Commodities & Energy Sector

As the world’s second most populous country with an economy projected to grow over 7% annually, India’s potential as a commodity consumer is massive. However, years of distortionary and unfriendly policies have held back the Indian manufacturing sector – the prime consumer of commodities. This has translated into weak “consumption intensity” of industrial commodities. The past four years have witnessed a shift to more business-friendly policies. These policies and an eventual expansion of the manufacturing base will support steeper demand for industrial commodities over the longer term. India’s economic model stands in stark contrast with China’s, which became a voracious consumer of commodities as it industrialized. It is not “the next China” when it comes to metals demand, but it will play an important and growing global role. In terms of agricultural commodities, favorable demographic trends will raise aggregate demand, regardless of the success of India’s industrialization. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Russia’s production was down 42k b/d in January, a trifle compared to the ~ 450k b/d reduction by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in December. Officials indicate Russia will cut production by 228k b/d in 1Q19. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Indian steelmakers are seeking relief from increasing imports in the form of higher duties, as slowing Asian demand leads to higher shipments from China, Korea, and Japan, according to Reuters.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold markets appear more confident in the Fed’s capitulation on its rates-normalization policy, at least in 1H19, as prices rallied above USD 1,320/oz in end-January. Gold traded slightly lower this week. We remain long as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA releases its WASDE report tomorrow. Feature The impact of China’s rapid industrialization since 2000 on commodity markets is well known. Its share of global consumption of copper and crude oil rose from a modest 10.9% and 6.0% in 2000 to 51.1% and 13.5%, respectively (Chart of the Week). As such, China fueled global demand growth over this period (Chart 2) and, in large part, is responsible for the commodity price boom that ensued. Chart of the WeekChina Now Dominates Industrial Commodity Demand With such a large chunk of demand originating in China, its economic health remains a dominant variable in accurately predicting the path of industrial commodity prices globally. However, with economic priorities shifting from the industrial sector to consumer-driven services, the era of insatiable Chinese commodity demand growth looks to be nearing its end. In search of a replacement to take up the slack, India has often been singled out as a potential leading source of commodity demand growth going forward, and for good reason: India is massive. In terms of population, it is roughly on par with China, boasting a population of 1.3 billion people. And while its share of global wealth is dwarfed by China’s, India’s economy is growing at a rapid pace. According to the most recent IMF projections, its GDP will expand at a 7.5%, and 7.7% clip this year and next – faster than China’s projected 6.2% for both years. Typically, as low income economies develop, their manufacturing sector outpaces economy-wide growth, raising the contribution of industry to overall GDP. Stronger activity in this sector correlates well with industrial commodity demand, which rises accordingly. Meanwhile ag demand is determined by both population and income growth. India, however, has missed the boat (Table 1). Its share of global demand is disproportionate to its current size and its future potential. Table 1India’s Consumption Of Industrial Metals Stands Out As Disproportionately Low In fact, the intensity of commodity usage per dollar of GDP is low even relative to countries at similar income levels (Chart 3). This is most clear in the case of metals. It can be put down to the relatively small role of manufacturing in India’s economy. India did not follow the traditional path of growing its manufacturing base first before re-orienting its economy towards services. Rather, the manufacturing sector has been held back by poor infrastructure and distortionary policies. In fact, services – such as financial services, business services, and telecom – already dominate India’s economy, accounting for 53.9% of GDP, compared to 16.7% in the case of manufacturing (Chart 4). This is in stark contrast with other economies such as China, Korea, and Thailand, in which manufacturing accounts for 29%, 28%, and 27%, respectively (Chart 5). Chart 5No Pickup In Manufacturing Yet Given that the services sector is relatively less metals- and energy-intensive, India’s contribution to global demand for industrial commodities has been disproportionately low. Bottom Line: India’s growth model to date is oriented toward the services sector. As a result, the intensity of industrial commodity demand there – measured as consumption per dollar of GDP – is significantly lower than its peers. This has prevented India from playing a larger role in global commodity markets. The Case For Greater Commodity Demand: Theories And Evidence Economist Walt Whitman Rostow postulated that economies develop through five distinct phases: Traditional society: subsistence agriculture, low level of technology, labor-intensive Preconditions to takeoff: regional trade, the development of manufacturing Take off: the beginning of industrialization Drive to maturity: rising living standards, economic diversification, strong use of technology High mass consumption: mass production and consumerism Along this path, economies in phases (2), (3), and (4) are the most notable in terms of rising appetite for industrial commodities. During these stages, the industrialization and urbanization processes require an expansion of electricity grids, infrastructure and housing. As such, these stages are characterized by high base metals demand. Yet as illustrated by the sigmoid, or S curve, the period of exponential growth in commodity demand eventually slows down and in many cases falls after the country reaches a certain level of GDP per capita (Chart 6). Evidence from metals and oil corroborate this theory. In fact, if we single out the commodity intensity path of DM economies as their incomes were rising, we find that commodity intensity there has already started to decline (Chart 7). This S-curve is also evident in the commodity intensity of emerging economies (Chart 8). China’s path to development stands out as an extreme case of high consumption usage. While not all economies follow China, the paths are similar. In the case of oil, it appears that the consumption intensity of countries that have developed more recently peaked at both a lower income level and a lower oil usage level than countries that developed earlier. This is clearly the case for Korea and Malaysia, and suggests that technology has raised the efficiency of oil. On this basis, we do not expect India’s commodity intensity to reach the same peaks as its more wealthy peers. However, India’s usage has remained stagnant and in some cases fallen. This highlights the relatively muted role of manufacturing in India’s economy. As India’s economy grows and evolves, this should change. We project India’s commodity intensity path as it grows its manufacturing base (Chart 9). Based on this exercise, we find that by the year 2040, India’s consumption of refined copper will account for 12% of global consumption -- up from 2% today.  The impact is more muted in the oil sector -- we expect it will account for almost 12% of global crude oil demand, from the current 5%. This trajectory reveals that the scope for rising demand is greater for metals than for the oil sector, implying that industrial commodities are set to benefit in the case of a boom in Indian manufacturing. Bottom Line: Both theory and evidence suggests that the intensity of India’s commodity usage is set to rise over time as its manufacturing sector expands. This is especially true in the case of metals. Even in our most conservative projection, India’s copper consumption is set to rise more than 10-fold by 2040. The Path Forward: “Make In India” While the Rostow model is instructive in framing our thinking on the path to development, it is a crude theory – not all countries will necessarily follow the same path to development. These are the lessons from economist Alexander Gerschenkron’s theory of economic backwardness, which highlights that countries’ growth paths may not be identical or replicable due to cross-country differences, and differences in the state of technology available at varying points of time. Applying these ideas to India means that while India is able to access current technology, which supports a more rapid industrialization process, its economic model is also very different. The China model rested on a powerful single-party state, with privileged access to the American market, that used its control of the financial system to funnel a swell of national savings into an aggressive industrialization effort. On the other hand, the India model required the government to move forward incrementally. Indian leaders had to pursue industrialization while grappling for democratic consensus in the context of extreme social diversity and a more restrictive trade environment. Thus, India is likely to mimic the circuitous path of emerging markets like Brazil or Mexico. Over the past four years, Indian policymakers have tried to unwind unfavorable business policies and spur growth in the manufacturing sector. The “Make in India” initiative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeks to encourage both foreign and domestic investment, and to raise the manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP to 25% by the year 2025. In the process it aims to create 100 million jobs. This target is unrealistic. In fact, the manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP has come down slightly, with economists blaming the demonetization drive and the chaotic, complicated and unclear roll out of the new Goods and Services Tax. Modi also faces tough elections this spring, which could put his initiative on ice. Nevertheless, there is a positive omen in the automobile industry. According to figures from the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, roughly 4 million cars were manufactured last year – up from 3.2 million just five years ago (Chart 10). This is in line with India’s Automotive Mission Plan 2026, which aims for the auto industry to become one of the top three, accounting for 40% of the manufacturing sector and contributing 12% to India’s GDP by 2026. Chart 10An Encouraging Trend For Manufacturing Moreover, Modi’s impact has been a net positive in making India more welcoming for investment. While poor infrastructure, red tape, and restive labor laws are still constraining industry, measures of institutional performance are improving (Chart 11). This is a prerequisite for a brighter manufacturing future. As for the election, even if India’s opposition Congress Party should come to power, it will have learned from its five years in the political wilderness that Modi’s message of economic development resonates with the public. Their current stance on economic policy calls for import substitution, economic liberalization, and a faster pace of development – consistent with a growing manufacturing sector. Chart 11The Business Environment Is Improving The Business Environment Is Improving Bottom Line: While the “Make In India” campaign says as much about Modi’s flair for public relations as anything, India’s business environment is now more conducive to growth and investment. This bodes well for commodity demand going forward. Ags In The Age Of Manufacturing While a much-needed push in India’s manufacturing sector would clearly have a direct impact on its demand for industrial metals, the resulting improvement in the economy and employment would also raise incomes. In theory, this would support the consumption of agricultural commodities. Nonetheless, a couple of observations suggest that India is less of an opportunity for ags as it is for metals (Chart 12): In terms of the level of ag consumption per capita, rice usage is actually relatively high in India. While corn intensity levels are still quite low, wheat consumption per capita is near the level at which China plateaued. The differences across these grains likely reflects differences in preferred sources across countries and implies there is not as much room for catch up. Furthermore, ag consumption per capita generally plateaus at fairly low-income levels, in stark contrast to the industrial metals. A clear outlier is corn consumption in the United States, where high-usage patterns can be put down to the rising use of corn for ethanol production on the back of biodiesel mandates. We do not expect growth in ag consumption intensity on the back of rising incomes. Nevertheless, India’s population is projected to continue rising, in turn supporting aggregate food consumption there. That said, policies promoting India’s self-sufficiency in agriculture have generally prevented rising demand from spilling over into global markets. In fact, in terms of the trade balance, India is usually a net exporter of these grains, especially in the case of rice (Chart 13). This is a positive for India – in that it has so far avoided the risk of food shortage that occasionally rears its head – but it is a negative for global ag demand. Chart 13Self-Sufficiency Policies Insulate The Indian Ag Sector Bottom Line: Unlike industrial commodities, we do not anticipate a rise in per capita ag consumption in India. Nevertheless, a rapidly growing population will mean that aggregate demand for ags will grow briskly.    Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy PavelB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Exclusive: Indian steel firms seek higher duties on steel imports as prices drop,” published by Reuters.com on February 5, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Trades Closed in 2018  

Feature Half Way Back Since BCA went overweight global equities in late December, the MSCI ACWI index has rallied by 8% and the S&P 500 is back to only 8% off its September historical high. So far, this has been little more than a technical rally from the extreme oversold position in Q4. But with U.S. economic growth still resilient, earnings likely to grow healthily again this year (albeit more slowly than in 2018), and the valuation of risk assets (both equities and credit) no longer a headwind, we expect the rally to continue for some time, and so reiterate our overweight on equities. Recommendations True, there have been some disappointments in U.S. data in recent weeks. In particular, the December manufacturing ISM fell sharply to 54.3 from 59.3, raising fears that the U.S. is starting to decelerate in line with other regions (Chart 1). But the ISM may have been affected by the government shutdown and, overall, U.S. data still look solid, with the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index beginning to rebound, and stronger than in other regions (Chart 2). The residential housing market, which was exhibiting signs of stress last year, with existing home sales -6.4% YoY in December, is showing the first signs of stabilization, helped by mortgage interest rates that are now 50 BPs off their recent peak (Chart 3). Chart 1How Worrying Is The U.S. Slowdown? Chart 2U.S. Data Surprisingly Positive Chart 3Housing Market Should Stabilize In particular, the outlook for consumption looks healthy, with average hourly earnings growing at 3.3% YoY, consumer confidence close to an historic high, and the savings rate above 6%. Unsurprisingly, then, retail sales have boomed in recent months (Chart 4). Unless consumer confidence is dented by a repetition of the government shutdown or some other shock, consumption (68% of GDP, remember) should grow strongly this year. Add to this a residual positive impact of close to 0.5% of GDP coming from last year’s fiscal stimulus, and it is hard to imagine the U.S. going into recession over the next 12 months. Chart 4Consumption Booming The Fed will probably go on hold for now, however, given the market jitters in Q4. We are likely back to a situation like that in 2015-2016, where the Fed Policy Feedback Loop becomes the key factor for markets (Chart 5). When financial conditions tighten, with stock prices falling and the dollar appreciating, the Fed turns more dovish. However, this triggers a rally in risk assets and loosens financial conditions, allowing the Fed to start hiking again. With the tightening in financial conditions over the past six months, the Fed is likely to err on the side of caution for now (Chart 6). However, if our macro view is correct – and as inflation starts to pick up again after April, partly due to the base effect – the Fed will want to continue withdrawing accommodation over the course of this year. The Fed Funds Rate, at around 2.4% is still two hikes below what the FOMC sees as the neutral level of interest rates (the 2.8% terminal rate in the FOMC dots). We see the Fed, therefore, raising rates in June and perhaps hiking two or even three times this year. By contrast, the futures market assigns only a 25% probability of even one rate hike this year, and is even pricing in a small probability of a cut. Chart 6Tighter Conditions Mean More Cautious Fed Clearly, there are plenty of risks to the scenario of growth continuing. But those in the hands of President Trump, especially the trade war with China and the fight over funding of the wall on the border with Mexico, we don’t see as being serious impediments. Trump is fully aware that he is unlikely to be reelected in November 2020 if the U.S. is in recession by then. Every incumbent U.S. president since World War Two who fought for reelection during a recession failed to be reelected (Chart 7). The view of BCA’s geopolitical strategists, therefore, is that the White House and Congressional Democrats will agree to concessions to end the shutdown before the end of the current three-week stop-gap period. Less likely, Trump will declare a national emergency that will cause much controversy but have little impact on the economy. Our strategists also argue that there is a 45% probability of trade negotiations with China producing a result (at least a short-term one the president can boast about) before the March 1 deadline, and a further 25% probability of the deadline being extended without further sanctions being imposed.1 Chart 7Trump Won't Be Reelected In A Recession Equities: Analysts have become overly pessimistic about the earnings outlook for this year, cutting 2019 U.S. EPS growth to 7% (and only 2% YoY in Q1). Our top-down model (based on, admittedly optimistic, U.S. growth assumptions, but also headwinds from a stronger dollar) indicates 12% growth. If analysts are forced to revise up their numbers as better earnings come through, that should be a catalyst for further equity performance (Chart 8). We continue to prefer U.S. over European equities. The steady slowdown in European growth over the past 12 months has not yet bottomed, banks in Europe remain troubled, the earnings picture is less positive, and valuations relative to the U.S. are not especially attractive. We also remain underweight on EM equities: they may produce a positive return in a risk-on environment, but we see them underperforming DM as rising U.S. interest rates and a stronger USD put pressure on EM borrowers with excess foreign-currency debt. Chart 8Analysts Have Overdone Downward Revisions Fixed Income: The recent fall in U.S. Treasury yields was mainly caused by the inflation expectation component, itself very sensitive (if rather illogically so) to the oil price (Chart 9). As the oil price recovers (see below), inflation picks up moderately, and the Fed hikes by more than the market expects, we see the 10-year Treasury yield rising to 3.5% during the course of the year. BCA’s fixed-income strategists recently raised their recommendation on global credit to overweight, given more attractive spreads and the likelihood that the Fed will be on hold for the next six months.2 Their recommendation is for 3-6 months, and the Fed restarting the hiking cycle, say in June, might terminate the positive story. We are following their lead, by raising both high-yield and investment-grade bonds to overweight within the (underweight) fixed-income asset class. That means we are neutral credit in the overall portfolio. We would warn, though, that this is a somewhat short-term call: we still prefer equities as a way to play the continuing risk-on rally. Given the high level of U.S. corporate leverage, and the over-owned nature of the credit market, this is likely to be an asset class that performs very poorly in the next recession (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation Expectations Should Recover Chart 10Corporate Leverage Is A Concern Currencies: Currencies will continue to be driven by relative monetary policy. With the growth desynchronization between the U.S. and other DMs set to continue (to a degree), we see modest further USD appreciation this year. The Fed (as argued above) will probably hike more than the market expects. But, given slow European growth, the ECB is unlikely to be able to hike in Q4 this year, as it currently is guiding for and the futures market implies (Chart 11). We see the ECB reopening the Targeted Long-Term Repo Facility (TLTRO), which expires soon. Italy and Spain have been big borrowers from this facility, and bank loan growth is likely to slow as it ends (Chart 12). A renewed TLRTO would be seen as a dovish move. Tighter dollar liquidity conditions also point to a stronger USD. U.S. credit growth continues to accelerate (to 12% YoY – Chart 13) in an environment where the monetary policy has tightened: credit growth is outpacing U.S. money supply growth by 7%. Historically this has been negative for global growth (mainly because the deteriorating liquidity is a problem for EM dollar borrowers) and positive for the dollar (Chart 14).3 Chart 11Can ECB Really Hike In 2019? Chart 13...U.S. Loan Growth Accelerating... Chart 14... Which Will Tighten Liquidity Further Commodities: The supply/demand situation for oil should improve over coming months. With Saudi Arabia and Russia committed to cut supply by 1.2 million barrels/day, U.S. shale production growth slowing given the low one-year forward price for WTI, Canada reducing production, and Venezuela on the verge of collapse (which alone could remove 700-800k b/d from the market), our energy strategists see the crude oil balance in deficit over the next four quarters (Chart 15). Given this, they forecast Brent crude rebounding to above $80 a barrel. Other commodity prices are mostly driven by Chinese demand. We see China continuing to slow, until the accumulated effects of its fiscal and mild monetary stimulus start to come through in H2 and stabilize growth. Our analysis suggests that China remains very disciplined about the size and nature of its stimulus: it is not turning on the liquidity taps as it did in early 2016. Bank loan growth has stabilized, but shadow banking activity continues to contract, as the authorities persist with their crackdown and their emphasis on deleveraging (Chart 16). Industrial commodities prices are therefore likely to weaken over the next six months.  Chart 15Oil Balance In Deficit This Year Chart 16China Sticking To Credit Crackdown   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “So Donald Trump Cares About Stocks, Eh?”, dated 9 January 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis,” dated 15 January 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3      For a detailed explanation, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Global Liquidity Trends Support The Dollar, But…,” dated 25 January 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com

The hiatus in the Fed’s rates-normalization policy in 1H19 in the wake of its capitulation to financial markets, supports our bullish view on gold prices, as it raises the risk of an inflation overshoot later this year. Per the Fed’s dual mandate, inflation and employment gauges are signaling the need for tighter policy, according to BCA’s proprietary Fed Monitor. The pause in hiking fed funds raises the likelihood the Fed will find itself behind the inflation curve, as the economy enters a late-cycle phase. Gold will outperform other commodities and equities in this phase. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Highlights Energy: The U.S. imposed sanctions on state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), including a ban on the company’s Houston-based Citgo remitting earnings back to the parent company.  This raises the likelihood production and exports will fall sharply as we expect.  Separately, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the country will reduce output below its recently agreed 10.3mm b/d cap in 1H19, in line with our own balances expectation.1 Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral.  Iron ore prices likely will continue to move higher, following the collapse of a wet-processing dam at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão mine.  The company suffered a similar breach at its Samarco mine in March 2016, which still has not re-opened. Output will fall, if it follows through with additional dam closures. Precious Metals: Neutral.  Gold prices will continue to move higher, as the Fed’s near-term capitulation on its rates-normalization policy raises the odds the U.S. central bank will find itself behind the inflation curve.  (See below.) Ags/Softs: Underweight.  USDA reported soybeans inspected for export to China during the week ended January 24 accounted for close to 37% of the total beans inspected.  This made China the No. 1 importer of American soybeans again. Feature In February 2018, we wrote that “price risk in gold will remain skewed to the upside this year, even as our base case scenario calls for limited gains from here.” In line with this expectation, we suggested remaining long gold as a portfolio diversifier and hedge against mounting equity risks. This turned out to be an accurate call. Despite losing 8.4% between January and September 2018 because of an aggressive Fed, gold rose by 7.6% in 4Q18 amid the rising equity volatility and ended the year down a minor -1.5% compared to -6.2%, -11.2% and -7.1% for the S&P 500, global equities and the CRB commodity index. This reflects the convexity in gold returns and is the reason we favored gold in 2018. Gold returns are not simply a function of the U.S. dollar and real interest rates. As highlighted in our 2019 Key Views report last December, in mature economic cycles, gold’s ability to hedge against equity and inflation risks dominate its price formation, while its correlation with the U.S. Treasury yields diminishes (Chart of the Week).2 Chart of the WeekGold's Correlation With U.S. Rates Declines As The Cycle Matures As the current cycle extends to 2019, the skewness in gold return will prove profitable. The Fed’s retreat on its quarterly rate-hike cycle only adds to our positive view, as it increases the probability the U.S. central bank falls behind the curve. Stay long gold as a portfolio hedge. Fed’s Short-Term Capitulation Strengthens Our View The recent downward revision in the Fed’s rate-hike path reinforces our positive stance on gold prices, as risks of an overshoot in inflation rises. The dichotomy in U.S. vs. rest of the world growth puts the Fed in a difficult position. The current capitulation was mainly driven by tightening financial conditions – chiefly, the rising U.S. dollar, declining stock prices, and widening credit spreads. However, under the Fed’s dual mandate, inflation and employment still are signaling “tightening-required” per BCA Research’s Fed Monitor, a model maintained by our U.S. Bond strategists (Chart 2). Since economic growth cannot remain above-trend indefinitely, short-term productive capacity constraints (i.e. capital and labor factors of production) are already binding and will force the Fed to raise rates later this year as inflation creeps up. Chart 2Growth And Inflation Signal Tighter Money Is Required As it reaffirms its data dependence, the Fed is opening the door to falling behind the inflation curve, given inflation is a lagging indicator of the price pressures that are building up in the economy (Chart 3). As a result, we expect gold’s ability to hedge against inflation will support its price in 2H19. Chart 3Inflationary Pressure Will Rise In 2019 Short-term, a Fed pause also supports gold by readjusting investors’ expectations regarding the U.S. dollar and real interest rates