). However, local supply and demand levels are increasingly unbalanced, implying that cross-border pipeline and LNG imports will need to increase as gas demand rises.7 A few key markets lead this trend, as seen in Chart 6, which illustrates the supply-gap in major consuming countries. Supply gaps are poised to grow in Emerging Asia and Europe, due to elevated demand growth in the former and lack of supply growth in the latter. World LNG demand grew by 10% last year, with Europe and Emerging Asia accounting for more than 95% of this increase. However, last year's stellar growth numbers should not be considered as the baseline growth forecast.8 The latest projections show demand increasing by 21 Bcf/d by 2025 - taking LNG imports from 38 Bcf/d at present to 58 Bcf/d by then. This implies a lower annualized growth rate of 5.5%. Chart 6Supply - Demand Imbalances Will Fuel LNG Demand Globally U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market LNG Supply On Growth Trajectory World LNG export capacity is expected to go from 48 Bcf/d in 2017 to 61 Bcf/d by 2022 (Chart 7), with 53% of the additional capacity coming from the U.S., 18% from Australia, and 15% from Russia.9 Chart 7LNG Export Capacity Growth U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Our baseline forecast for the LNG market foresees a short-term supply surplus in 2020 (Chart 8), followed by a catch-up in demand and new waves of projects between 2024 and 2030. Among the supply-side developments we are following: Chart 8New LNG Projects In The Pipeline U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market The Australian LNG market has undergone massive change in the last five years. While being a relatively small natural gas producer (8th largest producer, accounting for ~ 3% of world output), in 2015, the country became the second largest LNG exporting country in the world with now over 7.5 Bcf/d of exports. The bulk of new liquefaction facilities will be operational in 2019 with the completion of new trains at the Wheatstone, Prelude Floating and Ichthys LNG facilities.10 This will bring Australian total LNG export capacity to over 10 Bcf/d. Importantly, most of Australia's LNG trade is with Emerging Asian countries. This region still relies mostly on oil-linked, long-term, and fixed-destination contracts. Absent the OPEC market-share war of 2014 - 2016, when oil prices collapsed, Australia's LNG prices are subject to oil price risks and volatility (Chart 9). Chart 9Asian Oil-Indexed Contracts Trade Above Spot LNG U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market The U.S. currently has ~ 3 Bcf/d liquefaction capacity and is increasingly exporting to Asian countries (Table 1). The present wave of projects under-construction will push capacity to ~ 9 Bcf/d in 2020. Following a two year pause in project Final Investment Decisions (FIDs) from 2016 to 2017, potential FIDs in 2018 and 2019 could increase the U.S. capacity to ~ 14 Bcf/d by 2025. This will make the U.S. the second-largest exporter of LNG in the world, surpassing Australia. This new wave of investment is yet to be finalized; therefore, final investment decisions in 2H18 and 2019 will be crucial to determine the medium-term potential of U.S. LNG. If a majority of these projects goes through, U.S. capacity risks being overbuilt for the next decade (Chart 10). Table 1U.S. LNG Exports By Country U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Chart 10U.S. LNG Capacity Risks Becoming Overbuilt U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Importantly, U.S. LNG exports already have had a massive impact on the global LNG market. The totality of U.S. export prices are determined by gas-on-gas pricing - i.e., gas priced in USD/MMBtu as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. Just as importantly, these contracts are without destination restrictions found in many oil-indexed contacts. In the U.S., the presence of a deep futures market allows flexible long-term contracting.11 According to Royal Dutch Shell, the spot LNG market doubled from 2010 to 2017, accounting for ~ 25% of all transactions, most of it due to the prodigious increase in U.S. LNG supply.12 An overbuilt U.S. market would increase spot LNG trading. Our own calculations based on EIA data indicate the U.S. could have too much capacity relative to demand in 2018 - 19, but goes into balance in 2020 - 2022.13 Russia's natural gas production is projected to increase from 66.7 Bcf/d in 2017 to 70.1 Bcf/d in 2023. However, the bulk of this increase will cover new pipeline exports. The country's LNG capacity is expected to grow by ~ 2.5 Bcf/d with the completion of trains at the Yamal, Vysotsk and Portovaya export facilities. Despite its low LNG capacity, Russia remains a key player in the LNG market. Its rising pipeline capacity connected to China - the fastest growing market in the world - competes directly with global LNG supplies. For Russia, the rise of natural gas availability on a global basis - in the form of LNG - shakes its foreign relationships and policies to the core. In loosening the once-tight relationship between buyers and sellers, the rise of spot LNG supplies will favor consumers and energy security, and foster the development of longer-term contracting.14 Global LNG Demand Could Outpace Supply By our reckoning, some 62% of additional global gas demand of 160 Bcf/d will be covered by rising domestic production, 12% by rising trans-national pipeline capacity, and the remaining 26% by LNG imports.15 Longer-term, we expect LNG and natural gas demand to keep rising as industry demand expands and major coal consumers build up their natural gas and renewables usage. As a result, LNG consumption will increase at a rate of ~ 3% p.a. until 2040, as overall gas demand grows ~ 1.7%.16 Key demand-side developments: Table 2Natgas Emits Less CO2 U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market China's environmental reforms, supply-side industrial policies and continued economic growth will be the engine of global natural gas and LNG growth in the next decade. The Middle Kingdom's natural gas demand grew 15% to 23 Bcf/d in 2017, of which 54% came from additional LNG. This short-term growth surge required spot and short-term LNG imports, which pushed up North Asian LNG spot prices. Despite our expectation that China will continue leading global LNG growth, we believe 2017 to be an outlier. Two factors contributed to the rise in spot prices: To tackle its massive pollution without significantly altering economic development and growth, China's environmental policies favor natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon economy, since natgas contains half the carbon content of coal (Table 2). China's supply-side reforms and winter capacity cut led to a spike in spot LNG demand, which had to be covered in global LNG markets. China has an extremely low level of storage to deal with seasonal natgas consumption fluctuations; this forces the country to rely on spot LNG to meet short-term peaks in gas demand (Chart 11). Chart 11China's Minimal Natgas Storage Forces It To Rely On Spot Markets U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market While these factors still dominate Chinese markets, new Russian pipeline capacity is expected to start delivering gas in 2019, the ~ 247 bcf of additional domestic storage capacity and the rise in spot LNG supply will mitigate the effect. In addition, China is limited in its regasification capacity. Data re projects under construction and demand forecasts indicate the average utilization would rise to ~ 90% in 2020. Winter usage would push this to ~ 100% rapidly, constraining its ability to meet winter demand with spot LNG. As a result, we expect Asian spot LNG prices to rise above contracted oil-indexed prices next winter, but less so in 2020 and 2021. Longer term, China's gas consumption is expected to grow 4.6% p.a., outpacing the 4.0% p.a. domestic production growth. Some 23% of the gap will come from Russian and Turkmenistan pipeline imports. Europe's supply-gap rose in the past 3 years, and is expected to continue to widen. Unlike the rest of the world, this gap is growing because of supply depletion instead of strong demand growth. In fact, demand is expected to remain flat, based on the IEA's forecast of Europe's long-term growth. On the other hand, total European gas supply has decreased by 16% since 2010, and is expected to continue decreasing at a similar pace, reaching 21 Bcf/d in 2023 from 25 Bcf/d in 2017. These declines in European natgas supply are due to: The phase-out by 2030 of Netherlands' Groningen field. Continued concerns about the impact of natural gas production on earthquakes in nearby communities pushed the Dutch government to adopt, in March 2018, a plan to gradually stop gas extraction at the Groningen field. Production has been decreasing since 2013 and is expected to decrease by around three quarters between now and end-2023. U.K. natural gas production will decrease by 5% p.a. due to the lack of capex and the large number of fields reaching a mature state. Stagnation in Norway's gas production following its record production level in 2017. Europe's regasification capacity has considerable slack, which will allow it to expand its import volumes. Europe currently has 23 Bcf/d regas capacity, with a very low 27% utilization in 2017. This means it has ~16 Bcf/d capacity available. With the U.S. is expected to raise its exports by ~ 6 - 7 Bcf/d in the next couple of years, Europe could potentially absorb the entire U.S. LNG exports if it desires to diversify its source of energy supply. Pressure Builds For Competitive LNG Markets Chart 12Expect More LNG Spot Trading U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market The movement toward an integrated global market - similar in structure to current oil markets - will be driven by sharply increased U.S. LNG exports, and more competitive pricing of LNG as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. This latter effort likely will find support from Japanese and EU regulators. In addition, U.S. exporters already are using futures-based pricing - using Henry Hub contracts - which provide greater flexibility for producers, consumers and merchants to hedge their risk. Either Asian markets will develop viable regional benchmarks, or the global market will increasingly adopt Henry Hub indexing. Again, this is a typical commodity-market evolution: wheat can be priced for delivery anywhere on the planet using Chicago Board of Trade indexing. Asia lacks an integrated pipeline network. Market-based pricing of gas as gas - i.e., based on regional supply-demand gas fundamentals - also has not fully developed. LNG-on-LNG competition is considered a way to promote market-based pricing. Thus, the rise in spot and short-term contracts priced on the basis of natural gas fundamentals in the region already visible in the data likely will continue (Chart 12). In addition, if we see the oil price spike we expect in 1Q19 - driven by the loss of Iranian exports due to U.S. sanctions, continuing losses in Venezuelan exports due to economic collapse, and still-strong global oil demand - LNG priced on gas fundamentals will become even more attractive.17 LNG consumers' exposure to oil prices - via oil-indexed supply contracts - is a disadvantage to consumers with super-abundant natural gas supplies (Chart 13).18 That said, the U.S. export capacity remains limited, thus it cannot completely substitute for the global trade being done basis oil-indexed LNG contracts. Still, higher oil prices will incentivize a shift to contracts with prices determined by natgas fundamentals, which favors continued growth in U.S. exports. If anything, it will push for a faster-than-expected expansion of U.S. LNG export capacity. Chart 13LNG Buyers Will Resist Oil-Indexed Exposure BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens Bottom Line: Growth in global LNG markets likely will be faster than expected, as the U.S. develops its export capacity and continues to offer futures-based pricing. This will further reduce the attractiveness of rigid oil-indexed contracts. Gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, possessing trading and risk-management capabilities that allow them to offer flexible contracts globally, are favored in this quickly evolving market. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate pavelb@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The LNG cost structure is complex. A recent paper from the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies estimates U.S. breakeven costs for new LNG projects are roughly $7/MMBtu delivered, or ~ $4/MMBtu over current Henry Hub, LA, spot prices. This includes liquefaction costs, and transportation costs from the U.S. Gulf to Asia of ~ $1.50/MMBtu, and ~ $0.70/MMBtu from the U.S. Gulf to northwest Europe. Regasification charges and entry fees likely add ~ $0.70 to $1/MMBtu. Please see "The LNG Shipping Forecast: costs rebounding, outlook uncertain," published by the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies, March 2018. Transport costs are variable, and are only one part of the LNG pricing equation. The benefits of diversifying supplies cannot be overlooked, nor can the benefit of gas-on-gas pricing in a high-priced crude oil market. See also see "US powerhouse in the making," published June 14, 2018, by petroleum-economist.com. 2 Please see the International Energy Agency's Gas 2018 report published in March, particularly the discussion of supply beginning on p. 67. 3 Please see "The Price of Permian gas Pipeline Limits," by Stephen Rassenfoss, in the Journal of Petroleum Technology, published July 19, 2018. 4 Take-or-cancel contracts employ option-like features - e.g., cancelation payments that function as an option premium - that give buyer and seller flexibility in cancelling a contract or delivery in a manner that allows the seller to cover fixed costs, not unlike a tolling contact. This is possible because of the hedging latitude provided by the NYMEX natural gas futures market, which has Henry Hub, LA, as its delivery point. Please see "The Shift Away from Take-or-Pay Contracts in LNG," published by the Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding on its Energy Law Exchange blog September 13, 2017. 5 Platts' JKM spot assessment for November was $11.35/MMBtu, which was down 6% from October assessments. Please see "Platts JKM: Asia November LNG spot prices fall on thin demand," published by S&P Global Platts September 21, 2018. The NYMEX JKM forward curve peaks at $13.50/MMBtu for January 2019 deliveries, and backwardates thereafter. 6 Big LNG consumers' antitrust regulators are increasing pressure on overly restrictive contracts, which could open these markets to further competition over the next three years. Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) in 2017 concluded a review of term LNG contracts, which raised the possibility heretofore standard term contract features - e.g., limits on destinations and diversions, and take-or-pay provisions - could run counter to its antimonopoly laws. Japan is the largest importer of LNG in the world, taking ~ 11 Bcf/d. Meanwhile, in June of this year, the European Commission opened an investigation into long-term LNG contracts between its member states and Qatar Petroleum. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Washington, D.C., law firm, expects a ruling on destination and profit-sharing clauses that severely limit re-trading of LNG by purchasers. Akin Gump expects a ruling in the course of the next 3 years. While Japan's FTC did not specify remedies, it is possible buyers gain rights to re-sell and re-direct cargoes, following these reviews. This would make markets more competitive, although indexing the price of LNG to oil-based formulas likely will hinder this process. Please see "Revisiting LNG Resale Restrictions - Implications of Recent EU Decisions," published on the firm's website August 2, 2018. 7 Natural gas demand grew by 16% since 2010, according to the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy, and is expected to grow by a cumulative 47% (1.6% p.a.) by 2040. 8 Many idiosyncratic factors helped Chinese LNG imports reach such an exceptional growth rate, mostly weather-related: China's environmental policy is resulting in widespread substitution of coal for natural gas for space-heating purposes, which, in colder-than-expected winters, results in surging demand. We do not believe this will be a long-term seasonal influence: Physical facilities are being built out to accommodate higher supply and demand. 9 World liquefaction capacity will rise to ~ 61 Bcf/d in 2022, based on our calculations of projects under construction. The bulk of additional capacity will come from the U.S., Australia and Russia. 10 Capacity of 0.6, 0.5 and 1.2 Bcf/d, respectively. 11 Please see U.S. Department of Energy, office of Oil & Natural Gas, LNG Monthly. 12 Like most globally traded commodities, LNG can be traded in USD/MMBtu. The global financial and clearing system already is set up to accommodate commodity transactions denominated in USD, therefore we do not see any impediments to extending it further into the LNG market. 13 Please see Chart 10 footnote for details. 14 We will be exploring the geopolitical dimension of LNG next week in a Special Report written with our colleagues in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy. Please see Meghan L. O'Sullivan, Windfall: How the new energy abundance upends global politics and Strengthens America's Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012). 15 From 2017 to 2040, based on BP projections. The bulk of additional pipeline capacity will come from Russia with 12 Bcf/d destined to China and Europe expected to come on line in 2019. 16 Please see the International Energy Agency's GAS 2018 report published in March, BP's BP Statistical Review Of World Energy 2018 report published in June, Shell's Shell LNG Outlook 2018 report published in February, and U.S. the Energy Information Administration's International Energy Outlook 2017 report published in September. 17 Please see our most recent assessment of global oil fundamentals, published September 27, 2018, entitled "Risks From Unplanned Oil-Outage Rising; OPEC 2.0's Spare Capacity Is Suspect," and our updated forecast, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1h19 rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl," published September 20, 2018. 18 Asia LNG prices are usually linked to the JCC according to predetermined formulae. However, the exact formula remains opaque and varies with each contract. Based on our calculations, we concluded that since 2010, the average formula uses a slope of ~14% on JCC prices lagged 4 months, with very low s-curve components and a constant. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market

Highlights Investors who are betting on a quick resolution to the U.S./China trade war following the "new NAFTA" deal and the U.S. midterm elections have likely been taken in by false hope. Stay neutral China relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. The relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been almost entirely determined by their beta characteristic, with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming. Energy stocks have been among the top outperformers within the Chinese equity universe, and several factors support our recommendation that investors initiate an outright long position. While it is likely paused rather than stalled, broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant over the coming 6-12 months. Consequently, we are closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade. Feature September's PMI releases, both official and private, confirm that China's export outlook is deteriorating rapidly. Chart 1 highlights that the Caixin PMI is about to fall below the boom/bust line, and the new export orders component of the official PMI has sunk to a 2 ½ year low. Somewhat oddly, investors do not seem to be responding negatively to the de-facto announcement of a 25% rate on the second round of U.S. import tariffs against China. Chart 2 shows that domestic infrastructure stocks have actually been rising relative to global stocks since mid-September, and our BCA China Play Index appears to have entered a (so far very modest) uptrend. Chart 1The Export Shock Is Coming... The Export Shock Is Coming... The Export Shock Is Coming... Chart 2...But Investors Have Been Incrementally Upbeat ...But Investors Have Been Incrementally Upbeat ...But Investors Have Been Incrementally Upbeat One possible explanation for this is that investors are doubling down on the idea that China will have to aggressively stimulate in response to the shock. We have leaned against this narrative, by arguing in past reports that China's policy response to the upcoming export shock is not likely to be heavily credit-based, and that increases in fiscal spending today will involve more "soft infrastructure" than in the past.1 Chart 3 certainly shows no evidence of a spike in broad money or total credit; adjusted total social financing growth barely accelerated in August, against the backdrop of promises to front-run planned fiscal spending over the coming year. Chart 3No Major Acceleration In Credit Growth Evident Yet No Major Acceleration In Credit Growth Evident Yet No Major Acceleration In Credit Growth Evident Yet Chart 4Americans Support A Tough Stance Against China False Hope False Hope But a second explanation of recent investor behavior, one that we have been hearing more loudly from some market participants, is that China is waiting until after the midterm elections in the U.S. to make a deal, in anticipation that Republican losses in Congress will weaken Trump and change the political reality in terms of trade policy towards China. There are three reasons why investors holding this view are likely mistaken, and have been taken in by false hope: In the U.S., the actual implementation of tariffs lies within the control of the Presidency. Congress has delegated substantial authority to the president that would take time to be clawed back. Moreover, the president controls the execution of tariffs, and has a general prerogative over national security issues, which certainly includes the trade war with China. Democratic control of the House or Senate may cause President Trump to act even more forcefully against China, as trade will be among the few relatively unfettered policy options left to him. Chart 4 highlights that a sizeable majority of the American public views Chinese trade policy towards the U.S. as unfair, unlike the U.S.' other major trade partners. Reflecting this point, Democrats themselves maintain a hawkish stance on trade with China. This suggests that Trump will have a strong mandate to continue to demand major concessions from China even after the elections. We agree that Chinese stocks have already priced in a sizeable earnings decline, but we would still characterize buying now as an ill-advised case of trying to catch a falling knife. We highlighted in our September 19 Weekly Report that during the 2014-2016 episode Chinese stocks bottomed several months after stimulus began to take effect,2 because of a delayed decline in forward earnings. A similar situation would appear to be developing this time around: the third round of tariffs against China will likely soon be announced, the shock to Chinese export growth will soon manifest itself in the data, and yet Chinese forward earnings have only fallen 5-6% from their June peak. Bottom Line:Investors who are betting on a resolution to the U.S./China trade war following the U.S. midterm elections have likely been taken in by false hope. Stay neutral China relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. Recent Sector Performance: A Beta Story, And A New Trade Idea Chart 5Last Week We Closed One Of Our Most Successful Calls Last Week We Closed One Of Our Most Successful Calls Last Week We Closed One Of Our Most Successful Calls We recommended closing one of our most successful trades of the past year in a brief Special Report last week.3 The report outlined major changes to the global industry classification standard (GICS) that took effect this week, as well as the implications for China's stock market. One key change is that Alibaba, one of the "BATs", is now part of the consumer discretionary sector and makes up roughly 60% of its market capitalization. Given this fundamental shift in the risk/reward profile of the position, we recommended closing our long MSCI China Consumer Staples / short MSCI China Consumer Discretionary trade for a profit of 47% (Chart 5). With the goal of identifying new trade ideas that are likely to outperform within the context of a trade war, Chart 6 presents the alpha and beta characteristics of 23 industry groups in the MSCI China index (the investable benchmark) from mid-June to the end of September. The x-axis of the chart represents the group's beta versus the benchmark, whereas the y-axis shows standardized alpha over the period. The chart also distinguishes between out/underperforming sectors. Chart 6Since Mid-June, Sector Performance Has Largely Been Beta-Driven False Hope False Hope Several points are notable: Largely speaking, the relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been determined by their beta characteristic (with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming). This supports our existing position of favoring low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index, a trade that we initiated on June 27.4 Four industry groups that belong to traditionally cyclical sectors have outperformed since mid-June and have had a beta less than 1: energy, capital goods, banks, and consumer durables and apparel. Energy and capital goods have been particularly notable, having outperformed by 24% and 15%, respectively. Technology-related industry groups have underperformed, including the pharma, biotech, and life sciences industry group within health care. Consumer services and retailers have significantly underperformed, due to the heavy influence of travel-related businesses in both indexes. Among the top performing industry groups over the past three months, Chinese energy stocks look like the most compelling trade in absolute terms. While we are normally reluctant to chase performance, several factors support an outright long position: BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service is bullish on oil prices, and recently increased their 2019 Brent price forecast to $95/bbl based on both supply and demand factors.5 Despite the recent outperformance of Chinese energy companies within the investable universe, they remain cheap versus global energy companies based on cash flow-based valuation metrics (Chart 7). This is true even after accounting for the fact that they are typically discounted relative to their global peers due to heavy state ownership. Chinese energy companies look reasonably priced relative to the value of global oil production (Chart 8). Chinese energy companies largely receive their revenue in U.S. dollars, which is an attractive hedge in an environment where CNY-USD may decline further. Chart 7Chinese Energy Stocks Are Cheap Versus Their Global Peers... Chinese Energy Stocks Are Cheap Versus Their Global Peers... Chinese Energy Stocks Are Cheap Versus Their Global Peers... Chart 8...And Versus The Value Of Global Oil Production ...And Versus The Value Of Global Oil Production ...And Versus The Value Of Global Oil Production Given this, we are updating our trade book and recommend that investors initiate an outright long position in Chinese energy stocks as of today. Chart 9Despite Outperforming, Absolute Capital Goods Performance Has Been Lackluster Despite Outperforming, Absolute Capital Goods Performance Has Been Lackluster Despite Outperforming, Absolute Capital Goods Performance Has Been Lackluster What about Chinese capital goods companies? For now, we are content with relative rather than absolute exposure, which (surprisingly) exists in our low-beta sectors trade. Capital goods companies account for almost 70% of the Chinese industrial sector, and industrial stocks have been less volatile than the broad market over the past year, in large part because they underperformed so significantly in 2017. Given this, they have been included in our low-beta sectors portfolio, despite being typically pro-cyclical. In absolute terms, though, it is far from clear that Chinese capital goods stocks will trend higher (Chart 9). Some investors are hopeful that capital goods producers will benefit from a significant acceleration in infrastructure spending but, as we noted above, the bar is high for the type of stimulus that investors have come to expect. In addition, potential weakness in property construction could be a drag, and could offset gains from a pickup in infrastructure investment.6 We recommend that investors stick with a relative position, until compelling signs of a stimulus overshoot emerge. Bottom Line: The relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been almost entirely determined by their beta characteristic, with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming. Energy stocks have been among the top outperformers within the Chinese equity universe, and several factors support our recommendation that investors initiate an outright long position. A Pause In Broad "Reform" As An Investment Theme Following last November's Communist Party Congress, we noted that China was likely to step up its reform efforts in 2018, and would take meaningful steps to: Pare back heavy-polluting industry Hasten the transition of China's economy to "consumer-led" growth Slow or halt leveraging in the corporate/financial sector Eliminate corruption and graft We argued that Chinese policymakers would have to set the pace of reforms to avoid a significant slowdown in the economy, but we noted that a policy mistake (moving too aggressively) could not be ruled out. We introduced the BCA China Reform Monitor as a way of tracking the intensity of the reforms, which was calculated as an equally-weighted average of the four "winner" sectors that emerged in the month following the Party Congress (energy, consumer staples, health care, and technology) relative to an equally-weighted average of the remaining seven sectors (Chart 10). In particular, we argued that a rise in the monitor that was driven by the underperformance of the denominator would be a warning sign that reforms had become too aggressive for the economy to withstand. Chart 10Reform, As A Broad Theme, Will Be Less Relevant In The Year Ahead Reform, As A Broad Theme, Will Be Less Relevant In The Year Ahead Reform, As A Broad Theme, Will Be Less Relevant In The Year Ahead Chart 10 highlights that the reform monitor rose for the first half of the year, driven by the gains of the numerator rather than losses in the denominator. The message of a sustainable pace of reforms, even against the backdrop of brewing trade tension, was consistent with the relative performance of Chinese stocks and was part of the reason we recommended staying overweight versus the global benchmark in Q1 and the majority of Q2.7 Since mid-June, however, the reform theme has been thrown into reverse: our reform monitor has declined, alongside absolute declines in both "winner" and "loser" sectors. The timing of this inflection point is clearly aligned with President Trump's announcement of the second round of tariffs. Given this, and our view that the U.S./China trade war is likely to get worse over the coming 6-12 months, it is likely that broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant for the foreseeable future, at least relative to policymaker efforts to stabilize the economy. However, for several reasons, we view this as a pause in the theme, rather than an end: On the environmental front, Chart 11 highlights that China continues to pursue a clean air policy, at least in large population centers. Anti-pollution efforts are a signature policy of President Xi Jinping. They affect quality of life and ultimately the legitimacy of the regime, so they cannot be postponed entirely or indefinitely. Chart 11China Continues To Clamp Down On Air Quality China Continues To Clamp Down On Air Quality China Continues To Clamp Down On Air Quality Shifting China's growth model away from primary and secondary industry remains a long-term goal of policymakers. Chart 12 highlights that tertiary industry has already risen non-trivially as a share of GDP. This trend is also clearly visible in the electricity consumption data, which shows that residential and tertiary industry consumption has risen quite materially over the past several years. Chinese policymakers will clearly ease up on the brake over the coming year in terms of deleveraging, but it is far from clear that they will aim for another wave of aggressive private sector debt growth. We highlighted one key reason for this in a recent Special Report: comparing adjusted state-owned enterprise (SOE) return on assets to borrowing costs suggests that the marginal operating gain from debt has become negative for these firms (Chart 13). This implies that further aggressive leveraging of SOEs could push them into a debt trap. In fact, if policymakers do refrain from promoting a major private sector credit expansion over the coming year, that restraint will directly reflect the reform agenda. Chart 12Policymakers Continue To Emphasize A Transition Towards Services Policymakers Continue To Emphasize A Transition Towards Services Policymakers Continue To Emphasize A Transition Towards Services Chart 13SOEs Now Appear To Have A Negative Financial Gain From Debt SOEs Now Appear To Have A Negative Financial Gain From Debt SOEs Now Appear To Have A Negative Financial Gain From Debt Chart 14 highlights that while anti-corruption cases involving gifts and the improper use of public funds are off of their high from early this year, they remain elevated and are not trending lower. As a final point, Chart 15 shows that our long MSCI China environmental, social, and governance (ESG) leaders / short MSCI China trade has been negatively impacted by the pause in reform as an investment theme. While MSCI's ESG indexes aim to generate low tracking error relative to the underlying equity market of each country, technology companies are typically overrepresented in ESG indexes because of the low emissions nature of their business model. In China's case, we noted above that technology industry groups have fared poorly since mid-June, and panel 2 of Chart 15 shows that the underperformance of Chinese investable technology companies since mid-June lines up with the latest leg of ESG underperformance. Chart 14China's Anti-Corruption Drive Is Still In Effect China's Anti-Corruption Drive Is Still In Effect China's Anti-Corruption Drive Is Still In Effect Chart 15Favor ESG Leaders Again When The Reform Theme Reasserts Itself Favor ESG Leaders Again When The Reform Theme Reasserts Itself Favor ESG Leaders Again When The Reform Theme Reasserts Itself It remains unclear how much of tech's underperformance has been due to rich multiples versus concerns that the U.S. crackdown on Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft will negatively impact the market share of China's tech companies (via an opening of the market and a rise in the market share of foreign competitors). But we believe that the latter is a factor, and we recommend closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade until "reform", both environmental and otherwise, reasserts itself as a driving factor for the Chinese equity market. Bottom Line: While it is likely paused rather than stalled, broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant over the coming 6-12 months relative to policymaker efforts to stabilize the economy. We are closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade at a loss of 5.5%. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" dated August 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War", dated September 19, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "GICS Sector Changes: The Implications For China", dated September 26, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Now What?", dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?", dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 The rapidly escalating trade war between China and the U.S. caused us to recommended putting Chinese stocks on downgrade watch at the end of March, and we recommended that investors cut their exposure to neutral on June 20. Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight", dated March 28, 2018, and China Investment Strategy Special Report "Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, both available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights So What? Go long Brent / short S&P 500. The risk of a recession in 2019 is underappreciated. Why? The likelihood is increasing of a geopolitically-induced supply-side shock that pushes crude prices above $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months. Oil supply disruptions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela represent the primary source of risk. Historically, the combination of Fed rates hike and an oil price spike has preceded 8 out of the last 9 recessions. Also... A recession in 2019, ahead of the 2020 election, would set the stage for a confrontation between Trump and the Fed, adding fuel to market volatility. Feature Geopolitical tensions are brewing from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. As we go to press, news is breaking that a Chinese naval vessel almost collided with the USS Decatur as the latter conducted "freedom of navigation" operations within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson reefs in the Spratly Islands. Given the trade tensions between China and the U.S., this alleged maneuver by the Chinese vessel suggests that Beijing is not backing off from a confrontation. Our view remains that Sino-American trade tensions can get a lot worse before they get better. The latest incident, which builds on a series of negative gestures recently in the South China Sea, suggests that both sides are combining longstanding geopolitical tensions with the trade war. This will likely encourage brinkmanship and further degrade U.S.-China relations. Yet China-U.S. tensions are not the only concern for investors in 2019. Another crisis is brewing in the Middle East, with the potential to significantly increase oil prices over the next 12 months. U.S. households may have to deal with a double-whammy next year: higher costs of imported goods as the U.S.-China trade war rages on and a significant increase in gasoline prices. In this report, we discuss this dire outlook. The Folly Of Recession Forecasting In mid-2017, BCA Research published two reports, one titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession" and another titled "The Timing Of The Next Recession."1 Both argued that if the Federal Reserve kept raising rates in line with the FOMC dots, then monetary policy would move into restrictive territory by early 2019 and increase the likelihood of recession thereafter. We subsequently adjusted the timing of our recession forecast to 2020 or beyond, based on a more positive assessment of the U.S. economy. In this report, we explore a risk to the BCA House View on the timing of the next recession. As BCA's long-time Chief Economist Martin Barnes has said, predicting recessions is a mug's game. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (excluding the brief 1980-81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast all of them (Table 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? The Atlanta Fed produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of recession based on trends in recent GDP data. At the moment, the indicator is at a historically sanguine 2.4%. Unfortunately, low readings are not a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82, and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the Atlanta Fed's recession indicator had a low reading of 10%, 1.6%, and 7.7%, respectively - just as the recession was about to begin (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The 1974-75 recession is instructive, given the numerous parallels with the current environment: Energy Geopolitics: The 1973 oil crisis caused a massive spike in crude prices. This point is especially pertinent since the 1973 oil embargo is widely viewed as an important contributor to the 1974-75 recession. Real short rates had risen and the yield curve had inverted long before oil prices spiked, so recession was almost inevitable even without the oil price move. But the oil spike made the recession much deeper than otherwise. Protectionism: President Nixon imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports into the U.S. in 1971 to try to force trade partners to devalue the U.S. dollar. Dislocation: Competition from newly industrialized countries - Japan and the East Asian tigers in particular - laid waste to the steel industry in the developed world. Polarization: President Nixon polarized the nation with both his policies and behavior, leading to his resignation in 1974. Given the exogenous and geopolitical nature of oil supply shocks, today's recession indicators are missing a critical potential headwind to the economy. A geopolitically induced oil-price shock could create more pain than the economy is able to handle. Why An Oil Price Shock? America's renewed foray into the politics of the Middle East will unravel the tenuous equilibrium that was just recently established between Iran and its regional rivals. The U.S.-Iran détente that produced the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) created conditions for a precarious balance of power between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and its allies on the other side. This equilibrium led to a meaningful change in Tehran's behavior, particularly on the following fronts: The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran ceased to rhetorically threaten the Strait as soon as negotiations began with the U.S. (Chart 2). Since then, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities remain unchanged.2 Iraq: Iran directly participated in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Tehran changed tack after 2013 and cooperated closely with the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State. In 2014, Iran acquiesced to the removal of the deeply sectarian, and pro-Iranian, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahrain and the Saudi Eastern Province: Iran's material and rhetorical support was instrumental in the Shia uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011 (Map 1). Saudi Arabia had to resort to military force to quell both. Since the détente with the U.S. in 2015, Iranian support for Shia uprisings in these critical areas of the Persian Gulf has stopped. Chart 2Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? Put simply, the 2015 nuclear deal traded American acquiescence toward Iranian nuclear development in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. By unraveling that détente, President Trump is upending the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing the probability that Iran retaliates. Since penning our latest net assessment of the U.S.-Iran tensions in May, Iran has already retaliated.3 Our checklist for "kinetic" conflict has now risen from zero to at least 15%, if not higher (Table 2). We expect the probability to rise once the U.S. starts implementing the oil embargo in November. This will dovetail our Iran-U.S. decision tree, which sets the subjective probability of kinetic action by the U.S. against Iran at a baseline of 20% (Diagram 1). Table 2Will The U.S. Attack Iran? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? Bottom Line: The premier geopolitical risk to investors in 2019 is that President Trump's maximum pressure tactic on Iran spills over into Iraq, causing a loss of supply from the world's fifth-largest crude producer.4 We expect the U.S. oil embargo against Iran to remove between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the market. In addition, the loss of Iraqi production due to sabotage could be anywhere between 500,000 and 3.5 million barrels per day. Added to this total is the potential loss of Venezuelan exports due to the deteriorating situation there. When our commodity team combines all of these factors, they generate a worst-case scenario where the price of crude rises to $110 per barrel in 2019 or higher (Chart 3). And this scenario assumes that EMs do not reinstitute energy subsidies (and therefore their consumption falls faster than if they do reinstitute them). Chart 3Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward 0/Barrel Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward $110/Barrel Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward $110/Barrel The Ayatollah Recession We believe that the midterm election is a dud from an investment perspective, no matter the outcome. However, the election does matter as a hurdle that, once cleared, will allow President Trump to renew his "maximum pressure" tactic against China, Iran, and perhaps domestic tech corporations.5 Iran is a critical risk in this strategy. If President Trump applies maximum pressure on Iran, then a reduction in crude exports from Iran, Iranian retaliation in Iraq, and the simultaneous loss of Venezuelan supplies could combine to increase the likelihood of U.S. recession in 2019. Readers might recall that no sitting president has gotten re-elected during a recession. Why would Trump pursue a policy that risks his re-election chances in 2020? Surely he would deviate from his maximum pressure tactic if faced with the prospect of a recession. However, it is folly to assume that policymakers are perfectly rational, or fully informed. American presidents are some of the most unconstrained policymakers in the world, given both the hard power of the United States and the constitutional lack of constraints on the president when it comes to national security. Trump may believe, for instance, that the 660 million barrels of crude in America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve can offset the impact of sanctions against Iran.6 Or he may believe that he can force OPEC to supply enough oil to offset the Iranian losses. The problem for President Trump is that Iran is not led by idiots. Iranian policymakers understand that the best way to reduce American pressure is to induce an oil price spike in the summer of 2019 that hurts President Trump's re-election chances, forcing him to back off. As such, sabotaging Iraqi oil exports, which mainly transit through the port of Basra - a city highly vulnerable to Shia-on-Shia violence that is already a risk to the country's stability - would be an obvious target. An oil price spike would serve as a negotiating tool against the U.S., and the additional revenue would help replace what Iran loses due to the embargo. Tehran and Washington will therefore play a game of chicken throughout 2019, and there is a fair probability that neither side will swerve. President Trump may be making the same mistake as many predecessors have made, assuming that the Iranian regime is teetering at a precipice and that a mere nudge will force the leadership to negotiate. Oil price shocks and recessions have a historical connection. In a recent report, our commodity strategists highlighted that a spike in oil prices preceded 10 out of the past 11 recessions in the U.S. since 1945 (Table 3). Admittedly, not all spikes were followed by recession. The combination of an oil price spike and Fed rate hikes has produced a recession 8 out of 9 times.7 If oil prices rose to $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months, there will be several negative macro consequences. In particular, gasoline prices will rise back toward $4 per gallon (Chart 4). Retail gasoline prices have already increased by more than 50% since they bottomed in February 2016. So how much more upside can the U.S. private sector take? Table 3History Of Oil Supply Shocks 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? Chart 4A Source Of Pressure For Consumers A Source Of Pressure For Consumers A Source Of Pressure For Consumers The Household Sector Consumer confidence is currently near all-time highs, which tends to signal that the path of least resistance is flat or down (Chart 5). Household gasoline consumption has already declined in response to higher oil prices since the middle of 2017. Given that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic, consumers may already be near their minimum consumption level. Chart 5Nearing All-Time Highs Nearing All-Time Highs Nearing All-Time Highs Instead, households will experience a decline in their disposable income. This will come on the back of both higher gasoline prices and an increase in the prices of other goods and services, as the oil spike spills across sectors. U.S. households - and most likely those in other markets - are stretched to the limit already. A recent Fed survey found that 40% of U.S. households do not have the funds needed to meet an unexpected $400 cost in any given month.8 Such an unexpected expense would require them to either sell possessions, borrow, or cut back on other purchases. Chart 6Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Left with few other options, households would react to their lower disposable income by reducing demand for other goods and services. This dent in consumer spending would bring down aggregate demand, leading to slower employment growth and even less income and spending. Households could save less to maintain their current purchasing levels, given the recent rise in the savings rate (Chart 6). But this is unlikely. Although the household savings rate has increased in recent years, we have previously argued that a material part of the increase was driven by small business-owner profits. These owners have much higher levels of income than the median consumer. For Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, it would be difficult to reduce a savings rate that is already close to, or below, zero. Higher oil prices will also hurt growth in Europe and Japan, economies that are already struggling to gain economic momentum after grappling with a weaker growth impulse from China. In addition, EM economies that took the opportunity to reform their oil subsidies amid lower oil prices post-2014 will have to grapple with a much larger shock to consumers than usual. The Corporate Sector In theory, what consumers lose from rising oil prices, producers of crude can gain in stronger revenue. This is especially important in the U.S. as domestic energy production has increased significantly over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for just 1.1% of GDP and 0.1% of total employment. The marginal propensity to spend out of every dollar of income is lower for producers than consumers. Moreover, if consumer confidence fell and consumer spending weakened, non-energy capex would decline as businesses reassessed household demand and held off from making investment decisions. Small business confidence is at record highs, and as with consumer confidence, vulnerable to downward revisions (Chart 7). Chart 7Dizzying Heights Dizzying Heights Dizzying Heights Chart 8Only One Way To Go (Down) Only One Way To Go (Down) Only One Way To Go (Down) Profit margins remain at a highly elevated level and also have only one way to go (Chart 8). If high oil prices should combine with rising borrowing costs and upward pressure on wages (which could develop in this macro environment) the result would be a triple hit to margins (Chart 9). Of course, rising wages would give consumers some offset to higher oil prices, so the question will be the net effect of all variables. And if the dollar bull market continues, as our FX team believes it will, the combination of higher oil prices and a strong USD would hurt U.S. companies with international exposure. The debt load held by the U.S. corporate sector would turn this bad dream into a nightmare. Many American companies have spent the past 10 years increasing leverage to buy back equity (Chart 10). Companies with high debt would need to revise down their profit expectations, with potentially devastating consequences. Elevated debt levels also increase the likelihood of financial market stress if bond investors get worried and spreads begin to widen significantly. Chart 9Rising Pressures On Earnings? Rising Cost Pressures On Earnings Rising Cost Pressures On Earnings Chart 10Large Corporate Debts Large Corporate Debts Large Corporate Debts According to all measures, U.S. stocks are at or near their all-time valuation peaks. Investors have also priced in a significant amount of optimism for profit growth (Chart 11). These expectations would be subject to quick revision if our oil shock scenario plays out. In other words, investor expectations for profit margins are not sufficiently factoring the triple hit of higher oil prices, higher interest rates, and higher wages. Chart 11The Market Has High Hopes The Market Has High Hopes The Market Has High Hopes An additional geopolitical risk on the horizon for 2019 is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. This is unrelated to an oil price spike (other than that it would be an effect of U.S. policy) but could nonetheless combine with rising energy prices to sour investors' mood.9 Bottom Line: An oil price spike above $100 would produce negative consequences for the U.S. household and corporate sectors. Given the supply-side nature of the price shock, it would not be accompanied by the usual decline in USD, and could therefore hurt the foreign profits of U.S. corporations as well. If investors must also deal with mounting regulatory pressures on FAANG stocks, they could face a perfect storm. Given the high probability of such an oil price shock, why isn't a 2019 recession BCA's House View, rather than merely a risk to it? Because it is difficult to say how high oil prices need to rise to cause a recession. For example, 1973 both marked a permanent move up in oil prices and saw oil prices triple. In 2019 terms, that would mean an oil price above $200, a far less probable scenario than $100-$110. Nevertheless, the combination of elevated oil prices and the price impact on consumer goods of the U.S.-China trade war could combine to create a nightmare scenario for consumers. But it is impossible to gauge the level of both required to push the U.S. into a recession. Second, there are many ways in which today's macro environment is different from that in 1974. In the 1970s the inventory cycle was a key factor in the business cycle, with excesses building up ahead of recessions, forcing output cutbacks as demand weakened. That is no longer the case in today's world of just-in-time inventory management. Also, inflation was a much bigger problem back then, requiring tougher Fed action. On the other hand, debt burdens were much lower. Investment Implications To be clear, none of the usual recession indicators that BCA Research uses are flashing red at this time. The point of this analysis is to illustrate a credible, exogenous scenario that cannot be revealed through the usual data-driven recession forecasting methods. What happens if a recession does occur ahead of the 2020 election? How would President Trump react to a recession induced by his foreign policy adventurism in the Middle East? By doing what every other president would do: finding someone else to blame. In this case, we would put high odds on the Federal Reserve becoming the target of President Trump's fury. Ahead of 2020, the Fed and its independence may very well become an election issue.10 This could spell serious trouble for the Fed, which is at a massive disadvantage when it comes to explaining to voters why central bank independence is so important. The Fed had great difficulty managing public opinion regarding its extraordinary measures to combat the Great Recession - its attempts at public outreach largely failed. Compare the number of Trump's Twitter followers to that of the Fed's (Chart 12). Chart 12The Fed's PR Abilities Are Limited 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? 2019: The Geopolitical Recession? Though most of our clients and colleagues will probably disagree, we do not see central bank independence as a static quality. It was bestowed upon central banks by politicians following widespread inflation fears throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although in the U.S. the current tradition goes back to the 1951 Treasury Accord that restored the independence of the Fed. Our colleague Martin Barnes penned a report on the politicization of monetary policy in 2013.11 His conclusion is that political meddling in monetary affairs is less pernicious than economic performance. The Fed will incur Trump's ire, in other words, but it will be its failure to generate economic growth that causes a break in independence. We are not so sure. The next recession is likely to be a mild one for Main Street given the lack of real economic bubbles. But given the slow recovery in real wages over the past decade and the general angst of the populace towards governing elites, even a mild recession that merely reminds voters of 2008-2009 could produce deep anxiety and significant public reactions. Further, the idea of "independent," non-politically accountable institutions is going out of style. President Trump - and other policymakers in the developed world - have specifically targeted the "so-called experts" and "institutions." President Trump has attacked America's foreign policy architecture, NATO, the WTO, and a slew of supposedly outdated norms and practices for being "out of touch" with the electorate. This policy has served him well thus far. If our nightmare scenario of an oil price-induced recession plays out, the immediate implication for investors will be a sharp downturn in risk assets. As such, we are recommending that investors hedge their portfolios with a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade. Alternatively we would recommend going long U.S. energy / short technology stocks. A longer-term, and perhaps even more pernicious implication, would be the end of the era of central bank independence and a full politicization of the economy. Laissez-faire capitalist system would give way to dirigisme. In the process, the U.S. dollar and Treasuries would be doomed. Jim Mylonas, Global Strategist Daily Insights & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018 and "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently covers 100 days of net crude imports, or 200 days of net petroleum imports, and can be tapped for reasons of political timing as well as international emergencies. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," dated September 13, 2018, available at bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017," May 2018, available at federalreserve.gov. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "Politics And Monetary Policy," dated August 22, 2018, and "The Battle Of The Press Conferences: Trump Versus Powell," dated September 27, 2018, available at dailyinsights.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?" dated April 15, 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Q3/2018 Performance Breakdown: The Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This raised the overall 2018 year-to-date performance to +6bps. Winners & Losers: The outperformance came mostly from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, but also from successful country selection (overweight Australia & New Zealand, underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy). Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Scenario Analysis: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Feature This week, we present the performance numbers of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the 3rd quarter of 2018. We also update our scenario analysis of the future expected performance of the portfolio based on the risk-factor based return forecasting framework we introduced earlier this year. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is meant to complement the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Broadly speaking, the portfolio did slightly outperform its benchmark index over the past three months, driven mostly by defensive duration positioning during a period of rising developed market bond yields. The portfolio would have done considerably better if not for a September rally in emerging market (EM) credit that flew in the face of our maximum underweight position in EM. We still have strong conviction in those two main themes - higher global bond yields and EM underperformance - and we fully expect our model portfolio to generate larger outperformance over the next year. Q3/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Duration Underweights Pay Off The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was +0.12% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter of the year, which outperformed the custom benchmark index by +9bps (Chart of the Week).1 The main driver of the outperformance was our structural below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, which benefited as the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index yield rose to 1.54% - the highest level since April 2014. The portfolio's excess return got as high as +19bps on September 4th, before seeing some pullback in recent weeks as our main spread product tilt - underweight EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt - enjoyed a counter-trend rally in September from the bearish spread widening seen since the start of 2018. Chart of the WeekDefensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Defensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Defensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +17bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter lagged the benchmark by -8bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Government##BR##Bond Performance Attribution By Country GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Spread##BR##Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities beyond 10 years (+7bps) Underweight U.S. Treasuries with maturities beyond 7 years (+6bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturities beyond 7 years (+2bps) Underweight Italian government bonds (+2bps) Overweight JGBs with maturities up to 10 years (+1bp) Biggest underperformers Underweight EM USD-denominated sovereign debt (-3bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporate debt (-3bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate debt (-2bps) Underweight euro area high-yield corporate debt (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during the third quarter (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral weight). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q3/2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Spread product sectors dominate the left half of that chart, as credit spreads have tightened across the board since the early September peak. The best performing sector during Q3 in our model portfolio universe was EM hard currency sovereign debt, which has delivered a total return of +2.8% since September 4th (with spreads tightening by 50bps) after losing -0.7% in July and August. Similar performance stories occurred in corporate debt in the U.S. and Europe during the quarter. That credit outperformance comes after the sustained spread widening seen in virtually all global credit markets (excluding U.S. high-yield) since January of this year. The main drivers that prompted that widening - Fed tightening, a stronger U.S. dollar, diminishing asset purchases from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), some cyclical slowing of non-U.S. growth - are still in place. With our geopolitical strategists continuing to highlight the additional risks of U.S.-China and U.S.-Iran tensions intensifying after next month's U.S. Midterm elections, a cautious stance on global spread product - as we have maintained since downgrading our recommended overall credit exposure to neutral in late June - is still warranted.2 Outside of spread product, our model portfolio tilts generally lined up with the sector returns shown in Chart 4. We have overweights on two of the best performing government bond markets (Australia and New Zealand) and underweights on three of the worst performers (U.S., Canada, Italy). Interestingly, despite having overweights on two of the worst performing government bond markets - Japan and the U.K. - the excess return contribution from those countries did not hurt the model bond portfolio return in Q3 (+8bps and 0bps, respectively). This was due to the curve steepening bias embedded within our overweight country tilts (i.e. more duration allocated to shorter-maturity buckets, see the model portfolio details on Page 14), which benefitted as yield curves in those countries bear-steepened. Net-net, we are satisfied with the modest portfolio outperformance seen in Q3, given that the rally in global credit markets went against our more defensive posture on spread product exposure. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This put the overall 2018 year-to-date performance into positive territory (+6bps). The outperformance came entirely from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, and from successful country selection. Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to benefit from two primary trends: rising global bond yields and growth divergences that continue to favor the U.S. In terms of the specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we still prefer owning U.S. corporate debt versus equivalents in Europe and EM. When we downgraded our recommended allocation to U.S. and investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight back in July, we also cut the portfolio exposure to euro area corporates, as well as to all EM hard currency debt, to underweight. The latter changes were necessary to maintain our desired higher exposure to U.S. corporate debt versus non-U.S. corporates, although it did leave the model portfolio with a small overall underweight stance on global spread product (Chart 5). Importantly, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, which is now one full year shorter than our benchmark index duration (Chart 6), even as we have grown more cautious on credit exposure. This is because we still see potential medium-term upward pressure on bond yields coming from tightening monetary policies (Fed rate hikes, ECB tapering of bond purchases) and increasing inflation expectations. The majority of global central bankers are dealing with tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation rates. While global growth has cooled a bit from the rapid pace seen in 2017, it has not been by enough to force policymakers to shift to a more dovish bias. Chart 5Spread Product Allocation:##BR##Neutral U.S., Underweight Non-U.S. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Chart 6Maintaining##BR##Below-Benchnmark Duration Maintaining Below-Benchnmark Duration Maintaining Below-Benchnmark Duration Our underweights on EM and euro area spread product have left the portfolio in a "negative carry" position where it yields 34bps less than the benchmark index (Chart 7). In a backdrop of stable markets and low volatility, being short carry will be a drag on the model bond portfolio performance as we saw over the past month. Yet we do not see the recent market calm as being sustainable, with all plausible outcomes pointing to more volatile markets, largely driven by U.S.-centric events (more Fed tightening, a stronger dollar, U.S. growth convergence to slower non-U.S. growth, increased trade protectionism, higher oil prices due to U.S.-Iran tensions). We continue to suggest a cautious allocation of investor risk budgets against this backdrop. We have been targeting a tracking error (relative volatility versus the benchmark) for our model bond portfolio in the 40-60bp range, well below our 100bps maximum. Our current allocations give us a tracking error right at the bottom of that range (Chart 8).3 Chart 7The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit Chart 8Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts Back in April of this year, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.4 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis based on projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio universe by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate##BR##Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Table 2BEstimated Government Bond##BR##Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead With these tools, we than can attempt to forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios. In Tables 3A & 3B. we show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 100bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises +5%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels, and U.S. Treasury yields rise by 40bps across the curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by +10%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve (2yr yield +75bps, 10yr yield +40bps). A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX index increases by fifteen points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. In this scenario, the Fed puts the rate hiking cycle on hold in response to a sharp tightening of U.S. financial conditions. Table 3A shows the expected returns for all three scenarios based on our risk-factor framework. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index in all three scenarios we have laid out. This occurs even with the negative carry coming from the credit underweights in EM and Europe, with losses from credit spread widening projected to be larger than the yield give-up from being underweight. The excess returns are modest, however, with only 6bps of outperformance expected in our base case scenario and 13bps expected in the "Very Hawkish Fed" and "Very Dovish Fed" scenarios. This return distribution, with better outcomes occurring in the "tails", is a desirable property to have as it relates to the VIX/volatility forecasts embedded in the scenarios. Both of the non-base case scenarios have a higher VIX (Chart 9), even in the case of the "Very Dovish Fed" outcome where a severe U.S. financial market selloff (coming complete with a higher VIX) would be the necessary trigger for the Fed to reverse course and begin cutting interest rates (Chart 10). Such a backdrop would obviously hurt our below-benchmark duration stance, but would help our underweight EM/Europe spread product recommendations. Chart 9Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Chart 10UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis Of course, our recommendations will not be static at current levels throughout the next twelve months. We increasingly expect that our next major allocation move will be downgrade U.S. spread product exposure and raise U.S. Treasury allocations, especially after the Fed delivers a few more 25bps-per-quarter rate hikes and the U.S. dollar rises further. This will provide a boost to the portfolio's expected returns through renewed spread widening and, potentially, a reduction of our below-benchmark overall duration stance as Treasury yields reach likely cyclical peaks. Bottom Line: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Spread Product Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start", dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns