Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights Italy is a live drama. However, both Italy and Brussels have constraints that should lead to a compromise on fiscal stimulus. Italy will not leave the euro in the foreseeable future, and the European Central Bank has little incentive not to continue accepting Italian bonds. With the recent capitulation in the Italian bond market, the euro could experience a brief respite, potentially rallying toward 1.18 to 1.19. However, for the euro to endure a more durable bottom, global bond yields need to stop falling. Until then, EUR/USD could move toward 1.12. Falling bond yields imply more downside for EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF as well. NOK/SEK is not yet a buy. The trend in gold prices can be used to gauge where the fed funds rate stands vis-à-vis r-star. Feature In July 64AD, the Great Fire of Rome erupted, causing untold damage to the great imperial capital. Various Roman sources suggest that Emperor Nero started the fire to clear land in order to build himself a new palace, the Domus Aurea.1 This fire was a calamity, and was followed by a period of economic tumult and currency debasement. However, Rome recovered, the empire conquered more nations, and ultimately survived another 412 years. We have held a bearish view on the euro for 2018, expressed by recommending investors buy DXY and sell EUR/CAD, EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF. However, this view is underpinned by economic divergences and a softening in global growth. Our negative bias on the euro has greatly benefited from the fire that has engulfed Italian politics and bond markets. Taking stock of this week's political theatre, does it still make sense to be short the euro, and by extension long the dollar? As we foresee more downside in global bond yields, we think yes. However, while Italy is currently burning, it is not at risk of causing a collapse of the euro area. Pricing an end to the "empire" is thus an inappropriate reason to stay short the euro. The Italian Job Italy has once again become a trouble spot for investors. The M5S / Lega Nord coalition's manifesto proposes blowing out the fiscal deficit to above 7% of GDP by instituting a flat tax regime, increasing spending and undoing pension reforms instigated by the Monti government in 2012. In response to these developments, president Mattarella has removed the proposed finance minister, Paolo Savona, arguing he was too anti-euro and that abandoning the euro area was unconstitutional. He went on to nominate Carlo Cottarelli, nicknamed "Mr. Scissors," as a caretaker prime minister tasked with leading a technocratic government until new elections are implemented. However, the coalition rightfully argued that this move was executed under a false pretext, as its current policy proposal does not include leaving the euro area. Even before the drama had fully blossomed, Italy on Monday had been put on downgrade watch by Moody's. In light of the political developments, investors then worried that a new election would result in Italy potentially exiting the euro area. Italian 2-year yields spiked to a spread of 350 basis points against German Schatz. This implied a perceived probability of 11% that Italy will choose to exit the euro area over the course of the next two years. Another possible outcome discounted by investors was that the European Central Bank would stop accepting BTPs as repo collaterals, or stop buying them in its Asset Purchase Program. Chart I-1Italian Support For The Euro##br## Is Low But Well Above 50% Which of these two risks is more likely to materialize? We think the current implied probability of Italy electing to leave the euro over the coming two years is very low. Italians exhibit the lowest support toward the euro of any eurozone member state. However, a majority of Italians, 59% of them, still support the common currency (Chart I-1). In response to this constraint, the very nimble Five Star Movement, while still hell-bent on fiscal profligacy, has already greatly downplayed its Euroscepticism. While Lega Nord still has more Eurosceptic inclinations, it has not put leaving the euro area at the core of its coalition agreement with M5S. BCA has a great degree of confidence in this view, but it is important to not be dogmatic. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service recommends investors closely follow the statements of these two parties over the course of the summer. The second risk is more real. The fiscal proposal of the coalition would blow the Italian budget deficit from 2.3% to more than 7% of GDP. Ratings agencies are already putting Italy on downgrade watch. Italy has a credit rating of Baa2, and only bonds with ratings of Baa3 or better are eligible at the ECB. It is possible that the central bank, in coordination with Brussels, exerts the same kind of pressure as it did in August 2011 when Jean Claude Trichet and Mario Draghi wrote a letter to Silvio Berlusconi demanding his resignation in exchange for financial market support for Italy. Despite this risk, we expect Italy to ultimately play ball and not blow up the deficit to 7% of GDP - simply because of economic constraints. These constraints are also likely to create an additional limit on the willingness and capacity of Italy to leave the euro area. The arguments we made in a joint Special Report with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service titled "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," published in June 2017, remain valid: Italy will feel the pain from its transgressions before it can implement them.2 This is happening today as we write. Essentially, Italy's problem is rooted in the poor health of its banking system. Italian banks have capital in the order of EUR165 billion and NPLs of EUR130 billion, leaving EUR35 billion in excess capital. However, Italian commercial banks hold approximately EUR350 billion in BTPs. Thus, any decline in BTP value of 10% or more would render the Italian banking system insolvent (Chart I-2). Since suggesting abandoning the euro or conducting policy that exclude Italian debt from the ECB's window would cause a greater than 10% fall in BTP prices, this would kill off credit issuance in Italy as the banking sector would not have the wherewithal to extend new loans. This would prompt a large collapse in the credit impulse, and thus GDP growth (Chart I-3). The ensuing painful recession would cause Italians to backtrack on their intentions to leave the euro area. If Italy's credit rating and its access to the ECB is the reason for the collapse in BTP prices, the same dynamics will also force the Italian government to adopt a more realistic fiscal policy. This is why we do not believe the current M5S/Lega Nord government will be able to blow up the budget by as much as it currently wants. Chart I-2The Italian Constraints Lies##br## In The Banking Sector Chart I-3Credit Trends Explain##br## Italian Growth There are, however, incentives for Brussels to be more lenient on Italy. Italy is not Greece. The Troika had room to play hardball with Greece. Greek debt was EUR346 billion, or 10% of Germany's GDP (the perceived ultimate backer). The same cannot be said about Italy. Rome's debt stands at EUR2383 billion or 70% of Germany's GDP. In other words, as J. Paul Getty once said, "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." Italy is the EU's problem. Chart I-4If You Owe The Bank 442 Billion, ##br##That's The Bank's Problem This problem is most evident in the Target 2 of the Bank of Italy. The Italian national central bank owes EUR442 billion to the Eurosystem, the most of any nation (Chart I-4). Claims on Italy can also be found on the balance sheets of commercial banks across Europe. French, Spanish, German, and Dutch commercial banks have Italian exposure of EUR426 billion, with EUR310 billion held by French banks alone. Italy's problems are definitely Europe's problem. A collapse of Italy could therefore impair the entire European banking sector. This means that the EU and the ECB have a strong built-in incentive to be lenient toward Italy. As a result, we expect that Brussels will be forced to accept a larger Italian deficit than 3% of GDP, as it did at the turn of the millennium when France and Germany were also in violation of the Stability and Growth Pact. The ECB could also make a conditional exception in terms of accepting Italian bonds. So What? The Italian situation remains fluid. While an election this summer, as early as July 29th, has been touted, efforts to form a government are still taking place. No matter what happens, the constraints on both Italy and the European institutions suggest that both sides of the table will have to come to a compromise regarding Italian public spending. The EU will have to tolerate a greater than 3% of GDP deficit, and the Five Star Movement, with whoever it coalesces, will not be able to blow up the budget deficit above 7% of GDP. Investors have made a mistake by pricing in an Italian exit. Hence, Italian 2-year yields could experience downside in the coming week. In fact, the daily move in Italian 2-year yields on Tuesday was the largest on record, despite what are still very low levels of interest rates by historical standards (Chart I-5). This suggests that May 29th represented a day of capitulation in the Italian bond market, at least on a short-term basis. As a result, the very oversold euro, which has declined more or less without a pause for the past 29 trading days, could stage a relief rally as investors re-evaluate the Italian risks (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Capitulation In The BTP Market Chart I-6The Euro Short-Term Rebound Can Continue This begs a crucial question: Is it time to bail on our various short bets on the euro as well as our long bet on the DXY? While a temporary resolution in Italy could easily prompt a euro rally toward 1.18-1.19, many issues that have prompted us to implement these views have yet to fully play out. For example, the euro's fair value, as implied by real short rate differentials, the slope of the euro area yield curve relative to the U.S. and growth differentials between the rest of the world and the U.S. - as captured by the price of copper relative to the price of lumber - still pegs an equilibrium for EUR/USD at 1.12 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Euro Has Yet To Purge Its Previous Excesses Additionally, while traders have capitulated on Italian bonds, investors have yet to capitulate on the euro. Speculators are still very long, and investor sentiment is still not consistent with a bottom (Chart I-8). Additionally, the trend in relative inflation still points toward a weaker euro, as it portends to an easing of European monetary policy relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). The tension in Italy and the widening spreads in innocent Spain could play toward the ECB adjusting its forward guidance toward no hike for longer than is currently priced into the EONIA curve. Chart I-8No Capitulation Here Chart I-9Inflation Dynamics Point To A Lower EUR/USD However, the most important question right now for the euro is the direction of bond yields. Much will depend on the performance of bonds over the course of the coming months. Bottom Line: Italy is a political landmine, and the recent drama has weighed on the euro, causing EUR/USD to depreciate much faster than we anticipated. However, markets are currently embedding too-large a risk premium of an Italian exit. Both Italy and the EU will not stay as intransigent as they currently pretend, suggesting the market action will force a political compromise on the thorny question of deficits. As a result, while a rally in coming weeks of EUR/USD toward 1.18-1.19 is a very probable scenario, we anticipate the euro's weakness to end closer to 1.12 than currently recorded levels. All About Bond Yields BCA believes that bond yields are globally on a cyclical upswing, being lifted by the fact that global central banks are slowly but surely exiting the emergency stimulus measures put in place directly after the great financial crisis. Moreover, we also expect inflation to slowly come back, especially in the U.S. and Canada, also justifying higher yields. In response to these forces, BCA's three factor bond model, based on global manufacturing PMIs, the U.S. employment-to-population ratio and the dollar's bullish sentiment, suggests the fair value of 10-year Treasurys is at 3.3%, 46 basis points above current yields. However, markets do not move in a straight line. The bond market is especially prone to reversals as interest rates are a key determinant of the cost of capital. Thus, higher yields slow global economic activity, diminishing the reason why yields increased in the first place, creating a stop-and-go pattern. This time is no exception. In fact, Ryan Swift has been arguing in BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service that after their sharp up-move from 2.04% to 3.11%, bond yields have downside on a short-term basis.3 A few factors explain why bond yields could experience a bit more downside in the coming months: Bond aggregates have been oversold (Chart I-10), with their 100-day rate of change hitting levels associated with a subsequent rebound in prices. This rebound is underway and doesn't look to have yet been fully played out. Chart I-10Bonds Were Too Oversold To Keep Falling In A Straight Line Positioning remains too skewed. Speculators are still very short Treasurys, and duration surveys conducted by J.P. Morgan Chase suggest there is still more room to surprise investors, prompting them to lighten their short-duration calls (Chart I-11). The changes in 10-year U.S. yields are very correlated with the U.S. surprise index. However, this economic indicator is highly mean-reverting. The increase in investors' expectations suggests there is room for disappointment on the economic front for market participants. Ryan's autoregressive model for economic surprises, which captures the mean-reverting behavior of this series, suggests that surprises will deteriorate further in the coming weeks (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Still No Capitulation In ##br##Bond Positioning Chart I-12Economic Surprise Index U.S. Surprise ##br##Index Can Mean-Revert Further Global growth continues to show signs of deterioration, as the diffusion index of our global leading economic indicators highlights that only 24% of the world's major economies are experiencing expanding LEIs (Chart I-13). Moreover, the deliquescence of EM carry trades funded in yen also points toward additional deceleration in global industrial activity, and export volumes growth out of Asia continues to slow (Chart I-13, bottom panels). Here, the recent performance of gold is most revealing. The yellow metal is a good gauge of global liquidity conditions, and it tends to perform well when bond yields, especially real rates, weaken. However, despite a fall in real yields in recent weeks, and despite the rising geopolitical risks associated with Italy and the re-emergence of trade wars, gold prices are softer than expected. This implies that bond yields have not yet fallen enough to put a floor under global growth. So why does the absolute trend in Treasury yields matter for EUR/USD? Simply because since 2008, EUR/USD has performed very poorly when bond yields have declined, displaying an average annualized rate of return of -6.3% as well as a median return of -9.7%, and weakening two-thirds of the time (Table I-1). This essentially confirms our previous analysis showing that generally, the euro is a rather pro-cyclical currency. This also suggests that even if the euro could experience a temporary rally in response to a re-pricing of Italian exit risk, it will be hard for the common currency to rally durably so long as bond yields have downside. Chart I-13Global Growth Is Slowing Signs##br## Of Soft Global Growth Table I-1Bond Rallies And The Currency Market Table I-1 also shows that the yen has experienced large upside in a falling yield environment, and most importantly has risen in all instances against the USD. As a result, we remain comfortable with our January 12, 2018 recommendation to sell EUR/JPY.4 Not only does EUR/JPY weaken 83% of the time when bond yields fall, but as Chart I-14 shows, relative positioning in EUR/JPY has more room to deteriorate, as previous excesses on the long side tend to be followed by periods of excessive short positioning. Moreover, as the bottom panel illustrates, a reversal in the performance of momentum stocks also comes hand in hand with a weak EUR/JPY. Chart I-15 also highlights that rising dollar funding costs tend to lead to a weaker EUR/JPY. Chart I-14EUR/JPY Is Still Vulnerable Chart I-15Funding Pressure Point To A Weaker EUR/JPY Table I-1 further shows that despite our positive long-term view on EUR/CHF, if we believe that yields could correct further, it is intellectually coherent to be short EUR/CHF on a tactical basis, as the pair has also fallen in 83% of the occurrences of bond market rallies. We are thus sticking with this short-term trade. Chart I-16CAD Benefits From A Valuation Cushion Table I-1 however, is more mixed for our short EUR/CAD bet. EUR/CAD rallies on half the instances where bond yields weaken, and generates an average annualized gain of 1%. Yields are therefore an unreliable gauge of this cross's trend. Instead, we continue to favor the CAD over the EUR on the basis of relative monetary policy dynamics and valuations. The Canadian economy has no slack, core inflation is at 1.9%, and the Bank of Canada just re-opened the door to hiking rates this year - essentially a mirror image to the euro area. Also, while EUR/USD is overvalued by 4.9% based on our preferred model, USD/CAD is overvalued by 14% based on our model using oil and relative rate expectations (Chart I-16). We are therefore sticking with this position, even though we are likely to experience volatility after a straight move down from 1.61 to 1.5. Yesterday's announcement that the White House is imposing tariffs on steel and aluminium on Canada and the EU is likely to be a crucial contributor to this episode of volatility. Finally Table I-1 shows that our negative view on commodity currencies is the correct one to hold in the current context, especially regarding the AUD, which within this group suffers by the greatest extent when yields fall. Additionally, this analysis confirms our assessment regarding NOK/SEK. We were long this pair, and continue to foresee upside for the Norwegian krone relative to the Swedish krona on a cyclical basis. However, we closed this trade as NOK/SEK was getting very overbought. Adding another justification for this tactical decision, a falling yield environment has been associated with this cross weakening in 83% of cases and depreciating on average by a 4.9% annualized rate - or 5.7% if we take the median fall. We will therefore wait to see a stabilization in bond yields before re-opening our NOK/SEK trade. Bottom Line: The rebound in bond prices expected by our U.S. bond strategist has further to run, as the global economy is experiencing a soft patch and U.S. economic surprises have additional downside. This suggests that EUR/USD is likely to depreciate more, prompting us to stick with our 1.12 target for now. EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF possess ample downside as well. While commodity currencies all weaken when bond yields decline, the AUD declines most often, and by the greatest extent. NOK/SEK can correct further before resuming its uptrend; only once bond yields stabilize will we buy this cross again. Gold, The Fed And R-star Following last week's report where we discussed the interaction of the dollar, the fed funds rate, and r-star,5 we received a few questions regarding the implication of this analysis for the gold market. While the message of this analysis was very clear for the dollar - the dollar weakens when the Fed increases rates and the fed funds rate is below the r-star, but strengthens significantly when the Fed lifts rates above r-star - the implications for gold of the interaction between rates and r-star is much murkier. Table I-2 shows the returns of gold, as well as the batting averages of the results, under the four states explored last week. We use medians instead of means, as average returns have been distorted by a few outliers. Table I-2Gold And The Interaction Between ##br##Rates And R* This table highlights that the best environment to hold gold has been the same environment that was harshest to the dollar: a rising fed funds rate, but one that stands below the neutral rate. Essentially, this suggests that in this environment, despite the efforts of the Fed to tighten monetary conditions, global liquidity remains plentiful, which fuels both global growth and gold prices. In this context, gold rallies 76% of the time by a median annualized rate of 14.4%. Chart I-17Gold As A Gauge For R* Perplexingly, there is no clear implications in the other states. When the fed funds rate rises and stands above the neutral rate, gold falls by a median annualized rate of 1.3%, but this only works 55% of the time. This probably reflects the fact that when the real fed funds rate rises in this environment, while in and of itself this should hurt gold, the growing incidence of accidents in global financial markets and the global economy helps gold, undoing the damage created by tighter monetary policy. When the fed funds rate is falling, gold's annualized returns are mixed, but most importantly the distribution of returns is no better than random. So while this analysis does not provide a clear signal for gold next year, it does help us generate a useful inference. If the Fed is indeed soon set to lift interest rates above the neutral rate, as the Laubach-Williams measure of r-star implies, the violent rally that gold experienced in 2017 should taper off. If gold were to continue to rally vigorously, maintaining its strong trend despite higher rates (Chart I-17), this would imply that the fed funds rate is still below r-star. As a corollary, the business cycle would have greater upside, the dollar greater downside, and EM assets should prove more resilient than we anticipate. Bottom Line: Where we stand in the interest rate cycle is less useful for calling the gold market than it is for calling the dollar. While a rising fed funds rate that stands below the neutral rate creates a very supportive environment for gold, other combinations are more opaque. However, this can help generate useful insights on the equilibrium rate. If faced with higher interest rates, gold remains on the strong upward trend it experienced in 2017, this would mean that U.S. policy is still accommodative as the fed funds rate would still be below r-star. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Tacitus, the main source describing the fire, was unsure of the veracity of these allegations. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, titled "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio", dated June 21, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, and the Weekly Report, titled "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now", dated February 16, 2018, both available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "This Time Is NOT Different", dated May 25 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was generally weak this week: Q1 GDP growth was revised down to an annualized pace of 2.2%, profit growth was weak; Core personal consumption expenditure grew at a 2.3% quarterly pace, underperforming expectations of 2.5%; Core PCE inflation came in line with expectations at 1.8%. The March number was revised down to 1.8% as well from 1.9% previously; However, the U.S. labor market continues to tighten, with both continuing and initial jobless claims falling more than expected. Washington is ramping up its hawkish stance on trade, implementing its steel and aluminum tariffs on the EU, Canada, as well as Mexico. The U.S. is nonetheless likely to fare better than the rest of the G-10 in the current soft patch for global growth as it is a less cyclical economy. Furthermore, with the dollar recoupling with rate differentials, Fed hikes will serve as an important tailwind for the greenback for the rest of this year. Report Links: This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Amidst the surfeit of political angst across Italy and Spain, some positive economic data have contributed to some relief to the euro's persistent decline this month. German headline and harmonized inflation surprised to the upside, both coming in at 2.2%; German unemployment declined to 5.2%; German retail sales increased by 2.3% on a monthly pace; Spanish harmonized inflation came in at 2.1%, beating expectations; Euro area headline and core inflation came in at 1.9% and 1.1%, respectively, an improvement over previous figures; Unemployment also declined to 8.5% from 8.6%, but came in higher than the expected 8.4%. In addition to abating political anxiety in Italy, ECB Executive Board Member Sabine Lautenschläger, noted that "all the conditions for inflation to kick in are in place". While these factors provided a relief for the euro, it is likely that interest rate differentials, waning global growth, and a labor market replete with slack will keep the upside in the euro capped for the remainder of this year. The longer-run outlook, however, is bullish, as the common currency remains cheap across several valuation metrics. Report Links: This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Retail trade yearly growth came in above expectations, coming in at 1.6%. It also increased from 1% last month. However, large retailer's sales growth surprised negatively, coming in at -0.8%. Moreover, the jobs/applicants ratio also underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.59. Finally, the consumer confidence index also surprised to the downside, coming in at 43.8. USD/JPY has fallen by roughly 1%, as political risks originating from Italy have helped safe heaven assets like the yen. Overall, we continue to be bullish on this cross on a tactical basis, given that we expect a slowdown in global growth to accentuate the current risk off environment. However the BoJ will likely intervene if the yen keeps going up, which makes a bearish stance on the yen appropriate on a cyc lical basis. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been negative Total Business Investment yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming it at 2%. Nationwide Housing Prices yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.4%. Finally, mortgage approvals also surprised to the downside, coming in at 62.455 thousand. GBP/USD has fallen by roughly 0.6% this week. As of this week, we have reached the target of our tactical short GBP/USD trade with a tk% gain. While the rally in the dollar could certainly continue, pushing cable lower in the process, it is more prudent to adopt a more neutral stance toward this cross, given that it has depreciated by more than 7% since its highs on mid-April. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics- March 30, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was on the weak side: Building permits contracted by 5% in monthly terms, and only increased by 1.9% in yearly terms, much less than the previous 15.6% and the expected 4.1%; Private sector credit grew by 0.4% in monthly terms, in line with expectations; Private capital expenditure also grew by only 0.4%, a weaker result than the expected 0.7%. After a meaningful fall, AUD/USD has been relatively flat for the last month. Markets seem to be fully aware of the slack currently hampering the Australian economy. The Australian interest rates futures curve continues to flatten, pricing in a lower probability of any hikes. Furthermore, U.S. trade protectionism is becoming more aggressive, which may pose a further threat to the AUD as Australian growth is highly levered to global trade. We remain bearish on this antipodean currency in both the short and the long term. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has rallied by roughly 1% this week. Overall, we are negative on the NZD versus the U.S. dollar, given that pro-cyclical currencies like the kiwi tend to suffer in periods of heightened volatility and increasing risks. Continued trade tensions, as well as slowing global growth and political risks emanating from Italy will likely perpetuate the current environment going forward, hurting the kiwi in the process. That being said we are positive on this currency against the Australian dollar, as Australia's economy is much more sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle than New Zealand's. Therefore a slowdown in emerging markets should weigh more heavily on the AUD than on the NZD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was disappointing this week: Industrial product price increased by 0.5% in monthly terms in April; The Raw Material Price Index increased 0.7%; The current account decreased to CAD-19.5 billion in Q1 of 2018; Quarterly GDP growth came in at 1.3%, disappointing expectations. On Wednesday, the CAD was buoyed by the BoC's hawkish monetary policy statement. According to the statement, the Governing Council will now take a "gradual" approach to policy adjustments, as opposed to the "cautious" one noted in previous statements. In addition, the reference to continued monetary accommodation and labor market slack was also removed. However, the White House announced on Thursday the imposition of tariffs on Canadian exports, which erased most of Wednesday's gain. While this adds substantial risk to the view, the outlook for trade negotiations is still murky, and could surprise on the upside. The CAD still remains cheap on key valuation metrics, with an economy exhibiting less slack than other G-10 counterparts. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The trade balance outperformed expectations, coming in at 2,289 million. This measure also came in above last month figure. However, the KOF leading indicator underperformed expectations, coming in at 100. It also decreased substantially from last month's reading. Finally, yearly GDP growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.2%. EUR/CHF has depreciated by roughly 1.5% this week. Overall, this cross should continue to depreciate given that we expect the current period of risk aversion to persist. Even if Italian political risks start to subside, investors will still have to worry about trade tensions, slowing global growth, and the deleterious impact of lower bond yields on this cross. This should help safe-haven assets like the franc outperform. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retail sales growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.5%. Moreover the Norges Bank credit indicator came in line with expectations, at 6.3%. USD/NOK has rallied by nearly 1.2% this week, as the rise in the dollar coupled with lower oil prices, have resulted in a toxic combination for the krone. Overall, we are positive on the krone relative to other commodity currencies. The krone has a large NIIP and current account surplus which makes it more resilient to terms of trade shocks. Moreover, oil should outperform other commodities given that it is more levered to DM growth than to the Chinese industrial cycle and given that the supply backdrop for crude is more favorable. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data from Sweden has improved: Retail sales beat expectations, growing at a 0.6% monthly pace and a 3.6% annual pace; GDP growth accelerated to 3.3% in Q1 of 2018, higher than the 2.9% growth recorded last year; The trade balance declined by SEK6.5 billion in May; Consumer confidence also suffered slightly to 98.5 from 101. The SEK has strengthened substantially against the euro since its multi-year lows this month. Political woes subsided the euro, while rosy data from Sweden lifted the krona. Against the dollar, the SEK has weakened in recent weeks, due to the greenback's recent surge. We expect the SEK to remain strong against the euro for the remainder of this year, owing to cheap valuations and resurging inflationary pressures. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Chart of the WeekBCA's Ensemble Forecast Vs. Base Case With OPEC 2.0 signaling it will consider raising production in 2H18 to cover unexpected losses from Venezuela, and rising odds that state's output will cease, we've adopted an ensemble approach to forecast benchmark crude oil prices. This ensemble includes: i) our existing base case - steady demand and a loss of 500k b/d from Iran; ii) OPEC 2.0 restoring production cuts in 2H18; and, iii) explicit odds Venezuela's ~ 1mm b/d of exports collapse (Chart of the Week).1 We expect definitive output guidance following OPEC 2.0's June 22 meeting. For now, our base case dominates our 2H18 forecast, given our expectation any increase in production will be slowly restored to the market. Next year we see a higher probability most of OPEC 2.0's cuts will be restored. The odds that Venezuela's exports collapse goes from 20% in 2H18 to 30% in 2019. This ensemble forecast takes our 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and our WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, our Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and our WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. We expect higher volatility, as well. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Spot Brent and WTI prices fell ~ 6% in the past week, as OPEC 2.0 signaled member states were considering restoring production. We remain long call spreads and the energy-heavy S&P GSCI, believing markets over-reacted to the news. Base Metals: Neutral. India's Tamil Nadu state government ordered the country's largest copper smelter shut, following rioting over alleged pollution from the plant, according to Bloomberg. This removes 400k MT of capacity from the market.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. Rising geopolitical risks in Italy are supporting gold prices, despite a stronger USD. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The re-emergence of U.S.-Sino trade tensions weighed on corn and soybean futures this week. This comes despite an ongoing truckers' strike in Brazil, which has been supporting soybean prices.3 Feature Just when it looked like OPEC 2.0 would keep its production cuts in place for the rest of the year, the coalition's leadership is signaling it will consider reversing production cuts during 2H18. Needless to say, this makes the task of forecasting prices more difficult. Guidance coming from the St. Petersburg Economic Forum at the end of last week was not definitive - it resembled more of a trial balloon. Press reports suggest as much as 1mm b/d of product cuts could gradually be restored to the market over 2H18, which would loosen global balances relative to our previous expectation (Chart 2). Still, Russia's energy minister Alexander Novak declined to confirm these cuts would be made.4 By our reckoning, some 1.2mm b/d of production actually has been cut by OPEC 2.0 since January 2017, mostly from KSA and Russia, which together account for close to 1mm b/d of the total. The big surprise on the production side has been the collapse of Venezuela, which went from just under 2.1mm b/d of crude output in Nov/16 - the month against which production targets were set under the OPEC 2.0 Agreement - to ~ 1.4mm b/d at present. We have Venezuela's production falling to 1.2mm b/d by the end of this year, and 1.0mm b/d by the end of 2019. We expect Iranian exports to fall ~ 200k b/d at the end of 2018, and another 300k b/d by the end of 1H19 in our base case model, as a result of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against it. This takes total Iranian export losses to 500k b/d by 2H19 in our base case. The only substantial growth on the production side is coming from U.S. shales in our base case, with production expected to be up 1.28mm b/d this year to 6.52mm, and 7.98mm b/d in 2019. Even this growth, however, could be constricted/delayed due to pipeline bottlenecks in the Permian. With demand expected to remain strong - growing at 1.7mm b/d this year and next in our models - market balances were tightening, and OECD inventories were falling appreciably (Chart 3). Chart 2Restoring OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts##BR##Would Loosen Global Balances Chart 3Inventories Would Draw Less If##BR##OPEC 2.0 Production Is Restored In 2018 The collapse of Venezuela's output did appreciably accelerate the tightening of the market, and lifted prices beyond the level that would have prevailed had this production not been lost to the market. This contraction, combined with the threatened re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, prompted leaders in important consumer markets to warn growth could be at risk with the oil-price rise potentially fueling inflation and inflation expectations - leading central banks, particularly the Fed, to continue tightening monetary policy. As gasoline, jet fuel and diesel prices rise, a greater share of household budgets goes toward purchasing hydrocarbons, which, all else equal, stifles growth if rising incomes cannot absorb the higher prices.5 Consumer Protests Registered With OPEC 2.0 Leaders in large oil-consuming states - particularly India, China and the U.S. - registered their dissatisfaction with high energy prices over the past month with OPEC 2.0, most notably when U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted his displeasure in April. OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo recalled the tweet at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum last week, saying, "I think I was prodded by his excellency Khalid Al-Falih that probably there was a need for us to respond. We in OPEC always pride ourselves as friends of the United States."6 Consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies.7 This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. KSA and Russia appear largely united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing motor fuels. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's Novak has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl.8 Moving To Ensemble Forecasts Reconciling OPEC 2.0's short- and long-term goals, particularly the coalition's apparent new-found desire to be responsive to consumer interests; rising geopolitical tensions involving significant exporting states; and rising odds Venezuela implodes, and its exports are lost to the market, complicates the price-forecasting process considerably. In order to give full account to the different paths these uncertain influences will have on prices, we've adopted an ensemble model, in which we forecast three separate price paths: A base case, using our existing fundamental inputs and econometric modeling, which we published last week; A production-restoration case, where 870k b/d of production is restored to markets by OPEC 2.0 over 2H18 to compensate for the unexpected loss of Venezuela's output; The complete collapse of Venezuela's oil exports - amounting to ~ 1mm b/d - which we also published last week.9 In our base case, we use our standard fundamental model inputs - global production, consumption and OECD inventories - to forecast prices for this year and next (Table 1). The production-restoration and the Venezuela-export collapse models are boundary cases for our ensemble forecast, which is particularly important in 2019. The production restoration case leads to 870k b/d of OPEC 2.0 production coming back on line over the course of 2H18, with Venezuelan production deteriorating slowly, which is bearish for prices. The Venezuela-export collapse case results in a significant loss in production - 1mm b/d of Venezuela exports beginning in Jun/18 - which is bullish for prices, even with 1.2mm b/d of output being restored by OPEC 2.0 over the course of 2H18. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) To generate the ensemble forecast, we weight the three cases above, with our base case dominating the model in 2H18, and falling off in 2019, while the production-restoration case dominates our outlook in 2019 (Chart 4). We also increase the probability of Venezuela's 1mm b/d collapsing over this interval - going from a 20% chance in Jun/18 to 30% in Dec/19. We will be continually updating these estimated probabilities (Table 2). Table 2BCA Ensemble Forecast Components As we approach OPEC 2.0's June 22 meeting in Vienna, we expect more definitive guidance from KSA and Russia, which will allow us to refine these probabilities. In addition, we expect volatility to increase, as changes in forward guidance and uncertainty in physical markets increases the rate at which speculators react to the arrival of new information (Chart 5).10 Chart 4Ensemble Forecast Accounts For##BR##Collapse In Venezuela's Exports Chart 5Spec Positioning Will##BR##Push Volatility Higher Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0 injected a new element of uncertainty into the markets this past week by signaling it would consider restoring oil-production cuts over 2H18, which could be as high as 1mm b/d, in response to consumer complaints at the highest levels. The guidance from the coalition's leadership in these early days does not allow us to definitely adjust our oil supply estimates, so we're simulating what we consider to be a highly likely schedule of production restoration. In addition, we are assigning explicit odds to the collapse of Venezuela's exports, which would remove ~ 1mm b/d of exports from the market. We combine these separate assessments with our existing forecasting model to create an ensemble forecast for prices in 2H18 and 2019. In this approach, our existing base-case model, which assumes OPEC 2.0's production cuts will be maintained this year and slowly restored over 1H19 is maintained; a production-restoration case is introduced, which assumes 870k b/d of production is brought back on line over the course of 2H18. Lastly, we assume Venezuela's production is lost to the market in Jun/18, and that OPEC 2.0 restores the 1.2mm b/d of actual production cuts it made beginning in Jan/17 over 2H18. We weight these different cases to produce our ensemble forecast. Using this approach, we are revising our 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and our WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, we are lowering our Brent forecast to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and our WTI expectation to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. We expect higher volatility, as well. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which agreed to cut 1.8mm b/d of production. By our reckoning, some 1.2mm b/d have been cut voluntarily - mostly by KSA and Russia. Alexander Novak, Russia's oil minister, stated actual cuts are closer to 2.7mm b/d, mostly because of the freefall in Venezuela's production. Non-Gulf states also have seen significant production losses. 2 See "Copper Supply Shock Hits India As Top Plant Ordered To Close," published by Bloomberg.com, May 29, 2018. 3 See "GRAINS-Corn, Soybeans Sag On Renewed U.S.-China Trade Jitters," published by Reuters.com, May 29, 2018. 4 Please see "OPEC, Russia Prepared To Raise Oil Output Amid U.S. Pressure," published by uk.reuters.com on May 25, 2018. 5 The OECD makes this point explicitly in its just-released report "OECD sees stronger world economy, but risks loom large," published May 30, 2018. 6 Please see fn. 3 above. 7 Please see "With the Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014 - 16 Oil Price Collapse," published by the World Bank in January 2018. See fn. 11 for a list of EM countries that reformed their oil subsidies, which includes oil exporters in OPEC like KSA, Kuwait and Nigeria. 8 We discuss this at length in "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published February 22, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bacresearch.com. 9 We presented the Venezuela-production collapse simulation in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy. Please see "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 We explore the relationship between price volatility and spec positioning in "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," published May 10, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

