Commodities & Energy Sector

While our bullish take on refiners got to a slippery start, it has recovered all the losses and this position is now in the black. Factors are falling into place for additional gains in the coming months and we recommend investors stick with this overweight recommendation in pure-play downstream stocks. Domestic refined product consumption remains upbeat and should serve as a catalyst for further relative share prices gains (top panel). Refining product supply dynamics are also moving in the right direction. Gasoline inventories are getting whittled down and should boost beaten down refining relative profit expectations (inventories shown inverted, bottom panel). This firming demand/supply backdrop has already been a boon to refining margins and should continue to underpin relative share price momentum (middle panel). Bottom Line:  Stay overweight the S&P oil & gas refining & marking index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5OILR – MPC, VLO, PSX, HFC. Please refer to the most recent Weekly Report1 for more details. Footnotes 1 Please See U.S. Equity Strategy, "Is This It?," dated October 21, 2019.

Special Report

Highlights Given that rising crop yields have been the main vehicle through which global supply of agricultural commodities grew to meet expanding demand, the risks posed to yields due to climate change are non-trivial. The impact of climate change will manifest itself in the form of two simultaneous trends: the gradual rise in temperatures alongside more frequent and severe weather events. While the latter will threaten immediate supply, the former is a slower moving process, and its net negative impact is unlikely to manifest before 2030. The implications of climate change on agriculture producers are non-uniform. Low-latitude countries with economies that are highly dependent on the agriculture sector will suffer most. Expect greater volatility in agriculture prices as the frequency of weather events will raise uncertainty. Feature The steady expansion of global population and rising per-capita calorie consumption has directly translated to growing demand for agricultural products of all types. However, these demand-side pressures increasingly will be met with disruptions to global supply of agricultural commodities, as the impact of climate change raises uncertainty. In any given year, the aggregate decisions of farmers all over the world – i.e., the choice of which crops to plant and how much acreage to dedicate to each crop – determine the supply and market prices of ags. In this competitive market, each farmer attempts to maximize his or her welfare by planting the crops that are expected to yield the greatest profit. Chart 12010/11 Shock Highlights Ag Vulnerability To Weather The collective action of these producers in reaction to perceived demand generally leads to stable prices, especially for staple commodities such as grains and oilseeds, which differ from industrial commodities in that they are not highly correlated with global business cycles. Demand trends are long-term and slow moving, and typically do not result in abrupt price pressures, as farmers have time to adjust and adapt to changing consumer preferences. Unforeseen, weather-induced supply-side shocks, therefore, are the main source of sudden price changes in ag markets. Such a shock was dramatically on display during the drought-induced crop failures in major grain and cereal producing regions in the most recent global food crisis of 2010/11. While this massive supply shock was not the first of its kind (Chart 1, on page 1), it highlighted the vulnerability of ag markets to weather risks and specifically the evolving environment under climate change. A 2019 study quantifies the impact of shifting weather patterns on the agricultural market, finding that year-to-year changes in climate factors during the growing season explain 20%-49% of change in corn, rice, soybean, and wheat yields, with climate extremes accounting for 18%-43% of this variation.1 In theory, the impact can manifest in several ways, sometimes contradictory: Extreme weather events: An increase in the frequency and intensity of droughts or floods which threaten to wipe out crops or reduce yields, creating unpredictable supply shocks. The gradual rise in temperature: Each crop has cardinal temperatures – defined by the minimum, maximum and optimum – that determine its boundaries for growth. Increases in temperatures induced by global warming may push the boundary, reducing yields in some regions. Changes in precipitation patterns: In many areas precipitation is projected to increase – both in short bursts and over longer periods. This will lead to greater soil erosion resulting in deterioration in the quality of soil. In other regions, precipitation will decrease, and drought is expected to become more frequent.2 Moreover, the interaction of these factors – along with other region-specific variables – will amplify the impact on crops: Rising temperatures and greater precipitation will result in greater amounts of water in the atmosphere, producing increased water vapor and greater cloud cover. This will reduce solar radiation, and will harm crop productivity. Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and CO2 fertilization: Greater CO2 concentrations brought on by continued growth in air pollution are positive for crops as they stimulate photosynthesis and plant growth. However, the impact differs across crops with plants such as soybeans, rice and wheat set to benefit relatively more than plants such as corn.3 Moreover, elevated atmospheric CO2 levels can help crops respond to environmental stresses and reduce yield losses due to ozone and crop water loss through partial stomatal closure and a reduction in ozone penetration into leaves. Temperature changes and the magnitude and intensity of precipitation impact soil moisture and surface runoff. Indirect effects of climate change – weeds, pests and pathogens – also present challenges as they require changes to management practices and may raise farming costs required. The impact of climate change on agriculture markets is already evident in increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The confluence of these factors, and the region- and crop-specific nature of these variables, makes it impossible to estimate the impact of evolving climate conditions on ag products with great accuracy. Nevertheless, our research suggests that the impact of climate change on ag markets will create opportunities in this evolving and highly uncertain market. Abrupt Shocks Amid Gradual Warming: The Long And Short View The impact of climate change on agriculture markets is already evident in the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme-weather events such as heatwaves, floods, and droughts. Charts 2A, 2B, and 2C, illustrate the impact of major weather events in crop-producing regions of the U.S. on yields, production and acreage for the crop year in which the events took place. Chart 2AExtreme Weather Events Reduce U.S. Corn Supplies … Chart 2B… Soybean Supplies … Chart 2C… And Wheat Supplies In A Big Way Chart 3Climate-Induced U.S. Supply Shocks Associated With Price Spikes   While the individual losses are a function of the magnitude of the event, the events highlighted translate to a 16%, 10%, and 7% decline in corn, soybean, and wheat yields, respectively. These supply disruptions generally do not extend beyond the event year, as the new crop year offers farmers a clean slate to raise output and maximize profits. Given that the U.S. is a major global supplier of these crops, extreme weather events and the subsequent supply reductions lead to non-negligible price pressures (Chart 3). While crop conditions thus far have failed to deteriorate in trend (Chart 4), greater frequency and intensity of weather events raise the probability of a decline in overall crop and could lower supply.   Chart 4Crop Conditions Have Generally Held Up Expanding the analysis to other major crop-producing regions of the world, we find that once again, extreme-weather events are associated with a decline in yields and production in the corresponding crop year (Chart 5). This exercise also indicates that the impact of droughts is significantly more pronounced than the impact of floods.4 While the weather-induced supply shocks described above are unpredictable, abrupt, and have an immediate impact on output and prices, the gradual warming of temperatures is a slow-moving process. Consequently, the impact will manifest in the form of gradual changes that are difficult to capture and quantify, especially given the mitigating effect of CO2 fertilization – i.e., higher yields resulting from higher CO2 in the atmosphere. Nonetheless, rising temperatures will become a serious risk in crop-planting regions both in the U.S. and globally (Chart 6). While rising temperatures are expected to bring about increasingly more wide-ranging supply disruptions (Chart 7), the net impact over the coming decade is not a clear negative. Chart 5Weather Events, Especially Droughts, Hurt Global Supplies Chart 6Rising Global Temperatures Will Pose A Serious Risk … Chart 7… Especially Above The 2°C Mark One study expects the positive impact of CO2 fertilization on yields to overwhelm the negative effect of rising temperatures over the coming decade (Table 1). Elsewhere, studies forecast different responses, with some predicting incremental yield gains over the coming decade before temperatures rise to levels that overwhelm the benefits of greater CO2. Similarly, according to the FAO’s assessment, the net negative impact of climate change on global crop yields will only become apparent with a high degree of certainty post-2030.5 Table 1Estimates For The Response Of Global Average Crop Yields To Warming And CO2 Changes Over The Next Decades Bottom Line: Given that rising crop yields have been the main vehicle through which global ag supply grew to meet expanding demand, the risks posed to yields due to climate change are non-trivial. Supply disruptions generally do not extend beyond the event year, as the new crop year offers farmers a clean slate to raise output and maximize profits. The impact will manifest itself in the form of two simultaneous trends: the gradual rise in temperatures alongside more frequent and severe weather events. While the latter will threaten immediate supply, the former is a slower moving process, and its net negative impact is unlikely to manifest before 2030. The Winners … And Losers Rising temperatures are expected to result in a negligible impact on ag markets over the coming decade; yet this finding is not uniform across all regions. The FAO study cited above finds that by 2030, the projected impact on crop yields will be slightly net negative in developing countries. However, in developed countries, the effect will be net positive. In terms of global supply, the impact of climate change over the coming decade is expected to remain relatively contained, affecting certain regions at various times without causing major global disruptions. That said, as global warming and extreme weather persist, the ramifications will begin to extend beyond individual regions, and will cause supply shocks on a global scale. In part, this can be explained by a greater potential for net reductions in crop yields in warmer, low-latitude areas and semi-arid regions of the world.6 This non-uniform impact will create relative winners and losers. Producers located in temperate regions – where climate change does not yet pose as serious a threat – are set to profit from their increased role in