Cotton

The US economy has never entered a demand-driven recession without labour demand running below labour supply and without the job vacancy rate running below the unemployment rate. Right now though, US labour demand is still running 1.7 million workers above labour supply, and the job vacancy rate is running comfortably above the unemployment rate. This suggests that the labour market is still supply-constrained, and that a demand-driven recession is not imminent. We discuss the investment implications. Plus, more about our ‘trade of the century’: long cotton versus coffee.

Executive Summary To understand the economy and the market we must think of them as non-linear systems which experience sudden phase-shifts. The pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives, which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand, which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation. As our lives phase-shift back to normality, goods demand will phase-shift back to low growth, and monthly core inflation prints will phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, justifying a cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. The leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Fractal trading watchlist additions: JPY/CHF, non-life insurance versus homebuilders, US homebuilders (XHB), cotton versus platinum, healthcare versus resources, and biotech versus resources. The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation Bottom Line: With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, and the leadership of the equity market will flip back to long-duration sectors such as healthcare and biotech. Feature Inflation is a non-linear system, meaning that you cannot just dial it up or down gradually like the volume on your music system. Instead of gradual changes, non-linear systems suddenly phase-shift from quiet to loud, from cold to hot, from solid to liquid, or from stability to instability (Box I-1). Box 1: A Classic Non-Linear System – A Brick On An Elastic Band To experience the sudden phase-shift in a non-linear system, attach an elastic band to a brick and try pulling it across a table. As you start to pull, the brick doesn’t move because of the friction with the table. But as you increase your pull there comes a tipping point, at which the brick does move and the friction simultaneously decreases, self-reinforcing the brick’s acceleration. Meanwhile, your pull on the elastic continues to increase as you react with a time-lag. The result is that this non-linear system suddenly phase-shifts from stability – the brick doesn’t move – to instability – the brick hits you in the face! Try as hard as you might, it is impossible to pull the brick across the table smoothly. In this non-linear system, the choice is either stability or instability. Back in 2017, in Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation – An Update, I posed a crucial question: “Given that price stability could phase-shift to instability, when should we worry about it?” I answered that “the risk remains low until the next severe downturn – when policymakers may be forced into desperate measures for a desperate situation.” The words proved prescient. Three years later, the desperate situation was a global pandemic, and the desperate measures were economic shutdowns combined with fiscal stimuluses of unprecedented scope and size.   A Phase-Shift In Our Lives Produced A Phase-Shift In Inflation Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. Since 2007, the US core month-on-month inflation rate remained consistently below 3.5 percent.1 Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns combined with policymakers’ massive response, and month-on-month inflation didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 6 percent. Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. The remarkable fact is that since 2007, there have been over a hundred monthly core inflation prints below 4 percent, and nine prints above 6 percent, but just one solitary print between 4 and 6 percent! In other words, monthly core inflation shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-1).       Chart I-1Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System So, what caused the phase-shift in core inflation? The simple answer is a phase-shift in durable goods spending, which itself was caused by the pandemic’s shutdown of services combined with massive fiscal stimulus. Again, this is supported by a remarkable fact. Since 2007, the monthly increase in US (real) spending on durables remained consistently below 3.5 percent. Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns and stimulus checks, and the growth in durables demand didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 8 percent.  In other words, the growth in durable goods demand also shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System The connection between the phase-shifts in goods demand and the phase-shifts in core inflation is staring us in the face – because the three separate phase-shifts in inflation have each been associated with a preceding or contemporaneous phase-shift in goods demand, which themselves have been associated with the separate waves of the pandemic (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Pulling all of this together, the pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives – lockdown or freedom. Which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand – above 8 percent or below 3.5 percent. Which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation – above 6 percent or below 4 percent. The key question is, what happens next? Bond Yields Are Close To A Peak As we learn to live with the pandemic, and assuming no imminent ‘super variant’ of the virus, our lives are phase-shifting back to a semblance of normality. Which means that our spending on goods is phase-shifting back to low growth. If anything, the recent overspend on goods implies an imminent corrective underspend. At the same time, it will be difficult to compensate a phase-shift down on goods spending with a phase-shift up on services spending. This is because the consumption of services is constrained by time and biology. There is a limit to how often you can eat out, go to the theatre, or even go on vacation. The upshot is that monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’ – even if the monthly headline inflation prints are kept up longer by the commodity price spikes that result from the Ukraine crisis. Monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. Meanwhile central banks and markets focus on the 12-month core inflation rate – which, as an arithmetic identity, is the sum of the last twelve month-on-month inflation rates.2  To establish the 12-month core inflation rate, the crucial question is: how many of the last twelve month-on-month inflation prints will be high phase versus low phase? As just discussed, the new month-on-month core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift to low phase. At the same time, the historic high phase prints will disappear from the last twelve month window. Specifically, by June 2022, the three high phase prints of April, May, and June 2021 – 10 percent, 9 percent, and 10 percent respectively – will no longer be included in the 12-month core inflation rate, with the arithmetic impact of pulling it down sharply (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. Clearly, the bond market anticipates some of this ‘base effect’ on 12-month inflation. This explains why turning points in the bond yield have led by 2-3 months the turning points in the 12-month core inflation rate (Chart I-5). With the 12-month core inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, this suggests that – absent some new shock – the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May. Reinforcing our cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Chart I-5The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation This also carries important implications for equity investors. Rising bond yields favour short-duration equity sectors such as resources and financials versus long-duration equity sectors such as healthcare and biotech. And vice-versa. Indeed, the recent performance of resources versus healthcare and financials versus healthcare is indistinguishable from the bond yield (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield Chart I-7The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield With bond yields likely to peak soon, the leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. Fractal Trading Watchlist Reinforcing the fundamental analysis in the previous section, the 130-day outperformance of resources versus healthcare and biotech has reached the point of fractal fragility that has marked previous trend exhaustions, suggesting that the recent outperformance of resources is nearing an end. Also new on our watchlist is a commodity pair, cotton versus platinum, whose strong outperformance is vulnerable to reversal. And US homebuilders (XHB), whose recent underperformance is at a potential turning point. There are two new trade recommendations. First, the massive outperformance of world non-life insurance versus homebuilders is at the point of fractal fragility that has consistently marked previous turning points (Chart I-8). Hence, go short non-life insurance versus homebuilders, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 14 percent. Second, the strong underperformance of the Japanese yen is also at the point of fractal fragility that has marked several previous turning points (Chart I-9). Accordingly, go long JPY/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent. Please note that our full watchlist of 19 investments that are experiencing or approaching turning points is now available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Chart I-8The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-9Go Long JPY/CHF Go Long JPY/CHF Go Long JPY/CHF The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton’s Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal US Homebuilders’ Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Annualized