East Europe & Central Asia

Highlights Commercial oil inventories finished the first quarter with a minimal draw. This was largely due to a surge in production and sales by Gulf producers and Russia at the end of 2016 and earlier this year, as well as slightly lower demand. Despite reports floating storage and more opaque inventories - e.g., Caribbean storage - drew significantly, OPEC 2.0 remains well short of its goal to get visible oil stocks down to five-year-average levels by year-end. If drawing storage down to more normal levels remains OPEC 2.0's goal, then the production-cutting deal negotiated by Saudi Arabia and Russia will have to be extended when OPEC meets next month. We expect this to happen. Even so, risk-reversals in options markets indicate investors and hedgers are willing to pay more for downside put protection than upside call exposure. We recommend fading this bias, and buying out-of-the-money calls and selling out-of-the-money puts using Dec/17 options. Energy: Overweight. We closed our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI position last Thursday with a 583.3% gain. We remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent, which is up 242.1%. Our long GSCI position is down 1.3%. We are recommending a long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl call vs. a short Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl put, which we will put on at tonight's close. This is driven by our analysis of the need to extend OPEC 2.0's production-cutting deal into the end of the year to reduce OECD commercial oil inventories. We continue to expect Brent and WTI prices to trade on either side of $60/bbl by year-end. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper traded lower this week, on the back of news Freeport McMoRan is poised to resume exports from its Indonesian facilities. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded higher, but remains range-bound. Our long volatility gold options play is up 2.9%. We will leave this trade on as a hedge, going into the French elections. Ags/Softs: Underweight: Despite heavy rains, grains (excluding rice) and beans were well offered this past week. Feature The surge in oil production and sales by Gulf producers and Russia at the end of last year and earlier this year, along with a reported slowing of demand - down ~ 100k b/d from our March estimates - combined to leave estimated supply and demand roughly balanced for 2017Q1 (Chart of the Week). These dynamics left visible OECD inventories above year-end 2016 levels (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekVisible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, ##br##As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Visible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Visible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Chart 2Visible Inventories Will Reach 5-year Average##br## If OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Are Extended Visible Inventories Will Reach 5-year Average If OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Are Extended Visible Inventories Will Reach 5-year Average If OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Are Extended Less-visible floating storage, along with oil stockpiles in China and Japan, drew more than 70mm barrels (bbls), according to Morgan Stanley, while Caribbean storage fell by some 10 - 20mm bbls during the last quarter.1 In addition, major trading companies are actively looking for buyers to take unwanted physical storage capacity off their hands. Nonetheless, OPEC 2.0 - the states banded together under the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to remove some 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market in 2017H1 - remains well short of its goal to get visible inventories down to five-year-average levels. Failure to reduce inventories almost surely requires producers allied in the production-cutting deal to extend their pact into 2017H2. We think they will, given the oft-stated desire of the Saudi and Russian energy ministers, Khalid Al-Falih and Alexander Novak, to see inventories continue to draw. Their desire was re-stated recently at a hastily called news conference in Houston last month.2 This message has remained constant from other OPEC leaders as well. The Logic Of Extending OPEC 2.0's Deal To 2017H2 Reducing the global storage overhang is imperative for the OPEC 2.0 coalition. It is the driving force behind the unlikely alliance KSA and Russia forged at the end of last year. Without pulling storage down to more normal levels, inventories remain too close to topping out, which puts markets at higher risk of the sort of price collapse seen in 2015 - 16. At the beginning of 2016, global oil markets were close to pricing in the approach of a full-storage event. In such an event, as global inventories approach capacity, prices trade below the cash-operating costs of the most expensive producers, until enough supply is forcibly knocked off line to drain excess stocks. This is an extremely high-risk scenario for states like KSA, Russia and their allies, which are heavily dependent on oil-export revenues to fund government budgets and much of the private sector.3 After the last such event at the beginning of 2016, these states were left reeling, as fiscal spending was slashed, projects were canceled and governments burned through foreign reserves in an effort to make up for lost revenue. Entering the second quarter of this year, KSA and its allies continue to over-deliver on their pledges to cut ~ 1.2mm b/d of production. Markets are expecting Russian cuts to increase to ~ 300k b/d, in line with their pledges under the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting Agreement negotiated last year (Chart 3 and Chart 4). Chart 3KSA Continues To Over-Deliver; ##br##Russian Cuts Expected to Increase KSA Continues To Over-Deliver; Russian Cuts Expected to Increase KSA Continues To Over-Deliver; Russian Cuts Expected to Increase Chart 4KSA Allies Continue to Deliver;##br## Iran And Iraq Continue To Under-Deliver KSA Allies Continue to Deliver; Iran And Iraq Continue To Under-Deliver KSA Allies Continue to Deliver; Iran And Iraq Continue To Under-Deliver However, if the OPEC 2.0 production deal to remove ~ 1.8mm b/d of production is not extended beyond its end-June deadline, storage levels will remain uncomfortably high for the KSA - Russia alliance. By our reckoning, allowing the deal to expire without extending it would only reduce visible OECD inventories by a little over 170mm barrels by year-end. This can be inferred from our assessment of balances (Chart of the Week). Not extending OPEC 2.0's deal leaves OECD commercial oil inventories close to 130mm barrels above the targeted 300mm-barrel drawdown required to return OECD inventories to more normal (i.e., five-year average) levels. With U.S. shale production coming on strong, this could be precarious for OPEC 2.0 next year. Extending the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal to the end of 2017H2 will reduce visible commercial inventories in the OECD by slightly more than the 300mm barrels being targeted (Chart 5). This should put storage levels back at more normal, five-year average levels, and give OPEC 2.0 some breathing room to craft a strategy to contain U.S. shale production going forward.4 For this reason, extending the 1.8mm b/d production cuts to end-2017 is almost a foregone conclusion for us, particularly as KSA needs to clean up the market, so to speak, ahead of the IPO of Saudi Aramco next year. Among other potential investors with a keen interest in the potential $100 billion floatation is a state-led consortium of Chinese banks and oil companies.5 We Think Upside Risks Dominate Oil Markets The logic of extending the OPEC 2.0 deal is compelling. But the market does not share this view. Oil speculators have significantly reduced their net long position as a percent of total open interest in the dominant crude-oil futures markets, WTI and Brent (Chart 6). This, after the specs were chastened following their huge increase in upside exposure earlier this year. Chart 5Extending OPEC 2.0'S Production Deal Reduces ##br##OECD Oil Stocks By 300mm+ Barrels By End-2017 Extending OPEC 2.0'S Production Deal Reduces OECD Oil Stocks By 300mm+ Barrels By End-2017 Extending OPEC 2.0'S Production Deal Reduces OECD Oil Stocks By 300mm+ Barrels By End-2017 Chart 6Specs Are Retreating From Oil Specs Are Retreating From Oil Specs Are Retreating From Oil We can also see a lack of conviction in oil options markets. Option markets provide a useful gauge of fear and greed called "skew," which is nothing more than the difference between implied option volatilities (IOV) for puts and calls.6 When the skew favors puts - shown by a negative number in the risk-reversal shown in Chart 7 - markets are signaling they value downside protection more than upside exposure, and vice versa when call IOVs exceed put IOVs. Chart 7Option Skew Favors Downside Puts ##br##Over Upside Call Exposure Option Skew Favors Downside Puts Over Upside Call Exposure Option Skew Favors Downside Puts Over Upside Call Exposure Given the logic we laid out above, we are recommending investors fade the put skew in the options markets. Specifically, we are getting long out-of-the-money Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls and selling out-of-the-money Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts against them, to express our view. We will be doing so at the close of trading today, and will report our strikes and net premium in next week's publication.7 Bottom Line: We expect the OPEC 2.0 production deal to be extended when OPEC meets on May 25 in Vienna. This will significantly raise the odds OECD commercial oil stocks will be drawn down to more normal levels, giving the OPEC 2.0 petro-states more breathing room to develop a strategy to regain a modicum of control over prices. This is critical for KSA, which still is on track to IPO Saudi Aramco next year. Given our expectation, we are recommending investors buy out-of-the-money Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls and sell out-of-the-money Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts. This allows investors to fade what appears to be a consensus - given put skews and spec positioning - and capitalize on what we believe is an all-but-certain extension of the OPEC 2.0 production deal. We expect WTI and Brent to trade on either side of $60/bbl by December, and to average $55/bbl to 2020. As has been mentioned often, our level of conviction in that forecast is low beyond 2018, given the large capex cuts for projects that would have been funded between 2015 and 2020 absent the 2014 - 2016 oil-price collapse. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC's Barkindo Sees Progress in Oil Cuts as Stockpiles Drop," and "Oil Traders Drain Hidden Caribbean Hoards as OPEC Cuts Bite," published by Bloomberg.com on April 2 and 3, 2017, respectively. 2 Please see "Saudi Arabia, Russia Offer United Front on Oil Supply Cuts," published by Bloomberg.com on March 7, 2017, and "Saudi energy minister says oil market fundamentals improving," published by reuters.com on the same day. 3 BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy examined this in our feature article published on September 8, 2016, entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We discuss this at length in "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report April 6 and March 30, 2017, Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Exclusive: China gathers state-led consortium for Aramco IPO - sources," published by Reuters.com on April 19, 2017. We speculated on just such an event in "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and its Geopolitical Strategy January 14, 2016. We noted, "While inviting Western investors and energy firms to take a stake in Aramco would make obvious sense for Saudi Arabia, we would speculate that the real target for the IPO will be Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). China has overtaken the U.S. as the main importer of crude from Saudi Arabia ... but it continues to free-ride on Washington's security guarantees and commitments in the region. By giving China a stake in Saudi Arabia's energy infrastructure, Riyadh would force Beijing to start caring about what happens in the region." 6 "Implied option volatility" is market jargon for the standard deviation of expected returns. It is used as an input for option-pricing models. The "implied," as it's known colloquially in markets, solves an option-pricing model like Fischer Black's, once the option's premium is discovered via trading. Market participants can determine whether puts (i.e., the right, but not the obligation, to sell) are more highly valued than calls (the right to buy) in relative terms by differencing the implied volatilities of puts and calls that are equidistant from at-the-money options. This is referred to as the options' "skew." We use the IOVs for puts and calls that both change by $0.25/bbl for every $1.00/bbl move in oil futures (i.e., 25-delta puts and calls) to calculate skew. Please see Fischer Black's seminal article, "The Pricing of Commodity Contracts," in the Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, (1976), pp. 167-79. 7 We employed a similar strategy in March 2016 - getting long Dec/16 Brent $50/bbl calls vs. selling $25/bbl puts, which registered a 103.5% gain between March 3 and April 14, following a rally in Brent prices. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts

Highlights The sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the Asian trade data imply. China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade but mainland's credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively pointing to a relapse its growth in general and imports in particular. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. In Turkey, reinstate the short TRY versus U.S. dollar and short bank stocks trades. Feature Economic data from China and Asian trade data have been strong of late. However, when one looks ahead, China's growth and imports are set to roll over decisively in the second half of the year, based on the credit and fiscal spending impulse (Chart I-1). This will hurt countries and industries that sell to China. This is why we believe commodities prices are in a broad topping-out phase. Commodities producers and Asian economies will again suffer materially. Any possible strength in U.S. and European growth will not offset the drag on EM growth emanating from China and lower commodities prices. As a result, having priced in a lot of good news, EM risk assets are at major risk of a selloff in absolute terms and are poised to underperform their DM counterparts over the next six months. Beware Of The Low Base Effect Asian trade data have been strong, but the magnitude of recovery has not been as large as implied by annual growth rates: Annual growth rates of export values in U.S. dollar terms have surged everywhere - in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China (Chart I-2A). Chart I-1China's Growth To Decelerate Again China's Growth To Decelerate Again China's Growth To Decelerate Again Chart I-2AHigh Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... High Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... High Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... Chart I-2B...Low Base In Early 2016 ...Low Base In Early 2016 ...Low Base In Early 2016 Chart I-2B depicts the level of export values in U.S. dollar terms. It is clear that dollar values of shipments remain well below their peak of several years ago. Looking at the annual rate of change is reasonable since it removes seasonality from the series. However, investors should be aware of the low base effect of late 2015 and early 2016 that has made these annual growth rates extraordinarily elevated in recent months. As for export volumes, Chart I-3 illustrates that volumes held up better than U.S. dollar values in late 2015, which is why they are now expanding at a moderate rate (i.e. they are not surging). In short, in the past 12 months there has been a major discrepancy between dollar values and volumes of Asian exports. Indeed, the V-shaped profile of Asian export growth rates has been partially due to price swings in tradable goods. Prices for steel and other metals as well as for petrochemical products and semiconductors dropped substantially in late 2015 and early 2016, and have rebounded materially from that low base since. Correspondingly, Asian export prices have rebounded considerably in percentage terms (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Chart I-4Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices In the U.S., the low base effect from a year ago is also present in manufacturing and railroad shipments. Both intermodal (container) and carload shipment volumes excluding petroleum and coal plunged in early 2016 and recovered considerably on an annual rate-of-change basis, from a low base (Chart I-5). Chart I-5U.S. Railroad Shipments ##br##Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 U.S. Railroad Shipments Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 U.S. Railroad Shipments Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 All told, the skyrocketing annual rate of change of Asian export values and other global trade series is exaggerated by the fact that global trade volume was sluggish and various tradable goods/commodities prices fell precipitously in the last quarter of 2015 and first quarter of 2016, thereby creating a base effect. We are not implying that there has been no genuine recovery in global trade. Indeed, there has been reasonable sequential recovery in global demand and trade. The point is that the sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the trade data imply. Importantly, China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade and the rebound in commodities prices. Hence, the outlook for China holds the key. Looking Ahead Looking forward, there are few reasons to worry about U.S. growth. Consumer spending is robust and core capital goods orders are recovering following a multi-year slump (Chart I-6). Nevertheless, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team's view is that global trade growth will decelerate again because China's one-off stimulus-driven recovery will soon reverse, causing the rest of EM to also suffer: In particular, the credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively; the indicator typically leads nominal GDP growth and mainland imports by six months, as exhibited in Chart I-1 on page 1. As Chinese import volume relapses again, economies and sectors selling to China will suffer. Chart I-7 demonstrates China's credit and fiscal spending impulses separately. Chart I-6U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk Chart I-7China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses The credit impulse is the second derivative of outstanding corporate and household credit.1 It does not take much of a slowdown in credit growth for the second derivative, credit impulse, to roll over and then turn negative. Remarkably, narrow (M1) and broad (M2) money as well as banks' RMB loan growth have all slowed in recent months (Chart I-8). Non-bank (shadow banking) credit growth remains stable (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Yet given that the PBoC's recent tightening has targeted shadow banking activities, it is a matter of time before shadow banking credit also decelerates meaningfully. To assess real-time strength in China's economic activity, we monitor prices of various commodities trading in China. Chart I-9 demonstrates that these commodities prices have lately plunged. Chart I-8China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing Chart I-9Plunging Commodities Prices Plunging Commodities Prices Plunging Commodities Prices To be sure, commodities prices are influenced not only by final demand but also by other factors such as supply, inventory swings and investor/trader positioning. We use these data as one among many inputs in our analysis. Bottom Line: Money/credit growth has rolled over and will continue to downshift, causing the current recovery underway in China to falter. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. Market-Based Indicators Financial asset prices often lead economic data. Therefore, one cannot rely on economic data releases to time turning points in financial markets. We watch and bring to investors' attention price signals from various segments of financial markets to corroborate our investment themes and economic analysis. Presently, there are several indicators flashing warning signals for EM risk assets: The plunge in iron ore prices warrants attention as it has historically correlated with EM equities and industrial metals prices (the LMEX index) (Chart I-10). The commodities currencies index - an equal-weighted average of CAD, AUD and NZD - also points to an end of the rally in EM share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Chart I-11EM Stocks Have Defied ##br##Rollover In Commodities Currencies EM Stocks Have Defied Rollover In Commodities Currencies EM Stocks Have Defied Rollover In Commodities Currencies It appears these long-term correlations have broken down in the past several weeks. We suspect this is due to hefty fund flows into EM. In the short term, the flows could overwhelm fundamentals and prompt financial variables that have historically been correlated to temporarily diverge. However, flows can refute fundamentals for a time, but not forever. It is impossible to time a reversal or magnitude of flows as there is no comprehensive set of data on global investor positioning across various financial markets. The message of a potential relapse in Chinese imports is being reinforced by commodities currencies that lead global export volume growth, and are pointing to weakness in global trade in the second half of this year (Chart I-12). The latest erosion in the commodities currencies has occurred even though the U.S. dollar has been soft and U.S. TIPS yields have not risen at all. This makes this price signal even more important. Oil prices have recovered to their recent highs, but share prices of global oil companies have not confirmed the rebound (Chart I-13). When such a divergence occurs between spot commodities prices and respective equity sectors, the spot prices typically converge toward the equity market. This leads us to argue that oil prices will head south pretty soon. Chart I-12Commodities Currencies ##br##Lead Global Trade Cycles Commodities Currencies Lead Global Trade Cycles Commodities Currencies Lead Global Trade Cycles Chart I-13Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed ##br##The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices The average stock (an equally-weighted equity index) is underperforming the market cap-weighted index in both the EM universe and the U.S. equity market (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally This usually occurs in two instances: (1) the rally is losing steam and narrowing to large market-cap stocks; and/or (2) the rally is being fueled by flows into ETFs that must allocate money based on market cap. Narrowing breadth of the rally is a warning signal of a top, albeit the precise timing is tricky. Bottom Line: There are several market-based indicators that herald an imminent top in EM share prices, commodities prices and other risk assets. Stay put. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Deceitful Stability Turkey held a constitutional referendum that dramatically expands the powers of the presidency on April 16. The proposed 18 amendments passed with a 51.41% majority and a high turnout of 85%. As with all recent Turkish referenda and elections, the results reveal a sharply divided country between the Aegean coastal regions and the Anatolian heartland, the latter being a stronghold of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Is Turkey Now A Dictatorship? First, some facts. Turkey has not become a dictatorship, as some Western press alleged. Yes, presidential powers have expanded. In particular, we note that: The president is now both a head of state and government and has the power to appoint government ministers; The president can issue decrees, however, the parliament has the ability to abrogate them through the legislative process; The president can call for new elections, however, they need three-fifths of the parliament to agree to the new election; The president has wide powers to appoint judges. What the media is not reporting is that the parliament can remove or modify any state of emergency enacted by the president. In addition, removing a presidential veto appears to be exceedingly easy, with only an absolute majority (not a super-majority) of votes needed. As such, our review of the constitutional changes is that Turkey is most definitely not a dictatorship. Yes, President Erdogan has bestowed upon the presidency much wider powers than the current ceremonial position possesses. However, the amendments also create a trap for future presidents. If the president should face a parliament ruled by an opposition party, they would lose much of their ability to govern. The changes therefore approximate the current French constitution, which is a semi-presidential system. Under the French system, the president has to cohabitate with the parliament. This appears to be the case with the Turkish constitution as well. Bottom Line: Turkish constitutional referendum has expanded the powers of the presidency, but considerable checks remain. If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) were ever to lose parliamentary control, President Erdogan would become entrapped by the very constitution he just passed. Is Turkey Now Stable? The market reacted to the results of the referendum with a muted cheer. First, we disagree with the market consensus that President Erdogan will feel empowered and confident following the constitutional referendum. This is for several reasons. For one, the referendum passed with a slim majority. Even if we assume (generously) that it was a clean win for the government, the fact remains that the AKP has struggled to win over 50% of the vote in any election it has contested since coming to power in 2002 (Chart II-1). Turkey is a deeply divided country and a narrow win in a constitutional referendum is not going to change this. Chart II-1AKP Versus Other Parties In Turkish Elections EM: The Beginning Of The End EM: The Beginning Of The End Second, Erdogan is making a strategic mistake by giving himself more power. It will also focus the criticism of the public on the presidency and himself if the economy and geopolitical situation surrounding Turkey gets worse. If the buck now stops with Erdogan, it also means that all the blame will go to him as well. We therefore do not expect Erdogan to push away from populist economic and monetary policies. In fact, we could see him double down on unorthodox fiscal and monetary policies as protests mount against his rule. While he has expanded control over the army, judiciary, and police, he has not won over support of the major cities on the Aegean coast, which not only voted against his constitutional referendum but also consistently vote against AKP rule. That said, opposition to AKP remains in disarray. As such, there is no political avenue for opposition to Erdogan. The problem is that such an arrangement raises the probability that the opposition takes the form of a social movement and protest. We would therefore caution investors that a repeat of the Gezi Park protests from 2013 could be likely, especially if the economy takes a stumble. Bottom Line: The referendum has not changed the facts on the ground. Turkey remains a deeply divided country. Erdogan will continue to feel threatened by the general sentiment on the ground and thus continue to avoid taking any painful structural reforms. We believe that economic populism will remain the name of the game. What To Watch? We would first and foremost watch for any sign of protest over the next several weeks. Gezi Park style unrest would hurt Erdogan's credibility. Given his penchant to equate any dissent with terrorism, President Erdogan is very likely to overreact to any sign of a social movement rising in Turkey to oppose him. It is not our baseline case that the constitutional referendum will motivate protests, but it is a risk investors should be concerned with. Next election is set for November 2019 and the constitutional changes will only become effective at that point (save for provisions on the judiciary). Investors should watch for any sign that Erdogan or AKP's popularity is waning in the interim. A failure to secure a majority in parliament could entrap Erdogan in an institutional fight with the legislature that creates a constitutional crisis. Chart II-2Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey ##br##Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Relations with the EU remain an issue as well. Erdogan will likely further deepen divisions in the country if he goes ahead and makes a formal break with the EU, either by reinstituting the death penalty or holding a referendum on EU accession process. Erdogan's hostile position towards the EU should be seen from the perspective of his own insecurity as a leader: he needs an external enemy in order to rally support around his leadership. We would recommend that clients ignore the rhetoric. Turkey depends on Europe far more than any other trade or investment partner (Chart II-2). If Turkey were to lash out at the EU by encouraging migration into Europe, for example, the subsequent economic sanctions would devastate the Turkish economy and collapse its currency. Nonetheless, Ankara's brinkmanship and anti-EU rhetoric will likely continue. It is further evidence of the regime's insecurity at home. Bottom Line: The more that Erdogan captures power within the institutions he controls, the greater his insecurities will become. This is for two reasons. First, he will increase the risk of a return of social movement protests like the Gezi Park event in 2013. Second, he will become solely responsible for everything that happens in Turkey, closing off the possibility to "pass the buck" to the parliament or the opposition when the economy slows down or a geopolitical crisis emerges. As such, we see no opening for genuine structural reform or orthodox policymaking. Turkey will continue to be run along a populist paradigm. Investment Strategy On January 25th 2017, we recommended that clients take profits on the short positions in Turkish financial assets. Today, we recommend re-instating these short positions, specifically going short TRY versus the U.S. dollar and shorting Turkish bank stocks. The central bank's net liquidity injections into the banking system have recently been expanded again (Chart II-3). As we have argued in past,2 this is a form of quantitative easing and warrants a weaker currency. To be more specific, even though the overnight liquidity injections have tumbled, the use of the late liquidity money market window has gone vertical. This is largely attributed to the fact that the late liquidity window is the only money market facility that has not been capped by the authorities in their attempt to tighten liquidity when the lira was collapsing in January. The fact remains that Turkish commercial banks are requiring continuous liquidity and the Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) is supplying it. Commercial banks demand liquidity because they continue growing their loan books rapidly. Bank loan and money growth remains very strong at 18-20% (Chart II-4). Such extremely strong loan growth means that credit excesses continue to be built. Chart II-3Turkey: Central Bank ##br##Renewed Liquidity Injections Turkey: Central Bank Renewed Liquidity Injections Turkey: Central Bank Renewed Liquidity Injections Chart II-4Turkey: Money/Credit ##br##Growth Is Too Strong Turkey: Money/Credit Growth Is Too Strong Turkey: Money/Credit Growth Is Too Strong Besides, wages are growing briskly - wages in manufacturing and service sector are rising at 18-20% from a year ago (Chart II-5, top panel). Meanwhile, productivity growth has been very muted. This entails that unit labor costs are mushrooming and inflationary pressures are more entrenched than suggested by headline and core consumer price inflation. It seems Turkey is suffering from outright stagflation: rampant inflationary pressures with a skyrocketing unemployment rate (Chart II-5, bottom panel) The upshot of strong credit/money and wage growth as well as higher inflationary pressures is currency depreciation. Excessive credit and income/wage growth are supporting import demand at a time when the current account deficit is already wide. This will maintain downward pressure on the exchange rate. The currency has been mostly flat year-to-date despite the CBT intervening in the market to support the lira by selling U.S. dollars (Chart II-6). Without this support from the CBT, the lira would be much weaker than it currently is. Chart II-5Turkey: Stagflation? TURKEY: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Turkey: Stagflation? TURKEY: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Turkey: Stagflation? Chart II-6Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX ##br##Reserves Are Being Depleted Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX Reserves Are Being Depleted Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX Reserves Are Being Depleted That said, the CBT's net foreign exchange rates (excluding commercial banks' foreign currency deposits at the CBT) are very low - they stand at US$ 12 billion and are equal to 1 month of imports. Therefore, the central bank has little capacity to defend the lira by selling its own U.S. dollar. Chart II-7Short Turkish Bank Stocks Short Turkish Bank Stocks Short Turkish Bank Stocks We also believe there is an opportunity to short Turkish banks outright. The currency depreciation will force interbank rates higher (Chart II-7, top panel). Historically, this has always been negative for banks' stock prices as net interest margins will shrink (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Surprisingly, bank share prices in local currency terms have lately rallied despite the headwinds from higher interbank rates and the rollover in net interest rate margin. This creates an attractive opportunity to go short again. Bottom Line: Re-instate a short position in the currency. In addition, short Turkish bank stocks. Dedicated EM equity as well as fixed-income and credit portfolios should continue underweighting Turkish assets within their respective EM universes. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses", dated August 30, 2016, link available on page 19. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Turkey's Monetary Demagoguery", dated June 1, 2016, link available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Feature Game theory teaches us that "credible threats" are an important part of creating stable equilibria. To enforce a credible threat, a geopolitical actor must have the capability and willingness to act on a standing threat. For example, if a country A states that action X will produce a response a, it must follow through decisively with a if X occurs. Otherwise, the lack of action will incite other actors to shirk compliance and conduct action X with little threat of retaliation. The lack of enforcement raises the probability of action X occurring in the future. President Donald Trump has re-established American credibility when it comes to the long-standing opposition to the use of chemical weapons. According to various news reports, approximately 50 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from two U.S. Navy destroyers - USS Porter and USS Ross - in the Eastern Mediterranean. The air strike targeted Syrian government-controlled Shayrat Air Base 30km southeast of Homs. The air base was allegedly used by Syrian forces earlier in the week to launch the chemical attack that left at least 86 people, including 28 children, dead. The following are facts that we know surrounding the attack: Russian angle: Russian military has had a presence at the Shayrat air base since December 2015, which has included a contingent of attack helicopters since April 2016.1 This information is public knowledge and therefore was known to American officials ahead of the strike. According to news reports, U.S. officials informed their Russian counterparts of the strike earlier in the day, but President Trump did not speak to President Vladimir Putin ahead of the attack. Limited target: Cruise missiles focused on the parts of the airbase critical to launching further air strikes: runway, aircraft hangars, and fuel depots. However, given the American warning to Russia of the incoming attack, it is highly likely Syrian forces had advance warning as well. Therefore, the attack is likely to have had no discernable military effect. Justification: President Trump justified the attack in broad terms in his statement following the attacks, citing "vital national security interest... to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons." He also cited Syria's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and U.N. Security Council rulings. There is no evidence that the U.S. is preparing a more comprehensive intervention in Syria. While such an action cannot be ruled out, given that Trump has been overseeing a comprehensive policy review, the nature of the strike suggests that it was designed to re-establish America's credible threat against the use of chemical and biological weapons. What does America's commitment to use of military force mean in broader geopolitical sense? We think that the timing and the optics of the attack are relevant in five ways: Re-establishing "red lines": The alleged chemical attack - if indeed perpetrated by the armed forces of the Syrian government and not by rebel forces or the Islamic State to draw the U.S. into conflict - has little or no military utility. As such, it appears to have been conducted precisely to test President Trump's credibility and commitment to enforcing American "red lines," which were put into question in Syria in particular by the previous administration. We speculate, but the attack may have been encouraged by Assad's allies Iran and Russia to create a low-cost crisis - where both could claim plausible deniability - that tests Trump's resolve to retaliate militarily. Objectively speaking, President Trump has passed the test. Signaling: The quick reaction from Washington signals to potential foes like Iran and North Korea that President Trump has a lower threshold for using military force than his predecessor. Most notably, President Trump did not seek authorization of U.S. Congress for the attack, instead justifying the use of force via international law and longstanding U.S. commitment to defending allies.2 Timing: The attack occurred while President Trump and China's President Xi Jinping were dining at the Mar-a-Lago Florida resort. President Trump notably stated ahead of Xi's visit that "if China is not going to solve North Korea, we will." His administration has also said that time was running out on North Korea and all options were on the table. Words like these carry greater weight in light of Trump's actions today. On the other hand, the attack against Syria does allow Trump to scale-down rhetoric on North Korea and South China Sea - having now proven his military mettle - where conducting a military show-of-force would have been much more difficult for the U.S. Capabilities: The attack reminds the world that U.S. military capabilities and its global reach are unrivaled. Much has been made of Russian power-projection capabilities since their successful intervention in Syria. However, the U.S. was able to deliver a payload of 50-60 cruise missiles without tipping its hand and with little fanfare.3 Russian and Chinese capabilities to project power within their spheres of influence have increased dramatically over the past ten years. However, the U.S. remains the only actor capable of acting globally. Doctrine: President Trump's quick decision to use force suggests that he will not follow an extreme isolationist foreign policy. As we wrote in a February note, a truly isolationist America would produce paradigm shifting outcomes, including the eventual loss of U.S. dollar reserve currency status.4 However, Trump's decision to cite international law and American responsibility to allies as justifications for the Syrian air strikes suggest that the Trump White House has abandoned the isolationist rhetoric of the campaign. It also reveals the preferences of the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment, which has re-established its influence in the Trump White House. Incidentally, the air strike coincides with the removal of ultra-isolationist Steve Bannon - campaign chief and White House Chief Strategist - from the National Security Council. Investment Implications We believe that the air strikes are a limited attack whose main purpose is messaging. If the U.S. planned to accomplish broader goals, we would have expected to see multiple strikes against Syrian air force, air defense installations, and command and control capabilities. A risk to this view would be any follow-up rhetoric from the White House on establishing "no-fly zones" above Syrian air space. We suspect that the attack against Shayrat air base will instead be eventually followed by closer coordination with Russia and other regional players to find a diplomatic solution to the Syrian civil war. As such, any negative market reaction, bid-up in oil prices, or safe-haven flows should be temporary (Chart 1). In fact, the attack is bullish for risk assets for three reasons: Political recapitalization: We suspect that President Trump will see a bump in approval rating due to the limited, but resolute, air strikes. Currently, Trump is plumbing unseen lows in overall popularity and even his support among Republican voters appears to be slipping (Chart 2).The strikes will be a shot-in-the-arm, at least among GOP voters. This will further aid President Trump in his ongoing squabbles with the fiscally conservative Freedom Caucus and thus increase the probability of tax legislation being passed by Congress later this year.5 Chart I-1Market Reaction ##br##Should Be Temporary Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Chart 2Can A Resolute Strike ##br##Rescue Trump's Popularity? Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Establishment strikes back: The air strikes are a highly orthodox reaction to a foreign policy crisis, suggesting that the extreme isolationist rhetoric of the Trump's presidential campaign has been abandoned. It also suggests that the U.S. establishment has wrestled control of foreign policy from unpredictable novices like Steve Bannon. Escalation is limited: We don't see the probability of air strikes against North Korea as having risen. As we will show in a forthcoming military assessment of the risks on the Korean peninsula, North Korea retains considerable retaliatory capacity. It can still inflict massive civilian casualties on Seoul via a conventional artillery barrage. We suspect that the market will quickly realize the objective superiority of a foreign policy that enforces credible threats. As such, the probability of future use of force declines, now that the U.S. has reestablished its commitment to military retaliation when its "red lines" are crossed. The two risks to our view are that: Russia decides it must respond to the U.S. attack for either strategic or domestic political reasons; President Trump is emboldened by the political recapitalization that follows the attack to expand operations in Syria or to attempt a similar strike in North Korea. We doubt that either will happen, but it may take time for the market to be convinced. First, Russia will likely oppose U.S. involvement rhetorically, given the close proximity of its forces to the attack. This is despite the fact that the U.S. informed Russia, showing the courtesy of a geopolitical peer. Indeed, Russian officials are already threatening to scuttle the agreement with the U.S. that keeps the two militaries informed of each other movement in Syria. Second, we doubt that the U.S. defense establishment will advise President Trump to attack North Korea, as it has understood Pyongyang's retaliatory capability for decades. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The airport was used by the Russian forces as an "advance airfield," which means that it was mainly used for quick refueling and rearming of frontline aviation. There was no permanent presence of Russian troops. 2 In his statement following the attacks, President Trump stated that destabilization of the region and ongoing refugee crisis threatened the U.S. and its allies. 3 As a side note, the number of cruise missiles involved in the strike appears to be complete overkill given the limited nature of the attack. The number appears to have been selected for maximum PR effect, showing again that the attack was meant to serve a signaling purpose. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights WTI and Brent forward curves remain more or less backwardated beginning in 2018. On its face, this indicates hedgers and speculators are trading and positioning as if the OPEC - non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia in late 2016 will succeed in drawing inventories, leaving the market in a physical deficit this year. Over the short-term, this induced supply shock benefits producers generally. Longer term, KSA and Russia will have to continue to manage supplies if they are to exert any influence on oil prices. This is a three-level game, which now involves U.S. shale-oil producers as a permanent feature of the market. It will be difficult to manage. But the stakes are sufficiently high for KSA and Russia that we believe it has to be played. Energy: Overweight. We closed the first quarter on an up note, with our trade recommendations still open and closed in 2017Q1 up 420.75% on average. Base Metals: Neutral. Striking miners at Freeport McMoRan's Cerro Verde facility in Peru are back on the job, as are workers at BHP's Escondido mine in Chile. Export licensing difficulties at Freeport's Grasberg facility in Indonesia are close to being resolved.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long volatility play in gold is down -32.8%, which, from a macro perspective, indicates markets are not fearful of a Fed-related surprise over the next couple of months. Ags/Softs: Underweight. U.S. farmers' corn planting intentions came in 1mm acres less than expected at 90mm; beans came in at 89.5mm acres, or 1.4mm over expectations; and wheat was up 100k acres at 46.1mm. Stocks remain high, and we remain bearish. Feature KSA, Russia and their allies - OPEC 2.0 - are trying to regain control of oil fundamentals produced by one of the most unlikely combinations of events ever seen in the history of the oil market. This week, we review how we arrived at the market conditions we now confront, and consider a possible strategy evolving out of the production-cutting Agreement (the "Agreement" for short) that may allow them to do so. Current markets conditions were spawned by a surge in EM oil demand in the early part of the 21st century, which met an almost perfectly inelastic supply curve. This took prices from $55/bbl in 2005 to more than $140/bbl by the end of 2008H1 (Chart of the Week). Along the way, some 5mm b/d of DM oil demand had to be destroyed by higher prices to make room for the EM growth depicted in Chart 2, which is taken from an analysis by Hamilton (2009).2 Chart of the WeekEM Consumption Surge, Flat Production ##br##Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC EM Consumption Surge, Flat Production Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC EM Consumption Surge, Flat Production Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC Chart 2High Prices Were Required##br## To Balance Markets Pre-GFC The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? These high prices combined with the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) low-interest rate regime into a perfect storm, which allowed the supply side to evolve the shale technology in the U.S. Steadily rising light-tight-oil (LTO) production has profoundly altered the market, forcing OPEC and non-OPEC petro-states to devise a strategy to contain this surge. Whether they can do so is yet to be determined. In this article we consider one strategy that might allow OPEC 2.0 to regain some control over pricing and the rate of growth in shale production, but it is highly dependent on them maintaining production discipline and finding a way to coordinate their production. First, though, a quick review. How Did We Get Here? The GFC dragged all markets lower, leaving oil prices just above $40/bbl by the end of 2008. In the wake of the GFC, central banks led by the Fed pursued massively accommodative monetary policies, which took interest rates to the zero lower bound. OPEC, led by KSA, drastically cut supplies to remove a huge unintended inventory accumulation that developed as demand collapsed (Chart 3). While DM oil demand remained depressed in the wake of the GFC, EM governments, led by China, massively stimulated their economies, which lifted global oil consumption more than 4% by 2010 (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices, ##br##Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices, Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices, Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 Chart 4EM Lifted Global Demand Post-GFC EM Lifted Global Demand Post-GFC EM Lifted Global Demand Post-GFC Growth in global supplies post-GFC, meanwhile, was more measured. OPEC total liquids production from 2009 to 2014 averaged just below 0.05% growth yoy. Part of this meager growth in OPEC production no doubt was explained by lower production from the Cartel resulting from civil war in Libya and nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, which reduced overall output. It also is possible the fall-out from the GFC and the euro-area crisis of 2009 - 2011 kept OPEC producers from committing to higher production as well. Be that as it may, EM demand growth, along with OPEC's lower output, allowed prices to again trade above $100/bbl by 2011 and stay there till mid-2014 (Chart 5). The years-long combination of near-zero interest rates and high oil prices allowed U.S. shale-oil production to advance in leaps and bounds, such that by 2014, yoy light-tight oil (LTO) production from the shales was growing at more than 1mm b/d (Chart 6). Chart 5EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation##br## Keep Prices Above $100/bbl To 2014H1 EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation Keep Prices Above $100/bbl To 2014H1 EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation Keep Prices Above $100/bbl To 2014H1 Chart 6High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale ##br##Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 Now What? OPEC underestimated the magnitude of the shale-oil revolution, as did most observers. However, KSA, the leader of the Cartel, was pre-occupied with geopolitical considerations, chiefly its ongoing proxy wars throughout the Middle East with Iran and its allies. High prices allowed it to build its reserves and fund these proxy wars. This ended when Iran and western powers began negotiating an end to sanctions, which, if successful, would once again allow Iran to access foreign capital and technology to develop its economy.3 As the negotiations to remove sanctions on Iran progressed, KSA led OPEC into a market-share war at the end of 2014, presumably to take back customers lost to shale, particularly in the U.S. We do not believe OPEC's primary aim in declaring a market-share war was to crush U.S. shale output. Indeed, we have consistently maintained the market-share war was more an extension of KSA's and Iran's proxy wars throughout the Middle East, and that KSA was using the pump-at-will strategy to limit revenues that would flow to Iran in the post-sanctions environment. The secondary target of the market-share war was U.S. shale production, but, even then we maintained shale-oil production was needed to keep prices from revisiting $140/bbl-plus levels.4 The market-share war tanked prices, as OPEC increased the quantity of oil it would supply at lower prices. In particular, Saudi Arabia surged production from November 2014, into the collapse of oil prices. Over time, the market-share strategy destroyed high-cost supply worldwide. U.S. shale production fell ~ 15% from a high of ~ 5.3mm b/d in March 2015 in the four largest LTO basins to a low of ~ 4.5mm b/d, by our reckoning, in 2017Q1. At the same time, non-Gulf OPEC production fell dramatically as well, close to 8% in 2016 yoy to an average of 7.7mm b/d. Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia, however, saw production increase 6.5% and 2% yoy, respectively, to close to 25mm b/d and 11.2mm b/d in 2016. In the aftermath of the price collapse, U.S. shale producers retreated to their "core" producing properties - those areas with the lowest-cost, most accessible shale reserves - and dramatically improved their productivity (Chart 7). A collapse in services costs allowed LTO producers to maintain core operations and continue to advance shale-oil technology. At the end of the day, this made the global supply curve more elastic, in that LTO production now allowed higher demand to be met by smaller price increases than had been the case in the lead-up to the GFC. The increased elasticity of supply from U.S. shales, and the increased quantity supply by OPEC is depicted in Chart 8, which picks up from Hamilton's (2009) analysis shown in Chart 2. Chart 7U.S. Shale Productivity Surged ##br##During OPEC's Market-Share War U.S Shale Productivity Surged During OPEC's Market-Share War U.S Shale Productivity Surged During OPEC's Market-Share War Chart 8Global Oil Supply##br## Transformed By 2014H1 The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? OPEC's Market-Share War Failed We contend the KSA - Russia production Agreement negotiated at the end of last year represents an abandonment of OPEC's market-share strategy. If, as recent research suggests, this strategy was an attempt to "squeeze" higher-cost shale production from the market by increasing OPEC crude supplies, it was a failure: The market-share strategy imperiled the finances of OPEC and non-OPEC states heavily dependent on oil revenues to sustain themselves, and left U.S. shale production more resilient than it was prior to the market-share war being declared.5 The surge in shale supplies and in OPEC's quantity supplied to the market during its market-share war, coupled with slower growth following the dramatic increase in EM demand in 2010 - 2012, led to unintended inventory accumulation worldwide, which has kept global storage at record levels. This is the central issue being addressed by the OPEC - non-OPEC production Agreement to remove up to 1.8mm b/d of production from the market. In effect, the KSA - Russia deal is inducing a supply shock to shift the global supply curve back to the left, after it was pushed down and to the right from 2014H2 to 2015H2, as depicted in Chart 9. In and of itself, this should lift and stabilize prices by the end of this year. We expect this induced supply shock will begin to force more visible inventories - e.g., in the U.S. and OECD generally - to draw rapidly. We continue to expect OECD stocks to reach 5-year average levels by year-end 2017, and for prices to reach $60/bbl by year end (Chart 10). We do not believe an extension in OPEC 2.0's production Agreement is needed to achieve this. Chart 9KSA - Russia Deal Is An Induced Supply Shock##br## Intended To Shift The Curve Back To The Left The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? Chart 10Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year ##br##Averages By End-2017 Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year Averages By End-2017 Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year Averages By End-2017 It goes without saying, the parties to OPEC 2.0's production-management deal must maintain production discipline for this strategy to be able to evolve to the next level, where they attempt to restore a measure of price inelasticity to the global supply curve. If they are successful, then they will be able to exercise a degree of control over prices using spare capacity, storage and forward guidance to achieve and defend specific targets. If not, the market will do the hard work of destroying high-cost supply with lower prices. The End Game For KSA - Russia For the KSA - Russia Agreement to affect U.S. shale output over the medium to longer term, they have to coordinate production in a way that keeps WTI prices from rising to the point where shale-oil producers are able to step outside their "core" production areas. We believe over the short term, this price is between $55/bbl and $60/bbl. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has illustrated that the "true" breakeven for shale producers is much closer to $50/bbl, than the $30/bbl figure oft cited in the media.6 However, above $60/bbl, more costly reserves can be developed and still produce acceptable returns for LTO drillers. Therefore, if prices can be kept below $60/bbl, and the induced supply shock engineered by KSA and Russia causes oil inventories to draw as we expect this year, we believe the resulting backwardation in WTI will limit the rate at which rigs return to the field. In our modeling, we find shale rig counts to be sensitive to the shape of the forward curve for WTI. A backwardated curve translates into fewer rigs returning to the field than a flat or contango curve. In one model we estimated, we found a 10% backwardation from mid-2017 to end-2018 resulted in a rig count that was close to 18% below the rig count that could be expected from a relatively flat forward curve. The only way we see for KSA and Russia to affect the shape of the WTI forward curve over the short term - to end 2018 - is to use their own spare capacity and storage to keep the front of the curve below $60/bbl, and to provide forward guidance that they are able to adjust supply markets over the short- to medium-term in a manner that keeps the forward curve backwardated. This will require short-term production coordination among the states comprising OPEC 2.0, so that refinery demand is met out of current production plus inventories, and that unforeseen outages are remedied quickly. This is a short-term fix. It likely can be implemented this year and carried into next year. However, beyond that, it is difficult to see how KSA and Russia, and their respective allies, will coordinate production, storage operations and forward guidance having never attempted such an effort in the past. However, we are reasonably sure members of OPEC 2.0 are discussing how to implement such coordination. Keeping the front of the curve at a price that dissuades shale producers from expanding beyond their "core" production also will limit the amount of investment that can be made in non-Gulf OPEC production, which already is in decline, and other higher-cost conventional production like deep water.7 This, coupled with the $1-trillion-plus cuts to global capex for projects that would have been producing between 2015 - 2020 resulting from the 2015 - 16 price collapse could produce a supply deficit by 2019 that only can be remedied by significantly higher prices that not only encourage new higher-cost production but destroys demand in the meantime while that production is being developed. Bottom Line: We expect the KSA - Russia Agreement to produce a physical deficit this year that draws OECD oil inventories down by ~ 300mm barrels by year end. We also expect to see deeper coordination among the petro-states that are party to this Agreement - OPEC 2.0 - this year and next, which will keep the WTI forward curve backwardated into 2018. While we expect WTI prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 - and to trade between $45 and $65/bbl most of the time - our level of conviction in that forecast is low beyond 2018. It is not clear OPEC 2.0 can endure beyond the short term (into 2018). We will be watching the response of U.S. shale producers to increasing demand, and increasing decline-curve losses outside the U.S. shales, the Gulf OPEC producers and Russia, where we expect production declines to accelerate. As we have noted often in the past, the loss of more than $1 trillion of capex will place an enormous burden on U.S. shales, Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia. If any one of these cannot deliver higher volumes when called upon, prices could move sharply above $65/bbl after 2018 going forward. Likewise, we will be watching to see if OPEC 2.0 is capable of setting and meeting production and inventory goals. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Workers to end strike at Peru's top copper mine Cerro Verde," published March 30, 2017, by miningweekly.com. 2 Please see "Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08," by James D. Hamilton, in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2009, particularly pp. 228 - 234. 3 Please see "P5+1 and Iran agree on nuclear negotiation framework in Vienna," published February 20, 2014, by cnn.com. The sanctions were lifted in early 2016; see "Iran nuclear deal: Five effects of lifting sanctions," published January 18, 2016, by bbc.com. 4 For an in-depth analysis of OPEC's market-share war, please see the Special Report entitled "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," published jointly by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy groups on April 9, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash," published September 8, 2016, and our "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," published December 8, 2016, in which we discuss the toll lower oil prices were taking on oil-dependent states including KSA and Russia. See also "The Dynamics of the Revenue Maximization - Market Share Trade-Off: Saudi Arabia's Oil Policy in the 2014 - 2015 Price Fall," by Bassam Fattouh, Rahmatallah Poudineh and Anupama Sen, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in October 2015, and "An analysis of OPEC's strategic actions, US shale growth and the 2014 oil price crash," by Alberto Behar and Robert A. Ritz, published by the IMF July 2016. Both papers consider OPEC's market-share war vis-à-vis U.S. shale-oil production, the strategy of squeezing shale producers from the market by increasing supply and lowering prices, and the likelihood for success. 6 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient," dated March 15, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" in this week's Energy Sector Strategy, which takes an in-depth look at the stagnant-to-declining production in conventional oil-producing provinces outside the U.S. onshore, Middle East OPEC and Russia, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? Summary of Trades Closed In 2016

Highlights Dear Client, In this analysis, my colleague Bob Ryan of the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy argues that there is more upside to oil prices. First, Russia and OPEC will continue to coordinate their production for at least the rest of the year. Second, oil prices are too low to incentivize high cost, non-Gulf OPEC production, such as deep-water production. Third, the world lost roughly $1-trillion-plus of capex due to the oil-price collapse. Bob collaborates frequently with the Geopolitical Strategy team. As we controversially argued in February 2016, Saudi-Iranian tensions have peaked and created the geopolitical conditions for a renewal of OPEC production coordination. With oil prices plumbing decade lows in 2015-2016, both countries have set regional differences aside for the sake of domestic stability. I hope that you will enjoy Bob's note as much as I did. Many clients with whom I have met in person already know the view well, as it forms the core of Geopolitical Strategy's view on the Middle East. For those of you who are not subscribed to BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, I would recommend that you reach out to your account manager for a trial of both services. Kindest Regards, Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Feature KSA, Russia and their allies - OPEC 2.0 - are trying to regain control of oil fundamentals produced by one of the most unlikely combinations of events ever seen in the history of the oil market. This week, we review how we arrived at the market conditions we now confront, and consider a possible strategy evolving out of the production-cutting Agreement (the "Agreement" for short) that may allow them to do so. Current markets conditions were spawned by a surge in EM oil demand in the early part of the 21st century, which met an almost perfectly inelastic supply curve. This took prices from $55/bbl in 2005 to more than $140/bbl by the end of 2008H1 (Chart Of The Week). Along the way, some 5mm b/d of DM oil demand had to be destroyed by higher prices to make room for the EM growth depicted in Chart 2, which is taken from an analysis by Hamilton (2009).1 Chart Of The WeekEM Consumption Surge, Flat Production##br## Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC EM Consumption Surge, Flat Production Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC EM Consumption Surge, Flat Production Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC Chart 2High Prices Were Required ##br##To Balance Markets Pre-GFC The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? These high prices combined with the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) low-interest rate regime into a perfect storm, which allowed the supply side to evolve the shale technology in the U.S. Steadily rising light-tight-oil (LTO) production has profoundly altered the market, forcing OPEC and non-OPEC petro-states to devise a strategy to contain this surge. Whether they can do so is yet to be determined. In this article we consider one strategy that might allow OPEC 2.0 to regain some control over pricing and the rate of growth in shale production, but it is highly dependent on them maintaining production discipline and finding a way to coordinate their production. First, though, a quick review. How Did We Get Here? The GFC dragged all markets lower, leaving oil prices just above $40/bbl by the end of 2008. In the wake of the GFC, central banks led by the Fed pursued massively accommodative monetary policies, which took interest rates to the zero lower bound. OPEC, led by KSA, drastically cut supplies to remove a huge unintended inventory accumulation that developed as demand collapsed (Chart 3). While DM oil demand remained depressed in the wake of the GFC, EM governments, led by China, massively stimulated their economies, which lifted global oil consumption more than 4% by 2010 (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices,##br## Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices, Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices, Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 Chart 4EM Lifted Global##br## Demand Post-GFC EM Lifted Global Demand Post-GFC EM Lifted Global Demand Post-GFC Growth in global supplies post-GFC, meanwhile, was more measured. OPEC total liquids production from 2009 to 2014 averaged just below 0.05% growth yoy. Part of this meager growth in OPEC production no doubt was explained by lower production from the Cartel resulting from civil war in Libya and nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, which reduced overall output. It also is possible the fall-out from the GFC and the euro-area crisis of 2009 - 2011 kept OPEC producers from committing to higher production as well. Be that as it may, EM demand growth, along with OPEC's lower output, allowed prices to again trade above $100/bbl by 2011 and stay there till mid-2014 (Chart 5). The years-long combination of near-zero interest rates and high oil prices allowed U.S. shale-oil production to advance in leaps and bounds, such that by 2014, yoy light-tight oil (LTO) production from the shales was growing at more than 1mm b/d (Chart 6). Chart 5EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation##br## Keep Prices Above 0/bbl To 2014H1 EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation Keep Prices Above $100/bbl To 2014H1 EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation Keep Prices Above $100/bbl To 2014H1 Chart 6High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale##br## Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 Now What? OPEC underestimated the magnitude of the shale-oil revolution, as did most observers. However, KSA, the leader of the Cartel, was pre-occupied with geopolitical considerations, chiefly its ongoing proxy wars throughout the Middle East with Iran and its allies. High prices allowed it to build its reserves and fund these proxy wars. This ended when Iran and western powers began negotiating an end to sanctions, which, if successful, would once again allow Iran to access foreign capital and technology to develop its economy.2 As the negotiations to remove sanctions on Iran progressed, KSA led OPEC into a market-share war at the end of 2014, presumably to take back customers lost to shale, particularly in the U.S. We do not believe OPEC's primary aim in declaring a market-share war was to crush U.S. shale output. Indeed, we have consistently maintained the market-share war was more an extension of KSA's and Iran's proxy wars throughout the Middle East, and that KSA was using the pump-at-will strategy to limit revenues that would flow to Iran in the post-sanctions environment. The secondary target of the market-share war was U.S. shale production, but, even then we maintained shale-oil production was needed to keep prices from revisiting $140/bbl-plus levels.3 The market-share war tanked prices, as OPEC increased the quantity of oil it would supply at lower prices. In particular, Saudi Arabia surged production from November 2014, into the collapse of oil prices. Over time, the market-share strategy destroyed high-cost supply worldwide. U.S. shale production fell ~ 15% from a high of ~ 5.3mm b/d in March 2015 in the four largest LTO basins to a low of ~ 4.5mm b/d, by our reckoning, in 2017Q1. At the same time, non-Gulf OPEC production fell dramatically as well, close to 8% in 2016 yoy to an average of 7.7mm b/d. Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia, however, saw production increase 6.5% and 2% yoy, respectively, to close to 25mm b/d and 11.2mm b/d in 2016. In the aftermath of the price collapse, U.S. shale producers retreated to their "core" producing properties - those areas with the lowest-cost, most accessible shale reserves - and dramatically improved their productivity (Chart 7). A collapse in services costs allowed LTO producers to maintain core operations and continue to advance shale-oil technology. At the end of the day, this made the global supply curve more elastic, in that LTO production now allowed higher demand to be met by smaller price increases than had been the case in the lead-up to the GFC. The increased elasticity of supply from U.S. shales, and the increased quantity supply by OPEC is depicted in Chart 8, which picks up from Hamilton's (2009) analysis shown in Chart 2. Chart 7U.S. Shale Productivity Surged##br## During OPEC"s Market-Share War U.S. Shale Productivity Surged During OPEC"s Market-Share War U.S. Shale Productivity Surged During OPEC"s Market-Share War Chart 8Global Oil Supply ##br##Transformed By 2014H1 The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? OPEC's Market-Share War Failed We contend the KSA - Russia production Agreement negotiated at the end of last year represents an abandonment of OPEC's market-share strategy. If, as recent research suggests, this strategy was an attempt to "squeeze" higher-cost shale production from the market by increasing OPEC crude supplies, it was a failure: The market-share strategy imperiled the finances of OPEC and non-OPEC states heavily dependent on oil revenues to sustain themselves, and left U.S. shale production more resilient than it was prior to the market-share war being declared.4 The surge in shale supplies and in OPEC's quantity supplied to the market during its market-share war, coupled with slower growth following the dramatic increase in EM demand in 2010 - 2012, led to unintended inventory accumulation worldwide, which has kept global storage at record levels. This is the central issue being addressed by the OPEC - non-OPEC production Agreement to remove up to 1.8mm b/d of production from the market. In effect, the KSA - Russia deal is inducing a supply shock to shift the global supply curve back to the left, after it was pushed down and to the right from 2014H2 to 2015H2, as depicted in Chart 9. In and of itself, this should lift and stabilize prices by the end of this year. We expect this induced supply shock will begin to force more visible inventories - e.g., in the U.S. and OECD generally - to draw rapidly. We continue to expect OECD stocks to reach 5-year average levels by year-end 2017, and for prices to reach $60/bbl by year end (Chart 10). We do not believe an extension in OPEC 2.0's production Agreement is needed to achieve this. Chart 9KSA - Russia Deal Is An Induced Supply Shock ##br##Intended To Shift The Curve Back To The Left The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? Chart 10Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year##br## Averages By End-2017 Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year Averages By End-2017 Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year Averages By End-2017 It goes without saying, the parties to OPEC 2.0's production-management deal must maintain production discipline for this strategy to be able to evolve to the next level, where they attempt to restore a measure of price inelasticity to the global supply curve. If they are successful, then they will be able to exercise a degree of control over prices using spare capacity, storage and forward guidance to achieve and defend specific targets. If not, the market will do the hard work of destroying high-cost supply with lower prices. The End Game For KSA - Russia For the KSA - Russia Agreement to affect U.S. shale output over the medium to longer term, they have to coordinate production in a way that keeps WTI prices from rising to the point where shale-oil producers are able to step outside their "core" production areas. We believe over the short term, this price is between $55/bbl and $60/bbl. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has illustrated that the "true" breakeven for shale producers is much closer to $50/bbl, than the $30/bbl figure oft cited in the media.5 However, above $60/bbl, more costly reserves can be developed and still produce acceptable returns for LTO drillers. Therefore, if prices can be kept below $60/bbl, and the induced supply shock engineered by KSA and Russia causes oil inventories to draw as we expect this year, we believe the resulting backwardation in WTI will limit the rate at which rigs return to the field. In our modeling, we find shale rig counts to be sensitive to the shape of the forward curve for WTI. A backwardated curve translates into fewer rigs returning to the field than a flat or contango curve. In one model we estimated, we found a 10% backwardation from mid-2017 to end-2018 resulted in a rig count that was close to 18% below the rig count that could be expected from a relatively flat forward curve. The only way we see for KSA and Russia to affect the shape of the WTI forward curve over the short term - to end 2018 - is to use their own spare capacity and storage to keep the front of the curve below $60/bbl, and to provide forward guidance that they are able to adjust supply markets over the short- to medium-term in a manner that keeps the forward curve backwardated. This will require short-term production coordination among the states comprising OPEC 2.0, so that refinery demand is met out of current production plus inventories, and that unforeseen outages are remedied quickly. This is a short-term fix. It likely can be implemented this year and carried into next year. However, beyond that, it is difficult to see how KSA and Russia, and their respective allies, will coordinate production, storage operations and forward guidance having never attempted such an effort in the past. However, we are reasonably sure members of OPEC 2.0 are discussing how to implement such coordination. Keeping the front of the curve at a price that dissuades shale producers from expanding beyond their "core" production also will limit the amount of investment that can be made in non-Gulf OPEC production, which already is in decline, and other higher-cost conventional production like deep water.6 This, coupled with the $1-trillion-plus cuts to global capex for projects that would have been producing between 2015 - 2020 resulting from the 2015 - 16 price collapse could produce a supply deficit by 2019 that only can be remedied by significantly higher prices that not only encourage new higher-cost production but destroys demand in the meantime while that production is being developed. Bottom Line: We expect the KSA - Russia Agreement to produce a physical deficit this year that draws OECD oil inventories down by ~ 300mm barrels by year end. We also expect to see deeper coordination among the petro-states that are party to this Agreement - OPEC 2.0 - this year and next, which will keep the WTI forward curve backwardated into 2018. While we expect WTI prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 - and to trade between $45 and $65/bbl most of the time - our level of conviction in that forecast is low beyond 2018. It is not clear OPEC 2.0 can endure beyond the short term (into 2018). We will be watching the response of U.S. shale producers to increasing demand, and increasing decline-curve losses outside the U.S. shales, the Gulf OPEC producers and Russia, where we expect production declines to accelerate. As we have noted often in the past, the loss of more than $1 trillion of capex will place an enormous burden on U.S. shales, Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia. If any one of these cannot deliver higher volumes when called upon, prices could move sharply above $65/bbl after 2018 going forward. Likewise, we will be watching to see if OPEC 2.0 is capable of setting and meeting production and inventory goals. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08," by James D. Hamilton, in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2009, particularly pp. 228 - 234. 2 Please see "P5+1 and Iran agree on nuclear negotiation framework in Vienna," published February 20, 2014, by cnn.com. The sanctions were lifted in early 2016; see "Iran nuclear deal: Five effects of lifting sanctions," published January 18, 2016, by bbc.com. 3 For an in-depth analysis of OPEC's market-share war, please see the Special Report entitled "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," published jointly by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy groups on April 9, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash," published September 8, 2016, and our "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," published December 8, 2016, in which we discuss the toll lower oil prices were taking on oil-dependent states including KSA and Russia. See also "The Dynamics of the Revenue Maximization - Market Share Trade-Off: Saudi Arabia's Oil Policy in the 2014 - 2015 Price Fall," by Bassam Fattouh, Rahmatallah Poudineh and Anupama Sen, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in October 2015, and "An analysis of OPEC's strategic actions, US shale growth and the 2014 oil price crash," by Alberto Behar and Robert A. Ritz, published by the IMF July 2016. Both papers consider OPEC's market-share war vis-à-vis U.S. shale-oil production, the strategy of squeezing shale producers from the market by increasing supply and lowering prices, and the likelihood for success. 5 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient," dated March 15, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" in this week's Energy Sector Strategy, which takes an in-depth look at the stagnant-to-declining production in conventional oil-producing provinces outside the U.S. onshore, Middle East OPEC and Russia, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The end game for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Russia and their respective allies is fairly obvious: Remove enough production from the market to draw down storage and make the oil-supply curve, once again, more inelastic. This would allow these states to use forward guidance and small adjustments in production to influence prices, the sine qua non of petro-states desperate to maintain revenues and diversify away from near-complete dependence on hydrocarbon exports. We think the effort will succeed over the short run. Just how durable this pact will be remains to be seen, given oil is, once again, super-abundant. If production discipline breaks down, all bets are off. Energy: Overweight. We are now solidly positioned for backwardation in oil - long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI and Brent; these positions are up 141.6% and 68.4%, respectively. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks: We are long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017; these positions are up 7.66% on average. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at Chile's Escondida mine are back on the job, after a 44-day strike. The strike is estimated to have cost BHP Billiton some $1 billion, according to Reuters.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold has rallied by 4.3% since the FOMC raised overnight rates. Our long volatility position - long a Jun/17 put and call spread for $21/oz - is down 30%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The long-awaited and much-anticipated USDA planting intentions report is due out tomorrow. We remain bearish, expecting an early indication stocks-to-use ratios for grains and beans will remain elevated. Feature Chart of the WeekStorage Was Well On Its Way to Drawing##br## Before the Year-End Production Surge Storage Was Well On Its Way to Drawing Before the Year-End Production Surge Storage Was Well On Its Way to Drawing Before the Year-End Production Surge KSA and Russia have to make oil supply more inelastic in order to regain some control over where prices go and, consequently, where their revenues go. Their end game is obvious - i.e., remove the excess oil production that pushed inventories to historically high levels - but their execution has been, at best, halting. Prior to KSA and Russia delivering an historic production-management Agreement at the end of last year, oil markets were well on the way to removing the storage overhang by year-end 2017, as any Econ 101 text would have suggested. Low prices following OPEC's market-share war declaration destroyed supply and lifted demand, which was drawing down stocks. This is easily seen in the Chart of the Week showing inventories beginning to head south in mid-2016. Then came the KSA - Russia Agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers to cut output by some 1.8mm b/d. The goal of the deal was to accelerate the drawdown in record high storage levels. Even while the deal was being negotiated, it was apparent some producers in the know were getting a jump on shipping those last barrels out the door before they were obliged to cut. This produced the end-of-year production surge, which swelled global inventories. The year-end surge by OPEC and non-OPEC producers could be expected (Chart 2), but it came at a really bad time for the market, since 1Q17 also was when refiners took units down for maintenance. This is fairly routine, but in some key markets like the U.S. Gulf, the current maintenance season was busier than average, according to the EIA (Chart 3). This left a lot of crude in storage, as product inventories were being drawn. Chart 2Year-End Production Surge ##br##Powered The Storage Build Year-End Production Surge Powered The Storage Build Year-End Production Surge Powered The Storage Build Chart 3Maintenance Season In 1Q17 ##br##Exacerbated The Storage Build Maintenance Season In 1Q17 Exacerbated The Storage Build Maintenance Season In 1Q17 Exacerbated The Storage Build Where are we today? Most of the pre-Agreement production and export surge has been absorbed, and inventories in the U.S. are drawing a bit. Floating storage has been drained. But, in an interesting economic twist, OECD storage levels are likely to reach the targeted drawdown of 10% (300mm bbl) by year-end 2017, which is exactly what would have happened absent any action by KSA and Russia at the end of last year. It is difficult to resist reiterating that had nothing been done at the end of last year by KSA and Russia, and the market was left to do its necessary work of removing high-cost production and encouraging increased demand via lower prices, the market would have ended up in the exact same place it now finds itself. Trust But Verify Be that as it may, the really hard work of the KSA - Russia deal now begins. We expect OECD inventories to hit the 10% drawdown target by year end. However, if parties to the deal do not maintain production discipline markets will almost surely take prices lower. This could easily happen if prices start to percolate as we expect in 2Q17, and cash-strapped non-OPEC producers decide to see how far they can push KSA and its Gulf-state allies on their deal. Russia has been slow to deliver on its production commitment, while KSA has over-delivered (Chart 4). The same can be said for their respective allies (Chart 5). We believe markets will remain skittish, until evidence Russia and Iraq also are abiding by the end-2016 Agreement becomes incontrovertible. It is true Russian President Vladimir Putin personally involved himself in this deal, and helped close it on the non-OPEC side, but markets will want proof production actually is falling. Like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, markets may be willing to trust, but they certainly will want to verify compliance. Chart 4KSA Over-Delivers On Its Cuts, ##br##Russia Is Slow To Deliver KSA Over-Delivers On Its Cuts, Russia Is Slow To Deliver KSA Over-Delivers On Its Cuts, Russia Is Slow To Deliver Chart 5KSA's Allies Are Delivering, ##br##Russia's Not So Much KSA’s Allies Are Delivering, Russia’s Not So Much KSA’s Allies Are Delivering, Russia’s Not So Much While not our base case, it is possible Russia and its fellow travelers could decide to risk keeping their production above agreed volumes under the Agreement, in the belief KSA is more in need of keeping prices above $50/bbl or so over the next 18 months, given the Kingdom wants a successful IPO of state-owned Saudi Aramco. Should this occur, markets would correct violently. At the end of the day, such a gamble likely would be ruinous for both, if it provoked KSA to abandon its commitment to keep production below 10mm b/d. Short-term goals - getting OECD storage levels down to five-year averages - would be sacrificed. Importantly, long-term goals we believe are driving KSA and Russia to cooperate in the first place, namely developing a modus operandi for containing U.S. shale-oil output, will become moot, possibly returning the market to the production free-for-all that motivated the KSA - Russia dialogue. The Quest For Relevance Chart 6Odds Favor Backwardated Markets ##br##As the Production Cuts Lead To Physical Deficits Odds Favor Backwardated Markets As the Production Cuts Lead To Physical Deficits Odds Favor Backwardated Markets As the Production Cuts Lead To Physical Deficits Our base case envisions a successful KSA - Russia Agreement in which production discipline is maintained, and the deal produces its desired result - drawing storage down by ~ 300mm bbls. Forward curves then backwardate (Chart 6). This sets the stage for deeper discussions among KSA, Russia and their respective allies re how they can work together going forward to contain U.S. shale-oil production. In effect, the parties to this deal have a choice to make: Either they figure out a way to make room for shale, which has catapulted the U.S. to major-producer status once again, or they leave this to the market. We are fairly confident these discussions already are ongoing, and will be well advanced by year-end. Next week, we will be publishing a theoretical piece on how the KSA - Russia pact could provide a platform that allows these petro-states - which we are taking the liberty of dubbing OPEC 2.0 - to re-gain a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. In earlier research, we advanced a theory that shale rig counts are highly sensitive not only to the level of prices at the front of the curve, but to the curve shape itself. We were able to demonstrate that contango markets - i.e., prices for promptly delivered crude are less than prices for deferred delivery material - favor shale producers, and, all else equal, incentivize them to hedge forward so as to lock in future revenues that maximize the number of rigs they deploy.2 In backwardated markets, the number of rigs a shale operator is able to deploy is lower, all else equal, which means the revenue they can lock in by hedging forward is lower. This limits the rate at which the resource can be developed. Based on these theoretical results, we believe it is in the interest of the OPEC 2.0 states to keep the WTI forward curve in backwardation, so that, at the margin, the number of rigs deployed to the shales is contained. Our research suggests that the deeper the backwardation, the slower rig counts grow. So, if the ideal price level for KSA is, as has been reported in the media, $60/bbl for Brent, then, in the best of all worlds, the Kingdom, Russia and their respective allies target spot prices at this level and use production, storage and forward guidance to backwardate the WTI curve, which is used by shale producers to hedge.3 Such a strategy has numerous risks, particularly if OPEC 2.0 cannot react quickly enough to keep prices from rising above a level that keeps shale-oil producers restricted to their core production areas. This would allow higher-cost shale reserves to be brought on line, which would raise the likelihood of lower prices, and cost OPEC 2.0 market share.4 Such a strategy also would tempt OPEC 2.0 producers to free ride, raising production at the margin to increase their revenues. This also risks lower prices. Nonetheless, we believe such a strategy could benefit both KSA and Russia and their allies, which is why it likely will at least be considered and attempted.5 KSA would be able to IPO Aramco into a relatively stable higher-price market, which would allow it to invest in additional refinery capacity in Asia and elsewhere, and in alternative-energy resources like solar, to free up oil for export. Russia also is better off keeping prices at a level at which its economy can continue to work on diversifying its exposure away from its heavy dependence on oil and gas exports.6 We will present more of our thinking on this next week. In the meantime, we highly recommend BCA clients read Matt Conlan's article in this week's Energy Sector Strategy entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery."7 This is an excellent analysis of shale-oil economics. Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude and products storage to draw as production cuts become apparent and refiners bring units back up off maintenance. This will backwardate WTI and Brent forward curves. Based on our high level of conviction in this outcome, we added a long Brent Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 Brent position to our recommended trades, along with a similar WTI position. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks, by being long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017. We continue to expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 and for WTI prices to trade most of the time between $45/bbl and $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, we expect the spread between Brent and WTI prices to average $1.50/bbl (Brent over). Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Escondida outcome seen as disaster for BHP as workers return," published by Reuters.com on March 24, 2017. 2 We introduced this line of research in our February 16, 2017, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "North American Oil Pipeline Buildout Complicates Price And Storage Expectations," it is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We continue to delve into this topic, and will be presenting out latest thinking next week. 3 Please see "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia wants oil prices to rise to around $60 in 2017 - sources," published by Reuters February 28, 2017. Russia's budgeting assumption for 2017 to 2019 is $40/bbl, according to a Bloomberg report from March 24, 2017, entitled "OPEC Be Warned: Russia Prepares for Oil at $40." 4 It is not in KSA's, Russia's or their allies' interests to kill off shale production. The more-than-$1 trillion of capex for projects that would have been developed between 2015 and 2020, and would have translated into some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production will not be available to the market beginning later this decade. As we have noted, an enormous burden will be placed on shale production, Gulf OPEC producers and Russia to meet growing demand later this decade. 5 We also would note this would be a boon to long-only commodity index investors, whose returns are driven by roll yields that only exist in backwardated markets. More on that in subsequent research as well. 6 Russia's exports are dominated by oil and gas, while KSA's are dominated by crude oil and, increasingly, refined products. In 2015, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calculated close to 70% of Russia's economy is dependent on revenue from hydrocarbons - production, trade, investments in non-oil industries funded by oil revenues, and consumption made possible via oil and gas production and sales. We discuss this at length in the September 8, 2016, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." 7 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery," This article was published March 29, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights EM equity valuations are neutral. Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer some value, but this primarily reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. According to the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM stocks are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon - longer than two to three years. Corporate profits are much more important than equity valuations in driving share prices in the next 12 months. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months. Maintain a defensive posture and an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM. A new trade: go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones. Feature Chart I-1EM P/E Ratio And EPS EM P/E Ratio And EPS EM P/E Ratio And EPS There is ongoing debate in the investment community concerning whether emerging markets (EM) equities are or are not cheap, in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM). In this week's report we review various equity valuation indicators and reiterate that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms. For example, the average of trailing and forward P/E ratios is slightly above its historical mean (Chart I-1, top panel). Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer value, but this reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. Despite this, we recommend underweighting EM vs U.S./DM because the cyclical growth dynamics is much better in DM than EM. EM stocks are cheap if one assumes a strong earnings recovery (Chart I-1, bottom panel). If earnings per share (EPS) begin contracting anew, as we expect, then the current rally will be reversed sooner than later. Overall, we continue to recommend a defensive posture for absolute-return investors and maintaining an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM for asset allocators. Valuation Perspectives Below we consider several valuation ratios: The equal-sector weighted trailing P/E ratio is 17.7 for EM (Chart I-2). Table I-1 displays equal-sector weighted P/E ratio, price-to-book value ratio and dividend yields for major equity markets globally. This is an apples-to-apples comparison, as it assigns equal weights to each of the 10 MSCI sectors - i.e., it removes sector biases. Chart I-2Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Table I-1Equal-Sector Weighted Valuation Ratios Across EM And DM EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited Hence, on a comparable basis, EM equities are only slightly cheaper than DM stocks as is evident in Table I-1. Besides, the composite valuation indicator based on equal-sector weighted trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield indicate that EM stocks are fairly valued (Chart I-3). The cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. The CAPE ratio is a structural valuation measure, i.e. it matters in the long run. Importantly, it assumes that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS will revert to its historical mean or trend. In short, the CAPE ratio tells us what the P/E ratio would be if EPS were to revert to its historical trend. Chart I-4 illustrates the EM CAPE ratio. If EM EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms reaches its historical time trend, one can safely assume that EM stocks are cheap and currently worth buying. In a nutshell, the current CAPE ratio of 15 assumes that EM EPS should rise by about 30% in nominal U.S. dollar terms over an investor's time horizon. Chart I-3EM Equities Valuations Are Neutral bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c3 Chart I-4EM CAPE Ratio EM CAPE Ratio EM CAPE Ratio Given that our time horizon is 12 months, the assumption that EM EPS will surge by about 30% in U.S. dollar terms is in our view ambitious. Therefore, we posit that EM share prices do not offer compelling value at all in the next 12 months. If one's investment horizon were two-to-three years or longer, the assumption that EPS will rise by 30% or more in U.S. dollar terms is much more plausible. In this sense we would concur that EM share prices offer decent value from a longer-term perspective. Our methodology of calculating the CAPE ratio for EM varies from the well-known Robert Shiller's CAPE ratio for the U.S.1 However, even when applying our CAPE methodology to U.S. equities, the resulting ratio is not very different from Shiller's CAPE (Chart I-5). Trimmed-mean equity valuation ratios. Chart 6 illustrates 20% trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yields for the EM equity universe. A 20% trimmed-mean ratio excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of industry groups, and then calculates the average. All calculations are based on 50 EM industry group data available from MSCI. Why look at trimmed-mean valuation ratios? Because by removing the top and bottom 10% of industry groups, this measure excludes outliers and provides a better perspective on valuation. A few observations are in order: First, according to the trimmed-mean valuation ratios, EM equities are not cheap. The trimmed-mean ratios are close to their historical mean (Chart I-6). Second, the trimmed-mean ratios are well above their market cap ones. This indicates that there are a few industry groups with large market caps that pull EM multiples lower. In other words, market-cap weighted multiples are skewed to the downside by a few large industry groups. There are reasons why some sectors and countries have low or high equity multiples. It makes sense to exclude them. Finally, the composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/Es, PBV and price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield demonstrates that EM equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. CAPE Ratios U.S. CAPE Ratios U.S. CAPE Ratios Chart I-6EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value Chart I-7EM Equities Have Neutral Value bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c7 Bottom Line: EM equities by and large command a neutral valuation. According to the CAPE ratio, EM equities are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon, say two-to-three years or longer. Profits Hold The Key Valuations are not a good timing tool. For low equity valuations to be realized, i.e., to produce solid price gains, corporate profits should grow. The reverse is also true: for an overvalued market to decline, company earnings should contract, or at least disappoint. When valuations are neutral - as they currently are for the EM equity benchmark - a recovery in EPS should entail higher share prices, while EPS shrinkage should lead to a selloff. EM EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months, given the rally in commodities prices in 2016, amelioration in China's business cycle and the technology sector boom in Asia. However, this moderate and short-lived EPS recovery is already priced in. For the market to rally further, EPS will need to expand beyond the next three to six months. Remarkably, there has been little improvement in EM ex-China domestic demand. Besides, the risk to bank loan growth remains to the downside both in China and EM ex-China. Slower loan growth and the need to recognize and provision for potentially large NPLs will pressure banks' profits in many EM countries. Finally, we expect oil and industrial metals prices to decline considerably over the course of this year. If and as this view plays out, energy and materials stocks will fall. Energy and materials share prices correlate not with their past or current profits but rather with underlying commodities prices. One area where we remain bullish is the technology sector. Even though tech share prices are overbought and could correct in absolute terms in the months ahead, they will continue to outperform the benchmark. Bottom Line: Corporate profits are much more important in driving share prices in the next 12 months than equity valuations. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months or so, even though EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months. Timing Reversal: Watch Credit Quality Spreads Chart I-8Credit Quality Spreads: ##br##A Correction Or Reversal? Credit Quality Spreads: A Correction Or Reversal? Credit Quality Spreads: A Correction Or Reversal? Following are some of the indicators we are monitoring to gauge a reversal in EM share prices. EM corporate spreads have widened a notch relative to EM sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, top panel). Similarly, Chinese off-shore corporate spreads have widened versus Chinese sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, middle panel). Credit quality spreads - the gap between B- and BAA-grade corporate bonds - have widened slightly in the U.S. (Chart I-8, bottom panel). These moves are still very small, and do not constitute a definite sign of a major trend reversal. Nevertheless, such widening in credit quality spreads is an important development. If they persist, they will certainly sound the alarm for the reflation trade. Interestingly, this is the first time a simultaneous widening in credit quality spreads has occurred since the risk assets rally began in early 2016. Bottom Line: Major equity market selloffs will occur when lower quality credit begins to persistently underperform better quality credit. There have been budding signs of quality spread widening that are worth being monitored. Identifying Relative Value Within the EM equity universe, valuation ratios differ greatly. For example, banks trade at a trailing P/E of 9.7, while consumer staple stocks trade at 24.8. Table I-2 portrays the trailing P/E ratio and its historical mean as well as 12-month forward EPS growth and the forward P/E ratio for each sector - as well as average of trailing and forward P/E ratios. Table I-3 shows the same valuation measures but for EM countries. Table I-2Stock Valuation Snapshot: EM Sectors EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited Table I-3Equity Valuation Snapshot: EM Countries EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from these tables. On a general level, a simplistic approach to investing based on trailing and forward P/E ratios would not have produced great outcomes in EM in recent years. When analyzing EM stock valuations, we prefer to use the trailing rather than forward P/E ratio because historically, EM forward EPS have had a very poor record forecasting actual EPS. One of our favorite ways to identify relative value is to compare the PBV ratio and return on equity (RoE) across countries/sectors. Chart I-9 plots RoE on the X-axis and the PBV ratio on the Y axis. Countries and sectors located in the bottom right corner (at the low end of the shaded area) have a low PBV ratio compared to their RoE. In contrast, in the north-west side of the distribution (at the upper end of the shaded zone), these have an elevated PBV ratio, taking into account their RoE. Chart I-9Searching For Relative Value EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited Among countries, Korea, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and China appear cheap, while Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Malaysia and Poland are on the expensive side. Chart I-10EMS's Recommended ##br##Equity Portfolio Performance EMS's Recommended Equity Portfolio Performance EMS's Recommended Equity Portfolio Performance Concerning equity sectors, utilities and financials/banks are cheap, yet consumer staples and consumer discretionary, health care, telecom and materials appear expensive in relative terms. Our recommended country equity allocation is based on a qualitative assessment of many variables including but not limited to valuation. Chart I-10 displays the performance of our fully invested EM Equity Portfolio Model versus the EM benchmark. Our overweights presently include: Korea, Taiwan, India, China, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Peru. We are neutral on Mexico, Chile, Colombia, South Africa and the Philippines. The lists of our country allocation and other equity investment recommendations are presented each week at the end of our reports. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Bet On Russia's Non-Compliance With OPEC Odds of Russia's compliance with the OPEC agreement to cut oil output by 300k b/d in the next two months are low. This poses downside risk to oil prices. Russia has so far done only 120k b/d cuts. Hence, in the next two months it should reduce its output by 180k b/d which amounts to 1.6% of the nation's oil output. One way to bet on Russia's non-compliance, regardless the direction of oil prices, is to go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones (Chart II-1). There are a number of political, economic and financial motives why Russia might care less about lower oil prices than Saudi Arabia in the next 12-18 months or so. As a result, Russia might not cut as much as it is expected by the OPEC agreement. Russia is able to increase oil production due to a cheaper ruble and technology advances. BCA's Energy Sector Strategy team has been highlighting that there have been concerted efforts by Russia's largest producers to employ horizontal drilling and multi-zone hydraulic fracturing in Western Siberia.2 These have stemmed declines from those aging fields and allowed production to rise (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Long Russia Energy / ##br##Short Global Energy Stocks Long Russia Energy / Short Global Energy Stocks Long Russia Energy / Short Global Energy Stocks Chart II-2Russian Oil ##br##Production Will Increase Russian Oil Production Will Increase Russian Oil Production Will Increase Russia will not shy away from being opportunistic and increase its market share when it can ramp up oil production. A rising global oil market share will allow Russian companies to outperform their global peers regardless the direction of oil prices. There are major cyclical divergences between Russian and Saudi economies. Russia's economy is gradually picking up while there is less certainty about Saudi's growth recovery. The reason is that Russia has allowed the ruble to depreciate and act as a shock absorber. Meanwhile, Sa­­­­udis have stuck to the currency peg. ­­­Oil prices are down by 27% from their top in rubles and 55% in Saudi riyals (Chart II-3). This has reflated Russia's fiscal revenues and the economy, while Saudi Arabia is still struggling with the consequences of low ­oil prices. On the fiscal front, Russia went through a notable fiscal squeeze and its budget deficit is projected to be 3.2% of GDP in 2017 (Chart II-4). In contrast, the Saudi Arabian fiscal deficit in 2016 reached an outstanding 17% of GDP, accounting for the drawdown in reserves by our estimates.3 Chart II-3Ruble's Depreciation ##br##In 2014-15 Made a Difference Ruble's Depreciation In 2014-15 Made a Difference Ruble's Depreciation In 2014-15 Made a Difference Chart II-4Fiscal Deficit: Small In ##br##Russia & Large In Saudi Fiscal Deficit: Small In Russia & Large In Saudi Fiscal Deficit: Small In Russia & Large In Saudi More importantly, Russia's federal budget for 2017 was constructed on the oil price assumption of $40/bbl. The 2017 Saudi budget assumes oil price of $50/bbl.4 Therefore, Russia would not mind if oil prices drop toward or slightly below $40 in the second half of this year. Therefore, Saudis care much more about sustaining oil prices at a higher level than Russians do. Finally, Rosneft has already conducted its IPO while Aramco's IPO has not taken place yet. As such, the need for higher oil prices is much greater in Saudi Arabia - to justify a higher value of their oil giant - than in Russia. Bottom Line: Odds are considerable that Russia will not comply with the OPEC deal and this could cause oil prices to selloff more. Regardless of direction of oil prices, we expect the Russian energy sector to outperform their global peers due to Russia's rising market share in the global oil market. Go long Russian energy stocks / short global ones. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on our methodology of CAPE, please refer to January 20, 2016 Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "EM Equity Valuations: A CAPE Model", available at ems. bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Russian Oil Production: Surpassing Expectation", dated December 14, 2016, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Saudi Arabia: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain", dated February 1, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 https://mof.gov.sa/en/budget2017/Documents/The_National_Budget.pdf Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Trump's agenda has not derailed ... at least not yet; Europe remains a red herring ... as the Dutch showed; Turkey cannot restart Europe's immigration crisis; Supply-side reforms are still likely in France; The ECB will remain dovish for longer than expected; EUR/USD may rise in the short term, but it will relapse. Feature In this Weekly Report, we focus on the key questions regarding continental European politics. To begin, however, we will briefly address the U.S., since investors are starting to worry about whether President Donald Trump can get his legislative agenda through, given the recent testimony of FBI Director James Comey on the alleged interference of Russia in the U.S. election. There are three points to focus on in the U.S.: Chart 1Trump Not Dead To Republicans Yet Five Questions On Europe Five Questions On Europe The GOP base supports Trump: President Trump was always going to be a controversial president. Anyone who is surprised by it today clearly was not paying attention last year. In the long term, Trump's extraordinarily low popularity will be an albatross around his neck, draining his political capital. However, until the mid-term elections, his popularity with Republican voters is all that matters, and it remains strong (Chart 1). House Republicans have to worry that they could face pro-Trump challengers in primary elections in the summer ahead of the 2018 midterms. As such, as long as the Republican voters support Trump, he still has political capital. Republicans in Congress want tax reform: Budget-busting tax reform is not only a Trump policy, it is a Republican policy. We have already received plenty of signals from fiscal hawks in Congress that they intend to use "dynamic scoring," macroeconomic modeling that takes into account revenue-positive effects of tax cuts when assessing the impact on the budget, in order to justify cuts as revenue-neutral. Republicans are also looking at the repatriation of corporate earnings and a border adjustment tax to raise revenue. Obamacare delay may not mean much: We already pointed out before that the GOP intention to focus on Obamacare first, tax reform second, would get them in trouble.1 This is now playing out. Opposing the Obamacare replacement may make sense to small-government Tea Party members. Repeal, alone, is why they are in Congress in the first place, given the 2010 wave election. But opposing tax cuts - once justified by dynamic scoring as revenue neutral - will be much more difficult. The Tea Party is "small government" first, fiscal restraint second. In other words, if tax reform cuts taxes and reduces revenue available to Washington D.C., "temporary" budget deficits will be easy to swallow. This is not to say that the recent events have not hurt the chances of whopping tax cuts and infrastructure spending. In particular, we think that Congressional GOP members may take over the agenda if Trump loses any more political capital. And this will mean less budget-busting than Trump would have done. Also, tax reform was always going to be difficult as special interests and lobbyists were bound to get involved. Chart 2French Spreads Are Overstated French Spreads Are Overstated French Spreads Are Overstated In addition, the probability of an eventual Trump impeachment - were Republicans to lose the House, or grassroots Republicans to abandon him in droves - has risen. Investors can no longer ignore this issue, even though it was initially a liberal fantasy. However, all of these risks to the Trump agenda will likely spur the GOP in the House to focus on passing tax reform while they still have a majority in Congress and control of the White House. We still expect tax reform to be done this year - within the fiscal year 2018 reconciliation bill - as time now may truly be running out for Republicans. Europe, meanwhile remains a focal point in client meetings. Our view that Europe will be a geopolitical red herring in 2017 - and thus an investment opportunity - remains controversial. We will address Brexit and the new Scottish independence referendum in our report next week, to coincide with London's formal invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to initiate the exit proceedings. Popular support for independence in Scotland has been one of our measures of "Bregret" since last summer and it has just sprung back to life, which adds a new source of risk for investors. On the continent, investors are particularly concerned that the upcoming French election will follow the populist script from the U.K. and the U.S. last year. This worry has pushed French bond yield spreads over German bonds to the highest level since 2011, bringing French bonds into the same trend as peripheral bonds (Chart 2). Since the outbreak of the euro area's sovereign debt crisis, a tight correlation between French and Italian/Spanish bonds has signified systemic political risk. We disagree that political events represent a systemic risk to the euro area in 2017. This week, we address five critical questions inspired by challenges to our view presented by our clients in meetings and conference calls. Question 1: Is The Dutch Election Result Important? Few clients have asked for a post-mortem on the March 15 Dutch election, but many asked about the vote beforehand. It has come and gone with little fanfare. Financial media have brushed it aside as it does not fit the neat script of rising Euroskepticism on the continent. To recap, the Euroskeptic and populist Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, gained five seats in the election (13% of the votes cast), bringing its total support to 20 in the 150-seat parliament. Despite the gains, however, the election was an unmitigated disaster for Wilders, as the PVV was polling strong for most of the campaign and was expected to win between 30 and 35 seats (Chart 3). In terms of its share of total votes, the PVV's performance in 2017 trails its performance in the 2010 general election and the 2009 and 2014 European Parliament elections. Not only did the PVV underperform the past year's polls, but also they only managed to eke out their fourth-best performance ever. Chart 3Dutch Euroskeptics Were Always Overrated Five Questions On Europe Five Questions On Europe Chart 4Austria Leans Euroskeptic... Austria Leans Euroskeptic... Austria Leans Euroskeptic... Chart 5...Yet Chose A Europhile President ...Yet Chose A Europhile President ...Yet Chose A Europhile President It is a mistake to ignore these results. They teach us three valuable lessons: Trend reversal: In April of last year we warned clients that the upcoming Brexit referendum and U.S. elections had a much higher chance of populist outcomes than the European elections in 2017.2 The basis for our controversial claim was the notion that European social-welfare states dampened the pain of globalization for the middle class. We now have two elections that confirm our view that European voters are just not as angry as their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Aside from the Dutch, there is also the lesson from the similarly ignored Austrian presidential election last December. Despite Austria's baseline as a relatively Euroskeptic country (Chart 4), the right wing, populist candidate lost his solid lead in the last few weeks ahead of the election (Chart 5). Clients should not ignore Austria and the Netherlands, since both countries have a long tradition of Euroskepticism and their populist, anti-immigration parties are well established and highly competitive. If Euroskeptics cannot win here, where can they win? It's immigration, stupid: Investors should make a distinction between anti-immigrant and anti-euro sentiment. In both the Netherlands and Austria, it was anti-immigrant sentiment that propelled populist parties in the polls. However, as the migration crisis abated, their polling collapsed. This was clearest in the Netherlands, where asylum applications to the EU - advanced by six months - tracked closely with PVV polling (Chart 6). The distinction is highly relevant as it means that even if the populists had taken power, they would not necessarily have had enough political support to take their country out of the euro area. This is particularly the case in the Netherlands, where support for the euro remains high (Chart 7). Brexit is not helping: Much ink has been spilt in the media suggesting that Brexit would encourage voters in Europe to hold similar popular referendums. We disagreed with this assertion and now the evidence from Austria and the Netherlands supports our view.3 Chart 3 shows that the decline in the PVV's support sped up around the time of the U.K. referendum, suggesting that Brexit may even have discouraged voters from voting for the populist option. Geert Wilders was temporarily buoyed by the kangaroo court accusing him of racial insensitivity. But the sympathy vote quickly dissipated and PVV polling reverted back to the post-Brexit trend.4 Chart 6Dutch Populists Linked To Immigration Dutch Populists Linked To Immigration Dutch Populists Linked To Immigration Chart 7The Dutch Approve Of The Euro The Dutch Approve Of The Euro The Dutch Approve Of The Euro Bottom Line: The election in the Netherlands provides an important data point that should not be ignored. The populist PVV not only failed to meet polling expectations, it failed to repeat its result from seven years ago. Investors are ignoring how important the abating of the migration crisis truly was for European politics. Question 2: Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis? The end of the migration crisis in Europe clearly played a major role in dampening support for the Dutch and Austrian populists. We expected this in September 2015, when we argued with high conviction that the migration crisis would prove ephemeral (Chart 8).5 How did we make the right call at the height of the influx of asylum seekers into Europe? Three insights guided us: Civil wars end: No civil war can last forever. Eventually, battle lines ossify into de facto borders between warring factions and hostilities draw to a close. The Syrian Civil War is still going, but its most vicious phase has ended. Civilians have either moved into safer zones or, tragically, have perished. Enforcement increases: The influx of 220,000 asylum seekers per month - the height of the crisis in October 2015 - was unsustainable. Eventually, enforcement tightens. This happened to the "Balkan route" as countries reinforced their borders and Hungary built a fence. Liberal attitudes wane: European attitudes towards migrants soured quickly as the crisis escalated. After the highly publicized welcoming message from Chancellor Angela Merkel, the tone shifted to one of quiet hostility. This significantly changed the cost-benefit calculus of the economic migrants most likely to be deported. Given that roughly half of asylum seekers in 2015 were not fleeing war, but merely looking for a better life, the change in attitude in Europe was important. Many of our clients are today worried that Turkey might deliberately restart the migration crisis as a way to punish Europe amidst ongoing Euro-Turkish disputes. The rhetoric from Ankara supports this concern: Turkish officials have threatened economic sanctions against the Netherlands, and accused Germany of supporting the July 2016 coup and the U.S. of funding the Islamic State. We call Turkey's bluff on this threat. First, the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean collapsed well before the EU-Turkey deal was negotiated in March 2016. This puts into doubt Turkey's role in dampening the flow in the first place. Second, unlike in 2015, Turkey is now officially involved in the Syrian conflict, having invaded the country last August. By participating directly, Turkey can no longer tolerate the unfettered flow of migrants through its territory to Europe, a luxury in 2015 when it was a "passive" bystander. Today, migrants flowing through its territory are even more likely to be parties active in the Syrian war looking to strike Turkish targets for strategic reasons. Third, the Turkish economy is reliant on Europe for both FDI and export demand (Chart 9). If Turkey were to lash out by encouraging migration into Europe, the subsequent economic sanctions would devastate the Turkish economy and collapse its currency. Investment and trade with Europe make up the vast majority of its current account deficit. Chart 8Migration Crisis Well Past Its Peak Migration Crisis Well Past Its Peak Migration Crisis Well Past Its Peak Chart 9Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey Depends On Europe Bottom Line: Turkey can make Europe's life difficult. However, the migration crisis did not end because of Turkey and therefore will not restart because of Turkey. Furthermore, Ankara has its own security to consider and will continue to keep its border with Syria closed and closely monitored. Question 3: Is A Supply-Side Revolution Still Possible In France? In February, we posited that a supply-side revolution was afoot in France.6 Since then, the Thatcherite candidate for presidency - François Fillon - has suffered an ignominious fall in the polls due to ongoing corruption scandals. This somewhat dampens our enthusiasm, given that Fillon's program was by far the most aggressive in proposing cuts to the size of the French state. Still, the new leading candidate Emmanuel Macron (Chart 10) is quite possibly the most right-wing of left-wing candidates that France has ever fielded. He quit the Socialist Party and has received endorsements across the ideological spectrum. In addition, his governing program is largely pro-market: Public expenditure will go down to 50% of GDP (from 57%) by 2022; Corporate taxes will be reduced from 33.3% to 25%; Regulation will be simplified for small and medium-sized businesses; Productive investment will be exempt from the wealth tax, which will focus solely on real estate; Exceptions to the 35-hour work week will be allowed at the company level. More important than Macron's campaign promises is the evidence that the French "median voter" is shifting. Polls suggest that a "silent majority" in France favors structural reform (Chart 11). Chart 10Macron's Huge Lead Over Le Pen Macron's Huge Lead Over Le Pen Macron's Huge Lead Over Le Pen Chart 11France: 'Silent Majority' Wants Reform Five Questions On Europe Five Questions On Europe As such, France may be ready for reforms and Emmanuel Macron could be France's Gerhard Schröder, a centrist reformer capable of pulling the left-wing towards pro-market reforms. What about the fears that Macron will not be able to command a majority in France's National Assembly? Macron's party En Marche! was founded less than a year ago and is unlikely to be competitive in the upcoming June legislative elections (a two-round election to be held on June 10 and 17). This will force Macron, should he win, to "cohabitate" with a prime minister from another party. Most likely, this will mean a prime minister from the center-right Republicans. For investors, this could be very positive. The French constitution gives the National Assembly most power over domestic affairs when the president cannot command a majority. This means that a center-right prime minister who receives his mandate from Macron will be in charge of domestic reforms. We see no reason why Macron would not be able to work with such a prime minister. In fact, the worse En Marche! does in the parliamentary election, the more likely that Macron will be perceived as non-threatening to the center-right Republicans. What if no party wins a majority in parliament? We think that Macron would excel in this situation. He would be able to get support from the right-wing of the Socialist Party and the centrist elements of the Republicans. And if the National Assembly fails to support his program, he could always call for a new parliamentary election in a year's time, given his presidential powers. In other words, investors may be unduly pessimistic about the prospect of reforms under Macron. Several prominent center-right figures - including Alain Juppé and Manuel Valls - have already distanced themselves from Fillon, perhaps opening up the possibility of a premiership under Macron. In addition, Macron himself has refused to accuse Fillon of corruption, a smart strategy given that he will need his endorsement in the second round against Le Pen and that he will likely need to cohabitate with the Republicans to govern. What of Marine Le Pen's probability of winning? At this point, polling does not look good for her. Not only is she trailing Macron by 22% in the second round, but she is even trailing Fillon by 11%. Nonetheless, we suspect that she will close the gap over the next month. Election momentum works in cycles and she should be able to bounce back, giving investors another scare ahead of the election. Bottom Line: Concerns over Emmanuel Macron's ability to pursue structural reforms are overstated. Yes, he is less ideal of a candidate than Fillon from the market's perspective, but no, we do not doubt that he would be able to cohabitate with a center-right parliament. That said, we cannot pass definitive judgment until the parliamentary election takes place in June. Question 4: Will Germans Want A Hawk In 2019? An Austrian member of the ECB Governing Council, Ewald Nowotny, spooked the markets by suggesting that Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann would be one of the two most likely candidates to replace Mario Draghi in 2019. Weidmann is a noted hawk who has opposed the ECB's easy monetary policy and even testified against Angela Merkel's government during the court case assessing the constitutionality of the ECB's Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). The prospect of a Weidmann ECB presidency fits the narrative that Germans will want a hawk to replace Mario Draghi in 2019. The idea is that by 2019, inflation will be close to the ECB's target of 2% and Germans would be itching to beat it down. We have heard this view from colleagues and clients for some time. And we have disagreed with it for quite some time as well! As we pointed out in 2012, it was a German political decision to shift the ECB towards a dovish outlook.7 This is not to say that the ECB takes its orders from Berlin. Rather, it is that Chancellor Merkel had plenty of opportunities via personnel decisions to ensure that the ECB followed a more monetarist and hawkish line. For example, she could have signed off on former Bundesbank President Axel Weber, who was the leading candidate for the job in 2011. She refused when Weber signaled his opposition to the ECB's initial bond-buying program (the Securities Market Program). Mario Draghi was quickly tapped as the alternative candidate suitable to Berlin. Later in 2011, ECB Executive Board member Jürgen Stark resigned over opposition to the same ECB bond-buying program. Since Stark was the German member of the Executive Board, convention held that Berlin would propose his replacement. In other words, while Merkel had her pick of Germany's foremost economists, she picked her finance minister's deputy, Jörg Asmussen. Neither Draghi nor Asmussen have a strand of monetarist or inflation-hawk DNA between the two of them. ECB policy has not been dovish by accident but by design. While it is true that the ECB will inhabit a different macro environment in 2017-19 from the crisis of 2011-12, nevertheless we suspect that dovishness will continue beyond 2019 for two key reasons: German domestic politics: Germans are not becoming Euroskeptic, they are turning rabidly Europhile! If the polls are to be believed, Germans are now the most pro-euro people in Europe (Chart 12). Martin Schulz, chancellor-candidate of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), is campaigning on an aggressive anti-populist, pro-EU platform. He has accused Merkel of being too reticent and of providing Europe's Euroskeptics with a tailwind due to her policies. The SPD's recent climb in the polls is stunning (Chart 13). But even if Schulz fails to win, Merkel will have to take into account his brand of politics if she intends to reconstitute the Grand Coalition with the SPD. It is highly unlikely that Schulz will sign off on a hawkish ECB president (or on the return of Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble for that matter). Italian risks: While we have been sanguine about this year's political risks, the Italian election slated for February 2018 is set for genuine fireworks. Euroskeptic parties have now taken a lead in the polls (Chart 14). While the election is still too close to call, and a lot of things can happen between now and then, we expect it to be a risk catalyst in Europe. The problem with Italy is that the election is unlikely to provide any clarity. A hung parliament will likely produce a weak, potentially minority government. Given Italy's potential GDP growth rate of about 0%, this means that a weak government will at some point have to deal with a recession, heightening political risks beyond 2018. Chart 12Germans Love The Euro Germans Love The Euro Germans Love The Euro Chart 13Pro-Europe Sentiment Drives SPD Revival Pro-Europe Sentiment Drives SPD Revival Pro-Europe Sentiment Drives SPD Revival Chart 14Italian Elections: The Big Risk Italian Elections: The Big Risk Italian Elections: The Big Risk Bottom Line: Italy will hang over Europe like a Sword of Damocles for quite some time. The ECB will therefore be forced to remain dovish a lot longer than investors think. We see no evidence that Berlin will seek to reverse this policy. In fact, given the political paradigm shift in Germany itself, we suspect that Berlin will turn more Europhile over the next several years. Question 5: What Is The Big Picture For Europe? What explains the dogged persistence of support for European integration on the continent? Even in the case of Italy - where Euroskepticism is clearly on the rise - we would bet on voters supporting euro area and EU membership in a referendum (albeit with a low conviction). Why? In 2011, at the height of the euro area sovereign debt crisis, we elucidated our view on the long-term trajectory of European integration.8 We highly recommend that our clients re-read this analysis, as it continues to inform our net assessment of Europe. Our assertion in 2011 was that Europe is integrating out of weakness, not out of misplaced hope of strength. Much of the analysis in the financial community and media does not understand this point. It therefore rejects the wisdom of integration on the basis that Europhile policymakers are blinded by ambition. In our view, they are driven by necessity. As Chart 15 suggests, the average "hard power" of the five largest economies in the euro area (the EMU-5) is much lower than the average "hard power" of the BRIC states.9 European integration is therefore an attempt to asymptotically approach the aggregate, rather than the average, "hard power" of the EMU-5. Europe will never achieve the aggregate figure, as that will require a level of integration that is impossible. But the effort lies beneath European policymakers' goal of an "ever closer union." The truth of the matter is that European nation-states - as individual sovereign states - simply do not matter anymore. Their economic weight, demographics, and military strength relative to other nations are a far cry from when Europe dominated the world (Chart 16). Chart 15European Integration Is About Geopolitics... European Integration Is About Geopolitics... European Integration Is About Geopolitics... Chart 16...And Global Relevance ...And Global Relevance ...And Global Relevance If European countries seek to shape their geopolitical and macroeconomic environment, they have to act in unison. This is not a normative statement, it is an empirical fact. This means that everything from Russian assertiveness and immigration crises to energy policy and trade negotiations have to be handled as a bloc. But is this not an elitist view? To what extent do European voters think in such grand geopolitical terms? According to polling, they think this way more than most analysts are willing to admit! Chart 17 shows that most Europeans - other than the British and Italians - are "in it" for geopolitical relevance and security, and only secondarily for economic growth. Even in Italy, geopolitical concerns are more important than economic performance, although levels of both suggest that Italy is again the critical risk for Europe. We suspect that it is this commitment to the non-economic goals of European integration that sustains the political commitment of both elites and the general public to the European project. As Chart 18 suggests, European voters continue to doubt that their future will be brighter outside of the bloc. Chart 17Voters Grasp The EU's Purpose ... Five Questions On Europe Five Questions On Europe Chart 18...And Most Want To Stay In It ...And Most Want To Stay In It ...And Most Want To Stay In It Bottom Line: European integration is not just an economic project. Voters understand this - not in all countries, but in enough to sustain integration beyond the immediate risks. Given this assessment, it is not clear to us that the project would collapse even if Italy left. Investment Implications Given our political assessment, we continue to support the recommendation of our colleague Peter Berezin that investors overweight euro area equities in a global portfolio.10 As Peter recently elucidated, capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which is a positive for investment spending on a cyclical horizon - helping euro area assets (Chart 19). Furthermore, private-sector credit growth remains robust, despite political risks (Chart 20). Chart 19European Economy Looking Up European Economy Looking Up European Economy Looking Up Chart 20Credit Growing Well Despite Election Risk Credit Growing Well Despite Election Risk Credit Growing Well Despite Election Risk Over the next 6-12 months, we see EUR/USD rising, especially as the ECB contemplates tapering its bond purchases. We recommend a tactical long EUR/USD trade as a result. The euro could rise higher if the Trump administration disappoints the market on tax reform and infrastructure spending, policies that were supposed to supercharge the U.S. economy and prompt further Fed hawkishness. Over the long term, however, we doubt that the ECB will have the luxury of hawkishness. And we highly doubt that Berlin will rebel against dovish monetary policy. In fact, investors may be using the wrong mental map if they are equating Mario Draghi's taper with that of Ben Bernanke. While Bernanke intended to signal eventual tightening, Draghi will likely do everything in his power to dissuade the market from believing that interest rate hikes are inevitably coming soon. Therefore, we suspect that EUR/USD will eventually hit parity, after a potential rally in 2017. While this long-term depreciation may make sense from a political and macroeconomic perspective for Europe, it will likely set the stage for a geopolitical confrontation between the Trump Administration and Europe sometime next year. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The media has suggested that the PVV merely suffered because of the Turkey-Netherlands spat over Turkish political campaigning in the Netherlands. We see no evidence of this. First, the PVV's collapse in the polls predates the crisis by several weeks. Second, the crisis had all the hallmarks of a trap for the establishment. It is not the fault of incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte for adeptly capitalizing on the situation. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "Draghi And Asmussen, Not The OMT, Are A Game Changer," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report "Fortuna And Policymakers," dated October 10, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 As measured by the BCA Geopolitical Power Index. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Battles That Will Determine The Euro Area's Destiny," dated March 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 boils down to a simple choice: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google? Right now, we would rather own the three tech stocks than the three banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Right now, we expect euro/pound to strengthen - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. Stay overweight Spanish Bonos versus French OATs as a structural position. Feature Which would you rather own: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google?1 Surprising as it may seem, the all-important allocation decision between the Eurostoxx50 and the S&P500 boils down to this simple choice. The Chart of the Week should leave no doubt that everything else is largely irrelevant. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Right now, we would rather own the top three U.S. tech stocks rather than the top three euro area banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. The Fallacy Of Division For Equities The fallacy of division is a logical fallacy. It occurs when somebody falsely infers that what is true for the whole is also true for the parts that make up the whole. As a simple example, somebody might infer that because their computer screen appears purple, the pixels that make up the screen are also purple. In fact, the pixels are not purple. They are either red or blue. The fallacy of division is that the property of the whole - purpleness - does not translate to the property of the constituent parts - redness or blueness. As investment strategists, we hear a common fallacy of division. Since global equities are a play on the global economy, it might seem that national equity markets - like Ireland's ISEQ or Denmark's OMX - are plays on their national economies. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The property of the equity market as a global aggregate does not translate to the property of equity markets as national parts. The equity markets in Ireland and Denmark are each dominated by one stock which accounts for almost a quarter of national market capitalization - in Ireland, Ryanair, the pan-European budget airline, and in Denmark, Novo Nordisk, the global pharmaceutical company. Therefore, the relative performance of Ireland's ISEQ has almost no connection with Ireland's economy; rather, it is a just a play on airlines. And given budget airlines' sensitivity to fuel costs, Ireland's ISEQ is counterintuitively an inverse play on the oil price (Chart I-2). Likewise, the relative performance of Denmark's OMX has no connection with Denmark's economy; it is just a strong play on global pharma (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Ireland = Short Oil Ireland = Short Oil Ireland = Short Oil Chart I-3Denmark = Long Pharma Denmark = Long Pharma Denmark = Long Pharma In a similar vein, the relative performance of Switzerland's SME is also a play on global pharma - via Novartis and Roche (Chart I-4); Norway's OBX is a play on global energy - via Statoil (Chart I-5); and Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX are plays on banks (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). We could continue, but you get our drift... Chart I-4Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Chart I-5Norway = Long Oil Norway = Long Oil Norway = Long Oil Chart I-6Italy = Long Banks Italy = Long Banks Italy = Long Banks Chart I-7Spain = Long Banks Spain = Long Banks Spain = Long Banks But what about a regional index like the Eurostoxx50 or Eurostoxx600: surely, with the broader exposure, there must be a strong connection with the euro area economy? Unfortunately not - at least, not when it comes to relative performance. Consider that for the past few years, the euro area economy has actually outperformed the U.S. economy2 (Chart I-8). Yet the Eurostoxx50 has substantially underperformed the S&P500 (Chart I-9). What's going on? The answer is that the Eurostoxx50 has a major 15% weighting to banks and a minor 7% weighting to tech. The S&P500 is the mirror image; a minor 7% weighting to banks and a major 22% weighting to tech. Chart I-8The Euro Area Economy ##br##Has Outperformed... The Euro Area Economy Has Outperformed... The Euro Area Economy Has Outperformed... Chart I-9...But The Eurostoxx50##br## Has Underperformed ...But The Eurostoxx50 Has Underperformed ...But The Eurostoxx50 Has Underperformed For the Eurostoxx50 the distinguishing property is 'bank'; for the S&P500 it is 'tech'. And as we saw earlier, these distinguishing properties are captured by just three large euro area banks and three large U.S tech stocks. So index relative performance simply boils down to whether the three euro area banks outperform the three U.S. tech stocks, or vice-versa. Everything else is largely irrelevant. Equities' Connection With Economies Is Often Counterintuitive When it comes to the FTSE100, it turns out that it is not more bank or tech than the Eurostoxx50. Major sector weightings across the two indexes are broadly similar. Hence, relative performance is more connected to relative economic performance. But there is a catch - the connection is not as intuitive as you might first think. You see, both major indexes are made up of dollar-earning multinational companies. Yet the index value and earnings are quoted in pounds and euros respectively. If the home currency appreciates, index earnings - translated from dollars into home currency - go down, depressing index relative performance with it. And the opposite happens if the home currency depreciates. So the counterintuitive thing is that a relatively strengthening home economy does not result in index outperformance. Quite the opposite, it normally means a relatively more hawkish central bank, and an appreciating currency (Chart I-10). Thereby it causes index underperformance. Hence, Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Once again, Chart I-11 should leave readers in no doubt. Chart I-10A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank =##br## A Stronger Currency A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank = A Stronger Currency A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank = A Stronger Currency Chart I-11A Stronger Currency = ##br##Equity Index Underperformance A Stronger Currency = Equity Index Underperformance A Stronger Currency = Equity Index Underperformance Which neatly brings us to today's ECB meeting. The ECB is a tunnel-vision 2% inflation-targeting central bank. Any upgrade to its inflation forecast, as seems likely, would imply less need for its extreme and experimental monetary easing. Once digested by the market, this would support the euro. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Channel, the U.K. Government is preparing to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start its formal divorce from the EU within a couple of weeks. Expect the EU's immediate response to cast long shadows across Theresa May's vision of a future in sunlit uplands. Once digested by the market, this would further weigh down the pound. A stronger euro/pound necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. The Fallacy Of Division For Bonds The fallacy of division also applies to euro area sovereign bonds. The aggregate euro area sovereign yield just equals the average ECB policy rate anticipated over the lifetime of the bond (Chart I-12). This is directly analogous to the relationship between the U.K. gilt yield and the anticipated path of the BoE base rate, and the relationship between the U.S. T-bond yield and the anticipated path of the Fed funds rate (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = ##br##The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected Chart I-13The U.S. T-Bond Yield = ##br##The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected The U.S. T-Bond Yield = The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected The U.S. T-Bond Yield = The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected But what is true for the whole is not necessarily true for the parts that make up the whole. Individual euro area sovereign bond yields carry a second component which can override everything else. This second component is a redenomination premium as compensation for the expected loss if the bond redenominates out of euros. For example, the redenomination premium on a Spanish Bono versus a French OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. However, the ECB's own analysis shows that Spain is now as competitive as France (Chart I-14), meaning that a new peseta ultimately should not lose value versus a new franc. So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the second item of the multiplication should be zero. Meaning that the redenomination premium should also be zero, rather than today's 75 bps (on 10-year Bonos over OATs). Bear in mind that Spain's housing bust and subsequent recapitalisation of its banks has followed Ireland's template - just with a two year lag. And observe that the redenomination premium on Irish 10-year bonds over OATs, which once stood at a remarkable 1100 bps, has now completely vanished. We expect Spain to continue following in the footsteps of Ireland (Chart I-15). As a structural position, stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-14Spain Has Dramatically Improved##br## Its Competitiveness Spain Has Dramatically Improved Its Competitiveness Spain Has Dramatically Improved Its Competitiveness Chart I-15Spain Is Following In The##br## Footsteps Of Ireland Spain Is Following In The Footsteps Of Ireland Spain Is Following In The Footsteps Of Ireland Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Listed as Alphabet. 2 On a per capita basis. Fractal Trading Model* Long tin / short copper hit its 5% profit target, while short MSCI AC World hit its 2.5% stop-loss. This week's recommendation is to short ruble / dollar. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-16 Short RUB/USD Short RUB/USD * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##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-7Indicators 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 Substituting certain imports with local production will ensure that Russia's inflation rate will become less sensitive to fluctuations in the exchange rate and more sensitive to local wages/unit labor costs. In such a scenario, the central bank will not need to pursue pro-cyclical monetary policy. This is on top of the counter-cyclical fiscal policy emerging from the new fiscal rule. Less pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies argue for more stability in the real economy than in the past. Altogether, this warrants a lower beta for Russian financial assets relative to EM benchmarks. Meanwhile, geopolitics is likely to remain a tailwind for Russia. Continue overweighting Russian stocks, ruble, local fixed-income and credit relative to their EM counterparts. A new trade: Go long the ruble and short crude oil. Feature Russian equities and the ruble have been high-beta bets on oil prices. While the positive correlation between crude prices and Russian financial markets is unlikely to change soon, the country's stock market and currency will likely become low-beta within the EM universe. Sound macro policies and some import substitutions will make inflation less sensitive to the exchange rate. As such, the central bank will not need to hike interest rates amid falling oil prices. The key point is that fiscal and monetary policies are becoming less pro-cyclical. This will reduce volatility in the real economy, which in turn will warrant a lower risk premium on Russian assets, particularly within the EM aggregates. Meanwhile, geopolitics is likely to remain a tailwind for Russia. Both Europe and the U.S. have lost appetite for direct confrontation. And while some of the exuberance immediately following Trump's victory will wear off, the U.S. and Russia are unlikely to revisit the 2014 nadir in relations. Orthodox Macro Policies... Russia has adhered to orthodox macro policies amid a severe recession over the past two years: On the fiscal front: The government has maintained constant nominal expenditure growth and substantially cut spending in real terms (Chart I-1). The fiscal deficit is still large at 3.8% of GDP, but it typically lags oil prices (Chart I-2). Hence, the recovery in oil prices over the past year should lead to a notable improvement in the budget balance. For 2017, the budget is conservative, as it assumes $/bbl 40 Urals. Early this year, the Ministry of Finance adopted a new fiscal rule where it will buy foreign currency when the price of oil is above the set target level of 2700 RUB per barrel ($40 oil price times 67 USD/RUB exchange rate) and sell foreign exchange when the oil price is below that level (Chart I-3). Chart I-1Russia Has Undergone ##br##Through Real Fiscal Squeeze... Russia Has Undergone Through Real Fiscal Squeeze... Russia Has Undergone Through Real Fiscal Squeeze... Chart I-2...Which Is Now Over ...Which Is Now Over ...Which Is Now Over Chart I-3Oil Price Threshold For ##br##The New Fiscal Rule Oil Price Threshold For The New Fiscal Rule Oil Price Threshold For The New Fiscal Rule The objective of this policy is to create a counter-cyclical ballast that will limit fluctuations in the ruble caused by swings in oil prices. With respect to monetary policy, Russia's central bank has been highly prudent. Unlike many other emerging countries, the central bank has refrained from injecting liquidity into the banking system (Chart I-4) and has maintained high real interest rates (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-5 demonstrates that the central bank's domestic assets have been flat, while the same measure has surged for many other EM central banks. Although this measure does not reflect central banks' net liquidity injections, it in general validates that Russia's monetary authorities have been more conservative than their counterparts in many developing countries. This is ultimately positive for the currency. Chart I-4Russian Central Bank: ##br##Tight Monetary Stance Russian Central Bank: Tight Monetary Stance Russian Central Bank: Tight Monetary Stance Chart I-5Russian Central Bank Has Been ##br##Conservative Among Its Peers Russian Central Bank Has Been Conservative Among Its Peers Russian Central Bank Has Been Conservative Among Its Peers Furthermore, the central bank has been forcing banks to acknowledge non-performing loans (Chart I-6, top panel) and has been reducing the number of dysfunctional banks by removing their licenses (Chart I-6, bottom panel). This assures that the credit system has already gone through a cleansing process, and a gradual credit recovery will commence soon. This is also in stark contrast with many other EM banking systems, where credit-to-GDP ratios continue to rise. In brief, Russia is advanced on the path of deleveraging (Chart I-7), while many EM countries have not even begun the process. Chart I-6Russian Central Bank Has ##br##Forced Banking Restructuring Russian Central Bank Has Forced Banking Restructuring Russian Central Bank Has Forced Banking Restructuring Chart I-7Russia Is Very Advanced ##br##In Its Deleveraging Cycle Russia Is Very Advanced In Its Deleveraging Cycle Russia Is Very Advanced In Its Deleveraging Cycle Bottom Line: The new fiscal rule will reduce fluctuations in the ruble. The central bank's ongoing tight policy stance will also put a floor under the ruble. Even though we expect oil prices to drop meaningfully in the months ahead, any ruble depreciation will be moderate. ... Plus Some Imports Substitution... The dramatic currency devaluation in 2014-15 and sanctions imposed on Russia by the West have led to the substitution of some imported goods with locally produced ones. First, the most visible import substitution has occurred in the agriculture sector. Chart I-8 suggests that in agriculture import substitution has been broad-based and significant. Second, while there has been some import substitution in the industrial sector, it has been less pronounced. Demand for industrial goods and non-staples (autos and furniture, for example) has plunged significantly. Hence, local production has also collapsed, but less so than imports (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Russia: Import ##br##Substitution In Agriculture Russia: Import Substitution In Agriculture Russia: Import Substitution In Agriculture Chart I-9Some Import ##br##Substitution In Manufacturing Some Import Substitution In Manufacturing Some Import Substitution In Manufacturing As domestic demand recovers, manufacturing production of industrial goods will increase. However, it is not clear how much of this demand recovery will be met by rising imports versus domestic production. On one hand, the ruble is not expensive, and argues for more import substitution going forward - i.e. relying more on domestic production rather than imports. On the other hand, Russia is hamstrung by a lack of manufacturing productive capacity, technology and know-how in many sectors to produce competitive products. FDI by multinational companies will likely rise from extremely low levels (Chart I-10), yet it is unlikely to be sufficient to make a major difference in terms of Russia's competitiveness. Third, the ruble depreciation has helped Russia increase oil and natural gas production (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Russia: Meager Net FDI Inflows Russia: Meager Net FDI Inflows Russia: Meager Net FDI Inflows Chart I-11Russia: Oil And Natural Gas Output Is Robust Russia: Oil And Natural Gas Output Is Robust Russia: Oil And Natural Gas Output Is Robust Finally, in an attempt to lessen dependence on foreigners, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been pushing the use of domestic technology. For example, Microsoft products will be replaced by locally developed software. Bottom Line: The combination of currency depreciation and trade sanctions has led to some import substitution. ...Will Make Inflation Less Sensitive To The Currency Chart I-12Russia: Unit Labor ##br##Costs Have Collapsed Russia: Unit Labor Costs Have Collapsed Russia: Unit Labor Costs Have Collapsed The collapse of the ruble has drastically reduced labor costs in Russia's manufacturing sector (Chart I-12). A diminished share of imports in domestic consumption - import substitution - will ensure Russia's inflation rate becomes less sensitive to fluctuations in the exchange rate and more sensitive to local wages/unit labor costs instead. Tame wages and some improvement in productivity - as output recovers - will cap Russian unit labor costs and restrain inflation in the medium term. In such a scenario, the central bank will not need to pursue pro-cyclical monetary policy - i.e., hike interest rates when oil prices drop and the ruble depreciates. Less pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies will diminish fluctuations in the economy, and economic visibility will improve. This bodes well for the nation's financial assets. We do not mean to suggest that the central bank of Russia will immediately pursue counter-cyclical monetary policy - i.e., that it will be able to cut interest rates when oil prices fall. While this would be ideal for the national economy, it is not a practical option for now. Bottom Line: Less pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies argue for more stability in the real economy than in the past. Altogether, this warrants a lower beta for Russian financial assets relative to EM benchmarks. The Growth Outlook The Russian economy is about to exit recession (Chart I-13, top panel), but growth recovery will be timid: Bank loans will recover after pronounced contraction over the past two years. The credit impulse - the change in bank loan growth - has already turned positive (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Retail sales volumes and auto sales have not yet recovered but manufacturing output growth is already positive (Chart I-14). Rising nominal and real wages argue for a pick-up in consumer spending (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Capital spending has collapsed both in absolute terms and relative to GDP (Chart I-15). Such an underinvested position and potential recovery in consumer spending warrant a pickup in investment outlays. The key difference between Brazil and Russia - the two economies that plunged into deep recession in the past 2-3 years - is public debt load and sustainability. Chart I-13Russia: Recovery Is At Hand Russia: Recovery Is At Hand Russia: Recovery Is At Hand Chart I-14Russia: Economic Conditions Russia: Economic Conditions Russia: Economic Conditions Chart I-15Russia: Capex Recovery Is Overdue Russia: Capex Recovery Is Overdue Russia: Capex Recovery Is Overdue The public debt-to-GDP ratio is 77% in Brazil and 16% in Russia, while fiscal deficits are 9% and 3.8% of GDP, respectively. Public debt could spiral out of control in Brazil1 in the next two years, while it is not an issue in Russia. Bottom Line: Russia is about to embark on a mild and gradual economic recovery, even if oil prices relapse. Russia Is In A Geopolitical Sweet Spot Geopolitical headwinds will continue to abate for Russia. We expect that some of the loftiest expectations of a U.S.-Russia détente will fail to materialize as the Trump Administration continues to face domestic pressures. However, the 2014 nadir in relations will not be revisited. Meanwhile, Russia will benefit from several geopolitical tailwinds: The path of least resistance for tensions between Russia and the West is down. The Trump administration is highly unlikely to increase sanctions against Russia. Congress is likely to open an investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, but we highly doubt that any genuine "smoking guns" linking the Kremlin to the election result will be found. As such, we expect the thaw in U.S.-Russia relations to continue, albeit haltingly and without any possibility that the two powers become allies. Washington has recently removed sanctions related to U.S. tech exports to Russia. While U.S. sanction can be easily removed by presidential decree, EU sanctions require a unanimous vote on behalf of the European council. A summary can be found bellow. Table I-1 Russia: Entering A Lower-Beta Paradigm Russia: Entering A Lower-Beta Paradigm Putin's support remains high (Chart I-16), giving him a sense of confidence that modest structural reforms and economic opening is possible without undermining his support base. Military intervention in Syria has largely been a success, from Moscow's point of view. Chart I-16Popularity Of Putin And Government Popularity Of Putin And Government Popularity Of Putin And Government None of the current candidates in the upcoming elections in Europe are overtly anti-Russia. In France, leading candidate Emmanuel Macron is mildly hawkish on Russia, but the other two candidates - Marine Le Pen and François Fillon are downright Russophile. In Germany, the historically sympathetic to Russia Socialist Democratic Party (SPD) has taken a lead against Angela Merkel's ruling party. Even if Angela Merkel retains her Chancellorship, it is likely that the Grand Coalition would have to give the SPD a greater role given their dramatic rise in polling. Despite two major diplomatic incidents between Turkey and Russia,2 relations between the two countries continue to improve. In fact, the Turkstream project - which will connect Russia with Turkey via the Black Sea - has been approved by both sides. This is a positive development for the Russian energy sector as the capacity of that pipeline is large, standing at 63 Bn cubic meters per year. In Syria, the two countries have gone from outright hostility to coordinating their military operations on the ground, a dramatic reversal. The Rosneft IPO was a success, a positive sign for foreign investments in Russia. While the issuance was conducted for budget reasons, it is a sign that Russia is willing to open itself to foreign investors. The caveat being that it will only do so selectively. Further evidence of this selective opening is the recent announcement by the head of the Finance Ministry debt department that the next Eurobond auction will be conducted privately. Past investments from western firms in Russia failed due to the fact that a large number of Western oil companies were complacent in their investment analysis and failed to do due diligence.3 Furthermore, foreign investments in Russia have often failed because it was caught in the cross fire between the Kremlin and the various oligarchs who brought in the foreign investment.4 Given that President Vladimir Putin has largely neutered oligarchs, FDI that arrives in the country will have full blessing of the government. Finally, we would expect western energy companies to be more selective in their foreign investments given the recent crash in oil prices. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been warning since 2014, globalization is in a structural decline and protectionism may follow. The Trump administration has threatened to use tariffs against both geopolitical adversaries, like China, and allies, like Germany. The border adjustment tax, proposed by Republicans in Congress, is a protectionist measure that could launch a global trade war.5 Due to the fact that Russia exports commodities, we would expect Russia's export revenue stream to be unaffected compared to countries who export more elastic goods such as consumer products. Bottom Line: We expect geopolitical dynamics to play in Russia's favor going forward. These will mark a structural shift in how foreign investment is conducted in Russia and risk assets will continue re-pricing. Investment Conclusions Chart I-17Continue Overweighting Russian Stocks Continue Overweighting Russian Stocks Continue Overweighting Russian Stocks Russian stocks will outperform the EM equity benchmark in the months ahead (Chart I-17). Stay overweight. Typically, the Russian bourse has outperformed the EM index during risk-on phases and underperformed in risk-off episodes - i.e., Russia has been a high-beta market. This will likely change, and we expect Russia to outperform in a falling market. Also, maintain the long Russian stocks and ruble / short Malaysian stocks and ringgit trades. Continue overweighting Russian sovereign and corporate credit within the EM credit universe. Continue overweighing local currency bonds within EM domestic bond portfolios. A new trade: Go long the ruble and short oil. When oil prices drop, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team expects to happen in the months ahead, the ruble might weaken too. However, adjusted for the carry, the aggregate long ruble/short oil position will prove profitable. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Has Brazil Achieved Escape Velocity?", dated February 8, 2017, link available on page 14. 2 Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 on November 24th 2015 and Andrei Karlov, the Russian ambassador to Turkey got shot dead by a Turkish police officer in Ankara on December 19th 2016. 3 The BP and TNK deal failed for obvious reasons. BP and TNK had already come in confrontation when in the mid-1990's BP had bought a 10 percent stake in Sidanco only to see TNK strip the company of its asset. Furthermore, TNK was involved in other mergers inside Russia, making extremely confusing to understand what assets it actually owned. 4 Putin's campaign to sideline Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky for example sometimes came at odds with foreign investment in Russia. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.