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

Special Report

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

Highlights The Fed Vs. The Market: The market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" rate hike pace in a status quo economic scenario. But investors also view the odds of the Fed slowing the pace of hikes as greater than the odds of it hiking more quickly. Dovish Catalysts: The most likely catalyst for the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy in the next 6-12 months is a persistent divergence between U.S. and foreign economic growth that leads to a stronger dollar and culminates in significantly tighter financial conditions, as in 2014/15. Hawkish Catalysts: A significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target would cause the Fed to increase its pace of rate hikes, but the odds of this occurring during the next 6-12 months are low. An upside break-out in the price of gold would suggest that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised higher, and could lead to a more rapid pace of hikes. Feature In last week's report we recommended that nimble investors should position for a near-term (0-3 month) decline in Treasury yields.1 Since then, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen from 3.06% to 2.93% but we are not yet ready to remove our recommendation. The two criteria we named in last week's report - extended net short bond positioning and a high likelihood of negative data surprises - remain in place. As such, we expect bond yields to fall further in the near-term, though we remain bond bears on a cyclical (6-12 month) investment horizon. This week we turn to Fed policy, and specifically the following three questions: What does the Fed mean when it says it will make "further gradual adjustments" to the stance of monetary policy? How do "gradual adjustments" relate to what is currently priced in the market? What factors would cause the Fed to deviate from its "gradual" path, leading to either a faster or slower pace of tightening? The Market Trusts The Fed...To A Point We have noted in previous reports that the Fed's "gradual" pace of rate hikes is quite clearly defined as one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter. The Fed has tightened policy at this pace since December 2016, with the exception of last September when it announced the winding down of its balance sheet in place of a hike. It seems to us that the Fed's policy intentions have rarely been more transparent. The Fed will continue to lift rates by 25 bps per quarter until either (i) something breaks in the economy causing the Fed to slow down, or (ii) inflation pressures mount causing the Fed to speed up. But what about market pricing? To be consistent with the Fed's "gradual" pace of one hike per quarter the market would need to be priced for 50 bps of tightening during the next six months, 100 bps of tightening during the next 12 months, etc... Chart 1 shows that the market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" pace for the next six months, but that it will fall somewhat short during the next year. Looking beyond the next 12 months, the market is not priced for the Fed to deliver on its "gradual" hike pace during the next 18 or 24 months either (Chart 2). Chart 1The Fed Versus The Market Part I Chart 2The Fed Versus The Market Part II A more realistic interpretation of Charts 1 and 2 is that while the market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" hike pace in a status quo economic scenario, investors also view the odds of something breaking in the economy as greater than the odds that inflation will force the Fed to move faster. We also agree that the odds of something breaking are greater than the odds that inflation will force the Fed's hand. However, we would still favor a cyclical (6-12 month) below-benchmark duration stance because the market is not priced for the most likely status quo / "gradual" rate hike environment. Identifying Breaking Points How will we be able to tell if something is breaking in the economy that will cause the Fed to slow its pace of hikes? Candidate 1: Domestic Economic Growth One way is to simply monitor leading indicators of U.S. economic growth, particularly the contribution of cyclical spending to overall GDP (Chart 3). The cyclical sectors of the economy (consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and investment on equipment & software) are most sensitive to interest rates and often provide an early warning sign for the overall economy. At the moment we see no evidence that cyclical spending is poised to slow meaningfully. Recent data showed solid gains in April retail sales, while consumer sentiment remains near its all-time high (Chart 4, panel 1). On the investment side, core durable goods orders were stronger than expected in April and the regional manufacturing PMIs that have been released so far in May (Philadelphia, New York, Richmond and Kansas City) have all increased (Chart 4, panel 2). Recent housing data have been more disappointing relative to expectations, but even here we continue to see steady growth in building permits and a continued contraction in outstanding supply. Supply increases typically precede a decline in construction activity (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Domestic Economy Looks Strong Chart 4Focus On Cyclical Sectors Candidate 2: The Financial Markets Even if U.S. economic growth is robust, it is conceivable that a sharp tightening of financial conditions - a falling stock market, widening credit spreads and/or an appreciating dollar - could cause the Fed to slow its pace of hikes. After all, the Fed would interpret a large enough tightening of financial conditions as a signal that economic growth will slow in the future. To assess this risk we turn to our Fed Monitor (Chart 5). Our Fed Monitor is a composite of many different variables that fall into one of three categories (i) economic growth, (ii) inflation and (iii) financial conditions. It is constructed in such a way that a reading above zero means the Fed should be tightening policy and a reading below zero means the Fed should be easing. Chart 5Fed Monitor Recommends Tighter Policy The bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that we have in fact seen a relatively large tightening of financial conditions since the equity market sold off in February. However, our overall Fed Monitor has barely ticked down, and remains solidly above zero. There is an important message here. The Fed can tolerate more tightening in financial conditions when economic growth and inflation are higher. When a similar tightening of financial conditions occurred in 2015, it did in fact drive our overall Fed Monitor below zero. This is because the economic growth and inflation components of the Monitor provided less of an offset (Chart 5, panels 3 & 4). Now, with stronger readings from those components, the Fed will need to see a much larger tightening of financial conditions before reacting. We will pay close attention to our Fed Monitor going forward for any signs that a sell-off in financial markets might be severe enough to spook the Fed. Another financial market signal that bears monitoring is the slope of the yield curve (Chart 6). It is no secret that an inverted yield curve always precedes a recession, and the Fed could interpret a very flat curve as a signal that monetary policy is becoming restrictive. In fact, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said two weeks ago that: Chart 6Not Flat Enough To Worry The Fed I have had extended conversations with my colleagues about a flattening yield curve. It is my job to make sure that [yield curve inversion] doesn't happen. In contrast, the minutes from the May FOMC meeting reveal a more balanced tone from the committee as a whole. "Several" participants thought "it would be important to monitor" the slope of the curve, while "a few" thought that the slope of the curve could be less important this cycle because of several special factors. These factors include: depressed term premiums because of large central bank balance sheets and reductions in investors' estimates of the longer-run neutral real interest rate. Our sense is that the yield curve is a good economic indicator simply because it reflects market expectations about the path of the fed funds rate. When the curve is inverted, and long-maturity yields are below short-maturity yields, it means that investors expect rate cuts to occur in the future. In contrast, a very steep yield curve indicates that the market expects a large number of rate hikes. When the stance of monetary policy is perceived to be close to neutral, investors will expect very little future movement in the fed funds rate and the yield curve will be very flat.2 In an ideal world, the Fed will move the funds rate close to its neutral level by the time that inflation stabilizes around its 2% target. In other words, the Fed will not be overly concerned with a very flat yield curve as long as inflation is close to its target. A very flat curve will only worry policymakers if it coincides with below-target inflation, because that would suggest that the market does not believe that the Fed will hit its inflation goal. With inflation already close to the Fed's target, we don't think a flat yield curve will cause the Fed to turn dovish any time soon. Candidate 3: Foreign Economic Growth One final factor that could eventually cause the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes is weak foreign economic growth. Here we already see mounting signs of stress. Chart 7 shows that while the U.S. Leading Economic Indicator is the strongest it has been in several years, our Global Leading Economic Indicator excluding the U.S. has begun to contract. This divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world is reminiscent of the 2014/15 period when the dollar came under strong upward pressure. Not surprisingly, the dollar is once again starting to appreciate (Chart 7, panel 2). Much like in 2014/15, a strengthening dollar is already putting pressure on Emerging Markets where CDS spreads are widening and currencies are weakening (Chart 7, bottom panel). As an aside, while USD-denominated Sovereign bond spreads have widened, they remain expensive compared to similarly-rated U.S. corporate bonds (Chart 8). We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Turning back to U.S. monetary policy, the key reason the Fed might concern itself with weak foreign economic growth is that the resultant strengthening of the dollar will eventually cause financial conditions to tighten and domestic economic growth to slow. This is exactly what occurred in 2014/15, though unfortunately the Fed waited until the strong dollar culminated in a sell-off in equity and credit markets before it adopted a more dovish policy stance (Chart 9). We would once again expect the Fed to wait for divergent growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world (and the resultant stronger dollar) to be reflected in financial conditions indexes and domestic equity and credit markets before it responded by slowing the pace of hikes. Chart 7Global Growth Divergences##br## Are Back Chart 8Sovereigns Still##br## Expensive Chart 9Growth Divergences Led To ##br##Market Turmoil In 2014/15 Bottom Line: The Fed would slow its pace of rate hikes if the cyclical sectors of the U.S. economy started to slow, financial conditions tightened significantly, or if the slope of the yield curve moved close to zero while inflation was below the Fed's target. The most likely catalyst for the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy in the next 6-12 months is a persistent divergence between U.S. and foreign economic growth that leads to a stronger dollar and culminates in significantly tighter financial conditions, as in 2014/15. What Would Make The Fed Hike More Quickly? The most obvious factor that would make the Fed increase its pace of rate hikes to greater than 25 bps per quarter would be if inflation rose above its 2% target and continued to accelerate. It is unclear how much of an inflation overshoot the Fed is willing to tolerate before it increases the pace of hikes, but our sense is that it's fairly substantial. The Fed has gone out of its way in recent months to stress the "symmetric" nature of its 2% inflation target and, as long as inflation expectations remained well contained, we think the Fed would stick with its "gradual" rate hike pace as long as core PCE inflation is below 2.5%. Inflation pressures in the economy would have to change dramatically for core PCE inflation to break above 2.5%. Chart 10 shows two hypothetical scenarios for year-over-year core PCE inflation. One scenario where core PCE inflation rises 0.2% every month going forward, and another where it rises 0.15% every month. In the 0.2% per month scenario, year-over-year core PCE inflation eventually levels off at around 2.4%. In the 0.15% per month scenario it levels off at 1.8%. Monthly core PCE inflation has only printed above 0.2% seven times since 2015 (Chart 11), meaning that we would need to see a huge shift in the inflation data for it to start worrying policymakers. Chart 10How Much Overshoot Will Fed Tolerate? Chart 11Prints Above 0.2% Have Been Rare Another important factor that we have flagged in recent research is the price of gold.3 We noted that the gold price tends to rise when Fed policy eases and fall when it becomes more restrictive. We also observed that Fed policy can ease/tighten in two ways: The Fed can alter market expectations about the pace of rate hikes The market can revise its assessment of the equilibrium (or neutral) fed funds rate Chart 12Gold Has Led The Fed Notice that the decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 foreshadowed downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate, and that those estimates have leveled-off alongside the price of gold since then (Chart 12). It follows that an upside break-out in the price of gold would be a signal that monetary policy is becoming easier, and that current estimates of the equilibrium fed funds rate need to be revised up. This is another signal we are monitoring that could lead to a quicker pace of rate hikes from the Fed. Bottom Line: A significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target would cause the Fed to increase its pace of rate hikes, but the odds of this occurring during the next 6-12 months are low. An upside break-out in the price of gold would suggest that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised higher, and could lead to a more rapid pace of hikes. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 In practice, the term premium in long-dated Treasury yields will lead to a slightly positive yield curve slope when monetary policy is perceived to be neutral. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights China's industrial sector will continue decelerating, while consumer spending is so far booming. The world economy in general and EM in particular are exposed much more to China's industrial sector than to its consumer spending. The U.S. dollar will continue strengthening, regardless of the trend in U.S. bond yields. The reason is slowing global trade. The dollar rally and weakening global demand will ultimately lead to lower commodities prices. Stay put on / underweight EM financial markets. Turkey will need to hike interest rates more before a buying opportunity in its financial markets emerges. Feature The two key elements affecting the performance of EM financial markets are the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. The combination of a weak U.S. dollar and higher commodities prices is typically bullish for EM. The opposite also holds true: A strong dollar and lower commodities prices are bearish for EM. But what about the recent dynamics - the rally in the greenback and strong commodities prices? This combination is unlikely to be sustained. Historically, the divergence between the dollar's exchange rate and commodities prices has never lasted long (Chart I-1). The fundamental linkage between the U.S. dollar and commodities prices is global growth: improving global growth is positive for resource prices, and the U.S. currency has historically been negatively correlated with global trade - the trade-weighted dollar is shown inverted in this chart (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Commodities And The Dollar Chart I-2Global Growth And The Dollar Hence, if global growth stays strong, the U.S. dollar will pare its recent gains and commodities prices will stay well-bid. Conversely, if global trade decelerates commodities prices will inevitably have to change direction. We expect the dollar to stay well-bid because the current phase of dollar rally will at some point be followed by a second phase where the greenback's strength is driven by a slowdown in global trade. In this phase, commodities prices and U.S. bond yields will drop alongside a strengthening U.S. dollar. Weaker growth in China and in other EMs is the key reason we expect global trade volumes to slow. Is China Slowing? Making sense of growth conditions in China is never easy, but it is particularly confusing these days. We maintain that there is growing evidence that China's industrial segment is slowing and will continue doing so, yet consumer spending is still booming. The basis for the industrial slowdown is a deceleration in both money and credit growth, which has been taking place over the past 18 months or so. With respect to households, the borrowing binge continues. The unrelenting 20%+ annual growth in household credit continues to fuel the property bubble. In turn, a rising wealth effect from real estate as well as decent income growth are the underpinnings behind the booming consumer sector. The main and relevant point for investors from the perspective of China's impact on broader EM is as follows: the drop in the credit and fiscal impulse is heralding a deceleration in capital expenditures/construction. That, in turn, will lead to fewer imports of commodities and materials. Imports are the main transmission mechanism from China's economy to the rest of the world. Mainland imports in RMB terms have indeed decelerated meaningfully, yet import values in U.S. dollar terms have not (Chart I-3). So, what explains the recent gap between imports in yuan and dollar terms? The RMB's rally versus the U.S. dollar in the past 15 months has been responsible for this gap between import values. As one would expect, the spending power of mainland industrial companies has moderated because less credit and fiscal expenditures are being injected into the system (Chart I-4). Yet because the RMB now buys 10% more U.S. dollars than it did a year ago, mainland buyers' purchasing power of foreign goods that are priced in dollars has improved. As a result, the pace of growth of the value of U.S. dollar imports has remained buoyant. Chart I-3Chinese Imports In RMB & USD Terms Chart I-4Weaker Purchasing Power ##br##In China Will Hurt Imports If the RMB's exchange rate versus the dollar remains flat over the next 12 months, the growth rates of both imports in RMB and dollar terms will converge. In this case, a further slowdown in import spending in RMB terms will translate into considerable deceleration in mainland imports in U.S. dollar terms. In brief, the exchange rate is important because the U.S. dollar's depreciation versus the RMB since January 2017 has prevented the spillover from a slowdown in China's imports in local currency terms to the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. Chart I-5Goods And Services Imports: China And U.S. If and as the dollar continues to rally versus the majority of currencies, China could allow its currency to slip versus the greenback to assure a flat trade-weighted exchange rate and preserve its competitiveness. In such a scenario, China's purchasing power of goods and services from the rest of world will be impaired - which in turn means this economy will be remitting fewer dollars to the rest of the world. This will reduce the flow of U.S. dollars from China to EMs, adversely impacting the latter's financial markets and economies. Chart I-5 illustrates that China's imports of goods and services amount to $2.3 trillion compared with U.S. imports of goods and services of $3.1 trillion. Therefore, in terms of importance in global imports, China is not too far behind America. This holds true with respect to remitting dollars to the rest of the world. Provided that China imports more from EM - both from Asian manufacturing economies and commodities producers - than the U.S. does, then less mainland imports will entail fewer dollars flowing to EM. In short, the continued slowdown in China's purchasing power in U.S. dollar terms will negatively affect the rest of EM. This rests on our baseline view that mainland credit growth will continue slowing and the RMB will weaken against the dollar, albeit modestly for now. Mirroring the divergence between industrial sectors and consumers in the Middle Kingdom, there has been an equally clear divergence within imports: Imports of industrial supplies excluding machinery have slumped, while imports of household goods have continued to flourish. Chart I-6 demonstrates that imports have decelerated for base metals, chemicals, wood, mineral products and rubber. Even oil and petroleum products imports have slowed (Chart I-7). Yet imports of consumer goods are roaring (Chart I-8). Chart I-6China: Industrial Imports Are Slowing Chart I-7Chinese Fuel Imports Are Slowing Chart I-8Chinese Consumer Goods Imports Are Robust Which one is more important for EM: the industrial sector or consumer spending? Many developing economies in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East as well as countries such as Russia, Indonesia and Malaysia are very dependent on their commodities exports. These economies do not benefit much from booming Chinese consumers. For them, the critical variable is the mainland's industrial sector and its absorption of minerals and resources. In terms of size, Table I-1 illustrates that non-food commodities, industrial goods, machinery, equipment and transportation make up overwhelming majority of China's total imports. Meanwhile, consumer goods imports, excluding autos, comprise 15% of total imports. Hence, their impact on the rest of the world is small. Table I-1Structure Of Chinese Imports Further, most of consumer goods that households in China consume are produced locally rather than imported. That is why the world economy at large and EM in particular are more exposed to the mainland's industrial sector than its consumer one. Aside from imports, there are several other variables that validate our thesis of an ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector. In particular: Total floor space sold (residential plus non-residential) has rolled over, heralding weakness in floor space started and, eventually, construction activity (Chart I-9). Growth rates of total freight traffic, diesel consumption, electricity and plate glass output have slumped (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Slowdown In Chinese Real Estate Chart I-10China: Industrial Economy Is Weakening Nominal manufacturing production is decelerating in response to a weaker broad money impulse (Chart I-11). The Komatsu Komtrax index - which measures average hours of machine use per unit of construction equipment (excluding mining equipment) - has begun contracting (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Downside Risks In Manufacturing Chart I-12China: Sign Of Construction Slump Even though China's spending on tech products has been vibrant, the global semiconductor cycle - a harbinger of overall tech industry growth - is clearly downshifting as evidenced by declining semiconductor prices (Chart I-13). Finally, narrow money (M1) growth has historically correlated with Chinese H-share prices, and is currently pointing to considerable downside risk for Chinese equity prices (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Semiconductor Prices Are Falling Chart I-14Chinese Share Prices Are At Risk Bottom Line: China's industrial sector has been decelerating, a trend that will persist. Meanwhile, consumer spending is so far booming. The former is more important to the rest of the world in general and EM in particular than the latter. EM Selloff: Two Phases While it is impossible to forecast the timing and character of market dynamics and mini-cycles with precision, our assessment is that two phases of an EM selloff are likely. Phase 1: A relapse in EM financial markets occurs on the back of rising U.S. bond yields, a strong dollar, amid resilient commodities prices. This phase is currently underway. Phase 2: U.S. bond yields peter out and drift lower, yet the U.S. dollar continues to firm up, commodities prices relapse and the EM selloff progresses. This stage has not yet commenced. The driving force behind these dynamics would be slower global demand growth emanating from China and spreading to other developing countries. In between Phases 1 and 2, it is possible that EM will stage a temporary rebound. Yet the duration and magnitude of such a rebound are impossible to gauge. Because of its transient nature, barring precise timing, the rebound will be very difficult to play profitably. It is not impossible to envision that the escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could at some point lead the Federal Reserve to sound less hawkish. That could mark a top in U.S. bond yields. In such a scenario, will a peak in U.S. bond yields mark a bottom in EM currencies? It may do so temporarily, but the sustainability of a rally in EM currencies and risk assets would be contingent on global growth in general and commodities prices in particular. Chart I-15An Unsustainable Rebound ##br##In EM Stocks In 2014 As a matter of fact, a similar two-phase selloff with a rebound in between occurred in 2013-'15. Chart I-15 illustrates that EM currencies and stocks staged a short-lived rebound after U.S. bond yields peaked in late 2013. Yet this rally proved transient. The underlying impetus behind the resumption in the EM downtrend back in 2014-'15 was weakening growth in China, falling commodities prices and poor domestic fundamentals. Similar to the 2013-'15 episode, any rebound in EM risk assets resulting from lower U.S. bond yields will likely be fleeting if commodities prices drop, the dollar continues to firm up and global growth disappoints. To sum up, a potential rollover in U.S. bond yields in the coming months will not automatically entail an ultimate bottom in EM risk assets. Trends in global growth - particularly in China - and commodities prices will be critical to the outlook for EM. As per our themes and discussion above, we maintain that China's industrial growth and construction will surprise on the downside. Consequently, China's commodities imports will moderate, which will weigh on commodities prices. In the interim, weak global trade dynamics stemming from EM/China will benefit the dollar, which is a countercyclical currency. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar will continue strengthening regardless of the trend in U.S. bond yields because of slowing global trade. The dollar rally and weakening global demand will ultimately lead to lower commodities prices. EM financial markets will remain under selling pressure as long as global growth continues slowing. EM Foreign Funding Vulnerability Ranking Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? Chart I-16 presents ranking of EM countries based on foreign funding requirements. The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-16Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. Mostly, these stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen. The basis for this is depreciating currencies will make their foreign debt liabilities more expensive to service. Besides, as these debtors allocate more resources to service foreign debt, their spending will be negatively impacted and their domestic economies will weaken. Investment Conclusions Chart I-17Downside Risks In EM Share prices The dollar's strength will be lasting. Stay short a basket of select currencies such as the BRL, TRY, ZAR, CLP, IDR, KRW and MYR versus the U.S. dollar. For portfolios that need to overweight some EM currencies relative to the rest, our favorites are MXN, RUB, PLN, CZK, TWD, THB and SGD. CNY will for now modestly weaken versus the dollar but outperform many other EM peers. The biggest risk to the U.S. dollar in our opinion is the Trump administration's preference for a weaker greenback. Therefore, "open-mouth" operations by the U.S. administration to weaken the dollar are possible, and the dollar could experience temporary setbacks. Yet the path of least resistance for the dollar remains up, for now. There is considerable downside in EM share prices. Stay put and underweight EM versus DM in general and the S&P 500 in particular. Chart I-17 illustrates that rising EM sovereign bond yields and U.S. corporate bond yields (both shown inverted on the chart) herald a further selloff in EM stocks. Our equity overweights are Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, India, central Europe, Chile and Mexico, and our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Peru, Malaysia and Indonesia. For fixed-income investors, defensive positioning is warranted. As EM currencies continue to depreciate, sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen further. Credit portfolios should continue underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit relative U.S./DM corporate credit. Foreign holdings of EM local currency bonds remain massive. EM currency depreciation versus DM currencies will erode returns for foreign investors and could spur some bond selling, exerting upward pressure on local yields as well.1 Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Is The Worst Over? After having dropped 30% in U.S. dollar terms since their peak in late January, Turkish equity prices are beginning to look depressed, begging the question whether a buying opportunity is in the cards. Our assessment is as follows: the nation's financial markets are not yet at the point to warrant an upgrade (Chart II-1). Judgment on Turkish markets is contingent on three questions: Has the lira become cheap? Are real interest rates sufficiently high to depress domestic demand and reduce inflationary pressures? Are equity valuations cheap enough to warrant buying despite the poor cyclical profit outlook? First, the lira needs to get cheaper. Our favorite measure of currency valuation is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This takes into account both wages and productivity. Hence, it gauges competitiveness much better than the measures of real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices. Using this measure, as of May 23 the lira is one standard deviations below its historical mean (Chart II-2). For it to reach one-and-half or two standard deviations below its fair value, it would roughly take another 10%-20% depreciation, versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro. Chart II-1Turkish Financial Markets ##br##Have More Downside Chart II-2The Turkish Lira Is Not That Cheap Second, in regard to monetary policy, our view is that it would take an increase of around 200-250bps in the policy rate in addition to yesterday's hike of 300bps to stabilize financial markets. Core inflation will likely rise to at least 14-15% from the current level of 12% in response to the ongoing currency depreciation. With the effective policy rate (the late liquidity window rate) now at 16.5%, another 200-250 basis points hike would push the nominal rates to 18.5-19% and real policy rate to 3.5-4%, a minimum level that is likely required to depress excessive domestic demand growth. Finally, equity valuations are reasonably appealing but not cheap enough to put a floor under share prices given the outlook for contracting corporate and bank profits. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for Turkish stocks is now about 6, compared with the historical average of 8. Although this bourse is already one standard deviation cheap, the outlook for profit recession likely warrants even lower valuation to justify buying. Chart II-3Turkish Equities Could Get Cheaper An approximate 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms will bring the CAPE to 4.8, one-and-half standard deviation below the fair value. On the whole, an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms will likely create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial markets. That said, it is doubtful whether there is the political will - to tolerate another 15% drop in the currency from current levels or more tightening in monetary conditions in the very near run ahead of the upcoming June parliamentary elections. Given the authorities' tolerance for higher borrowing costs is low, investors should not rule out the potential for capital controls to be imposed. In fact, to protect assets against possible capital control, we would recommend investors who are short to consider booking profits if the exchange rate surpasses 5 USDTRY in a rapid manner. Our open directional trades at the moment remain: Short Turkish bank stocks Short TRY / long USD Non-dedicated long-only investors should for now stay clear of Turkish financial markets. As to dedicated EM equity and fixed income portfolios (both credit and local currency bonds), we continue recommending underweight positions in Turkey. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 We discussed EM currencies and bonds in details in May 10, 2018; the link is available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Stable global demand; steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output; and the cumulative loss of 500k b/d of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions by 2H19 will lift average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl in 2019, respectively (Chart of the Week). Brent prices will average $78/bbl in 2H18, while WTI goes to $72/bbl, as these supply-side effects are not material to prices this year. We lowered our estimate of Venezuela output to 1.2mm b/d by end-2018 (vs. 1.3mm b/d previously), and to 1.0mm b/d by end-2019 (vs. 1.2mm b/d). Offsetting these losses and continued deterioration in non-Gulf OPEC supply in 2019, we assume OPEC 2.0 slowly restores 1.2mm b/d in 1H19, and U.S. shale oil grows 1.4mm b/d. Even so, balances tighten significantly (Chart 2).1 Chart of the WeekBrent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 2Balances Tighter As Supply Falls If Venezuela collapses, and its ~ 1mm b/d of crude exports are lost, Brent crude oil could go to $100/bbl by end 2019, in the simulation we ran assuming exports collapse in 2H18. Uncertainty over supply and demand responses to higher prices makes this difficult to model. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Our options recommendations - long Brent call spreads spanning Dec/18 to Aug/19 delivery - are up an average 50.5%. Our long S&P GSCI position, recommended Dec 7/17 to take advantage of increasing backwardation, is up 18.9%.2 Base Metals: Neutral. Copper rallied earlier this week on an apparent easing of trade tensions between the U.S. and China. However, a statement by U.S. President Trump suggesting uncertain progress in talks led to a reversal in most of these gains by mid-day Wednesday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long gold portfolio hedge and tactical long silver position were relatively flat over the past week, as the broad trade-weighted USD moved higher. Ags/Softs: Underweight. China's Sinograin, the state grain buyer, reportedly was in the market this week showing interest in purchasing U.S. soybeans, according to agriculture.com's Successful Farming website. Feature Barring the immediate collapse of Venezuela's oil industry and the loss of its ~ 1mm b/d of oil exports, which we discuss below beginning on page 7, the global crude market will continue to tighten from the supply side, on the back of ratcheting geopolitical pressures. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude oil production, which, even without a total collapse that wipes out its ~ 1mm b/d of exports, will see production fall to 1.2mm b/d by the end of this year from ~ 1.44mm b/d at present. This represents a decline in our previous estimate of 100k b/d. By the end of 2019, we expect Venezuela production to fall to 1.0mm b/d, 200k b/d below our previous estimate. One year ago, Venezuela was producing just under 2.0mm b/d of crude. The other supply source affected by geopolitics is Iran, where we expect export volumes to fall later this year, due to the re-imposition of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions (Chart 3). We are modeling a loss of 200k b/d by year-end 2018, and a cumulative loss of 500k b/d by the end of 1H19.3 Lastly, we have raised the probability OPEC 2.0 keeps its production cuts in place in 2H18 to 100% from 80%. This added $2/bbl to our 2018 Brent forecast. We expect a wider Brent - WTI differential this year, and left our 2018 WTI forecast at $70/bbl. Chart 3Iran Exports Down 500k b/d By 2H19, In BCA Model The steady decline in Venezuelan production and the loss of Iranian exports, coupled with an extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018, will take total OPEC crude oil production to 32.0mm b/d this year (down 300k b/d y/y), and 31.7mm b/d next year. Non-Gulf OPEC production also falls: coming in at 7.5mm b/d this year, these producers account for a 300k b/d y/y loss, and, at 7.0mm b/d next year, a 500k b/d y/y loss in 2019. Once again this leaves non-OPEC production as the leading source of new supply: We have total non-OPEC liquids (crude, condensates and other liquids) up 2.12mm b/d to 60.7mm b/d this year, and up 2.11mm b/d next year. This is led - no surprise - by U.S. shales, which we expect to increase by 1.3mm b/d this year to 6.52mm b/d, and 1.5mm b/d next year to 7.98mm b/d, respectively (Chart 4). Net, we expect global crude and liquids supply to average 99.73mm b/d this year, and 101.76mm b/d in 2019. On the demand side, our growth estimates are unchanged in our latest balances model. We continue to expect global demand growth of 1.7mm b/d this year and next - the prospects of which strengthened with an apparent dialing back of U.S. - China trade animosities over the past week (Chart 5). This will move the level of global consumption up to 100.3mm b/d this year and 102mm b/d next year, as can be seen in Table 1. Chart 4Steady Decline In Venezuela Exports,##BR##Iran Sanctions Tighten Markets Chart 5Global Demand Remains Strong In##BR##Our Updated Balances Models The effect of the supply-side adjustments to our model - holding our demand assumptions pretty much constant - can be seen in the new path of OECD inventories vis-à-vis the 2010 - 2014 five-year average level of stocks (Chart 6). OPEC 2.0's strong compliance with its production-management agreement, along with losses of Venezuelan and Iranian exports and above-average demand growth caused estimated OECD commercial inventories to fall ~ 303mm bbls versus Jan/17 levels. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Chart 6Tighter Markets, Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Keeping OECD inventories below their 2010 - 2014 average levels means Brent and WTI forward curves will remain backwardated at least to the end of 2019, which, we believe, is OPEC 2.0's ultimate goal. This will ensure the coalition's member states receive the highest price along these forward curves, while the coalition's U.S. shale-oil rivals are forced to hedge at a lower price a year or two forward. Backwardation also works to the advantage of commodity index investors, particularly when the investable index is heavily weighted to oil and refined products like the S&P GSCI.4 This recommendation is up 18.9% since it was recommended Dec 7/17. Net, we expect Brent prices to average $78/bbl in 2H18, while WTI goes to $72/bbl. For next year, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl and WTI to average $72/bbl. Simulation Of A Venezuela Supply Shock To Oil Markets The likelihood Venezuela manages to maintain exports of ~ 1mm b/d this year and next falls daily.5 Were markets to lose these export volumes, they initially would scramble to replace them, leading to a short-term price spike, in our view. We simulated the loss of Venezuela's ~ 1mm b/d of exports, assuming these volumes fall off in June, and starting, in Jul/18, OPEC 2.0 gradually restores the 1.2mm b/d it actually cut from production over 2H18. By Jan/19 OPEC 2.0's 1.2mm b/d cuts are fully restored, in our simulation. However, the loss of Venezuela exports is only fully realized in 2H19, assuming oil consumption stays strong. Brent prices end 2019 ~ $100/bbl (Chart 7). OECD inventories fall to ~ 2.65 billion bbls by end 2018, and to ~ 2.32 billion bbls by end-2019 (Chart 8). This is not unreasonable, given the inelasticity of demand to price over the short term, but we would expect that in 1H20, demand would fall in response to higher prices. Chart 7Oil Prices Move Higher In Our Simulation,##BR##If Venezuela's Exports Collapse... Chart 8... OECD Inventories Drop Sharply,##BR##As Well Of course, by that time, the supply side likely would have adjusted as well. We will be exploring this further and developing additional simulations to understand the evolution of prices beyond 2020. How this plays out is unknowable at present. But, as a starting point for understanding the implications of losing Venezuela's exports, this is a reasonable set of assumptions, given the challenges in not only returning OPEC 2.0 volumes removed from the market, but getting them to refining centers in 2H18. What is unclear at present is how governments will use their strategic petroleum reserves (SPRs), and whether OPEC will fire up spare capacity to handle the loss of Venezuela's exports, should this occur. Much will depend on how OPEC 2.0 and consumer governments' SPRs interact if exports collapse. Production Cuts, Inventories, SPRs And Spare Capacity In the simulation above, we reckon OPEC 2.0 flowing production can be brought back to market in fairly short order, and that still-ample inventories and spare capacity would be available to cover the sudden loss of Venezuela's exports, to say nothing of strategic petroleum reserves held in the U.S., China, Japan, and the EU. The key, though, is how long it would take to get this supply to market, and how governments holding SPRs react. We estimate it will take anywhere from one to three months to begin to restore the volumes OPEC 2.0 took off the market if Venezuela goes offline. It will take a few months for the restored crude production to start flowing into pipelines and on to ships, followed by 50- to 60-day journeys from the Gulf to be delivered to refining centers. Chart 9OPEC Spare Capacity ~ 2% Of Global Supply,##BR##Lower Than 2003 - 2008 Price Run-Up In the meantime, refiners would continue to draw crude inventory to supply product markets, along with product inventories, a critical consideration going into the northern hemisphere's summer driving season. In a short-term pinch, governments could draw their strategic petroleum reserves to fill the gaps while OPEC 2.0 production is being restored, and markets get back to the status-quo ante prevailing prior to the loss of Venezuela's exports.6 OPEC's ~ 1.9mm b/d of spare capacity - most of which is located in KSA - could be called upon in an emergency; however, this requires 30 days to be brought on line, per U.S. EIA, and can only be sustained for at least 90 days (Chart 9). The EIA is forecasting OPEC spare capacity will fall from current levels of 1.9mm bbls to ~ 1.3mm bbls by end-2019.7 Given these uncertainties, we continue to recommend investors remain long Brent crude oil option call spreads, which we recommended over the course of the past few months.8 We expect prices and volatility to move higher, both of which are positive for option positions. Bottom Line: Venezuela's crude oil production is in free-fall. We estimate it will drop to 1.2mm b/d by the end of this year, and to 1.0mm b/d by the end of next year. Iran's exports could fall 500k b/d by the end of 1H19, as a result of the re-imposition of nuclear sanctions by the U.S. These geopolitically induced supply losses tighten markets in 2019, raising our prices forecasts for Brent and WTI to $80 and $72/bbl, respectively. We are raising our Brent forecast for 2018 by $2/bbl, expecting prices to average $76 and $70/bbl, respectively, since these risks likely do not kick in until late in 2018. A collapse in Venezuelan production could spike prices to $100/bbl by the end of 2019, even as OPEC 2.0 restores the 1.2mm b/d of production it removed from markets beginning in 2H18. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Its production cuts of ~ 1.2mm b/d and natural declines have removed ~ 1.8mm b/d from the market. 2 Backwardation is a term of art used in commodity markets to describe an inverted forward price curve - i.e., prompt-delivery commodities trade higher than the same commodity delivered in the future. The opposite of backwardation is contango. 3 There is an extremely high degree of uncertainty around this estimate, which is why we are treating it as our Bayesian prior, and will be revising it as additional information becomes available. We do not believe all of the production restored by Iran post-sanctions - 1mm b/d - will be lost to export markets, but starting with a prior of ~ half of it being lost due to less-than-full re-imposition of sanctions is reasonable. 4 Commodity-index total returns are the sum of price appreciation registered by being long the index; "roll yield," which comes from buying deferred futures in backwardated markets, letting them roll up the forward curve as they approach delivery, selling them, then replacing them with cheaper deferred contracts in the same commodity; and collateral yield, which accrues to margin deposits on the futures comprising the index. Roll yield can be illustrated by way of a simplistic example: Assume the oil exposure in an index is established in a backwardated market - say, spot is trading at $62/bbl and the 3rd nearby WTI future trades at $60/bbl. Assuming nothing changes, an investor can hold the 3rd nearby contract until it becomes spot, then roll it (i.e., sell it in the spot month and replace it with another 3rd nearby contract at $60/bbl) for a $2/bbl gain. This process can be repeated as long as the forward curve remains backwardated. 5 Matters have only gotten worse since the Council on Foreign Relations published its so-called Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 33 February 13, 2018, titled "A Venezuelan Refugee Crisis," which opened with the following: Venezuela is in an economic free fall. As a result of government-led mismanagement and corruption, the currency value is plummeting, prices are hyperinflated, and gross domestic product (GDP) has fallen by over a third in the last five years. In an economy that produces little except oil, the government has cut imports by over 75 percent, choosing to use its hard currency to service the roughly $140 billion in debt and other obligations. These economic choices have led to a humanitarian crisis. Basic food and medicines for Venezuela's approximately thirty million citizens are increasingly scarce, and the devastation of the health-care system has spurred outbreaks of treatable diseases and rising death rates. The CFR's memo is available at https://www.cfr.org/report/venezuelan-refugee-crisis 6 There is no way to model exactly how this will play out, absent a detailed plan put forward by the IEA and China, where the largest SPRs reside. IEA members have bound themselves to hold reserves equal to 90 days of net petroleum imports. Among the largest SPRs, U.S. holds just over 660mm barrels of oil in its SPR; China held ~ 290mm barrels at the end of last year, based on IEA estimates. Germany and Japan together hold close to 550mm bbls, according to the Joint Organizations Data Initiatives (JODI). KSA's crude oil inventories - not exactly SPRs - stood at ~ 235mm barrels in March, according to JODI. We are highly confident disposition of these reserves in the event of a shock to Venezuela's exports is being discussed in Washington, Paris, Riyadh and Beijing. Please see p. 2 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's Testimony Before the subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, "Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Preliminary Observations on the Emergency Oil Stockpile," released for publication Nov. 2, 2017. 7 This actually is a fairly low level of spare capacity, amounting to ~ 2% of global supply. During, the price run-up of 2003 - 2008, OPEC's total spare capacity was near or below 3% of supply and that was considered tight at the time. 8 Please see p. 11 for a summary of these trades' performance. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Special Report

As with all bull markets, the question on investors' minds has never been if it would end but when it will end as the former is a certainty and the latter is the source of alpha. We have previously noted that by almost all measures, this is the longest bull market in history1 and, with its age starting to show, it is time to focus on late-cycle dynamics. Our preferred leading indicator for declines in U.S. equity markets has been the ISM manufacturing composite index. The ISM has, despite a few false positives, led both recessions and S&P 500 troughs with remarkable accuracy (Chart 1). Chart 1Our Preferred Leading Indicator When gains in the S&P 500 are broken into their respective components, it becomes apparent that the ISM is a strong predictor of both sentiment, as measured by changes in the valuation multiple (Chart 2), as well as profit prospects, as measured by earnings growth (Chart 3). Chart 2ISM Leads Valuation... Chart 3...And Earnings Still, valuations and earnings eventually, and invariably, converge, usually explosively so in a recession. Accordingly, measuring the ISM's lead time should provide some insight into the duration of the economic expansion as well as appropriate sector allocation. In our last Weekly Report,2 we examined how in the late/later stages of economic expansion, banks, representing a prototypical early-cyclical sector, underperformed the broad market. In this report, we are broadening the analysis to all of the GICS1 sectors of the S&P 500. Timing Is Everything We begin our analysis by examining the duration of leads between the cyclical peak of the ISM and the end of economic expansion (i.e. the start of recession as defined by the NBER) going back to the 1960s with our results summarized in Table 1. These results are somewhat unhelpful as the durations range from as short as 8 months at the beginning of the 1980s to more than 3 years, as in the period preceding the Great Recession. With the hypothesis in mind that the market would have sniffed out a recession before economic activity actually began to contract, we split the duration into two periods: the time between the peak of the ISM and the peak of the S&P 500 and the time between the peak of the S&P 500 and the beginning of the recession (Table 2). While the duration inconsistency between iterations argues against using this data to forecast the longevity of an equity bull market, a closer examination of the periods yields a key insight: The duration of the blow off phase of the bull market is on average more than three times longer than the fall before the recession. Table 1ISM Peak To Recession Table 2Late Cycle Can Be Split in Two Phases Still, the purpose of this report is not to estimate the length of time between the most recent ISM peak (March, 2018) and recession; as shown above, such an exercise would be meaningless as history has never rhymed in this regard. Rather, this Special Report should offer a portfolio allocation roadmap if, as we believe, the ISM has peaked but the S&P 500 has yet to see its cyclical highs.3 Riding The Wave Chart 4S&P 500 Cycle-On-Cycle Returns Chart 4 shows a cycle-on-cycle analysis of S&P 500 returns in the periods between the peak of the ISM and the beginning of the recession, across the seven iterations since the 1960's. This chart requires some explanation; because the time frames between ISM peak and recession vary so substantially per iteration, we have segmented each period into eight parts. Each part can represent a time frame as short as one or as long as eight months; what matters is the direction of the market, not the time frame. We have overlaid this cycle-on-cycle chart with the S&P 500, indexed to 0 at the most recent ISM peak in March of this year. It is worth qualifying that the S&P 500 peaked before the ISM in two of the seven iterations we have examined and, by overlaying the year-to-date S&P 500 over this curve, we are explicitly stating that we expect the S&P 500 peak in the current cycle to follow the peak in the ISM, as happened in five iterations, including the most recent three (please refer to our recent publication where we lifted our SPX peak target to 32004). Despite the machinations in creating Chart 4, the pattern is remarkably consistent; the S&P 500 falls modestly after the ISM peaks but then delivers one last hurrah, before the end of the cycle. Once again, however, the trick to securing the excess returns earned in the fat times is timing, as the fall after the S&P 500 peak is precipitous. Further, given the much shorter time frame on the back end of the curve, haste is of the essence. Sector Winners & Losers As shown in Table 3, the average return of the S&P 500 from the peak of the ISM to the beginning of the recession is a fairly modest 6.7% (non-compounded). That return appears even more modest in the context of an average 25 month duration. When the returns are split into the periods before and after the peak of the S&P 500, the 25% gain before the peak and the 12% decline after (Tables 4 and 5) are more significant and underscore the role of timing for capital preservation in the late cycle. Table 3Health Care Outperforms In The Late Cycle Table 4High Beta Stocks Outperform Early... Table 5...Defensive Stocks Beat Late The top performers in the first phase of the late cycle equity market surge are some of the highest beta sectors, including energy and technology. Also, unsurprisingly, these sectors have performed poorly in the latter phase we examined when the market slides toward recession. Still, we would highlight the S&P energy index as a portfolio overweight in the late cycle. Energy has historically been the top performer from the peak of the ISM to the peak of the S&P 500 and, while it is a sub-par performer in the latter stages, it continues to outperform the falling broad market. Further, energy registered relative performance gains in every iteration we examined and was the only sector to consistently repeat its performance, positive or negative. The current iteration of the late cycle should probably see stellar returns in this sector as crude oil prices have only recently broken out, a pattern that has repeated following other ISM peaks (Chart 5); BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy expects this trend to continue in 2018. As such, the nascent turnaround in sector performance (Chart 6) should have long legs; we reiterate our high-conviction overweight in this deep cyclical sector. Chart 5Oil And ISM Move In Sync... Chart 6...And So Do Energy Equities Another interesting insight from this research is the strong performance of the S&P health care sector in both phases we examined (Chart 7). This is largely due to the high-beta biotech sub-sector outperforming early (Chart 8) with the more defensive managed health care and pharma sub-indexes sustaining the outperformance following the SPX peak (Chart 9). Chart 7Health Care Is A Resilient Late Cycle Performer Chart 8Biotech Leads Early In light of this research and given recent pricing power developments, we are adding an upgrade alert to the pharma and biotech groups and thus to the broad S&P health care index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5BIOT - ABBV, AMGN, GILD,CELG, BIIB, VRTX, ALXN, REGN, INCY and BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, LLY, AGN, ZTS, MYL, NKTR, PRGO. Chart 9...While Pharma Outperforms Late Stay Cyclical (For Now) The current backdrop of a Fed that seems likely to be permissive of an inflation overshoot (or at least not too hawkish), combined with a strong domestic fiscal thrust in the form of tax cuts and a potential infrastructure bill, supports our thesis that, despite being past the peak of the ISM, the S&P 500 has not yet seen its best days. Accordingly, the upshot of our analysis is that it pays to maintain a cyclical portfolio bent to capture the most lucrative phase of the bull market. This is reflected in our overall portfolio allocation; we note that the top and bottom performers in this analysis (S&P energy and S&P telecom services, Table 3) are overweight and underweight, respectively, on our high conviction list. Still, our upgrade alerts in the health care sector should stand as a caution to readers that we are prepared to reduce beta in our portfolio allocation should our other leading indicators flash yellow. For now, however, we continue to believe the odds of recession are close to nil on a 9-12 month horizon and, accordingly, remain positive on the broad market's prospects with a cyclical portfolio allocation over defensive. Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Sector Winners & Losers When Fiscal Easing Offsets Monetary Tightening," dated April 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Resilient," dated May 14, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Ibid.

Highlights Copper has been stuck in the $2.90-$3.30/lb trading range since late August, 2017. Offsetting supply- and demand-side effects are keeping us neutral: Concerns over restrictions on China's scrap imports and possible industrial action in Chile, along with continued worries over a slow-down in China will keep prices range-bound until we see a fundamental catalyst on one side of the market. Our updated balances model shows a physical surplus in 2018, followed by a deficit in 2019. Energy: Overweight. Rising crude oil prices and steepening backwardation in Brent and WTI, to a lesser extent, will be supportive of our energy-heavy S&P GSCI recommendation, as we expected. The position is up 17.1% since it was initiated on December 7, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Our updated balances model points to a physical surplus in the copper market by year end (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. A stronger USD and higher real rates are pressuring precious metals lower. Our long gold and silver positions are down 1.8% and 0.8%, respectively, over the past week. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects Brazil to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest soybean producer in the upcoming crop year, for the first time in history. Nevertheless - and despite U.S.-Sino trade tensions - the report also predicts record U.S. exports of the bean in the 2018/19 crop year. Feature Chart of the WeekStuck In A Trading Range Copper on the COMEX averaged $3.12/lb since the beginning of the year - slightly higher than our $3.10/lb expectation published in January (Chart of the Week).1 Fears of a slowdown in China -suggested by weaker readings of the Li Keqiang Index - as well as a stronger dollar have been headwinds to further upside. On the flip side, upcoming contract renegotiations at Escondida, China's ongoing environmental efforts, and global PMI readings above the 50 boom-bust line have kept bulls interested in the red metal. Our estimate of the refined copper balance is for a physical surplus this year (Chart 2). Strong demand from Asia, and to a lesser extent North America, will support a moderate pickup in consumption this year. This will be met by greater refined output - a ramp in primary refined output will more than offset the expected decline in secondary production (i.e. refined copper produced from the scrap metal). Upside risk to this outlook comes from supply-side disruptions at the ore mines - particularly in Chile - and at refined levels. The biggest downside risk remains China's growth trajectory: If policymakers are unable to manage the transition to sustainable, consumer- and services-led growth in the market that accounts for 50% of global demand, prices will fall. Longer term, our models point to a physical refined-copper deficit on the back of stronger consumption growth vis-à-vis output growth. The key to a breakout - up or down -lies in the evolution of financial and fundamental factors. On the financial side, the USD has been edging higher since mid-April. Absent an upward copper price catalyst, a continuation in the USD's path will prevent the metal from booking strong gains. On the fundamental side, we expect copper markets to be in surplus this year. However, downside risks from a greater-than-expected slowdown in China could easily tilt the balance. Ongoing Chinese tightening of scrap copper imports will resist sharp moves to the downside. Chart 2Updated Balances: Expect A Refined Copper Surplus This Year Any of these factors may emerge as a catalyst for a breakout or a breakdown in the copper market this year. Yet for now our model is pointing to a physical surplus and we are comfortable with our neutral outlook. We expect near term prices to trade in the $2.90 to $3.15/lb range. Nevertheless, the evolution of these known unknowns may tilt our balances to either side. A break lower would be reason to sell, while a break above the upper bound would support an outlook for higher prices. Geopolitical Risks On The Horizon Political tensions are spilling into the copper market, threatening supplies, and bringing with them the prospect of higher prices. This is not without reason: Supply-side shocks to mined output have historically been a source of upside risk to prices. Foremost among the potential shocks is labor action at the Escondida mine in Chile, the world's largest. June 4 is the deadline for contract renegotiations to begin. These talks will follow last year's contract renewal efforts, which led to a 44-day strike, a 63% y/y decline in the mine's copper output in 1Q17, and eventually, an 18-month contract extension. As the world's largest mine, Escondida accounts for 1.27mm MT out of the 22mm MT of world capacity, and contributes ~5% of global supply. Efforts to lock in an advance deal ended late last month to no avail.2 Nevertheless, Escondida's production in 1Q18 has been exceptional - more than triple the same period last year. Furthermore, copper was among the metals that caught a bid last month amid fears of further rounds of U.S. sanctions on Russian companies. Russian oligarch Vladimir Potanin has a 33% stake in Norilsk, one of the world's largest copper mines - accounting for 388k MT of output last year. While sanctions against Potanin have not been announced, he was named in the U.S. Section 241 Foreign Asset Control filing, suggesting that he may be targeted in future sanctions, putting Norilsk's future at risk, à la Rusal. While fears of U.S. sanctions on Russia appear to have eased, the risk of such action on global copper supply was a tailwind to the copper market last month. In addition to the upside from these potential supply-side shocks, ongoing environmental reform efforts in China remain a theme in metals markets globally. In the case of the red metal, restrictions on Chinese access to "foreign waste" will curtail scrap shipments going forward. World secondary refined production from scrap accounts for almost 20% of global refined copper. China produces more than half of the world's secondary refined copper. This means that China's secondary output makes up 10% of all world refined copper production (Chart 3). Chart 3China's Secondary Output Important To Refined Copper Supply... As such, scrap copper imports play an important role in China - they act as a buffer against high prices, rising when prices lift, and dwindling in times of low prices. Among the measures implemented to gain more control over scrap markets in China are the following: 1. For the period between May 4 and June 4, the Chinese customs inspection firm - China Certification and Inspection Group North America - announced it would suspend the issuance of export certificates for scrap material shipments, including scrap copper.3 The aim of the suspension is to inspect the waste material and ensure it complies with China's new environmental regulations. In general China imports 15% of its copper scrap from the U.S. - purchasing more than 500k MT of scrap copper from the U.S. last year (Chart 4). Since the U.S. is China's top supplier of scrap copper, this specific initiative and China's ongoing efforts for environmental reform could be consequential to secondary refined output. 2. This move comes in addition to ongoing restrictions on imported solid waste. Starting in 2019, Category 7 scrap copper imports - i.e., solid waste, which account for ~20% of all scrap - will be banned.4 Since the beginning of the year, import licenses were granted only to scrap end-users and, since March 1, hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports were limited to 1% by weight. A Metal Bulletin report late last month estimated import quotas for scrap copper were 84% lower so far this year.5 As such, Jiangxi Copper - the largest copper refinery in the world - estimates that these restrictions will culminate in a 500k MT decline in scrap copper imports this year. In fact, scrap copper imports have already been falling significantly, with Chinese purchases down 40% y/y in 1Q18. The near-term implication of these restrictions on China's scrap copper imports would be to raise imports of refined copper, or of ores and concentrates. Scrap copper displaced from these restrictions will likely be diverted to other countries where they will be refined and shipped to China for final consumption. While an eventual move by Chinese companies to Southeast Asian countries in a bid to set up processing facilities there would eliminate the long term price impact, there may be some upside to prices during the transition phase. As such, China's imports of copper ores and concentrates, and of the refined metal, have been strong. During the first four months of the year, imports of ores and concentrates were up almost 10% y/y, while inflows of the refined metal are 15% above last year's levels (Chart 5). Chart 4...But Scrap Imports Are Restrained Chart 5China's Copper Imports Still Going Strong As these policy measures have been known to the public for quite some time, we suspect they are already priced into markets, and do not foresee further upside risk arising from this source. Nevertheless, their impact will remain significant, given that limited ability to produce scrap copper, which will restrict supply, will keep the market resistant to significant downward price pressure. Moderate Consumption Growth This Year Our updated balances model does not include any significant changes to our demand outlook from our January estimate. This is consistent with our consumption estimates for other industrial commodities that share strong co-movement properties with copper demand. We expect lower global consumption and growth than what's being projected by the International Copper Study Group (ICSG) and the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in its Resources & Energy Quarterly report. While China will remain the world's major copper consumer, a slowdown in its economy remains the foremost demand-side concern for us this year. DM economies appear to be comfortably perched at an above trend level. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and solid growth figures from the rest of the world will help keep demand in DM economies supported (Table 1). Table 1Strong Global Growth Will Support##BR##Copper Consumption However, Chinese demand growth remains vulnerable to a slowdown. As we outlined in our March 29 Weekly Report, while there are fundamental reasons to be concerned about Chinese growth going forward, there are no signs of alarm just yet.6 Manufacturing PMIs have come down in recent months, but they remain above the 50 boom-bust mark. That said, it is worth pointing out that the most significant indicator of the Chinese economy we track - the Li Keqiang index -has also been slowing as of late. We continue to expect the government to be able to pull off the managed slowdown it has embarked on. However, we are alert for any sign the Chinese economy is sharply decelerating, as it would lead us to revise our consumption forecast. A Surplus...At Least This Year Our demand and supply expectations lead us to call for a surplus of refined copper this year. Further out, we expect consumption growth to outpace production next year. The upward adjustment in our balance to a surplus since January is a result of upside revisions to supply amid a stable consumption growth path (Chart 6). Copper inventories remain elevated (Chart 7). While current levels of inventories are not a predictor of future price movements, they do indicate there is sufficient cushion in the market to withstand near-term supply disruptions. Chart 6Solid Production Path Amid Stable Consumption;##BR##Surplus Will Emerge Chart 7Inventories Will Cushion##BR##Against Supply Shocks Of course, along with other commodity markets, copper prices remain vulnerable to USD movements. In fact, the red metal's performance over the past month is especially impressive given the relative strength in the USD as of late. BCA expects the USD will appreciate in the coming months. Absent fundamental changes - i.e. supply- or demand-side shocks - copper markets will likely be restrained from staging a break-out rally by a stronger USD going forward. Bottom Line: Fundamental and financial risks to the copper market are slightly skewed to the downside this year. We expect a physical surplus to emerge by year-end, given slightly higher output and slower demand growth as China slows. On the downside, prices are vulnerable to a stronger USD and muted demand growth in China. On the upside, they are supported by supply-side concerns, chiefly at the Escondida mine and due to restrictions on China's imports of scrap copper. Stay neutral the red metal. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see p.11 of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper," dated January 25, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Union at BHP's Escondida copper mine in Chile says no advance deal likely," dated April 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "China to suspend checks on U.S. scrap metal shipments, halting imports," dated May 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 4 Please see "China scrap metal firms face pressure from import curbs: official", dated April 26, 2018, available at reuters.com and BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Copper Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated August 24, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "FOCUS: China's copper scrap import quotas down 84% so far this year," dated April 23, 2018, available at metalbulletin.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

Overweight Quarter-to-date the S&P energy services index is up 12% compared with the 2% rise in the broad market. While the steep rebound in oil prices primarily lies behind such stellar outperformance (top panel), our capex upcycle theme for 2018 should support this nascent recovery. Energy related capital spending budgets are not only rising in the U.S. (primarily in shale oil), but also globally. The global rig count is breaking out, and declining OECD oil stocks suggest that drilling activity will remain robust (second and third panels). Relative share price momentum does not yet fully reflect the rebound in industry investment (using national accounts) that remains in a V-shaped recovery since the Q1/2016 oil market trough (bottom panel). In sum, there are more gains in store for the S&P energy services index. Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy service index and see our Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE: NOV, SLB, FTI, BHGE, HAL, HP.