global supply. Conversely, tropical regions are much more vulnerable to climate change. This is especially true for those whose economies are highly dependent on agriculture (Chart 8). Chart 8Agricultural Economies In Tropical Regions Are Most Vulnerable On net, the overall economies of DM countries – which generally are not economically dependent on agriculture and are located in northern regions – will be relatively more insulated from the impact of climate change on the agriculture sector. Aside from the impact on producers, the implications on consumers are also region-dependent. Clearly the direct impact of climate change on global agriculture will be higher food prices, which directly impacts the food component of inflation generally. As a result, consumers who spend a large share of their income to food – generally consumers in lower income countries – will be hardest hit (Chart 9). Chart 9Higher Food Prices Disproportionately Hurt Consumers In Lower Income Countries In theory, a food supply shock is transitory, and given that food is usually excluded from core inflation gauges targeted by central banks, monetary policy should not react to these price spikes. All the same, aside from this direct impact on inflation, food inflation can also pass-through into other components of the CPI basket, for example through wage pressures or inflation expectations. This would lead to a more persistent impact on core inflation, forcing policy makers to react to these transitory forces, complicating the monetary policy response function for these countries. Given that inflation expectations are less well-anchored in lower income economies and that food makes up a larger share of consumption expenditures in these economies, they are most vulnerable to weather-induced food shocks. Chart 10Subsidies Partially Insulate Against International Shocks In countries where food prices are highly subsidized, the impact of higher global food prices will not immediately translate to higher domestic prices. This explains why there is no one-to-one relationship between global food prices and domestic food prices (Chart 10). Instead, the higher prices are absorbed by the governments, resulting in an expansion in government expenditures. This distorts the local food market, as it prevents demand from adjusting to the higher prices, and could potentially result in an undershoot in inventories that makes global markets even more vulnerable to further supply shocks. Bottom Line: The implications of climate change on ag producers are non-uniform. While higher-latitude regions are set to benefit, at least in the short-run, low-latitude countries with economies that are highly dependent on the agriculture sector will suffer most. On the consumer side, individuals who spend a large share of their income on food are set to suffer most. While consumers in countries that subsidize the crops will be protected from the immediate inflation risk, they may feel a delayed impact due to an increase in budget expenditures needed to cover the larger import bill. Mitigation Efforts While the potential impact of climate change on the agriculture sector can be large, it will be at least partially managed through adoption of mitigation policies (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Adaptation Reduces Vulnerability A key question in determining the extent of this behavior is whether warming temperatures and the increased occurrence and intensity of extreme events will be sufficient to justify a major acceleration of investment in agriculture. These efforts would range from simple management changes on the part of farmers to technological advances that raise the productivity of farming or reduce the vulnerability of farmers to climate change. For example, farmers across the U.S. have been planting corn and soybeans earlier in the spring, resulting in an advancement in planting dates (Chart 11). The earlier planting has also been accompanied by a longer growing season with the average number of days in the season increasing. Farmers are also adapting by altering their decisions on which crops to plant. For example, since soybean and corn are planted in many of the same regions of the U.S., farmers often plant more soybeans than corn when experiencing weather shocks. Chart 11Weather Events, Especially Droughts, Hurt Global Supplies The agriculture sector is also using more efficient machinery that can plant and harvest crops much faster as well as developing heartier seeds and more potent fertilizers. In turn, farmers will alter their decision making by selecting crop varieties or species that are more resistant to heat and drought. Or they will change fertilizer rates, amounts and timing of irrigation, along with other water-management techniques. Farmers also are making wider use of integrated pest and pathogen management techniques, in order to raise the effectiveness of pest, disease, and weed control. Given that the number of firms in the agriculture sector are fewer in developed markets than in the rest of the world, management decisions can be more easily implemented in the former. Farmers across the U.S. have been planting corn and soybeans earlier in the spring, resulting in an advancement in planting dates. On the other hand, emerging market countries where ag output is driven by numerous individual farmers will have a more difficult time implementing policies. Individual farms may not have the means to support themselves, which raises the potential impact of climate change. What is more, climate-change mitigation efforts may require projects, programs, or funds set aside by the government to support these efforts. This is more likely to occur in wealthier developed countries. Bottom Line: Adaptation and mitigation measures on the part of farmers have the potential to reduce the impact of climate change. That said, farmers in richer countries with the funds and institutions in place to support the ag sector likely will fare better. Investment Implications Over the coming decade, the ramifications of climate change are likely to be contained to a regional level. Although global supply will be vulnerable to regional disruptions, the impact will, in part, be mitigated by inventories, which have been rising for years. These stocks will create a buffer against unpredictable supply shocks (Chart 12). Chart 12Higher Inventories Needed To Buffer Against Unpredictable Shocks However, given that the global soybean market resembles an oligopoly with Brazil, the U.S., and Argentina accounting for 81% of global supply, global soybean prices will be more vulnerable to supply events in these regions than other crops (Chart 13). Chart 13Soybeans Most Vulnerable To Shocks Affecting Major Producers At the other end of the spectrum, global wheat markets will be relatively more insulated from isolated weather events impacting any one major producer as each of these regions contributes a relatively small share to global wheat output. This analysis also finds that yields and supply generally recover in the crop year following an extreme climate event. This implies that while the extent of damage from these events can be severe, they are not persistent unless the increasing frequency of extreme events leads to a secular change. Aside from the price impact, the weather and temperature changes will manifest in the form of greater volatility in supply, translating to greater price volatility. Options-implied volatilities for corn, wheat and soybeans have been on a general downtrend since the two major global food scares in 2007/08 and 2010/11 (Chart 14). We expect the trend to reverse going forward as the frequency of weather events will create greater price uncertainty. We summarize the findings of this report in Table 3 (Appendix, on page 16). Chart 14Volatility Will Go Up Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Research Associate AmrH@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Isabelle Dimyadi Research Associate Isabelled@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table 2Extreme Weather Events In The U.S. Table 3Summary Table Footnotes 1 Please see Vogel et al, The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields, Environ. Res. Lett 14 054010, 2019. 2 As a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions precipitation is expected to increase in high altitude regions such as much of the U.S. and decrease in subtropical regions such as the southwest U.S., Central America, southern Africa, and the Mediterranean basin. 3 Plants can be broken down into either C3 or C4 based on the way they assimilate atmospheric CO2 into different physiological components. While rising CO2 causes C3 plants to raise the rate of photosynthesis and reduce the respiration rate, C4 plants do not experience a rise in photosynthesis since  photosynthesis is already saturated. For example, studies show that soybean yields increased 12%-15% under 550 ppm vs. 370 ppm CO2 concentrations while corn experienced negligible yield increases. 4 Please see Lesk C., P. Rowhani, and N. Ramankutty, Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production, Nature, 529(7584), 84-87, 2016. 5 Please see The State Of Food And Agriculture: Climate Change, Agriculture, And Food Security, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016. 6 Please see Stevanovic et al., The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare, Sci-Adv 2(8), 2016.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Soft housing demand, the trough in interest rates, new home price deflation and weak industry employment prospects suggest that an underweight stance is now warranted in the S&P homebuilding index.      Firming demand/supply dynamics, IMO Sulfur 2020 regulations, and bombed out relative profit expectations all signal that further gains are in store for pure-play refining equities. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P homebuilding index to underweight, today. Table 1 Feature Equities made a run for fresh all-time highs last week, continuing to cheer the trade war “phase one” deal and breathing a big sigh of relief on better-than-expected bank earnings. We doubt a real deal will materialize which would include Intellectual Property and the tech sector. Instead all we got was a trade truce, at best. Larry Kudlow’s recent football analogy is worth repeating: “It's like being on the seven-yard line at a football game…And as a long suffering New York Giants fan, they could be on the seven and they never get the ball to the end zone…When you get down to the last 10 percent, seven-yard line, it's tough". As a reminder, steep tariffs remain in place and there are high odds that the damage already done to global trade is severe enough that it will be months before the emergence of any green shoots. Meanwhile, following up on our “chart of the year candidate” we published two weeks ago, we drilled deeper and discovered two additional economically sensitive indexes that have consistently peaked prior to the SPX in the past three cycles (Chart 1). They now comprise the U.S. Equity Strategy’s Equity Leading Indicator – an equally weighted composite of the S&P Banks index, the Russell 2000 index and the Value Line Geometric index – which signals that the easy money has already been made this cycle in the SPX (Chart 2). Chart 1Three Bulletproof Signals... Chart 2...Combined Into One Leading Equity Indicator Importantly, absent profit growth, it remains extremely difficult for equities to embark on a sustainable fresh leg up by solely relying on multiple expansion. Chart 3 shows our updated Corporate Pricing Power Indicator (CPPI) and it continues