Geopolitics

Highlights Contagion risk from Italy to its European peers presents a buying opportunity; Italian policymakers are constrained by the bond market and avoiding brinkmanship; In a game of chicken between Berlin and Rome, Chancellor Angela Merkel is behind the wheel of a 2.5-ton SUV; Italy's ultimate constraint is its bifurcated economic system - staying in the EU helps manage this problem; Underweight Italian bonds in a global portfolio and short Italian bonds versus their Spanish equivalents. Feature Chart 1Is Contagion Warranted? Is Contagion Warranted? Is Contagion Warranted? On May 31, Italy formed the second overtly populist government in the Euro Area. The first was the short-lived SYRIZA government in Greece, which lasted from January to September 2015. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his colorful finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, Athens took Greece to the brink of Euro Area exit in the summer of 2015. Ultimately, Greek politicians blinked, folded, and re-ran the January election in September, transforming SYRIZA from an overtly euroskeptic party to a europhile party in just eight months. Investors are concerned that "this time will be different." We disagree. To use a poker analogy, Italian policymakers are better positioned to "bluff" their European counterparts as their chip stack is larger. But they are still holding a bad hand, and other players at the table still hold big stacks. The recent turbulence in Italian bond markets has spilled over into other Mediterranean countries (Chart 1). This contagion is unwarranted, as there has been much improvement across the region over the past few years, both politically and economically. As for Italy itself, it is positive that populists have come to power today, for several reasons. First, it will force them to actually run the country, a sobering process that often tempers anti-establishment zeal, as it did in Greece. Second, they will run the country at a time when popular support for the Euro Area and EU remains strong enough to deter an overt attempt to exit those institutions. Third, Italy remains massively constrained by material forces outside of their control, which will force compromises in negotiations with Brussels and fellow EU member states. There Will Be No Contagion From Italy Markets overreacted to the political risks emanating from Italy in recent weeks. Fundamentally, Italy's peripheral peers have emerged stronger from the Euro Area crisis. Since the onset of the Euro Area crisis, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain - the hardest-hit economies in 2010 - have seen their unit labor costs contract by an average of 8.7%. Over the same period, the rest of the Euro Area inflated its labor cost structure by around 10.9% (Chart 2). Italy remains saddled with a rigid, under-educated, and rather unproductive workforce that has seen no adjustment in labor costs.1 Meanwhile, its Mediterranean peers have practically closed their once-enormous unit labor-cost gap with Germany. Furthermore, all southern European countries now run primary surpluses, reducing the need for external funding (Chart 3). It is fair that the market should apply a fiscal premium to Italy, given the new government's plans to blow out the budget deficit. But no such fiscal plan is in the works in the rest of the Mediterranean. The cyclically-adjusted primary balance - for Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece - has gone from a deficit of 4.4% during the height of the debt crisis, to a surplus of 1.4% today. One can argue about whether such fiscal austerity was really necessary. The advantage, however, is that the improvement in structural budget balances has diminished the need for additional austerity measures and could also provide greater fiscal space during the next recession. Finally, household balance sheets have been on the mend for some time. Consumer debt levels as a percentage of disposable income in Spain, Portugal, and Ireland - the epicenter of the original Euro Area debt crisis - have now dipped below U.S. levels. In the case of Italy, importantly, the household sector was never over-indebted to begin with (Chart 4). Chart 2Italy Has Had No Labor-Cost Adjustment Italy Has Had No Labor-Cost Adjustment Italy Has Had No Labor-Cost Adjustment Chart 3Mediterranean Austerity Is Over Mediterranean Austerity Is Over Mediterranean Austerity Is Over Chart 4No Household Credit Bubble In Italy No Household Credit Bubble In Italy No Household Credit Bubble In Italy On the political front, Italians are clearly more euroskeptic than their Euro Area peers (Chart 5). Although only 30% of Italians oppose the common currency, in line with Greece, this is still considerably higher than in Spain and Portugal (Chart 6). Italians also feel less "European" than the Spanish or the Portuguese - i.e., they identify more exclusively with their unique nationality. Again this is in line with Greek sentiment (Chart 7). Italians were not always this way: in the early 1990s, they felt the most European. Chart 5Italy Lags In Support For The Euro... Italy Lags In Support For The Euro... Italy Lags In Support For The Euro... Chart 6...But Only 30% Of Italians Want Out ...But Only 30% Of Italians Want Out ...But Only 30% Of Italians Want Out Chart 7Italians Are Feeling More Italian Italians Are Feeling More Italian Italians Are Feeling More Italian In Portugal and Spain, parties across the political spectrum have responded to improving political and economic fundamentals. In Spain, the mildly euroskeptic Podemos is polling below its June 2016 election result. Its leadership has also abandoned any ambiguity on its support of the common currency, although it still campaigned in 2016 on restructuring Spain's foreign debt. The leading party in the Spanish polls is the centrist Ciudadanos (Chart 8), led by 38-year old Albert Rivera. Much like French President Emmanuel Macron, Rivera has a background in finance - he worked as a legal counsel at La Caixa - and presents a centrist vision for Europe, favoring more integration. The rise of Ciudadanos is important as Spain could have new elections soon. Conservative Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy resigned following a vote of no-confidence engineered by the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) leader Pedro Sánchez. However, PSOE only holds 84 seats of the 350-seat parliament. As such, it is unclear how the Socialist minority government will govern, particularly with the budget vote coming in early fall. But investors should welcome, not fear, early elections in Spain. With Ciudadanos set to join a governing coalition, it is clear that Spain's commitments to the Rajoy structural reforms will remain in place while no discussions of Spanish exit from European institutions is on any investment-relevant horizon. In Portugal, the minority government of Prime Minister António Costa has overseen a brisk economic recovery. Costa's center-left Socialist Party has received support in parliament from the far-left, euroskeptic Left Bloc, plus the Communists and Greens. Despite the involvement of the Left Bloc, the minority government has not initiated any euroskeptic policy. The latest polling suggests that Costa could win a majority in 2019. An election has to be held by October of that year, thus potentially strengthening the pro-European credentials of the Portuguese government (Chart 9). Finally, in Greece, the once overtly euroskeptic SYRIZA is polling well below their 2015 levels of support. Ardently europhile and centrist New Democracy (ND) is set to win the next election - which must be held by October 2019 - if polling remains stable (Chart 10). The fascist and euroskeptic Golden Dawn remains a feature of Greek politics, but has a support rate under 10%, as it has over the past decade. In fact, the rising player in Greek politics is the centrist and europhile Movement for Change, an alliance that includes the vestiges of the center-left PASOK, which polls around 10%. Chart 8There Is No Populism In Spain... There Is No Populism In Spain... There Is No Populism In Spain... Chart 9...Or Portugal... ...Or Portugal... ...Or Portugal... Chart 10...And Surprisingly None In Greece ...And Surprisingly None In Greece ...And Surprisingly None In Greece Bottom Line: Italy stands alone in the Mediterranean as a laggard on both economic and political fundamentals. Contagion risk from Italy to the rest of its European peers should be faded by investors. It represents a buying opportunity every time it manifests itself. What Car Is Italy Driving In This Game Of Chicken? The new ruling coalition in Rome has a democratic mandate for a confrontation with Brussels over fiscal spending. The coalition consists of the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the League (Lega), formerly known as the "Northern League." In his inaugural speech to the Italian Parliament, Prime Minister Guiseppe Conte emphasized that the mandate of the new coalition includes "reducing the public debt ... by increasing our wealth, not with austerity."2 So, the gloves are off! Not really. Almost immediately, Conte pointed out that "we are optimistic about the outcome of these discussions and confident of our negotiating power, because we are facing a situation in which Italy's interests... coincide with the general interests of Europe, with the aim of preventing its possible decline. Europe is our home." PM Conte subsequently focused in his speech on increasing social welfare payments to the poor, conditional on vocational training and job reintegration. Talk of a "flat tax" was replaced with an eponymous concept that is anything but a "flat tax."3 And there was no mention of overturning unpopular pension reforms, but merely "intervening in favor of retirees who do not have sufficient income to live in dignity."4 We may be reading too much into one speech. However, the time for brinkmanship is at the beginning of a government's mandate. And Conte's opening salvo suggests that the M5S-Lega coalition has already punted on three of its most populist promises: wholesale change to retirement reforms, a flat tax of 15%, and universal basic income. The back-of-the-envelope cost of these three proposals is €100bn, which would easily blow out Italy's budget deficit by 5% of GDP, putting the total at 7%. There was also no mention of issuing government IOUs that would create a sort of "parallel currency" in the country. Conte's relatively tame speech represents one of three concessions that Rome has made before it even engaged Brussels in brinkmanship. The two others were to replace the original economy minister designate - euroskeptic Paulo Savona - and to form a government in the first place. The latter is particularly telling. Polls have shown that the two populist parties would have an even stronger hand if they waited until the fall to re-run the election (Chart 11). In particular, Lega has seen its support rise by 9% since the election. It is politically illogical to form a governing coalition with less political capital when a new election would strengthen the hand of both populist parties. So why the concessions? Because Italian policymakers are not interested in brinkmanship. The populist campaign rhetoric and hints of euroskepticism were an act. And perhaps the act would have continued, but the bond market reaction was so quick and jarring (Chart 12) - including the largest day-to-day selloff since 1993 (Chart 13) - that it has disciplined Italy's policymakers almost immediately. Chart 11Lega Gave Up A Lot By Forming A Coalition Lega Gave Up A Lot By Forming A Coalition Lega Gave Up A Lot By Forming A Coalition Chart 12Bond Vigilantes Are... Bond Vigilantes Are... Bond Vigilantes Are... Chart 13...A Massive Constraint On Rome ...A Massive Constraint On Rome ...A Massive Constraint On Rome This is instructive for investors. In 2015, Greece decided to play the game of brinkmanship with Europe and ultimately lost. Our high-conviction view at the time was that Athens would back off from brinkmanship because it was massively constrained.5 Not only would an exit from the Euro Area mean a government default and the redenomination of all household saving into "monopoly money," but the level of euroskepticism in Greece was not high enough to support such a high-risk strategy. At the time, we pointed out that most investors - and practically all pundits - were wrong when they argued that brinkmanship between Greece and Brussels was "unpredictable." This conventional view was supported by an incorrect reading of game theory, particularly the "game of chicken." Game theory teaches us that a game of chicken is the most dangerous game because it can create an equilibrium in which all rational actors have an incentive to stick to their guns - to "keep driving" in the parlance of the game - despite the risks.6 In Diagram 1, we can see that continuing to drive carries the most risks, but it also carries the most reward, provided that your opponent swerves. Since all actors in a game of chicken assume the rationality of their opponents, they also expect them to eventually swerve. When this does not happen, the bottom-right quadrant emerges, one of chaos and deeply negative payouts for everyone involved in the crash. The problem with this analysis is that - as with most game theory - its parsimony belies deep complexity that often varies due to a number of factors. The first such factor is replayability. The decisions of Italian policymakers will be informed by the outcomes of the 2015 Greek episode, which did not go well for Athens. Another factor that obviously varies the payout matrix is the relative strength of each player; or, to stick with the analogy, the type of vehicle driven by each actor. Greece and its Euro Area peers were not driving the same car. The classic game of chicken only produces the payouts from Diagram 1 if all participants are driving the same vehicle. However, if Angela Merkel is behind the wheel of a Mercedes-Benz G-Class SUV, while Greek PM Alexis Tsipras is riding a tricycle, then the payouts are going to be much different in the case of a crash. In that case, the payouts should approximate something closer to Diagram 2. Diagram 1Regular Game Of Chicken Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Diagram 2Greece Versus Euro Area In 2015 Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? So the crucial question for investors is what vehicle are Italian policymakers driving? We do not doubt that it is an actual car, unlike Tsipras's tricycle. But it is more likely to be a finely-crafted Italian sportscar, adept at hugging the twists and turns of Rome's policy, rather than an SUV capable of colliding with Merkel's ominous truck. Why doesn't Rome have more capability than Greece? Because of time horizons. An Italian exit from the Euro Area would undoubtedly shake the foundations of the common currency and the European integrationist project. But Rome actually has to exit in order to shake those foundations. As we have learned with Brexit, such an "exit" scenario could take months, if not years. In the process of trying to exit, the Italian banking system would become insolvent, turning household savings and retirements into linguini. This would occur immediately and would exert economic, financial, and - most importantly - political pressure on Italian policymakers instantaneously. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi, BCA's Chief European Strategist, has argued that a 4% Italian bond yield is the "line in the sand" regarding the survival of Italy's banks.7 As Dhaval points out, investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). Based on this rule, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion (Chart 14). Although the net NPL figure has improved much from the peak in 2015, it remains large. It follows that there would be fresh doubts about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of just a tenth from the recent peak. Dhaval estimates that this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4% (Chart 15). Chart 14Italian Banks' Equity Capital ##br##Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn Chart 15Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In ##br##Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Additionally, while Italian support for the common currency is relatively low, there is still a majority of around 60% that support the euro. This is similar to the level of support for the euro in Greece in 2015. We would suspect that the support for the currency would rise - and that populist parties would decline in popularity - if Italian policymakers set off a bond market riot that caused the insolvency of Italian banks. Does this mean that the bond market is a permanent constraint on Italian exit from the Euro Area? No. At some point in the future, after a deep recession that raises unemployment levels substantively, popular support for the common currency could tank precipitously. But we are far from that point. In fact, Italy has enjoyed a relatively robust recovery over the past 18 months. As such, any economic crisis today will be blamed on the populist policymakers themselves, yet another reason for them to moderate and seek the path of calm negotiations with the EU. Bottom Line: With regards to any potential "game of chicken" negotiations with the rest of Europe, Italian policymakers are not riding a tricycle like their Greek counterparts were in 2015. Italians are behind the wheel of a finely-crafted, titanium-chassis, Italian roadster. Unfortunately, Chancellor Angela Merkel is still in a Mercedes SUV that weighs 2.5 tons. This is a high-conviction view based on the actions of Italian policymakers over the past month. Despite an improvement in polling, populists have backed off from calling for a new election (which would have been perfectly logical) and that would have been advantageous to them and have abandoned some of the most controversial - and expensive - platforms of their coalition agreement. Unlike their peers in Greece, Italian populists have proven to have little stomach for actual confrontation. The Ultimate Constraint: Risorgimento In a report published back in 2016, we argued that Italy's original sin was its unification in 1861.8 Risorgimento brought together the North and South in a political and economic union that made little sense. The North had developed a market economy during the Middle Ages (and gave the West its Renaissance!), while the South had remained under feudalism well into the early twentieth century. Given the limited resources, governance, and technology of the mid-nineteenth century, the scope, ambition, and yes, folly of uniting Italy were probably several orders of magnitude greater than the effort to forge a common currency union in Europe in the twenty-first century. To this day, Italy remains an economically bifurcated country. Map 1 shows that the four wealthiest and most-productive