lower. Our bond strategists identified two previous periods where similar conditions led to a false start in the Fed hiking cycle, 1997 and 2015. In both cases, the Fed’s capitulation led to a reversal in gold’s downward price trajectory, as the market perceived the central bank was keeping its short-term policy rate at a level that was inconsistent with the so-called R-star rate or natural rate of interest – i.e., “the real interest rate expected to prevail when the economy is at full strength” (Chart 4).3 Chart 4AGold Price's Trajectory Reversed In 1997... Chart 4B Using a conceptual four-quadrant framework developed by our colleagues at The Bank Credit Analyst to describe the Fed’s behavior, we currently believe the outcome with the highest probability of being realized by the Fed’s capitulation is Policy Mistake 2 (Table 1, lower right quadrant). If we’re right, this raises the odds of an inflation overshoot above the Fed’s 2% target later this year.4 Table 1Four Fed Policy Scenarios This is not a foregone conclusion. However, generally speaking, the higher the inflation uncertainty and the higher the perception the Fed will fall behind the curve, the higher gold is bid up. Recent price action seems to corroborate this. Chart 5 shows that the recent downward revision in the median long-term fed funds rate projection coincides with a rise in gold prices. At present, gold investors are signaling that the fed funds rate is below the neutral rate consistent with R-star. Chart 5Gold Markets Signal Monetary Policy Is Accommodative Gold And The U.S. Economic Cycle Gold prices are difficult to model and predict, given the collection of time-varying, often conflicting, components determining their evolution. Its core determinants change as we move through the economic cycle. In their current late-cycle environment, inflation and equity risks – i.e., fears of a sharp correction – usually gain in importance. In this report, we characterize the market’s late-cycle phase using two metrics: (1) the fed funds rate relative to R-star, (2) the phase of the yield curve cycle.5 We have already discussed (1) in our outlook and found that when the fed funds rate is rising yet still below the estimate of R-star, gold returns are highly skewed to the upside (Chart 6).6 For (2), we compared the yellow metal’s return to other assets returns in different phases of the U.S. Treasury yield curve’s evolution. We define these yield-curve phases as follow: Phase 1: Normal (i.e., positively sloped: 10-year rates are greater than 3-month rates). The 3-month/10-year treasury slope is above 75 bps. Phase 2: On its way to flattening and returning to normal. The 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is between 0 bps and 75 bps. We divide this in two sub-phases: (a) steepening, and (b) flattening. Phase 3: Inverted (i.e., negatively sloped). The 3-month/10-year Treasury slopes is below 0 bps (Chart 7).7 Chart 7Phases Of The Yield Curve Cycle We found that: first, DM and EM equities are the best performers in the group we looked at during Phase 1, when the slope of the yield curve is steep (above 75 bps). Second, there is wide difference between the steepening and flattening sections of Phase 2. EM equities and copper experience the largest rebound once the slope’s curve steepens from below zero. Lastly, gold performs best in the flattening section of Phase 2 and, critically, it outperforms oil, copper, broad commodity indices and equities (Table 2). Table 2Gold Returns Are Positive When The Yield Curve’s Slope Flattens Our U.S. Investment and Bond Strategists believe the Fed’s policy rate will remain in the below-r-star-and-rising range, and in Phase 2 of the yield curve cycle for most of 2019. We agree, and believe our analysis indicates gold prices will increase this year on the back of these factors. Recession Fear And Equity Risks Will Drive Gold For most of 2018, investor sentiment and positioning were primarily determined by the U.S. dollar and real rates. As these variables rose last year, investors’ sentiment and positioning turned overly bearish; this pushed our Gold Composite Indicator in the oversold territory (Chart 8).8 In our view, the other (important) drivers of gold prices were ignored during that period. The end-of-year equity selloff led to a reshuffle of the core determinants of the yellow metal’s price, pushing the equity risk factor higher on the list of variables explaining its price. Chart 8Sentiment Collapsed In 1H18 Chart 9 shows gold and the U.S. equity risk premium disconnected in 2018, until the October equity selloff. In general, these variables are positively linked. When risk aversion is elevated, investors demand higher compensations for holding risky assets, and increase their demand for safe-haven assets. This pushes up both the equity risk premium and gold prices. Chart 9Gold And Equity Risk Premium Correlation Picked Up Gold’s performance in 4Q18 supports our recommendation for holding it as a portfolio diversifier in 2018, and why we continue to do so this year (Chart 10). Separately, our U.S. dollar and rates-only model moved up recently, easing the downward pressure on gold (Chart 11). While we believe these two variables’ marginal impact diminished since 4Q18, they are included in our gold “fair-value” model, which currently indicates it is fairly valued and that its support remains intact. Chart 11Upside Pressures Are Building Bottom Line: The Fed’s near-term capitulation raises the odds the U.S. economy will experience an inflation overshoot. Our fair-value model also is supportive of gold prices. We remain long as a diversification and portfolio hedge. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Saudis Pledge Deeper Oil Cuts in February Under OPEC+ Deal,” published by bloomberg.com January 29, 2019.  See also “OPEC Starts Cutting Oil Output; Demand Fears Are Overdone” published January 24, 2019, for our latest supply-demand balances and price forecasts.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published December 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see John C. Williams’s remarks delivered to the Economic Club of Minnesota May 15, 2018, entitled “The Future Fortunes of R-Star: Are They Really Rising?”  Williams was president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time, and now has the same role at the NY Fed..  We explore this further below.  See also BCA Research’s U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled “An Oasis Of Prosperity,” published August 21, 2018. It is available at usb.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA Research’s The Bank Credit Analyst January 2019 Monthly Report published December 21, 2018. It is available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5      The San Francisco Fed defines R-star as the inflation-adjusted “natural” rate of interest consistent with a fully employed economy, with inflation close to the Fed’s target. R-star is used to guide interest-rate policy consistent with long-term macro goals set by the Fed. Please see “R-star, Uncertainty, and Monetary Policy,” by Kevin J. Lansing, published in the FRBSF Economic Letter May 30, 2017. 6      We presented this analysis in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published December 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7      For a similar analysis applied to different asset classes, please see BCA Research’s U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled “2019 Key Views: Implication For U.S. Fixed Income,” published December 11, 2018, and The Bank Credit Analyst January 2019 Monthly Report published December 21, 2018. These reports are available at usb.bcaresearch.com and bca.bcaresearch.com. Our approach is slightly different from our colleagues’ methodology. We used a threshold of 75 bps instead of 50 bps in order to increase the sample size of the Phase 2, flattening section. This improves the accuracy of using the average as our main descriptive statistic. Note that the yield curve can remain inverted for some time before a recession occurs, this explains why equity returns are positive in Phase 3 (curve inversion). 8      Our Gold Composite Indicator has three components: (1) Sentiment, (2) Speculative positioning and (3) Technical. It is meant to assess if there is any mismatch between our fundamental analysis and investors’ sentiment and expectations. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary Of Trades Closed In 2018

Special Report

Venezuela’s stability is deteriorating rapidly along the lines of our projections in recent years. Regime failure is at this point a high probability and poses immediate risks to global oil production. Our conviction is high because of the unprecedented combination of internal and external factors working against the regime: Economic collapse: Economic collapse has translated into total social collapse, as indicated by the large-scale emigration from the country (Chart 1). The current mass protests are the largest ever and are gaining momentum, while the opposition movement is coalescing into a single force against the regime as a whole for the first time. Political illegitimacy: What remained of the Maduro administration’s political legitimacy has eroded with his decision to ignore the results of the 2015 election and rig the election of 2018. The President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, has declared himself President of the Republic based on an interpretation of the Venezuelan constitution and his leadership of the democratically elected National Assembly.1 International opposition: The erosion of Maduro’s legitimacy is reinforced by a rapidly changing international environment, with several countries becoming more assertive in opposing the regime. The United States and Colombia, on January 23, formally recognized Guaidó as president. They are joined by Canada and several other Latin American states, including Brazil, which is taking a more confrontational posture under the newly inaugurated President Jair Bolsonaro. This marks a rare coordination of North and South American states in pursuing a harder policy toward Venezuela. U.S. intervention: The United States, in particular, is taking a more interventionist stance through tighter sanctions. Indeed a limited U.S. military intervention is one of our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” for this year. Such an intervention could be further motivated by President Donald Trump’s need to distract from his domestic woes (Chart 2). His weak popular approval is comparable to that of President Ronald Reagan at this stage in Reagan’s first term, when he intervened in the small island state of Grenada. Venezuela is not Grenada, but the U.S. is also not considering outright invasion. Trump is facing a serious risk of becoming a “lame duck” due to the fall in his popularity amid the government shutdown and gridlock in Congress. A foreign policy response to a humanitarian crisis is an obvious way for him to try to increase his influence over the remainder of his term. Moreover, the U.S. diplomatic and defense establishment may agree on the need to reinforce the Monroe Doctrine against anti-democratic politics and growing Chinese (and Russian) influence in Venezuela. Chart 2Trump May Distract From His Woes What remains is to see whether the U.S. adds force (tougher sanctions) to its more aggressive diplomatic posture, and whether the Venezuelan opposition remains mobilized and unified in rejecting anything except a transition to a new government. The U.S. is already considering expanding sanctions, including a likely deathblow that would involve sanctioning Venezuelan oil imports and the export of diluents necessary to process Venezuela’s heavy sour crude. Within Venezuela, the opposition’s momentum and the role of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces will be decisive: so far there are small signs of fracture (Table 1), but no sign of a substantial turn against the Maduro regime.Sufficient popular pressure can create a “tipping point,” however, after which the military and security forces are no longer effective in executing the government’s writ and the socio-political situation declines beyond the ability of the regime to stay in power. Persistent large-scale protests concentrating on Maduro’s departure and/or a split in the security forces could precipitate the final stage of transition to a new interim government in the short to medium term. Table 1Military Insurgencies Have Been Small And Unsuccessful … So Far Impact On The Oil Market In this context, we are raising the likelihood of a collapse of that state to an 80% probability, from our prior assessment (33%). We use the word “collapse” to stand for Venezuela’s production falling to 250k b/d to feed domestic refineries, from ~ 1mm b/d at present. In our simulation of how a collapse could affect oil prices, we make the following assumptions based on recent history – i.e., the run-up to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iranian oil exports. These assumptions are driven by our prior belief that the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which we’ve dubbed OPEC 2.0, and the Trump administration will attempt to hold Brent crude oil prices at or below $80/bbl in the event of a collapse in Venezuela’s oil production. Here are our assumptions: Venezuela collapses next month; OPEC 2.0 responds with a one-month lag, and increases production by 500k b/d in March 2019. If Brent spot prices trade to $85/bbl, OPEC 2.0 raises production an additional 100k b/d. If prices continue to rise toward $100/bbl, OPEC 2.0 adds another 300k b/d to global supply. Further increases lead to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) releasing 100k b/d as needed to reduce Brent prices to $80/bbl or less. If spot Brent prices rise toward $100/bbl, we assume there will be 200k b/d of demand destruction globally. Chart 3 shows how Brent and WTI prices would evolve per these assumptions. Because Venezuela’s production has fallen so much, we believe the collapse of that country’s oil industry can be managed by OPEC 2.0, and, if necessary, via U.S. SPR releases. Of course, a similar trajectory likely would occur in the event Venezuela’s oil industry collapses later.2 Chart 3A Venezuela Collapse Would Trigger OPEC 2.0 and U.S. Supply Responses In our simulation, the Brent spot price trades to $85/bbl in December 2019, and OPEC 2.0 adds an additional 100k b/d to global supply. Prices continue to rise, and we assume OPEC 2.0 member states release a combined 300k b/d in March 2020. The U.S. release 100k b/d of SPR in 2020. In addition, we do see demand destruction of 200k b/d in 2020, as prices reach close to $100/bbl. With all of this, prices are contained and start decreasing in mid-2020. Of course, whether these surges can be maintained indefinitely – i.e., until Venezuela comes back on line, or comparable crude grades can be shipped south from Canada – is an open question. Even so, there is no doubt that the leaders of OPEC 2.0 silenced more than a few critics by means of their 4Q18 production surge. KSA stands out in this regard, taking its November 2018 production over 11mm b/d from ~ 10mm b/d in 1H18 (Table 2). Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) As a practical matter, we have no way of knowing how OPEC 2.0 or the U.S. SPR would respond to a collapse in Venezuela’s oil industry. In these simulations, we’re making a call on how and when OPEC 2.0 might choose to release its spare capacity once again, as they did in the run-up to the U.S.’s Iran oil export sanctions last year (Chart 4). As the members of OPEC 2.0 – mostly KSA, when it’s all said and done – dig deeper into spare capacity, less is available to meet another unplanned outage – e.g., Libya or Nigeria lose significant barrels to civil unrest. That is, we are sure, a discussion OPEC 2.0 is and will be having among its members, and with the U.S. SPR. The global oil market still is exposed to a sharp loss of Iranian barrels on top of the loss of Venezuela’s supplies in the event that country’s oil industry collapses. This argues strongly for an extension of the waivers granted by the Trump administration in November for anywhere from 90 to 180 days, depending on how the Venezuela situation evolves. These waivers expire at the end of May. This would require us to change our balances assessment, should it occur.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Articles 233, 333, 350 of the Venezuelan constitution. The domestic and international legal debate is beside the point: the effective power of the people, the security forces, and the international community will determine the outcome. 2 For more information on global supply and demand balances, and our most recent oil price forecasts, please see “OPEC Starts Cutting Oil Output; Demand Fears Are Overdone,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy today. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.  

OPEC 2.0 is building physical optionality, to deal with different possible moves the U.S. can make on Iranian oil export sanctions and waivers. This comes despite an apparent break in the sense of urgency Saudi Arabia and Russia feel re production cuts. The coalition’s market monitoring committee meets in April, followed by a full gathering in May, when U.S. waivers expire. If the U.S. extends waivers, OPEC 2.0 can extend production cuts; if it doesn’t, it can add supply as needed.1 On the demand side, markets appear to be overly concerned about a sharper-than-expected slowdown in China, which, if borne out, would restrain EM growth. We believe these fears are overdone, and expect a slight improvement in EM demand generally this year and next. In our new balances estimates, we see the OECD commercial oil inventory overhang clearing in 1H19, on the back of resilient demand, OPEC 2.0 discipline, and a more moderate level of growth in U.S. shale oil output. This keeps Brent on track to average $80/bbl this year and $85/bbl next year, with WTI trading $74/bbl this year, and $82/bbl next year. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Mandatory cuts of 325k b/d, coupled with additional exports of ~ 190k b/d due to additional train and pipeline capacity out of Canada, will drain the 35mm barrels of excess crude oil inventories targeted by the Alberta government in December by 1H19. The WCS – WTI spread narrowed to -$10/bbl from -$50/bbl on these mandatory cuts. By 2H19, we expect Canadian production cuts to average 95k b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum output in China surged 11.3% y/y in December, hitting 3.05mm MT, according to Metal Bulletin. Total output for 2018 was 35.8mm MT, a 7.4% y/y increase. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is holding its recent gains, as markets become more comfortable with the Fed pausing on its rates-normalization policy until 2H19. Agriculture: Underweight. Hot and dry weather in Brazil is threatening crop yields there. The unfavorable weather is expected to affect three-quarters of cotton-growing regions, half of sugar areas, a third of first-crop corn acreage, and a quarter of soy regions. Feature The first signs of fraying in the relationship between the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0 – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which cut production ~ 450k b/d m/m in December, and Russia, which raised output – are emerging, as world leaders meet in Davos. While this casts doubt on the leadership’s carefully cultivated amity, and their shared willingness to abide by the recently agreed output cuts, we do not believe it signals the end of the historic cooperation between these states. Total OPEC output – estimated by production-tracking sources outside the Cartel – stood at 31.6mm b/d in December, a prodigious 751k b/d reduction m/m. We expect continued oil production cuts from core OPEC states and decline-curve losses among non-Gulf OPEC and non-OPEC states within the coalition this year to remove at least 1.2mm b/d from the market, per the quotas agreed by members in December (Chart of the Week, Table 1). On top of this, mandatory Canadian production cuts of 325k b/d in 1H19 and 95k b/d in 2H19 will keep average production cuts at ~ 1.4mm b/d this year. Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0 Will Resume Production CutsTable 1OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Could Exceed Quotas OPEC 2.0’s cuts could persist into 2020, depending on how the U.S. deals with Iranian oil-export sanctions and waivers. Even though KSA and Russia apparently do not share the same sense of urgency re production cuts right now, we believe OPEC 2.0 is committed to draining oil inventories, particularly in the OECD.2 To do so, they’re increasing their operational flexibility – creating physical options, in a manner of speaking – to deal with a range of uncertain outcomes when U.S. waivers on Iranian export sanctions expire in May. Sanctions And OPEC 2.0’s Physical Options Despite the waivers granted to its eight top consumers shortly after U.S. sanctions took effect in November, Iranian exports plunged below 0.5mm b/d in December. As of December, China had substituted almost all of its Iranian imports for alternative barrels.3 This coincided with a production surge by OPEC 2.0 at the behest of the U.S. leading up to the November sanctions deadline of November 4, 2018, which swelled OECD inventories and took them above their rolling 5-year average level (Chart 2). India retained 30% of its May import levels from Iran, while Europe complied at 100% with U.S. sanctions (Table 2). Chart 3 shows the decrease in exports in preparation for the sanctions over the course of 2018. Chart 2OECD Inventory Overhang Will Draw As OPEC 2.0 Cuts and Losses Kick InTable 2Iran Exports By Destination 2018 (‘000 b/d) Whether or not the waivers are extended is anyone’s guess. It is possible waivers will be extended for 90 or 180 days, as a way to counter OPEC 2.0 production cuts, and to offset the lag between filling new pipeline takeaway capacity in the Permian. We expect importers to queue up for Iranian barrels as the market tightens in 1H19. OPEC 2.0’s market monitoring committee will meet in April, followed by a ministerial meeting in May, just ahead of the expiration of the waivers.4 If the U.S. extends them, OPEC 2.0 can extend production cuts after it meets in May; if waivers are not extended, the Cartel can calibrate an appropriate supply response. Either way, we expect OPEC 2.0 will closely align its production schedule with any U.S. action on the sanctions and waivers. This will, we believe, keep change in the overall market’s supply side relatively constant, except for the month or two required to adjust OPEC 2.0 output. Permian Will Drive OPEC 2.0 Policy The larger issue for OPEC 2.0 comes in 4Q19, when ~ 2mm b/d of new pipeline takeaway capacity comes on line in the Permian Basin in West Texas. With additional takeaway capacity due to come on in 2020, the Cartel will have its work cut out for it next year.5 Our models show a slight decrease then flattening in U.S. rig counts over the coming months, as a result of the 4Q18 sell-off in WTI, with a rebound around mid-year (Chart 4). This is because rig count lags oil prices by ~4 months. Chart 4U.S. Shales Continue to Drive Lower 48 Production Growth (ex GOM) We are expecting production in the Big 5 shale basins to average 8.4mm b/d in 2019 and 9.0mm b/d next year, a somewhat higher level than projected by the EIA. Growth in the shales accounts for close to 80% of the 2.3mm b/d of growth in the U.S. over 2019 – 2020. Globally, U.S. shales will continue to provide the bulk of y/y crude oil production growth, accounting for 73% of the 2.5mm b/d of growth we will see over the next two years. Given the near-death experience OPEC 2.0 member states had in the price collapse of 2014 – 2016, we remain convinced OPEC 2.0 member states will once again have to embark on a strategy to backwardate the Brent forward curve as they did in 1H18, to moderate the growth of shale-oil production in the U.S. (Chart 5). Reducing production in the short term will force refiners to draw inventories to supply their units and produce products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and a wide range of petrochemicals. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Needs Backwardated Brent Forwards This will backwardate the Brent forward curve – i.e., prompt-delivery barrels will be more expensive than deferred-delivery barrels. A backwardated forward curve means OPEC 2.0 member states with term contracts indexed to spot prices receive higher prices for their oil than shale producers hedging 2 years forward, all else equal. The trick for OPEC 2.0 will be to keep the Brent forwards backwardated when the Permian takeaway capacity starts to fill, and exports from the U.S. rise in the early 2020s, as deep-water harbors are brought on line. If OPEC 2.0 is successful in keeping the Brent forwards in backwardation, this will, over time, moderate the growth of shale production: Hedgers’ revenue is constrained by lower forward prices.6 We would not be surprised if OPEC 2.0 states started announcing final investment decisions on select investments in spare capacity to augment existing resources, so they are able to quickly bring production to market in the event of unplanned outages that could lift the entire forward curve and incentivize hedging at higher prices. Demand Still Looks Good Oil markets continue to fret over a possible hard landing in China – resulting either from an internal policy error or a ratcheting up of tensions in the Sino – U.S. trade war. This is causing markets to extrapolate into the wider EM space, and take oil-demand projections lower on an almost-daily basis. In a word, markets are overwrought. Chinese policymakers are sensitive to the tight financial conditions that prevailed in 2H18, which, along with the trade war with the U.S., slowed growth and fostered uncertainty among households and firms in China. We agree with our Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy groups that presidents Trump and Xi are pragmatists dealing with restive populations, and want to deliver a deal ahead of U.S. elections and the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021.7 We’ve been expecting the government to deploy a modest amount of stimulus in 1H19, which will begin having an effect on the Chinese economy in the second half of this year. Toward the end of the year and into 2020, we expect the larger stimulus to be deployed in the run-up to put a bid under industrial commodities – oil, base metals and bulks in particular. Overall, we are seeing signs global growth may be reviving over the next few months via an apparent bottoming in our Global LEI Diffusion index (Chart 6). The diffusion index measures the proportion of countries where Leading Economic Indicators (LEIs) are rising relative to those in which LEIs are falling. As is apparent in Chart 6, the diffusion index suggests the downturn in the global LEI has bottomed. The index leads the global LEI by a few months. Chart 6BCA's Global LEI Likely Bottoming In our latest supply-demand balances, we are expecting Chinese oil demand to average 14.3mm b/d this year, and 14.8mm b/d next year. Along with India – expected to consume 5.0mm b/d this year, and 5.2mm b/d next year – these two states account for 36% of the total 54.3mm b/d of EM demand we expect in 2019 and 2020 (Table 3).8 Table 3BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Overall EM demand, the powerhouse of global oil-demand growth led by China and India, is expected to increase 1.1mm b/d this year – slightly more than we estimated last month – and 1.3mm b/d in 2020. DM demand growth, as always, comes in lower, at 390k b/d this year and 280k b/d next year. Oil Supply-Demand Balances Will Tighten We expect global oil production to average 100.9mm b/d this year and 102.9mm b/d in 2020. Consumption is expected to average 101.8mm b/d this year and 103.4mm b/d next year, respectively (Chart 7). This puts OECD inventories back on a downward trajectory, as storage draws resume (Chart 2). Chart 7Global Oil Balances Will Resume Tightening On the back of these estimates, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl this year and $85/bbl next year, with WTI averaging $74/bbl and $82/bbl, respectively. Given our expectation for higher prices in Brent and WTI, we continue to favor being long crude oil exposure. We are long outright WTI spot futures; long July 2019 Brent vs. short July 2020 Brent; long call spreads along the 2019 forward Brent curve, and long the S&P GSCI. Bottom Line: Markets will continue to tighten as a combination of lower supply growth and rising consumption allows OECD commercial oil inventories to resume their downward trajectory. The apparent lack of a shared sense of urgency by OPEC 2.0’s leaders – KSA and Russia – will be resolved, in our view. OPEC 2.0 will once again focus on backwardating the Brent forward curve, in order to gain some control over the rate at which U.S. shale oil production grows. We continue to favor long exposures to the crude oil futures.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy PavelB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      In last week’s Commodity & Energy Strategy we noted these upcoming meetings, and OPEC 2.0’s resolve to drain the market.  Please see “Fed’s Capitulation Will Boost Oil,” published by BCA Research January 17, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Bloomberg reported this week KSA’s and Russia’s oil ministers cancelled a planned meeting in Davos, following al-Falih’s criticism of the pace at which Russian oil production is being cut.  Please see “Saudi, Russian Energy Ministers Cancel Planned Davos Meeting,” published by bloomberg.com January 22, 2019.  KSA cut its crude oil output 450k b/d m/m in December to 10.64mm b/d from 11.09mm b/d in November.  Russia increased crude and liquids production to a record 11.65mm b/d in December, an 80k b/d increase m/m, according to OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report published January 17, 2019.  OPEC expects Russian oil output to average 11.47mm b/d in 1H19, and 11.49mm b/d in 2019.  We are carrying something close to this in our balances (11.51mm b/d) for 2019 and 2020. 3      China imported 10.3mm b/d of crude oil in December after posting a record 10.4mm b/d of imports in November 2018, just as sanctions were kicking in. 4      In our base case estimate, we assume Iran’s crude oil output will average ~ 2.8mm b/d, down ~ 1.0mm b/d from its 3.8mm b/d production level in 1H18, which was prior to the U.S.’s announcement it intended to re-impose export sanctions.  One way or another, we expect OPEC 2.0 to adjust production to compensate for whatever production is lost due to sanctions.  5      Please see “Permian tracker: Production growth slowing as pipeline race still on,” published by S&P Global Platts July 2, 2018, for a discussion of the new takeaway capacity planned for the Permian Basin by midstream companies in 2019 and 2020. 6      The Permian basin is closely tied to hedging activity in the WTI futures market.  It is the only basin for which WTI commercial short open interest is an explanatory variable for rig counts in our modeling.  Commercial short open interest in the WTI futures also Granger causes Permian rig counts. 7      Please see the Special Report entitled “Is China Already Isolated,” published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy January 23, 2019.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. 8      Our EM demand assumptions are driven by the IMF and World Bank EM GDP forecasts. This week the IMF lowered its global growth forecast for 2019 and 2020 by 0.2 and 0.1 percentage points to 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively. This is only slightly down from our lower estimate last month, but still above the World Bank’s expectation. We are using these variables directly in regressions to estimate prices and EM consumption. This replaced our earlier income-elasticity models used to calculate EM oil consumption.  We proxy EM demand with non-OECD oil consumption. We discuss this in “Fed’s Capitulation Will Boost Oil,” published by BCA Research January 17, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 4q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Summary Of Trades Closed In 2018

Special Report

Highlights MLPs’ one-of-a-kind legal structure offers investors gaudy distribution yields and tax-saving advantages. They boomed alongside fracking, enjoying spectacular growth between 2009 and 2014. MLPs used to exhibit a high correlation with utilities, but since the 2014 oil bust, they have performed in step with the rest of the energy sector. Improved valuations have recently put MLPs back on investors’ radar. However, structural impediments and heterogeneous balance-sheet quality argue against broad index exposure. Investors would be better served by concentrating their efforts on picking individual stocks. Opportunities reside within smaller-cap MLPs and MLPs exposed to the Permian basin. Feature Dear Client, In place of a Weekly Report written from South Africa, where I have been meeting with clients, we are sending you this Special Report on Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), written by my colleague Jennifer Lacombe.* Like mortgage REITs, which U.S. Investment Strategy followed from 2011 to 2013, MLPs are a yield play that investors might find to be an appealing bond alternative. We trust that you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy * This report was initially published by our Global ETF Strategy service on November 15, 2018. It has been lightly revised to update charts and reflect subsequent market developments.   Q: What are MLPs and their tax benefits? Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) are publicly listed partnerships involving two classes of partners. A General Partner (GP) controls the assets and manages the daily operations of the business. Limited Partners (LPs) - and public investors - provide the capital and collect cash flow distributions. Unlike corporations, which pay corporate taxes on their income, MLPs have the ability to pass through all of their income to their owners, along with deductible items like amortization and depreciation expenses. MLP investors, in turn pay income tax at their own individual marginal tax rates. MLP owners are thereby shielded from the double taxation that would otherwise apply when the corporation paid taxes on its income, and the shareholder paid taxes on the dividend distributed from the corporation’s income. Q: Why are they predominantly found in the energy sector? Concerns about the potential loss of federal income led Congress to limit MLP eligibility to companies in the energy and real estate sectors when it overhauled the tax code in 1986. Since the 1986 Act took effect, MLPs have had to generate at least 90% of “qualifying income” from their energy or real estate operations. Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code defines “qualifying income” as income derived from exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, transportation or marketing of any mineral or natural resource, as well as certain passive-type income including interest, dividends and real property rents. Over the years, the shale revolution and the rise of new technologies, such as horizontal drilling and fracturing, created elevated demand for energy infrastructure. Today, MLPs almost exclusively operate in the natural resources space (Chart 1). Q: Why did MLPs outperform assets of all stripes following the Great Financial Crisis? A combination of several factors led MLPs to record stunning returns between 2009 and 2014. The Alerian MLP Total Return Index grew by a whopping annualized rate of 38% during that time. Decreasing interest-rate environments are typically supportive of yield plays’ outperformance. Powered by high single-digit to double-digit distribution yields, MLPs led Treasuries, utilities stocks, high-yield bonds and even the S&P 500 over that six-year stretch (Chart 2). With the shale revolution in full swing, sustaining strong demand for pipelines and other energy infrastructure, investors’ funds flowed abundantly into the energy MLP space (Chart 3). Prices - a mathematical function of multiples and earnings - soared as money kept pouring in and P/E tripled in the first 7 years following the Great Financial Crisis (Chart 4). Chart 2Decreasing Interest Rates Are A Boon To Yield Plays   Chart 3Horizontal Drilling Attracted A Lot Of Money...   Chart 4...Sending Multiples Soaring Q: Why has such outperformance not attracted more institutional and foreign investors? Because of U.S. tax rules, MLPs are relatively unattractive to tax-exempt investors and non-U.S. investors. The tax rule for U.S. tax-exempt investors – institutional investors such as pension funds, university endowments, charities and IRAs – treats MLP earnings as unrelated business taxable income (UBTI), making them subject to income tax. Moreover, to retain their own pass-through status and tax shield, open-ended funds – like many mutual funds and ETFs – can allocate no more than 25% of their total holdings to MLPs, and no more than 10% to a single MLP. U.S. tax rules consider foreign owners of MLPs to be engaged in a business in the U.S., and require them to file and pay U.S. federal income tax. Therefore, only U.S. individuals can truly reap the full benefits of the MLP structure. Though they easily access these securities on public exchanges, the tax shield comes at the price of convoluted accounting treatments. Unitholders receive Schedule K-1 tax forms that can be complicated enough to result in significant accounting costs. They are most suited for high net worth investors’ portfolios, although smaller investors who are not daunted by accounting burdens have also embraced the vehicle. Q: Why are MLP yields so high? The typical MLP partnership agreement incentivizes a GP to distribute all available cash to unitholders, after retaining reserves for business operations and liabilities. Not only does the corporate tax exemption increase the amount of available cash, but the General Partner also has wide discretion over the amount of retained reserves. Because distributions are the main determinant of any yield play’s performance, GPs have historically emphasized distribution yields – sometimes at the expense of retained earnings. The more assurance investors have that they will receive reliable cash flows, the better the MLP will perform in the market. Q: Do MLPs trade like other bond proxies? The distribution model worked beautifully during the shale-oil boom. Low retained reserves never became an issue because MLPs collected steady revenues – a function of prices and volumes of oil or gas processed - and could fund distributions in excess of operating cash flow by issuing new debt or equity. Investors were so eager to invest that GPs found themselves at the controls of a positive feedback loop in which the more cash they distributed to investors, the more capital flowed in to fund even higher distributions. The infrastructure-heavy business model and high payout ratios echoed companies in the utilities sector and, indeed, MLP returns correlated strongly with utilities stocks. However, the discretion embedded in the MLP model reached a breaking point soon after the oil bust arrived in mid-2014. The price-led decline in revenues necessitated distribution cuts and severed the correlation with utilities (Chart 5). Chart 5A Utilities Proxy No More... Q: Were MLPs immune to energy price swings before the 2014 bust? Conventional investor wisdom maintains that MLPs are immune to commodity price swings in the aggregate because of their utility-like characteristics and because long-term contracts lock in selling prices. Actually, however, MLP revenue structures differ greatly from one line of activity to the other. Natural gas pipeline transportation accounts for a quarter of aggregate MLP activity. Prices per unit of volume transited are contractually locked in 5-to-20-year contracts, providing immunity to spot price moves during the entire duration of the contract. Storage (natural gas not immediately needed, or crude oil waiting to be refined) accounts for another quarter of aggregate activity and is subject to a similar pricing model as natural gas pipelines. Only the contract lengths are much shorter, ranging from 1 to 5 years. Petroleum pipeline transportation accounts for 44% of MLP activity. Contracts locking prices over the long run are not typical in this line of business. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) also imposes a yearly price increase amounting to the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, plus a 1.23% adjustment. MLP revenue structures are therefore varied, and only natural gas pipeline transportation’s revenue streams - a quarter of the sector – are truly immune to fluctuations in spot prices, thanks to their long-term contracts. It follows that MLPs in aggregate are indeed correlated with energy price swings and trade closely in line with energy stocks (Chart 6). Chart 6...An Energy Proxy Instead Up until recently, their correlation to spot oil prices in particular was even more striking. However, they failed to match the 2017-18 recovery in oil markets (Chart 8). Because cash flow reliability is a key driver of the investment decision for any yield play, distribution cuts are bound to make any MLP investors skittish, and oil prices may have to enter an extended bull market before they overcome their fears (Chart 7).   Chart 8...Kept MLPs Depressed In Spite Of Oil Price Recovery Q: So, how cheap are they now? Since its peak in the summer of 2014, the Alerian MLP Total Return index has declined by 38% and is now flirting with the two-standard-deviation-cheap zone (Chart 9). Their profit margins have also strongly recovered (Chart 10). Chart 9Cheap Valuations...   Chart 10...Amid Recovering Profit Margins Because of the infrastructure-heavy nature of MLPs, traditional valuation metrics such as price-to-earnings can be misleading. High depreciation charges have significant impacts on earnings. Cash flows are an appropriate measure as they best inform a firm’s ability to maintain its distributions. Q: Great! So which ETF should I buy? The Alerian MLP index’s low multiples and recovering profit margins are not sufficient endorsements in themselves. An index is not an investible vehicle and even the best of index-tracking instruments can only imperfectly replicate an exposure. In the MLP space in particular, structural impediments reduce the attractiveness of exchange-traded products. Because ETFs are subject to the previously mentioned 25% cap on MLP holdings, many supplement their portfolios with regular pipeline or infrastructure stocks. Although the overall fund provides a decent exposure to the energy infrastructure sector, the diluted MLP exposure does not offer distribution yields anywhere comparable to the yields direct MLP owners receive. An alternative is to opt for a C-corporation structure. The flagship Alerian MLP ETF (ticker: AMLP) falls into this category. This structure allows for an undiluted exposure to MLPs, all the while relieving an ETF shareholder from having to deal with the complicated and costly accounting treatment that direct MLP ownership involves. However, C-corporations are subject to corporate income taxes, which cancels out the tax benefits of investing in MLPs in the first place. The resulting cumulative tax drag on returns can become substantial over time (Chart 11). Investors seek MLP exposure for the high distribution yields made possible by tax advantages. A fund will indeed provide diversification and accounting relief, but at the cost of surrendering either some yield or some of the tax advantages. This is not to mention that the bulk of the exchange-traded vehicles are Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs). Unlike ETFs, they do not own any underlying shares or units of securities. Instead, they are instruments issued and backed by financial institutions. Even in the case of well-established lending institutions, we shy away from these types of products, as we are not keen on taking unnecessary counterparty risk. Many MLP exchange-traded products are also illiquid, or have not gathered a significant mass of assets under management. The expense ratios are also high in the MLP exchange-traded product space, a result of the complicated accounting treatment of K-1 forms that are borne by the ETF or ETN sponsor (Table 1). Table 1ETNs Constitute Two Thirds Of A Relatively Illiquid Universe Q: What about the flagship Alerian MLP ETF? It’s clearly well-established. The flagship Alerian MLP ETF (ticker: AMLP) tracks the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index and has gathered close to USD 10bn of AUM under its belt since its inception in 2010. Amid all the above limitations, it is the only viable option. However, it comes with its own set of yellow flags. Because it tracks a market-capitalization weighted index, half of the fund’s assets under management are concentrated in its five largest holdings. As we go to press, these are Magellan Midstream Partners LP, Enterprise Products Partners LP, Energy Transfer LP, Plains All American Pipeline LP and MPLX LP. These companies’ distribution yields have recovered since the 2014 oil crash, but the question of the sustainability of these cash flows is of utmost importance. Although retained earnings are at all-time highs, so is the level of debt (Chart 12). The fact that 50% of the fund is concentrated in these top 5 constituents dilutes the diversification benefits of index investing. Chart 12Distributions Are Financed By Cash Flows...And A Lot Of Debt Q: So, what are my options? The MLP universe is heterogeneous. Wide disparity in valuation (Chart 13), debt levels (Chart 14) and performance (Chart 15) indicate that opportunities reside further down the capitalization scale.     Because an index is a weighted average, a heterogeneous market does not warrant broad-index exposure, especially when the smallest constituents offer the best opportunities. Amalgamation is always a process of blending wheat and chaff together, but in this case it disproportionately favors the chaff. Stock picking thrives against this backdrop. Our expertise does not extend to evaluating individual energy MLPs. We leave the honor of recommending the best-in-class opportunities to the professional bottom-up analysts, backed by thorough and diligent review of company fundamentals and management capabilities. Where we can add value is in the analysis of economic cycles and secular macroeconomic forces. Despite the sharp fall in prices over the past two months, brought about by the surprise eleventh-hour waivers granted to Iranian oil importers, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service believes the global oil market remains tight. Our strategists expect that oil prices will recover in 2019 as OPEC producers, Russia, and Canada reduce output by an aggregate 1.4 million barrels a day, and the Iran-driven supply glut is worked off. While a 2019 oil spike would be a tailwind to petroleum pipeline MLPs, surging production in U.S. shales – led by the Permian Basin in West Texas – means the new pipeline capacity being built to accommodate higher output will find a ready market. Regardless of what happens with prices, our energy strategists foresee a localized surge in demand for transportation and other midstream services in the U.S. shales. In line with IEA projections, they expect U.S. crude oil production to grow by approximately 1.3 million barrels a day in 2019 once the constraints imposed by a lack of pipeline capacity in the fecund Permian basin ease. MLPs positioned to resolve the transportation bottleneck should be able to count on a bright near-term future. “Location, location, location” applies to pipelines as well as real estate, and reinforces a bottom-up focus when selecting MLPs.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com