to deflate. In fact the steep fall in our CPPI more than offsets the fall in wage growth warning that the margin contraction in the S&P 500 has staying power1 (bottom panel, Chart 3). Drilling beneath the surface, our CPPI is waving a red flag. As a reminder, we calculate industry group pricing power from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. Table 2 also highlights shorter term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation. Only 42% of the industries we cover are lifting selling prices by more than 1%, and 33% are outright deflating. Worrisomely, only 26% of sectors are raising prices at a faster clip than overall inflation. With regard to pricing power trends, two thirds of the industries we cover are either flat or in a downtrend (Table 2). Chart 3Nil Corporate Pricing Power Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power Gold has jumped to the top of our table galloping at a 26%/annum rate (keep in mind it was deflating in our early July update), and only three additional commodity-related industries made it to the top twenty (Table 2). The disappearance of the commodity complex from the top ranks is consistent with global PPI ills and U.S. dollar strength. This week we update two groups, one early and one deep cyclical. Interestingly, defensive sectors have a healthy showing in the top ten spots with five entries. On the flip side, commodities in general and energy-related industries in particular occupy the bottom of the ranks as WTI crude oil is steeply deflating from the October 2018 peak. Adding it up, corporate sector selling price inflation is sinking in line with depressed inflation expectations. As we posited in our recent profit margin Special Report, profit margins have already peaked for the cycle. We reiterate our cautious overall equity market view on a cyclical 9-to-12 month time horizon. This week we update two groups, one early and one deep cyclical. Cracking Homebuilding Foundations We recommend downgrading the niche S&P homebuilding index to underweight, as most, if not all, positive profit drivers are already reflected in relative share prices. Specifically, the drop in interest rates has been more than accounted for by the year-to-date outperformance in homebuilders. Since the Great Recession, homebuilders have been in clearly defined mini up-and-down cycles, and there are high odds we will soon enter a down oscillation (bottom panel, Chart 4). Interest rates bottomed in early September and there is little additional push they can exert to relative share prices (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4Relative Gains Are Exhausted Worrisomely, consumers’ expectations to purchase a new home nosedived last month according to The Conference Board’s survey, and that demand softness will weigh on housing starts and ultimately homebuilding revenues (Chart 5). Chart 5Cracks Forming Adding insult to injury, new house selling prices are losing ground to existing home prices, but such discounting is no longer boosting volumes as new home sales market share gains have stalled recently. Already, S&P homebuilding sales are contracting and the risk is that deflation gets entrenched in this construction industry (Chart 6). While the mortgage application purchase index (MAPI) has been rising on the back of the plunge in interest rates, the 30bps rise in the 10-year Treasury yield since September 1 signals that the MAPI has tentatively crested (second panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Contracting Sales Chart 7Margin Trouble Simultaneously, lumber prices are gaining steam and coupled with contracting new home prices signal that homebuilding profits will suffer a setback (middle & fourth panels, Chart 7). This stands in marked contrast to the sell-side community that has been ratcheting up profit estimates for the S&P homebuilding index (bottom panel, Chart 7). Netting it all out, soft housing demand, the trough in interest rates, deflating new home prices and weakening industry employment prospects suggest that an underweight stance is now warranted in the S&P homebuilding index. On the operating front, the labor market is also emitting a distress signal. Job openings in the construction industry are sinking like a stone and residential construction employment growth is flirting with the contraction zone. Historically, the ebbs and flows in construction jobs have moved in lockstep with relative share price performance and the current message is to expect a drawdown in the latter (Chart 8). Most of the indicators we track underscore a challenging homebuilding backdrop in the coming months. However, there is a key risk to our view: interest rates. Were the 30-year fixed mortgage rate to fall further from current levels, it would entice first time home buyers and cushion the blow to homebuilding demand (mortgage rates shown inverted, top panel, Chart 9). Similarly, bankers are willing extenders of mortgage credit and are reporting rising demand for residential real estate loans as a lagged consequence of falling rates. But, our sense is that the easy gains are exhausted and a reversal is in the offing in most of these measures (Chart 9). Chart 8Heed The Labor Market's Message Chart 9Potentially Lower Rates Are A Key Risk Netting it all out, soft housing demand, the trough in interest rates, deflating new home prices and weakening industry employment prospects suggest that an underweight stance is now warranted in the S&P homebuilding index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P homebuilding index to underweight, today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HOME – DHI, LEN, PHM, NVR. Stick With Refiners While our bullish take on refiners got to a slippery start, it has recovered all the losses and this position is now in the black. Factors are falling into place for additional gains in the coming months and we recommend investors stick with this overweight recommendation in pure-play downstream stocks. Encouragingly, refining stocks have been trouncing the overall energy index of late and have resumed their multi-year relative uptrend (top panel, Chart 10). With regard to the export relief valve, U.S. net exports of refined products are on a secular uptrend and surprisingly unaffected by the greenback’s moves (bottom panel, Chart 10). Tack on the soon to be adopted International Maritime Organization (IMO) Sulfur 2020 regulations in maritime transportation fuel, and U.S. refiners that produce lower-sulfur fuel oil are well positioned to outearn the SPX. Chart 10Resumed Uptrend Domestic refined product consumption remains upbeat and should serve as a catalyst to unlock excellent value in this niche energy subgroup (middle panel, Chart 11). In fact, gasoline consumption is expanding anew on the back of rising vehicle miles travelled (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Solid Demand... Refining product supply dynamics are also moving in the right direction. Gasoline inventories are getting whittled down and should boost beaten down refining relative profit expectations (inventories shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 12). Importantly, this firming demand/supply backdrop has been a boon to refining margins and should continue to underpin relative share price momentum (middle panel, Chart 12). In terms of what is baked in the cake for this industry, the expected profit growth bar is extremely low and falling and relative value has been fully restored. First in terms of relative valuations, the relative trailing price-to-sales ratio has corrected 35% from the mid-2018 peak (middle panel, Chart 11). On a forward PE ratio basis refiners are extremely appealing compared with the SPX following a near halving in the relative forward PE in the past fifteen months (second panel, Chart 13). Chart 12...Supply Backdrop Is Boosting Crack Spreads  Chart 13Profit Hurdle Is Uncharacteristically Low Second, relative EPS growth has sunk below the zero line both twelve months and five years forward. Such pessimism is overdone and we would lean against sell-side bearishness (bottom panel, Chart 13). Even the refining industry’s net earnings revisions ratio has collapsed, which is contrarily positive (third panel, Chart 13). Adding it all up, firming demand/supply dynamics, IMO Sulfur 2020 regulations, and bombed out relative profit expectations all signal that further gains are in store for pure-play refining equities. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P oil & gas refining & marking index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5OILR – MPC, VLO, PSX, HFC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, “Peak Margins” dated October 7, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives   (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Special Report

Today we are also publishing a Special Report titled Chinese Auto Demand: Time For A Recovery? Highlights India is the third-largest world consumer of crude oil. Hence, fluctuations in its oil consumption is a non-negligible factor behind global oil prices. India’s petroleum demand growth is slowing cyclically due to the domestic demand slump and a dramatic drop in vehicle sales. This, combined with China’s ongoing slowdown in petroleum product demand, will have a non-trivial impact on oil prices in the next six months. From a structural perspective, India’s long-term demand growth for petroleum is decelerating as well. Feature India’s petroleum products consumption growth is slowing. Chart 1India Is The World's Third Largest Crude Oil Consumer India is the world’s third-largest consumer of crude oil, guzzling 5% of global consumption (Chart 1). Hence, fluctuations in India’s crude oil/petroleum consumption is a non-negligible factor affecting global oil prices. India’s petroleum products consumption growth is slowing. This comes on top of China’s ongoing petroleum demand deceleration. Together, the two countries account for 19% of the world’s oil intake. Therefore, deceleration in their oil consumption growth will have a considerable impact on the outlook for global oil demand growth. A Pronounced Cyclical Oil Demand Slump Indian petroleum consumption growth has decelerated significantly on the back of slumps in Indian domestic spending and economic activity (Chart 2). Please click on this link for an in-depth analysis on the domestic demand slump in India. Chart 2Indian Petroleum Consumption Growth Has Been Dwindling Specifically, vehicle purchases and industrial sectors have been hit hard. These sectors are critical for Indian petroleum consumption, since transportation demand accounts for 50% and industrial activity for around 25% of total petroleum consumption (Chart 3). Indian vehicle sales have been in freefall. Chart 3Transportation & Industry Guzzle The Most Fuel In India Chart 4Indian Vehicle Sales Are In Deep Contraction Indian vehicle sales have been in freefall. Chart 4 shows passenger car sales are shrinking at 30% and sales of two and three-wheeler units are contracting at 20% from a year ago. Moreover, commercial vehicles and tractor unit sales are falling at annual rates of 35% and 10%, respectively. Chart 5 illustrates that the number of registered vehicles is expanding at a lower rate than before – i.e., its second derivative has turned negative. This signals a further growth slowdown in gasoline and diesel consumption. We use the second derivative in this analysis because registered vehicles are a stock variable. However, we are trying to explain changes in petroleum consumption which is a flow variable. Therefore, the second derivative of a stock variable (the number of registered