regions of Europe, outside of capital cities, are the German Rhineland, Bavaria, the Netherlands, and Northern Italy. Meanwhile, the Italian South - or Mezzogiorno - is as undeveloped as Greece and Eastern Europe. Map 1Core Europe Extends Well Into Northern Italy Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? The units of analysis in Map 1 are the so-called EU "nomenclature of territorial units for statistics" (NUTS).9 These regions matter because Brussels uses them to determine how much "structural funding" - essentially development aid - each country receives from the EU. The EU "regional and cohesion" funding - totaling €351.8 billion for the 2014-2020 budget period - is not distributed based on the aggregate wealth of each country, since that would favor the new entrants into the union. The EU's discerning eye when it comes to distributing development funds is not accidental. It is a product of decades of lobbying by Italy (and Spain) to prevent a shift of structural funding to Eastern European member states. From Rome's perspective, the real European development project is not in Poland or Greece, but in the Mezzogiorno. Chart 16Italy Shares The Burden Of The Mezzogiorno With The EU Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? To this day, Italy and Spain receive the second and third largest amount of EU development aid (Chart 16). Despite contributing, in gross terms, 13% to the EU's total revenues, Italy's net contribution per person is smaller than those of the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Austria (Chart 17). Given that Italy is a wealthy EU state, its net budget contribution of approximately €3 billion, 0.2% of GDP, essentially means that it gets the benefits of EU membership for free. Chart 17Italy Gets To Join The Club For Free Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? And EU membership comes with many benefits. Membership in the Euro Area - combined with sharing the same "lender of last resort" with Germany, the European Central Bank - allows Italy to finance its budget deficits at low interest rates and to issue government debt in the world's second largest reserve currency (Chart 18). These financial benefits are even greater than the rebate it gets from Europe. Access to cheap financing allows Italy to carry the costs of Mezzogiorno on its own. Chart 18The Big Difference Between 2011 & Today The Big Difference Between 2011 & Today The Big Difference Between 2011 & Today It is somewhat ironic that Lega is today preaching populism and euroskepticism. In the early 1990s, its main target of angst was not the EU and Brussels, but Italy's South and profligate Rome, which funneled the North's taxes to the South. This early iteration of the party was quite pro-EU, as it saw Italy's North as genuinely European and worthy of membership in EU institutions. Some of its politicians and voters hoped that Northern Italy could meld into the EU, leaving the Mezzogiorno to fend for itself. Hence there is no deep, ideological euroskepticism in Lega's DNA. The party's evolution also illustrates how opportunistic and pragmatic Italian policymakers can be. The reality is that if Italy were to act on its threat of "exit," it would undoubtedly become far worse off economically. Not only would Northern Italy have to support the Mezzogiorno alone, but any structural reforms that could lift productivity and education in the South would become far less likely as anti-establishment forces took hold. Bottom Line: Our high-conviction view is now the same as it was in 2016. Italy is "bluffing." Leaving the EU or the Euro Area makes no sense given its economic bifurcation, which is the result of Risorgimento. Both policymakers and voters understand this. The real intention in the game of chicken between Brussels and Rome is to see an easing of austerity. We expect that Italian policymakers will ultimately succeed in getting leniency from Brussels on allowing deficit-widening fiscal stimulus, but the stimulus will be much smaller than their original plans that spooked the bond market laid out. To European and Italian politicians, Italy's economic bifurcation is well understood. Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, specifically referred to it when he said, "Italians have to take care of the poor regions of Italy." He was later forced to apologize for his comments, with leaders of M5S and Lega faking outrage. But given that the ideological roots of Lega are precisely in the same intellectual vein as Juncker's comments, investors should understand that politicians in Rome are well aware of their fundamental constraints. Juncker's comments were a dog whistle to Rome. The actual message was: we know you are bluffing. Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that the path of least resistance for the M5S-Lega coalition is to negotiate some austerity relief from the EU Commission, but to definitively pivot away from talk of "exit" from European institutions. PM Conte has reaffirmed that exiting the euro is off the table and that it was never on the table to begin with. The new economy minister, Giovanni Tria, followed this up with a comment that "the position of this government is clear and unanimous... there are no discussions taking place about any proposal to leave the euro." Meanwhile, Lega leader and new Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini has focused his early efforts and commentary on the party's promise to check illegal immigration to Italy. This will be a policy upon which Lega will test its populist credentials, not a fight with Brussels. Is the worst of the crisis therefore "over"? Is it time to buy Italian assets? Not yet. Both Italian bonds and equities rallied throughout 2017. Italian equities, for example, have a higher Shiller P/E ratio than both Spanish and Portuguese stocks (Chart 19). As such, a sell-off was long overdue. Chart 19Why Did Italian Equities Rally So Much? Why Did Italian Equities Rally So Much? Why Did Italian Equities Rally So Much? Chart 20Italy's Binary Future Italy's Binary Future Italy's Binary Future Furthermore, we do not expect Rome's negotiations with Brussels to proceed smoothly. It is very likely that the bond market will have to continue to play the role of disciplinarian. The government debt-to-GDP ratio could quickly become unsustainable if the current primary budget balance is thrown into a deficit (Chart 20). According to the IMF and BCA Research calculations, Italian long-term debt dynamics are stable even with real interest rates rising to 2% - from just 0.5% today - and real GDP growth remaining at a muted 1%. But this stability requires the country to continue to run a primary budget surplus of around 2% of GDP (Chart 21). Conversely, running a persistent primary deficit of 2% would result in an explosive increase in Italy's debt dynamics. Even if that stimulus produces real GDP growth of 3%, the "bond vigilantes" could protest the surge in debt and drive real interest rates to 3.5% or higher. As such, the country's fiscal space will ultimately be determined by the bond market. Rome can afford to lower its primary budget surplus, but only so far as the bond market does not riot. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi believes that the math behind an Italian fiscal stimulus would make sense if it provides enough of a sustainable boost to economic growth without blowing out the budget deficit.10 We suspect that the bond market will eventually agree, but only if Brussels and Berlin bless the ultimate fiscal package as well. While investors wait to see the outcome of Rome-Brussels budget talks, which will likely last well into Q4, we prefer to play Mediterranean politics by shorting Italian government bonds versus their Spanish equivalents. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy initiated such a trade on December 16, 2016, which has produced a total return of 5.8%. The original logic for the trade was based on an assessment that Italy's medium-term growth potential, sovereign-debt fundamentals, and political stability were all much worse than those of Spain (Chart 22). These differences were not reflected in relative bond prices. Chart 21Three Factors Will Influence Italy's Debt Trajectory Three Factors Will Influence Italy's Debt Trajectory Three Factors Will Influence Italy's Debt Trajectory Chart 22Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Ongoing political turmoil in Italy has justified sticking with the trade. Looking ahead, there is potential for additional spread widening between Italy and Spain in the coming months. Spain is enjoying better economic growth; the deficit outlook will invariably worsen for Italy with the new coalition government; and Spanish support for the euro and establishment policymakers remains far higher and more buoyant than in Italy. All these factors justify a wider risk premium for Italian debt over Spanish bonds (Chart 23). Chart 23Stay Short 5-Year Italy Vs. 5-Year Spain Stay Short 5-Year Italy Vs. 5-Year Spain Stay Short 5-Year Italy Vs. 5-Year Spain Chart 24Stay Underweight Italian Debt Stay Underweight Italian Debt Stay Underweight Italian Debt One final critical point - the timing of any budget related uncertainty could not be worse for Italy. Economic growth is slowing and leading indicators say that this trend will continue, which suggests that Italian government bonds should continue to underperform global peers (Chart 24). Our Global Fixed Income Strategy team has argued that government debt in the European "periphery" should be treated more like corporate credit rather than sovereign debt.11 Faster economic growth leads to fewer worries about debt sustainability and increased risk-taking behavior by investors, both of which lead to reduced credit risk premiums and eventually, stronger growth. In other words, think of Italian BTPs as a BBB-rated corporate bond rather than a "risk-free" Euro Area government bond. So as long as the Italian economy continues to lose momentum, an underweight stance on Italian government bonds is justified. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Repubblica, "Il discorso di Conte in Senato, la versione integrale," dated June 6, 2018, available at repubblica.it. 3 Conte's exact quote was "the objective is the 'flat tax,' that is a tax reform characterized by the introduction of rates that are fixed, with a system of deductions that can guarantee that the tax code remains progressive." This is our own translation from Italian and therefore we may be missing something. However, a "flat tax" that has a number of different rates and that remains progressive is, by definition, not a flat tax. 4 In fact, the speech could be read with an eye towards some genuine supply-side reforms, particularly in bringing the country's youth into the labor force, improving governance, reforming the judiciary, cracking down on corruption and privileges of the political class, and generally de-bureaucratizing Italy. If successful, these would all be welcome reforms. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "After Greece," July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The game derives its name from a test of manhood by which two drivers drive towards each other on a collision course, preferably behind the wheel of a 1950s American muscle car. Whoever swerves loses. Whoever keeps driving, wins and gets the girl. 7 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy's 'Line In The Sand,'" dated May 31, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The acronym stands for Nomenclature des Unités Statistiques. 10 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Italy Vs. Brussel: Who's Right?" dated May 24, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?" dated May 22, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights North Korea is a geopolitical opportunity more than a risk to markets - the key regional risk comes from U.S.-China tensions; China's geopolitical rise, and the fear of a U.S. attack on North Korea, is driving the two Koreas together; The U.S. can accept something less than complete denuclearization - such as inspections and a missile freeze; The path of peace and eventual unification removes the risk of disruption to the global economy and is positive for South Korea's currency and certain assets. Feature We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy have been optimists about the diplomatic tack in North Korea since September 2017.1 Our optimism stands in stark contrast to our pessimism about U.S.-China relations. U.S.-China trade tensions will create an ongoing headwind for assets linked to the status quo of Sino-American engagement (Chart 1). U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to move forward with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods - and his decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on China and others - lends credence to our long-held view that globalization has peaked.2 The seal on protectionism has been broken by the country known as the guarantor of free trade (Chart 2). Chart 1Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Chart 2The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism Trade tensions are also spilling out into strategic areas of disagreement, as we expected.3 This week, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned China that the U.S. will maintain a "steady drumbeat" of freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea (Diagram 1). The goal is to reject China's claims of sovereignty over the sea and the rocks and reefs within it.4 The potential for a geopolitical incident or "Black Swan" event to occur in the South China Sea - or even the Taiwan Strait - is high. Diagram 1The U.S. Is Pushing Back Against China's Maritime-Territorial Claims Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America For investors, the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization" are much more relevant than what happens on the Korean peninsula - as long as the peninsula does not become the central battleground between the two great powers in a replay of the devastating 1950-53 war. In this report we argue that it will not. The current round of diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea is likely to bear fruit in a diplomatic settlement of some kind, even a peace treaty, by 2020.5 Investors should see North Korea as a geopolitical opportunity rather than a geopolitical risk. While North Korea can still contribute to volatility, we recommend investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan as the chief sources of market-relevant geopolitical risk in this region going forward. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. China: Hiding In Plain Sight The current diplomatic effort in the Koreas has a powerful tailwind behind it: the rise of China. China's re-emergence simply cannot be overstated. It is on track to reclaim its historic role as the world's largest economy (Chart 3A) and is developing naval, air, space and cyber-space capabilities that are rapidly eroding the U.S.'s military supremacy (Chart 3B). The rise of China vis-à-vis the U.S. is the single biggest difference between today's attempts to resolve the Korean issue and previous attempts in the 1990s and 2000s. China is reaching a critical mass that is changing the behavior of the states around it (Chart 4). Chart 3AChina's Economic Revival: ##br##The Long View Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 3BChina's Comprehensive ##br##Geopolitical Power Rising China's Comprehensive Geopolitical Power Rising China's Comprehensive Geopolitical Power Rising Chart 4EM Economic ##br##Reliance On China EM Economic Reliance On China EM Economic Reliance On China As a result, a number of anomalies are occurring throughout the region: The United States is trying to revive its Pacific presence, yet cannot decide how: From 2010-16, the U.S. sought a historic deal with Iran that would enable it to wash its hands of the Middle East and "pivot to Asia." The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was envisioned as an advanced trade deal - excluding China - that would integrate the Pacific Rim economies under a new trade framework; China would have to reform its economy in order to join. Under President Trump, however, the U.S. canceled the TPP and revoked the Iranian deal,6 while maintaining the pivot to Asia through "hard power" tactics. The Washington establishment is unified in its desire to toughen policy on China, but it is divided about how to do so - a sign of the enormity of the challenge. Japan is taking drastic, 1930s-style measures to reflate its economy, which is necessary to revive its overall strategic capability. Military spending is on the rise (Chart 5). Symbolically, the pacifist Article Nine in the post-WWII constitution may be revised next year.7 Taiwan is distancing itself from China, with Beijing-skeptic candidates dominating every level of government since the 2014 and 2016 elections. The Taiwanese increasingly see themselves as exclusively Taiwanese, not also Chinese (Chart 6) - making Taiwan a potential source of "Black Swan" events.8 Chart 5Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Chart 6Majority Of Taiwanese Are Exclusively Taiwanese Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Southeast Asian states are vacillating. Filipinos and South Koreans recently voted against confrontation with China while Malaysians have voted against excessive Chinese influence; Thailand's junta has warmed up to Beijing while Myanmar's junta has sought some distance. The common thread is the desire to do something about China.9 India, long known for its independent foreign policy and "non-aligned" status in the Cold War, has begun courting deeper relationships with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, for fear of China. Even Russia, one of Beijing's closest partners, is engaged in talks with Japan that could result in a peace treaty, allowing these two to bury the hatchet and create economic and strategic options outside of China's control.10 Australia - the country with the most favorable view of China in the West (Chart 7) - is in the midst of an internal crisis over China that has recently broken out into a direct diplomatic spat resulting in Beijing imposing discrete economic sanctions. It goes without saying that China's rise is being felt with extreme sensitivity on the Korean peninsula. Korean kingdoms have historically struggled either to maintain their independence from China or to avoid becoming the battleground in China's conflicts with outside powers. North Korea has taken this dependency to the extreme. Trade data shows that its links to China have grown substantially since the Global Financial Crisis. China's stimulus-fueled economic boom increased commodity imports, while international sanctions cut off Pyongyang's access to most other foreign capital. The strategic vulnerability is revealed both before and