month-on-month inflation rate. 2 Strictly speaking, the 12-month inflation rate is the geometric product of the last 12 month-on-month inflation rates. Chart I-1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart I-6US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Chart I-7The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level Chart I-8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart I-9Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart I-10Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Chart I-11CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart I-12Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Chart I-13Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart I-14Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Chart I-15BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart I-16The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-17The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-18Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-19US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point   Fractal Trading System   Fractal Trades Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds, so there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. We estimate that bond yields can rise by no more than 30 bps, before the Fed is forced to talk them back down again. Starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Cotton, and Polish equities. Feature Chart of the WeekTech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Tech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Tech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds. The upshot is that there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. This is not just an abstract hypothesis – it is an empirical fact, as recent market action is making painfully clear. Since February, the global tech sector has tracked the 30-year T-bond price almost one-for-one. The near perfect fit proves that the tech (and broader growth stock) rally has been entirely premised on the bond market rally. Hence, on the three occasions that bonds have sold off sharply – including in the last couple of weeks – tech stocks have sold off sharply too (Chart of the Week). Put simply, the performance of the tech sector is being driven by the change in its valuation, and the change in its valuation is being driven by the change in the bond yield (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Of course, stock prices are also premised on earnings. So, given enough time, rising earnings can make valuations less stretched, adding more wiggle room for bonds to sell off. The trouble is that a change in earnings happens much more gradually than can a change in valuation – a 10 percent rise in earnings can take a year, whereas a 10 percent fall in valuation can happen in a week. Bond Yields Remain The Dominant Driver Of The Stock Market For the next few months at least, the movement in bond yields will remain the dominant driver of the most stretched parts of the stock market and, by extension, the overall market itself. This is especially true for the growth-heavy S&P 500 which, since March, has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The key question for investors is, what is the upper limit to bond yields before stock market damage causes the Federal Reserve to talk them down again? To answer this question, our working assumption is that a 15 percent drawdown in growth stocks would damage the growth-heavy S&P 500 enough – and thereby worsen ‘financial conditions’ enough – for the Fed to change its tone. Based on this year’s very tight relationship between tech stocks and the 30-year T-bond yield, a 15 percent drawdown would occur if the 30-year T-bond yield increased to 2.4 percent from 2.1 percent today (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away This confirms our view that the resistance level to long-duration bond yields is around 30 bps above current levels, equivalent to around 1.8 percent on the 10-year T-bond yield. More About The ‘Negative Equity Risk Premium’ Our recent report The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 caused quite a stir. So, let’s elaborate and clarify the arguments we made about the equity risk premium (ERP) – the estimated excess return that stocks will deliver over bonds over a long investment horizon, such as 10 years. Many investors estimate the ERP by taking the stock market’s earnings yield – currently 4.6 percent in the US1 – and subtracting the real 10-year bond yield – currently -0.9 percent on US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). At first glance, this presents a very generous ERP of 5.5 percent. So, equities are attractively valued versus bonds, right? Wrong. The glaring error is that the earnings yield estimates the stock market’s prospective return only if the earnings yield starts and ends at the same level. If it does not, then the prospective return could be very different to the earnings yield. For example, imagine that the stock market was trading at a bubble price-to-earnings multiple of 100, meaning an earnings yield of 1 percent. Clearly, from such a bubble valuation, nobody would expect the market to return 1 percent. Instead, as the bubble burst, and valuations normalised, the prospective return would be deeply negative. It follows that when, as now, the earnings yield is extreme versus its history, we must build in some prudent normalisation to estimate the prospective return. The question is, how? One approach is to use history to inform us of the likely normalisation. Chart I-5 does this using the ‘best-fit’ relationship between the earnings yield at each point through 1990-2011 and subsequent 10-year real return from each starting point. Using the best-fit for this specific episode, the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent implies a prospective 10-year real return not of 4.6 percent, but of -1.1 percent. Chart I-5Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Yet this best-fit approach meets a common reproach – that the best-fit for this specific episode is massively distorted by the dot com bubble peak and the global financial crisis (GFC) trough occurring (by coincidence) almost 10 years apart. We can counter this reproach in two ways. First, the best-fit relationship is much better than the raw earnings yield even for undistorted 10-year periods such as 1995-2005 or 2011-2021. Better still, we can change the prospective return from 10 years to 7 years and thereby remove the dot com bubble peak to GFC trough distortion. Chart I-6 shows that this 7-year best-fit relationship also works much better than the raw earnings yield. Chart I-6Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Admittedly, the best-fit comes from just one episode in history, and there is no certainty that the 10-year and 7-year relationships that applied during that one episode should apply through 2021-31 and 2021-28 respectively. Nevertheless, starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, as is the case now, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. Will The ‘Real’ Real Yield Please Stand Up Measuring the ERP also requires an estimate of the prospective real return on bonds. This part should be easy because the yield on the US 10-year TIPS – currently -0.9 percent – is the guaranteed 10-year real return of buying and holding that investment. It is derived by taking the yield on the 10-year T-bond – currently 1.5 percent – and subtracting the market’s expected rate of inflation over the next 10 years – currently 2.4 percent. But the equivalent real return on the much larger conventional bond market could be quite different. In this case, it will be the 10-year T-bond yield minus the actual rate of inflation over the next 10 years. To the extent that the actual rate of inflation turns out less than the expected rate of 2.4 percent, the real return on the T-bond will turn out higher than that on the TIPS. In fact, this has consistently turned out to be the case. The market has consistently overestimated the inflation rate over the subsequent 10 years, meaning that the real return on T-bonds has been around 1 percent higher than that on TIPS (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Yet given the current surge in inflation, and no end in sight for supply chain disruptions and bottlenecks, is it plausible that the next ten years’ rate of inflation will be lower than 2.4 percent? The answer is yes. Because, as my colleague Peter Berezin points out: in capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. And gluts always cause prices to collapse. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. The Cotton Is Stretched, And So Are Polish Equities Talking of shortages, cotton now adds to the list of commodities in which supply bottlenecks have raised prices to extremes. Cotton prices have reached a 10-year high due to weather conditions in the US (the world’s biggest cotton producer) combined with shipping disruptions. However, with cotton now exhibiting extreme fragility on its combined 130/260-day fractal structure, there is a high likelihood of a price reversal in the coming months when the shortage turns into a glut (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Cotton Is Stretched The Cotton Is Stretched The Cotton Is Stretched Meanwhile, the bank-heavy Polish equity market has surged on the back of the spectacular outperformance of its banks sector. This strong uptrend has now reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has indicated several previous reversals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx 600, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Based on the 12-month forward earnings yield. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades     Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

Highlights Escalating trade tensions - most notably between the U.S. and China, and the U.S. and its NAFTA partners - threaten the outperformance ags posted in 1Q18, which was driven by unfavorable weather and transportation disruptions in major producing regions, along with a weak dollar. Energy: Overweight. The IPO of Saudi Aramco apparently will be delayed into 2019, according to various press reports. New York, London and Hong Kong remain in contention for the foreign listing of KSA's national oil company. Base Metals: Neutral. China's iron ore and copper imports in January - February 2018 were up 5.4% and 9.8% y/y, respectively. China's year-to-date (ytd) steel product exports are down 27.1% y/y, while ytd aluminum exports are up 25.8% y/y. The aluminum data are consistent with our assessment that the global aluminum deficit will likely ease this year.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. A global trade war would boost gold's appeal, and we continue to recommend it as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Weather and transport disruptions boosted global ag markets in 1Q18. However, this outperformance is under threat as global trade tensions build (see below). Feature Chart of the WeekAgs Are Off To A Good Start Ags Are Off To A Good Start Ags Are Off To A Good Start Weather concerns in highly productive regions of South America as well as the U.S. have supported ag prices since the beginning of the year (Chart of the Week). Corn and wheat bottomed in mid-December, and have since gained 14.8% and 25.4%, respectively, while soybeans bottomed mid-January and have since gained 10.6%. This pushed the Grains and Oilseed CCI up 12.6% since the beginning of the year. Drought ... And Flooding In The U.S. Erratic weather in the U.S. could affect yields. The chief areas of concern are the U.S. mid-South and lower Midwest, which have recently experienced flooding, and are raising fears of lower yields of winter wheat. At the same time, the area from Southwestern Kansas to Northern Texas experienced unusually dry weather, causing winter grains to suffer. On top of that, high water levels in the Ohio River also led to shipping disruptions. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not lower its 2017/18 estimates of U.S. wheat yields in its latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), yield estimates stand significantly lower than those of the last crop year (Chart 2). In addition, American wheat farmers are expected to harvest the smallest area recorded in the history of the series, which dates back to the 1960/61 crop year. U.S. wheat production is expected to be the lowest since 2002/03 - a 25% year-on-year (y/y) drop in output. As a result, the U.S. supply surplus will likely be the smallest since 2002, weighing on U.S. exports. The U.S. generally accounts for only ~8% of global wheat production, and increases elsewhere, primarily in Russia and India, are expected to more than offset the fall in U.S. output. Despite the poor conditions in the U.S., global supply is expected to continue growing this year with the wheat market in surplus and inventories swelling to record levels (Chart 3). Chart 2Depressed Yield, Record Low Acreage In U.S. Depressed Yield, Record Low Acreage In U.S. Depressed Yield, Record Low Acreage In U.S. Chart 3World Remains Well Supplied World Remains Well Supplied World Remains Well Supplied Drought In Argentina Supporting Soybean, And To A Lesser Extent Corn Prices In addition to the unfavorable North American weather, warm and dry weather in Argentina have resulted in a fall in estimated yields of Argentine corn and soybeans.2 Argentina accounts for 14% and 3% of global soybean and corn production, respectively. The USDA cut back its estimate of Argentine soybean production by 13% in the latest WASDE, causing a downward revision of ~4 mm MT in global inventories (Chart 4). Although Argentina's estimated corn output was also reduced, the resulting decline in its exports is expected to be picked up by U.S. exports. American farmers thus are benefitting from the unfavorable weather in Argentina. As is the case with soybeans, the net effect on corn is a 4 mm MT downwards revision to global inventories. In addition, grain exports from Argentina's main agro-export hub of Rosario were stalled last month due to a truckers' strike. While the strike has now eased, it led to transportation bottlenecks and contributed to limited global supply earlier this year. Back in the U.S., the Trump administration's lack of clarity regarding where it stands on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates refiners blend biofuels like corn-based ethanol into the nation's fuels, is worrying farmers. While the energy industry is unsatisfied with the current policy, claiming that the RFS is unfair and costly, it gives a lifeline to corn farmers with excess stock. Bottom Line: Unfavorable weather and transportation disruptions, primarily in the U.S. and Argentina, have been bullish for ags since the beginning of the year. Lower production is expected to push both soybeans and corn to deficits in 2017/18 (Chart 5). The longevity of the impact of these forces hinges on whether the weather will improve between now and harvest, causing yields to come in better-than-expected. Chart 4Weather Weighs On Soybean And Corn Yields Weather Weighs On Soybean And Corn Yields Weather Weighs On Soybean And Corn Yields Chart 5Corn And Soybeans In Deficit This Year Corn And Soybeans In Deficit This Year Corn And Soybeans In Deficit This Year "We Can Also Do Stupid"3 In addition to the impact of his domestic immigration policy on the availability of farm workers, President Trump's controversial trade policies are threatening to spill into ags.4 In direct response to the 25% and 10% tariff Trump slapped on steel and aluminum imports, several of America's key ag trading partners have already reacted by communicating the possibility of imposing similar tariffs on their imports of American goods - chiefly agricultural goods. Among the commodities rumored to be at risk are Chinese soybean, sorghum and cotton imports, and EU agriculture imports including corn and rice imports. While President Trump's stated aim is to make America great again by reviving industries hurt by cheap imports and unfair trade, his strategy is proving risky as many of the trade partners he is threatening to rock ties with are in fact major consumers of U.S. agricultural products (Chart 6). In fact, the top three importers of U.S. ag products - collectively accounting for 42%, or $58.7 billion worth of U.S. ag exports in 2017 - are Canada, China, and Mexico (Charts 7A and 7B). Chart 6Risky Strategy, Mr. President Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Chart 7ASoybeans Appear To Be At Risk... Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Chart 7B... As Is Cotton Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio However, when it comes to the bulk commodities we cover, China is by far the U.S. ag industry's biggest customer - importing more than 30% of all U.S. exports, equivalent to $14.9 billion. Thus, China appears to have significant leverage in the case of a trade war, and U.S. farmers are worried of the impact from trade disputes. China has already indicated that it is investigating import restrictions on sorghum. Chinese trade restrictions - if implemented - will have a significant impact on U.S. sorghum farmers. In value terms, sorghum exports contributed less than 1% to U.S. agricultural product exports last year, but exports to China made up more than 80% of all U.S. sorghum exports. Sino-American Trade Dispute Would Hurt U.S. Ags...But Not As Much As Is Feared Chart 8Relatively Low Soybean Inventories Relatively Low Soybean Inventories Relatively Low Soybean Inventories The biggest fear among U.S. farmers is not the loss of sorghum exports, but that China will impose restrictions on its imports of U.S. soybeans. Soybeans are the U.S.'s largest ag export - contributing 16% to the value of all agricultural product exports. Nearly 60% of U.S. soybean exports, and more than a third of U.S. soybeans, end up in China. Thus it may appear that China has some leverage there. In fact, Brazil, which is already China's top soybean supplier, has already communicated that it would be willing to supply China with more soybeans. However, China's ability to find alternative suppliers is questionable. While China imported ~32 mm MT of soybeans from the U.S. last year, Brazil's total soybean inventories stand at ~22 mm MT. Brazil simply does not have enough excess supply to cover all of China's needs. In fact, global soybean inventories are ~95 mm MT - only three times the amount of China's annual imports from the U.S. On top of that, although China generally tries to shield itself from supply shocks by building large inventories, its soybean inventories - measured as stocks-to-use - are significantly lower than that of other ags (Chart 8). In fact, Beijing has already tightened its scrutiny on U.S. soybeans, announcing at the beginning of the year that it would no longer accept shipments with more than 1% of foreign material. Half of last year's shipments reportedly would have failed this criterion, and the net effect of this new policy is higher costs for U.S. farmers. Cotton is another agricultural commodity that China has indicated may be caught up in a trade dispute. 16% of U.S. cotton exports went to China last year, but although the U.S. is the dominant global cotton exporter, its value accounts for less than 5% of total U.S. agricultural products exports. Given that China's inventories are extremely high - enough to cover a year's worth of consumption - and that Chinese imports from the U.S. are equivalent to ~3% of global inventories, there is significant opportunity for China to diversify its imports and find an alternative supplier to the U.S. Bottom Line: Although China would be better able to implement restrictions on cotton imports from the U.S. compared to soybeans, the impact on U.S. farmers would be less painful given that they are not as dependent on China as U.S. soybean farmers are. U.S. Ags Dominate Exports, But Substitutes Abound The U.S. is the world's top exporter of corn and cotton, and the second largest exporter of wheat and soybeans. While it remains a dominant player in global export markets, its share of global agriculture exports has been declining sharply over time (Chart 9). While in levels, the general trend for U.S. agriculture exports - with the exception of wheat - appears to be upward, the share of U.S. exports as a percentage of global exports has actually been falling. Compared to the year 2000, the global share of U.S. corn and wheat exports has almost halved, going from 64% to 36%, and 29% to 14%, respectively. In the soybean market, U.S. soybean exports now account for 37% of exports, down from half of global trade. Lastly, U.S. rice exports now account for 7% of global exports, a fall from 11% in 2000. Unlike most other ag commodities, U.S. cotton has captured a larger share of the global market - currently at almost 50%, from 26% in 2000. Russian, Canadian, and European wheat farmers have been tough competitors. This crop year, Russia is expected to surpass the U.S. as the top wheat exporter for the first time (Chart 10). In addition, while the U.S. was the dominant wheat exporter just 10 years ago, more recently, Canada and the EU have on some occasions exported more wheat than the U.S. Chart 9U.S. Exports Relatively Less Attractive U.S. Exports Relatively Less Attractive U.S. Exports Relatively Less Attractive Chart 10U.S. Exports Face Growing Competition Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio In the case of soybeans, Brazilian exports have grown significantly since 2010, consistently exporting more than the U.S. since 2012. Brazilian corn exports are also catching up to the U.S., as are Argentine corn exports which have been growing steadily. If these trade disputes prove to be an ongoing trend, we see two potential scenarios panning out: U.S. farmers could move away from farming crops most impacted by trade restrictions, and instead increase the farmland allocated to crops that are consumed domestically, and thus insulated from the Trump administration's trade policy decisions. In this scenario, the longer term impact would be an increase in the supply of locally consumed ags and a decrease in the U.S. supply of exportable ags. Global ag trade flows could shift, such that U.S. allies begin importing more of their ag products from the U.S., while countries that are in trade disputes with the U.S. switch to other ag suppliers. NAFTA Is Still At Risk The ongoing re-negotiation of NAFTA ultimately could lead to an abrogation of the treaty. Should this evolve with no superseding bilateral trade agreements, it would mark a significant blow to the U.S. agricultural industry. Mexico is the second-largest destination for U.S. agricultural exports after China, accounting for 13% of all U.S. exports of agricultural bulks, while Canada makes up a much smaller 2% share. Nearly 30% of U.S. corn exports and 23% of U.S. rice exports end up in Mexico. As a result, these two bulks are especially vulnerable in the event of a treaty abrogation. Wheat, cotton and soybeans - Mexico accounts for 14%, 7%, and 7% of these exports, respectively - would also be impacted by a trade dispute. In the interest of diversifying its sources of ag imports, Mexico has already started exploring other suppliers from South America. Its corn imports from Brazil are reported to have increased 10-fold last year. Furthermore, government officials and grain buyers have been visiting Brazil and Argentina to investigate other ag suppliers for Mexico. BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service assign a 50/50 probability to a breakdown in the NAFTA negotiations. In the event of a NAFTA abrogation, they assign a 25% chance of a failure to strike bilateral agreements - resulting in a conditional probability of only 12.5%. Bottom Line: The shrinking role of the U.S. as a global ag supplier at a time when global storage facilities are well-stocked will - in most cases - allow its global consumers to diversify away from U.S. exports. In the case of soybeans, however, this is less certain. A Weaker USD Also Helped Buoy Ag Prices In 1Q18 Chart 11A Stronger Dollar Would Weigh On Ags A Stronger Dollar Would Weigh On Ags A Stronger Dollar Would Weigh On Ags A weaker dollar has been supportive of commodities prices so far this year (Chart 11). The recent bout of U.S. import restrictions has investors expecting the USD to further weaken on the back of a trade war. However, our FX Strategists believe the current set of tariffs will have a muted effect on the dollar.5 In fact, given that the U.S. economy is currently at full employment, and their expectation that the Fed will be proactive, tariffs will likely generate inflationary pressures, causing the tighter monetary policy, which does not support further weakening of the USD. Bottom Line: A pick-up in the dollar along with an escalation in trade disputes or the scrapping of NAFTA would be bearish for ags. For now, bullish weather forecasts prevail, and are keeping prices well supported. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease," dated March 1, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Soybean and corn plantings are reported to be half their typical height. Please see "Argentina Drought Bakes Crops Sparks Grain Price Rally," available at reuters.com. 3 As expressed by EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's about the potential tit-for-tat retaliatory measures in response to steel and aluminum import tariffs. 4 According to Chuck Conner, president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, and former deputy agriculture secretary during the George W. Bush administration, roughly 1.4 million undocumented immigrants work on U.S. farms each year, or roughly about 60% of the agriculture labor force. 5 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For the Dollar?," dated March 9, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio

Highlights The tactical environment is dynamic, chaotic and unpredictable. ...Chaos also brings opportunity. We must recognize and exploit opportunities when chance presents them. Look for recurring patterns to exploit.1 Feature Highlights Strategically, major commodity markets are balanced with the exception of ags, where we remain underweight on the back of record grain harvests and high stock-to-use ratios. Otherwise, broad exposure to the asset class is warranted. However, within the larger investment context, we believe tactical positioning once again will produce higher returns than strategic index exposure to commodities. Chart of the WeekTactical Positioning ##br##Rewarded In Oil Markets Tactical Positioning Rewarded In Oil Markets Tactical Positioning Rewarded In Oil Markets Supply-driven price volatility and erratic monetary policy presented commodity markets strategic and tactical opportunities in 2016, particularly in oil, where our recommendations returned an average of 95% (Chart of the Week). We remain overweight oil, expecting continued opportunities from volatile markets. Going forward, the contribution of demand-side risk to price volatility will increase. This will be evident in iron ore, steel and base metals, where the opacity of China's fiscal and monetary policy - especially re heavily indebted state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the banks that support them - in the lead-up to the Communist Party's Congress abounds. Continued adjustments by the U.S. Fed to random-walking data will again contribute to volatility, particularly in oil and gold markets. A stronger dollar resulting from continued Fed tightening will hit U.S. ag exports, and benefit competitors such as Argentina and the EU. However, uncertainty re the Trump administration's fiscal and trade policies could keep the Fed looser for longer, particularly if border-adjusted taxation favoring exports over imports is realized. Geopolitics - particularly vis-à-vis U.S. and China trade and military policy - will become more important if America tilts toward dirigisme, i.e., actively managing its economy by adjusting taxation and policy to support favored industries. Governments typically allocate resources inefficiently, which distorts fundamentals. If border-adjusted taxation becomes law in the U.S. we will look to get long volatility across commodity markets: Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand for commodities generally and lift supply by lowering local costs. This would run smack into higher U.S. inflation arising from the increasing cost of imported goods. This is a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Russia lurks in the background: U.S. sanctions in the wake of alleged interference in American presidential elections, and Russia's response, will keep oil markets on edge. 2017 Weightings Energy: Overweight. The OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to limit production could evolve into a durable modus operandi for managing oil supply. Markets will judge the pact effective if tanker chartering out of the Persian Gulf falls, and global inventories draw by mid- to end-February. Base Metals: Neutral. Bulks and base metals prices will remain rangebound, until greater clarity on China's fiscal and monetary policy emerges. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. will have a marginal effect on demand toward year-end. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will remain sensitive to shifts in U.S. fiscal and monetary policy expectations. The possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. Should it pass, the Fed could be forced to keep interest rates lower for longer to offset the massive tightening in financial conditions such a tax would impose. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We see limited downside for grains, despite record harvests. We favor wheat and rice over corn and beans. A stronger USD will be bearish for grain exports. Feature Commodities as an asset class remain attractive. However, constantly changing information flows affecting these markets compel us once again to favor tactical positioning over a broad strategic exposure to the asset class. Fundamentals - supply, demand, inventories - and financial variables remain in a state of flux. In the oil market, the durability of the OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to reduce oil production will be tested, following a year-end surge in global production. Markets will closely follow shipping activity - particularly out of the Persian Gulf - and global oil inventory levels for signs the production cuts engineered late last year by OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC producers, led by Russia, are taking hold. Uncertainty regarding the incoming Trump administration's tax and trade policies - and responses from states targeted by such policies (e.g., China and Mexico) - will keep decisions affecting supply and demand fluid. The incoming Trump administration's trade policies could alter global oil flows: e.g., a re-working of NAFTA that reduces U.S. refined-product exports to Latin America would result in lower demand for crude at American refineries, and present an opening to Chinese refiners. In addition, as mentioned above, legislation authorizing border-adjusted taxes favoring exports and penalizing imports likely will be taken up this year in the U.S. Congress. If we did see tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports, we believe it would prompt a USD rally via reducing America's current account deficit. This would, all else equal, send commodity prices sharply lower, as EM commodity demand will contract, owing to higher USD prices for commodities, and production ex U.S. will increase, due to lower local costs. That said, border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. also would increase the price of imports, and lift realized and expected inflation. How this plays out is highly uncertain at present. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session. If it passes, it would have major implications for pricing relationships globally - chiefly WTI vs. Brent, and Brent vs. Dubai crudes, along with product differentials that drive shipping economics. If such a bill looks like it will pass, we expect a sharp increase in commodity-price volatility globally. If the odds do favor such a tax regime shift, we would look to get long WTI and short Brent further out the curve, expecting higher U.S. exports and lower imports. In addition, we would look to get long gold volatility - buying puts and calls - as policy uncertainty effects resolve themselves. Heightened Uncertainty Means Tactical Positioning Once Again Trumps Passive Commodities Allocation The primacy of tactical positioning was demonstrated in 2016 in the oil market, when strategic positions quickly became tactical, either because they were stopped out or reached their P&L targets quicker than expected. Supply destruction dominated price formation last year, following OPEC's decision to abandon its strategy to support prices via production management in November 2014. This destruction occurred mostly in non-Gulf OPEC, which was down 7.0% yoy in 2016 (Chart 2), and non-OPEC producers, particularly the U.S. shale-oil fields, where yoy production was down 12.0% by year-end 2016 (Chart 3). Chart 2Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production... Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production ... Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production ... Chart 3...And U.S. Production ... and U.S. Production ... and U.S. Production Even in states where production increased - chiefly KSA and Russia (Chart 4) - domestic finances crumbled, leaving them in dire straits. By our estimates, between July 2014, just prior to its decision to launch OPEC's market-share war, and December 2016, KSA had burned through $220 billion of it foreign reserves, equivalent to 30% of its central-bank holdings. Russia had drawn down its official reserves by $77 billion over the same period, or 16% of its holdings; its burn rate was reduced by allowing its currency to depreciate, which lowered the local cost of producing oil and boosted profitability of exports priced in USD. This was the background that forced OPEC, led by KSA, and non-OPEC, led by Russia, to negotiate the year-end pact that resulted in an agreement to cut production by up to 1.8 mm b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 mm from OPEC, 300k b/d from Russia, and another 300 from other non-OPEC producers. The goal of this agreement is to reduce global oil inventories to more normal levels (Chart 5). Chart 4KSA, Russia Production Ramp ##br##Exacerbated Price Weakness KSA, Russia Production Ramp Exacerbated Price Weakness KSA, Russia Production Ramp Exacerbated Price Weakness Chart 5KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed ##br##At Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed at Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed at Lowering Inventories Throughout 2016, as the supply-destruction drama was unfolding, numerous opportunities opened up to investors to fade market overshoots, brought about by over-reactions to fast-moving news flows. Unrestrained output by OPEC and non-OPEC producers strained oil-storage facilities early in the year, taking markets to the brink of breaking down entirely. Unexpected shifts in U.S. monetary policy - driven by random-walking data - also contributed to oil price volatility and opened numerous trading opportunities. Markets essentially ignored the cumulating right-tail price risks last year, following the supply destruction wrought by OPEC's declaration of a market-share war, and Russian overtures to OPEC seeking a production-allocation dialogue, which were very much in evidence in January 2016. The continual OPEC-Russia dialogue, which appeared to be bearing fruit in Doha before it was scuppered by KSA at the last minute in April, was the underlying geopolitical driver last year, and kept the odds of a production deal elevated. Based on our modeling, the supply surge following OPEC's decision made getting long contingent upside price exposure extremely compelling, particularly as it imperiled the finances of all oil producers - rich and poor, but mostly the poorer states like Venezuela and Nigeria. Our reasoning was lower prices would accelerate rebalancing of global markets and raise the odds of a major supply disruption at one of these failing states.2 Our modeling consistently indicated global oil markets would rebalance in 2016H2.3 Ultimately, this is how things played out, aided in no small measure by mid-year wildfires in Canada, which temporarily removed move than 1mm b/d from global markets, and sabotage of pipelines and loading facilities in Nigeria. Even with that, markets remained under pressure as Canadian barrels returned, and foreign reserves in KSA and Russia were rapidly depleted. These fundamentals, along with constantly changing Fed guidance, provided numerous opportunities to exploit recurring patterns thrown up by chance, as is evident in the returns on recommendations we made - averaging 95.1% last year - that naturally followed from our analysis (Table 1). Our favored exposure was getting long contingent exposure (i.e., options), using deferred call spreads in WTI and Brent, given our assessment the odds of higher prices exceeded the market's. Later in the year, following the OPEC-Russia pact, we got long a front-to-back crude oil spread (Dec/17 WTI vs. Dec/18 WTI) expecting the goal of the deal - reducing global inventories - stood a good chance of being realized. We got lucky putting the trade on as the market was correcting, but just ahead of the statement by KSA's oil minister that the Kingdom would do "whatever it takes" to make the deal work. This transformed a strategic position - one we expected to hold for months - into a one-week exposure that returned 493% (Table 1). Table 1Energy Trades Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 In order to obtain a more detailed assessment of our energy portfolio's performance, we built an information ratio (IR) to evaluate how our energy recommendations performed compared to a selected benchmark, the S&P GS Commodity Index (GSCI). Essentially, our IR is used to assess whether an active portfolio has outperformed the selected benchmark in a consistent manner during the period of analysis, given the risk it incurred. To that end, our ratio looks at the average excess return of the active portfolio against the benchmark. This average excess return is then divided by its standard deviation (also referred to as the tracking error volatility) in order to get a risk-adjusted metric to evaluate whether the risk we took were compensated by the returns we generated. Our IR thus is calculated as: Formula Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 The higher the IR, the better the risk-adjusted relative performance of the portfolio. Three elements can explain a high IR: high returns in the portfolio, low returns in the benchmark, or low tracking error volatility. Hence, this measure helps analyzing the notion of risk-reward tradeoff; it tells us whether or not the risk assumed in our trades was compensated by larger returns. In our case, to get the risk-adjusted returns of the energy portfolio, we selected the GSCI as a benchmark, as it is heavily skewed towards Energy commodities (around 60% of its composition). We believe this is a plausible benchmark alternative to our energy trade recommendations for an investor, whose choice is passive index exposure with a significant energy weighting. Our portfolio's average return in 2016 was 95%, while the GSCI return was 11%. The tracking error volatility was 56%.4 Using these inputs, we calculated the IR of our recommendations was 1.47. This is an excellent risk-adjusted return, and indicates the high volatility of our returns was more than compensated for by consistent positive excess returns our recommendations generated relative to passive GSCI exposure, which also can be used as a benchmark for energy-heavy commodity index exposure (i.e., "commodity beta"). Remain Overweight Oil We expect the combination of production cuts and natural declines will remove enough production from the market this year to restore global oil stocks to five-year average levels toward the end of 2017Q2 or early Q3 (Chart 5), even with cheating by OPEC and non-OPEC producers capable of increasing production. As a result, in 2017, we expect the OPEC-Russia deal to result in inventory draws of ~ 10% by 2017Q3. On the demand side, we continue to expect global growth of ~ 1.3 to 1.5mm b/d. Given these expectations, we expect U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl, up $5 from our 2016 forecast, on the back of the end-year OPEC-Russia pact. We are moving the bottom of the range in which we expect WTI prices to trade most of the time to $45/bbl and keeping the upside at $65/bbl. Markets already are pricing in a normalization of global inventories by year end (Chart 6 and Chart 7). We will look for opportunities to re-establish our long front-to-back positions, expecting the backwardation further out the curve will steepen. Chart 6Backwardation Steepening Near Term... Backwardation Steepening Near Term ... Backwardation Steepening Near Term ... Chart 7...And Further Out the Curve ... And Further Out the Curve ... And Further Out the Curve Further out the curve - i.e., mid-2018 and beyond - our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry for projects expected between 2015 - 2020 will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers, chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia. It will be difficult to offset natural decline-curve losses - which will increase as U.S. shales account for a larger share of global supply - and meet increasing demand. As we've often noted, any indication U.S. shales or conventional supplies (Gulf states and Russian production) will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand and replace natural declines could spike prices further out the curve. We expect U.S. oil exports to increase this year, which means the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, will increasingly price to move WTI into global markets. We expect U.S. WTI exports to increase from an average ~ 500k b/d, which should keep the price differential roughly around +$1.50/bbl differential (Brent over) for 2017. If we see border-adjusted taxation laws take effect, we would look to get long WTI vs. short Brent, and long U.S. products (e.g., U.S. Gulf gasoline and distillate exposure) vs. short Brent exposure. Remain Neutral Bulks, Base Metals Over in the bulks and base metals markets, a full-fledged iron-ore market-share war at the beginning of last year threatened to take prices to $30/ton. Then, seemingly out of the blue, an unexpected pivot by Chinese policymakers toward stimulating the "old economy" caught many bulks and base-metals traders and analysts - ourselves included - flat-footed. Powerful rallies in iron ore, steel and base metals early in the year on Chinese exchanges were dismissed as irrational exuberance on the part of retail investors. But, at the end of the day, these market participants were responsible for well-informed price signals that fully reflected low inventories and surging demand.5 The -0.5% average return in our bulks and base metals recommendations last year attests to how difficult we found these markets to read and anticipate (Table 2). Table 2Base Metals Trades Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 As always, the evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced to slightly oversupplied globally and in China. Production globally and in China is growing yoy, while consumption shows signs of slowing. (Chart 8 and Chart 9). Chart 8World Base Metals Consumption Slowing,##br## Relative to Production... World Base Metals Consumption Slowing, Relative to Production ... World Base Metals Consumption Slowing, Relative to Production ... Chart 9...As Is ##br##China's ... As Is China's ... As Is China's Uncertainty re the direction of China's fiscal and monetary policy - chiefly, whether policymakers will, once again, resort to stimulating the "old economy" - will keep us broadly neutral bulks and base metals until we get further clarity on the direction of policy. We expect the monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. Odds favor "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, but we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. The fate of border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. Congress is critically important to bulk and base-metals markets, since it would encourage exports and discourage imports (along with raising their prices). Tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports likely would prompt a USD rally, which would send commodity prices generally sharply lower. It would boost U.S. steel production and base metals exports, while raising the cost of imports. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session of Congress. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector will eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. Manufacturing will play a larger role in copper markets, and will drive the demand side this year. However, if we see a stronger USD - either as a result of Fed policy or U.S. fiscal policy - price appreciation will be limited. We remain neutral copper, expecting a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in China. Reflationary policies will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. The supply deficit in nickel will widen on the back of rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017, which will support prices. We expect nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. Aluminum supply - for the moment - will lag demand globally, which keeps us tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. Stay Neutral Precious Metals Precious metals, gold in particular, staged an impressive rally on the back of unexpected easing by the U.S. Fed in response to weaker-than-expected sub-1% GDP growth in 1Q16 GDP. Markets had been pricing in as many as four interest-rate hikes earlier in the year into short-term expectations, which were quickly dashed. Markets lowered their expectations for multiple rate hikes last year, which weakened the USD and U.S. real rates, setting the stage for the gold rally. Nonetheless, gold proved a difficult commodity to trade last year, as our results indicate - the average return on our precious metals recommendations amounted to a paltry -0.65% (Table 3). For the near term - i.e., until greater clarity on Fed policy and the incoming Trump administration's fiscal policy direction becomes clear - we remain neutral precious metals, and will avoid taking any further exposure other than perhaps getting long gold volatility - i.e., buying puts and calls in the gold market - if the odds of border-adjusted taxation legislation passing increase. Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand and increase supply ex U.S. at the margin for commodities generally, oil and base metals in particular. This would be deflationary, given the high correlations between oil and base metals consumption and U.S. inflation (Chart 10).6 However, such a taxation scheme also would raise U.S. inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, sending the U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, higher. The global disinflationary impulse from a stronger USD would run headlong into higher U.S. inflation, which would be a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Table 3Precious Metals Trades ##br##Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Chart 10Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted ##br##Taxes Prove Deflationary Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted Taxes Prove Deflationary Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted Taxes Prove Deflationary This will complicate U.S. monetary policy. We believe the Fed also will be waiting on such direction, and that interest-rate policy will, therefore, remain pretty much be on hold, keeping precious metals - gold, in particular - rangebound. For the moment, the possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. We are taking profits on the tactical long gold position we opened December 15, 2016, as of today's close. Remain Underweight AGS Lastly, Ag markets provided us no joy, as the El Nino wreaked havoc on our recommendations. Our average -1.0% return for the year amply demonstrates the difficulty of trading markets so heavily influenced by weather (Table 4). Going into 2017, we believe there is a limited downside for grains. The downtrend since August 2012 like forms a bottom this year, if, as we are modeling, we see a return to normal weather conditions. That said, the principal upside risk remains unfavorable weather in major grain-producing countries, which could send badly battered grain prices surging as they did in 2016H1. Among grains, we favor wheat and rice over corn and soybeans. Global soybean acreage is likely to expand as the crop provides higher returns than other grains. South American corn output will continue rising on favorable policies and weak currencies, adding further pressure to already-high U.S. corn inventories, in particular, and global inventories globally (Chart 11). Table 4AGS Trades Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Chart 11Global Grain Inventories Remain High Global Grain Inventories Remain High Global Grain Inventories Remain High Softs - cotton and sugar - likely will underperform grains in 2017, reversing their outperformance this year. We are tactically bearish cotton, as U.S. cotton acreage is likely to increase next spring. Strategically, we are neutral cotton. For the global sugar market, barring extremely unfavorable weather, we are tactically and strategically bearish. This year's extreme rally in prices may result in a small supply surplus in 2017. Our Ag strategies will continue to focus on relative-value investments. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodities & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Belanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Tactics Cliff Notes; A Synopsis of MCDP 1-3 Tactics," published by the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. 10 May 1998 (pp. 2, 3. sf). 2 In our January 7, 2016, publication we noted investors were ignoring growing upside price risk and suggested they get long a Dec/16 $50/$55 WTI call spread to gain exposure to higher volatility. We also recommended remaining long Dec/16 and Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent following passage of legislation to allow U.S. crude exports. We ultimately took profits on these recommendations of 172% on the call spread in June, and 97% on the Dec/16 WTI vs. Brent spread in June, and 88% on the Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent spread in July, respectively (Table 1). Please see "Oil Market Ignores Right-Tail Saudi Risks" in the January 7, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 In our January 21, 2016, Commodity & Energy Strategy article entitled "Global Oil Sell-off Will Accelerate Rebalancing," we noted, "We expect oil markets to rebalance by late 2016Q3 or early Q4. We remain long Dec/16 $50 calls vs. $55 calls, in anticipation of rebalancing and as a hedge against geopolitical risk." 4 Note: In order to find the standard deviation of the portfolio's excess returns (tracking error volatility), we averaged the daily percentage change in each trade's underlying assets. Any given trade only weighed in the daily average return if it was open during that day of the year. We are not accounting for the type of trades (spreads, pairs or single trades), we only track the underlying asset returns. From these daily average returns we subtracted the daily return of the preferred benchmark to obtain the daily excess return. Using this, we computed an historical standard deviation (based on 20-day periods) for every day during which a trade was open in our portfolio (we had 203 days with at least one energy trade opened). Lastly, we annualized this standard deviation to obtain our tracking error volatility. 5 Please see "Dead-Cat Bounces Notwithstanding, Iron Ore Will Trade Lower" in the January 21, 2016 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and "Fade The Copper Rally" in the February 25, 2016 issue. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 In earlier research, we've shown U.S. core PCE inflation is highly correlated with EM oil and base metals demand. Please see "2017 Commodity Outlook: Precious Metals" published December 15, 2016. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017

Dear Client, We are pleased to present our 2017 Outlook for Grains & Softs, covering corn, wheat, soybeans and rice in the grain markets, and cotton and sugar. This is our last regular Weekly Report for the year. You should have received BCA's annual "Mr. X" interview on December 20, and we trust you found it stimulating and insightful. We will resume regular publishing on January 5th with our annual Review and Outlook summarizing the performance of our market recommendations for 2016, with an eye on where we see value going into the New Year. As a preview, the average return on our recommendations this year was 33.1%, led by our Energy recommendations, which were up an average 95.1% in 2016. Please see page 15 of this week's report for a summary. The Commodity & Energy Strategy team wishes you and yours a wonderful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Turning to the Ags, we believe there is a limited downside for grain prices in 2017. The downtrend since August 2012 may form a bottom next year under the assumption of normal weather conditions. However, the principal upside risk remains unfavorable weather in major grain-producing countries, which could send badly battered grain prices surging as they did in 2016H1. Among grains, we favor wheat and rice over corn and soybeans. Global soybean acreage is likely to expand as the crop provides higher returns than other grains. South American corn output will continue rising on favorable policies and weak currencies, adding further pressure to already-high U.S. corn inventories. Softs - cotton and sugar - likely will underperform grains in 2017, reversing their outperformance this year. We are tactically bearish cotton, as U.S. cotton acreage is likely to increase next spring. Strategically, we are neutral cotton. For the global sugar market, barring extremely unfavorable weather, we are tactically and strategically bearish. This year's extreme rally in prices may result in a small supply surplus in 2017. Our Ag strategies will continue to focus on relative-value investments. We have three investment strategies: We look to go long wheat versus cotton, long corn versus sugar, and long rice versus soybeans. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Chart 1Ag In 2017: A Reversal Of Grain ##br##Underperformance? bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c1 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c1 Feature Limited Downside For Grains; Softs ... Not So Much As of December 20, the CCI grain index had declined 0.3% since the beginning of this year. In comparison, sugar and cotton prices rallied 19.8% and 9.6% during the same period of time, respectively. For individual grains, soybean prices were up 15.4%, while corn, wheat and rice declined 2.4%, 14.2% and 18.2%, respectively. Cotton and sugar outperformed grains considerably this year (Chart 1, panel 1). Among grains, soybeans had the best run, while wheat and rice had the worst (Chart 1, panel 2). Going forward, the question is: Will these trends continue into 2017, or is a reversal likely to occur? For now, we cannot rule out the possibility of a continuation of these trends, but a reversal is possible, depending on weather conditions. We will tread water carefully and re-evaluate our calls next April when U.S. farmers' planting decisions are made, and the outlook for the South American soybean and sugar harvests become clearer. Grains In 2017: Likely Bottoming With Potential Upside We believe there is limited downside for grain prices in 2017. Four consecutive years of supply surpluses have driven grain prices down by more than 50% since August 2012, when grain prices reached all-time highs (Chart 2, panels 1 and 2). In the meantime, global grain inventories also rose to their highest levels since 2002 (Chart 2, panel 3). True, it is difficult to get bullish on such elevated inventories. Another year of supply surpluses obviously would send prices lower. Will that happen? No doubt, it could. But we believe the odds are fairly low. A Dissection Of This Year's Supply Increase Global grain output grew 5.2% this year, the second highest rate of growth since 2005. Yield growth, mainly due to extremely favorable weather, contributed 87% of the supply increase, while acreage expansion accounted for the rest (Chart 3, panels 1 and 2). Chart 2Grain: Too Much Supply In 2016... bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c2 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c2 Chart 3...Less Supply in 2017? bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c3 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c3 Now, with yields of corn, soybeans and wheat all at record highs, and rice yields near their record highs, grain yields are more likely to have a pullback than a continuation of growth in 2017. If global grain yields revert to their trend line as the third panel of Chart 3 suggests, global grain yields will decline 1.4% in 2017. This year, the world aggregate harvested grain acreage only grew 0.7%. Currently low grain prices are discouraging grain plantings, while new supportive policies in Argentina and a strengthening dollar are likely to encourage grain sowing in the southern hemisphere. Taking all related factors into account, we expect a 0.2 - 0.5% expansion in global grain acreage next year. Based on our analysis, we believe world grain output is likely to decline about 1% next year, assuming normal weather conditions. On the other side of the ledger, global grain demand has been growing steadily over the past 30 years (Chart 3, panel 4). Last year demand grew 3.4%. In 2017, low prices likely will boost consumption. Therefore, we expect similar growth in global grain demand next year. In the current crop year, the global grain market has a supply surplus of 55 million metric tons (mmt). Based on our calculations, given the assumptions we've outlined above, a 1% decline in global grain output coupled with 3.4% growth in global grain demand will swing the grain market into a supply deficit of 58 mmt. If we assume a more conservative scenario in which global grain output does not decline at all, a 2.2% rate of growth in global consumption still will send the global grain market into a supply deficit. The odds of seeing this scenario unfold are relatively high, given that the average growth in global grain consumption was 2.5% over the past 10 years, and 2.9% over the past four years, when grain prices were mired in a downtrend. We believe this would clearly be positive to global grain prices. Considering the elevated global grain inventories and the expected supply deficit we foresee, we believe, even if prices do not move to the upside, the downside for grain prices should be at least limited in 2017 as inventories are drawn down. In addition to the supply deficit, rising oil prices are supportive to grain prices as well. All else equal, higher oil prices will increase the production cost of grains. Bottom Line: We expect limited downside for grain prices next year. The 2017 Outlook For Individual Grains Corn, soybeans, wheat and rice prices are highly correlated with each other (Chart 4, panel 1). In terms of end consumption, they can all be consumed as either human food or animal feed. In terms of supply, farmers rotate among these crops depending on their profit outlook, soil conditions, and government policies. In 2017, we believe wheat and rice likely will outperform corn and soybeans, for two reasons: Crop-rotation economics and inventories. Chart 4Wheat & Rice May Outperform ##br##Corn & Soybeans In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c4 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c4 Firstly, global acreage rotation still favors soybeans most, then corn, over wheat and rice. If we rebase grain prices back to the beginning of 2006, corn and soybean prices are currently 62% and 67% higher than they were at the start of this interval. In comparison, wheat and rice prices are only 19% and 16% higher, respectively (Chart 4, panel 1). The U.S. is the world's biggest corn exporter, the second-largest soybean and wheat exporter. Informa Economics, a private consulting firm, projects 2017 soybean plantings will rise 6.2% to 88.862 million acres, while corn and winter wheat plantings will fall 4.6% and 8.1% to 90.151 million acres and 33.213 million acres, respectively. If these projections are realized, the 2017 U.S. winter wheat planted acreage will be the lowest since 1911. Winter wheat accounts for about 70% of U.S. total wheat production. Secondly, wheat and rice inventories ex-China declined, while corn and soybean inventories ex-China increased. Yes, it is true that the world wheat and rice stocks-to-use ratios rose to the highest since 2002 and 2003, respectively. (Chart 4, panel 2). But this does not show the full picture for these markets: 58% of global rice inventories and 44% of global wheat inventories are in China, even though that country accounts for only 12% of global rice imports and 2% of global wheat imports. China is unlikely to export these inventories to the world: the country tends to hold massive grain inventories, in order to prevent domestic food crises. This means that global wheat and rice importers outside China, which account for about 88% of the global rice trade and 98% of the global wheat trade, will compete for inventories outside China. The third panel of Chart 4 shows the rice stocks-to-use ratio for the ex-China world has already dropped to its lowest level since 2008, while the wheat stocks-to-use ratio ex-China already has declined for two years in a row. This is positive for wheat and rice prices. In comparison, the soybean and corn stocks-to-use ratios ex-China looks much less promising. Both ratios are at or near record highs (Chart 4, panel 3). China only accounts for 2% of the global corn trade, therefore corn importers outside China will have more abundant supplies available to them in 2017. China is the largest buyer of soybeans, accounting for 63% of the global soybean trade. The country will have more bargaining power, on the back of increasing competition among major soybean exporters (the U.S., Brazil and Argentina). In the meantime, China's central policy is currently focused on encouraging domestic soybean plantings mainly at the cost of corn, which is negative for global soybean prices and good for global corn prices. In 2016, the corn acreage in China fell for the first time since 2004 while its soybean acreage jumped 9.1% - the largest increase since 2001 (Chart 4, panel 4). Chart 5Downside Risks To Grains bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c5 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c5 Downside Risks To Our Grain View Grain prices could decline more than 10% from current levels next year, if favorable weather results in a slight drop (less than 1.4%) or even an increase in global grain yields. Also, if grain prices rise significantly in 2017H1 - for whatever reason - this likely would spur plantings and depress prices. If either of these events transpire, we will re-evaluate our grain view. A strengthening dollar is also a major risk to our view. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy expects a further 5%-7% appreciation in U.S. dollar in 2017. We believe most of the negative effects of a strengthening dollar already are reflected in depressed grain prices, as the U.S. dollar has already appreciated 36% since July 2011. At the end of last week, the U.S. dollar was only 2% lower than all-time highs reached in February 2002 (Chart 5, panel 1). Another risk to watch is acreage expansion in Argentina, Brazil and the Former Soviet Union (FSU) region. All of these countries/regions had massive currency depreciations and supportive agricultural policies this year, especially in Argentina (Chart 5, panels 2, 3 and 4). However, our calculations show that for corn and wheat, acreage increases in these countries/regions are mostly offset by declines in the U.S. With an expectation of a continuing decline in U.S. wheat and corn plantings, we expect an insignificant growth in overall global wheat and corn acreage. For soybeans, however, the acreage expansion could pose a downside risk as all top three producers (the U.S., Brazil and Argentina) are likely to increase their plantings. We will re-evaluate the grain market at the end of March, when the U.S. posts its planting intentions for all major crops. Softs In 2017: Less Positive Than Grains Both cotton and sugar prices had strong rallies in 2016, following the second consecutive year of supply deficits (Chart 6). Global cotton acreage has declined 19% during the past five years when cotton prices fell significantly from peak prices in 2011. This is the main reason for the 18.3% decline in global cotton production during the same period of time and also for the two consecutive years of supply deficit in 2015 and 2016. For sugar, the El Niño phenomenon that ended this past summer hurt sugar plantings and crop development in major producing countries (Brazil, India, China and Thailand) in both 2015 and 2016, resulting in two years of supply deficit and a supercharged rally in 2016 sugar prices. Both cotton and sugar prices fell from their 2016 highs, with a 9.6% drop for cotton and a 23.4% decline for sugar. However, we are still tactically bearish on both commodities as speculators' net long positions are still crowed (Chart 7). Chart 6Cotton & Sugar: Supply Deficit in 2016 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c6 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c6 Chart 7Cotton & Sugar: Crowed Net Long Spec Positions bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c7 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c7 Strategically, we are neutral cotton and bearish sugar. For cotton, global demand will stay sluggish in 2017. Even though there has been no growth at all in global cotton demand for the past three years, the bad news is that there still are no signs of improvement in global textile demand (Chart 8). On the supply side, global cotton output may rise significantly next year, if farmers shift some of their grain acreage to cotton due to a better profit profile for cotton (Chart 9). We believe, barring extreme weather, the global cotton market will become more balanced next year, leaving us neutral in our price outlook. For sugar, with weather patterns back to normal and the extreme rally in prices this year, sugar output in India, Thailand, China and the EU (European Union) should receive a strong boost. In addition, a strengthening U.S. dollar will also encourage sugar production in those countries whose currency had massive depreciation like Brazil, Russia and India (Chart 10). Chart 8Cotton: Demand Does Not Look Good bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c8 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c8 Chart 9Cotton: Supply Will Increase In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c9 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c9 Chart 10Sugar Production Will Recover bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c10 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c10 On the demand side, average global sugar consumption growth was only 1.3% p.a. during 2013-2015, even though average sugar prices declined every year during that period. This year, global demand growth slowed to only 0.6%, as average sugar prices were 35% higher than last year. If sugar prices go sideways, the average prices will still be higher than this year, which may result in an even slower growth in global sugar demand. Given an extremely oversupplied corn market, cheaper corn syrup will replace sugar in its industrial uses. Chart 11Ag Investment Strategies: ##br##Focus On Relative-Value Trades bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c11 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c11 Our calculations indicate the global sugar market is likely to have a supply surplus next year, which will be a big shift from this year's supply deficit. This likely will pressure sugar prices lower. Upside Risks To Our Softs View Both the cotton and sugar markets are still in supply deficits, which means any unfavorable weather in the major producing countries could send prices sharply higher. For sugar, Brazilian sugarcane mills could favor ethanol production instead of sugar in 2017 if the country keeps hiking gasoline prices and promotes ethanol consumption. So far, the sugar/ethanol price ratio in Brazil still favors sugar production. This can change quickly if ethanol prices in Brazil rise faster than sugar prices in 2017. We will monitor this risk closely. Investment Strategy Our Ag strategies continue to focus on relative-value investments. As such, we look to go long wheat versus cotton, long corn versus sugar, and long rice versus soybeans through the following recommendations: Long July/17 wheat vs. short July/17 cotton: We recommend putting this relative trade on if the wheat-to-cotton ratio drops to 5.75 (current: 6.14) (Chart 11, panel 1). Long July/17 corn vs. short July/17 sugar: We put a limit-buy order at 17 on this position on November 3, 2016. Since then, this ratio rose 12.8% and only declined to 17.47 on November 9. Now, we suggest initiating this position if the ratio falls back to 18.5 (Chart 11, panel 2). Long November/17 rice vs. short November/17 soybeans: We recommend putting this relative-value trade on if the ratio drops to 0.95 (current: 1.01) (Chart 11, panel 3). Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades 2017 Commodity Outlook: Grains & Softs 2017 Commodity Outlook: Grains & Softs

Refiners will reduce run rates over the next month or so to clear unintended inventory accumulation, but it's not like they've never had to deal with this situation.

Monetary policy at systematically important central banks will determine the winners and losers in global ag export markets going forward. The evolution of fundamentals - supply, demand, and inventories - will remain essential drivers. Mother Nature is the wild card.

The remarkable admission by OPEC's secretary-general, Salem el-Badri, earlier this week that with "any increase in (oil's) price, shale will come immediately and cover any reduction" in output only hints at the larger impact of light-tight-oil (LTO) going forward.