cars on the road) explains the first derivative of a flow variable (the growth rate of oil consumption). Looking ahead, vehicle sales will remain in the doldrums because of a lack of financing. In particular, the impulse on auto loans issued by commercial banks is negative (Chart 6). Chart 5Slowing Growth Of Vehicles On The Road = Weaker Pace Of Fuel Consumption Chart 6Indian Banks: Negative Vehicle Loan Impulse More worrisome is the ongoing turmoil in India’s non-bank finance sector (NBFCs), which has also significantly hit auto sales. In the past, the NBFC sector played a major role in funding Indian auto purchases. For instance, according to the ICRA, an independent rating agency in India, NBFCs have helped fund the purchases of 65% of two-wheelers, 30% of passenger cars and around 55% of commercial vehicles – both new and used. Given these non-bank finance companies are currently facing formidable funding and liquidity pressures amid rising NPLs (Chart 7), they are being forced to shrink their balance sheets. This is damaging to auto sales. Please click here for an in-depth analysis on the Indian banking and non-bank finance sectors. Chart 7Major Asset-Liability Mismatches Among Indian Non-Bank Finance Sector Chart 8India's Capex Has Been Weak Turning to the industrial sector, overall Indian capital spending has been weak. India’s real gross fixed capital formation has rolled over, the number of capex projects underway is nosediving and both capital goods imports and production are contracting by 7% and 12% on an annual basis (Chart 8). Falling industrial activity has taken a toll on the consumption growth of petroleum products with industrial applications, such as bitumen, naphtha and petroleum coke, etc. The growth rate in demand for these products is dropping — a significant development since they account for 25% of overall petroleum consumption in India.1  Bottom Line: India’s petroleum consumption growth has been slowing drastically from a cyclical perspective. And Moderating Structural Oil Demand Growth It appears there are structural factors at play that will also reduce India’s long-term demand for petroleum. On top of the cyclical demand slowdown, it appears there are structural factors at play that will also reduce India’s long-term demand for petroleum: Chart 9Impressive Efficiency Gains In India's Vehicle Fleet The fuel efficiency of India’s vehicle fleet is markedly improving (Chart 9). Additionally, since 2015-16 the Indian government has been proactively pursuing new emission/fuel efficiency standards. For instance, emissions standards for new passenger vehicles will fall to 4.2 L/100 KM by 2023 down from its current level of 4.6 L/100 KM. This will lead to a 7% reduction in auto fuel consumption. While this is not a large reduction, the government has the scope to implement even stricter standards since Indian car makers are easily meeting these targets. Finally, the Indian government has been aggressively promoting electric vehicles (EVs) as an alternative to traditional autos. It has made the advancement of this sector a priority. Ownership of EVs is currently negligible in India. However, the government is pushing for EVs to make up 30% of vehicle sales by 2030. In addition, it has been providing incentives such as sales tax cuts and subsidies to the sector. Finally, Mahindra and Tata Motors are already establishing a lead in the EV industry and are developing new EV models in collaboration with foreign automakers.  Bottom Line: The pace of India’s structural demand for petroleum will also be downshifting. Oil Inventory Not A Critical Factor Chart 10China: Oil Inventory Drives Oil Imports Inventory accumulation and destocking can play an important role in oil price fluctuations. For example, inventory accumulation plays a key role in driving Chinese crude oil imports (Chart 10). There is a dearth of data on Indian oil inventories to make a strong inference about its de- and re-stocking cycles. However, we have the following observations: India has the capacity to store 5.33 million tons worth of strategic oil reserves - equivalent to around 10 days of its crude oil consumption. It is not clear whether or not these reserves are at full capacity. However, even if we assume they are only 50% full and the government decides to fill its reserves all at once, this would require the importation of an additional 2.67 million tons of oil, equivalent to only 1.2% of Indian crude oil imports and 0.05% of global crude oil demand. This is a negligible amount, and is unlikely to have any impact on global oil prices. Furthermore, while the Indian government is planning to expand its storage capacity by an extra 6.5 million tons, this will only take place in the next six to eight years. Thus, it will not meaningfully affect oil imports in the medium term. Chart 11India: Oil Consumption Drives Oil Imports Finally, India’s crude oil imports are strongly correlated with its petroleum final consumption (Chart 11). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Indian consumption – not the oil inventory cycle – is relevant for crude imports, and by extension for oil prices. Bottom Line: India’s petroleum product and crude oil inventory fluctuations are too small to influence the nation’s crude imports and hence global oil prices. Investment Conclusions From a cyclical perspective, Indian final demand for crude oil has been weakening. A major re-acceleration in economic growth and hence oil demand is not imminent. We discuss the outlook for China’s auto sales in a separate report published today. Together India and China consume 19% of world oil, and therefore a deceleration in their oil consumption growth will have a non-trivial impact on the pace of global oil demand growth. Chart 12Expansion Pace Of Vehicles On The Road Has Downshifted In India & China Our estimations for annual growth in cars on the road (excluding 2-wheelers) has dropped to 5.8% in India and 10.5% in China (Chart 12). This entails a slower pace of oil demand growth than in the past. Besides, if one rightly assumes petroleum consumption per car is declining for structural reasons due to technological advancements by car manufacturers and enforcement of stricter efficiency standards by governments, oil consumption growth will be considerably slower going forward relative to the past 20 years. Together India and China consume 19% of world oil, and therefore a deceleration in their oil consumption growth will have a non-trivial impact on the pace of global oil demand growth. This presents a major risk for crude prices in the next 6 months or so. Beyond the cyclical horizon, the long-term demand outlook for oil is also downbeat. Please note that this is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team, and differs from that of BCA’s house view, which is bullish on oil. Chart 13India’s Relative Equities Performance Benefits From Lower Oil Prices In turn, low oil prices are positive for the relative performance of Indian stocks versus the EM equity benchmark (Chart 13). This was among the primary reasons why we upgraded the allocation to this bourse within an EM equity portfolio to neutral from underweight on September 26, 2019. In absolute terms, the outlook for Indian share prices remains downbeat, as discussed in the same report. Finally, to express our negative view on oil prices, we are reiterating our short oil and copper / long gold position recommended on July 11, 2019. Industrial commodities such as copper and oil will continue to underperform gold prices in the medium term (the next six months). Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Diesel consumption will also be impacted. While the latter is mostly consumed by the transportation sector in India, diesel does have some industrial applications as well. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Pervasive global policy uncertainty continues to fuel USD safe-haven demand. This keeps the Fed’s broad trade-weighted dollar index for goods close to record highs, which continues to stifle oil demand. At present, we do not expect this pervasive uncertainty to dissipate. For this reason, we are lowering our oil-demand growth expectation slightly for this year and next. Our estimate of global supply growth is slightly lower for this year and next, as well; we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to maintain production discipline and for capital markets to restrain U.S. shale-oil growth.1 Our price forecast for 4Q19 is $66/bbl on average, an estimate that includes a risk premium reflecting continued tension in the Persian Gulf. Our updated supply-demand balances for 2020 reduce our Brent price forecast to $70/bbl versus our earlier expectation of $74/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $4.00/bbl below Brent next year. Highlights Energy: Overweight. The Trump administration likely will not renew Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela when it expires October 25. This raises the likelihood the country’s oil output will fall below 300k b/d, down from the 650k b/d we currently estimate.2 Production could revive next year, if Russian or Chinese firms step in to fill the void. This is not certain, however, as the U.S. is pressing both to end their support for the Maduro regime. Separately, the Aramco IPO could occur as early as November, according to press reports. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges in Asia are staging a recovery, clocking in at $56.70/MT at the end of last week, according to Metal Bulletin’s Fastmarkets. The MB index fell to a record low of $49.20/MT in late August. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold volatility remains elevated – standing at 15.1% p.a. on the COMEX – as markets continue to process news re a partial easing of tensions in the Sino-US trade war. Geopolitical tensions, which now encompass Turkey-US relations, remain elevated. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Uncertainty around a partial deal involving ag exports from the U.S. to China remains high, as negotiators deliberately minimize expectations of a successful outcome. The big sticking point appears to be whether U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports due to kick in in December will be removed. Feature Uncertainty arising from global economic policy risk continues to dominate commodity markets. This has been the case going on three years. While it is ubiquitous, it is difficult to isolate. In earlier research, we noted the tightening of global financial conditions – largely the result of the Fed’s rates normalization policy, which resulted in four rate hikes last year, and China’s deleveraging policy – were responsible for the sharp slowing of oil demand seen in 2H18-1H19.3 Recently concluded research allows us to extend our earlier thesis to account for the effect of pervasive global policy uncertainty over the past three years, which has dominated our analysis of commodity markets generally, oil in particular. To wit: We find a strong, positive correlation between uncertainty, as measured by the Baker-Bloom-Davis Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) index, and the Fed's USD broad trade-weighted index for goods (TWIBG) from January 2017 to now (Chart of the Week).4 Chart of the WeekUSD Absorbs Global Policy Uncertainty USD Absorbs Global Uncertainty Sudden policy shifts have, over the past three years, resulted in a steady increase in the level of the GEPU index. Prior to 2017, the correlations between the GEPU index and the USD TWIBG were running at 33% and 63% for the periods 2000 to 2016 and 2010 to 2016, the post-GFC period for y/y returns. However, as right- and left-wing populism gained ground globally and monetary policy generally became more “data dependent” and ad hoc at the Fed, ECB and BoJ, the GEPU and USD TWIBG indices became highly correlated, surpassing 90% (Chart 2).5 This period saw the U.S. become more and more assertive vis-à-vis trade and foreign policy, particularly in re China, Iran and Venezuela, which caused those states to implement their own policy responses. In addition, as monetary policy generally became increasingly accommodative, central banks – and policy analysts – became less certain about the effects of their policies on the broader economy (e.g., the Fed shifting away from rates normalization, the ECB’s re-launching of QE, and the BoJ’s interest-rate targeting regime). Chart 2Co-Movement In GEPU, USD TWIBG Often, commodity markets were forced to adjust to sudden policy changes – e.g., the imposition of trade tariffs against China, or the granting of waivers to Iran’s eight largest importers in November 2018 just before oil-export sanctions were re-imposed. Sudden policy shifts have, over the past three years, resulted in a steady increase in the level of the GEPU index. Increasing uncertainty translated into a steadily increasing USD TWIBG, with safe-haven demand for dollars rising, as the Chart of the Week indicates. To date, we have not decomposed the drivers of monetary conditions, particularly in re central-bank accommodation versus global economic policy uncertainty on the evolution of the USD. The GEPU index hit a record high in August 2019, while the USD TWIBG hit a record in September 2019. It is possible the effects of general policy uncertainty could be cumulative – as earlier uncertainties remain unresolved and new ones are added to the global mix (e.g., US-Turkey foreign-policy tensions now have been added to other geopolitical risks). It is entirely possible global monetary policy easing – particularly from the Fed – is accommodating safe-haven demand accompanying higher uncertainty. If the Fed were to tighten while uncertainty remains elevated the USD could rally sharply and impact commodity demand even more. Persistent USD Strength Lowers Oil Price Forecast Based on our analysis, the effects of the uncertainty we observe in the USD above are transmitted to GDP globally, which feeds through to commodity demand. As the USD strengthens, it raises the local-currency cost of commodities and the cost of servicing USD-denominated debt ex-US. In addition, on the supply side, a stronger dollar lowers local production costs at the margin, which stokes deflation globally.  All else equal, these effects push oil prices lower by reducing demand and increasing supply at the margin. On the back of a stronger USD and persistent uncertainty, we are once again lowering our estimate of global demand growth. This is most pronounced in EM economies (Chart 3), but there are feedback effects into DM in the form of reduced trade volumes, which hits manufacturing economies like Germany harder than service-dominated economies like the US. On the back of a stronger USD and persistent uncertainty, we are once again lowering our estimate of global demand growth to 1.13mm b/d this year and 1.40mm b/d in 2020 (Chart 4). This is down slightly from 1.2mm b/d this year and 1.5mm b/d next year. In line with the U.S. EIA, we also lowered our estimate of 2018 demand, which has the effect reducing the level of demand we expect in 2019 and 2020. Chart 3Local-Currency Oil Costs Are High Chart 4BCA Research Supply-Demand Balances We maintain our expectation fiscal and monetary stimulus globally will revive demand, but, given the deleterious effects of global uncertainty and its effects on demand via the USD, we are moderating our position some, as the downward adjustment to consumption indicates. On the supply side, we expect KSA’s output to be fully restored by November, and for production in the Kingdom to average 9.9mm b/d in October and November. We are expecting overall OPEC 2.0 output growth of 250k b/d on average in the 2Q20 to 4Q20 interval, down from our previous growth estimate of 500k b/d. In the US, we expect shale-oil output to grow 900k b/d in 2020, versus 1.3mm b/d in 2019, which will leave overall U.S. crude output at 13.3mm b/d next year on average, as capital-market constraints continue to act as a governor on total output (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Shale-Oil Output Will Remain Capital-Constrained Overall, we expect global supply to finish 2019 at 100.8mm b/d and at 102.3mm b/d next year, which is down slightly from our earlier estimates (Table 1). Even with demand moderating, we expect inventories to continue to draw this year and into 3Q20 before they resume building, as the combination of OPEC 2.0 production discipline and capital markets constrain output (Chart 6). Chart 6OECD Oil Inventories On Track To Draw Table 1 Investment Implications Continued voluntary and involuntary production restraint will allow global inventories to draw despite slightly lower demand. Given our supply-demand expectations, we forecast Brent will trade lower next year, at $70/bbl on average versus our earlier expectation of $74/bbl. This is ~ $10/bbl above the median consensus. We continue to expect WTI to trade $4.00/bbl below Brent next year. Continued voluntary and involuntary production restraint will allow global inventories to draw despite slightly lower demand, which will keep Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated next year (WTI was in a slight carry earlier this week, while Brent was backwardated). We would caution that any resolution of the profound uncertainty currently dogging global markets could unleash pent-up demand that would sharply rally commodities generally, and oil in particular. This could take the form of a broad trade agreement that ends the Sino-US trade war – an unlikely, but not impossible,  turn of events – or an unexpected reduction in tensions in the Persian Gulf, again, unlikely but not impossible. Bottom Line: Resolution of global policy uncertainty would revive commodity demand, as safe-haven USD demand gives way to higher consumer spending, renewed growth in global trade and investment. Until then, uncertainty will continue to hamper commodity demand growth, particularly for oil.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the moniker we coined for the producer coalition formed at the end of 2016 to regain control of production following the disastrous market-share war launched by OPEC in 2014, which took Brent prices from above $100/bbl to $26/bbl by early 2016.  The coalition is led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2      Please see Venezuelan oil output could be halved without Chevron waiver extension: analysts, posted by S&P Global Platts October 14, 2019.  3      Please see our report entitle Central Bank Easing Key To Oil Prices, published September 5, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4      This GEPU is a monthly GDP-weighted index of newspaper headlines containing a list of words related to three categories – “economy,” “policy” and “uncertainty.”  Newspapers from 20 countries representing almost 80% of global GDP (on an exchange-weighted basis) are scoured monthly to create the index.  Please see GEPU and Baker-Bloom-Davis for additional information. 5      Both series are plotted as percent changes y/y in Chart 2. For the 2017 - 2019 period, the coefficient of determination for this model is 0.81 using a regression of the USD on the GEPU.  There was no statistically significant relationship between them either from 2000 to 2016, or from 2010 to 2016.  Insert SOFTS text here Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The manufacturing slowdown, on its own, is unlikely to tip the economy into a recession. The sector accounts for a small share of U.S. output and employment, and will gain a tailwind from a pick-up in global growth. A larger and more stable service sector mitigates manufacturing’s impact on the employment and consumption outlook. The bar is too high for manufacturing job losses to lift the overall unemployment rate towards recession-inducing levels. The recent divergence between alternative measures of U.S. manufacturing activity confirms the resilience of the domestic manufacturing sector relative to the rest of the world. Feature Manufacturing activity has been the most prominent casualty of the trade war between the U.S. and China, and global manufacturing PMIs have languished as tensions have intensified with no clear end in sight. Throughout the spring and early summer, manufacturing activity in the comparatively closed U.S. economy held up better than it did overseas. In August, however, the ISM Manufacturing PMI finally crossed the 50 expansion/contraction line and subsequently dipped well below it in September. Evidence of weakness was broad-based throughout September’s report and the fact that forward-looking components like new orders, new export orders and backlogs of orders all contracted further has caught our attention. Although, like most developed markets, the U.S. is a service economy, and consumption accounts for the lion’s share of its GDP, it is certainly not immune to manufacturing cycles. We are not turning a blind eye to the global manufacturing slowdown, nor downplaying its magnitude, but for now we are not overly worried about it. Regular readers know that we continue to believe that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong, supported most of all by an especially robust labor market. The manufacturing slowdown is near the top of investors’ concerns, however, so we measure how severe a manufacturing slowdown would have to be to cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. We find that the bar is high and the slowdown has low odds of getting that bad if, as we expect, global growth eventually recovers. Until a pick-up truly materializes, we remain comforted by our expectation that buoyant consumption and government spending will keep the U.S. economy out of too much trouble. David And Goliath Chart 1Services May Be Larger, But Goods Punch Harder Technology and globalization have revolutionized the manufacturing process and disrupted the global economic landscape. As the outsourcing of manufacturing activities to lower-cost countries has become more and more prevalent, developed markets have steadily transitioned to service economies. Since the 1950s, goods-producing sectors’ share of U.S. GDP has decreased from half to 29%. Nevertheless, a third of the economy is not negligible, especially when it swings much more wildly than the services sector, which is more than twice its size (Chart 1). In a previous report1 where we looked at the components of the U.S. GDP equation, we showed that smaller, more volatile fixed investment was considerably more likely to negate trend growth in the rest of the economy than giant, but stable, consumption. This narrative echoes the dynamics at play with the manufacturing portion of the U.S. economy. Given their greater variability, goods-producing sectors are just as likely to wipe out 2% trend growth in services as services are to wipe out 2% manufacturing growth (Table 1). Table 1Another Road To Recession This would be bad news if we thought the manufacturing slowdown had a lot more downside. We continue to believe in a global growth recovery narrative, however, powered by impending Chinese stimulus and revived trade negotiations. U.S. industrial production and capacity utilization both surprised to the upside in August and global growth is showing budding signs of a recovery (Chart 2). Moreover, our colleagues at Global Investment Strategy have found that industrial cycles last an average of 36 months, divided into an 18-month uptrend and an 18-month downtrend.2 Absent any major trade deterioration, the tenure of the current down leg suggests that an upturn in manufacturing activity is on its way (Chart 3). Chart 2Towards A Global Growth Pick-Up Chart 3The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom   Another channel through which the manufacturing slowdown could hurt the U.S. economy is via manufacturing job losses and the detrimental effect they would have on overall U.S. consumption. Goods-producing sectors employ 21.1 million, including 12.9 million in manufacturing roles - a puny 14% and 8% of total nonfarm payrolls, respectively. The productivity gains that technological improvements and automated processes have unlocked over the years have allowed a modest share of U.S. workers who make tangible things to produce double their proportionate share of U.S. output. Bottom Line: Goods-producing sectors represent less than a third of U.S. GDP and less than a sixth of U.S. jobs. That’s enough for the global manufacturing slowdown to cause some domestic slowing, but not enough to end the expansion on its own. A High Pain Threshold Akin to the goods-producing sectors’ contribution to overall U.S. GDP, aggregate manufacturing payrolls tend to exhibit more volatility than aggregate services payrolls, particularly on the downside (Chart 4). Before the 1980s, because manufacturing activity accounted for a larger share of the U.S. economy and created a larger portion of jobs, a mere deceleration in the pace of payroll expansion was sufficient to tip the economy into a recession. The paradigm has shifted and it now takes a more severe manufacturing downturn to inflict real harm on the U.S. economy. Since the 1980s, no recession has occurred independent of a full-on contraction in manufacturing employment. We are not there yet, as manufacturing payrolls are still growing at a 1.1% pace. Aggregate manufacturing payrolls tend to exhibit higher volatility than aggregate services payrolls, particularly on the downside. Chart 4A Paradigm Shift Our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have previously shown that throughout the post-war era, whenever the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by at least a third of a percentage point from its cyclical lows, a recession has ensued (Chart 5). The U.S. unemployment rate just made a fifty-year low and we do not expect a quick material reversal in the short run. A resilient service sector, ambitious hiring plans and elevated levels of job openings, coupled with a revival in global growth, should hold the U.S. unemployment rate in check for the time being (Chart 6). Chart 5The Recession-Inducing Level Of Unemployment... Chart 6...Is Not Imminent Given Strong Hiring Plans Investors are right to be concerned about the manufacturing slowdown nonetheless. To address those concerns more closely, and to challenge our own view, we calculated the number of manufacturing job losses that would be required to push the unemployment rate up to recession-inducing levels. The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a fifty-year low of 3.5% in September, tugging the 3-month moving average down to 3.6%. There are several paths the unemployment rate can take from current levels for its 3-month moving average to grow by a third of a percentage point. It may gain a linear 10 basis points a month and reach a 3.9% average in the fifth month. Myriad non-linear paths could get the moving average to 3.9% in more or less than five months. For the sake of this exercise, we do not choose a particular path, but simply assume that the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate reaches 3.9% over three, six and twelve months. We build on the work of the economists at the Atlanta Fed and calculate the number of manufacturing job losses required to achieve a 3.9% target unemployment rate over those three timeframes. We used the Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator’s3 default inputs, and the details and results of our subsequent calculations are summarized in Table 2. Table 2The Payroll Road To Recession Chart 7The Bar Is High For Manufacturing To Trigger A Recession Under the default assumptions of a constant participation rate and a population growth rate unchanged from the past twelve months’, it would take 313,000 job losses over three months for the overall U.S. unemployment rate to reach 3.9%. We assume that the private service sector, which shows no sign of distress, will continue to add jobs. It has done so at a historical average monthly growth rate of 0.19% but given that the overall economy has clearly slowed, we assume instead that the service sector will continue to add jobs at the slower 0.13% pace of the past twelve months. Under this more conservative assumption, the economy would gain 560,000 nonmanufacturing jobs over the next three months. Consequently, it would take 873,000 manufacturing job losses alone to offset these gains and lift the unemployment rate to 3.9% within three months. Over a six- and twelve-month horizon, the number of manufacturing job losses required to offset payroll expansion in services reaches 1.1 and 1.6 million, respectively.4 These levels of manufacturing job losses – equivalent to a 7% to 12% contraction in manufacturing payrolls - seem like a stretch in the current macroeconomic backdrop. The only time in the past seventy years when the U.S. economy experienced manufacturing job losses of this magnitude on a 3- month time period was in the first quarter of 1975, when the U.S. economy confronted a tripling of oil prices from the oil embargo. Manufacturing job losses in excess of 1.1 and 1.6 million jobs over a 6- and 12-month horizon have historically been more attainable (Chart 7). That said, manufacturing payrolls are still expanding on a 6- and 12-month horizon, albeit at a decelerating pace. Not only are manufacturing payrolls gains far from recession-inducing levels, manufacturing employment will gain a tailwind from the pick-up in global growth and turn in global industrial production cycles that we expect. These levels of manufacturing job losses – equivalent to a 7% to 12% contraction in manufacturing payrolls – seem like a stretch in the current macroeconomic backdrop. Bottom Line: The bar seems a little too high for the manufacturing slowdown alone to destroy enough jobs to tip the U.S. economy into a full-fledged recession. What Oil Shock? One can argue that the September oil shock caused by attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure will exert further pressure on global manufacturing activities. While it is true that large jumps in oil prices have often preceded recessions, we think the probability is slight that September’s event will jeopardize the prospects of a global growth recovery (Chart 8). Chart 8Oil Spikes And Recessions Chart 9U.S. Output Is Less Dependent On Oil First, not only was the September surge in oil prices tame relative to the spikes that have preceded past recessions, but the quicker-than-expected return of Saudi oil production has calmed markets. For now, the oil scare ended as quickly as it appeared. Second, higher oil prices are less of a drag on the U.S. economy than they were in the 1970s, as the country has become one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world and approaches true energy independence. The gradual shift from a manufacturing to services economy has also reduced the oil intensity of the U.S. economy to a little more than a third of what it was at the time of the 1970s oil embargo (Chart 9). Moreover, higher gasoline prices are less likely to hurt U.S. consumers now that filling the tank takes up a smaller portion of their wallets (Chart 10). As Fed Chair Jay Powell put it in a speech last week, “we now judge that a price spike would likely have nearly offsetting effects on U.S. GDP.” Chart 10Filling The Tank Takes Up A Smaller Portion Of Consumers' Wallets Conflicting Messages? Chart 11The ISM Manufacturing PMI's Sensitivity To Global Growth The ISM Manufacturing Composite PMI is our favored measure of U.S. manufacturing activity as its long track record allows for comparison across multiple business cycles. Although it only offers insights back to 2011, the alternative IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI is nevertheless widely watched by investors and we take note of its moves. While the recent ISM readings have been dismal, the Markit Manufacturing PMI for the U.S. accelerated to 51.1 in September. At first glance, it might seem that both readings are contradicting each other. In fact, the current divergence is not unprecedented and stems from differences in sub-component weighting methodology and in sample size and composition. The ISM reading focuses on larger multinational companies, whereas the U.S. Markit PMI polls a wider array of companies by size. Multinationals’ earnings are more directly affected by global growth developments than smaller and domestically-focused firms. Therefore, in periods of accelerating global and ex-U.S. growth, the ISM PMI tends to score higher than the Markit PMI, and vice versa (Chart 11). A still-expanding Markit Manufacturing PMI combined with a contracting ISM Manufacturing PMI simply reinforces the argument that the domestic manufacturing sector is more resilient than ex-U.S. manufacturing activity, and highlights the potential for an improvement in business confidence if the U.S. and China can reach some sort of detente. Investment Implications In spite of evidence that global manufacturing weakness is spreading, our overall assessment of the U.S. economy remains intact. Assuming an exogenous event does not snuff out the expansion, we do not expect the next recession to occur until after monetary policy turns restrictive. Since the Fed has pivoted to accommodation, along with the world’s other major central banks, we have pushed out our recession timetable back to at least the middle of 2021. We therefore think it is too early to de-risk investment portfolios. We have previously shown that bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line and we remain bullish on a 12-month cyclical horizon. Though we are not concerned that the end of the cycle is at hand, tariff tensions are squeezing trade flows and business confidence. Volatility is likely to remain elevated in the near term until trade tensions die down and the global economy demonstrates that an upturn is at hand. We are therefore neutral on equities over the tactical 0-to-3-month timeframe and recommend investors overweight cash to keep some dry powder at hand. We still recommend that investors underweight bonds in balanced portfolios.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “If We Were Wrong”, dated April 8, 2019, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The reason underpinning this cyclicality is that most purchased goods retain some value for a certain amount of time before they need to be replaced. 3 The Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator tool is available at https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator?panel=1 4 Had we assumed that the nonmanufacturing payrolls continue to grow at the historical average monthly rate of 0.19% instead, the levels of manufacturing job losses required to offset the nonmanufacturing gains and lift the unemployment rate to 3.9% would be 1.1 million, 1.6 million and 2.6 million manufacturing job losses over a 3-, 6- and 12-month time horizon, respectively.

Highlights The world remains mired in a manufacturing recession. This has historically not been bullish for pro-cyclical currencies. The velocity of money in the euro area will need to rise vis-à-vis the U.S. to confirm a bottom in EUR/USD. Watch the gold/silver ratio in timing this shift. Feature The view on the dollar has hardly ever been more polarized. In the bullish camp are those who believe expected returns are currently highest in the U.S., whether in the bond, equity, or real estate markets. As such, deployment of fresh capital will naturally gravitate towards the U.S. Meanwhile, the bearish side has to contend with the fact that the dollar is expensive, the Federal Reserve is about to expand dollar liquidity, and central banks keep diversifying out of their dollar holdings at a rampant pace. Both camps make quite strong arguments. However, there is little discussion about how these trends will affect relative prices between the U.S. and its trading partners. Exchange rates constantly oscillate to equate prices between any two nations. And the most important of those prices is that of money or interest rates. Forecasting relative interest rates can be an arduous task, but at a minimum, one can observe whether they are in equilibrium or not. In this report, we do it via one lens: the velocity of money, with specific application to the EUR/USD exchange rate.    EUR/USD And The Velocity Of Money The velocity of money (V) is a difficult concept to define, but can be summarized by Irving Fisher’s classical equation MV=PQ, where P is the price level in the economy, Q is output, and M is the money supply. In other words, V=PQ/M. Classical monetarists believe that the velocity of money should exhibit a high degree of stability, allowing central banks to control prices by simply altering the money supply. However, over the past few decades, there has been no correlation between prices and money supply, at least in the U.S., which seems to suggest V has a life of its own.  Chart I-1Money Velocity And Interest Rates There are many debates on how to interpret the velocity of money, but it is generally accepted that it is related to interest rates. If money supply is expanding faster than output, then it must be that interest rates are falling, assuming the latter are the price of money. Ergo, one way to regard V is as the interest rate required by the underlying economy (the neutral rate), since it is measured using economic variables, while long rates are priced in the financial arena. Put another way, once economic agents start to increase the turnover of money in the system, it is an endogenous sign that the economy requires higher rates, similar to the signal from rising inflation. Ever since the European debt crisis, the velocity of money in the euro area has collapsed relative to that in the U.S. In the financial world, relative long bond yields have followed suit in tight correlation (Chart I-1). In a nutshell, the relative demand for holding money, perhaps precautionary demand, has been extremely high in the euro area, such that all the increase in relative money supply has been absorbed by falling relative velocity. Put another way, the neutral rate of interest in the euro area has been falling relative to that in the U.S. The velocity of money is observed ex-post, meaning it is not very useful as a forecasting tool. However, if we accept the premise that it measures the underlying neutral rate of interest in an economy, then observing it offers powerful insight into the underlying fundamental trends for any economy. One conclusion from this could be that outgoing European Central Bank President Mario Draghi might be justified in his delivery of powerful monetary stimulus last month, despite the rising chorus of dissent from the governing council. Chart I-2Structural Slowdown In European Growth Chart I-2 plots the relative growth performance of the euro area versus the U.S. superimposed with the exchange rate. The result is very evident: The collapse in the euro since the financial crisis has been driven by falling growth differentials between the Eurozone and the U.S. There is little the central bank can do about deteriorating demographic trends, but it can do something about falling productivity. One of those things is to lower the cost of capital in the entire Eurozone, such that it makes sense even for the less productive peripheral countries to borrow and invest. Of course, dynamics in the euro area are much more complex than this simple analogy, since rates do little to boost total factor productivity, and the capital stock in the euro area is quite high. But the fact that the biggest increase in investment since the end of the European debt crisis has been in the periphery is non-negligible evidence. A weaker exchange rate also helps. Global trade growth peaked in 2011, which means that since then, one of the few ways for countries to expand their trade pie has been via a “beggar thy neighbor” policy. Both the Germans and the Japanese are automobile geniuses. So, at the margin, the decision for an indifferent buyer comes down to cost. Chart I-3 shows that ever since the European debt crisis, the relative exchange rate between Japan and the euro area has followed the relative balance sheet expansion and contraction of both central banks. Until now, the Bank of Japan’s balance sheet was slated to expand much faster than that of the ECB. This would have been a powerful and unnecessary upward force on the EUR/JPY exchange rate, in the face of a trade war. Ever since the European debt crisis, the relative exchange rate between Japan and the euro area has followed the relative balance sheet expansion and contraction of both central banks. EUR/USD could face some near-term downside, judging from the spread between German bunds and Treasury yields (Chart I-4). Admittedly, hedged yields still favor the Eurozone over the U.S., especially in the periphery, but that advantage is fading rapidly. More importantly, yields across the periphery are converging rapidly towards those in Germany, solving a critical dilemma that has always plagued the Eurozone in general, and the euro in particular. In simple terms, ECB policy has historically always been too easy for some member countries while too stimulative for others. This has traditionally led to internal friction for the currency. However, with 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain, and even Portugal now at -26 basis points, 15 basis points and 14 basis points, respectively, this dilemma is slowly fading. Chart I-3ECB Action May Have Stalled A Euro Overshoot Chart I-4EUR/USD And ##br##Interest Rates The drop in the neutral rate of interest for the Eurozone versus the U.S. might have to do with internal dynamics in the euro area, but part of the reason may also lie in the performance of the manufacturing sector versus the services industry over the past few years. The end of the commodity bull market earlier this decade, the peak in global trade – partly driven by  China’s deliberate efforts to shift its economy more towards services, and the proliferation of “capital-lite” firms has decimated the manufacturing sector around the world. This maybe explains the underperformance of the Eurozone versus the U.S. It is clear that part of this shift is structural, but there has also been a cyclical component. Together with a lot of our leading indicators, one way to time the reversal will be to watch relative money velocity trends – between the U.S., the euro area, and China, for example. This brings us to the ratio of gold prices versus silver. Bottom Line: The world remains mired in a manufacturing recession. This has historically not been bullish for pro-cyclical currencies. The velocity of money in the euro area will need to rise vis-à-vis the U.S. to confirm a bottom in EUR/USD. Gold Versus Silver Chart I-5GSR At A Speculative Extreme The gold/silver ratio (GSR) was in a race towards major overhead resistance at 100 this summer, but finally hit a three-decade high of 93.3 and is now showing tentative signs of a reversal. The history of these reversals is that they tend to be powerful, quick, and extremely volatile (Chart I-5). This not only paves the way for an excellent entry point to short gold versus silver, but provides important information on the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pick-up in economic (or manufacturing) activity. In short, it provides insight on when to buy pro-cyclical currencies. Just like gold, silver benefits from low interest rates, plentiful liquidity, and the incentive for currency wars and fiat money debasement. However, the gold/silver ratio tends to rally ahead of an economic slowdown, but then peaks when growth is still weak but liquidity conditions are plentiful enough to affect the outlook for future global growth. Of course, a key assumption is that the global economy fends off a recession, which could otherwise sustain a high and rising GSR. The ratio of the velocity of money between the U.S. and China has tended to track the gold/silver ratio in a tight embrace. The ratio of the velocity of money between the U.S. and China has tended to track the gold/silver ratio in a tight embrace (Chart I-6). A falling ratio signifies that the number of times money is changing hands in China outpaces the number in the U.S. This also tends to coincide with a pickup in manufacturing activity, for the simple reason that silver has more industrial uses (Chart I-7).  