after China's enforcement of sanctions in 2017 (Chart 8).11 Chart 7Australia And Russia Are China's Best Friends Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 8North Korea's Over-Reliance On China North Korea's Over-Reliance On China North Korea's Over-Reliance On China Chinese President Xi Jinping's ascendancy - marked by his strict personal control of the ruling party and scrapping of term limits - has reinforced the North's vulnerability. Like his predecessor Jiang Zemin (1992-2004), Xi represents a faction in the Communist Party of China that sees Pyongyang as more of a liability than an asset. North Korea's anxiety can be marked by Kim Jong Un's attempts to reduce the "pro-China" faction within the North Korean state. For instance, he has ordered the execution of his uncle, Jang Song Taek, who was close to Beijing, and his half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, who lived in Macao and was China's "alternative" to Kim.12 In effect, the next few years offer what is probably North Korea's last chance to create some new strategic options with South Korea and the rest of the world if it is to avoid being a mere vassal state for the coming centuries. Pyongyang's chief security threat is the United States and it has pursued a nuclear deterrent for decades in order to be able to negotiate with the U.S. for regime survival. The deterrent gives the North some independence, but normalizing ties with South Korea and the U.S. would enable the North to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on China. South Korea is also fearful that the coming decades will bring a Chinese empire that effectively swallows North Korea and surrounds Seoul. Eventually the North must liberalize and industrialize its economy: will South Korea have a part in this process, or will China take it all? South Korean President Moon Jae-in wishes to reduce the risk of war prompted by North Korea's conflict with the United States, but he also wishes to gain leverage over the North so that China does not absorb its economy. In short, the historic re-emergence of China is encouraging Korean integration, as the two Korean states begin to reconsider their relationship and national needs in the face of global "multipolarity" and great power competition.13 The strategic logic is thus pushing toward Korean unification, even if unification is in practice a long way away. A unified Korean peninsula would rise toward the level of Japan in comprehensive geopolitical power (see Chart 3B above). With a population of 75 million, South Korean technological prowess, and at least nuclear potential (if not outright capability), the Koreas would be better prepared to defend their interests against China and other neighbors than they are separately. In a multipolar world, strength in numbers has an appealing strategic logic. Unification, however, will be extremely costly for the ruling elites of both North and South Korea, possibly prohibitive. It is not within our five-year forecast horizon. Instead, economic engagement will be the main focus, a necessary but not sufficient step toward unification. Bottom Line: China's rise, as it pertains to Korea, is underestimated by investors. It is putting pressure on the two Koreas to cooperate, create some solidarity, and expand their economic and strategic options over the long run. It is also putting pressure on the U.S. to encourage this process and try to remove or reduce the nuclear threat through economic engagement rather than war. How Is "Moonshine" Different From "Sunshine"? South Korean President Moon Jae-in won a sweeping victory in the election of May 2017 on a promise to renew South Korea's engagement with the North. His agenda has been nicknamed "Moonshine policy."14 Will Moonshine actually work? In addition to China's rise, several of today's political trends are supportive of a diplomatic settlement: North Korean leadership change: Power succession and consolidation: Kim is not the rash and inexperienced youth that many feared upon his coming to power in 2011. Instead he has consolidated power within the regime and waged high-stakes international negotiations with the U.S. and China. He is also overseeing a generational change in the upper ranks of the party and state. Such a change is necessary if North Korea is ever to revamp its relations with the world.15 Economic reform: In March 2013, not long after coming to power, Kim signaled a shift in national policy. The North Korean governing philosophy under his father was called juche, or "self-reliance," and had a heavy emphasis on putting the military first. But Kim has promised to develop the economy alongside nuclear weapons, creating a governing philosophy known as byungjin, or "parallel development."16 There is substantial evidence of marketization in North Korea, which was formally allowed in 2003 but has been growing faster since the Global Financial Crisis and the country's failed currency reforms at that time. Official statistics, such as they are, do not capture this organic and informal market process (Chart 9). Farmers have been allowed to keep some of their profits; official and unofficial marketplaces have cropped up; informal banking is developing; mobile phones and televisions are more prevalent.17 Foreign policy and strategic deterrence: Kim has demonstrated to the world that his country's nuclear and missile capabilities are more advanced than previously thought (Diagram 2). The American defense and intelligence establishment have been forced, during Kim's rapid phase of tests in 2016-17, to revise upward their expectations of the North's ability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear weapon. This creates a new environment in which the U.S. can no longer ignore North Korea. Yet Kim has also proven himself to be a rational actor by discontinuing missile tests when tensions approached a boil in late 2017 and offering an olive branch to the South Koreans and Americans in early 2018.18 Chart 9North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level Diagram 2North Korea's Proven Missile Reach Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America American leadership change: Pivot to Asia: The United States has attempted to "rebalance" its strategic posture by reducing its commitment to the Middle East and "pivoting" to East Asia. This is to confront the China challenge. President Trump's North Korea and China policies are aggressive, despite the fact that Trump is also ramping up pressure on Iran.19 International sanctions tightened: The U.S. has responded to North Korea's nuclear and missile advances by redoubling the international sanctions regime (Chart 10). A credible military threat: The Trump administration has also established a "credible threat" through its use of military drills, aircraft carrier deployments in the region, and Trump's hawkish speeches to the United Nations General Assembly and South Korean National Assembly. The demonstration that the military option is "on the table" is reminiscent of the Iranian nuclear negotiations from 2011-15 (and those to come) (Chart 11).20 Trump's maneuvering room: Few people doubt the current U.S. president's willingness to do something unpredictable, "out of the box," or even "crazy," such as preemptively attacking North Korea, or, on the other hand, withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea (Trump has often expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of U.S. troop commitments). For better or worse, the U.S. has much greater room for maneuver than it used to in making a deal with North Korea. Chart 10U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose Chart 11U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters Chinese leadership change: Xi's irritation with Kim: President Xi Jinping wants to create a Chinese sphere of influence in the region, which includes depriving the U.S. of a reason to bulk up its Asia Pacific presence. However, North Korea's threats and provocations give the U.S. good reason to build up its military assets, including missile defense.21 Pyongyang as an obstacle to Chinese power projection: Xi also wants to focus China's military and strategic development toward new dimensions of defense (sea, air, space, cyber) and improve China's ability to project power globally. But the potential for a crisis in North Korea - whether regime collapse or American invasion - ties China down to a 1950s-style military posture with a heavy focus on its army in the northeast. China enforces sanctions on the North: The above factors, combined with President Trump's sanctions on Chinese companies for dealing with the North, have prompted China to change its policy toward North Korea. China has been enforcing stringent sanctions since mid-2017 (Chart 12). China benefits from North Korean economic opening: China also has an interest in North Korea's economic opening - it has pioneered this process and has also clearly benefited from the recent opening of formerly closed neighboring states like Myanmar and Cambodia (Chart 13). China wants to remain the biggest player in the North's economy as it opens further. China seeks leverage over South Korea: Direct trade and infrastructure links to South Korea will also increase China's leverage over the South. Already President Moon has given China assurances of stopping U.S. missile defense deployments in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions against South Korean companies.22 Xi Jinping is not going anywhere: Xi has consolidated power and removed limits on his term in office, so China's policy shift toward the Koreas cannot be assumed to be easily reversible. Chart 12Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Chart 13China Gains When Neighbors Open Up China Gains When Neighbors Open Up China Gains When Neighbors Open Up South Korean leadership change: The fall of the right-wing: The right-of-center parties and politicians in South Korea have suffered a cyclical drop in support. First, their hawkish policies since 2008 failed to prevent North Korea's belligerence. Second, former President Park Geun-hye was impeached and removed from office in early 2017 due to scandals that marred the right wing's popular standing. The legislative elections of 2016 and the post-impeachment presidential election of 2017 show that the major center-left party (the Minjoo Party) has made a big comeback. Local elections to be held on June 13, 2018 - the day after the planned Trump-Kim summit in Singapore - are likely to reinforce this trend (Chart 14 A&B). Thus the Moon administration is benefiting from a popular tailwind that will support its dovish approach to the North and could last for several years (Chart 15). The next election, for the legislature, is not until April 15, 2020, giving Moon time to implement his policies. Fear of abandonment: President Trump's policies threaten South Korea with the risk of preemptive war or American abandonment, making engagement with the North all the more necessary. Chart 14ASouth Korea's Right-Wing Faltered In 2016... Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 14B... And Left-Wing Will Likely Win In 2018 Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 15Ruling Minjoo Party Has Plenty Of Momentum Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America The only other significant players are Russia and Japan, neither of which is willing or able to derail a diplomatic process pursued by both Koreas and the U.S. and China.23 Critically, this peace process is being driven by constraints, not preferences. True, Xi Jinping may be irritated by Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump may yearn for a Nobel peace prize. But the underlying factors are the following constraints on these policymakers: North Korea's regime cannot allow foreign domination, whether through war or economics; The U.S. regime cannot allow its homeland to be attacked by North Korea or its regional presence to be eliminated; China's regime cannot allow a Syria-style influx of North Korean refugees into China's Rust-Belt northeast or an American occupation of North Korea; South Korea's regime cannot allow anyone to trigger a war in which Seoul will be the first to be decimated. In each case, these states are bumping up against their constraints, such that the "Moonshine" diplomatic initiative is supported from all angles. Not only are the current U.S. and North Korean leaders planning to meet for the first time in the history, to build on the Moon-Kim summits, but they have already overcome a moment of cold feet that nearly quashed the June 12 summit.24 If the summit falls through, another summit will be scheduled; such is the underlying pressure of the above constraints. South Korean opinion polls demonstrate the pent-up demand for diplomacy that brought Moon and the Minjoo Party to power. The number of South Koreans who "trust" North Korea to denuclearize and pursue peace has shot up from 15% to 65% in recent polls (Chart 16A). Chart 16ASouth Koreans More Trusting Toward North... Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 16B... Yet Doubt Full Denuclearization Will Occur Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 17South Koreans Want Unification... Eventually Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Of course, "denuclearization" is a slippery term - about 64% of South Koreans doubt that the North will really give up its nuclear program. And yet even that number has fallen from 90% at the beginning of this year (Chart 16B). These numbers are volatile but reveal a deeply held public preference for some kind of deal that removes the threat of armed conflict. Indeed, 78% of South Koreans say they ultimately want not only peace but unification with the North (Chart 17). Subjectively, we think the probability of some kind of diplomatic settlement is 95% and the probability of war 5%. The next question is what kind of a settlement will it be? Bottom Line: The current diplomatic track on the Korean peninsula has greater potential than the previous two diplomatic pushes in 2000 and 2007. The different powers remain constrained by the lack of palatable or tolerable options other than diplomacy, yet China's rise and North Korea's missile capabilities have made the status quo unacceptable. Therefore we expect some kind of settlement that reduces tensions and allows for economic engagement. The U.S. Can Accept Less Than Full Denuclearization What about the critical issue of North Korea's strategic standoff with the United States? Will North Korea give up its nuclear program? Can the U.S. accept a deal that does not include complete and verifiable denuclearization? Subjectively, we would put full denuclearization at a 15% probability. It is three times more likely than a war (5% chance), but five times less likely than a lesser settlement (80% chance). The question boils down to whether the United States is capable of a preemptive military strike on North Korea that denies it the ability to inflict devastating casualties on South Korea. Such a strike would require the U.S. to use numerous tactical nuclear weapons on North Korean nuclear and chemical sites as well as artillery units deeply embedded in the hills overlooking Seoul.25 If the U.S. is believed capable of such an attack, then the North will need to retain some of its nuclear deterrent so that it can deter the U.S. from such an attack directly, by threatening U.S. cities. If the U.S. is not believed capable, then the North can afford to trade away its nuclear program and rely on its conventional deterrent of decimating Seoul as its chief security guarantee. Our assessment is that the U.S. is broadly capable of executing such an attack, however little it intends to do so. The U.S. would need to be politically willing to accept the devastation of Seoul, nuclear fallout over Japan, and potentially a second war with China (which might intervene more readily this time than in 1950). This is extremely unlikely to say the least. But given President Trump's hawkishness and the drastic vacillations of today's polarized U.S. public opinion and foreign policy, North Korea cannot gamble that the U.S. would under no circumstances, ever, adopt such a course of action. In other words, North Korea has developed a nuclear deterrent not to trade it away for concessions but to maintain it at some level. National Security Adviser John Bolton said it all in one word: Libya. Libyan President Mohammar Qaddafi unilaterally abandoned his country's nuclear program in 2003, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, to improve relations with the West. This worked until the Arab Spring, when Qaddafi was brutalized and executed after his regime collapsed under pressure of popular rebellion and a NATO bombing campaign. NATO struck his personal convoy, leaving him exposed to rebel militias. In other words, North Korea could be fully compliant and yet the U.S. could betray it. Regime change would be more likely for the U.S. to pursue if the North did not have a nuclear deterrent. In the negotiations, even an offer of total U.S. troop withdrawal from South Korea for denuclearization - which is extremely unlikely - probably cannot convince Kim Jong Un of his personal safety and his regime's security in an era of Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2011, Ukraine 2014, and "Zero Dark Thirty."26 Finally, if it is true that North Korea also fears Chinese domination over the long run, then maintaining a nuclear deterrent is all the more important to secure the regime's independence, as it also constrains China. Thus we highly doubt that Pyongyang will fully, verifiably, and irreversibly denuclearize. We reserve a 15% chance simply because its ability to strike Seoul with artillery does give it greater leverage than Libya or other states that faced U.S.-imposed regime change. This fact combined with the possibility of an irresistible package of economic and political benefits from the Americans could conceivably cause the North to change course dramatically. But this is not our baseline case. More likely, Pyongyang can offer, and Washington can accept, mothballing reactors, holding nuclear inspections, freezing the ballistic missile program, and committing to a non-belligerent foreign policy, along with gradual normalization of diplomatic and economic relations. Washington can accept a sub-optimal deal because such a deal preserves the raison d'être for U.S. forces in Korea, yet reduces the threat to the homeland and helps dilute China's influence on the peninsula. As for the 5% chance of war, even if Pyongyang eschews any and all denuclearization, the U.S. may still opt for containment rather than war.27 Bottom Line: The U.S. can settle for "containment" against North Korea, whereas North Korea probably cannot give up its rudimentary nuclear deterrent given its twin fears of American invasion or Chinese domination. The U.S. gains from normalizing relations with the North, given that it enables North Korea to diversify its foreign policy away from China and yet Washington retains its overwhelming nuclear preemptive strike capability in the event that an attack is deemed imminent. North Korea Is The Most Promising Pariah State It is useful to remember how badly communism has served North Koreans relative to their capitalist neighbors. Chart 18 explains the unsustainability of the North's system and the impetus to change. At the same time, South Korea's development path suggests that North Korea has economic potential. There is considerable room to increase basic capital stock - roads, buildings, and basic equipment, etc. - even assuming that North Korea's pace of liberalization prevents the same kind of economic boom that fully capitalist South Korea witnessed in the second half of the twentieth century (Chart 19). Won't liberalizing the economy fatally undermine Kim's totalitarian regime? History teaches otherwise. The reform of communist East Asian regimes like China (1978) and Vietnam (1986) shows that partial liberalization can be pursued without fatally undermining the regime, as long as the regime is willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power, i.e. use domestic security and intelligence forces to suppress opposition and dissent. Communist states in other parts of the world - such as Cuba - also attest to this fact. This is not to say that liberalization poses no threat to Pyongyang. First, liberalization itself can lead to economic consequences, like inflation, that trigger instability, as China experienced in the 1980s. Second, successful liberalization increases household wealth, which can result in growing demand for civil rights and political participation, as occurred under South Korea's right-wing military dictatorship in the 1970s-80s, and as will eventually occur even in China.28 Still, North Korea today is faced with the same predicament that Iran, Myanmar, Cambodia, Cuba, and Zimbabwe face. All of them are trying gingerly to open up their economies, as their sclerotic regimes face a greater threat of social instability from economic opportunity costs than from popular political opposition. They are changing not a moment too soon. Global labor force, trade, and productivity have all slowed in recent decades, marking a contrast to the exuberant external environment that the emerging and frontier markets faced when opening their economies in the late twentieth century (Chart 20). They may still have a cheap labor advantage but they will struggle to develop as rapidly with global potential growth falling. Chart 18A Reason To Reform And Open Up A Reason To Reform And Open Up A Reason To Reform And Open Up Chart 19North Korea Could Follow This Path Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 20North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea is better situated than any of these late-bloomers. Its immediate neighbors, South Korea, China, and Japan, each sport current account surpluses and positive international investment positions (Chart 21), giving the North a ready pool of capital to tap as it opens its doors. The global search for yield persists more or less (Chart 22), motivating investors to explore the riskiest and worst-governed countries, and yet North Korea sits in a prosperous corner of the world. South Korean investors can envision high returns from basic productivity-enhancing investments in the North, while accepting that unification and its immense fiscal costs are still a long way away. Chart 21Ample Sources Of Investment For North Korea Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 22North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield This means that North Korea - if it calms its quarrels with the West - will have alternatives to China's outward investment push (Chart 23), albeit with China remaining the biggest player. North Korea is not a large enough economy to have a major global impact when it opens up, but it is big enough to affect South Korea. It will make available a pool of cheap labor for a country that is otherwise suffering from the worst of low fertility and a shrinking workforce (Chart 24). The North's reserves of thermal coal, which are comparable to Indonesia's (Chart 25), and other commodities, are also likely to be exploited given that South Korea and its neighbors are already scouring the globe for resource plays. Chart 23China's Belt And Road Initiative China's Belt And Road Initiative China's Belt And Road Initiative Chart 24Reunification Would Increase Labor Force Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 25North Korea Has Sizable Coal Reserves Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America In reality, of course, it is the North's overexposure to commodities that is putting pressure on the regime to reform (in addition to international sanctions). China's economy is transitioning to a less resource-intensive model, putting the North's coal and metals exports in long-term jeopardy. The North lacks capital to industrialize and develop a manufacturing sector, and it risks missing out on the new wave of industrialization that is rewarding neighbors like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar. The slowdown in global trade and globalization threatens to close the window of opportunity for the North. Bottom Line: Oppressive communist regimes have proved capable of selectively opening up to outside trade and investment while maintaining the regime. North Korea is attempting to create a favorable foreign policy environment to take its nascent economic reforms further. The global search for yield, especially by Northeast Asian states, may still offer an opportunity to attract capital. China's economic transition adds a sense of urgency, given North Korea's need to diversify. Investment Conclusions North Korea is small, but independent, and it is pivoting to South Korea and the United States to increase its strategic and economic options. China has an interest in letting this happen, but will try to remain the dominant power. Almost every peace treaty or major diplomatic settlement in human history has involved a series of dramatic ups and downs in the lead-up to the agreement. Diplomatic volatility should increase the closer the different parties get to an agreement, due to the fears and hesitations of losing out in the final compromise. Investors should stay focused on the structural factors. North Korea is more of a geopolitical opportunity than a geopolitical risk for markets today. War is especially unlikely over 2018-19. Hence the North Korean issue is unlikely to disrupt the global economy or threaten a bullish global equity view over this time period. That would be up to other factors. Only if the new round of diplomacy completely and utterly collapses will the tail-risk of war reemerge. U.S.-China tensions, North Korea's nuclear program, and Trump's re-election bid could conceivably lead to a breakdown of diplomacy by 2020. The Trump administration would then return to its "maximum pressure" campaign and the probability of military strikes would rise. However, we put a low probability on such a breakdown occurring and would argue that the grave implications should be seen as a strong constraint driving the different parties to cut a deal. Assuming diplomacy succeeds, it should provide a small tailwind for South Korea's currency and risk assets, which at the moment face a negative environment due to slowing global growth, Chinese reforms, and a strengthening U.S. dollar. First, the end-game itself - Korean unification - is implicitly a positive for removing the risk and uncertainty of conflict and increasing Korea's potential GDP. Germany's unification remains the best analogy, for better or worse. German unification led to a brief decline in total factor productivity, but also a multi-year rally in equities, the deutschmark, and a bullish curve-steepening relative to world markets (Chart 26A). Chart 26AGermany Benefited From Reunification... Germany Benefited From Reunification... Germany Benefited From Reunification... Chart 26B...South Korea Is Not There Yet ...South Korea Is Not There Yet ...South Korea Is Not There Yet South Korea is not yet at the cusp of unification, so the analogy with German assets is premature, but it is not a foregone conclusion that South Korea will suffer as it embarks on the path toward unification. Of course, this year's diplomatic progress has coincided with renewed EM financial turmoil that has clouded any benefits from improved North-South relations (Chart 26 B). Moreover, the burden of unification will be immense given that North Korea is much larger and poorer relative to the South than East Germany was to West Germany, and markets will have to price in this burden by expecting larger South Korean budget deficits in future. Still, we would expect KRW/USD to benefit on the margin, especially given Korea's simultaneous promise to the Trump administration not to engage in competitive devaluation. Second, certain Korean sectors are poised to benefit from integration with the North. Looking at how the different sectors have performed before and after the April 27 inter-Korean summit, relative to their EM counterparts, reveals that industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms are the relative winners (Chart 27).29 Chart 27Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Chart 28AReal Estate Near The DMZ... Real Estate Near The DMZ... Real Estate Near The DMZ... Chart 28B...Is Optimistic Once Again ...Is Optimistic Once Again ...Is Optimistic Once Again Third, the signal from real estate along the DMZ is loud and clear. Paju is known as the best proxy for improved Korean relations and transaction volumes have spiked since Moon and Kim met on April 27 and declared an end to the Korean War. The move is particularly notable when contrasted with the rest of Gyeonggi province, which is not inherently a "unification" play (Chart 28A & 28B). Similar moves happened in Paju real estate around the time of the first and second inter-Korean summits in 2000 and 2007, but as this report has shown, there is more reason to be optimistic today. This example speaks to the many opportunities for specialized funds to generate returns as development projects get underway. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Mattis criticized China's militarization of the South China Sea rocks at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of violating his word on this matter. He also criticized China's Belt and Road Initiative. The same week, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie told a reporter that "the United States military has had a lot of experience in the Western Pacific, taking down small islands," in a thinly veiled hint to China's South China Sea activity. Finally, a report surfaced suggesting that the U.S. is considering sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait. Please see Ben Westcott, "US plans 'steady drumbeat' of exercises in South China Sea: Mattis," CNN, May 31, 2018, available at www.cnn.com; Laignee Barron, "Pentagon Official Says U.S. Can 'Take Down' Man-Made Islands Like Those in the South China Sea," Time, June 1, 2018, available at time.com; "Exclusive: At delicate moment, U.S. weighs warship passage through Taiwan Strait," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Satellite imagery reveals that international sanctions have hindered manufacturing development and increased reliance on trade with China. Please see Yong Suk Lee, "International Isolation and Regional Inequality: Evidence from Sanctions on North Korea," Stanford University, Center on Global Poverty and Development, Working Paper 575 (October 2016), available at globalpoverty.stanford.edu. 12 North Korea's disagreements with China have given rise to a host of academic articles and studies in recent years. For an overview please see Philip Wen and Christian Shepherd, " 'Lips and teeth' no more as China's ties with North Korea fray," Reuters, September 8, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. See also Sebastian Harnisch, "The life and near-death of an alliance: China, North Korea and autocratic military cooperation," Heidelberg University, WISC Conference, Taipei, April 2017; and Weiqi Zhang, "Neither friend nor big brother: China's role in North Korean foreign policy strategy," Palgrave Communications 4:16 (2018), available at www.nature.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The term is a pun on the original "Sunshine" engagement policy of Moon's predecessors Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. President Kim's engagement attempt culminated in the first Inter-Korean summit in 2000, but was ultimately derailed by a hawkish turn in U.S. and North Korean policies and the inclusion of North Korea among the "Axis of Evil" following the 9/11 attacks. "Sunshine policy" revived again under President Roh Moo-hyun, leading to the second Inter-Korean summit in 2007. Roh's protégé, Moon, is now reviving the policy. Unfortunately, "moonshine" is saddled with the connotation of fraud and/or poison! 15 The major challenge to his rule came in late 2013 but he nipped it in the bud by executing his uncle Jang Song Taek and purging Jang's faction. He had his half-brother Kim Jong Nam assassinated in Malaysia in 2017. He promoted his sister, Kim Yeo-jong, to deputy chief of the Propaganda Department in the Korean Worker's Party. Kim has taken steps to empower the State Affairs Commission (cabinet), the Korean Worker's Party, and the legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly, vis-à-vis the long-dominant military. He has also reshuffled the military extensively, prior to a significant reshuffle this week that signaled a willingness to compromise with the Americans. See Thomas Fingar et al, "Analyzing The Structure And Performance Of Kim Jong-un's Regime," Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University, June 2017, available at fsi.stanford.edu; and Hyonhee Shin, "North Korea's Three New Military Leaders Are Loyal To Kim, Not Policies," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 16 William Brown, "Is 'Byungjin' Working? A Look at North Korea's Money," The Peninsula, Korea Economic Institute of America, September 7, 2016, available at keia.org. 17 Please see Andrei Lankov, "The Resurgence of a Market Economy in North Korea," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2016, available at carnegieendowment.org; Sunchul Choi and Mark A. Myers, "Marketization in North Korea," United States Department of Agriculture, Global Agricultural Information Network Report KS1545, December 9, 2015, available at www.fas.usda.gov. 18 This diplomacy also reinforces Kim's reformist bent. In April 2017 he appointed Ri Su-yong, a close ally, to oversee foreign relations, and resurrected the Foreign Relations Committee within the country's legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly. See Fingar in footnote 15. 19 Please see footnote 6 above. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Presidents Moon and Xi agreed to improve bilateral relations, with China removing economic sanctions, on the basis of South Korea promising the "Three No's" - no additional THAAD deployments, no expansion of U.S. missile defense, and no trilateral military alliance with Japan and the U.S. Please see Park Byong-su, "South Korea's "three no's" announcement key to restoring relations with China," Hankyoreh, dated November 2, 2017, available at english.hani.co.kr. 23 Indeed, Russia shares China's desire to prevent North Korea from provoking the U.S. into a greater Pacific military presence, while Japan shares the American desire to reduce the North Korean nuclear and military threat to its homeland. 24 North Korea publicly aired misgivings about the upcoming Trump-Kim summit after the new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, implied that the administration would seek "the Libya model" (unilateral and total nuclear disarmament and dismantlement by North Korea) in its negotiations. North Korea criticized Bolton, a war-hawk who has a negative history with North Korea going back to the George W. Bush administration, putting the summit in jeopardy. The North was also angry about the U.S. and South Korean decision to proceed with annual military exercises ahead of the summit. Further, Chinese President Xi Jinping may have urged Kim Jong Un to tread more carefully, or cancel the summit, during a second meeting between these two presidents in early May. The White House rebuked Bolton's comments, saying the negotiations would follow "the Trump model." 25 Please see Christopher Woolf, "The only effective arms against North Korea's missile bunkers are nuclear weapons, says a top war planner," Public Radio International, August 10, 2017, available at www.pri.org; and Uri Friedman, "North Korea: The Military Options," The Atlantic, dated May 17, 2017, available at www.theatlantic.om. 26 Iraq set a precedent for U.S. preemptive invasion; Syria was a fellow nuclear aspirant and member of the Axis of Evil that suffered both Israeli strikes against its nuclear facilities and economic and political collapse due to mismanagement and international isolation; Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum as a guarantee of its security only to suffer Russian invasion in 2014; and "Zero Dark Thirty" refers to the U.S. Seal Team Six covert raid into the heart of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. 27 Our own analysis of the "bloody nose" military strike option, which is more likely than a full-blown war but very difficult to prevent from escalating, can be found in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Korea: A Comeback For Consumer Stocks?" June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict

Highlights Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Year Of Living Dangerously The Year Of Living Dangerously The Year Of Living Dangerously The latter half of May was a wild wide for global financial markets, which had finally shown signs of healing after the VIX shock from earlier in the year. The cause this time was Italian political turmoil as the populist 5-Star Movement/League coalition attempted to form a government full of fiscal largesse, sprinkled with a hint of euroskepticism. Investors got spooked into thinking that a 2011-style euro "redenomination" (i.e. breakup) risk premium might once again need to be priced into Peripheral government bond yields. The rout in Italian BTPs felt like a classic sovereign debt crisis, emerging markets style. There were even reports of Italian banks providing no price quotes for Italian debt on electronic trading platforms - the 21st Century version of dealers "not answering their phones" during a crisis. All that was missing was an IMF delegation heading to Rome with checkbook in hand. The announcement late last week that the coalition would get another shot at forming a government, rather than throwing Italy into fresh elections that could turn into a referendum on euro membership, restored order to Italian financial markets. The meltdown in Italian yields was almost as rapid as the melt-up, with the 2-year BTP yield ending last week around 1%, almost two full percentage points lower than the peak in yields seen just a few days earlier, but still much higher than the sub-zero yields seen as recently as May 15th. We made a timely decision to cut our recommended stance on Italian debt to underweight two weeks and we are maintaining that call despite the respite from the political turmoil.1 (NOTE: we are putting out a joint Special Report next week with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy on June 13th, a day later than our usual Tuesday publishing slot, which will discuss the political outlook for Peripheral Europe and what it potentially means for their bond markets). Our more pessimistic view on Italian bonds was based on our assessment that Italian growth was slowing and would continue to do so. For a country like Italy with a large debt stock and structurally low growth, cyclical downturns always lead to increased worries about debt sustainability. Coming at a time when the ECB is looking to begin the long process of exiting its hyper-easy policies, the growth and monetary backdrop was also becoming more challenging for Italian government bonds. The same thing can be said for the rest of the world. The rapid coordinated acceleration in global growth seen in 2017 has clearly peaked, as has the pace of central bank asset purchases that helped support that recovery through low bond yields (Chart of the Week). The growth convergence has turned into a divergence between growth in the still-strong U.S. and most other major economies. This poses a new threat to financial markets - a rising U.S. dollar - which, combined with some cooling of global growth, is already triggering underperformance of emerging market assets. So after the tumultuous market price action of the past few weeks, we think the most critical potential impact on the direction of bond yields, and our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, can be boiled down to two big questions. Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? NO. The U.S. economy continues to exhibit impressive resilience of late, even as the rest of the world has seen some softening in growth. The Payrolls report for May released last Friday showed another sturdy gain of 223,000 jobs, with upward revisions of 15,000 to the prior two months. This pushed the unemployment rate to 3.8% - the lowest level since April 2000 - while boosting the annual growth in Average Hourly Earnings up to 2.7% (Chart 2). The overall employment/population ratio also inched higher. Both wage growth and the employment/population ratio are well below the peaks seen in the past two business cycles, even with similarly low levels of unemployment. During those cycles, the Fed was forced to raise the funds rate to restrictive levels to cool growth to rein in overshooting inflation. The real fed funds rate was consistently above equilibrium measures like the Williams-Laubach "r-star" (bottom panel), which eventually crimped growth and led to a recession in both cases. In the current cycle, wage inflation is struggling to reach 3% and core PCE inflation at 1.8% has still not returned back to the Fed's 2% target. There is no need for the Fed to push harder on the brakes by raising rates faster than inflation is accelerating and pushing the real rate above r-star. If a growing economy continues to absorb labor market slack, however, the Fed could be chasing a higher level of r-star to prevent inflation from continuing to accelerate (bottom panel). Looking ahead, it does look like the Fed will continue to play a bit of catch-up to an accelerating U.S. economy. Leading economic indicators (both from the OECD and Conference Board), as well as our forward-looking models for employment and capital spending, all point to faster growth in the next couple of quarters (Chart 3). This will only support the case for the Fed to continue with its current rate "measured" pace of one rate hike per quarter over the next year. Chart 2Labor Market Tightening##BR##Leads To Fed Tightening Labor Market Tightening Leads To Fed Tightening Labor Market Tightening Leads To Fed Tightening Chart 3U.S. Growth Still##BR##In Good Shape U.S. Growth Still In Good Shape U.S. Growth Still In Good Shape With the U.S. dollar now reconnecting to the widening interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other major economies, there is a risk that the implied tightening of monetary conditions from a higher greenback could limit the need for the Fed to continue with its rate hike plans. Yet at the moment, the trade-weighted dollar is still not accelerating on a year-over-year basis, in contrast to the +15% appreciation seen during the 2014/15 dollar bull run (Chart 4). At the peak of that episode, net exports were a drag on real GDP growth of -1% and headline CPI inflation hit 0% (aided by collapsing oil prices). While an appreciation of that magnitude is unlikely, it would still take a much larger increase in the dollar to meaningfully dent growth in a way that could cause the Fed to pause on the rate hikes. A bigger dollar rally could also raise financial instability, primarily by hitting emerging markets where currency weakness versus the dollar would trigger tighter monetary policy and slower growth. That is certainly a risk for the Fed to consider. Yet given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy today, the Fed would only react to any turmoil in emerging markets if it meaningfully impacted U.S. financial markets, but not before then. While the Fed is still likely to continue on its rate hike path over the rest of 2018, the market has largely discounted that outcome - even after the late May decline in U.S. interest rates on the back of Italy-fueled risk-aversion (Chart 5). The market is still not completely priced to the Fed's interest rate projections over the next year, however, which does raise the potential for a return to the +3% level on the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield that was seen before the Italy crisis flared up. However, our colleagues at our sister publication, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, continue to point out the risks to a continued near-term period of declining (or at least, consolidating) Treasury yields given persistent short positioning in the Treasury market at a time of slowing data surprises (Chart 6). We remain bearish on Treasuries over a strategic horizon, however. Chart 4USD Rally Not Yet##BR##Enough To Impact The U.S. USD Rally Not Yet Enough To Impact The U.S. USD Rally Not Yet Enough To Impact The U.S. Chart 5Market Still Priced Close To##BR##The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Market Still Priced Close To The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Market Still Priced Close To The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Chart 6UST Yields Likely To##BR##Consolidate In The Near-Term UST Yields Likely To Consolidate In The Near-Term UST Yields Likely To Consolidate In The Near-Term Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? PROBABLY NOT. The latest volatility in European financial markets stemming from the Italy crisis came at a difficult time for the ECB. The central bank has been incrementally preparing the market for an eventual tapering of its asset purchase program after it expires in September. Yet the slowdown in euro area growth in the first quarter of the year, amid sluggish readings on inflation, has raised some doubt that the ECB would even be able to announce any sort of withdrawal of monetary stimulus. Chart 7Market Buying Into The ECB's##BR##'Low Rates For Longer' Message Market Buying Into The ECB's 'Low Rates For Longer' Message Market Buying Into The ECB's 'Low Rates For Longer' Message It is now a consensus expectation that the ECB will taper its net new asset purchases fully to zero by the end of 2018. What has moved, however, is the market's expectation for the timing of the first rate hike by the ECB. That has now been pushed out to April 2020 after the Italy turbulence (Chart 7). The ECB has been consistently signaling to the markets that it views the two decisions - tapering and rate hikes - as separate choices to make. In other words, tapering does not mean that rate hikes will come soon afterward. So far, the market appears to be listening to the ECB's signals by moving out the timing of any rate hike to nearly two full years from today. Given the magnitude of the slide in euro area growth seen in the first few months of 2018 (2nd panel), that may be taken as a sign that the market thinks the slump can continue. This also is consistent with the market believing the ECB's views on seeing through any impact on euro area inflation from changes in oil prices and the euro. The annual growth of the Brent oil price, in euro terms, has climbed to nearly 50% over the past few months (3rd panel). There has always been a strong correlation of that growth rate to overall headline euro area inflation, as evidenced by the early read on May CPI inflation released last week that came in at 1.9%. Yet core CPI inflation in the euro area is still only 1.1%, well below the ECB's inflation target of "just below" 2%. Market-based inflation expectations are still below the level as well, with the 5-year euro CPI swap, 5-years forward now sitting at 1.7%. So the market pricing is consistent with an ECB that will be very slow to begin raising interest rates. That would also be consistent with the behavior of the ECB when it comes to its past tightening cycles. In Chart 8, we show diffusion indices at a country level for euro area industrial production growth (as a proxy for economic growth), headline inflation and core inflation. These show the percentage of all euro area countries that are seeing accelerating growth or inflation versus those countries seeing slowing growth and inflation. A higher diffusion index means that any acceleration in growth or inflation is broad-based, and vice versa. Chart 8ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns As can be seen in the chart, the ECB's past tightening cycles since the beginning of the euro in 1998 have all occurred when the diffusion indices for inflation have risen into the 60-80% zone. In other words, the ECB is more aggressive on lifting rates when a large majority of countries in the euro zone is seeing accelerating inflation. During those same tightening cycles, however, the diffusion indices for growth have been decelerating, suggesting less broad-based economic strength. The implication from this analysis is that the ECB cares more about inflation than growth when making its monetary policy decisions. The ECB's reputation for sometimes making overly hawkish policy mistakes, like in 2010-11, is well deserved. Looking ahead, the current readings on the diffusion indices for both growth and, more importantly, inflation are all quite depressed. This suggest that the slowing growth seen in the overall euro area data so far in 2018 has been broad-based, while the increase in the overall euro area inflation data has not been broad-based. This can be seen when looking at the some of the individual country data for the major core euro area countries (Chart 9) and Peripheral countries (Chart 10). For example, Netherlands and Portugal stand out as having inflation trends that are much weaker than the other countries. Yet the more divergent trends in euro area inflation does not mean that the ECB will decide to defer any decision to taper, however. The ECB will have to make that decision at either the June or July meetings, with the current program set to end in September. Absent a significant drop in euro area inflation, the ECB is still likely to signal a full taper by the end of the year. Yet even if they did extend the current program into 2019, at the same pace of 30 billion euros per month, this would likely not have a meaningful impact on the level of euro area bond yields. We have found that is the growth rate of those purchases, and not the absolute level, that is most correlated to the level of euro area bond yields (Chart 11). Even if the current program were to be extended to March 2019, to be followed by a tapering of net purchases to zero by September 2019, then the annual growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet (driven by the asset purchases) would remain mired below 10% - a far slower pace compared to the peak years of ECB bond buying. Chart 9Growth Convergence,##BR##Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Growth Convergence, Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Growth Convergence, Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Chart 10And In##BR##Peripheral Europe And In Peripheral Europe And In Peripheral Europe Chart 11Extending ECB Bond Purchases##BR##Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact Extending ECB Bond Purchases Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact Extending ECB Bond Purchases Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact In other words, an extension of the asset purchases would not drive euro area bond yields any lower, and would entail operational constraints on country sizes, etc. The ECB will have better success at driving down yields by keeping policy rates lower for longer, as it is signaling it will do. Bottom Line: The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22nd 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Two Big Questions After Two Wild Weeks Two Big Questions After Two Wild Weeks Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update A Series Of Unfortunate Events Markets have taken a series of hits in recent months - sharp drops in emerging market currencies, a political crisis in Italy, and the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China - not to mention a slowdown in cyclical growth. But risk assets have been remarkably resilient: the U.S. stock market is in the middle of its year-to-date range, and U.S. small cap stocks (more attuned to domestic conditions) are at record highs (Chart 1). The uncertainty is set to continue for a while. But, with global growth likely to settle at an above-trend pace, fiscal and monetary policy still accommodative, and earnings continuing to grow strongly, the recent resilience says to us that risk assets are likely to grind higher and to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. A major underlying cause of the recent volatility has been the growing disparity between growth in the U.S. and in the rest of the world (Chart 2). This is partly due to the strength of the euro and yen last year, which is now dampening activity in these regions, but the slowdown in Chinese industrial growth and a higher oil price may also be having a disproportionate effect on growth outside the U.S. This growth disparity has widened interest rate differentials, which have again become the major driver of currencies, pushing up the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). Chart 1Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Chart 2Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Chart 3...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise ...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise ...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise In combination with rising U.S. interest rates (the 10-year Treasury yield rose above 3% last month, before correcting a little), dollar appreciation is a threat for emerging markets. EM assets have long shown a consistently strong inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 4). We expect the EM sell-off to continue. Further Fed hikes and rising inflation expectations in the U.S. (relative to the euro area and Japan) will increase interest-rate differentials and push the dollar up further: we forecast 1.12 for euro/dollar. Investors are still far from capitulating on EM assets after several years of large purchases (Chart 5). Many EM central banks are being forced to raise rates to defend their currencies, which will dent growth. Some may even be forced into reintroducing capital controls. Several emerging economies besides Argentina and Turkey remain vulnerable, having worryingly high amounts of foreign currency debt (Chart 6). Chart 4Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Chart 5Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Chart 6Worrying Levels Of FX Debt Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 7Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Geopolitics is likely to remain a drag on markets for a while, too. Italy remains the biggest threat. The discontent of the Italian population is unsurprising given the country's stagnation since it joined the euro (Chart 7). The probable coalition government of the Lega and Five Star Movement would introduce aggressive fiscal stimulus, putting it in confrontation with the EU's budgetary rules. But BCA's geopolitical strategists see little risk of Italy exiting the euro in the next two years (though 10 years might be a different story).1 Political gyrations may continue for some months, particularly if the new government persists with its plan to blow the fiscal deficit out to 7% of GDP, but the sell-off in short-term Italian bonds looks to be overdone. Developments in trade tariffs, Iran and North Korea could also weigh on markets in coming months. But ultimately economic fundamentals almost always outweigh geopolitical risk. Global growth is slowing, but to an above-trend pace. Fiscal policy is particularly stimulative this year, with 17 of the 33 OECD countries undertaking large fiscal easing, and a further 11 some easing. The overall cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance in OECD countries is forecast to ease by 0.5% of GDP this year and 0.4% next (Chart 8). Monetary policy remains accommodative almost everywhere. The FOMC, in its May statement, by adding the word "symmetric" to describe its 2% inflation objective, was clearly emphasizing that it sees no need to accelerate the pace of rate hikes, despite the recent pickup in core PCE inflation. We expect the Fed to continue to raise rates once a quarter, meaning that monetary policy will not become restrictive until around Q1 next year. With inflation expectations not yet fully normalized (Chart 9), the Fed could still exercise its "put option" by holding for a quarter or two if global risk were to rise significantly. Italy's problems also make it more likely that the ECB will stay easier for longer, and the probability is rising of its deciding to extend asset purchases into next year. Chart 8Fiscal Stimulus (Almost) Everywhere Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 9Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise With the consensus already forecasting global GDP to grow 3.4% this year, and U.S. earnings by 22%, there is no obvious catalyst for risk assets to rebound sharply (Chart 10). However, we find it inconceivable that equity markets will not be higher in 12 months' time - and will not have outperformed bonds over that time - if the macro environment plays out as we expect. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on equities and underweight on fixed income, but might start to turn more defensive around the end of the year if the signs are in place that the recession we expect in 2020 is still on the cards. Equities: For the reasons described above, we remain cautious on EM equities. Within EM, our preference would be for markets such as China, Korea and India, which are likely to be less affected by investors' concerns about current account deficits and foreign-currency denominated debt. In DM, our preference remains for late-cyclical sectors, especially energy, financials and industrials. We mainly view regional and country selection as a derivative of the sector call: this supports our preference for euro zone and Japanese stocks over those in the U.S. and U.K. Fixed Income: A combination of quarterly Fed rate hikes, a further normalization of inflation expectations, and moderate rises in the real rate and term premium are likely to push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield up to 3.5% by year-end (Chart 11). We, therefore, remain underweight duration and prefer TIPs to nominal bonds. We keep our overweights on spread product within the fixed-income bucket, since it should continue to outperform for another couple of quarters. U.S. high-yield spreads are likely to remain steady, giving an attractive carry even after accounting for defaults; investment grade spreads might start to recover, given that the sell-off of quality bonds by companies repatriating short-term investments held offshore ($35 Bn from the 20 largest U.S. companies in Q1) is now mostly over (Chart 12). Chart 10Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Chart 11Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Chart 12Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Currencies: Interest-rate differentials, as described above, are likely to push the dollar up further, especially against the euro. This should continue until the effect of a strong dollar/weak euro starts to rebalance growth surprises back to the euro area, perhaps around the end of the year. We see less chance of dollar appreciation against the yen (which is still undervalued against its PPP value of 98, and may benefit from its safe-haven status) and against the Canadian dollar (given the Bank of Canada's hawkish stance). Commodities: Industrial commodities are likely to continue to struggle against headwinds from the appreciating dollar, and the continuing moderate slowdown in China (Chart 13). The oil price has become a tougher call recently, with talk that OPEC may agree later this month to bring back as much as 1 million barrels/day in production, but Venezuelan and Iranian supply likely to exit the market. BCA's energy strategists now forecast WTI and Brent to average $70 and $78 in 2H18, and $67/$72 in 2019, but expect higher volatility in the price over coming months (Chart 14).2 Chart 13Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Chart 14Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!," dated 30 May 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output: Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," dated 31 May 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights The 10-year Italian BTP yield at 4% yield marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stay underweight in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. The equity market's range-bound pattern can continue, as long as the line in the sand isn't breached. It is a good time to own a small portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. Feature Italian politics have blindsided almost everybody, us included. Few anticipated that the unlikely bedfellows 5S and Lega would try and form a 'government of change'. In March we wrote: "The Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if 5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low." Even fewer anticipated that Italy's President, Sergio Mattarella, would then scupper this government of change by vetoing the proposed Finance Minister. This has cast a new pall of uncertainty over Italian politics and Italian public support for EU rules and institutions. The 10-Year BTP Yield At 4% Marks A 'Line In The Sand' The market's response has been to fear the worst: shoot first, ask questions later. The danger is that this sets off a negative feedback loop. Higher bond yields weaken Italy's still-fragile banks; which threatens Italy's economic recovery; ahead of a possible new election, this increases the support for parties and policies that push back against EU rules; which further lifts bond yields; and then in a vicious circle until the fear of the worst becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... Chart of the WeekItalian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% The Italian BTP versus German bund yield spread is effectively a fear gauge for Italy's future in the euro (Chart I-2). As these fears increase, and Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Chart I-2The BTP-Bund Yield Spread Is A Fear ##br## Gauge For Italy's Future In The Euro The BTP-Bund Yield Spread Is A Fear Gauge For Italy's Future In The Euro The BTP-Bund Yield Spread Is A Fear Gauge For Italy's Future In The Euro As a rule of thumb, investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this rule, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By €35Bn Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By €35Bn It follows that there would be fresh doubts about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of just a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4%.1 Hence, the 10-year BTP yield at 4% marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse (Chart of the Week). To short-circuit the negative feedback loop, the financial markets would need to sense a discernible shift in Italian support for its populist parties; or an explicit de-escalation in the populist pushback against the EU. The question is: could this happen quickly enough? Global Growth Is In A Mini-Downswing The market's concerns about Italy come at a time when global growth has in any case been losing momentum. This is one development that did not blindside us, and has unfolded exactly as predicted. In January we wrote: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging 8 months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half - contrary to what the consensus is expecting." The theory underlying these mini-cycles is an economic model called the Cobweb Theorem.2 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a delay. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a delay. The delay occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Turning Points In The Bond Yield Lead Turning Points In The Credit Impulse Turning Points In The Bond Yield Lead Turning Points In The Credit Impulse Turning Points In The Bond Yield Lead Turning Points In The Credit Impulse As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months, and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of these cycles, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the predictability. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase, and exactly as predicted in January, the majority of economically sensitive sectors have underperformed. The glaring anomaly is oil, whose supply-side dynamics have dominated price action (Chart I-5). Given oil's major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and on central bank reaction functions, the global bond yield has also disconnected from the mini-cycle - until now. Chart I-5Oil Is The Glaring Anomaly Oil Is The Glaring Anomaly Oil Is The Glaring Anomaly Mini-downswings last six to eight months and the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. So one concern is that the apparent disconnect between decelerating global activity and slow-to-react bond yields could extend the current mini-downswing phase beyond the summer. How To Invest Right Now From an equity market perspective, the relative performance of the classically cyclical sectors - banks, basic materials and industrials - very closely tracks the phases of the global credit impulse mini-cycle (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). For example, in all five of the last five mini-downswings, banks have underperformed healthcare, and we are seeing exactly the same in the current mini-cycle. Chart I-6In A Mini-Downswing##br## Banks Underperform In A Mini-Downswing, Banks Underperform In A Mini-Downswing, Banks Underperform Chart I-7In A Mini-Downswing ##br##Basic Materials Underperform In A Mini-Downswing, Basic Materials Underperform In A Mini-Downswing, Basic Materials Underperform For the next few months at least, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. This strategy has worked extremely well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it should continue to do so. Sector strategy necessarily impacts stock market allocation. Our core philosophy of investment reductionism teaches us that for most stock markets, the sector (and dominant company) skews swamp any effect that comes from the domestic economy. The defining skew for Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX is their large overweighting to banks (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Irrespective of the political uncertainties, our sector allocation establishes our near-term caution on these two markets. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. Chart I-8Italy's MIB = Long Banks Italy's MIB = Long Banks Italy's MIB = Long Banks Chart I-9Spain's IBEX = Long Banks Spain's IBEX = Long Banks Spain's IBEX = Long Banks For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the global economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Hence, it is a good time to own a portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. Regarding currencies, the recent developments in Italy have hurt our 50:50 combined long position in EUR/USD and SEK/USD; but this has been countered by gains in our short position in EUR/JPY. We have no tactical conviction on any of these crosses, but we will maintain this medium term currency portfolio unless the Italian 10-year BTP yield breaches the 4% line in the sand. Finally, the hardest call to make is on the direction of equity market. This is because a mini-downswing in global growth creates a headwind to earnings expectations; conversely, if bond yields are capped, this will provide some support to equity market valuations. On balance, this suggests that the year-to-date pattern of a range-bound equity market is set to continue. The caveat is that if Italy's line in the sand is breached, it would warrant a substantial de-risking. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. This week, we note that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Polish zloty / U.S. dollar (or inverse) is approaching its lower limit. Go long PLN/USD with a profit target of 3.5% and symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 Long PLN/USD Long PLN/USD The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The risk/reward balance for risk assets remains unappealing this month, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The number of items that could take equity markets to new highs appears to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have eased, but the U.S./China trade war is heating up. Trump's voter base and many in Congress want the President to push China harder. Eurozone "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. The Italian President is trying to install a technocratic government, but the interim between now and a likely summer election will extend the campaign period during which the two contending parties have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. The next Italian election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked, especially since Italy's economic growth appears set to slow. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. One reason for the economic "soft patch" is that the Chinese economy continues to decelerate. Our indicators suggest that growth will moderate further, with negative implications for the broader emerging market complex. Dearer oil may also be starting to bite, although prices have not increased enough to derail the expansion in the developed economies. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. While the U.S. economy will enjoy a strong rebound in the second quarter, leading economic indicators in most of the other major countries have rolled over. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. U.S. inflation is almost back to target and the FOMC signaled that an overshoot will be tolerated. Policymakers will likely transition from "normalizing" policy to targeting slower economic growth once long-term inflation expectations return to the 2.3%-2.5% range. The advanced stage of the U.S. business cycle, heightened geopolitical risks and our bias for capital preservation keep us tactically cautious on risk assets again this month. Feature The major stock indexes are struggling, even though 12-month forward earnings estimates continue to march higher (Chart I-1). One problem is that a lot of good earnings news was discounted early in the year. The number of items that could take markets to new highs appear to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Not the least of which is ongoing pain in emerging markets and the return of financial stress in Eurozone debt markets. Last month's Overview highlighted the unappealing risk/reward balance for risk assets, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The advanced stage of the business cycle and our bias for capital preservation motivated us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. We also were concerned about a raft of geopolitical tensions. Fast forward one month and the backdrop has not improved. Our Equity Scorecard Indicator edged up, but is still at a level that historically was consistent with poor returns to stocks and corporate bonds (see Chart I-1 in last month's Overview). Our 'exit' checklist is also signaling that caution is warranted (Table I-1). Meanwhile, the "global synchronized expansion" theme that helped to drive risk asset prices higher last year is beginning to unravel and trade tensions are escalating. Chart I-1Struggling To Make Headway Struggling To Make Headway Struggling To Make Headway Table I-1Exit Checklist For Risk Assets June 2018 June 2018 U.S./Sino Trade War Is Back? The "on again/off again" trade war between the U.S. and China is on again as we go to press. Investors breathed a sigh of relief in mid-May when the Trump Administration signaled that China's minor concessions were sufficient to avoid the imposition of onerous new tariffs. However, the proposed deal did not go down well with many in the U.S., including some in the Republican Party. The President was criticized for giving up too much in order to retain China's help in dealing with North Korea. Trump might have initially cancelled the summit with Kim in order to send a message to China that he is still prepared to play hard ball on trade, despite the North Korean situation. We expect that U.S./North Korean negotiations will soon begin, and that Pyongyang will not be a major threat to global financial markets for at least the near term. It is a different story for U.S./China relations. Trump's voter base and many in Congress on both sides of the isle want the President to push China harder. This is likely to be a headwind for risk assets at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. The Return Of Eurozone Breakup Risk Turning to the Eurozone, "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. Italian President Sergio Mattarella's decision to reject a proposed cabinet minister has led to the collapse of the populist coalition between the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the euroskeptic League. President Mattarella's choice for interim-prime minister, Carlo Cottarelli, is unlikely to last long. It is highly unlikely that he will be able to receive parliamentary support for a technocratic mandate, given the fact that he cut government spending during a brief stint in government from 2013-14. As such, elections are likely this summer. Chart I-2Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Investors continue to fret for two reasons. First, the interim period will extend the campaign period during which both M5S and the League have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. Second, M5S has suggested that it will try to impeach Mattarella, a long and complicated process that would heighten political risk, though it will likely fail in our view. As our geopolitical strategists have emphasized throughout 2017, Italy will eventually be the source of a major global risk-off event because it is the one outstanding major European country capable of reigniting the Euro Area break-up crisis.1 While a majority of Italians support the euro, they are less supportive than any other major European country, including Greece (Chart I-2). Meanwhile a plurality of Italians is confident that the future would be brighter if Italy were an independent country outside of the EU. That said, the next election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. The current conflict arises from the coalition wanting to run large budget deficits in violation of Europe's Stability and Growth Pact fiscal rules. Given that the costs of attempting to exit the Euro Area are extremely severe for Italy's households and savers, and that even the Five Star Movement has moderated its previous skepticism about the euro for the time being, it is likely going to require a recession or another crisis to cause Italy seriously contemplate an exit. We are still several steps away from such a move. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked. Italy's leading economic indicator points to slowing growth, which will intensify the populist push for aggressive fiscal stimulus. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. Global Growth Has Peaked Chart I-3Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum, as highlighted by the indicators shown in Chart I-3. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. What is behind this year's loss of momentum? First, growth in 2017 was flattered by a rebound from the oil-related manufacturing recession of 2015/16. That rebound is now topping out, while worries regarding a trade war are undoubtedly weighing on animal spirits and industrial activity. Second, the Eurozone economy was lifted last year by the previous recapitalization of parts of the banking system, which allowed some pent-up credit demand to be satiated. This growth impulse also appears to have peaked, which helps to explain the sharp drop in some of the Eurozone's key economic indicators. Still, we do not expect European growth to slip back below a trend pace on a sustained basis unless the Italian situation degenerates so much that contagion causes significantly tighter financial conditions for the entire Eurozone economy. The third factor contributing to the global growth moderation is China. The Chinese economy surged in 2017 in a lagged response to fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2016, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) and import growth (Chart I-4). Both are now headed south as the policy backdrop turned less supportive. Downturns in China's credit and fiscal impulses herald a deceleration in capital spending and construction activity (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The LKI has a strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. In turn, the latter is important for the broader EM complex that trade heavily with China. Weaker Chinese import growth has also had a modest negative impact on the developed world (Chart I-5). We estimate that, for the major economies, the contribution to GDP growth of exports to China has fallen from 0.3 percentage points last year to 0.1 percentage points now.2 Japan and Australia have been hit the hardest, but the Eurozone has also been affected. Interestingly, U.S. exports to China have bucked the trend so far. Chart I-4China Growth Slowdown... China Growth Slowdown... China Growth Slowdown... Chart I-5...Is Weighing On Global Activity ...Is Weighing On Global Activity ...Is Weighing On Global Activity China is not the only story because the slowdown in global trade activity in the first quarter was broadly based (Chart I-5). Nonetheless, softer aggregate demand growth out of China helps to explain why manufacturing PMIs and industrial production growth in most of the major developed economies have cooled. Our model for the LKI is still moderating. We do not see a hard economic landing, but our analysis points to further weakening in Chinese imports and thus softness in global exports and manufacturing activity in the coming months. Oil's Impact On The Economy... Finally, oil prices are no doubt taking a bite out of consumer spending power as Brent fluctuates just below $80/bbl. Our energy experts expect the global crude market to continue tightening due to robust growth and ongoing geopolitical tensions. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude production and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we expect OPEC 2.0 to keep its production cuts in place in the second half of the year. Increasing shale output will not be enough to prevent world oil prices from rising in this environment, and we expect oil prices to continue to trend higher through 2018 and into early 2019 (Chart I-6). Brent could touch $90/bbl next year. There are a few ways to gauge the size of the oil shock on the economy. Chart I-7 shows the U.S. and global 'oil bill' as a share of GDP. We believe that both the level and the rate of change are important. Price spikes, even from low levels, do not allow energy users the time to soften the blow by shifting to alternative energy sources. Chart I-6Oil: Stay Bullish Oil: Stay Bullish Oil: Stay Bullish Chart I-7The Oil Bill The Oil Bill The Oil Bill The level of the oil bill is not high by historical standards. The increase in the bill over the past year has been meaningful, both for the U.S. and at the global level, but is still a long way from the oil shocks of the 1970s. U.S. consumer spending on energy as a share of disposable income, at about 4%, is also near the lowest level observed over the past 4-5 decades (Chart I-8). The 2-year swing in this series shows that rapid increases in energy-related spending has preceded slowdowns in economic growth, even from low starting points. The swing is currently back above the zero line but, again, it is not at a level that historically was associated with a significant economic slowdown. Chart I-8Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Moreover, the mushrooming shale oil and gas industry has altered the calculus of oil shocks for the U.S. The plunge in oil prices in 2014-16 was accompanied by a manufacturing and profit mini recession in the developed countries, providing a drag on overall GDP growth. Chart I-9 provides an estimate of the contribution to U.S. growth from the oil and gas industry. We have included capital spending and wages & salaries in the calculation, and scaled it up to include spillover effects on other industries. Chart I-9Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale The oil and gas contribution swung from +0.5 percentage points in 2012 to -0.4 percentage points in 2016. The contribution has since become only slightly positive again, but it is likely to rise further unless oil prices decline in the coming months. We have included the annual swing in consumer spending on energy as a percent of GDP in Chart I-9 (inverted) for comparison purposes. At the moment, the impact on growth from the shale industry is roughly offsetting the negative impact on consumer spending. The bottom line is that the rise in oil prices so far is enough to take the edge off of global growth, but it is not large enough to derail the expansion in the developed countries. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. ...And Asset Prices As for the impact on asset prices, it is important to ascertain whether rising oil prices represent more restrictive supply or expanding demand. A mild rise in oil prices might simply be a symptom of increased demand caused by accelerating global growth. Higher oil prices are thus reflective of robust demand, and thus should not be seen as a threat. In contrast, the 1970s experience shows that supply restrictions can send the economy into a tailspin. In order to separate the two drivers of prices, we regressed WTI oil prices on global oil demand, inventories and the U.S. dollar. By excluding supply-related factors such as production restrictions, the residual of the regression model gives an approximate gauge of supply shocks (panel 2, Chart I-10). This model clearly has limitations, but it also has one key benefit: it estimates not just actual disruptions in supply, but also the premium built into prices due to perceived or expected future supply disruptions. For example, the 1990 price spike appears as quite a substantial deviation from what could be explained by changes in demand alone. Similar negative supply shocks are evident in 2000 and 2008. Chart I-10Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market We then examined the impact that supply shocks have on subsequent period returns for both Treasury and risk assets. We divided the Supply Shock Proxy into four quartiles corresponding to the four zones shown in Chart I-10: strong positive shock, mild positive shock, mild negative shock and strong negative shock; the last of these corresponds to the region above the upper dashed line, which we have shaded in the chart. The performance of risk assets does not vary significantly across the bottom three quartiles of the supply shock indicator (Chart I-11). However, performance drops off precipitously in the presence of a strong negative supply shock. This is consistent with the "choke point" argument: investors are initially unconcerned with a modest appreciation in oil prices. It is only when prices are driven sharply above the level consistent with the current demand backdrop that risk assets begin to discount a more pessimistic future. The total returns to the Treasury index behave in the opposite manner (Chart I-12). Treasury returns are below average when the oil shock indicator is below one (i.e. positive supply shock) and above average when oil prices rise into negative supply shock territory. In other words, an excess of oil supply is Treasury bearish, as it would tend to fuel more robust economic growth. Conversely, a supply shock that drives oil prices higher tends to be Treasury bullish. This may seem counterintuitive because higher oil prices can be inflationary and thus should be bond bearish in theory. However, large negative oil supply shocks have usually preceded recessions, which caused Treasurys to rally. Chart I-11Effect On Risk Assets June 2018 June 2018 Chart I-12Effect On Treasurys June 2018 June 2018 The model clearly shows that the drop in oil prices in 2014/15 was a positive supply shock, consistent with the oil consumption data that show demand growth was fairly stable through that period. The model indicator has moved up toward the neutral line in recent months, suggesting that the supply side of the market is tightening up, but it is still in "mild positive supply shock" territory. The latest data point available is April, which means that it does not capture the surge in oil prices over the past month. Some of the recent jump in prices is clearly related to the cancelled Iran deal and other supply-related factors, although demand continues to be supportive of prices. The implication of this model is that it will probably require a significant further surge in prices, without a corresponding ramp up in oil demand, for the model to signal that supply constraints are becoming a significant threat for risk assets. A rise in Brent above US$85 would signal trouble according to this model. As for government bonds, rising oil prices are bearish in the near term, irrespective of whether it reflects demand or supply factors. This is because of the positive correlation between oil prices and long-term inflation expectations. The oil bull phase will turn bond-bullish once it becomes clear that energy prices have hit an economic choke point. Desynchronization Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. First quarter U.S. GDP growth was underwhelming, but the long string of first-quarter disappointment points to seasonal adjustment problems. Higher frequency data are consistent with a robust rebound in the second quarter. Forward looking indicators, such as the OECD and Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicators, continue to climb. This is in contrast with some of the other major economies, such as the Eurozone, U.K., Australia and Japan (Chart I-13). First quarter real GDP growth was particularly soft in Japan and the Eurozone, and one cannot blame seasonal adjustment in these cases. Chart I-13Growth & Inflation Divergences Growth & Inflation Divergences Growth & Inflation Divergences The divergence in economic performance likely reflects Washington's fiscal stimulus that is shielding the U.S. from the global economic soft patch. Moreover, the U.S. is less exposed to the oil shock and the China slowdown than are the other major economies. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. While U.S. inflation continues to drift higher, it has lost momentum in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. (Chart I-13). Renewed stresses in the Italian and Spanish bond markets have sparked a flight-to-quality in recent trading days, depressing yields in safe havens such as U.S. Treasurys and German bunds. Nonetheless, prior to that, the divergence in growth and inflation was reflected in widening bond yield spreads as U.S. Treasurys led the global yields higher. Long-term inflation expectations have risen everywhere, but real yields have increased the most in the U.S. (prior to the flight-to-quality bond rally at the end of May). This is consistent with the growth divergence story and with our country bond allocation: overweight the U.K., Australia and Japan, and underweight U.S. Treasurys within hedged global portfolios. The dollar lagged earlier this year, but is finally catching up to the widening in interest rate spreads. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. Expect More Pain In EM Dollar strength and rising U.S. bond yields are a classic late-cycle combination that often spells trouble for emerging market assets. We do not see the recent selloff across EM asset classes as a buying opportunity since markets have only entered the first stage of the classic final chapter; EM assets underperform as U.S. bond yields and the dollar rise, but commodity prices are resilient. In the second phase, U.S. bond yields top out, but the U.S. dollar continues to firm and commodity prices begin their descent. If the current slowdown in Chinese growth continues, as we expect, it will begin to weigh on non-oil commodity prices. Thus, emerging economies may have to deal with a deadly combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger greenback, falling commodity prices and slowing exports to China (Chart I-14). Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? BCA's Emerging Market Strategy services has ranked EM countries based on foreign funding requirements (Chart I-15). The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-14EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown Chart I-15Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding June 2018 June 2018 Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. These mostly stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen as it becomes more difficult to service the foreign debt.3 It is too early to build positions even in Turkish assets. Our EM strategists believe that it will require an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms, to create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial instruments. FOMC Expects Inflation Overshoot Escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could potentially lead the Federal Reserve to put the rate hike campaign on hold. However, that would require some signs of either domestic financial stress or slowing growth. The FOMC is monitoring stress in emerging markets and in the Eurozone, but is sticking with its "gradual" tightening pace for now (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter). May's FOMC minutes signaled a rate hike in June. However, the minutes did not suggest that the Fed is getting more hawkish, despite the Staff's forecast that growth will remain above trend and that the labor market will continue to tighten at a time when core inflation is already pretty much back to target. Some inflation indicators, such as the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, suggest that core inflation will overshoot. The minutes signaled that policymakers are generally comfortable with a modest overshoot of the 2% inflation target because many see it as necessary in order to shift long-term inflation expectations higher, into a range that is consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target on a "sustained" basis (we estimate this range to be 2.3-2.5% for the 10-year inflation breakeven rate). The fact that the FOMC took a fairly dovish tone and did not try to guide rate expectations higher contributed to some retracement of the Treasury selloff in recent weeks. Nonetheless, an inflation overshoot and rising inflation expectations will ultimately be bond-bearish, especially when the FOMC is forced to clamp down on growth as long-term inflation expectations reach the target range. As discussed in BCA's Outlook 2018, one of our key themes for the year is that risk assets are on a collision course with monetary policy because the FOMC will eventually have to transition from simply removing accommodation to targeting slower growth. Timing that transition will be difficult, and depends importantly on how much of an inflation overshoot the FOMC is prepared to tolerate. Is 2½% reasonable? Or could inflation go to 3%? The makeup of the FOMC has changed, but we expect Janet L. Yellen4 to shed light on this question when she speaks at the BCA Annual Investment Conference in September. Investment Conclusions The risks facing investors have shifted, but we do not feel any less cautious than we did last month. Geopolitical tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have perhaps eased. But trade tensions are escalating and investors are suddenly faced with another chapter in the Eurozone financial crisis. The major fear in the first and second chapters was that bond investors would attack Italy, given the sheer size of that economy and the size of Italian government debt. That dreadful day has arrived. The profit backdrop in the major economies remains constructive for equity markets. However, even there, the bloom is coming off the rose. Global growth is no longer synchronized and the advanced economies have hit a soft patch with the possible exception of the U.S. While far from disastrous, our short-term profit models appear to be peaking across the major countries (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking The typical U.S. late cycle dynamics are also threatening emerging markets, at a time when investors are generally overweight and many EM countries have accumulated a pile of debt. U.S. inflation is set to overshoot the target, the FOMC is tightening and the dollar is rising. Throw in slowing Chinese demand and the EM space looks highly vulnerable. If the global economic slowdown is pronounced and drags the U.S. down with it, then bonds will rally and risk assets will take a hit. If, instead, the soft patch is short-lived and growth re-accelerates, then the U.S. Treasury bear market will resume. Stock indexes and corporate bond excess returns would enjoy one last upleg in this scenario, but downside risks would escalate once the Fed begins to target slower economic growth. Either way, EM assets would be hit. Our base case remains that stocks will beat government bonds and cash on a 6-12 month horizon. However, the risk/reward balance is unattractive given the geopolitical backdrop. Thus, we remain tactically cautious on risk assets for the near term. We still expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will peak at close to 3½% before this economic expansion is over. Nonetheless, this would require a calming of geopolitical tensions and an upturn in the growth indicators in the developed world. The risk/reward tradeoff for corporate bonds is no better than for equities and we urge caution in the near term. On a 6-12 month cyclical horizon, we still expect corporate bonds to outperform government bonds, at least in the U.S. European corporates are subject to the ebb and flow of the Italian bond crisis, and face the added risk that the ECB will likely end its QE program later this year. Looking further ahead, this month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, analyzes the Eurozone corporate sector's vulnerability to the end of the cycle that includes rising interest rates and, ultimately, a recession. We find that domestic issuers into the Eurozone market are far less exposed than are foreign issuers. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2018 Next Report: June 28, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 This underestimates the impact on the major countries because it does not account for third country effects (i.e. trade with other countries that trade with China). 3 For more information, please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (2014-2018). II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs June 2018 June 2018 One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in May. We remain cautious, despite the supportive profit backdrop. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio fell a bit in May, but it remains well in positive territory. Forward earnings continued their ascent, and the net earnings surprise index rose further to within striking distance of the highest levels in the history of the series. Normally, an earnings backdrop this strong would justify an overweight equity allocation within a balanced portfolio. Unfortunately, a lot of good earnings news is discounted based on our Composite Valuation Indicator and extremely elevated 5-year bottom-up earnings growth expectations (see the Bank Credit Analyst Overview, May 2018). Moreover, our equity indicators are sending a cautious signal. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator continued to decline in May. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on its 'sell' signal in May, for the second month in a row. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Moreover, our composite equity Technical Indicator is on the verge of breaking down and our Monetary Indicator moved further into negative territory in May. Meanwhile, market froth has not been completely extinguished according to our Speculation Indicator (which is a negative sign for stocks from a contrary perspective). As for bonds, the powerful rally at the end of May has undermined valuation, but the 10-year Treasury is not yet in expensive territory. Our technical indicator suggests that previously oversold conditions are easing, but bonds are a long way from overbought. This means that yields have room to fall further in the event of more bad news on Italy or on the broader geopolitical scene. The dollar has not yet reached overbought territory according to our technical indicator. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Trade war between China and U.S. is back on; President Trump is politically constrained from making a quick deal with China; Italian uncertainty will last through the summer and beyond; But bond market will eventually price profligacy over Euro Area exit, which favors bear steepening; A new election in Spain is market positive, there are no Euroskeptics in Iberia; Our tactical bearish view is playing out, stay long DXY and expect more summer volatility. Feature Geopolitical risks are rising across the board. This supports our tactically bearish view, elucidated in April.1 In this Client Note, we review our views on trade wars, Italy, and Spain. Is The U.S.-China Trade War Back On? Most relevant for global assets is that the first official salvo of the trade war between China and the U.S. has been fired: the White House announced, on May 29, tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports as well as yet-to-be-specified restrictions on Chinese investments in the U.S. and U.S. exports to China.2 We have long raised the alarm on U.S.-China relations, but President Trump threw us a curve-ball last week when Chinese and American negotiators issued a joint statement meant to soothe trade tensions. We responded that "we do not expect the truce to last long."3 Apparently it lasted merely eight days. The significance of the administration's about-face on trade is that it invalidates the conventional view that President Xi and Trump would promptly make a deal to ease tensions. Many of our clients have responded to our bearish view on Sino-American relations by suggesting that Beijing will simply offer to buy more "beef and Boeings," and that Trump will take the deal in order to declare a "quick win." The last ten days should put this view to rest. China did offer to buy more beef explicitly - with the offer of more Boeings also rumored - and yet President Trump rejected the deal. Why? Our suspicion is that President Trump was shocked by the backlash against the deal among Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators in the press. As we have argued since 2016, there is no political constraint to being tough on China on trade. This is a highly controversial view as many in the investment community agree with the narrative that the soybean lobby will prevent a trade war between the U.S. and China. President Trump's election, however, has revealed the preference of the median voter in the U.S. on trade. That preference is far less committed to free trade than previously assumed. Republicans in Congress, once staunch defenders of free trade, have therefore adjusted their policy preference, creating a political constraint to a quick deal with China. Bottom Line: Yes, the trade war is back on. We are re-opening our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms. Is Italy Going To Leave The Euro Area? The Italian bond market is beginning to price severe geopolitical stress. The 10-year BTP spread versus German bunds has grown 98 basis points since the election (Chart 1), while the 2/10 BTP yield curve has nearly inverted (Chart 2). The latter suggests that investors are beginning to price in default risk, or rather Euro Area exit risk, over the next two years. Chart 1Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Chart 2...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated ...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated ...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated We have long contended that Italy is the premier developed market political risk.4 Its level of Euroskepticism is empirically higher than that of the rest of Euro Area (Chart 3) and we have expected that Italy would eventually produce a global risk off. It is just not clear to us that this is the moment. Chart 3Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound First, support for the Euro Area remains in the high 50% range and has largely bounced between 55-60% for several years. This is low relative to its Euro Area peers, prompting us to raise the alarm on Italy. But it is also still a majority, showing that Italians are not sold on leaving the Euro Area. Second, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) has adjusted its policy towards the euro membership question in view of this polling. In other words, M5S is aware that the median Italian voter is not convinced that exiting the Euro Area is the right thing to do. We would argue that the anti-establishment parties performed well in this year's election precisely because of this strategic decision to abandon their Euroskeptic rhetoric on the currency union. Nonetheless, the deal that M5S signed to form a coalition with the far more Euroskeptic Lega was an aggressive deal that signals that Rome is preparing for a fight against Brussels, the ECB, and core Europe. The proposed tax cuts, unwinding of retirement reforms, and increases in social welfare spending would raise Italy's budget deficit from current 2.3% of GDP to above 7%. Given rules against such profligacy, and given Italy's high debt levels, the coalition might as well be proposing a Euro Area exit. There are three additional concerns aside from fiscal profligacy: New Election: President Sergio Mattarella's choice for interim prime minister - now that M5S and Lega have broken off their attempt to form a government - has no chance of gaining a majority in the current parliament. As such, the president is likely to call a new election. The leaders of M5S and the Lega, as well as the leaders of the center-left Democratic Party (DP), want the election to be held on July 29, ahead of the ferragosto holidays that shuts down the country in August.5 The market does not like the uncertainty of new election as the current M5S-Lega coalition looks likely to win again, only this time with even more seats. As such, the last thing investors want is a summer full of hyperbolic, populist, anti-establishment statements that will undoubtedly be part of the electoral campaigns. Polls: The two populist parties, M5S and the Lega, are gaining in the polls, particularly the latter, which is the more Euroskeptic (Chart 4). This suggests to investors that the more Euroskeptic approach is gaining support. Impeachment: The leader of M5S, Luigi Di Maio, has called for the impeachment of President Mattarella. Di Maio accused Mattarella of overstepping his constitutional responsibility when he denied the populist coalition's preferred candidate for economy minister, Paolo Savona. Impeachment would be a major concern for the markets as Mattarella's mandate is set to expire only in 2022, which means that he remains a considerable constraint on populism until then. Our reading is that Mattarella did not violate the constitution and that he is unlikely to be removed from power, even if the parliament does impeach him.6 Over the next month, investors will watch all three factors closely. In our view, it is positive that the election may take place over the summer - for the first time in Italy's history - as it would reduce the period of uncertainty. Second, it is understandable that investors will fret about Lega's rise in the polls. However, the closer Lega approaches M5S in the polls, the less likely the two parties will be to maintain their current coalition. At some point, it will not be in the interest of M5S to form a coalition with its chief opponent, especially if Lega gains support and therefore demands a greater share of power in the revised coalition deal. A much preferable coalition partner for M5S would be the center-left PD, which will be weaker, and hence more manageable, and would be a better ideological match. Therefore we believe that the market is getting ahead of itself. Italian policymakers are looking for a fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB over fiscal room and profligacy. This is a fight that will take considerable time to resolve and should add a fiscal premium to the long-dated Italian bonds. In fact, May 29 had the biggest day-to-day selloff since 1993 (Chart 5). However, policymakers are not (yet) looking for exit from the Euro Area. As such, risk premium on the 10-year BTPs does make sense, but the sharp move on the 2-year notes is premature. Chart 4Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Chart 5Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Bottom Line: Italian policymakers are not looking to exit the Euro Area. Their fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB will last throughout 2018 and makes it dangerous to try to "catch the falling knife" of the BTPs. However, expecting the yield curve to invert is premature as an Italian Euro Area exit over the next two years is unlikely. Over the next ten years, however, we would expect Italy to test the markets with a Euro Area exit attempt. We are sticking to our view that such an event is far more likely to occur following a recession than it is today. Is Spanish Election Threat The Same As Italy? Chart 6Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spain is having its own political crisis. The inconclusive June 2016 election produced a minority conservative government, with the center-right People's Party (PP) supported on critical matters by the center-left Socialist Party (PSOE). The leader of the PSOE, Pedro Sanchez, has decided to withdraw his support for the minority government due to alleged evidence of PP corruption, allegations that have dogged the conservatives for years. A vote of confidence on Friday could bring down the government. Why did the PSOE decide to challenge PP now? Because polls are showing that PP is in decline, as is, Podemos, the far-left party that nearly outperformed PSOE in the 2016 election (Chart 6). The greatest beneficiary of the political realignment in Spain, however, is Ciudadanos, a radically centrist and radically pro-European party that originated in Catalonia. Ciudadanos's official platform in the December 2017 regional elections in Catalonia was "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country, and Europe is our future." New elections in Spain are likely to produce a highly pro-market outcome where the centrist and pro-EU Ciudadanos forms a coalition with PSOE. While such a coalition would lean towards more fiscal spending, it would not unravel the crucial structural reforms painfully implemented by Mariano Rajoy's conservative governments since 2012. It also is as far away from Euroskepticism as exists in Europe at the moment. Bottom Line: A new Spanish election would be a market-positive event. The country would have a more stable government, replacing the current minority PP government that has lost all its political capital after implementing painful structural reforms and being dogged by corruption allegations. There is no Euroskeptic political alternative in Spain at the moment. As such, we are recommending that clients go long 10-year Spanish government bonds against Italian.7 Any contagion from Italy to Spain is inappropriate politically and is a misapplied vestige of the early days of the Euro Area crisis when all peripheral bonds traded in concerto. As such, it should be faded. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, and "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 According to the White House statement, the specific list of covered imports subjected to tariffs will be announced on June 15. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016 and "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Corriere Della Sera, "Governo: cresce l'ipotesi del voto il 29 luglio. Salvini: "Al voto con Savona candidato," dated May 29, 2018, available at www.corriere.it. 6 Like in the U.S., the threshold for impeachment in Italy is low. Both chambers of parliament merely have to impeach the president with a simple majority. However, in Italy, the trial is not held in the parliament, but rather by the Constitutional Court's 15 judges and an additional 16 specially appointed judges - selected randomly. It is highly unlikely that Mattarella, himself a previous member of the court, would be found guilty, particularly since he acted in accordance with presidential powers outlined in Article 87 of the constitution ("The President shall appoint State officials in the cases provided for by the law") and in accordance with precedent (in 1994, the president then refused to appoint Silvio Berlusconi's personal lawyer as the country's minister of justice). In addition, leader of Lega, Matteo Salvini, has stated that he would not want to see Mattarella impeached. This is likely because the process has a low probability of success. Furthermore, the president cannot disband the parliament and call new elections if impeachment proceedings begin against him. 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades," dated May 29, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Average Brent and WTI oil prices should rise to $80/bbl and $72/bbl in 2019 even without adding the full range of events that will drive up the geopolitical risk premium. Risks lie to the upside. Feature Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 To put some numbers on the difference between our view and the market's view, we rely on the implied option volatilities for crude oil futures.4 As Chart 2 illustrates, the oil markets are currently pricing in just under 30% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end, and merely 14% that they will touch $90/bbl in the same timeframe. We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Chart 2The Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.5 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.7 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."8 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).9 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.10 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.11 Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.12 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.14 In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Chart 6Great Power Competition Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.15 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.16 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. BOX 1 Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1 Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.17 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##br## Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##br## Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##br## 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" ##br##Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy therefore projects that the combination of stable global demand, steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output, and the loss of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions in 2019 will lift the average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl respectively (Chart 14).18 This forecast, however, represents our baseline based on fundamentals of global oil supply and demand (Chart 15) and does not include our potential scenarios outlined in Diagram 2, which would obviously add additional geopolitical risk premium. Chart 13Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 14Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 15Balances Tighter As Supply Falls Balances Tighter As Supply Falls Balances Tighter As Supply Falls For investors looking for equity-market exposure in this scenario, BCA's Energy Sector Strategy recommends overweighing U.S. shale producers and shale-focused service companies for investors looking for equity-market exposure to oil prices. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has broken down this recommendation into specific equity calls, which we encourage our clients to peruse.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We use Brent implied volatility - of at-the-money options of the selected futures contract - as an input to construct the cumulative normal density of future prices. Thus, the probability obtained is one where the terminal futures price, at the selected months, exceeds the strike price quoted. In order to derive this probability, we need the current market price of the selected future contract, the number of days to expiration, the strike price, and a measure of the volatility of this contract. 5 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 6 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 7 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 11 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 12 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019," dated May 24, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize