Energy

Highlights Crude oil prices will find support from stronger EM trade volumes, which broke out of an extended low-growth period at the end of last year and finished 1Q17 on a very strong note. Sustained growth in EM trade volumes will boost inflation at the consumer level in the U.S. and Europe, and will lift the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, provided the Fed does not constrict the growth of money supply this year and next. Energy: Overweight. We remain long Dec/17 WTI and Brent vs. short Dec/18 WTI and Brent, expecting the extended OPEC 2.0 production cuts and stronger oil demand to drain inventories this year. Base Metals: Neutral. China's Caixin manufacturing PMI for May fell below 50, indicating the manufacturing sector may be contracting. We will wait to see if this is confirmed this month and next, but for now this keeps us neutral with a negative tilt on the base metals complex. Precious Metals: Neutral. A weaker USD, and market expectations the Fed will be constrained in lifting interest rates later this year is supporting our strategic gold portfolio hedge, which is up 5.1% since it was initiated May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Front-month corn is trading through the top of the $3.55 to $3.75/bushel range it has occupied since the beginning of the year. We are not inclined to play the momentum. Feature EM import and export volumes moved sharply higher in 1Q17 after breaking out of an extended low-growth funk late last year (Chart of the Week). The year-on-year (yoy) increase in the volume of imports and exports for EM economies reported by the CPB World Trade Monitor were up on average 8.74% and 5.29% in 1Q17, respectively, versus 12-month moving average levels of 2.2% and 2.5%.1 EM trade volumes are highly correlated with EM oil demand (Chart 2), particularly in the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) era, when EM import and export growth made significant gains relative to DM trade volumes (Chart 3).2 Indeed, EM imports and exports both grew at twice the rate of DM trade between the end of 2010 and the end of 1Q17: EM import volumes grew 22% vs. DM growth of 10% over the period, while EM export volumes grew 21% vs. DM growth of 11%. Chart of the WeekEM Imports And Exports##BR##Surge In 1Q17 EM Imports And Exports Surge In 1Q17 EM Imports And Exports Surge In 1Q17 Chart 2EM Oil Demand Closely##BR##Tracks Trade Volumes EM Oil Demand Closely Tracks Trade Volumes EM Oil Demand Closely Tracks Trade Volumes Chart 3EM Trade-Volume Growth##BR##Surpasses DM Growth EM Trade-Volume Growth Surpasses DM Growth EM Trade-Volume Growth Surpasses DM Growth We expect EM demand will account for some 80% of ~1.53mm b/d of global oil demand growth this year. If the strong 1Q17 performance in EM trade were to carry into 2Q, we will be raising our estimated oil-demand growth for the year significantly. We will be updating our global supply-demand balances next week. Coupled with the extension to end-March 2018 of the 1.8mm-barrel-per-day crude-oil production cuts recently agreed by the OPEC 2.0, the strong EM oil-demand growth could accelerate the draw-down in global storage levels, putting the WTI and Brent forward curves into backwardation sooner than the late-2017/early-2018 timeframe we currently expect.3 EM Trade Growth Will Stoke Oil Prices And Inflation Because EM demand is the driving force of global oil-demand growth, a continuation of the strong trade performance from this sector will support oil prices going forward, and likely will lift inflation as the year progresses. In the post-GFC period, we would expect a 1% increase in EM import and export volumes to boost oil prices by a little more than 2%, and vice versa.4 This is almost twice the effect an increase in trade produces in estimates beginning pre-GFC in 2000; most likely, it reflects the increase in EM trade volumes relative to DM trade volumes post-GFC.5 Our modeling confirms key inflation gauges - particularly the Fed's preferred gauge, the core PCE; the U.S. CPI; and EMU Harmonized CPI - all are highly sensitive to EM oil demand, as expected, and, no surprise, to EM trade volumes.6 In the post-GFC period, a 1% increase (decrease) in EM oil demand can be expected to lift (drop) core PCE and the U.S. CPI by a little more than 50bps; for the EMU CPI, a 40bps increase (decrease) can be expected.7 In addition, we have found the EM trade data also is a highly explanatory variable for these inflation gauges. Imports explain ~ 84%, 91% and 89% of core PCE (Chart 4), U.S. CPI (Chart 5), and EMU CPI (Chart 6), respectively, in the post-GFC period, while exports explain 94%, 93% and 81% of these inflation gauges. The elasticities for the U.S. gauges is ~ 50bps, similar to the EM oil demand estimates, and ~35bps for the EMU CPI. Chart 4Core PCE Is Highly Sensitive To EM Trade Volumes... Core PCE Is Highly Sensitive To EM Trade Volumes... Core PCE Is Highly Sensitive To EM Trade Volumes... Chart 5...As Is U.S. CPI... ... As Is U.S. CPI ... ... As Is U.S. CPI ... Chart 6...And EMU CPI ... And EMU CPI ... And EMU CPI A continued expansion of EM trading volumes this year can be expected to lift inflation in the U.S. and Europe. We also would expect this to hold for China as well, given the results of our earlier research.8 Fed Could Kill The Party Chart 7U.S. M2 Is Important To EM Trade Volumes U.S. M2 Is Important To EM Trade Volumes U.S. M2 Is Important To EM Trade Volumes One variable we are watching closely is U.S. money supply, M2 in particular, vis-à-vis EM trade volumes (Chart 7). We find that in the post-GFC world, EM trade volumes are highly sensitive to M2, with M2 explaining 92% of EM exports and 82% of imports. This relationship did not exist in the pre-GFC world, or in estimates starting pre-GFC and extending to the present day. This no doubt is related to massive monetary accommodation and QE experiments post-GFC, but, as of this writing, we are not at all sure how this relationship will evolve going forward. Bottom Line: EM trade volumes have broken out of a long-term funk, which will be supportive of crude oil prices and will lift inflation going forward. Strong EM trade growth at the pace at which it ended 1Q17 would cause us to lift our expectation for global oil demand significantly for this year. This, combined with the extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to March 2018 could normalize global inventories faster than markets currently expect. EM trade is, importantly, highly exposed to U.S. monetary policy, particularly to what happens to U.S. M2 money supply. This is a feature of the global trade picture that was not present pre-GFC. Our research affirms our conviction on the bullish oil exposure we have on - chiefly the long Dec/17 Brent and WTI vs. short Dec/18 Brent and WTI backwardation trades. Our results also support remaining long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk, and remaining long commodity-index exposure. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The CPB World Trade Monitor is published monthly by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Please see https://www.cpb.nl/en/worldtrademonitor for data and documentation. We use CPB's volumetric data for EM imports and exports in our analysis, which are indexed to 2010 = 100; we converted these data to USD values to see how the composition of imports and exports was changing so as to better see how the relative shares of EM and DM are evolving. 2 EM export and import volumes are cointegrated with non-OECD oil consumption, our proxy for EM oil demand, in regressions starting pre- and post-GFC, meaning they share a common trend and are in a long-term equilibrium. The adjusted R2 coefficient of determination for EM oil demand as a function of EM export volumes is 0.91 for estimates starting in 2003 and 2010 (the pre- and post-GFC periods); for EM imports, it is 0.84 post-GFC, and 0.90 pre-GFC. Post-GFC, we estimate a 1% increase (decrease) in EM import and export volumes translates to an 88bp and 85bp gain (decline) in EM oil demand. The read-through on this is EM trade volumes are closely tied to income growth, given the income-elasticity of demand for oil is ~ 1.0 in non-OECD economies, according to the OECD. Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). In our modeling, we assume the GFC ended in 2010. 3 Please see our discussion of this production-cut extension in the joint report we did with BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy on June 1, 2017, entitled "Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 The R2 coefficients of determination for the cointegrating regressions of Brent prices on EM export and import volumes are 0.90 and 0.93, respectively, for post-GFC estimates. For estimates beginning in 2000, the R2 coefficients are 0.88, while the elasticities are ~1.20 for the EM trade variables. These models also include a parameter for the broad trade-weighted USD, which, post-GFC, has become more important to the evolution of Brent prices: A 1% increase in the currency parameter translates to a price decline of more than 5%, which is approximately twice the value of the estimates starting pre-GFC. 5 Our estimates for WTI produce similar results for the pre- and post-GFC periods. 6 We examined this in our August 4 and 11, 2016, in "Memo To The Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation," and "Global Inflation And Commodity Markets." Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 The R2 coefficients of determination for the core PCE, U.S. CPI and EMU CPI estimates as a function of EM oil demand are 0.97, 0.94 and 0.85, respectively. It is interesting to observe that prompt measures of inflation are not correlated to oil prices, but that 5-year 5-year CPI swaps remain highly correlated with oil prices, the 3-year forward WTI futures contract in particular; the R2 for the estimate of the 5y5y CPI swap as a function of the 3-year WTI contract is 75%. 8 In the August 11, 2016, article "Global Inflation And Commodity Markets," we found Chinese inflation to be equally sensitive to EM oil demand. We will be exploring this further when we look at base metals demand vis-à-vis EM trading volumes in forthcoming research. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil

Highlights Will Trump's trade rhetoric damage the U.S. service sector's abilities to generate a trade surplus and create high-paying jobs? Our assessment of the latest Beige Book via the BCA Beige Book Monitor supports the Fed's view that Q1 weakness was an anomaly and inflation is headed higher. This will keep the Fed on track to tighten in June and again later this year. GDP growth in 2017 is poised to exceed the Fed's forecast for the first time in seven years if the recent pattern of 2H GDP beating 1H GDP growth is repeated. Global oil inventories are set to move lower and drive oil prices higher. The odds of a recession remain low even with the economy at full employment. Feature The May employment report fell short of expectations, but the average gain of 121,000 jobs per month over the past 3 months and the drop in the unemployment rate are still enough to tighten the labor market and keep the Fed on track to tighten later this month. The unemployment rate dipped to 4.3% in May and is now 0.4% below the Fed's view of full employment. Wage growth remains stagnant despite the state of health of the labor market, as year-over-year average hourly earnings growth remained at just 2.5% in May (Chart 1). Chart 1Labor Market Still Tightening##BR##Despite Disappointing May Labor Market Still Tightening Despite Disappointing May Labor Market Still Tightening Despite Disappointing May Taking a broader view, the job picture in the service sector remains robust and wages in the export-oriented service industries remain well above wages in the goods sector. In this week's report we examine the impact of trade on the labor market and highlight areas where Trump's rhetoric may hurt trade-related job growth. Trump At Your Service The large trade surplus in the U.S. service sector is a hidden source of strength for the economy and labor market. Trump campaigned on his ability to create high paying manufacturing jobs, but his America First rhetoric is threatening jobs in the high paying service sector. Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. has imported more than it has exported, acting as a drag on GDP growth. The trade gap reflects a large and persistent goods deficit, which more than offsets a growing trade surplus on the service side. U.S. imported goods exceeded exports by $1.3 trillion in 2016. Service exports totaled an all-time high of $778 billion in 2016, $270 billion more than imports. Exports of services have increased by 7% per year on average since 2000, which is nearly twice as fast as nominal GDP (Charts 2A & 2B). Chart 2AThe U.S. Runs Trade##BR##Surplus In Services... The U.S. Runs Trade Surplus In Services... The U.S. Runs Trade Surplus In Services... Chart 2B...But It's Not Large Enough To Offset##BR##The Big Trade Deficit In Goods ...But It's Not Large Enough To Offset The Big Trade Deficit in Goods ...But It's Not Large Enough To Offset The Big Trade Deficit in Goods The trade surplus in services added 0.07% to GDP in Q1 2017, 0.04% in 2016, and has consistently added to GDP growth over the past few decades, although it is swamped by the large drag on GDP as a result of the trade deficit on goods. Industries where the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus have experienced job growth that is more than seven times faster than in industries where the U.S. runs a deficit. In addition, median wages ($29 as of April 2017) among surplus-producing industries are more than 20% higher than in industries in the goods sector ($24) where there is a trade deficit, even though wages are rising quicker in the goods-producing sector in the past year (Chart 3). U.S. service sector exports tend to compete on quality (not on price) and, therefore, will not be as affected as U.S. goods exports if the dollar meets BCA's forecast of a 10% rise in the next 6-12 months (Chart 4). Chart 3Wages In Export Led Service Industries##BR##20% Higher Than In Goods Sector Wages In Export Led Service Industries 20% Higher Than In Goods Sector Wages In Export Led Service Industries 20% Higher Than In Goods Sector Chart 4Service Sector Export Orders##BR##At New High Despite Strong Dollar Service Sector Export Orders At New High Despite Strong Dollar Service Sector Export Orders At New High Despite Strong Dollar However, Trump's trade policies may threaten to reduce the U.S.'s global dominance in services. The U.S. has the largest trade surpluses in travel (which includes education), intellectual property, financial services, and legal, accounting and consulting services (Table 1). The U.S. also runs a large surplus in areas such as intellectual property, software and advertising. In 2015, foreigners spent $92 billion more to travel to, vacation in and be educated in America compared with what U.S. residents spent for those services overseas. Anecdotal reports note that travel to the U.S. is down by as much as 15% since the start of the year, and that 40% of U.S. colleges and universities have seen a decline in foreign applications, putting the nearly $100 billion trade surplus at risk. Other Trump policies, such as the proposed travel ban and some of his "America First" campaign-style rhetoric, could jeopardize the trade surpluses in financial services ($77 billion), software services ($30 billion), TV and film right ($13 billion), architectural services ($10 billion) and advertising ($8) billion. Table 1Key Components Of U.S. Trade Surplus In Services Can The Service Sector Save The Day? Can The Service Sector Save The Day? Trump's trade rhetoric potentially threatens U.S. service exports to NAFTA countries (Canada and Mexico), the Eurozone and the emerging markets. President Trump campaigned on renegotiating NAFTA, supporting Brexit and pulling the U.S. out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Trade in services are key to all of those treaties, although trade in goods gets more attention. At $56 billion in 2015, Canada is the U.S.'s second largest service export market, and Mexico is a top 10 destination ($31 billion). Forty percent of U.S. service exports go to Europe, and at $66 billion in 2015, the U.K. is the single largest market for U.S. service exports. The U.S. sends half of its service exports to EM nations, with markets in Asia accounting for just under 30% of all U.S. service exports. Thus investors should carefully monitor the progress of all three of these trade deals to help better assess the impact on U.S. trade and jobs in the service sector. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s large trade surplus in services fosters faster job creation and better pay than in the goods-producing area where the U.S. has a trade deficit. The Trump administration's rhetoric and actions on trade and globalism potentially risks America's dominance in the service sector. In theory, U.S. trade restrictions could add to U.S. GDP growth as long as there is no retaliation from its trading partners (which is unlikely). But any gains on the manufacturing trade front could be largely offset by damage to the U.S. surplus in services trade. Beige Book Backs The Fed For the Fed, policymakers are treating any potential changes to trade and fiscal policy as risks to their outlook. At the moment, they are judging the need for tighter policy based on the evolution of the labor market and inflation. The Beige Book released on May 31 confirmed the FOMC's base-case outlook. It keeps the Fed on track to tighten in June and then again later this year as it begins to trim its balance sheet. Our quantitative assessment of the qualitative Beige Book that we introduced in April 17 found that the economy had rebounded from a weak Q1 and that inflation was in an uptrend despite recent soft readings.1 The dollar seems to have faded as a key concern for small businesses and bankers. Business uncertainty around government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) remained elevated. Our analysis of the Beige Book also shows that commercial and residential real estate, the former a surprise source of strength in Q1 GDP, remains stout more than halfway through Q2. Chart 5 shows that the BCA Beige Book Monitor ticked up to 71% in May 2017 from 64% in April. The metric is in line with its cycle highs recorded in mid-2014 as oil prices peaked. "Inflation" words in the Beige Book hit a new peak in May and are in sharp contrast to the recent soft readings on CPI and the PCE deflator. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may be turning up soon. Chart 5May Beige Book Points To Solid Growth In Q2 May Beige Book Points To Solid Growth In Q2 May Beige Book Points To Solid Growth In Q2 In Chart 5, panel 4 we track mentions of "strong dollar" in the report. The May Beige Book saw the same number of references to a strong dollar as the May 2016 report. This suggests that the dollar is not as big a concern for business owners as it was from early 2015 through early 2016. Housing added 0.5 percentage points to growth in Q1, and business spending on structures added 0.7 percentage points. The latest Beige Book suggests that both sectors remain robust here in Q2 (Chart not shown). The implication is that the U.S. economy is poised to clear the low hurdle in 2017 set for it by the FOMC in late 2016. The Fed's economic growth target for 2017 (set at the December 2016 FOMC meeting) was just 2.1%, the lowest year ahead forecast since 2009. The projection incorporates the Fed's lowered trajectory for potential output, but may also reflect the fact that actual GDP growth has not exceeded the Fed's forecast every year since 2009 (Chart 6). GDP growth in 1H 2017 is tracking between 2% and 2.5% despite the weak start to the year. In late May, Q1 GDP growth was revised to +1.2% from the 0.7% reading reported in late April. Based on the Atlanta Fed's GDP Now, the NY Fed's Nowcast and readings on ISM, vehicle sales and the Beige Book, GDP in Q2 is tracking to near 3%. If the economy rebounds from the lackluster first quarter as we expect, then real output will be on course to match or exceed the Fed's forecast for the first time since the recession. We expect an acceleration for fundamental reasons and due to poor seasonal adjustment. In 5 of the past 7 years, real GDP growth in Q3 and Q4 was the same or stronger than the pace of expansion in the first half of the year (Table 2). During that period, 2H output growth averaged 2.4%, while 1H growth was an anemic 1.8%. In the years when Q1 GDP was weak,2 as it was this year, real economic output in the second half of the year accelerated from 1H growth nearly every time. Chart 6 Table 2GDP Growth In 2H Has Met Or Exceeded 1H Growth In 5 Of Past 7 Years Can The Service Sector Save The Day? Can The Service Sector Save The Day? Bottom Line: The latest Beige Book (prepared for the June 13-14 FOMC meeting) confirms policymakers' assessment that the weak growth in Q1 was transitory and inflation is in an uptrend. The economy remains on target to hit or exceed the Fed's growth objectives. The FOMC is poised to raise rates in June and one more time by year end. This view is not discounted in the bond market, implying that Treasury yields are too low. Equity prices could be undermined by higher yields and the dollar, but this will be offset by rising growth (and profit) expectations if our base-case view pans out. Oil Prices: Fade The Recent Weakness A pickup in U.S. growth will also be positive for oil prices, although it is OPEC's efforts to curtail excess inventories that is the main driver of our bullish view. Our commodity strategists believe that OPEC 2.0's recent production cut extension will be successful in bringing OECD inventories down to normalized levels, even assuming some compliance fatigue (cheating).3 Shale production is bouncing back quickly. OPEC's November 2016 agreement signaled to the world that OPEC (and Russia) would abandon Saudi Arabia's professed commitment to a market share war, and would instead work together to support a ~$50/bbl floor under the price of oil. Such a price floor dramatically reduced the investment risk for shale drilling, and emboldened producers to pour money into vastly increased drilling programs. Nonetheless, global oil demand continues to grow robustly. Moreover, production is eroding for oil producers outside of (Middle East) OPEC, Russia and U.S. Shale, which collectively supply half the market. The cumulative effects of spending constraints during 2015-18 will result in falling output in the coming years for this group of producers. Adding it all up, we expect demand to exceed supply for the remainder of 2017, which will result in a significant drawdown in oil inventories (Chart 7). Our strategists think the inventory adjustment will push the price of oil up to US$60 by year end. They expect a trading range of US$45-65 to hold between now and 2020. Chart 8 shows a simple model for oil prices, based on global industrial production, oil production, OECD oil inventories and oil consumption in the major countries and China. If OPEC is successful in reducing inventories to their 5-year moving average, the model implies that oil prices will surge by more than US$10! The coefficient on oil inventories in the model is probably overly influenced by the one major swing in inventories we have seen in the last couple of decades, suggesting that we must take the results with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, our point is that oil prices have significant upside potential if the excessive inventory problem is solved. Chart 7Significant Drawdown##BR##In Inventories Is Coming Significant Drawdown In Inventories Is Coming Significant Drawdown In Inventories Is Coming Chart 8Upside Potential For Oil##BR##If Inventory Issue Is Resolved Upside Potential For Oil If Inventory Issue Is Resolved Upside Potential For Oil If Inventory Issue Is Resolved Bottom Line: The extension of OPEC 2.0 production cuts reinforces our bullish view for oil prices. Revisiting The Odds Of A Recession It seems odd at first glance to be discussing recession risks at a time when growth is poised to accelerate. Nonetheless, BCA's Global Investment Strategy service recently noted that investors should be on watch for recession now that the economy has reached full employment.4 Historically, once the unemployment rate reached estimates of full employment, the odds of a recession in the subsequent 12 months increased four-fold. In last week's report, we maintained that the lack of progress on fiscal policy by the Trump administration may actually be positive for risk assets in the medium term because it would stretch out the cycle and thus lower recession risks.5 The economic data have disappointed so far this year, as highlighted by the economic surprise index (Chart 9). Despite this, there is not much talk of recession in the news media and various models also show slim chances of recession this year (Chart 10). Only one of eight components in our BCA model is flashing recession: the three-year moving average of the Fed funds rate is rising because the Fed rate hike cycle began in late 2015. Chart 9Economic Data Still Disappointing, But Does Not Signal A Recession Economic Data Still Disappointing, But Does Not Signal A Recession Economic Data Still Disappointing, But Does Not Signal A Recession Chart 10Odds Of A Recession This Year Remain Low Odds Of A Recession This Year Remain Low Odds Of A Recession This Year Remain Low In a prior report we dismissed the rollover in commodity prices as a recessionary signal and noted that Trump's political woes would only slow the GOP's legislative agenda. Nonetheless, even without fiscal stimulus, the U.S. economy will still grow above its long-term potential, tighten the labor market and push up wages and inflation in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: The odds of recession remain low despite the U.S. economy being at full employment. The delay in Trumponomics' will prolong the expansion and will support risk assets over the next 6-12 months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Inflation And The Fed", dated May 8, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories", dated June 1, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight", dated May 26, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Corporate Earnings Versus Trump Turbulence", dated May 29, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Feature Table 1 Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Growth And Its Implications We still see little on the horizon to undermine a continued rally in risk assets over the next 12 months. U.S. economic growth will be propelled by an acceleration in both consumption and capex - leading indicators for both point to further upside (Chart 1). The weak U.S. GDP growth in Q1, just 1.2% annualized, was dragged down by two, less meaningful elements: inventories (which fell, deducting 1 ppt from growth) and imports (which rose, deducting 0.6 ppt). Regional Fed GDP "nowcasts" are pointing to 2.2-3.8% growth in Q2. Corporate earnings had their best quarter in five years in Q1, with S&P500 sales up 8% and EPS up 14% - but, despite this, analysts have barely revised up their calendar year EPS growth forecast, which stands at 10%. In Europe, loan growth has picked up to 2.5% YoY, with the credit impulse indicating that GDP growth is likely to remain above trend at around the 2% it achieved in Q1 (Chart 2). But the stronger growth has implications. It suggests the market is too complacent about the probability of Fed tightening. Futures are pricing a hike on June 14 as a near certainty but, after that, imply little more than one further 25bp rise by end-2019 (Chart 3). We expect two hikes before the end of 2017. Not least, the Fed will be cognizant of how financial conditions have recently eased, not tightened, despite its raising rates in December and March (Chart 4) and will want to put in place insurance against inflation rising sharply in 12 months' time, especially given that it may wish to hold back from hikes early next year as it begins to reduce its balance-sheet. Chart 1Consumption And Capex On Track to Rebound Consumption And Capex On Track to Rebound Consumption And Capex On Track to Rebound Chart 2Euro Credit Growth Looks Good For GDP Euro Credit Growth Looks Good For GDP Euro Credit Growth Looks Good For GDP Chart 3 Will The Fed Really Be This Slow? Will The Fed Really Be This Slow? Will The Fed Really Be This Slow? As a result, 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields are likely to move back up. The 40bp fall from the peak of 2.6% in March was caused partly by softer growth and inflation data, but also reflected a correction after the excessive pace at which rates had run up - the fastest in 30 years (Chart 5). The combination of stronger growth, a 50bp higher Fed Funds Rate, and a moderate acceleration of inflation as wages begin to pick up again, should push the 10-year yield to above 3% by year-end. Chart 4Fed Must Worry About Easing Conditions Fed Must Worry About Easing Conditions Fed Must Worry About Easing Conditions Chart 5Rates Couldn't Keep Rising This Fast Rates Couldn't Keep Rising This Fast Rates Couldn't Keep Rising This Fast Momentum for risk assets over the coming months is likely to slow a little. Global PMIs have probably peaked for now (Chart 6) and investors should not expect to repeat the 19% total return from global equities they have enjoyed over the past 12 months. And there are potential pitfalls: China could continue to slow, and European politics could come into focus again (with early Austrian and Italian parliamentary elections looking increasingly possible for the fall). Investors may also worry about the chaotic state of the Trump White House. However, we never believed the U.S. presidential election had much impact on markets (the S&P500 has risen by 2% a month since then, whereas it had risen by 4% a month over the previous nine months). If anything, there could still be a positive catalyst if Congress is able to pass a tax cut before year-end - which we see as likely - since this is no longer priced in (Chart 7). Chart 6Momentum For Equities Will Slow A Little Momentum For Equities Will Slow A Little Momentum For Equities Will Slow A Little Chart 7No One Expects A Corporate Tax Cut No One Expects A Corporate Tax Cut No One Expects A Corporate Tax Cut On balance, then, we continue to see equities outperforming bonds comfortably over the next 12 months, and so keep an overweight on equities within our asset class recommendations. We also maintain the generally pro-cyclical, pro-risk and higher-beta tilts within our multi-asset global portfolio. Equities: The combination of cyclical economic growth, accelerating earnings, and easy monetary conditions represents a positive environment for global equities. Valuations are not particularly stretched: forward PE for the MSCI All Country World Index is 15.9x, almost in line with the 30-year average of 15.7x (Chart 8). The Vix (30-day implied volatility on S&P500 options) may look low - famously it dipped below 10 last month, raising fears of complacency - but the Vix term structure is fairly steep, implying that investors are hedging exposure three and six months out (Chart 9). Within equities, our preference remains for DM over EM. The latter will be hurt by the slowdown in China (Chart 10), a rising dollar, the ongoing slowdown in credit growth in most EM economies, and continual political disappointments (most recent example: Brazil). We like euro zone equities, on the grounds of their high beta and greater cyclicality of earnings. We are overweight Japan (with a currency hedge), since rising global rates will weaken the yen and boost earnings. Chart 8Global Equity Valuations Are Not So High Global Equity Valuations Are Not So High Global Equity Valuations Are Not So High Chart 9 Chart 10China's Slowdown Should Hurt EM China's Slowdown Should Hurt EM China's Slowdown Should Hurt EM Fixed Income: As described above, we expect the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to reach 3% by year-end. This should mean a negative return from global sovereign bonds for the year as a whole, for the first time since 1994. Accordingly, we remain underweight duration and prefer inflation-linked over nominal bonds in most markets. In this positive cyclical environment, we continue to overweight credit, with a preference for U.S investment grade (which trades at a 100 bp spread over Treasuries) over high-yield bonds (where valuations are not as attractive) and euro area credit (which will be hurt when the ECB starts to taper its bond purchases). Currencies: The temporary softness in the dollar has probably run its course. Interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other G7 countries point to further dollar appreciation (Chart 11). At the same time as we expect the Fed to tighten more quickly than the market is pricing in, we see the ECB setting monetary policy for the euro periphery (especially Italy) which, given weak fundamentals (Chart 12), cannot bear much tightening. The Bank of Japan, too, will stick to its yield curve control policy which, as global rates rise, ought to significantly weaken the yen. Chart 11Interest Differentials Point To Stronger USD Interest Differentials Point To Stronger USD Interest Differentials Point To Stronger USD Chart 12Italy Can Not Bear A Rate Hike Italy Can Not Bear A Rate Hike Italy Can Not Bear A Rate Hike Chart 13OPEC Cut Agreement Showing Through OPEC Cut Agreement Showing Through OPEC Cut Agreement Showing Through Commodities: The recently agreed extension of the OPEC agreement should push crude oil prices up to around $60 a barrel in the second half. OPEC production has already fallen noticeably since the start of the year, but the response from non-OPEC producers - including North American shale - to boost output has so far been subdued (Chart 13). Metals prices have fallen sharply over the past two months (iron ore, for example, by 36% since March) as Chinese growth slowed as a result of moderate fiscal and monetary tightening. They could have further to fall. But China, with its key five-year Party Congress scheduled for the fall, is likely to take measures to boost activity if economic growth slows much further, which would help commodities prices stabilize. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights This week, Commodity & Energy Strategy is publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy. Driven by the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, OPEC 2.0 formalized the well-telegraphed decision to extend its production cuts for another nine months, carrying the cuts through the seasonally weak demand period of Q1 2018. The extension is will be successful in bringing OECD inventories down to normalized levels, even assuming some compliance fatigue (cheating) setting in later this year. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI at tonight's close, given our expectation OPEC 2.0's extension of production cuts, and lower exports by KSA to the U.S., will cause the U.S. crude-oil benchmark to backwardate. Base Metals: Neutral. Despite "catastrophic flooding" in March, 1Q17 copper output in Peru grew almost 10% yoy to close to 564k MT, according to Metal Bulletin. This occurred despite strikes at Freeport-McMoRan's Cerro Verde mine, where production was down 20.5% yoy in March. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our strategic gold portfolio hedge is up 2.61% since it was initiated on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's Crop Progress report indicates plantings are close to five-year averages, despite harsh weather in some regions. We remain bearish. Feature Chart 1Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d##BR##For Over 400 Days Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d For Over 400 Days Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d For Over 400 Days OPEC 2.0's drive to normalize inventories by early 2018 will be accomplished with last week's agreement to extend current production cuts through March 2018. In total, OPEC has agreed to remove over 1 MMb/d of producible OPEC oil from the market for over 400 days (Chart 1), supplemented by an additional 200,000-300,000 b/d of voluntary restrictions of non-OPEC oil through Q3 2017 at least, perhaps longer if Russia can resist the temptation to cheat after oil prices start to respond. Many of the participants in the cut, from both OPEC and non-OPEC, are not actually reducing output voluntarily, but have had quotas set for them that merely reflect the natural decline of their productive capacity, limitations that will be even more pronounced in H2 2017 than in H1 2017. With production restricted by the OPEC 2.0 cuts, global demand growth will outpace supply expansion by another wide margin in 2017, just as it did last year (Chart 2). As shown in Chart 3, steady demand expansion and the slowdown in supply growth allowed oil markets to move from oversupplied in 2015 to balanced during 2016; demand growth will increasingly outpace production growth in 2017, creating sharp inventory draws (Chart 4) that bring stocks down to normalized levels by the end of 2017 (Chart 5). Chart 2 Chart 3Production Cuts And Demand##BR##Growth Will Draw Inventories Production Cuts And Demand Growth Will Draw Inventories Production Cuts And Demand Growth Will Draw Inventories Chart 4Higher Global Inventory##BR##Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Higher Global Inventory Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Higher Global Inventory Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Chart 5OECD Inventories To Be##BR##Reduced To Normal OECD Inventories To Be Reduced To Normal OECD Inventories To Be Reduced To Normal The extension of the cut through Q1 2018 will help prevent a premature refilling of inventories during the seasonally weak first quarter next year. The return of OPEC 2.0's production to full capacity in Q2 2018 will drive total production growth above total demand growth for 2018, returning oil markets from deliberately undersupplied during 2017 to roughly balanced markets in 2018, with stable inventory levels that are below the rolling five-year average. 2018 inventory levels will still be 5-10% above the average from 2010-2014, in line with the ~7% demand growth between 2014 and 2018. Compliance Assessment: Only A Few Players Matter In OPEC 2.0 OPEC's compliance with the cuts announced in November 2016 has been quite good, with KSA anchoring the cuts by surpassing its 468,000 b/d cut commitment. In addition to KSA, OPEC is getting strong voluntary compliance from the other Middle Eastern producers (except Iraq), while producers outside the Middle East lack the ability to meaningfully exceed their quotas in any case. OPEC's Core Four Remain Solid. The core of the OPEC 2.0 agreement has delivered strong compliance with their announced cuts. Within OPEC, the core Middle East countries Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE have delivered over 100% compliance of their 800,000 b/d agreed-to cuts. We expect these countries to continue to show strong solidarity with the voluntary cuts through March 2018 (Chart 6). Iraq And Iran Make Small/No Sacrifices. Iraq and Iran were not officially excluded from cuts, but they were not asked to make significant sacrifices either. We estimate Iran has little-to-no capability to materially raise production in 2017 anyhow, and KSA is leaning on Iraq to better comply with its small cuts. Chart 7 shows our projections for Iran and Iraq production levels through 2018. Chart 6KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying##BR##The Load Of OPEC Cuts KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying The Load Of OPEC Cuts KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying The Load Of OPEC Cuts Chart 7Iran And Iraq Production##BR##Near Full Capacity Iran And Iraq Production Near Full Capacity Iran And Iraq Production Near Full Capacity Iraq surged its production above 4.6 MMb/d for two months between OPEC's September 2016 indication that a cut would be coming and the late-November formalization of the cut. Iraq's quota of 4.35 MMb/d is nominally a 210,000 b/d cut from its surged November reference level, but is essentially equal to the country's production for the first nine months of 2016, implying not much of a real cut. Despite the low level of required sacrifice, Iraq has produced about 100,000 b/d above its quota so far in 2017 at a level we estimate is near/at its capacity anyway. KSA and others in OPEC are not pleased with Iraq's overproduction and have pressured it to comply with the agreement. We forecast Iraq will continue producing at 4.45 MMb/d. Iran's quota represented an allowed increase in production, reflecting the country's continued recovery from years of economic sanctions. We project Iran will continue to slowly expand production, but since the country is almost back up to pre-sanction levels, there is little remaining easily-achievable recovery potential. South American & African OPEC Capacity Eroding On Its Own. Chart 8 clearly shows how production levels in Venezuela, Angola and Algeria started to deteriorate well before OPEC formalized its production cuts, with productive capacity eroded by lack of reinvestment rather than voluntary restrictions. The quotas for these three countries (as well as for small producers Ecuador and Gabon) are counted as ~258,000 b/d of "cuts" in OPEC's agreement, but they merely represent the declines in production that should be expected anyway. With capacity deteriorating and no ability to ramp up anyway, these OPEC nations will deliver improving "compliance" (i.e. under-producing their quotas) in H2 2017, and are happy to have the higher oil prices created by the extension of production cuts by the core producers within OPEC 2.0. Libya and Nigeria Exclusions Unlikely To Result In Big Production Gains. Both Libyan and Nigerian production levels have been constrained by above-ground interference. Libyan production has been held below 1.0 MMb/d since 2013 principally by chronic factional fighting for control of export terminals, while Nigerian production--on a steady natural decline since 2010--has been further limited by militants sabotaging pipelines in 2016-2017. While each country has ebbs and flows to the amount of oil they are able to produce, we view both countries' problems as persistent risks that will continue to keep production below full potential (Chart 9). Chart 8 Chart 9Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher##BR##Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances For Nigeria, we estimate the country's crude productive capacity has eroded to about 1.8 MMb/d from 2.0 MMb/d five years ago due to aging fields and a substantial reduction in drilling (offshore drilling is down ~70% since 2013). Within another year or two, this capacity will dwindle to 1.7 MMb/d or below. On top of this natural decline, we have projected continued sabotage / militant obstruction will limit actual crude output to an average of 1.55 MMb/d for the foreseeable future. Libyan production averaged just 420,000 b/d for 2014-2016, a far cry from the 1.65 MMb/d produced prior to the 2011 Libyan Revolution that ousted strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Since Gaddafi was deposed and executed, factional strife and conflict has persisted. Each faction wants control over oil export revenues and, just as importantly, wants to deny the opposition those revenues, resulting in a chronic state of conflict that has limited production and exports. If a détente were reached, we expect Libyan oil production could quickly rise to about 1.0 MMb/d of production within six months; however, we put the odds of a sustainable détente at less than 30%. As such, we forecast Libyan crude production will continue to struggle, averaging about 600,000 b/d in 2017-2018. Non-OPEC Cuts Hang On Russia In November, ten non-OPEC countries nominally agreed to restrict production by a total of 558,000 b/d, but Russia--with 300,000 b/d of pledged cuts--is the big fish that KSA and OPEC are relying on. Mexico's (and several others') agreements are window dressing, reframing natural production declines as voluntary action to rebalance markets. Through H1 2017, Russia has delivered on about 60-70% of its cut agreement, with compliance growing in Q2 (near 100%) versus Q1 (under 50%). From the start, Russia indicated it would require some time to work through the physical technicalities of lowering production to its committed levels, implying that now that production has been lowered, Russia could deliver greater compliance over H2 2017 than it delivered in H1 2017. We are a little more skeptical, expecting some weakening in Russia's compliance by Q4, especially if the extended cuts deliver the expected results of bringing down OECD inventories and lifting prices. Russia surprised us with stronger-than-expected production during 2016. Some of the outperformance was clearly due to a lower currency and improved shale-like drilling results in Western Siberia, but it is unclear whether producers also pulled too hard on their fields to compensate for lower prices, and are using the OPEC 2.0 cut as a way to rest their fields a bit. We have estimated Russian production returning to 11.3 MMb/d by Q4 2017 (50,000 b/d higher than 2016 average production) and holding there through 2018 (Chart 10), but actual volumes could deviate from this level by as much as 100,000-200,000 b/d. Mexico, the second largest non-OPEC "cutter," is in a position similar to Angola, Algeria, and Venezuela. Mexican production has been falling for years (Chart 11), and the nation's pledge to produce 100,000 b/d less in H1 2017 than in Q4 2016 is merely a reflection of this involuntary decline. As it has happened, Mexican production has declined by only ~60,000 b/d below its official reference level, but continues to deteriorate, promising higher "compliance" with their production pledge in H2 2017. Chart 10Russia Expected##BR##To Cheat By Q4 Russia Expected To Cheat By Q4 Russia Expected To Cheat By Q4 Chart 11Mexican Production Deterioration##BR##Unaffected By Cut Pledges Mexican Production Deterioration Unaffected By Cut Pledges Mexican Production Deterioration Unaffected By Cut Pledges Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are not complying with any cuts, and we don't expect them to. Despite modest pledges of 55,000 b/d cuts combined, the two countries have produced ~80,000 b/d more during H1 2017 than they did in November 2016. We don't expect any voluntary contributions from these nations in the cut extension, but Azerbaijan's production is expected to wane naturally (Chart 12). While contributing only a small cut of 45,000 b/d, Oman has diligently adhered to its promised cuts, supporting its OPEC and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) neighbors. We expect Oman's excellent compliance will be faithfully continued through the nine-month extension (Chart 13). Chart 12Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected##BR##To Comply With Any Cut Extension Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected To Comply With Any Cut Extension Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected To Comply With Any Cut Extension Chart 13Oman Has Faithfully Complied##BR##With Cut Promises To Date Oman Has Faithfully Complied With Cut Promises To Date Oman Has Faithfully Complied With Cut Promises To Date OPEC Extension Will Continue To Support Increased Shale Drilling Energy Sector Strategy believed OPEC's original cut announced in November 2016 was a strategic mistake for the cartel, as it would accelerate the production recovery from U.S. shales in return for "only" six months of modestly-higher OPEC revenue. As we cautioned at the time, the promise of an OPEC-supported price floor was foolish for them to make; instead, OPEC should have let the risk of low prices continue to restrain shale and non-Persian Gulf investment, allowing oil markets to rebalance more naturally. However, despite our unfavorable opinion of the strategic value of the original cut, since the cut has not delivered the type of OECD inventory reductions expected (seemingly due to a larger-than-expected transfer of non-OECD inventories into OECD storage), we view the extension of the cut as a necessary, and logical, next step. OPEC 2.0's November 2016 cut agreement signaled to the world that OPEC (and Russia) would abandon KSA's professed commitment to a market share war, and would instead work together to support a ~$50/bbl floor under the price of oil. Such a price floor dramatically reduced the investment risk for shale drilling, and emboldened producers (and supporting capital markets) to pour money into vastly increased drilling programs. Now that the shale investment genie has already been let out of the bottle, extending the cuts is unlikely to have nearly the same stimulative impact on shale spending as the original paradigm-changing cut created. The shale drilling and production response has been even greater than we estimated six months ago, and surely greater than OPEC's expectations. The current horizontal (& directional) oil rig count of 657 rigs is nearly twice the 2016 average of 356 rigs, is 60% higher than the level of November 2016 (immediately before the cut announcement), and is still rising at a rate of 25-30 rigs per month (Chart 14). The momentum of these expenditures will carry U.S. production higher through YE 2017 even if oil prices were allowed to crash today. Immediately following OPEC's cut, we estimated 2017 U.S. onshore production could increase by 100,000 - 200,000 b/d over levels estimated prior to the cut, back-end weighted to H2 2017, with a greater 300,000-400,000 b/d uplift to 2018 production levels. Drilling activity has roared back so much faster than we had expected, indicative of the flooding of the industry with external capital, that we have raised our 2017 production estimate by 500,000 b/d over our December estimate, and raised our 2018 production growth estimate to 1.0 MMb/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Rig Count Recovery Dominated##BR##By Horizontal Drilling Rig Count Recovery Dominated By Horizontal Drilling Rig Count Recovery Dominated By Horizontal Drilling Chart 15Onshore U.S. Production##BR##Estimates Rising Sharply Onshore U.S. Production Estimates Rising Sharply Onshore U.S. Production Estimates Rising Sharply Other Guys' Decline Requires Greater Growth From OPEC, Shales, And Russia We've written before about "the Other Guys' in the oil market, defined as all producers outside of the expanding triumvirate of 1) U.S. shales, 2) Russia, and 3) Middle East OPEC. While the growers receive the vast majority of investors' focus, the Other Guys comprise nearly half of global production and have struggled to keep production flat over the past several years (Chart 16). Chart 17 shows the largest offshore basins in the world, which should suffer accelerated declines in 2019-2020 (and likely beyond) as the cumulative effects of spending constraints during 2015-2018 (and likely beyond) result in an insufficient level of projects coming online. This outlook requires increasing growth from OPEC, Russia and/or the shales to offset the shrinkage of the Other Guys and simultaneously meet continued demand growth. Chart 16The Other Guys' Production##BR##Struggling To Keep Flat The Other Guys' Production Struggling To Keep Flat The Other Guys' Production Struggling To Keep Flat Chart 17 Risks To Rebalancing Our expectation global oil inventories will draw, and that prices will, as a result, migrate toward $60/bbl by year-end is premised on the continued observance of production discipline by OPEC 2.0. GCC OPEC - KSA, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE - Russia and Oman are expected to observe their pledged output reduction, but we are modeling some compliance "fatigue" all the same. Even so, this will not prevent visible OECD oil inventories from falling to their five-year average levels by year-end or early next year. Obviously, none of this can be taken for granted. We have consistently highlighted the upside and downside risks to our longer term central tendency of $55/bbl for Brent crude, with an expected trading range of $45 to $65/bbl out to 2020. Below, we reprise these concerns and our thoughts concerning OPEC 2.0's future. Major Upside Risks Chief among the upside risks remains a sudden loss of supply from a critical producer and exporter like Venezuela or Nigeria, which, respectively, we expect will account for 1.9 and 1.5 MMb/d of production over the 2017-18 period. Losing either of these exporters would sharply rally prices above $65/bbl as markets adjusted and brought new supply on line. Other states - notably Algeria and Iraq - highlight the risk of sustained production losses due to a combination of internal strife and lack of FDI due to civil unrest. Algeria already appears to have entered into a declining production phase, while Iraq - despite its enormous potential - remains dogged by persistent internal conflict. We are modeling a sustained, slow decline in Algeria's output this year and next, which takes its output from 1.1 MMb/d in 2015 down to slightly more than 1 MMb/d on average this year and next. For Iraq, where we expect a flattening of production at ~ 4.4 MMb/d this year and a slight uptick to ~ 4.45 MMb/d in 2018, continued violence arising from dispersed terrorism in that country in the wake of a defeat of ISIS as an organized force, will remain an ongoing threat to production. Longer term - i.e., beyond 2018 - we remain concerned the massive $1-trillion-plus cutbacks in capex for projects that would have come online between 2015 and 2020 brought on by the oil-price collapse in 2015-16 will force prices higher to encourage the development of new supplies. The practical implication of this is some 7 MMb/d of oil-equivalent production the market will need, as this decade winds down, will have to be supplied by U.S. shales, Gulf OPEC and Russia, as noted above. Big, long-lead-time deep-water projects requiring years to develop cannot be brought on fast enough to make up for supply that, for whatever reason, fails to materialize from these sources. In addition, as shales account for more of global oil supplies and "The Other Guys" continue to lose production to higher depletion rates, more and more shale - in the U.S. and, perhaps, Russia - and conventional Persian Gulf production will have to be brought on line simply to make up for accelerating declines. This evolution of the supply side is significantly different from what oil and capital markets have been accustomed to in previous cycles. Because of this, these markets do not have much historical experience on which to base their expectations vis-à-vis global supply adjustment and the capacity these sources of supply have for meeting increasing demand and depletion rates. Lower-Cost Production, Demand Worries On The Downside Downside risks, in our estimation, are dominated by higher production risks. Here, we believe the U.S. shales and Russia are the principal risk factors, as the oil industry in both states is, to varying degrees, privately held. Because firms in these states answer to shareholders, it must be assumed they will operate for the benefit of these interests. So, if their marginal costs are less than the market-clearing price of oil, we can expect them to increase production up to the point at which marginal cost is equal to marginal revenue. The very real possibility firms in these countries move the market-clearing price to their marginal cost level cannot be overlooked. For the U.S., this level is below $53/bbl or so for shale producers. For Russian producers, this level likely is lower, given their production costs are largely incurred in rubles, and revenues on sales into the global market are realized in USD; however, given the variability of the ruble, this cost likely is a moving target. While a sharp increase in unconventional production presently not foreseen either in the U.S. or Russian shales will remain a downside price risk, an increase in conventional output - chiefly in Libya - remains possible. As discussed above, we believe this is a low risk to prices at present; however, if an accommodation with insurgent forces in the country can be achieved, output in Libya could double from the 600k b/d of production we estimate for this year and next. We reiterate this is a low-risk probability (less than 25%), but, in the event, would prove to be significant additions to global balances over the short term requiring a response from OPEC 2.0 to keep Brent prices above $50/bbl. Also on the downside, an unexpected drop in demand remains at the top of many lists. This is a near-continual worry for markets, which can be occasioned by fears of weakening EM oil-demand growth from, e.g., a hard landing in China, or slower-than-expected growth in India. These are the two most important states in the world in terms of oil-demand growth, accounting for more than one-third of global growth this year and next. We do not expect either to meaningfully slow; however, we continue to monitor growth in both closely.1 In addition, we continue to expect robust global oil-demand growth, averaging 1.56 MMb/d y/y growth in 2017 and 2018. This compares with 1.6 MMb/d growth last year. OPEC 2.0's Next Move Knowing the OPEC 2.0 production cuts will be extended to March 2018 does not give markets any direction for what to expect after this extension expires. Once the deal expires, we expect production to continue to increase from the U.S. shales, and for the key OPEC states to resume pre-cut production levels. Along with continued growth from Russia, this will be necessary to meet growing demand and increasing depletion rates from U.S. shales and "The Other Guys." Yet to be determined is whether OPEC 2.0 needs to remain in place after global inventories return to long-term average levels, or whether its formation and joint efforts were a one-off that markets will not require in the future. Over the short term immediately following the expiration of the production-cutting deal next year, OPEC 2.0 may have to find a way to manage its production to accommodate U.S. shales without imperiling their own revenues. This would require a strategy that keeps the front of the WTI and Brent forward curves at or below $60/bbl - KSA's fiscal breakeven price and $20/bbl above Russia's budget price - and the back of the curve backwardated, in order to exert some control over the rate at which shale rigs return to the field.2 As we've mentioned in the past, we have no doubt the principal negotiators in OPEC 2.0 continue to discuss this. Toward the end of this decade, such concerns might be moot, if growing demand and accelerating decline curves require production from all sources be stepped up. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the May 18, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy article entitled "Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts," in which we discuss the outlook for China's and India's growth. Together, these states account for more than 570k b/d of the 1.56 MMb/d growth we expect this year and next. The article is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 A backwardated forward curve is characterized by prompt prices exceeding deferred prices. Our research indicates a backwardated forward curve results in fewer rigs returning to the field than a flat or positively sloped forward curve. We explored this strategy in depth in the April 6, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories

Highlights This week, we are reprising and updating "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" from our sister service Energy Sector Strategy (NRG), because it so well captures the state of oil production outside the U.S. shales, Middle East OPEC and Russia. "The Other Guys" account for ~ half of global supply. Next week, we'll publish a joint report with NRG analyzing today's OPEC meeting. The aptly named "Other Guys" account for ~ 42mm b/d of production, which they are struggling to maintain at current levels, let alone increase. These producers supply nearly half of global production, and have been stuck in a pattern of slow decline for years despite high oil prices. Beginning in 2019, we expect production declines to accelerate. This will put enormous pressure on the three primary growth regions, which markets likely will start pricing in toward the end of next year. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 is expected to extend its 1.8mm b/d of production cuts to the end of 1Q18 at its meeting in Vienna today. Going into the meeting, markets were being guided to expect even deeper cuts. Our long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short $45/bbl puts, and our long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent positions are up 75.0% and 509.5% respectively, following their initiation on May 11, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Steel and iron-ore prices are getting a boost from China's anti-pollution campaign, which is expected to run through the end of this month. This was launched ahead of the anti-pollution campaign we expected after the Communist Party Congress in the fall. Iron ore delivered to Qingdao is up 3.1% since May 9, when Reuters reported the campaign began.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold was well bid earlier in the week on the back of a weaker USD. Our long gold position is up 1.9%, while our long volatility trade, which we will unwind at tonight's close, is down 98.5%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The weaker USD takes some pressure off wheat and beans over the short term, and might prompt a short-covering rally. We remain bearish, however, as the USD likely will bottom in the near future.2 Feature U.S. Onshore, Middle East OPEC (ME OPEC), and Russia combine to produce ~43 MMb/d of oil plus another ~11 MMb/d of other liquids (NGLs, biofuels, refinery gains, etc.). Combined, these producers increased crude production by 5 MMb/d plus another 1 MMb/d of other liquids production over the past three years (2014-2016), creating the oversupply that crashed prices. We expect these producers to add another 1.60 MMb/d of oil plus 1.14 MMb/d of other liquids by 2018 (over 2016 levels), dominated by nearly 2.0 MMb/d of oil and NGLs from the U.S. shales. Oil production from the other 100+ global oil producers also represents about ~42 MMb/d, but on balance has been slowly eroding since 2010, failing to grow even when oil prices were $100+/bbl. Despite some 2017 recovery from Libya, we expect total production to continue to fall in both 2017 and 2018. The few recently expanding producers among the Other Guys are running out of growth. Canada, Brazil, North Sea and GOM account for ~13 MMb/d of oil production in 2016, adding ~1.5 MMb/d over the past three years (2014-2016). North Sea production is projected to resume declines starting in 2017; GOM will reach it peak production sometime in 2017 or 2018, then start to ebb; large new Canadian oil sands projects will add ~310k b/d in 2017-2018, but scarce additions are scheduled beyond that; and Brazil's once-lofty growth plans have slowed to a crawl in 2016-2018. Global deepwater drilling activity and exploration spending have collapsed, lowering the reserve base, and undermining the stability of current production levels. Outside Of Just Three Regions, Oil Supply Picture Looks Worrisome Often overlooked in our discussions about world oil markets are the supply contributions of over 100 geographic regions. This collection of suppliers (which we will call the "Other Guys") is defined as all producing regions in the world other than: 1) U.S. Onshore (shales, specifically), 2) OPEC's six Middle East members, and 3) Russia. The Other Guys deliver nearly half of global production, try to maximize production every day (even OPEC nations among the Other Guys have not had production constrained by quotas), and still have endured consistent, albeit modest, production declines over the past six years. Chart 1Outside Of A Very Few Regions,##BR##Oil Production Has Struggled Outside Of A Very Few Regions, Oil Production Has Struggled Outside Of A Very Few Regions, Oil Production Has Struggled At the end of 1Q17, oilfield-services leader Schlumberger voiced sharp concerns regarding stability of supplies from these ignored producers, warning that aggregate capital expenditures within these regions will sustain an unprecedented third straight year of decline in 2017, with total spending only about half of 2014 levels. Chart 1 shows the divergent production histories of the three growing regions versus the rest of the world. Chart 1 also shows production of the Other Guys excluding the especially dramatic declines/volatility of Libyan production. Even though these producers benefitted from the same incentives and profitability from high oil prices as the three growing regions, as a group, they have been unable to expand production. As oil prices have plunged, drilling activity in these nations has also plummeted, raising concerns that production declines could start accelerating in the near future. Chart 2 shows that oil-directed drilling activity among the international components of the Other Guys (Chart 2 excludes GOM and highly-seasonal Alaska and Canada) has crashed by ~40%, from an average of over 800 rigs during the five-year period of 2010-2014 to under 500 rigs for the past year. Offshore drilling has collapsed even a little more sharply for these producers than overall oil-directed drilling, falling ~43% from an average of over 280 rigs to only 160 today (Chart 3, excludes GOM). Chart 2Other Guys' Drilling##BR##Has Collapsed 40% Other Guys' Drilling Has Collapsed 40% Other Guys' Drilling Has Collapsed 40% Chart 3International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%,##BR##Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%, Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%, Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production Offshore Production Declines To Accelerate Chart 4Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed As a particularly worrisome trend for the Other Guys' production stability, offshore drilling activity has collapsed in some of the most important offshore oil producing regions in the world, including the GOM, North Sea, West Africa, and Brazil (Chart 4). Considering the multi-year lag between drilling activity and the start of oil production, and the large well size and quick declines associated with offshore wells, the oil production impacts of this drilling collapse that started two years ago have not really been felt yet. When these regions get past the wave of new production from 2015-2017 project additions (projects started during 2011-2014), they will face a dearth of new projects maturing in 2018-2022 due to this collapse in drilling, with new production likely to be inadequate to offset the declines of legacy production. Brazil, the North Sea, West Africa, and GOM together account for about 12 MMb/d of oil production (Chart 5). These four offshore regions have benefitted from intense investment from 2010-2015 as shown by the surging rig counts during that period in Chart 4. This investment/drilling drove 1.1 MMb/d of oil production growth in Brazil, the GOM, and the North Sea from 2013 to 2016, without which total production from the Other Guys would have declined by 1.4 MMb/d rather than just 0.3 MMb/d. Despite strong investment, production in West Africa merely held flat outside of Nigeria during 2013-2016 while falling by 0.4 MMb/d within Nigeria (mostly in 2016 due to pipeline disruptions from saboteurs). Chart 5Offshore Production Will Stop Expanding, Then Decline The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux Brazil offshore drilling activity over the past year is less than half of levels during 2010-2013. As a result, production growth will moderate significantly over the next few years, expanding far less (250k b/d in 2018 vs. 2016, based on our balances data) than the rapid 470,000 b/d step-up in production during 2013-2014. While Brazil still has a rich endowment of pre-salt reserves, marshalling capital and the International Oil Companies' (IOCs) focus to resurrect development activity will take years. We expect no growth during 2019-2020. The North Sea has seen production cut in half from the time of peak production in 1999 until 2013. Production declines were briefly halted and re-expanded by ~300,000 b/d during 2014-2016 due to a concerted drilling effort and brownfield maintenance program incentivized and financed by $100/bbl oil prices. Drilling has since declined 35% from average 2010-2014 levels, and production is expected to resume its downward trend in 2017-2018. Overall oil-directed offshore drilling in the GOM has been cut by over 50% from 2013-2014 levels. Based on our field-by-field analysis published in January, we estimate GOM oil production will hit a peak in a year and a half or less and then will succumb to declines due to lack of new drilling. West Africa has suffered production declines for the past several years due to both geologic challenges as well as more recent (2016-2017) political/sabotage related disruptions in Nigeria. With offshore drilling activity plummeting 70%-80%, we expect production declines will accelerate and it will take years of increased drilling to yield new production that can stem the declines. The collapse in Nigerian drilling, from 10 rigs in 2010-2013 to only 2-3 rigs over the past year, likely means that Nigerian production is incapable of returning to 2015 levels even if its recent sabotage issues are resolved. In aggregate, as shown in Chart 5, we expect production from these four offshore regions to stagnate during 2017-2018 (North Sea and West Africa decline while Brazil and GOM expand) before declining by ~0.5 MMb/d in each 2019-2020 due to the dramatic curtailment of investment during 2015-2017. SLB Talks Its Book, But Makes A Strong Point At an industry conference at the end of March, Schlumberger (again) railed against the inadequacy of the cash flow-negative U.S. shale industry to single-handedly supply enough production growth to satisfy continuing global demand growth, especially once the Other Guys start seeing more pronounced negative production effects from the sharply reduced investments over 2015-2017. "The 2017 E&P spend for this part of the global production base...is expected to be down 50% compared to 2014. At no other time in the past 50 years has our industry experienced cuts of this magnitude and this duration." - Paal Kibsgaard, CEO of SLB. SLB highlighted an analysis of depletion rates constructed with data from Energy Aspects. (The March 27 presentation can be found at www.slb.com). Annual depletion rates (annual production/proved developed reserves) in the GOM had spiked to over 20% in 2016 from a long-term level of only ~10% during 2000-2013. Similarly, depletion rates in the U.K. and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea also surged from ~10% to ~15% over the past three years. In both the GOM and the North Sea, oil production had recently been expanded, but proved developed reserves declined. Due to such low drilling investments during 2015-2016, producers have replaced only about half of the oil reserves that they've produced in the GOM and North Sea over the past three years (2014-2016). Eventually, this lack of investment in cultivating tomorrow's resources will catch up to the industry, and production will decline. Investors must take SLB's commentary with a grain of salt, as they could be construed as sour grapes. The immense pull of new capital spending to the U.S. shales has substantially benefitted SLB's primary competitors more than it has benefitted SLB (SLB is much more focused on international and offshore projects). Still, investors are too complacent about the stability of non-U.S. production. SLB's analysis and warnings of accelerating production declines should not be ignored. Bottom Line: Outside of the three regions of sharply growing production (U.S. onshore, ME OPEC and Russia) that investors are focused on, the other half of global production has been stagnant to declining despite high oil prices and high levels of drilling during 2010-2015. Now that drilling and capex in these regions has declined by 40%-50%, production declines should accelerate in coming years. Offshore production, especially, has not seen enough drilling to replace reserves, and is poised to decline within the next 2-3 years. The accelerating declines of the "Other Guys" will allow more room for growth from U.S. shales, ME OPEC and Russia. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President, Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see "China steel hits nine-week peak amid crackdown, lifts iron ore," published by reuters.com May 22, 2017. 2 Please see the feature article in last week's edition of BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy entitled "Bloody Potomac," in which our colleague Mathieu Savary lays out the case for an imminent USD rebound. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report, I am sending you our usual Weekly Report focusing on the market implications from the brewing crisis in the Trump White House. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Chart 1Commodity Prices: A Halting Comeback Commodity Prices: A Halting Comeback Commodity Prices: A Halting Comeback Commodity prices have managed to stage a halting comeback over the past two weeks, but still remain well below their highs for the year. Concerns over the Chinese economy, a withdrawal of speculative demand, and strong supply growth have all weighed on commodity prices. All three of these forces should ebb over the coming months. This should provide a more benign cyclical backdrop for commodities and commodity-related investment plays. We went long the December 2017 Brent futures contract two weeks ago. The trade is up 7.8% since then. Stick with it. The cyclical recovery in commodity prices will benefit DM commodity currencies such as the CAD, AUD, and NOK. Go short EUR/CAD. Feature What's Been Weighing On Commodities? Commodity prices have managed to stage a halting comeback over the past two weeks, but still remain well below their highs for the year (Chart 1). We see three reasons why commodities have struggled to gain traction over the past few months: Fears that the Chinese economy is losing growth momentum have intensified. Traders have soured on the commodity complex, causing speculative demand to fizzle. Skepticism about OPEC's ability to maintain production discipline has been running high. All three of these forces should ebb over the coming months. This should provide a more benign cyclical backdrop for commodities and commodity-related investment plays. Global Growth: An Uneven Picture After a strong end to 2016, global growth so far this year has been mixed. The euro area has continued to hum along, with real GDP increasing by 2% in Q1 on an annualized basis. Japanese growth clocked in at 2.2% in Q1. This marked the fifth consecutive quarter of positive growth - the first time this has happened in 11 years! In contrast, U.K. growth slowed to 1.2% in Q1, while the U.S. registered a disappointing 0.7% growth print. As discussed in the Weekly Report that accompanies this Special Report, the U.S. economy is likely to bounce back over the remainder of the year, notwithstanding the ongoing soap opera that has become the Trump presidency. However, even if that happens, traders have become increasingly concerned that stronger U.S. growth will be offset by weaker growth in China. China Growth Risks Back In Focus All four Chinese purchasing manager indices fell in April (Chart 2). This week's data releases saw below-consensus growth in industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment. Tighter financial conditions have contributed to the recent growth shortfall (Chart 3). The PBoC has drained excess liquidity over the past few months, causing overnight rates to rise. Corporate bond yields have surged while Chinese small cap stocks have taken it on the chin. The slowdown in Chinese growth is a cause for concern, but some perspective is in order. The economy began the year on a strong footing. Nominal GDP increased by 11.8% in Q1, compared with 9.6% in Q4 of 2016. Real GDP rose by 6.9% in the first quarter, comfortably above the government's target of 6.5%. A modest slowdown from these levels is not surprising. Most indicators point to an economy that is still expanding at a decent clip. Export growth is accelerating and our China team's model suggests that this will remain the case, thanks to solid global demand and a competitive RMB (Chart 4). America's latest anti-dumping measures on some Chinese steel products are irrelevant from a big picture point of view, as U.S. steel imports from China only account for a mere 1% of Chinese steel output. Chart 2China: PMIs Falling Across The Board China: PMIs Falling Across The Board China: PMIs Falling Across The Board Chart 3Financial Conditions Have Tightened In China Financial Conditions Have Tightened In China Financial Conditions Have Tightened In China Chart 4China: The Rebound In Exports Should Continue China: The Rebound In Exports Should Continue China: The Rebound In Exports Should Continue Meanwhile, fixed investment is benefiting from an upturn in the profit cycle. Chart 5 shows that excavator sales, railway freight traffic, and the PBoC's Entrepreneur Confidence Index - all leading indicators for Chinese capex - are surging. Even the housing market is well positioned to withstand some policy tightening. Land purchases by developers have rebounded and the most recent central bank survey showed that households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high in the first quarter (Chart 6). Chart 5Positive Signs For Chinese Capex... Positive Signs For Chinese Capex... Positive Signs For Chinese Capex... Chart 6...And The Housing Market ...And The Housing Market ...And The Housing Market Efforts Focused On Containing Financial Risk Most of the government's tightening measures have been designed to reduce financial sector risks while inflicting as little collateral damage on the economy as possible. So far, this strategy appears to be working: While broad credit growth has slowed from a high of 25.7% in January 2016 to 15.5% in April of 2017, almost all of that was due to a deceleration in borrowing by non-bank financial institutions. The pace of lending to nonfinancial private borrowers and the government - the so-called "real economy" - has barely fallen from last year. In fact, medium- and long-term loans to the corporate sector, a key driver of overall capital spending, have accelerated (Chart 7). The inversion of the Chinese yield curve largely reflects these macroprudential measures. The spread between 10-year and 5-year government bond yields turned negative last week, the first time this has ever happened (Chart 8). Chart 7China: Credit Growth To The Real EconomyBarely Affected By Tightening Measures China: Credit Growth To The Real Economy Barely Affected By Tightening Measures China: Credit Growth To The Real Economy Barely Affected By Tightening Measures Chart 8Chinese Yield Curve Inversion Chinese Yield Curve Inversion Chinese Yield Curve Inversion Some pundits have interpreted this development as an omen of a coming recession. However, there is a less dramatic explanation: Up until recently, non-bank financial institutions have been issuing so-called wealth management products like crazy. According to Moody's, the outstanding value of these products soared from U.S. $72 billion in 2007 to $4.2 trillion in the first quarter of 2017. The crackdown on shadow banking has forced many participants to liquidate their positions which, in many cases, included substantial leveraged holdings of government bonds. Since 5-year bonds are less liquid than their 10-year counterparts, yields on the former have increased more than on the latter. The Commodity Connection While the data is sketchy, it appears that Chinese non-bank financial institutions have been major players in the commodities market. As funding to these institutions - and their clients - dried up, panic selling of commodity futures contracts ensued. This withdrawal of Chinese investment demand for commodity markets began at time when, globally, long speculative positions were highly elevated. Chart 9 shows that net long spec positions as a share of open interest for energy and industrial commodities reached the highest levels in over a decade earlier this year. Today, speculative positioning has returned to more normal levels. This reduces the risk of a further downdraft in commodity prices. At the same time, the Chinese authorities appear to be relaxing some of their earlier tightening measures. The PBoC re-started its Medium-Term Lending Facility (MLF) earlier this week. It also made the largest one-day cash injection into the financial system in nearly four months on Tuesday. This follows the release of stronger-than-expected credit numbers for April, as well as Premier Li Keqiang's call over the weekend for "striking a balance" between enhancing financial stability and maintaining growth. Adding to the newfound easing bias, general government fiscal spending is now recovering (Chart 10). Chart 9Commodities: Long Speculative Positions Returning To More Normal Levels Commodities: Long Speculative Positions Returning To More Normal Levels Commodities: Long Speculative Positions Returning To More Normal Levels Chart 10China: Fiscal Spending Is On The Mend China: Fiscal Spending Is On The Mend China: Fiscal Spending Is On The Mend Oil Supply Should Tighten Chart 11Oil Inventories Should Decline Oil Inventories Should Decline Oil Inventories Should Decline Tighter supply conditions in various parts of the commodity complex should reinforce the upward pressure on prices stemming from firming demand. This is especially true for crude oil. Saudi Arabia and Russia announced earlier this week that they will support an extension of output cuts through to March 2018. Despite a sharp recovery in shale output, BCA's energy strategists expect global production to increase by only 0.5 MMB/d in 2017 compared to 1.5 MMB/d growth in consumption. Consequently, oil inventories should fall over the remainder of this year. Inventory draws will continue through 2018, albeit at a slower pace than in 2017 (Chart 11). Larger-than-expected declines in U.S. oil inventories over the past two weeks, along with a steep reduction in the volume of oil held in tanker ships (so-called "floating storage"), suggest that this trend has already begun. Some Investment Implications Fading fears about a China slowdown and a tighter supply picture will lift commodity prices over the remainder of the year. We went long the December 2017 Brent futures contract two weeks ago. The trade is up 7.8% since then. We are targeting a further 10% in upside from current levels. The cyclical recovery in commodity prices will benefit the stocks and bonds of companies within the resource sector. It will also benefit DM commodity currencies such as the CAD, AUD, and NOK. In addition, rising commodity prices will provide a tailwind to emerging markets, although Fed rate hikes and the occasional political scandal (here's looking at you, Brazil!) will take some bloom off the rose. The prospect of higher commodity prices supports our recommendation to be overweight euro area stocks relative to U.S. equities. The IMF estimates that the European economy is three-times more sensitive to changes in EM growth than the U.S. (Chart 12).1 If higher commodity prices give emerging markets a boost, this will help Europe's large industrial exporting companies. Calculations by JP Morgan suggest that petrostate sovereign wealth funds hold five times more European equities than U.S. stocks, even though European stocks account for less than half the global market capitalization of U.S. stocks.2 These funds are especially exposed to European financials and consumer discretionary names. Higher oil prices would give them greater scope to add to their favorite positions. What about EUR/USD? The run-up in the euro over the past few weeks was partly driven by the unwinding of sizable short hedges that traders put on in the lead up to the French elections. At this point, euro positioning has moved from being highly bearish to broadly neutral. Going forward, fundamentals will play the dominant role. On the one hand, an outperforming euro area equity market should attract foreign capital into the region, giving the common currency a boost. On the other hand, interest rate differentials will continue to move in favor of the dollar. As we discussed last week, the Fed is likely to raise rates by more than the 38 basis points that markets are currently pricing in over the next 12 months.3 In contrast, the ECB is likely to stand pat, given that the rate of labor underutilization is still 18% in the euro area, 3.5 percentage points higher than in 2008 (Chart 13). If anything, rising inflation expectations in the euro area could cause real short-term rates to decline, putting downward pressure on the euro. Chart 12Europe Is More Sensitive To EM The Signal From Commodities The Signal From Commodities Chart 13Labor Market Slack In The Euro Area Remains High The Signal From Commodities The Signal From Commodities Our research indicates that real interest rate differentials are by far the most important drivers of currency returns over cyclical horizons of around 12 months. The decline in the dollar over the past few weeks has occurred alongside an increase in real rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners. Notably, two-year real rate differentials have widened by 47 basis points versus the euro area since the end of March, even though the dollar has actually weakened against the euro over this timeframe (Chart 14). Thus, a period of "catch-up strength" for the dollar is in order. We continue to expect EUR/USD to reach parity by the end of the year. With all this in mind, we are opening a new trade today: Short EUR/CAD (Chart 15). Chart 14Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Chart 15Play The Cyclical Recovery In Oil Via The EUR/CAD Play The Cyclical Recovery In Oil Via The EUR/CAD Play The Cyclical Recovery In Oil Via The EUR/CAD Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "IMF Multilateral Policy issue Report: 2014 Spillover Report," IMF, dated July 29, 2014. 2 Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, Nandini Srivastava, Jigar Vakharia, and Mika Inkinen, "Flows & Liquidity," J.P.Morgan Global Asset Allocation (January 29, 2016). 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Dilemma," dated May 12, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Unsurprisingly, OPEC 2.0's leadership agreed on the need to extend the coalition's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting agreement to end-March 2018. Leaders of the coalition - the energy ministers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will recommend as much when the coalition meets next week in Vienna. Meanwhile, sequential production in U.S. shales during the first four months of the year is up just under 100k b/d, based on the EIA's latest estimates. This was led by surging Permian production. We expect shale-oil production growth to continue, and are revising our year-end 2017 light-tight-oil (LTO) production estimate for the four main shale-oil plays to 5.66mm b/d, up from our earlier assessment of 5.39mm b/d. We also are lifting our year-end 2018 estimate of shale production to 6.64mm b/d. This means December-to-December LTO production will increase ~ 1mm b/d by Dec/17 and by another ~1mm b/d by Dec/18. Energy: Overweight. As of last Thursday's close, we are long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. $45/bbl puts at -$1.16/bbl, and long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent at -$0.21/bbl. These positions were up 16.4% and 242.9%, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. The physical deficit in zinc appears to be widening slightly, based on supply-demand estimates from the International Zinc Study Group. Usage totaled 2.282mm MT in Jan-Feb 2017 vs. refined production of 2.28mm MT. For 2016, usage was 13.89mm MT vs. supply of 12.67mm MT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Metal refiner Johnson Matthey expects a 790k oz. palladium deficit this year, up from a little over 160k oz. last year. Separately, the World Platinum Investment Council expects platinum supply to fall 2% this year to 7.33mm oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA reported corn planting stood at 71% for the week ended May 14, vs. an average of 70% over the 2012 - 16 period. We remain bearish. Feature The determination of the leaders of OPEC 2.0 to clear the storage overhang could not have been made more clear, following comments earlier this week from KSA's and Russia's energy ministers the coalition's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting agreement would be extended to end-March 2018. This is three months beyond earlier speculation the deal would be extended to year-end 2017. Chart of the WeekBalances Chart Balances Chart Balances Chart Still, when dealing with a political organization of any sort - and OPEC 2.0 is nothing if not a political entity - our bias is to assume less-than-complete compliance with production cuts, and an earlier return to pre-agreement production levels than proffered by the leadership of the coalition. Hence, in our updated balances model (Chart of the Week), in addition to assuming higher U.S. production out of the shales, we have Russian production returning to a level just below 11.30mm b/d by October 2017, up roughly 150k b/d from the 11.15mm b/d we assume they'll be producing until the end of September. We also assume Iraq's production will move up to 4.45mm b/d (up 50k b/d) beginning in January, and that Iran will be steadily, yet slowly, increasing production by 5-10k b/d per month beginning this month. The only assumption we're making for staunch compliance to the OPEC 2.0 accord after our assumed extension to year-end 2017 at next week's Vienna meeting is that KSA and its GCC allies - Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE - will continue to abide by their voluntary production cuts. This group has maintained solidarity on past production-management deals, we expect them to do so again in this round. Of course, the other members of the coalition could vote against this proposal next week, and instead decide to end the production deal in June under its original conditions. Or, they could agree to extend the deal, but only until year-end 2017. Regardless of whichever policy decisions are agreed to during next week's meeting, come November, when OPEC meets again, they might tweak/change those agreements to reflect their updated outlook at that time. Given this uncertainty, we believe the assumptions we've made are realistic, but we will be monitoring conditions closely so that we can modify our view quickly. Shale Coming On Strong Part of OPEC 2.0's desire to extend its deal likely is the improvement in the performance of shale-oil producers in the U.S. In its latest Drilling Productivity Report (DPR), the EIA noted that sequential production in the first four months of the year has risen ~ 100k b/d per month in the U.S. shales. This surge was led by higher Permian production, which accounted for ~ three-quarters of the increased output (Chart 2). Interestingly, rig-weighted production per rig dropped for the first time in April 2017, but it still is high at 732 b/d, down from 735 b/d in March. We will be watching this closely to see if it is the beginning of a trend of stagnating productivity amid a rapid expansion of industry activity. The resurgence in the shales can be seen in the year-on-year (yoy) growth in total production in the seven basins the EIA tracks, which broke back above 5.0mm b/d in February and crossed into positive yoy growth in March (Chart 3). Net, we expect 2017 global supply to average 97.65mm b/d, for an increase 610k b/d this year, and for demand to average 98.3mm b/d, for an increase of 1.5mm b/d. EM demand, which we proxy using non-OECD consumption, accounts for 1.27mm b/d of this year's global demand growth, and continues to lead overall growth in oil demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Of this, China and India account for 350k and 210k b/d, respectively, of the growth in EM demand. Chart 2Permian Basin Leads##br##U.S. Shale's Resurgence Permian Basin Leads U.S. Shale's Resurgence Permian Basin Leads U.S. Shale's Resurgence Chart 3Year-On-Year LTO Production##br##Breaks Out In 1Q17 Year-On-Year LTO Production Breaks Out In 1Q17 Year-On-Year LTO Production Breaks Out In 1Q17 Chart 4EM Growth Continues##br##To Lead Global Demand EM Growth Continues To Lead Global Demand EM Growth Continues To Lead Global Demand China, India Lead EM Oil Consumption Non-OECD countries represent more than 50% of global oil consumption. Indeed, within the ~1.6mm b/d global oil demand growth we expect for 2017 and again in 2018, slightly more than 87% of it comes from EM economies. Table 1 below shows the average yoy growth by year for different regions - DM and EM - and countries from 2011 to 2018. Over this period, almost all of the world's oil-demand growth comes from non-OECD countries. From 2011-2018, the average p.a. demand growth for non-OECD countries is 2.79%, while for OECD countries it is only 0.12%. Table 1EM Leads Oil-Demand Growth Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Looking more closely at the composition of the EM economies, we see that, on average, between 2010 and 2018 Chinese oil consumption accounts for 24% of non-OECD demand, while the Indian oil consumption represents 8.3%, for a combined total of 32.37% of non-OECD average consumption. These two countries alone contributed on average to around 50% of the world oil consumption growth from 2010 to 2018. China has been the fastest-growing oil market in the world since the early 2000s. However, since 2015, when it emerged as an important growth market on the world stage, India's consumption has been increasing at a faster pace than China's. One of the reasons for this likely is the desire of the Chinese government to resume its pivot to a more service-oriented economy, which is less commodity-intensive than the export-oriented economy dominated by heavy industry. India, meanwhile, is looking to increase its manufacturing output, lifting it from the low-teens to 25% of GDP by 2022 under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "Make in India" campaign. This change in the composition of global oil-demand growth is reducing demand for residual fuel oil and distillates. Indeed, IEA data continues to show a steady decline in yoy consumption for these two types of fuel in China, with residual fuel oil consumption down 26.5% yoy in 2016, and gasoil and diesel (distillates) consumption down close to 3% yoy. By contrast, gasoline consumption, is up more than 8% yoy along with jet fuel and kerosene. LPG demand (propane and butane, along with other light ends) and ethane demand (a petrochemical feedstock) is surging, up 24% in 2016, according to the IEA. In relative terms, China will remain the main driver of global oil consumption. At ~ 12.5mm b/d, China's oil demand is close to three times as high than India's. However, India likely will surpass China in terms of its contribution to global oil demand growth in coming years. A combination of structural and policy-driven factors points toward a possible sustainable growth path for Indian oil consumption for the coming years (oil consumption per capita is increasing, as is vehicle usage, particularly motorcycles (Chart 5); and, the government's desire to increase the share of the manufacturing to 25% of GDP by 2022 will boost oil demand growth as well). Chart 5India Passenger Car Sales Are Soaring India Passenger Car Sales Are Soaring India Passenger Car Sales Are Soaring Recent studies assessing the "take-off" of an economy look at its per capita oil consumption in transportation, in particular, given that this sector accounts for more than half of the world's oil consumption (63% according to IEA Energy Statistics 2014). The theory boils down to the following: As income grows, a larger share of the population becomes vehicle owners. This is referred to as the "motorization" of an economy. In India, the transportation sector represents around 40% of total oil consumption.1 According to Sen and Sen (2016), the level of vehicle-ownership per capita is still low in India compared to other economies that have experienced similar take-offs. The government's targeted increase in manufacturing as a share of GDP to 25% under the "Make In India" program (from a current level of ~ 15%) would, according to the Sen and Sen (2016) formulation, lead to an increase in oil consumption. The "Make in India" campaign was launched in 2014 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and aims to transform the country's manufacturing sector into a powerhouse for growth and employment. Other key objectives of this campaign include a target of 12-14% annual growth in the manufacturing sector, and the creation of 100 million new jobs by 2020 in the sector.2 In 2017Q1, India's liquid fuels consumption declined by 3% yoy. This decline was, for the most part, caused by the government's "demonetization" program, which was designed to streamline the economy and reduce rampant black-market transactions. The government chose to invalidate the 500- and the 1,000-rupee banknotes, the most-used currency denominations in the economy (around 86% of the total value of currency in circulation). This represented a huge shock to the average citizen, since it limited the purchasing power of a large part of the consumer economy for an extended period of time and impacted India's overall economic activity. Recent data show Indian oil and liquids consumption up 3% in April (yoy), and its money supply is almost back to its pre-demonetization levels, according to the EIA. This suggests economic activity and liquid-fuel consumption will get back to their previous levels. Bottom Line: We believe OPEC 2.0's deal will be extended at next week's Vienna meeting to March 2018. However, after September, we are expecting compliance to fall off meaningfully, leaving KSA and its allies as the only producers adhering to their voluntary cuts past year-end 2017. Even so, we expect the storage overhang to be worked off - mostly this year - but also into next. Even though U.S. shale production is surprising on the upside, the commitment of a majority of OPEC 2.0 to production cutbacks at least through September of this year will force the storage overhang to draw down by year end. KSA and its core allies will maintain production discipline to March 2018, which will keep storage from refilling too quickly during the seasonally weak consumption period in the first quarter next year. We continue to expect oil forward curves to backwardate by December 2017, and remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent. In addition, we remain long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl puts, expecting prices to rally toward $60/bbl by the time Brent delivers in December. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant Commodity & Energy Strategy hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Sen, Amrita; Anupama Sen (2016), "India's Oil Demand: On the Verge of 'Take-Off'?". Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 2 Some of the recent policies to enhance the manufacturing growth include: Government subsidies of up to 25% for specific manufacturing sub-sectors; area-based incentives to increase the manufacturing development in key regions; allowances for companies that invest a predetermined amount in new plant and machinery; deductions for additional wages paid to new regular employees; deductions for R&D expenditures; and other incentives aimed at promoting the manufacturing sector and improving the India's ease of doing business to attract foreign direct investments. Please see http://www.makeinindia.com/article/-/v/direct-foreign-investment-towards-india-s-growth. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts

Highlights Venezuela's economic implosion accelerated with the oil price crash. The petrodollar collapse is suffocating consumption as well as oilfield investment, creating a "death spiral" of falling production. The military has already begun assuming more powers as Maduro becomes increasingly vulnerable, and will likely take over before long. OPEC's cuts may help Maduro delay, but not avoid, deposition. Civil unrest/revolution could cause a disruption in oil production, profoundly impacting oil markets. Feature The wheels on the bus go round and round, Round and round, Round and round ... The story of Venezuela's decline under the revolutionary socialist government of deceased dictator Hugo Chavez is well known. The country went from being one of the richest South American states to one of the poorest and from being reliant on oil exports to being entirely dependent on them (Chart 1). The straw that broke the back of Chavismo was the end of the global commodity bull market in 2014 (Chart 2). Widespread shortages of essential goods, mass protests, opposition political victories, and a slide into overt military dictatorship have ensued.1 Chart 1Venezuela Suffers Under Chavismo Venezuela Suffers Under Chavismo Venezuela Suffers Under Chavismo Chart 2Commodity Bull Market Ended Commodity Bull Market Ended Commodity Bull Market Ended The acute social unrest at the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017 raises the question of whether Venezuela will cause global oil-supply disruptions that boost prices this year.2 One of the reasons we have been bullish oil prices is the fact that the world has little spare production capacity (Chart 3). This means that political turmoil in Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, or other oil-producing countries could take enough supply out of the market to accelerate the global rebalancing process and drawdown of inventories, pushing up prices. Image Image The longer oil prices stay below the budget break-even levels of the politically unstable petro-states (mostly $80/bbl and above), the more likely some of them will be to fail. Venezuela, with a break-even of $350/bbl, has long been one of our prime candidates (Chart 4).3 Venezuela is on the verge of total regime collapse and a massive oil production shutdown. This is not a low-probability outcome. However, the fact that the military is already taking control of the situation, combined with our belief that OPEC and Russia will continue cutting oil production to shore up prices, suggest that the regime may be able to limp along. Therefore a continuation of the gradual decline in oil output is more likely than a sharp cutoff this year. Investors should stay short Venezuelan 10-year sovereign bonds and be aware of the upside risks to global oil prices. A Brief History Of PDVSA State-owned oil company PDVSA is the lifeblood of Venezuela. It once was a well-run company that allowed foreign investment with a reasonable government take, but now it is shut off from direct foreign investment. In 1996-1997, prior to Chavez being elected in late 1998, Venezuela was a rampant cheater on its OPEC quota, producing 3.1-3.3 MMB/d versus a quota of ~2.4 MMB/d in 1996 and ~2.8 in 1997. The oil-price crash that started in late 1997 and bottomed in early 1999 (remember the Economist's "Drowning In Oil" cover story on March 4, 1999 predicting $5 per barrel crude prices?) was a critical event propelling the rise of Chavez (Chart 5). One of the planks in Chavez's platform was that Venezuela had to stop cheating on OPEC quotas because that strategy had helped cause the oil-price decline and subsequent economic misery. Without the oil-price crash, Chavez would not have had such strong public support in the run-up to the 1998 elections, which he won. Chavez did in fact rein in Venezuela's production to 2.8 MMB/d in 1999, which had a positive impact on oil prices and reinforced OPEC. In 2002 and 2003, there were two labor strikes at PDVSA and a two-day coup that displaced Chavez. When Chavez returned to power, he fired 18,000 experienced workers at PDVSA and replaced them with political loyalists. Since then, the total number of employees at PDVSA has swelled from about 46,000 people in 2002, when PDVSA was producing 3.2 MMB/d, to about 140,000 people today, when it is producing slightly below 2 MMB/d. Average oil revenue per employee was over $500,000/person in 2002 at $20 oil, versus about $100,000/person today at $50 oil. Suffice it to say, PDVSA is stuffed to the gills with political patronage, and a strike or a revolution inside PDVSA against President Nicolas Maduro is unlikely. However, if opposition forces manage to seize control of government, the Chavistas in control of PDVSA may attempt to shut down operations to deprive them of oil revenues and blackmail them into a better deal going forward. Chart 5Oil Bust Catapulted Chavez Oil Bust Catapulted Chavez Oil Bust Catapulted Chavez Image Venezuela is estimated to have the world's largest proved oil reserves at about 300 billion barrels (Chart 6). In addition, there are 1.2-1.4 trillion barrels estimated to rest in heavy-oil deposits in the Orinoco Petroleum Belt (at the mouth of the Orinoco river) that is difficult to extract and has barely been touched. Chart 7Venezuela Cuts Forced By Economic Disaster Venezuela Cuts Forced By Economic Disaster Venezuela Cuts Forced By Economic Disaster These reserves are somewhat similar to Canada's oil sands. It is estimated that 300-500 billion barrels are technically recoverable. In the early 2000s, there were four international consortiums involved in developing these reserves: Petrozuata (COP-50%), Cerro Negro (XOM), Sincor (TOT, STO) and Hamaca (COP-40%). However, Chavez nationalized the Orinoco projects in 2007, paying the international oil companies (IOCs) a pittance. XOM and COP contested the taking and "sued" Venezuela at the World Bank. XOM sought $14.7 billion and won an arbitrated decision for a $1.6 billion settlement in 2014. Venezuela continues to litigate the case and the amount awarded to investors has apparently been reduced by a recent ruling. Over the past decade, as Venezuelan industry declined due to dramatic anti-free market laws, including aggressive fixed exchange rates absurdly out of keeping with black market rates, the government nationalized more and more private assets in order to get the wealth they needed to maintain profligate spending policies. The underlying point of these policies is to garner support from low-income Venezuelans, the Chavista political base. In addition to the Orinoco nationalization, the government appropriated equipment and drilling rigs from several oilfield service companies that had stopped working on account of not being properly paid. In 2009, Petrosucre (a subsidiary of PDVSA) appropriated the ENSCO 69 jackup rig, although the rig was returned in 2010. In 2010, the Venezuelan government seized 11 high-quality land rigs from Helmerich & Payne, resulting in nearly $200MM of losses for the company. These rigs were "easy" for Venezuela to appropriate because they did not require much private-sector expertise to operate. As payment failures continued, relationships with the country's remaining contractors continued to be strained. In 2013, Schlumberger (SLB), the largest energy service company in the world, threatened to stop working for PDVSA due to lack of payment in hard currency. PDVSA paid them in depreciating Venezuelan bolivares, but tightened controls over conversion into U.S. dollars. Some accounts receivables were partially converted into interest-bearing government notes. Promises for payment were made and broken. SLB has taken over $600MM of write-downs for the collapse of the bolivar (Haliburton, HAL, has taken ~$150MM in losses). With accounts receivable balances now stratospherically high at approximately $1.2 billion for SLB, $636 million for HAL (plus $200 million face amount in other notes), and $225 million for Weatherford International, the service companies have already taken write-offs on what they are owed and have refused to extend Venezuela additional credit. Unlike the "dumb iron" of drilling rigs, the service companies provide highly technical proprietary goods and services, from drill bits and fluids to measuring services. The lack of these proprietary technical services diminishes PDVSA's ability to drill new wells and properly maintain its legacy production infrastructure. Venezuela's production started falling in late 2015 - well before OPEC and Russia coordinated their January 2017 production cuts (Chart 7). Drought contributed to the problem in 2016 by causing electricity shortages and forced rationing of electricity (60-70% of Venezuela's electricity generation is hydro); water levels at key dams are still very low, but the condition has eased a bit in 2017. After watching crude oil production fall from 2.4 MMB/d in 2015 to 2.05 MMB/d in 2016, OPEC gave Venezuela a production quota of 1.97 MMB/d for the first half of 2017, which is about what they were expected to be capable of producing. In essence, Venezuela was exempt from production cuts, like other compromised OPEC producers Libya, Nigeria and Iran. So far, Venezuela has produced 1.99 MMB/d in the first quarter, according to EIA. Venezuela's falling production is not cartel behavior but indicative of broader economic and political instability. Venezuela is losing control of oil output, the pillar of regime stability. Bottom Line: The double-edged sword for energy companies is that if the regime utterly fails, the country's 2MM b/d of production may be disrupted. However, if government policy shifts - whether through the political opposition finally gaining de facto power or through the military imposing reforms - Venezuela could ramp up its production, perhaps by 1MMB/d within five years, and more after that if Orinoco is developed. How Long Can Maduro Last? Chavez's model worked like that of Louis XIV, who famously said, "après nous, le déluge." Chavez benefited from high oil prices throughout his reign and died in 2013 just before the country's descent into depression began (Chart 8). He won his last election in 2012 by a margin of 10.8%, while Maduro, his hand-picked successor, won a special election only half a year later by a 1.5% margin, which was contested for all kinds of fraud (Chart 9). Chart 8A Hyperflationary Depression A Hyperflationary Depression A Hyperflationary Depression Image Thus Maduro has suffered from "inept successor" syndrome from the beginning, compounding the fears of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) that the succession would be rocky. Maduro lacked both the political capital and the originality to launch orthodox economic reforms to address the country's mounting inflation and weak productivity, but instead doubled down on Chavez's rapid expansion of money and credit to lift domestic consumption (Chart 10).4 Chart 10Excessive Monetary And Credit Expansion Excessive Monetary And Credit Expansion Excessive Monetary And Credit Expansion Chart 11Exports Recovered, Reserves Did Not Exports Recovered, Reserves Did Not Exports Recovered, Reserves Did Not The economic collapse was well under way even before commodities pulled the rug out from under the government.5 Remarkably, the recovery in export revenue since 2010 did not occasion a recovery in foreign exchange reserves - these two decoupled, as Venezuela chewed through its reserves to finance its growing domestic costs (Chart 11). This means Venezuela's ability to recover even in the most optimistic oil scenarios is limited. Another sign that the economic break is irreversible is the fact that, since 2013, private consumption has fallen faster than oil output - a reversal of the populist model that boosted consumption (Chart 12). Chart 12Consumption Falls Faster Than Oil Output Consumption Falls Faster Than Oil Output Consumption Falls Faster Than Oil Output Chart 13Oil-Price Crash Hobbles Maduro Oil-Price Crash Hobbles Maduro Oil-Price Crash Hobbles Maduro Critically, the external environment turned against Maduro and PSUV as oil prices declined after June 2014. In November 2014 Saudi Arabia launched its market-share war against Iran and U.S. shale producers, expanding production into a looming global supply overbalance. Brent crude prices collapsed to $29/bbl by early 2016 (Chart 13). This pushed Venezuela over the brink.6 First, hyperinflation: Currency in circulation - already expanding excessively - has exploded upward since 2014. The 100 bolivar note has exploded in usage while notes of lower denominations have dropped out of usage. Total deposits in the banking system are growing at a pace of over 200%, narrow money (M1) at 140%, and consumer price index at 150% (see Chart 10 above). Real interest rates have plunged into an abyss, with devastating results for the financial system. The real effective exchange rate illustrates the annihilation of the currency's value. Monetary authorities have repeatedly devalued the official exchange rate of the bolivar against the dollar (Chart 14). However, the currency remains overvalued, which creates a huge gap between the official rate and the black market rate, which currently stands at about 5,400 bolivares to the dollar. Regime allies have access to hard USD, for which they charge high rents, and the rest suffer. Chart 14Official Forex Devaluations Official Forex Devaluations Official Forex Devaluations Chart 15Domestic Demand Collapses Domestic Demand Collapses Domestic Demand Collapses Second, the real economy has gone from depression to worse: Exports peaked in October 2008, nearly recovered in March 2012, and plummeted thereafter. Imports have fallen faster as domestic demand contracted (Chart 15). Venezuela must import almost everything and the currency collapse means staples are either unavailable or exorbitantly expensive. Venezuelan exports to China reached 20% of total exports in 2012 but have declined to about 14% (Chart 16). This means that Venezuela has lost a precious $10 billion per year. The state has also been trading oil output for loans from China, resulting in an ever higher share of shrinking oil output devoted to paying back the loans, leaving less and less exported production to bring in hard currency needed to pay for production, imports, and debt servicing. Both private and government consumption are shrinking, according to official statistics (Chart 17). Again, the consumption slump removes a key regime support. Chart 16Chinese Demand Is Limited Chinese Demand Is Limited Chinese Demand Is Limited Chart 17Public And Private Consumption Shrink Public And Private Consumption Shrink Public And Private Consumption Shrink Third, Venezuela is rapidly becoming insolvent: Venezuela's total public debt is high. It stood at 102% of GDP as of August 2014, and GDP has declined by 25%-plus since then. Total external debt, which becomes costlier to service as the currency depreciates, was about $139 billion, or 71% of GDP, in Q3 2015 (Chart 18). It has risen sharply ever since the fall in export revenues post-2011. The destruction of the currency by definition makes the foreign debt burden grow. Chart 18External Debt Soars... External Debt Soars... External Debt Soars... Chart 19...While Forex Reserves Dwindle ...While Forex Reserves Dwindle ...While Forex Reserves Dwindle The regime's hard currency reserves are rapidly drying up - they have fallen from nearly $30 billion in 2013 to just $10 billion today (Chart 19). Without hard cash, Venezuela will be unable to meet import costs and external debt payments. In Table 1, we assess the country's ability to make these payments at different oil-price and output levels. Assuming the YTD average Venezuelan crude price of $44/bbl, export revenue should hit about $32 billion this year, while imports should hover around $21 billion, leaving $11 billion for debt servicing costs of roughly $10 billion (combining the state's $8 billion with PDVSA's $2 billion). Thus if global oil prices hold up - as we think they will - the regime may be able to squeak by another year. Image In short, the regime could have about $11 billion in revenues left at the end of the year if the Venezuela oil basket hovers around $44/bbl and production remains at about 2 MMB/d. That is a "minimum cash" scenario for the regime this year, though it by no means guarantees regime survival amid the widespread economic distress of the population. Chart 20Foreign Asset Sales Will Continue Foreign Asset Sales Will Continue Foreign Asset Sales Will Continue If production drops to 1.25 MMb/d or lower as a result of the economic crisis - or if Venezuelan oil prices settle at $28/bbl or below - the regime will be unable to meet its import costs and debt payments. It will have to sell off more of its international assets as rapidly as it can (Chart 20), restrict imports further, and eventually default. Moreover, the calculation becomes much more negative for Venezuela if we assume, conservatively, $10 billion in capital outflows, which is far from unreasonable. Outflows could easily wipe out any small remainder of foreign reserves. So far, the government has chosen to deprive the populace of imports rather than default on external debt, wagering that the military and other state security forces can suppress domestic opposition for longer than the regime can survive under an international financial embargo. This strategy is fueling mass protests, riots, and clashes with the National Guard and Bolivarian colectivos (militias). An extension of the OPEC-Russia production cuts in late May, which we expect, will bring much-needed relief for Venezuela's budget. Thus, there is a clear path for regime survival through 2017 on a purely fiscal basis, though it is a highly precarious one - the reality is that the state is bound to default sooner or later. Moreover, the socio-political crisis has already spiraled far enough that a modest boost to oil prices this year will probably be too little, too late to save Maduro and the PSUV in its current form. As we discuss below, the question is only whether the military takes greater control to perpetuate the current regime, or the opposition is gradually allowed to take power and renovate the constitutional order. Bottom Line: Even if oil production holds up, and oil prices average above $44/bbl as we expect, the country's leaders will have to take extreme measures to avoid default. Domestic shortages and military-enforced rationing will compound. As economic contraction persists, social unrest will intensify. Will The Military Throw A Coup? Explosive popular discontent this year shows no sign of abating. It is a continuation of the mass protests and sporadic violence since the economic crisis fully erupted in 2014. However, as recession deepens - and food, fuel, and medicine shortages become even more widespread - unrest will spread to a broader geographic and demographic base. Protests since September 2016 have drawn numbers in the upper hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million on two occasions. Security forces have increasingly cracked down on civilians, raising the death toll and provoking a nasty feedback loop with protesters. Reports suggest that the poorest people - the Chavista base - are increasingly joining the protests, which is a new trend and bodes ill for the ruling party's survival. Already the public has turned against the United Socialist Party, as evinced by the December 2015 legislative election results and a range of public opinion polls, which show Maduro's support in the low-20% range. In the 2015 vote, the opposition defeated the Chavistas for the first time since 1998. The Democratic Unity Roundtable won a majority of the popular vote and a supermajority of the seats in the National Assembly. Since then, however, Maduro has used party-controlled civilian institutions like the Supreme Court and National Electoral Council - backed by the military and state security - to prevent the opposition's exercise of its newfound legislative power. Key signposts to watch will be whether Maduro is pressured into restoring the electoral calendar. The opposition has so far been denied local elections (supposedly rescheduled for later this year) and a popular referendum on recalling Maduro. So it has little reason to expect that the government will hold the October 2018 elections on time. The government is likely to keep delaying these votes because it knows it will lose them. In the meantime, the opposition has few choices other than protests and street tactics to try to pressure the government into allowing elections after all. Further, oil prices are low, so the regime is vulnerable, which means that the opposition has every incentive to step up the pressure now. If it waits, higher prices could give Maduro a new infusion of revenues and the ability to prolong his time in power. The question at this point is: will the military defect from the government? The military is the historical arbiter of power in the country. Maduro - who unlike Chavez does not hail from a military background - has only managed to make it this far by granting his top brass more power. Crucially, in July 2016, Maduro handed army chief Vladimir Padrino Lopez control over the country's critical transportation and distribution networks, including for food supplies. He has also carved out large tracts of land for a vast new mining venture, supposed to focus on gold, which the military will oversee and profit from.7 What this means is that the government and military are becoming more, not less, integrated at the moment. The army has a vested interest in the current regime. It is also internally coherent, as recent political science research shows, in the sense that the upper-most and lower-most ranks are devoted to Chavismo.8 Economic sanctions and human rights allegations from the U.S. and international community reinforce this point, making it so that officials have no future outside of the regime and therefore fight harder for the regime to survive.9 Still, there are fractures within the military that could get worse over time. Divisions within the ranks: An analysis of the Arab Spring shows that militaries that defected from the government (Egypt, Tunisia), or split up and made war on each other (Syria, Libya, Yemen), exhibited certain key divisions within their ranks.10 Looking at these variables, Venezuela's military lacks critical ethno-sectarian divisions, but does suffer from important differences between the military branches, between the army and the other state security forces, and between the ideological and socio-economic factions that are entirely devoted to Chavismo versus the rest. Thus, for example, it is possible that Bolivarian militias committing atrocities against unarmed civilians could eventually force the military to change its position to preserve its reputation.11 Popular opinion: Massive protests have approached 1 million people by some counts (of a population of 31 million) and have combined a range of elements within the society - not only young men or violent rebels/anarchists. Also, public opinion surveys suggest that supporters of Maduro have a more favorable view of the army, and opponents have a less favorable view.12 This implies that Maduro's extreme lack of popular support is a liability that will weigh on the military over time. Military funds shrinking: Because of the economic crisis, Maduro has been forced to slash military spending by a roughly estimated 56% over the past year (Chart 21). The military may eventually decide it needs to fix the economy in order to fix its budget. Image Autonomous military leader: That General Lopez has considerable autonomy is another variable that increases the risk of military defection or fracture. As the country slides out of control Lopez will likely intervene more often. He already did so recently when the Chavista-aligned Supreme Court tried to usurp the National Assembly's legislative function. The attorney general, Luisa Ortega Diaz, broke with party norms by criticizing the court's ruling. Maduro was forced to order the court to reverse it, at least nominally restoring the National Assembly's authority. Lopez supposedly had encouraged Maduro to backtrack in this way, contrary to the advice of two notable Chavistas, Diosdado Cabello and Vice President Tareck El Aissami. Ultimately, military rule for extended periods is common in Venezuelan history. Chavez always deeply integrated the party and military leadership, so the regime could persist through greater military assertion within it, or the military could take over and initiate topical political changes. Finally, if Lopez is ready to stage a coup, he may still wait for oil prices to recover. It makes more sense to let the already discredited ruling party suffer the public consequences of the recession than to seize power when the country is in shambles. Previous coup attempts have occurred not only when oil prices were bottoming but also when they bounded back after bottoming (Chart 22). It would appear that the Venezuelan military is as good at forecasting oil prices as any Wall Street analyst! For oil markets, the military's strong grip over the country suggests that even if Maduro and the PSUV collapse, the party loyalists at PDVSA may not have the option of going on strike. The military will still need the petro dollars to stay in power, and it will have the guns to insist that production keeps up, as long as economic destitution does not force operations to a halt. Bottom Line: There is a high probability that the military will expand its overt control over the country. As long as the leaders avoid fundamental economic reforms, the result of any full-out military coup against Maduro may just mean more of the same, which would be politically and economically unsustainable. Chart 22Coups Can Come After Oil Price Recovers Coups Can Come After Oil Price Recovers Coups Can Come After Oil Price Recovers Chart 23Stay Short Venezuelan Sovereign Bonds Stay Short Venezuelan Sovereign Bonds Stay Short Venezuelan Sovereign Bonds Investment Implications Any rebound in oil prices as a result of an extension of OPEC's and Russia's production cuts at the OPEC meeting on May 25 will be "too little, too late" in terms of saving Maduro and the PSUV. They may be able to play for time, but their legitimacy has been destroyed - they will only survive as long as the military sustains them. To a great extent, the ruling party has already handed the keys over to the military, and military rule can persist for some time. Hence oil production is more likely to continue its slow decline than experience a sudden shutdown, at least this year. This is because it is likely that military control will tighten, not diminish, when Maduro falls. Incidentally, the military is also more capable than the current weak civilian government of forcing through wrenching policy adjustments that are necessary to begin the process of normalizing economic policy - such as floating the currency and cutting public spending. But any such process would bring even more economic pain and unrest in the short term, and it has not begun yet. Even if the ruling party avoids defaulting on government debts this year - which is possible given our budget calculations - it is on the path to default before long. We remain short Venezuelan 10-year sovereign bonds versus emerging market peers. This trade is down 330 basis points since initiation in June 2015, but Venezuelan bonds have rolled over and the outlook is dim (Chart 23). Within the oil markets, our base case is that global oil producers have benefitted and will benefit from the marginally higher prices derived from Venezuela's slow production deterioration. Should a more sudden and severe production collapse occur, the upward price response would be much more acute. A sustained outage of Venezuelan production would send oil prices quickly towards $80-$100/bbl as a necessary price signal to curb demand growth, creating a meaningful recessionary force around the globe. Oil producers, specifically U.S. shale producers that can react quickly to these price signals, would stand to benefit temporarily from the higher prices, but would again suffer from falling oil prices in the inevitable post-crisis denouement. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 For the military takeover, please see "Venezuelan Debt: The Rally Is Late," in BCA Emerging Markets Strategy, "EM: From Liquidity To Growth?" dated August 24, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Energy Spring," dated December 10, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com; BCA Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017," dated January 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com; and Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "The Other Guys In The Oil Market," dated April 5, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Venezuelan Chavismo: Life After Death," dated April 2, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, and Monthly Report, "The Reflation Era," dated December 10, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Assessing Political And Financial Landscapes In Argentina, Venezuela And Brazil," dated January 6, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 For Lopez's taking control, please see "Venezuelan Debt: The Rally Is Late" in BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: From Liquidity To Growth?" dated August 24, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. For the gold mine, please see Edgardo Lander, "The Implosion of Venezuela's Rentier State," Transnational Institute, New Politics Papers 1, September 2016, available at www.tni.org. 8 The junior officers have advanced through special military schools set up by Chavez, while the senior officials have been carefully selected over the years for their loyalty and ideological purity. Please see Brian Fonseca, John Polga-Hecimovich, and Harold A. Trinkunas, "Venezuelan Military Culture," FIU-USSOUTHCOM Military Culture Series, May 2016, available at www.johnpolga.com. 9 Please see David Smilde, "Venezuela: Options for U.S. Policy," Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 2, 2017, available at www.foreign.senate.gov. 10 Please see Timothy Hazen, "Defect Or Defend? Explaining Military Responses During The Arab Uprisings," doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago, December 2016, available at ecommons.luc.edu. 11 Civilian deaths caused by the National Guard and Chavez's loyalist militias triggered the aborted 2002 military coup. Please see Steven Barracca, "Military coups in the post-cold war era: Pakistan, Ecuador and Venezuela," Third World Quarterly 28: 1 (2007), pp. 137-54. 12 See footnote 8 above.

Highlight Once-ebullient oil markets are overwrought. Fears that an economic slowdown in China will spill over into EM - the engine of global commodity demand growth - along with a very weak 1Q17 U.S. GDP performance, will keep oil markets focused on downside risks to prices. On the supply side, high-frequency inventory data from the U.S. suggests visible OECD stocks remain high, seemingly impervious to OPEC 2.0's best efforts to drain them. Steadily rising U.S. shale output also weighs on prices. Markets appear to be looking right through the choreographed comments on production cuts from leaders of OPEC 2.0, which suggest these cuts will definitely be extended to year-end 2017, and possibly into 2018. We doubt the demand picture is anywhere close to a fundamental downshift, expecting, instead, continued robust demand. We also expect the extension of OPEC 2.0's production cutbacks to year-end 2017 to significantly drain storage, even as shale output continues to grow. If anything, recent market action has presented an opportunity re-establish length, and to position for backwardation toward year-end. Energy: Overweight. The stop-loss on our Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl puts vs. $65/bbl calls was elected May 4/17, leaving us with a loss of $1.54/bbl (-327.7%). We are reinstating the position as of tonight's close, anticipating Brent will reach $60/bbl by year-end. We also stopped out of our Dec/17 Brent long vs. Dec/18 Brent short on May 4/17, with a $0.50/bbl loss (-263.2%). We will re-establish this position as well basis tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. LME and COMEX stock builds are keeping copper under pressure, offsetting possible renewed labor unrest. This is keeping us neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. We were made long spot gold at $1230.25/oz basis last Thursday's close as a hedge against inflation risk, and a possible equities correction. Ags/Softs: Underweight. USDA data indicate a favorable start to the grain planting season. We remain bearish. Feature Softer Chinese PMIs spooked commodity markets, coming as they did on the heels of a very visible and much-reported weakening of base metals and iron ore prices emanating from Chinese markets (Chart of the Week).1 Financial markets fear weaker Chinese growth could presage weaker EM growth, which is the engine of commodity growth generally.2 With U.S. GDP coming in weak as well - registering a paltry growth of 0.7% in 1Q17 - markets started re-calibrating oil demand estimates for this year in light of still-high inventory levels. Adding to the market's agita, visible oil inventories in the OECD remain stubbornly high, thwarting OPEC 2.0's best efforts to drain them via their closely followed production cuts. By Wednesday of this week, this potent combination shaved some 9.6% off 1Q17 average prices, taking international benchmarks Brent and WTI below $50/bbl. Dubai prices have largely been spared similar carnage, as Gulf OPEC states continue to reduce supplies of heavier sour crude availabilities (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekChina PMIs Weaken As Monetary##BR##Conditions Tighten Slightly China PMIs Weaken As Monetary Conditions Tighten Slightly China PMIs Weaken As Monetary Conditions Tighten Slightly Chart 2Oil Prices##BR##In Retreat Oil Prices In Retreat Oil Prices In Retreat OPEC 2.0 Responds To Weaker Prices OPEC 2.0 - our moniker for the producer group comprised of OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC, led by Russia - was not oblivious to these concerns. Indeed, earlier this week KSA Oil Minister Khalid al-Falih said the group would "do whatever it takes" to drain stocks and normalize global inventories (Chart 3). The OPEC 2.0 leadership is well aware that failure to do so would again expose these petro-states to the risk of a price collapse, as, absent production discipline, oil inventories once again would fill. This would force prices through producers' cash costs until enough production was knocked off-line to drain the storage overhang.3 Comments by leaders of OPEC 2.0 regarding the extension of its 1.8mm b/d production cuts this year and into next year are consistent with a strategy we laid out earlier, part of which includes the use of forward guidance to convince markets the supply side will tighten in the future.4 The other critical part of the strategy is for OPEC 2.0 to keep the front of the Brent curve at or below $60/bbl, using their own production, spare capacity and storage, and guiding to higher supply in the future, which would keep markets backwardated in 2018 once visible storage returns to five-year average levels. A persistent and deep backwardation - on the order of 10% p.a. - would, based on our modelling, slow the return of rigs to U.S. shale fields. In addition, the combination of a front-end forward curve capped at $60/bbl and persistent backwardation would keep depletion rates elevated, as cash-strapped producers - e.g., non-Gulf OPEC producers with high fiscal breakeven oil prices - are forced to forego maintenance capex. Taken together, this would give OPEC 2.0 a stronger hand in guiding prices - provided the coalition can hold together and maintain production discipline. We continue to expect an extension of the 1.8mm b/d OPEC 2.0 cuts will backwardate markets once inventories normalize later this year, even with strong growth from U.S. shales.5 Indeed, we expect this combination of fundamentals will clear the storage overhang by end-2017, and produce draws of more than 1mm b/d on average from April - December (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Leaders KSA,##BR##Russia: "Whatever It Takes" OPEC 2.0 Leaders KSA, Russia: "Whatever It Takes" OPEC 2.0 Leaders KSA, Russia: "Whatever It Takes" Chart 4Steady Demand,##BR##Extended Cuts Will Drain Inventories Steady Demand, Extended Cuts Will Drain Inventories Steady Demand, Extended Cuts Will Drain Inventories Wobbly Oil Demand Is Transitory The 1Q17 demand-side scares emanating from China and the U.S. are transitory. Chart 5Fiscal And Infrastructure Spending##BR##Picked Up This Year In China Fiscal And Infrastructure Spending Picked Up This Year In China Fiscal And Infrastructure Spending Picked Up This Year In China Following their return from the mainland, our colleagues on BCA's China Investment Strategy desk note that monetary conditions still are fairly stimulative, and are unlikely to cause the economy to roll over.6 Most of the deterioration in economic growth results from a slowing in the depreciation of China's trade-weighted RMB, following a years-long appreciation from 2012 to 2015, which did dampen growth. In addition, while fiscal stimulus was reduced at the end of 2016, the government "quickly reversed course" as direct spending and investment in infrastructure picked up substantially (Chart 5). Our China Investment Strategy colleagues note China's fiscal spending is pro-cyclical - it increases as the economy improves and tax revenues increase. The government shows no sign of wanting to wind this down: "China's policy setting remains expansionary, a major departure from previous years when the Chinese economy was under the heavy weight of policy tightening while external demand also weakened. Looking forward, there is little chance that the Chinese authorities will commit similar policy mistakes that could lead to a major growth downturn. Barring a major policy mistake of aggressive tightening, Chinese growth should remain buoyant." The impact of Chinese demand on global oil demand is increasing, based on econometric work we've recently completed. From 2000 to end-April 2017, a 1% increase in Chinese oil demand has translated into a 0.64% ncrease in Brent prompt prices. During this period, the impact of non-OECD demand ex China was more than two times that of China's - a 1% increase there could be expected to lead to a 1.3% increase in Brent prices. China's impact on Brent prices in the post-GFC world more than doubled, while the impact of non-OECD demand ex-China increased marginally. Since the Global Financial Crisis, a 1% increase in China's oil consumption has produced a 1.4% increase in Brent prices, while a similar increase in EM ex-China has translated into a 1.8% increase in Brent prices.7 Turning to the U.S., we believe, along with the Fed, the weak patch in GDP in 1Q17 is transitory. Following the report on the quarter's weak 0.7% GDP growth, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics surprised markets with a reading of 4.4% unemployment (U3 measure), and an equally impressive U6 measure of 8.6%, which takes it almost to pre-GFC levels. We expect robust U.S. labor-market conditions will keep demand for refined products in the U.S. robust, which will support oil prices there going forward. Globally, the U.S. EIA expects oil consumption will grow 1.6mm b/d this year - unchanged from last year. This is above our 1.4mm b/d estimate for the year. If the EIA's demand estimate is accurate, we can expect a sharper draw (+200k b/d) in global inventories than the average 860k b/d we currently are projecting, all else equal (Chart 4). This would lead to a sharper and earlier backwardation in prices that we currently expect. We will be re-estimating our balances model next week. Investment Implications We continue to expect the global storage overhang to clear by year-end, given the extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts to at least year-end 2017. Wobbly demand is a transitory phenomenon, and we expect a recovery in the balance of the year. Given our expectation, we are re-establishing our long year-end Brent exposure, and are going short a $45/bbl Dec/17 Brent put vs. long a $65/bbl Dec/17 Brent call at tonight's close. We had a -$1.00/bbl stop-loss on this position, which was elected May 4/17 and resulted in a 1.54/bbl loss (-327.7%). We stopped out of our long Brent front-to-back position - long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent - in anticipation of backwardation. We also will be looking to re-establishing this position at tonight's closing levels, and for a good entry point to re-establish the same position in WTI. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Iron-ore (62% Fe) prices are down 33.5% after peaking this year at close to $91/MT in March. The LMEX base metals index is down 7.7% from its 2017 peak in February. Regular readers of Commodity & Energy Strategy will recall we've been bearish iron ore and steel for months, and have remained neutral base metals. Please see "China Commodity Focus: Supply Cuts, Environmental Restrictions Will Hit Metals," and "Copper's Price Supports Are Fading," in the January 19, and March 23, 2017, issues of Commodity & Energy Strategy. They are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 In the May 5, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy, our colleague Mathieu Savary notes, "The impulse to EM growth tends to emerge from China as Chinese imports have been the key fuel to boost exports, investments, and incomes across a wide swath of EM nations. Chinese developments suggest that Chinese growth, while not about to crater, may be slowing." Please see "The Achilles Heel of Commodity Currencies" in the May 5 FES, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy April 20, 2017, for a further discussion of the logic behind these cuts. 4 This aligns with a strategy we laid out last month, which uses forward guidance to convince markets to anticipate tighter supply further out the curve. By leading markets to anticipate lower crude oil availabilities in the future - while storage is drawing - OPEC 2.0 is setting the stage for forward curves to remain backwardated. Please see "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" published April 6, 2017, in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 "Backwardation" refers to a futures forward-price curve in which contracts for prompt delivery are higher than prices for deferred delivery. This indicates merchants and refiners are willing to pay more for a commodity delivered close in time versus in the future. It is the opposite of a "contango" curve, in which deferred prices exceed prompt prices. 6 Please see "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?" in BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report published May 5, 2017. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 These coefficients are all significant at less than 0.01. R2 coefficients of determination for these cointegrating regressions, which include the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) all exceed 0.90, indicating that the USD TWIB and Brent prices share a common long-term trend, and that FX effects remain important in assessing oil prices. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 Oil: Be Long, Or Be Wrong Oil: Be Long, Or Be Wrong Oil: Be Long, Or Be Wrong Oil: Be Long, Or Be Wrong