Chart I-6Falling GSR = Rising Manufacturing Activity Chart I-7No Recession = Buy Silver A falling dollar also tends to benefit silver more than gold, because silver generally rises faster than gold during precious metal bull markets. Part of the reason is that the silver market is thinner and more volatile, with futures open interest that is about one-third that of gold. Put another way, volatility in silver has always been historically higher than gold (Chart I-8), just as manufacturing and exports tend to be the most volatile part of any economy. Chart I-8Silver Is More Volatile Than Gold This brings us to the sweet spot for silver (and procyclical currencies). Even if global growth remains tepid over the next few months, a lot of the bad news is already reflected in a high GSR, meaning the potential for upside will have to be nothing short of a deep recession. Relative speculative positioning hit a high of 36% of open interest and has been rolling over since. Relative sentiment hit a high of 33% and is also rolling over. More often than not, confirmation from both these indicators has led to a selloff in the GSR (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Tentative Signs Of A Top If global growth bottoms, then the rise in silver prices could be explosive. Silver fabrication demand benefits from new industries such as solar and a flourishing “cloud” industry that are capturing the new manufacturing landscape (Chart I-10). Meanwhile, we are entering a window where any pickup in demand could lead to a sizeable increase in the silver physical deficit. The sharp fall in silver scrap supply is an indication that the supply bottleneck is becoming acute (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Silver Fabrication Demand Uptrend Chart I-11Physical Silver Is In Deficit As for speculators, ETF demand for silver has just started to pick up, meaning the prospect for a speculative buying frenzy is significant. Similarly, in Shanghai, turnover in both gold and silver has been muted – fitting evidence that there has been a dearth of Asian physical demand, from Hong Kong to India (Chart I-12). We are following this turnover closely as it could be a good indication of a turnaround. Chart I-12Silver Turnover Is Low In Asia Bottom Line: A falling GSR provides important information about the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pickup in economic activity. We remain bullish on both gold and silver, but a trading opportunity has opened up for a short GSR position. Place a limit sell at 90.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been mostly negative: Average hourly earnings growth fell from 3.2% year-on-year to 2.9% in September. Nonfarm payrolls decreased to 136,000, while the unemployment rate fell to a 50-year low of 3.5%. The trade deficit marginally widened to $54.9 billion in August. The NFIB’s business optimism index fell to 101.8 in September, down from 103.1 in August. Producer prices for final demand fell by 0.3% month-on-month in September. Services decreased by 0.2% while goods fell by 0.4%.  Initial jobless claims fell to 210,000 for the week ended October 4th. Both headline and core inflation were unchanged at 1.7% and 2.4% year-on-year in September. The DXY index increased by 0.1% this week. Fed chair Jerome Powell said in a speech on Tuesday that the Fed will begin increasing its securities holdings to maintain an appropriate level of reserves in order to avoid another cash supply shock. Balance sheet expansion may eventually help weaken the greenback. Report Links: Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have continued to disappoint: The Sentix confidence index in the euro area fell further to -16.8 in October.  German factory orders contracted by 6.7% year-on-year in August, while industrial production fell by 4% year-on-year. The trade surplus narrowed by roughly €2 billion to €18 billion in August. In France, the trade deficit widened by €0.5 billion to €5 billion in August. Industrial output fell by 0.9% month-on-month in August.  The EUR/USD increased by 0.4% this week. The incoming data are sending the same old message: that while services and domestic demand are holding up, manufacturing and exports continue to underperform. In an interview this week, European Central Bank Vice President Luis de Guindos stated that the ECB still has further headroom to ease policy.  Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mixed: Both the coincident index and leading index fell to 99.3 and 91.7 in August. Labor cash earnings contracted by 0.2% year-on-year in August. The current account balance also widened to a surplus of ¥2.2 trillion in August. The ECO Watchers Survey shows an improvement of the current situation to 46.7 in September. However, the outlook index fell further to 36.9. Preliminary machine tool orders contracted by 35.5% year-on-year in September. The USD/JPY increased by 0.6% this week. The Bank of Japan is likely to introduce additional stimulus via stronger forward guidance. But the path of least resistance for the yen before then is down. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been dismal: Halifax house prices contracted by 0.4% month-on-month in September. Retail sales decreased by 1.7% year-on-year in September. Industrial production continued to fall by 1.8% year-on-year in August. Manufacturing production also decreased by 1.7% year-on-year. GDP fell by 0.1% month-on-month in August. The GBP/USD fell by 0.8% this week, weighed by Brexit uncertainties and weaker incoming data. Moreover, the FPC meeting minutes released this Wednesday highlighted the downside risks associated with a disorderly Brexit, including material debt vulnerabilities, structural illiquidity, and reduced space for monetary policy. The pound is extremely cheap, but volatility will persist in the near term. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdon: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been negative: The NAB’s business conditions index increased to 2 from 1 in September. However, the NAB confidence index fell to zero. The Westpac consumer confidence reading also plunged by 5.5% to 92.8 in October, its lowest since mid-2016.  Home loans grew by 1.8% month-on-month in August, following a monthly increase of 5% in July. The AUD/USD has been flat this week. Our bias remains pro-cyclical and we are constructive on the Aussie dollar from a contrarian perspective, especially against the kiwi. As an export-oriented economy, the Australian dollar is likely to respond well to positive U.S.-China trade talks. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There is scant data from New Zealand this week: The Inflation gauge was unchanged at 0.3% month-on-month in September. The NZD/USD has been flat this week. As a small, open economy, New Zealand is highly tied to global growth, and heavily weighed down by the U.S.-China trade war. We continue to be long AUD/NZD however as a play on relative valuation. Report Links: USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been relatively strong: Exports and imports both increased in August. However, the trade deficit narrowed to C$0.96 billion in August from C$1.38 billion in July. The Ivey PMI fell to 48.7 in September, down from 60.6 in August. Building permits grew by 6.1% month-on-month in August. New housing prices contracted by 0.3% year-on-year in August. The USD/CAD fell by 0.1% this week, as Canada is gearing up for a federal election on October 21st. The latest opinion polls show the Liberal Party still ahead with 34.2% of votes, followed by the Conservative Party, closely behind. Our colleagues in Commodity & Energy Strategy point out that the most positive outcome for the Canadian energy sector is a Conservative majority. Our baseline scenario remains a second Trudeau term, producing a status quo result that does not materially change our energy sector outlook. Report Links: Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been positive: The unemployment rate came in at 2.3% in September, the lowest over the past 18 years. USD/CHF has been more or less flat this week. As we argued in last week’s report, the Swiss domestic economy is holding up well. However, due to the highly export-driven nature of the Swiss economy, the Swiss National Bank is likely to weaponize its currency to keep tradeable goods prices in a favorable range. We will go long EUR/CHF at 1.06. Stay tuned.   Report Links: Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been mostly negative: Manufacturing output contracted by 1.1% month-on-month in August. Headline inflation slowed to 1.5% year-on-year in September. Core inflation, however, increased to 2.2% year-on-year. The producer price index increased by 3.6% month-on-month in September. The Norwegian krone continues to trade offside against the U.S. dollar, due to broad dollar resilience and weak oil prices. The USD/NOK increased by 0.2% this week. The EIA posted an increase of 2.9 million barrels in crude oil stocks this week, following an increase of 3.1 million barrels last week, much higher than expected. The increase in oil supply, together with a quick recovery of Saudi oil facilities are viewed as near-term bearish for oil prices. But if demand is able to recover, this will be positive. Remain long petrocurrencies for now. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden continue to disappoint: Industrial production grew by 2.5% year-on-year in August, following yearly growth of 3.1% the previous month. Total manufacturing new orders contracted by 1.1% year-on-year on a seasonally-adjusted basis in August. Headline inflation increased to 1.5% year-on-year in September. The Swedish krona has been the worst-performing G-10 currency this week, losing 1.1% against the U.S. dollar. Year-to-date, the USD/SEK has appreciated by a total of 12.3%. Swedish manufacturing new orders, a key indicator we watch in gauging the direction of the global economy, continued to deteriorate this week. Among sub-sectors, the largest decrease was recorded in the mines and quarries sector. We are watching Swedish data closely.  Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades