Emerging Markets

Highlights The degree of external debt stress in EM is primarily contingent on the magnitude of both currency depreciation and economic downtrend. So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM FX debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. This will occur irrespective of whether U.S. Treasury yields rise or drop. Global fixed-income portfolios should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit relative to U.S. investment-grade corporate credit. Within EM sovereign credit, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary and Argentina. Our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela. Feature A Primer On EM External Debt Concerns about EM external debt have re-surfaced as EM currencies have depreciated. In this week's report we offer a qualitative analysis on the drivers of EM external debt risks, as well as present quantitative vulnerability rankings for developing countries. External or foreign currency1 debt is borrowing (loans and bonds) by governments, banks/financial institutions and companies that is denominated in foreign currency. In this vein, foreigners' holdings of local currency bonds or non-residents' deposits in local banks do not constitute external debt. Debt Becomes A Problem In Downturns Investors often ask how worrisome the situation with EM external debt currently is - specifically, who might default, and when? There are no easy answers to these questions. The reason is that the responses to these questions are often contingent on the magnitude of both EM currency depreciation and economic slowdown. Debt stress recedes in economic upswings and rises in economic downturns (Chart I-1). The reason is that debtors' cash flows shrink in downturns and grow in economic expansions. In Chart I-1 we use Germany's IFO manufacturing business expectations as a proxy for global trade; it has been a great leading indicator for global exports.2 It also correlates well with EM credit spreads. Chart 1-1Global Manufacturing Cycle And EM Sovereign Credit Spreads Global Manufacturing Cycle And EM Sovereign Credit Spreads Global Manufacturing Cycle And EM Sovereign Credit Spreads When dealing with foreign currency (FX) debt, the exchange rate becomes a critical factor in terms of affecting creditworthiness. Local currency depreciation increases (appreciation reduces) the burden of foreign debt servicing for debtors whose revenues are in domestic currency. This is why when currencies depreciate, both foreign debt burdens (the degree of indebtedness) and debt servicing stresses mount. Among EM companies issued U.S. dollar bonds, there are a few exporters. Many of them are in fact commodities producers. Although their export revenues are in U.S. dollars, their export proceeds fluctuate enormously as commodities prices swing. Typically, when the U.S. dollar rallies, commodities prices drop. Chart I-2 exhibits sector weights in the EM J.P. Morgan CEMBI Corporate Bond Index. The largest issuers are banks/financials, which along with real estate companies account for 37% of the index. Resources - oil/gas, metal mining, pulp and paper - make around 26% of the index. This confirms that only a few non-commodities exporters have issued foreign currency bonds. Chart I-2Financials And Resource Producers Make Up More Than 60% Of EM Corporate Bond Index A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt We expect revenue growth for EM debtors (both governments and companies/banks) to recede as EM economic growth slumps. Chart I-3 illustrates that manufacturing PMI for EM has declined, pointing to a further relapse in EM corporate profits and share prices. The feedback loop between EM growth and currencies works both ways. First, EM currencies are pro-cyclical - they appreciate during economic recoveries and depreciate during business-cycle downturns (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-3EM Manufacturing PMI Is In A Downtrend Financials And Resource Producers Make Up More Than 60% Of EM Corporate Bond Index Financials And Resource Producers Make Up More Than 60% Of EM Corporate Bond Index Chart I-4EM Currencies Are Pro-Cyclical EM Currencies Are Pro-Cyclical EM Currencies Are Pro-Cyclical Second, in the case of many vulnerable developing economies, plunging currencies push up local interest rates. This in turn reinforces growth deceleration in these economies. Notably, EM manufacturing growth has begun to downshift since early this year while their currencies have only started plunging - and interest rates rising - since early April. Hence, the latest drop in the EM manufacturing PMI cannot be attributed to the recent hikes in EM policy rates. Interest rates impact growth with a time lag longer than a few weeks. Rather, it has been cracks in global growth primarily and higher U.S. interest rates partially that have caused EM currencies to plunge in recent months (Chart I-4, bottom panel). There is also a strong positive correlation between commodities prices and EM currencies (Chart I-5, top panel). Not only do commodities producers' currencies plunge when commodities prices decline, but non-commodity dependent countries' currencies also exhibit a positive correlation with resource prices. For example, the Korean won and commodities prices often move in tandem (Chart I-5, bottom panel). The underlying factor driving various EM currencies and commodities prices is the global business cycle. This common denominator explains why all EM exchange rates - including those of non-commodity producers - are positively correlated with resource prices. On the whole, global growth downturns not only hurt EM country/company revenues, but also weigh on their currencies - making foreign currency debt more difficult to service. Altogether, this triggers a widening in EM sovereign and corporate spreads and weighs on capital flows to EM, exacerbating the cycle. Contrary to the mainstream view, neither nominal nor real EM interest rate differentials over the U.S. rates explain the trend in EM currencies, as shown in Chart I-6. Further, neither the level nor the change in interest rate differentials explains trends in EM exchange rates. On the contrary, it is the trend in EM exchange rates that drives local interest rates in high-yielding EM. This is why gauging currency movements correctly is of paramount importance to investors in various EM asset classes. Chart I-5All EM Currencies Correlate ##br##With Commodities Prices All EM Currencies Correlate With Commodities Prices All EM Currencies Correlate With Commodities Prices Chart I-6Nominal And Real Interest Rates Differential ##br##Over U.S. Rates Do Not Drive EM Currencies Nominal And Real Interest Rates Differential Over U.S. Rates Do Not Drive EM Currencies Nominal And Real Interest Rates Differential Over U.S. Rates Do Not Drive EM Currencies On the whole, exchange rate trends are critical to the creditworthiness of debtors with large FX liabilities: currency appreciation improves and deprecation worsens their ability to service debt. Given EM currencies are pro-cyclical and their depreciation often leads to higher domestic interest rates, the ability of EM FX debtors to service their external liabilities fluctuates with both the global business cycle and their own domestic economic performance. This is why we pay a lot of attention to the global business cycle trajectory as well as that of EM and China. Bottom Line: Apart from some basket cases like Venezuela, which is careening toward debt default, the degree of external debt stress in EM is primarily contingent on the magnitude of currency depreciation. We expect EM currencies to continue to plunge, heightening debt stress and warranting a widening in EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads. What Is More Imperative: Exchange Rates Or Interest Rates? EM debtors with dollar debt are much more vulnerable to an appreciating dollar than rising U.S. interest rates. Table I-1 illustrates this point using the following hypothetical simulation: We consider a conjectural Brazilian debtor with $1,000 in debt with five years remaining to maturity, and a starting point exchange rate of 4 BRL per USD. Table I-1A Hypothetical Simulation: FX Debt Burden Is More Sensitive To Exchange Rate Than Borrowing Costs A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt In our example, a 5% depreciation in local currency against the dollar boosts the overall debt burden by 200 BRL (please refer to row 2 of Table I-1). This does not include the rise in local currency costs of interest payments. It reflects only the increased burden of principal. Chart I-7EM Credit Spreads Have Higher Correlation ##br##With EM FX Than U.S. Bonds Yields EM Credit Spreads Have Higher Correlation With EM FX Than U.S. Bonds Yields EM Credit Spreads Have Higher Correlation With EM FX Than U.S. Bonds Yields An equivalent rise in debt servicing costs in local currency will require a 100-basis-point increase in U.S. dollar borrowing costs. In brief, U.S. dollar rates should rise by 100 basis points for interest payments to increase by BRL 200 over a five-year period, the time remaining to maturity. This simulation reveals that a 5% dollar appreciation versus local currency is as painful as a 100 basis points rise in U.S. dollar rates and is more burdensome if the cost of coupon payments is accounted for. Provided there are higher odds of 5% currency depreciation in many EMs than a 100-basis-point rise in U.S. dollar borrowing costs, we infer that EM FX debtors' creditworthiness is more sensitive to exchange rates than to U.S. Treasury yields. As Chart I-7 clearly demonstrates, EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads correlate much more strongly with EM exchange rates than with U.S. bond yields. Consequently, the trend in EM exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar is much more important for EM credit spreads than fluctuations in U.S. bond yields. As to the currency composition of EM FX debt, about 82% of EM external debt is in U.S.-dollar terms. Bottom Line: So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM FX debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. This will occur irrespective of whether U.S. Treasury yields rise or drop. EM FX Debt: A Quantitative Snapshot In this section, we present a snapshot of EM ex-China FX debt and its composition, and discuss China's external debt separately. As of the end of 2017, EM ex-China external debt of $5.32 trillion was comprised of the following: government borrowings of $1.53 trillion; non-financial company borrowings of $1.7 trillion; financial organization/bank borrowings of $1.17 trillion; and inter-company loans of $0.77 trillion (Table I-2). Since early 2016, EM external debt has risen only marginally by $400 billion, largely due to borrowing by governments and companies (Chart I-8). Table I-2EM External Debt Snapshot A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Chart I-8Evolution Of EM External Debt Evolution Of EM External Debt Evolution Of EM External Debt Please note that all of these data are from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) joint external debt hub and dated as of December 31, 2017. There was a non-trivial issuance of foreign currency bonds by EM issuers in the first quarter of this year that is not included in these calculations. At $1.7 trillion, China's foreign currency debt is substantial. China's banks/financial institutions and non-financial companies account for $850 billion and $460 billion of the nation's total external debt, respectively (Table I-2). Yet, the mainland's foreign currency debt is small relative to both the size of its GDP (only 11%), but not small relative to exports (60%) and the nation's FX reserves (47%). Further, China's strong corporate leverage is domestic not external - companies' local currency borrowing stands at RMB 132 trillion, equivalent to $20 trillion. Often debt stress arises when short-term debt - due in the next year - is large. Table I-3 presents the distribution of short-term debt for EM ex-China and China. Table I-3EM: Short-Term (Due In 2018) FX Debt A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt For EM ex-China, the short-term FX debt due in 2018 is $491 billion for banks/financials and $396 billion for non-financial companies. For China, the same measure is $670 billion for banks/financials and $333 billion for non-financial companies (Table I-3). These are large amounts and, as such, escalating funding stress is likely, especially if EM/China growth disappoints and the dollar continues climbing. How does the current EM FX indebtedness for the private sector (banks and companies) compare with FX indebtedness before the EM crises of the late 1990s? Table I-4 reveals foreign debt as a share of GDP was not large before the 1996 EM/Asian crises, except for Thailand. However, as EM currencies plunged in 1997-'98, foreign debt burdens skyrocketed. This underscores the above discussion that debt vulnerability is not static. Rather, it is a dynamic concept, changing as the key variables fluctuate. This also confirms the importance of exchange rate trajectory in FX debt vulnerability. Table I-4EM Private Sector FX Debt: 1996 Versus Today A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Vulnerability Assessment On a macro level, foreign debt vulnerability can be measured by both foreign debt service obligations (FDSO) and foreign funding requirements (FFR). FDSOs are the sum of interest payments and amortization of all types of external debt in the next 12 months. FFRs are calculated as the current account deficit plus FDSO in the next 12 months. It measures the amount of foreign capital inflows required in the next 12 months for a country to cover any shortfall in current account transactions as well as to service its foreign currency debt (both principals and interest). Given these data from BIS are as of December 31, 2017, the next 12 month is for the entire 2018, which is technically not 12 months from today. Exports are a country's foreign currency earnings (cash flow) that can be used to service FX debt. Central banks' FX reserves are a stock of liquid foreign currency assets that can be used by the central bank to plug the gap in balance of payments, if needed. Chart I-9 and Chart I-10 rank countries in terms of their FDSO as a share of exports of goods and services, and FFR as a share of central bank FX reserves, respectively. Not surprisingly, Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia are the most vulnerable in both measures. Chart I-9FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking 1: Foreign Debt Service Obligations ##br##(FX Debt Service In Next 12 Months) A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Chart I-10FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking 2: Foreign Funding Requirements ##br##(FX Debt Service In Next 12 Months Plus Current Account Balance) A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Chart I-11 combines these two measures on a scatter plot to identify the most- and least-vulnerable countries. In addition to Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Peru also appear quite vulnerable. In the meantime, Thailand, Russia and Korea are the least vulnerable. Chart I-11Combining FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking 1 And 2 A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt To also identify investment opportunities, we compare the FDSO/exports ratio with corporate spreads across EM countries (Chart I-12), and the FFR/FX reserves ratio with sovereign spreads across EM countries (Chart I-13). Chart I-12EM Corporate Spreads: Fundamentals Versus Valuations A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Chart I-13EM Sovereign Spreads: Fundamentals Versus Valuations A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt With respect to corporate spreads, Chart I-12 displays that after adjusting for their respective fundamentals, corporate spreads in Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, Chile and Colombia are too tight. Turkey seems to be fairly valued at the moment, while Russia, Mexico and South Africa are cheap in relative terms. In terms of sovereign spreads, Chart I-13 reveals that sovereign credit is overpriced relative to fundamentals in Chile, Indonesia, Mexico and Colombia. Turkey has a neutral valuation, while Brazil, Russia and South Africa offer relative value. A caveat of this analysis is that it is static. If EM currencies continue to plummet, EM external debt matrices will worsen. In countries where their currencies depreciate more, debt vulnerability will rise and current pricing of sovereign and corporate credit will likely become inadequate. For example, if the South African rand depreciates considerably, in turn underperforming its EM peers - which is our view - its corporate and sovereign FX debt vulnerability will rise, and credit spreads will have to be re-priced both in absolute terms, as well as relative to the EM benchmark. More detailed numerical information on EM FX debt is presented in the Appendix on page 16. Investment Conclusions EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads will continue widening, pushing up their respective bond yields in the process. Rising EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields are typically bearish for EM stocks. This does not only hold for vulnerable EMs running current account deficits, but for emerging Asia as well. Although the selloff in emerging Asian equities has so far been moderate, rising high-yield corporate bond yields in Asia point to trouble for the regional bourses (Chart I-14). Chart I-14A Message From Emerging Asian High-Yield Corporate Bonds A Message From Emerging Asian High-Yield Corporate Bonds A Message From Emerging Asian High-Yield Corporate Bonds Furthermore, emerging Asian high-yield corporate bonds have begun underperforming their investment grade peers. This typically warrants lower share prices in Asia (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Emerging Asia: Beware Of Junk Outperforming ##br##Investment Grade Corporate Credit Emerging Asia: Beware Of Junk Outperforming Investment Grade Corporate Credit Emerging Asia: Beware Of Junk Outperforming Investment Grade Corporate Credit Global fixed-income portfolios should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit relative to DM corporate credit in general, and U.S. investment-grade corporate credit in particular. As we have discussed in the past, asset allocators should not compare EM U.S. dollar bonds (EM credit markets) to EM local currency bonds or EM equities. EM U.S. dollar bonds should be compared to U.S. corporate bonds. Within the EM sovereign credit space, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary and Argentina. This investment strategy combines low-beta markets with some high-beta ones where either fundamentals are healthy - such as in Russia and Mexico - or where valuation is attractive - such as in Argentina. Our recommended underweights are Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela. Finally, Colombia, Chile, Peru and India warrant a neutral allocation within an EM credit portfolio. Modifications to our past allocation/positions are as follows: Close short Turkey / long Philippines sovereign credit trade. We also downgraded Philippines to neutral on April 25 consistent with our analysis elaborated in our Special Report.3 We moved Russia from overweight to neutral after the new sanctions were announced in April but we are now moving it back to overweight. Move Peruvian sovereign credit from overweight to neutral. Close long Peru / short Brazil sovereign credit and long Peru sovereign / short Peru corporate positions. Close long Argentina / short Venezuela sovereign credit but maintain long Argentina / short Brazil sovereign credit position. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 For the purposes of this report, we use external and foreign currency debt interchangeably. 2 The chart showing the correlation between German IFO manufacturing business expectations was published as Chart 1 in last week's report titled "Will Emerging Asia De-Couple Or Re-Couple?"; the link is available on page 23. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Philippines: Duterte's Money Illusion," dated April 25, 2018, link available on page 23. Appendix: A Snapshot Of EM FX Debt External Debt Statistics A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Government External Debt Ranking A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Non-Financial Corporate External Debt Burden A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Financials External Debt Burden A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Outstanding External Inter-Company Loans A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Short-Term External Debt Statistics (Does Not Include Intercompany Debt) A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Short-Term External Debt Composition A Primer On EM External Debt A Primer On EM External Debt Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict

Highlights The recent weakness in emerging markets (EM) has not yet altered the Fed's view of the U.S. economy. Capital spending in the U.S. remains upbeat despite a slowdown in economic momentum outside the country. May's Beige Book continued to highlight labor shortages, especially among skilled workers in key areas of the economy. Feature Chart 1The Labor Market Continues To Tighten The Labor Market Continues To Tighten The Labor Market Continues To Tighten U.S. risk assets dipped along with Treasury yields last week as investor worry about Italy, emerging markets and global trade mounted. BCA's stance is that despite the increase in financial market and economic stress overseas, the Federal Reserve will stick to its gradual pace of rate hikes for now. Policymakers at the central bank would need to see a direct and prolonged impact on U.S. financial conditions before adjusting the path of rate hikes. Data released last week on housing, capital spending and the labor market confirmed that the U.S. economy is growing well above its long-term potential in 1H 2018 and that inflation remains at the Fed's 2% target (see section below). The U.S. added 223,000 jobs in May. The 3-month average, at almost 180,000, is well above the expansion in the labor force. Thus, the unemployment rate ticked down to 3.8%, matching the low seen during the height of the tech bubble in 2000 (Chart 1). For the FOMC, the unemployment rate has already reached the level policymakers had projected for the end of the year (3.8%). Indeed, by later this year unemployment is likely to drop below the FOMC's projection for the end of 2019 (3.6%). The Fed has signaled that it is comfortable with an overshoot of the 2% inflation target, but it will likely be forced by early 2019 to transition from simply normalizing monetary policy at a "gradual" pace to targeting slower growth. This would set the stage for a recession in 2020. Julia Coronado, a panelist at BCA's upcoming 2018 Investment Conference in Toronto, noted recently that inflation may fall short of the Fed's target and cause the Fed to scale back its planned hikes.1 Italy remains a key source of concern for markets. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service notes that a new election is likely in Italy after August, prolonging the political uncertainty there. BCA's stance is that while Italian policymakers' fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB will last throughout 2018, they are not looking to exit the euro area yet. Over the next ten years, however, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects Italy to test the markets with a euro area exit attempt. We are sticking to our view that such an event is far more likely to occur following a recession than it is today.2 The Trump Administration re-ignited the trade war last week. We discuss below, in the context of the Fed's Beige Book, which noted an uptick in uncertainty surrounding trade. Is EM Weakness A Risk? The recent weakness in emerging markets has not altered the Fed's view of the U.S. economy. Chart 2, Chart 3 and Chart 4 show the performance of key U.S and EM financial market earnings and economic metrics indexed to the peak of MSCI's Emerging Market Index in mid-1997, late 2014 and early 2018. Chart 2 (panel 1) shows that the dollar's strength since the EM markets peaked last year is modest compared with prior cycles. Moreover, oil prices are rising today; in 1997-98 and 2014-15 prices collapsed. The implication is that rising oil prices suggest that global economic activity is in an uptrend. Last week, BCA's Commodity and Energy Service team revised their forecasts for oil prices in 2018 and 2019 warning investors to expect more volatility in oil markets.3 U.S. financial conditions (panel 3) have eased since the EM peak in early 2018. This contrasts with 1997-98 and in 2014-2016 when financial conditions tightened considerably. S&P 500 forward EPS estimates (panel 4) have climbed since the top in EM equities, but the rise is related to the 2017 tax bill. Analysts' estimates for U.S. large cap earnings also rose during the EM crisis in the late 1990s, but then fell in 2014 and 2015 as oil prices dropped. U.S. real final demand climbed after EM equities peaked in 1997 and 2014. BCA's view is that the U.S. economy will accelerate in the final three quarters of 2018 and run well above its long-term potential of 1.8%. Chart 2U.S. Financial Conditions, ##br##Oil And EPS During EM Stress U.S. Financial Conditions, Oil And EPS During EM Stress U.S. Financial Conditions, Oil And EPS During EM Stress Chart 3EM Assets 1997-98, ##br##2014-15 And Today EM Assets 1997-98, 2014-15 And Today EM Assets 1997-98, 2014-15 And Today Chart 4U.S. Stocks, Treasuries, ##br##Spread Product And EM Stress U.S. Stocks, Treasuries, Spread Product And EM Stress U.S. Stocks, Treasuries, Spread Product And EM Stress The rise in the dollar and Fed rate hike expectations have pressured some EM currencies, financial markets and economies. That said, the response is muted relative to previous cycles. A Boston Fed paper4 found that during recent bouts of international financial market turmoil, EM economies with fewer economic vulnerabilities performed better than economies that were more exposed. However, the paper also noted that during crises in the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was little differentiation in EM market performance. Chart 3 shows that in the late 1990s and between 2014 and 2016, EM currencies declined about 8.2% in the first few months after EM equity prices peaked. Today, EM currencies are down just 3.8% versus the dollar since the EM equity peak (panel 1). Panel 2 shows EM stocks relative to U.S. stocks since the EM summit and panel 3 shows the global LEI (ex the U.S.) is tracking the mid-1990s episode, but not the 2014-2016 experience. China's Li Keqiang Index (LKI) is also following the late 1990s episode. BCA's China Investment Strategy service states that China's economy will continue to weaken, but that the deceleration will not be as severe as the 2014-2016 slowdown (panel 4).5 U.S. Treasury yields are on the rise; in the late 1990s and 2014-2016 (Chart 4, panel 1) they headed downhill. That said, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note has dipped 3 bps in the past week as investor worry about EM, global trade and Italy more than offset a strong batch of U.S. economic data. Panels 2 and 3 show that the S&P 500 and the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio dipped after the peak in EM stocks this year and in the earlier episodes. We note that at this point in the previous two instances, both U.S. equity prices and the stock-to-bond ratio began to climb and soon surpassed their prior heights. BCA's view is that some caution is warranted on U.S. stocks in the next few months. However, in the next 12 months, the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio will move higher. Investment-grade (panel 4) and high-yield spreads (panel 5) climbed this year after the top in EM stock prices. Moreover, the escalation in high-yield spreads is muted relative to the increase in 2014 as oil prices peaked. We also note that current spread levels are well above those in the late 1990s. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service recommends investors overweight high-yield bonds relative to Treasuries.6 Previous periods of EM-related stress in the financial markets led to shifts in the relationship between the dollar and certain U.S. asset classes. The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the correlation between changes in U.S. stock prices and the dollar tends to increase during these episodes. The relationship is more consistent prior to 2000. Since that time, the dollar and U.S. equities have moved in opposite directions during intervals of EM stress. There is no clear pattern in the relationship between the stock-to-bond ratio and the dollar when EM stress intensifies (panel 2). There is a very choppy correlation between S&P operating earnings and the dollar (panel 3). Chart 5U.S. Financial Markets' Correlation With The Dollar During EM Stress U.S. Financial Markets' Correlation With The Dollar During EM Stress U.S. Financial Markets' Correlation With The Dollar During EM Stress Likewise, there is no consistent interconnection between bond yields and the dollar (Chart 5, panel 4) as EM stress increases. However, as the pressure mounts, we note that the correlation between the dollar and the 10-year begins to shift. Oil and gold prices and the dollar tend to move in opposite directions during times of EM stress (not shown). Moreover, since the early 2000s, there is a consistently negative relationship between the dollar, gold and oil. In recent years, an escalating dollar has been aligned with small cap stocks outperforming large caps. Larger companies have more exposure to overseas sales than small cap firms in the S&P 500.7 Bottom Line: Dollar strength and rising U.S. bond yields are a classic late-cycle combination that often spells trouble for emerging market assets. Escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could potentially lead the Federal Reserve to put the rate hike campaign on hold. However, that would require some signs of either domestic financial stress or slowing growth. Stay short duration over a 12 month horizon. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service is looking for a trough in economic surprise and a capitulation in speculative positioning in the Treasury market to signal the end to the recent pullback in yields.8 Dollar Impact Capital spending in the U.S. remains upbeat despite a slowdown in economic momentum outside the country. BCA's view is that global growth will cool for the next few months and then reaccelerate. Chart 6 shows that global capital goods imports have rolled over (panel 1), but that new capital goods orders in the G3 remain in an upward trend (panel 2). Nonetheless, most of the strength in the G3 is from the U.S. BCA's model for nominal and real business investment (panel 3) suggests that capex is poised to rocket in the coming quarters. Moreover, CEO confidence measured by Duke and the Business Roundtable remain at cycle highs (Chart 7, panel 1) while business spending plans in the regional Fed surveys are still elevated (panels 2 and 3). Higher oil prices are not the only story behind the boom in U.S. business spending. Chart 8 shows that energy capex troughed (panel 3) a few months after oil prices (panel 1) in early 2016. Business spending outside the oil patch never turned negative on a year-over-year basis (panel 2) and it is still on the upswing. The 2017 tax bill and corporations' search for labor-saving machinery as wage and compensation metrics rise are behind the surge in spending. Robust corporate earnings also provide a tailwind for capex (panel 4). Chart 6Global Growth Is Rolling Over... Global Growth Is Roilling Over… Global Growth Is Roilling Over… Chart 7..But U.S. Growth Is Poised To Lift Off ..But U.S. Growth Is Poised To Lift Off ..But U.S. Growth Is Poised To Lift Off Chart 8Oil Is A Tailwind For Capes, ##br##But Not The Whole Story Oil Is A Tailwind For Capes,But Not The Whole Story Oil Is A Tailwind For Capes,But Not The Whole Story Last week's report on corporate profits allows us to compare the trajectory of the S&P 500's profits and margins to the NIPA measures (Chart 9). Both metrics indicate that earnings jumped in recent quarters (panel 1) to record heights (panel 2). Any disconnect between the two indicators has disappeared.9 Chart 10 shows that S&P 500 revenues dipped in Q1 (panel 1), but NIPA-based sales measures continued to climb (panel 2). However, panel 2 shows a divergence in margins. The BEA sounding leaped ahead in Q1 while the S&P 500 version levelled off. BCA's view is that S&P 500 earnings growth on a trailing four-quarter basis will peak later this year (Chart 11). Moreover, we anticipate the secular mean reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning later in 2018. Chart 9S&P And NIPA Profit Measures Are Aligned S&P And NIPA Profit Measures Are Aligned S&P And NIPA Profit Measures Are Aligned Chart 10NIPA And S&P Sales And Profit Margins NIPA And S&P Sales And Profit Margins NIPA And S&P Sales And Profit Margins The dollar's recent strength is not yet a threat to U.S. corporate profits nor the U.S. equity market. BCA's view is that the dollar will advance by 5% in the next 12 months. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 1 to 2 percentage points, although most of this would occur in 2019 due to lagged effects. Indeed, the dollar would only climb in the context of robust U.S. economic growth and an expanding corporate top line. Nonetheless, the stronger greenback is not yet evident in forward EPS estimates for 2018 or 2019. (Chart 12). Chart 11Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, ##br##Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Chart 12Is the Stronger Dollar Starting To Impact 2019 EPS Estimates? Is the Stronger Dollar Starting To Impact 2019 EPS Estimates? Is the Stronger Dollar Starting To Impact 2019 EPS Estimates? Bottom Line: BCA's view is that the slowdown in growth outside the U.S. is not the start of a more significant downturn. Monetary policy is still accommodative worldwide, U.S. fiscal policy is loose and governments outside the U.S. are no longer tightening policy. The implication is that a big slide in global growth is not likely and that by the end of the summer, global growth will probably reaccelerate. Therefore, risks to the dollar are much more balanced and we do not foresee much more upside in the greenback. Stay long stocks versus bonds. However, investors with longer horizons should begin to prepare for lower real returns in the 2020s after a recession early in that decade. Beige Book Update The Beige Book released last week ahead of the FOMC's June 12-13 meeting suggested that uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy remained an important headwind in April and May. The Fed's business and banking contacts mentioned either tariffs or trade policy 34 times in the Beige Book. This was below 44 mentions in the April edition, but well above the 3 mentions in March. Moreover, uncertainty came up 13 times in May (Chart 13, panel 5); 10 were related to trade policy. There were nine mentions of trade in April and only two in March. Chart 13Rise Of Inflation Words ##br##And Uncertainty Stand Out Rise Of Inflation Words And Uncertainty Stand Out Rise Of Inflation Words And Uncertainty Stand Out BCA's view is that trade-related uncertainty will persist at least until the midterm elections in November.10 The Trump administration announced a new round of tariffs on Chinese products last week. Moreover, the U.S. plans to end the exemptions it provided to E.U. steelmakers on the tariffs that the U.S. imposed earlier this year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service notes that the U.S.-China trade war is back on. The significance of the administration's about-face on trade is that it invalidates the conventional view that President Xi and Trump would promptly make a deal to ease tensions. President Trump's election, however, has revealed the preference of the median voter in the U.S. on trade. That preference is far less committed to free trade than previously assumed. Despite the headwind from trade, BCA's quantitative approach to the Beige Book's qualitative data continues to point to underlying strength in the U.S. economy, a tighter labor market and higher inflation. Moreover, references to a stronger dollar have disappeared from the Beige Book. Chart 13, panel 1 shows that at 67% in May, BCA's Beige Book Monitor ticked up from April's 55% reading, which was the lowest level since November 2017 when doubts over the tax bill weighed on business sentiment. The number of weak words in the Beige Book remained near four-year lows. On the other hand, the number of strong words climbed in May, but remains below last fall's post-hurricane highs. The tax bill was noted 3 times in the latest Beige Book, down from 12 in April and 15 in March. The legislation was cast in a positive light in two of the three mentions. BCA's stance is that the dollar will move modestly higher in 2018. The trade-weighted dollar is up 4.1% since mid-April, but the elevated value of the greenback is not yet a concern for Beige Book respondents. Furthermore, based on the minimal references to a robust dollar (only eight in the past eight Beige Books), the dollar should not be an issue for corporate profits in Q2 2018. The handful of recent references sharply contrasts with the surge in comments during 2015 and early 2016 (Chart 13, panel 4). The last time that eight consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. Table 1Labor 'Shortages' Identified In The Beige Book Cleanup On Aisle Two Cleanup On Aisle Two The disagreement on inflation between the Beige Book and the Fed's preferred price metric narrowed in May (Chart 13, panel 3). The number of inflation words rose to a fresh cycle zenith, surpassing the July 2017 peak. Core PCE also increased in early 2018. However, in the past year, inflation measured by the PCE deflator, failed to match the escalation in inflation references. In the past, increased remarks about inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may still climb. May's Beige Book continued to highlight labor shortages, especially among skilled workers in key areas of the economy. Shortages of qualified workers were reported in various specialized trades and occupations, including truck drivers, sales personnel, carpenters, electricians, painters and information technology professionals. The Beige Book noted that many firms responded to the lack of qualified workers by increasing wages and compensation packages. Moreover, the word "widespread", which is part of BCA's inflation words count, was used 11 times in May, to describe both labor shortages and rising input costs. Table 1 shows industries with labor shortages. In the year ended April 2018, the gain in average hourly earnings in most of the industries was faster than average. Moreover, in nearly all these categories, labor market conditions are the tightest since before the onset of the 2007-2009 recession. More details can be found in a recent Fed study on labor shortages in the manufacturing sector.11 BCA's Beige Book Commercial Real Estate (CRE) Monitor12 remains in a downtrend (Chart 14). The Fed has highlighted valuation concerns in CRE and BCA's Global Investment Strategy service recently stated that the sector is increasingly vulnerable.13 Chart 14Beige Book Commercial Real Estate Monitor Beige Book Commercial Real Estate Monitor Beige Book Commercial Real Estate Monitor Bottom Line: May's Beige Book supports our stance that inflation will lead to at least three more Fed rate hikes by the end of the year. Moreover, labor shortages may be spreading from highly skilled to moderately skilled workers, and rising input costs are widespread. The nation's tax policy still gets high marks from the business community, but ongoing concerns over trade policy will restrain growth. The Fed may back off from this gradual path if stress in the emerging markets leads to tighter U.S. financial conditions. Still, it will take more than the recent spate of EM turmoil to deter the Fed. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.rutgersrealestate.com/blog-re/low-inflation-the-good-and-the-bad/ 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!", published May 30, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity And Energy Strategy "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again", published May 31,2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/Workingpapers/PDF/rpa1702.pdf 5 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "11 Charts to Watch", published May 30, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Coming To Grips With Gradualism", published May 8, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Too Good To Be True", published January 22, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", published May 22, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Stress Out", July 3, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/evaluating-labor-shortages-in-manufacturing-20180309.htm 12 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Stress Out", dated July 3, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Tantalizing Trades - Four Months On", dated January 19, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update A Series Of Unfortunate Events Markets have taken a series of hits in recent months - sharp drops in emerging market currencies, a political crisis in Italy, and the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China - not to mention a slowdown in cyclical growth. But risk assets have been remarkably resilient: the U.S. stock market is in the middle of its year-to-date range, and U.S. small cap stocks (more attuned to domestic conditions) are at record highs (Chart 1). The uncertainty is set to continue for a while. But, with global growth likely to settle at an above-trend pace, fiscal and monetary policy still accommodative, and earnings continuing to grow strongly, the recent resilience says to us that risk assets are likely to grind higher and to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. A major underlying cause of the recent volatility has been the growing disparity between growth in the U.S. and in the rest of the world (Chart 2). This is partly due to the strength of the euro and yen last year, which is now dampening activity in these regions, but the slowdown in Chinese industrial growth and a higher oil price may also be having a disproportionate effect on growth outside the U.S. This growth disparity has widened interest rate differentials, which have again become the major driver of currencies, pushing up the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). Chart 1Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Chart 2Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Chart 3...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise ...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise ...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise In combination with rising U.S. interest rates (the 10-year Treasury yield rose above 3% last month, before correcting a little), dollar appreciation is a threat for emerging markets. EM assets have long shown a consistently strong inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 4). We expect the EM sell-off to continue. Further Fed hikes and rising inflation expectations in the U.S. (relative to the euro area and Japan) will increase interest-rate differentials and push the dollar up further: we forecast 1.12 for euro/dollar. Investors are still far from capitulating on EM assets after several years of large purchases (Chart 5). Many EM central banks are being forced to raise rates to defend their currencies, which will dent growth. Some may even be forced into reintroducing capital controls. Several emerging economies besides Argentina and Turkey remain vulnerable, having worryingly high amounts of foreign currency debt (Chart 6). Chart 4Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Chart 5Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Chart 6Worrying Levels Of FX Debt Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 7Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Geopolitics is likely to remain a drag on markets for a while, too. Italy remains the biggest threat. The discontent of the Italian population is unsurprising given the country's stagnation since it joined the euro (Chart 7). The probable coalition government of the Lega and Five Star Movement would introduce aggressive fiscal stimulus, putting it in confrontation with the EU's budgetary rules. But BCA's geopolitical strategists see little risk of Italy exiting the euro in the next two years (though 10 years might be a different story).1 Political gyrations may continue for some months, particularly if the new government persists with its plan to blow the fiscal deficit out to 7% of GDP, but the sell-off in short-term Italian bonds looks to be overdone. Developments in trade tariffs, Iran and North Korea could also weigh on markets in coming months. But ultimately economic fundamentals almost always outweigh geopolitical risk. Global growth is slowing, but to an above-trend pace. Fiscal policy is particularly stimulative this year, with 17 of the 33 OECD countries undertaking large fiscal easing, and a further 11 some easing. The overall cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance in OECD countries is forecast to ease by 0.5% of GDP this year and 0.4% next (Chart 8). Monetary policy remains accommodative almost everywhere. The FOMC, in its May statement, by adding the word "symmetric" to describe its 2% inflation objective, was clearly emphasizing that it sees no need to accelerate the pace of rate hikes, despite the recent pickup in core PCE inflation. We expect the Fed to continue to raise rates once a quarter, meaning that monetary policy will not become restrictive until around Q1 next year. With inflation expectations not yet fully normalized (Chart 9), the Fed could still exercise its "put option" by holding for a quarter or two if global risk were to rise significantly. Italy's problems also make it more likely that the ECB will stay easier for longer, and the probability is rising of its deciding to extend asset purchases into next year. Chart 8Fiscal Stimulus (Almost) Everywhere Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 9Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise With the consensus already forecasting global GDP to grow 3.4% this year, and U.S. earnings by 22%, there is no obvious catalyst for risk assets to rebound sharply (Chart 10). However, we find it inconceivable that equity markets will not be higher in 12 months' time - and will not have outperformed bonds over that time - if the macro environment plays out as we expect. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on equities and underweight on fixed income, but might start to turn more defensive around the end of the year if the signs are in place that the recession we expect in 2020 is still on the cards. Equities: For the reasons described above, we remain cautious on EM equities. Within EM, our preference would be for markets such as China, Korea and India, which are likely to be less affected by investors' concerns about current account deficits and foreign-currency denominated debt. In DM, our preference remains for late-cyclical sectors, especially energy, financials and industrials. We mainly view regional and country selection as a derivative of the sector call: this supports our preference for euro zone and Japanese stocks over those in the U.S. and U.K. Fixed Income: A combination of quarterly Fed rate hikes, a further normalization of inflation expectations, and moderate rises in the real rate and term premium are likely to push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield up to 3.5% by year-end (Chart 11). We, therefore, remain underweight duration and prefer TIPs to nominal bonds. We keep our overweights on spread product within the fixed-income bucket, since it should continue to outperform for another couple of quarters. U.S. high-yield spreads are likely to remain steady, giving an attractive carry even after accounting for defaults; investment grade spreads might start to recover, given that the sell-off of quality bonds by companies repatriating short-term investments held offshore ($35 Bn from the 20 largest U.S. companies in Q1) is now mostly over (Chart 12). Chart 10Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Chart 11Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Chart 12Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Currencies: Interest-rate differentials, as described above, are likely to push the dollar up further, especially against the euro. This should continue until the effect of a strong dollar/weak euro starts to rebalance growth surprises back to the euro area, perhaps around the end of the year. We see less chance of dollar appreciation against the yen (which is still undervalued against its PPP value of 98, and may benefit from its safe-haven status) and against the Canadian dollar (given the Bank of Canada's hawkish stance). Commodities: Industrial commodities are likely to continue to struggle against headwinds from the appreciating dollar, and the continuing moderate slowdown in China (Chart 13). The oil price has become a tougher call recently, with talk that OPEC may agree later this month to bring back as much as 1 million barrels/day in production, but Venezuelan and Iranian supply likely to exit the market. BCA's energy strategists now forecast WTI and Brent to average $70 and $78 in 2H18, and $67/$72 in 2019, but expect higher volatility in the price over coming months (Chart 14).2 Chart 13Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Chart 14Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!," dated 30 May 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output: Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," dated 31 May 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Dear Client, I will be visiting clients next week. Instead of our Weekly Report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Matt Gertken and Ray Park. The report addresses the North Korean situation and argues that a positive, if not perfect, diplomatic solution will result from U.S.-North Korean negotiations. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The U.S. can withstand further rate hikes. Neither economic nor financial imbalances are especially elevated, while fiscal stimulus will offset much of the sting from tighter monetary policy. Unfortunately, America's resilience to higher rates does not extend to the rest of the world. A stronger dollar is undermining emerging markets, which are already under pressure from slower Chinese growth and the looming prospect of trade wars. The crisis in Italy will further restrain the ECB from withdrawing monetary support. Investors focused on capital preservation should remain underweight Italian bonds. More speculatively-minded investors could consider opening a long position in BTPs versus bunds, but not before the Italian 10-year yield has reached 4%. EUR/USD came within a whisker of our 1.15 target this week. We will book profits on our long DXY trade recommendation if the dollar index reaches 96. A defensive posture is appropriate for now, but risk assets should recover later this year as the global economy finds its footing. This could set the scene for a blow-off rally in stocks. Feature Gauging The Pain Threshold From Higher Rates Chart 1Market Expectations Slightly Below Fed Dots Market Expectations Slightly Below Fed Dots Market Expectations Slightly Below Fed Dots After the recent turbulence, the market is pricing in 100 basis points of Fed rate hikes between now and the end of 2020 (Chart 1). Such a pace of rate hikes would be quite slow by historic standards. In past tightening cycles, the Fed would typically raise rates by about 50 basis points per quarter. Investors expect the real fed funds rate to peak at around 1%, well below the historic average of 3%-to-5%. Underlying these expectations is the presumption that the neutral rate of interest - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - is quite low, and that the Fed will not have to raise rates much above neutral to cool the economy. According to the April FOMC minutes, "a few" participants thought that the fed funds rate was already close to its equilibrium level. There are many reasons to think that R-star has fallen over time, but in practice, the margin of error around estimates of the neutral rate is huge. Thus, rather than getting bogged down over technical issues, investors would be well served by taking a more practical approach and asking what they should be on the lookout for to determine whether interest rates have moved into restrictive territory. The State Of The U.S. Housing Market Housing has historically been the most important interest rate-sensitive sector, so much so that Ed Leamer entitled his 2007 Jackson Hole symposium paper "Housing Is The Business Cycle."1 Given the recent runup in mortgage yields, it is not too surprising that the latest data on U.S. housing has been on the weak side (Chart 2). Mortgage applications for purchase have come off their highs. Housing starts, building permits, and new and existing home sales all declined in April. Homebuilder sentiment improved a tad, but this was due to an increase in the current sales component; future sales expectations were flat on the month. The share of respondents who indicated that now was a good time to buy a home in the latest University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey declined to 69% in May, continuing its slide from a peak of 83% in December 2014. Still, we would not fret too much about the state of the U.S. housing market (Chart 3). Construction activity has been slow to increase this cycle, which has pushed vacancies to ultra-low levels. Home prices have been rising briskly, but are still 13% below their 2006 peak once adjusted for inflation. On both a price-to-rent and price-to-income basis, home prices do not appear overly stretched. Mortgage servicing costs, expressed as a share of disposable income, are near all-time lows. The homeownership rate has also been trending higher, thanks to faster household formation and an improving labor market. Chart 2U.S. Housing: Higher Mortgage##br## Rates Are A Headwind... U.S. Housing: Higher Mortgage Rates Are A Headwind... U.S. Housing: Higher Mortgage Rates Are A Headwind... Chart 3...But Don't##br## Fret Yet ...But Don't Fret Yet ...But Don't Fret Yet Household Debt Is Not Yet At Worrying Levels Lenders also remain circumspect (Chart 4). Mortgage debt has barely grown as a share of disposable income throughout the recovery, and is still 31 percentage points below 2007 levels. The average FICO score for new mortgages stands at a healthy 761, well above pre-recession standards. The Urban Institute Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, is nowhere close to dangerous levels. This is particularly the case for private-label mortgages, whose default risk has hovered at just over 2% during the past few years, down from a peak of 22% in 2006. A dwindling share of loan originations since the financial crisis has involved adjustable rate mortgages (Chart 5). This has made the housing market more resilient to Fed rate hikes. Other parts of the household credit arena look more menacing, but not so much that they threaten to short-circuit the economy. Banks have been tightening lending standards on auto loans since Q2 of 2016 and credit card loans since the second quarter of last year. This should help moderate the increase in default rates that has been observed in those categories (Chart 6). Chart 4Mortgage Debt Is Not ##br##A Cause For Concern Mortgage Debt Is Not A Cause For Concern Mortgage Debt Is Not A Cause For Concern Chart 5Housing Market: More Resilient To ##br##Rate Hikes Than It Used To Be Housing Market: More Resilient To Rate Hikes Than It Used To Be Housing Market: More Resilient To Rate Hikes Than It Used To Be Chart 6Lenders Are More ##br##Circumspect These Days Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days Student debt has continued to trend higher, but the vast majority of these loans is backstopped by the government. While the Treasury's own finances are on an unsustainable trajectory, this is more of a long-term concern than a short-term problem. If anything, fiscal stimulus over the next two years will allow the Fed to raise rates more than it could otherwise without endangering the economy. Corporate Borrowing: High But Not Extreme Like a river, market liquidity tends to flow along the path of least resistance, rather than towards those who happen to be the most thirsty. While the household sector was piling on debt during the 2001-2007 boom, the U.S. corporate sector was still recovering from the hangover produced by the capex boom in the late 1990s. A decade later, corporate balance sheets were in good shape. Spurred on by ultra-low interest rates, corporate debt levels began to rise. Today, the ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP is near a record high. Valuations for corporate assets have reached lofty levels. In inflation-adjusted terms, commercial real estate prices are 4% above their pre-recession peak (Chart 7). U.S. equities also trade at a historically elevated multiple to earnings, sales, and book value (Chart 8). There are bright spots, however (Chart 9). Thanks to lofty corporate profits, the ratio of corporate debt-to-EBITDA is in the middle of its post-1990 range based on national accounts data. Interest payments-to-EBIT are near historic lows. Corporate bonds now represent 60% of total corporate liabilities. Bonds tend to have much longer maturities than bank loans, which provides a buffer against default risk. Although the picture is not as benign if one performs a bottom-up analysis of publicly-listed companies, the overall message is that the U.S. corporate sector can handle higher rates. Corporate stresses will eventually rise, but it will likely take a recession for this to happen, which we don't expect until 2020. Chart 7Commercial Real Estate Prices: ##br##Above Pre-Recession Levels Commercial Real Estate Prices: Above Pre-Recession Levels Commercial Real Estate Prices: Above Pre-Recession Levels Chart 8U.S. Equities##br## Are Overvalued U.S. Equities Are Overvalued U.S. Equities Are Overvalued Chart 9Corporate Debt Is High,##br## But So Are Profits Corporate Debt Is High, But So Are Profits Corporate Debt Is High, But So Are Profits Cyclical Spending Still Subdued The discussion above suggests that U.S. interest rate-sensitive sectors can withstand further rate hikes. This conclusion is buttressed by the observation that the cyclical sectors of the economy - the ones that tend to weaken the most during recessions - have yet to reach levels that make them vulnerable to a sharp retrenchment. Chart 10 shows that the sum of business capital spending, residential and commercial construction, and consumer discretionary goods purchases is still well below levels that have preceded past recessions. Along the same lines, the private sector financial balance - the difference between what the private sector earns and what it spends - is currently in surplus to the tune of 2.2% of GDP. This compares to deficits of 5.4% of GDP in 2000 and 3.8% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 11). Further monetary tightening, to the extent that it prevents any brewing imbalances in the real economy and financial markets from worsening, may be just what the doctor ordered. Chart 10Cyclical Spending Still Below Levels##br## Preceding Past Recessions Cyclical Spending Still Below Levels Preceding Past Recessions Cyclical Spending Still Below Levels Preceding Past Recessions Chart 11U.S. Private Sector Financial##br## Balance Is Healthy U.S. Private Sector Financial Balance Is Healthy U.S. Private Sector Financial Balance Is Healthy The Sneeze Felt Around The World The U.S. is not an island unto itself. Even if a bit outdated, the old adage which says that when the U.S. sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold, still rings true. As such, focusing on the neutral rate only as it pertains to the U.S. is a bit too parochial. There may be a lower "shadow" neutral rate which, if breached, causes pain outside the U.S. before it causes pain in the U.S. itself. Emerging markets are particularly sensitive to changes in U.S. financial conditions. About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. interest rates make it more difficult for EM borrowers to service their debts. While EM foreign-currency debt has declined as a share of total debt outstanding, this is only because the past decade has seen a boom in local debt issuance (Chart 12). As a share of GDP, exports, and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years (Chart 13). Most emerging markets entered 2018 with strong growth momentum. Recent tracking estimates point to some deceleration in GDP growth, but nothing too alarming (Chart 14). That could begin to change. EM financial conditions have started to tighten, which is likely to weigh on activity. BCA's Emerging Market and Geopolitical Strategy teams have flagged the prospect of policy-inducing tightening in China. Trade tensions also seem to be escalating again following President Trump's decision this week to curb Chinese investment in the U.S., impose a 25% tariff on $50 billion of Chinese imports, and slap tariffs on foreign steel. All this could put an additional dent in global growth. While this publication does not expect a full-blown EM crisis, a period of EM underperformance over the next few months is likely. Chart 12EM Borrowers Like Local Credit, ##br##But Don't Dislike Foreign-Currency Debt EM Borrowers Like Local Credit, But Don't Dislike Foreign-Currency Debt EM Borrowers Like Local Credit, But Don't Dislike Foreign-Currency Debt Chart 13EM Dollar##br## Debt Is High EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 14EM Growth Decelerating,##br## But Not Dramatically... Yet EM Growth Decelerating, But Not Dramatically... Yet EM Growth Decelerating, But Not Dramatically... Yet Italy: If You Are Gonna Do The Time, You Might As Well Do The Crime Even if emerging markets avoid another major crisis, one can always count on Europe to try to fill the void. The Italian 10-year bond yield is up over 100 basis points since the middle of April. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of one, a standard Taylor Rule equation says that Italy would need 2% of GDP in fiscal stimulus per year to offset the tightening in financial conditions brought upon by the recent increase in borrowing costs.2 That is 20% of GDP in stimulus over the next decade to pay for a fiscal package that has yet to be implemented by a government that does not yet (and may never) exist. At this point, investors are basically punishing Italy for a crime – defaulting and possibly jettisoning the euro – it has yet to commit. If you are going to get reprimanded for something you have not done, you have more incentive to do it. The market realizes this, which is why it is locked in a vicious circle where rising yields make default more likely, leading to even higher yields (Chart 15). The fact that GDP per capita in Italy is no higher now than when the country adopted the euro in 1999, and Italian public support for euro area membership is lower than elsewhere, has only added fuel to investor concerns (Chart 16). Chart 15When A Lender Of Last Resort Is Absent, Multiple Equilibria Are Possible Who Suffers When The Fed Hikes Rates? Who Suffers When The Fed Hikes Rates? Chart 16Italy: Neither Divine Nor A Comedy Italy: Neither Divine Nor A Comedy Italy: Neither Divine Nor A Comedy As we go to press, rumours are swirling that the Five Star Movement and Lega may be able to form a government after agreeing to appoint a less euroskeptic finance minister than the one the Italian President previously rejected. Regardless of whether this happens, investors are likely to remain on edge. Support for Lega has risen by seven percent since voters went to the polls in March. Populism is here to stay. All this suggests that the brewing crisis in Italy will not blow over easily. Investors focused on capital preservation should remain underweight Italian bonds. More speculatively-minded investors should consider opening a long position in BTPs versus bunds, but not before the Italian 10-year yield reaches 4%. At that point, the risk-reward trade-off from owning Italian debt would be too good to ignore. Until the Italian bond market reaches a capitulation point, the euro will remain under pressure. The Italian sovereign debt market is the biggest in Europe and the fourth largest in the world after the U.S., Japan, and China. If foreign investors continue to shun Italian debt, that will reduce capital inflows into the euro area. This means less demand for the common currency. Investment Conclusions The softening of global growth this year, along with tensions in emerging markets and Italy, have lit a fire under the dollar. Our long DXY trade is up 10.7% inclusive of carry. We continue to think that the path of least resistance for the dollar is up, but we will be looking to book gains on our trade recommendation once the dollar index reaches 96. That's roughly 2% above current levels. Slower global growth is bad news for cyclical equities. European and Japanese equities have a greater tilt towards cyclical sectors, so it is likely that their stock markets will underperform the U.S. over the next few months. This is particularly the case for Europe, where banks have come under pressure due to slower domestic growth, rising bond yields in Italy and Spain, and heightened exposure to emerging markets. For now, our MacroQuant model, which is designed to capture short-term movements in the stock market, is recommending a somewhat below-benchmark allocation to equities. Looking further out, our 12-month cyclical view on stocks remains modestly constructive, reflecting our expectation that the next major recession in developed markets is still two years away. Keep in mind that even the EM crisis in the 1990s did not plunge the U.S. into recession. On the contrary, the crisis restrained the Fed from raising rates too quickly. The resulting dose of liquidity led to a massive blow-off rally in equities, which took the S&P 500 up 68% between October 1998 and March 2000. European stocks did even better during that period, outperforming their U.S. peers by 40% in local-currency terms. We may be heading for a similar sequence of events. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Edward E. Leamer, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," Proceedings, Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, (2007). 2 The original Taylor Rule introduced by John Taylor in 1992 assigns a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap. Thus, a one hundred basis-point rise in interest rates would be necessary to offset a 2% of GDP increase in output. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The global trade slowdown will intensify, even if U.S. domestic demand remains robust. The large emerging Asian bourses will recouple to the downside with their EM peers. Market-neutral EM equity portfolios should consider going long consumer staples while shorting banks. In Chile, receive 3-year swap rates. Continue to overweight stocks relative to the EM benchmark. Short the Colombian peso versus the Russia ruble. Stay neutral on Colombian equities and local bonds but overweight sovereign credit within their respective EM universes. Feature Performance of large equity markets in north Asia - Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese investable stocks -- has been relatively resilient compared with other EM bourses. Specifically, the EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan equity index has already dropped 16% in U.S. dollar terms, while the market cap-weighted index of investable Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks is down only 8% from its peak in late January.1 These three markets account for 60% of the MSCI EM stock index. A pertinent question is whether these North Asian markets will de-couple from or re-couple with the rest of EM. Our bias is that they will re-couple to the downside. Global equity portfolios should continue to underweight Asian stocks versus the DM bourses in general, and the S&P 500 in particular. That said, dedicated EM equity portfolios should overweight Korea and Taiwan and maintain a neutral stance on China and Hong Kong relative to the EM and Asian equity benchmarks. The Global Trade Slowdown Will Intensify Emerging Asian stock markets are very sensitive to global trade cycles. Slowing global trade is typically negative for them. There is growing evidence that the global trade deceleration will intensify: The German IFO index for business expectations in German manufacturing - a good leading indicator for global trade - is pointing to a further slowdown in global exports (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Global Trade Slowdown Will Persist Global Trade Slowdown Will Persist Global Trade Slowdown Will Persist Export volume growth has already slowed across manufacturing Asia (Chart I-2). The most recent data points for these series are as of April. Asia's booming tech/semiconductor industry is also slowing. Both Taiwan's export orders growth and Singapore's technology PMI new orders-to-inventory ratio have relapsed (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Asian Exports Growth: Heading Southward Asian Exports Growth: Heading Southward Asian Exports Growth: Heading Southward Chart I-3Asian Tech: Feeling The Pinch Asian Tech: Feeling The Pinch Asian Tech: Feeling The Pinch One of the causes of weakness in the global semiconductor cycle could be stagnating global auto sales (Chart I-4). The latter are being weighed down by weakness in auto sales in China and the U.S. Cars require a significant amount of semiconductors, and lack of improvement in global auto sales will suppress semiconductor demand. So far, China has not been at the epicenter of investors' concerns, but this will soon change as its growth slowdown intensifies. Credit conditions continue to tighten in China, which entails downside risks to mainland capital spending and consequently imports. China's imports are set to slump considerably, reinforcing the global trade downturn.2 First, China's bank loan approvals have dropped considerably in the past 18 months, suggesting a meaningful slowdown in bank financing and in turn the country's investment expenditures (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Global Auto And Semiconductor Sales Global Auto And Semiconductor Sales Global Auto And Semiconductor Sales Chart I-5China: Bank Loan Approval And Capex China: Bank Loan Approval And Capex China: Bank Loan Approval And Capex Second, not only are bank loan standards tightening but costs of financing are also rising. The share of loans extended above the prime lending rate has risen to a 15-year high (Chart I-6, top panel). This represents marginal tightening. Finally, onshore corporate bond yields as well as offshore U.S. dollar-denominated corporate bond yields have broken to new highs in this cycle (Chart I-6, bottom panels). Mounting borrowing costs and tighter credit standards in China point to further deceleration in credit-sensitive spending such as investment expenditures and property purchases. On the whole, rising interest rates and material currency depreciation in EM ex-China and credit tightening in China will prompt a considerable slump in imports, depressing world trade. EM including Chinese imports account for 30% of global imports, while the U.S. and EU together make up 24% of global imports values. Hence, global trade will disappoint if and as EM and Chinese imports stumble. A final word on the history of de-coupling among EM regions is in order. There have been a few episodes when emerging Asian and Latin American stocks de-coupled: In 1997-'98, the home-grown Asian crisis devastated regional markets, but Latin American stocks continued to rally until mid-1998 - when they plummeted (Chart I-7, top panel). Chart I-6China: Rising Borrowing Costs China: Rising Borrowing Costs China: Rising Borrowing Costs Chart I-7De-coupling Between Asia And Latin America De-coupling Between Asia And Latin America De-coupling Between Asia And Latin America In 2007-'08, emerging Asian equities tumbled along with the S&P 500, but Latin American bourses fared well until the middle of 2008 due to surging commodities/oil prices (Chart I-7, middle panel). Finally, the bottom panel of Chart I-7 illustrates that in early 2015, Asian stocks performed well, supported by the inflating Chinese equity bubble. Meanwhile, Latin American stocks plunged. In all of these episodes, the de-coupling between Asia and Latin America proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside. Bottom Line: Global trade is set to head southward, even if U.S. demand remains robust. China's growth slump will be instrumental to this global trade slowdown. Consequently, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese equities will be vulnerable. Heeding To Market Signals Financial markets often move ahead of economic data, and simply tracking data is not always helpful in gauging turning points in business cycles. By the time economic data change course, financial markets would typically have already partially adjusted. Besides, past economic and financial market performance is not a guarantee of future performance. This is why we rely on thematic fundamental analysis and monitor intermediate- and long-term trends in financial markets to navigate through markets. There are presently several important market signals that investors should be heeding to: EM corporate bond yields are surging, which typically foreshadows falling EM share prices (Chart I-8). Meanwhile, there is no robust correlation between EM equities and U.S. bond yields. Chart I-8EM Share Prices Always Decline When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise EM Share Prices Always Decline When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise EM Share Prices Always Decline When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise The basis: So long as the rise in U.S. bond yields is offset by compressing EM credit spreads, EM corporate bond yields decline and EM share prices rally. But when EM corporate (or sovereign) yields rise, irrespective of whether this is due to rising U.S. Treasury yields or widening EM credit spreads, EM equity prices come under considerable selling pressure. Lately, both EM credit spreads have been widening, offsetting the drop in U.S. bond yields. Hence, a drop in U.S. bond yields is not in and of itself sufficient to halt a decline in EM share prices. So long as EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads are widening by more than the decline in U.S. Treasury yields, EM corporate and sovereign bond yields will rise, heralding lower EM share prices. The ratio of total return (including carry) of six commodities currencies relative to safe-haven currencies3 is breaking below its 200-day moving average after having bounced from this technical support line several times in the past 12 months (Chart I-9). This could be confirming that the bull market in EM risk assets is over, and a bear market is underway. Chinese property stocks listed onshore have broken down, and those trading in Hong Kong seem to be forming a head-and-shoulder pattern (Chart I-10). In the latter case, such a technical formation will likely be followed by a considerable down-leg. Chart I-9An Important Breakdown bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s1_c9 bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s1_c9 Chart I-10Chinese Property Stocks Look Very Vulnerable Chinese Property Stocks Look Very Vulnerable Chinese Property Stocks Look Very Vulnerable Further, China's onshore A-share index has already dropped by 15% from its cyclical peak in late January. Finally, both emerging Asia's relative equity performance against developed markets, as well as the emerging Asian currency index versus the U.S. dollar (ADXY) seem to be rolling over at their long-term moving averages (Chart I-11). The same technical pattern is presenting itself for global energy and mining stocks in absolute terms, and also in the overall Brazilian equity index (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Asian Equities And Currencies Are ##br##At Critical Juncture Asian Equities And Currencies Are At Critical Juncture Asian Equities And Currencies Are At Critical Juncture Chart I-12Commodity Equities And Brazil ##br##Are Facing Technical Resistance Commodity Equities And Brazil Are Facing Technical Resistance Commodity Equities And Brazil Are Facing Technical Resistance The failure of these markets to break above their long-term technical resistance levels may be signalling that their advance since early 2016 has been a cyclical - not structural - bull market, and is likely over. These technical chart profiles so far confirm our fundamental analysis that the EM and commodities rallies since early 2016 did not represent a multi-year secular bull market. If correct, the downside risks to EM including Asian markets are substantial, and selling/shorting them now is not too late. Bottom Line: EM including Asian stocks, currencies and credit markets are at risk of gapping down. Absolute-return investors should trade these markets on the short side. Asset allocators should underweight EM markets relative to DM in general and the U.S. in particular. A complete list of our currency, fixed-income and equity recommendations is available on pages 20-21. An EM Equity Sector Trade: Long Consumer Staples / Short Banks EM consumer staples have massively underperformed banks as well as the overall EM index since January 2016 (Chart I-13). The odds are that their relative performance is about to reverse. Equity investors should consider implementing the following equity pair trade: long consumer staples / short banks: Consumer staples are a low-beta sector because their revenues are less cyclical. As EM growth downshifts, share prices of companies with more stable revenue streams will likely outperform. Bank stocks are vulnerable as local interest rates in many EMs rise in response to the selloff in their respective currencies (Chart I-14). Consumer staples usually outperform banks when local borrowing costs are rising. Chart I-13Go Long EM Consumer Staples / ##br##Short EM Banks Go Long EM Consumer Staples / Short EM Banks Go Long EM Consumer Staples / Short EM Banks Chart I-14EM Banks Stocks Are Inversely Correlated With##br## EM Local Bond Yields EM Banks Stocks Are Inversely Correlated With EM Local Bond Yields EM Banks Stocks Are Inversely Correlated With EM Local Bond Yields We expect more currency depreciation in EM, which will exert further upward pressure on local rates, including interbank rates. Further, growth weakness in EM economies typically leads to rising non-performing loan (NPL) provisions. Chart I-15A and Chart I-15B demonstrates that weakening nominal GDP growth (shown inverted on the charts) leads to higher provisioning. Hence, a renewed EM growth slowdown will hurt bank profits. Chart I-15AWeaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails ##br##Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Chart I-15BWeaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails ##br##Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Weaker Nominal GDP Growth Entails Higher NPL Provisions Our assessment is that banks in many EM countries have provisioned less than what is probably necessary following years of a credit boom. Indeed, in the last 12-18 months or so, many banks have even been reducing their NPL provisions to boost profits. Hence, a reversal of these dynamics will undermine banks' earnings. Bottom Line: Market-neutral EM equity portfolios should consider going long consumer staples while shorting banks. This is in addition to our long-term strategy of shorting EM banks versus U.S. banks as well as shorting banks in absolute terms in individual markets such as Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia and small-cap banks in China. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 These calculations are done using MSCI investible stock indexes in U.S. dollars terms. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports", dated May 24, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Average of cad, aud, nzd, brl, clp & zar total returns (including carry) relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry). Chile: Stay Overweight Equities, Receive Rates 31 May 2018 Chart II-1Chilean Equities Relative Performance And Copper Prices Chilean Equities Relative Performance And Copper Prices Chilean Equities Relative Performance And Copper Prices It is often assumed that Chilean financial markets are a play on copper. While this largely holds true for the Chilean peso, it is not always correct regarding its stock market's relative performance to its EM peers. Chile has outperformed in the past amid declining copper prices (Chart II-1). Despite our negative view on copper prices, we are reiterating our overweight allocation to this bourse within an EM equity portfolio. There are convincing signs that growth in the Chilean economy is moving along fine for now (Chart II-2). While weakness in global trade will weigh on the economy, the critical variable that makes Chile stand out from other commodities producers in the EM universe is its ability to cut interest rates amid currency depreciation. Chart II-3 illustrates that interest rates in Chile can and do fall when the peso depreciates. This stands in stark contrast with many others economies in the EM universe. There are a number of factors that suggest inflationary pressures will remain dormant for some time. This will allow the Central Bank of Chile (CBC) to cut rates as and when required. Chart II-2Chile: Economic Conditions Chile: Economic Conditions Chile: Economic Conditions Chart II-3Interest Rates In Chile Can Fall When Peso Depreciates Interest Rates In Chile Can Fall When Peso Depreciates Interest Rates In Chile Can Fall When Peso Depreciates First, the output gap is negative and has been widening, which has historically led to falling core inflation (Chart II-4). Second, a wide range of consumer inflation measures - services and trimmed-mean inflation rates - are very low and remain in a downtrend (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Chile: Output Gap And Inflation Chile: Output Gap And Inflation Chile: Output Gap And Inflation Chart II-5Chile: Inflation Is Very Low And Falling Chile: Inflation Is Very Low And Falling Chile: Inflation Is Very Low And Falling Finally, there are no signs of wage inflation, which is the key driver of genuine inflation. In fact, wage growth is decelerating sharply (Chart II-6). Odds are that this disinflationary rout will go on for longer, given Chile's demographic and labor market dynamics. The country's labor force growth has accelerated and the economy does not seem able to absorb this excess labor supply (Chart II-7). Consistently, our labor surplus proxy - calculated as the number of unemployed looking for a job divided by the number of job vacancies - has surged to all-time highs (Chart II-8). Chart II-6Chile: Wage Growth Is Very Weak Chile: Wage Growth Is Very Weak Chile: Wage Growth Is Very Weak Chart II-7Chile: Rising Labor Force Chile: Rising Labor Force Chile: Rising Labor Force Chart II-8Chile: Excessive Labor Supply... Chile: Excessive Labor Supply... Chile: Excessive Labor Supply... Interestingly, this is not happening because of weak employment. Chart II-9 shows that the employment-to-working population ratio is at a record high, while employment growth is robust. This upholds that decent job growth is not sufficient to absorb the expanding supply of labor. All in all, a structural excess supply of labor as well as a cyclical slowdown in global trade and lower copper prices altogether will likely warrant a decline in interest rates in Chile. Consequently, we recommend a new fixed income trade: Receive 3-year swap rates. The recent rise provides a good entry point (Chart II-10). Chart II-9...Despite Robust Employment Growth ...Despite Robust Employment Growth ...Despite Robust Employment Growth Chart II-10Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates The ability to cut interest rates will mitigate the effect of weaker exports on the economy. We recommend dedicated EM investors maintain an overweight allocation in Chile in their equity, local currency bond and corporate credit portfolios. For absolute return investors, the risk-reward profiles for Chilean stocks and the currency are not attractive. The peso will depreciate considerably, and shorting it versus the U.S. dollar will prove profitable. Consistent with our negative view on copper prices, we have been recommending a short position in copper with a long leg in the Chilean peso. This allows traders to earn some carry while waiting for copper prices to break down. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Colombia: The Currency Will Be A Release Valve The structural long-term outlook for Colombia is positive, as a combination of pro-market orthodox policies and reform initiatives amid positive tailwinds from demographic should ensure a reasonably high potential GDP growth rate. In the first round of presidential elections held last weekend, the gap between right wing candidate Ivan Duque and left-wing candidate Gustav Petro came out large enough to make a Duque victory highly likely in the second round to be held on June 17. His election would entail a positive backdrop for the reform agenda and business investment over the coming years. Yet despite the positive structural backdrop, Colombia is still facing a major imbalance - excessive reliance on oil in sustaining stable balance of payments (BoP) dynamics. The trade balance deficit - including oil - is $8 billion, while excluding oil it stands at $20 billion, or 7.5% of GDP (Chart III-1). Hence, if oil prices drop materially in the second half of this year - as we expect - Colombia's balance of payments will be strained. Consequently, the currency will come under depreciation pressure. The peso is presently fairly valued as the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs is at its historical mean (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Colombia's Achilles' Hill: Trade Balance Excluding Oil Colombia's Achilles' Hill: Trade Balance Excluding Oil Colombia's Achilles' Hill: Trade Balance Excluding Oil Chart III-2The Colombian Peso Is Fairly Valued The Colombian Peso Is Fairly Valued The Colombian Peso Is Fairly Valued The central bank has adopted a "hands-off" approach toward the exchange rate, and is likely to allow the peso to depreciate if the BoP deteriorates. Weak economic conditions will likely prevent it from hiking interest rates to bolster the peso: Even though the central bank has reduced its policy rate by 350 basis points since the end of 2016, lending rates remain restrictive when compared with the nominal GDP growth rate (Chart III-3, top panel). Fiscal policy has been tight, with government expenditures subdued and the primary deficit narrowing (Chart III-3, bottom panel). This is unlikely to change for now if conservative candidate, Ivan Duque, wins the election. Consumer and business demand has failed to pick up, and shows little sign of recovery (Chart III-4). Non-performing loans (NPL) continue to rise, forcing banks to raise their NPL provisioning (Chart III-5). Weak nominal GDP growth suggests provisions may rise further. Chart III-3Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Chart III-4Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Colombia: Little Sign Of Recovery Chart III-5Colombian Banks: NPL And NPL Provision Continue Rising bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s3_c5 bca.ems_wr_2018_05_31_s3_c5 Overall, banks' balance sheets remain impaired, hampering their ability to extend loans. Investment Recommendations Despite a favorable structural outlook, Colombia's cyclical growth and financial market outlooks remain poor. Chances are that the peso will come under selling pressure as the external environment deteriorates - i.e., the currency will act as a release valve. We recommend staying neutral on Colombian stocks and local bonds relative to their EM peers, and to overweight Colombian sovereign credit within an EM credit portfolio. The basis is that sound and tight fiscal policies and a continuation of supply side reforms will benefit this credit market. To capitalize on potential currency depreciation while hedging for the uncertainty of oil price decline, we recommend shorting the peso against the Russian ruble. Although Colombia's structural outlook is more promising than Russia's, the latter's BoP dynamics is healthier and its cyclical growth outlook is better than Colombia's. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst AndrijaV@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

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

Highlights Trade war between China and U.S. is back on; President Trump is politically constrained from making a quick deal with China; Italian uncertainty will last through the summer and beyond; But bond market will eventually price profligacy over Euro Area exit, which favors bear steepening; A new election in Spain is market positive, there are no Euroskeptics in Iberia; Our tactical bearish view is playing out, stay long DXY and expect more summer volatility. Feature Geopolitical risks are rising across the board. This supports our tactically bearish view, elucidated in April.1 In this Client Note, we review our views on trade wars, Italy, and Spain. Is The U.S.-China Trade War Back On? Most relevant for global assets is that the first official salvo of the trade war between China and the U.S. has been fired: the White House announced, on May 29, tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports as well as yet-to-be-specified restrictions on Chinese investments in the U.S. and U.S. exports to China.2 We have long raised the alarm on U.S.-China relations, but President Trump threw us a curve-ball last week when Chinese and American negotiators issued a joint statement meant to soothe trade tensions. We responded that "we do not expect the truce to last long."3 Apparently it lasted merely eight days. The significance of the administration's about-face on trade is that it invalidates the conventional view that President Xi and Trump would promptly make a deal to ease tensions. Many of our clients have responded to our bearish view on Sino-American relations by suggesting that Beijing will simply offer to buy more "beef and Boeings," and that Trump will take the deal in order to declare a "quick win." The last ten days should put this view to rest. China did offer to buy more beef explicitly - with the offer of more Boeings also rumored - and yet President Trump rejected the deal. Why? Our suspicion is that President Trump was shocked by the backlash against the deal among Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators in the press. As we have argued since 2016, there is no political constraint to being tough on China on trade. This is a highly controversial view as many in the investment community agree with the narrative that the soybean lobby will prevent a trade war between the U.S. and China. President Trump's election, however, has revealed the preference of the median voter in the U.S. on trade. That preference is far less committed to free trade than previously assumed. Republicans in Congress, once staunch defenders of free trade, have therefore adjusted their policy preference, creating a political constraint to a quick deal with China. Bottom Line: Yes, the trade war is back on. We are re-opening our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms. Is Italy Going To Leave The Euro Area? The Italian bond market is beginning to price severe geopolitical stress. The 10-year BTP spread versus German bunds has grown 98 basis points since the election (Chart 1), while the 2/10 BTP yield curve has nearly inverted (Chart 2). The latter suggests that investors are beginning to price in default risk, or rather Euro Area exit risk, over the next two years. Chart 1Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Chart 2...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated ...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated ...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated We have long contended that Italy is the premier developed market political risk.4 Its level of Euroskepticism is empirically higher than that of the rest of Euro Area (Chart 3) and we have expected that Italy would eventually produce a global risk off. It is just not clear to us that this is the moment. Chart 3Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound First, support for the Euro Area remains in the high 50% range and has largely bounced between 55-60% for several years. This is low relative to its Euro Area peers, prompting us to raise the alarm on Italy. But it is also still a majority, showing that Italians are not sold on leaving the Euro Area. Second, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) has adjusted its policy towards the euro membership question in view of this polling. In other words, M5S is aware that the median Italian voter is not convinced that exiting the Euro Area is the right thing to do. We would argue that the anti-establishment parties performed well in this year's election precisely because of this strategic decision to abandon their Euroskeptic rhetoric on the currency union. Nonetheless, the deal that M5S signed to form a coalition with the far more Euroskeptic Lega was an aggressive deal that signals that Rome is preparing for a fight against Brussels, the ECB, and core Europe. The proposed tax cuts, unwinding of retirement reforms, and increases in social welfare spending would raise Italy's budget deficit from current 2.3% of GDP to above 7%. Given rules against such profligacy, and given Italy's high debt levels, the coalition might as well be proposing a Euro Area exit. There are three additional concerns aside from fiscal profligacy: New Election: President Sergio Mattarella's choice for interim prime minister - now that M5S and Lega have broken off their attempt to form a government - has no chance of gaining a majority in the current parliament. As such, the president is likely to call a new election. The leaders of M5S and the Lega, as well as the leaders of the center-left Democratic Party (DP), want the election to be held on July 29, ahead of the ferragosto holidays that shuts down the country in August.5 The market does not like the uncertainty of new election as the current M5S-Lega coalition looks likely to win again, only this time with even more seats. As such, the last thing investors want is a summer full of hyperbolic, populist, anti-establishment statements that will undoubtedly be part of the electoral campaigns. Polls: The two populist parties, M5S and the Lega, are gaining in the polls, particularly the latter, which is the more Euroskeptic (Chart 4). This suggests to investors that the more Euroskeptic approach is gaining support. Impeachment: The leader of M5S, Luigi Di Maio, has called for the impeachment of President Mattarella. Di Maio accused Mattarella of overstepping his constitutional responsibility when he denied the populist coalition's preferred candidate for economy minister, Paolo Savona. Impeachment would be a major concern for the markets as Mattarella's mandate is set to expire only in 2022, which means that he remains a considerable constraint on populism until then. Our reading is that Mattarella did not violate the constitution and that he is unlikely to be removed from power, even if the parliament does impeach him.6 Over the next month, investors will watch all three factors closely. In our view, it is positive that the election may take place over the summer - for the first time in Italy's history - as it would reduce the period of uncertainty. Second, it is understandable that investors will fret about Lega's rise in the polls. However, the closer Lega approaches M5S in the polls, the less likely the two parties will be to maintain their current coalition. At some point, it will not be in the interest of M5S to form a coalition with its chief opponent, especially if Lega gains support and therefore demands a greater share of power in the revised coalition deal. A much preferable coalition partner for M5S would be the center-left PD, which will be weaker, and hence more manageable, and would be a better ideological match. Therefore we believe that the market is getting ahead of itself. Italian policymakers are looking for a fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB over fiscal room and profligacy. This is a fight that will take considerable time to resolve and should add a fiscal premium to the long-dated Italian bonds. In fact, May 29 had the biggest day-to-day selloff since 1993 (Chart 5). However, policymakers are not (yet) looking for exit from the Euro Area. As such, risk premium on the 10-year BTPs does make sense, but the sharp move on the 2-year notes is premature. Chart 4Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Chart 5Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Bottom Line: Italian policymakers are not looking to exit the Euro Area. Their fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB will last throughout 2018 and makes it dangerous to try to "catch the falling knife" of the BTPs. However, expecting the yield curve to invert is premature as an Italian Euro Area exit over the next two years is unlikely. Over the next ten years, however, we would expect Italy to test the markets with a Euro Area exit attempt. We are sticking to our view that such an event is far more likely to occur following a recession than it is today. Is Spanish Election Threat The Same As Italy? Chart 6Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spain is having its own political crisis. The inconclusive June 2016 election produced a minority conservative government, with the center-right People's Party (PP) supported on critical matters by the center-left Socialist Party (PSOE). The leader of the PSOE, Pedro Sanchez, has decided to withdraw his support for the minority government due to alleged evidence of PP corruption, allegations that have dogged the conservatives for years. A vote of confidence on Friday could bring down the government. Why did the PSOE decide to challenge PP now? Because polls are showing that PP is in decline, as is, Podemos, the far-left party that nearly outperformed PSOE in the 2016 election (Chart 6). The greatest beneficiary of the political realignment in Spain, however, is Ciudadanos, a radically centrist and radically pro-European party that originated in Catalonia. Ciudadanos's official platform in the December 2017 regional elections in Catalonia was "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country, and Europe is our future." New elections in Spain are likely to produce a highly pro-market outcome where the centrist and pro-EU Ciudadanos forms a coalition with PSOE. While such a coalition would lean towards more fiscal spending, it would not unravel the crucial structural reforms painfully implemented by Mariano Rajoy's conservative governments since 2012. It also is as far away from Euroskepticism as exists in Europe at the moment. Bottom Line: A new Spanish election would be a market-positive event. The country would have a more stable government, replacing the current minority PP government that has lost all its political capital after implementing painful structural reforms and being dogged by corruption allegations. There is no Euroskeptic political alternative in Spain at the moment. As such, we are recommending that clients go long 10-year Spanish government bonds against Italian.7 Any contagion from Italy to Spain is inappropriate politically and is a misapplied vestige of the early days of the Euro Area crisis when all peripheral bonds traded in concerto. As such, it should be faded. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, and "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 According to the White House statement, the specific list of covered imports subjected to tariffs will be announced on June 15. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016 and "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Corriere Della Sera, "Governo: cresce l'ipotesi del voto il 29 luglio. Salvini: "Al voto con Savona candidato," dated May 29, 2018, available at www.corriere.it. 6 Like in the U.S., the threshold for impeachment in Italy is low. Both chambers of parliament merely have to impeach the president with a simple majority. However, in Italy, the trial is not held in the parliament, but rather by the Constitutional Court's 15 judges and an additional 16 specially appointed judges - selected randomly. It is highly unlikely that Mattarella, himself a previous member of the court, would be found guilty, particularly since he acted in accordance with presidential powers outlined in Article 87 of the constitution ("The President shall appoint State officials in the cases provided for by the law") and in accordance with precedent (in 1994, the president then refused to appoint Silvio Berlusconi's personal lawyer as the country's minister of justice). In addition, leader of Lega, Matteo Salvini, has stated that he would not want to see Mattarella impeached. This is likely because the process has a low probability of success. Furthermore, the president cannot disband the parliament and call new elections if impeachment proceedings begin against him. 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades," dated May 29, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

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

Dear Clients, Please note that next week's report will be a joint effort with our geopolitical team, focused on North Korea. The report will be sent to you two days later than usual, on Friday June 8. Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports Highlights Most episodes of negative relative Chinese equity performance this year have been driven by global stock market selloffs or related to the trade dispute with the U.S. Since Chinese ex-tech stocks have continued to outperform their global peers during this period, we recommend against downgrading China for now, barring hard evidence of a pernicious global slowdown or that severe protectionist action from the U.S. will indeed occur. Our list of charts to watch over the coming months highlights, among several other important points, that monetary conditions are not overly restrictive and that financial conditions are not tightening sharply. This is in spite of a recent clustering in corporate bond defaults that has concerned some investors. Besides broad-based stimulus in response to an impactful trade shock, a sustained pickup in housing construction remains the most plausible catalyst for an acceleration in domestic demand. For now tepid sales volume casts doubt on this scenario, but investors should continue to watch Chinese housing market dynamics closely. Feature There have been several developments affecting Chinese and global stock markets over the past two weeks. On the trade front, Secretary Mnuchin's statement on May 20 that the U.S. would be "putting the trade war" with China on hold was greeted by a material pushback from Congressional Republicans, particularly the administration's plan to ease previously announced sanctions on ZTE Group. The administration's trade rhetoric has since become more hawkish, as evidenced by yesterday's statement from the White House that referenced specific dates for the imposition of tariffs and the announcement of new restrictions on Chinese investment. This uptick in tough language sets the scene for Secretary Ross' Beijing visit this weekend to continue negotiations. More recently, a political crisis in Italy has caused euro area periphery bond yields to rise sharply, roiling global financial markets. The Italian President's rejection of Paolo Savona as proposed finance minister by the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and Euroskeptic Lega has led to the installation of a caretaker government until the fall, when new elections are set to take place. The sharp tightening in financial conditions for Italy and Spain over the past week has exacerbated concerns about a potential growth slowdown in Europe, and has fed a relative selloff in emerging market equities that began in late-March. Despite the recent turmoil, our recommendation to investors is to avoid making any major changes to their allocation to Chinese ex-tech stocks within a global portfolio. Unless presented with hard evidence that the slowdown in the global economy is more than a simple deceleration from an above-trend pace, or that protectionist action from the U.S. will occur in a severe fashion, Table 1 suggests that investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks (with a short leash). The table highlights that most episodes of negative relative Chinese ex-stock performance since the beginning of the year been driven by global stock market selloffs or related to the trade dispute with the U.S., despite the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector that we have repeatedly flagged. Since Chinese ex-tech stocks have continued to outperform their global peers during this period, our interpretation is that investors are well aware of the deceleration in China's economy, but do not yet regard it as a material threat to ex-tech equity prices. Table 1YTD Weakness In Chinese Stock Prices Has Been Driven By Global Events 11 Charts To Watch 11 Charts To Watch Clearly, however, this assessment on the part of global investors can change, underscoring that the situation in China merits continual re-assessment. With the goal of providing investors with a toolkit to continually monitor the state of the Chinese economy and the resulting implications for related financial asset prices, this week's report presents a list of 11 charts "to watch" across five categories of analysis. In our view these charts span key potential inflection points for the economic and profit outlook, and will serve as an important basis for us to update our view on China over the months ahead. Monetary & Fiscal Policy Chart 1: The Policy Rate Versus Borrowing Rates Chart 1Borrowing/Policy Rate Divergence Should Not Last,##br## But Is Worth Monitoring Borrowing/Policy Rate Divergence Should Not Last, But Is Worth Monitoring Borrowing/Policy Rate Divergence Should Not Last, But Is Worth Monitoring An interesting divergence has occurred lately between the 3-month interbank repo rate (currently the de-facto policy rate) and both corporate bond yields and the average lending rate. While the repo rate fell non-trivially after it became apparent in late-March that the PBOC would extend the deadline for the implementation of new regulatory standards for asset management products, corporate bond yields have recently risen sharply and China's weighted-average lending rate ticked higher in Q1. As we highlighted in last week's Special Report, the recent clustering of corporate bond defaults does not (for now) appear to be a source of systemic risk. First, by our estimation, the recent defaults cited above account for only 0.09% of outstanding corporate bonds. Second, the latest PBOC monetary report changed the tone from emphasizing "deleveraging" to "stabilizing leverage and restructuring", which shows that regulators are as concerned about the stability of the economy as they are about reducing excessive debts. But the possibility remains that the ongoing crackdown on China's shadow banking sector will cause some degree of persistence in the recent divergence between the interbank market and actual borrowing rates, implying that investors should continue to watch Chart 1 over the months for signs of materially tighter financial conditions. Chart 2: The Correlation Between Sovereign Risk And The Repo Rate We noted in a February Special Report that investors could use the rolling 1-year correlation between the 3-month interbank repo rate and the relative sovereign CDS spread between China and Germany as a gauge of whether Chinese monetary policy has become too restrictive for its economy.1 Despite the fact that actual sovereign credit risk in China is extremely low, Chart 2 shows that the relative CDS spread has acted as a good bellwether for growth conditions in the Chinese economy. It shows that the correlation between this spread and the 3-month interbank repo rate was initially positive in late-2016 (representing concern on the part of investors that monetary policy is restrictive), but has since come back down into negative territory. Interestingly, the correlation was consistently positive from mid-2011 to mid-2014, when average lending rates averaged 7% or higher and the benchmark lending rate exceeded the IMF's Taylor Rule estimate by about 1%.2 For now the correlation remains negative (as it was when we published our February report), meaning that it currently supports our earlier conclusion that monetary conditions are not overly restrictive and that financial conditions more generally are not tightening sharply (despite the recent rise in corporate bond yields). Chart 2No Sign Yet That Monetary Policy Is Overly Restrictive No Sign Yet That Monetary Policy Is Overly Restrictive No Sign Yet That Monetary Policy Is Overly Restrictive Chart 3Watch For Signs Of Fiscal Stimulus Watch For Signs Of Fiscal Stimulus Watch For Signs Of Fiscal Stimulus Chart 3: The Fiscal Spending Impulse Chart 3 presents the Chinese government's budgetary expenditure as an "impulse", calculated as expenditure over the past year as a percent of nominal GDP. Panel 2 shows the year-over-year change in the impulse. When compared with a similar measure for private sector credit, cyclical fluctuations in China's government spending impulse are relatively small. For this reason, BCA's China Investment Strategy service has not strongly emphasized fiscal spending as a major driver of China's business cycle. However, we also noted in a recent report that fiscal stimulus stands out as one of the "least bad" options available to policymakers to combat a negative export shock from U.S. protectionism, were one to occur.3 The potential for broader stimulus from Chinese authorities in response to an impactful trade shock raises the interesting possibility of another economic mini cycle in China, since the economy accelerated meaningfully in response to the last episode of material fiscal & monetary easing. As such, investors should closely watch over the coming months for signs that fiscal spending is accelerating, particularly if combined with potential signs of easing monetary policy. External Demand Chart 4: Global Demand And Chinese Export Growth Chart 4For Now, Resilient Exports ##br##Are Supporting China's Economy For Now, Resilient Exports Are Supporting China's Economy For Now, Resilient Exports Are Supporting China's Economy We have noted in several recent reports that a resilient export sector remains the most favorable pillar of Chinese growth. Besides the clear risk to Chinese trade from U.S. protectionism, two other factors have the potential to negatively impact the trend in export growth. The first (and most important) of these risks is a reduction in global demand, which some investors have recently been concerned about given the decline in global manufacturing PMIs. However, Chart 4 highlights that our global PMI diffusion indicator has done an excellent job of leading the global PMI over the past few years, and has barely registered a decline over the past few months. From our perspective, the odds are good that the recent deceleration in the PMI has been caused by sudden caution (even in developed countries) over the Trump administration's protectionist actions, and does not reflect a material or long-lasting slowdown in the global economy. But we will be closely watching the PMI releases over the coming months to rule out a more painful slowdown in global demand. Importantly, we have also highlighted that stronger exports may actually presage a further slowdown in China's industrial sector if it emboldens policymakers to intensify their reform efforts over the coming year. We argued in our May 2 Weekly Report that China's reform pain threshold is positively correlated with global growth momentum,4 meaning that the external sector of China's economy may have less potential to counter weakness in the industrial sector than many investors believe. In this regard, extreme export readings (to the up and downside) should be regarded by investors as a potentially problematic development. Chart 5: The Competitiveness Impact Of A Rising RMB Chart 5 highlights the second non-protectionist risk to Chinese export growth, namely the significant appreciation in the RMB that has occurred since mid-2017. The chart shows the percentile rank of three different trade-weighted RMB indexes since 2014, and highlights that all three are between their 70th & 80th percentiles (with our BCA Export-Weighted RMB index having risen the most). Importantly, the 2015-high shown in Chart 5 represents the strongest point for the currency in over two decades, suggesting that further currency strength may exacerbate the significant deceleration in export prices that has already occurred. Chart 5A Surging RMB Could Undercut Competitiveness A Surging RMB Could Undercut Competitiveness A Surging RMB Could Undercut Competitiveness Housing Chart 6: Housing Sales Versus Starts We have presented a variation of Chart 6 several times over the past few months, but it is important enough that it deserves to be continually monitored by investors over the coming year. Chart 6 tells the story of China's housing market from the perspective of an investor who is primarily interested in the sector because of its implications for growth. The chart highlights that residential floor space started, our best proxy for the real contribution to growth from residential investment, has fallen significantly relative to sales since 2012-2014. This appears to have occurred because of a significant build up in housing inventories, which has since reversed materially (even though the level remains elevated). To us, this suggests that the gap between housing sales and construction that has persisted for the past several years may finally be over, suggesting that the latter may pick up durably if sales trend higher. For now sales volume remains tepid, but this will be a key chart for investors to watch over the coming year given our view that housing is a core pillar of China's business cycle. The Industrial Sector Chart 7: The BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator And Its Components Chart 7 presents our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index (LKI), which we developed in a November Special Report.5 There are six components of the indicator, all of which are related to changing monetary/financial conditions, and the growth in money and credit. Chart 6Housing Construction Could Accelerate##br## If Sales Pick Up Housing Construction Could Accelerate If Sales Pick Up Housing Construction Could Accelerate If Sales Pick Up Chart 7A Downtrend In Our LKI Leading Indicator, ##br##Within A Wide Component Range A Downtrend In Our LKI Leading Indicator, Within A Wide Component Range A Downtrend In Our LKI Leading Indicator, Within A Wide Component Range The indicator is at the core of our view, and we have been presenting monthly updates of the series in our regular reports since late last year. However, Chart 7 looks at the indicator from a different perspective, by showing it within a range that identifies the weakest and strongest components at any given point in time. Two points are noteworthy from the chart: While the overall LKI indicator has been trending down since early-2017, there is currently a wide range between the components. This gap is in stark contrast to the very narrow range that prevailed from 2014-2015, when the economy slowed considerably. This could mean that some of the components of the indicator are unduly weak, which in turn could imply that the severity of the slowdown in China's industrial sector will be less intense than the overall indicator would otherwise suggest. At least one component provided a lead on the subsequent direction of the overall indicator from late-2011 to late-2012, the last time that a significant gap existed between the components. This is in contrast to the situation today, in that all of the components are currently in a downtrend (albeit with differing paces as well as magnitudes). The key point for investors from Chart 7 is that all of the components of our indicator are moving in the same direction, which suggests with high conviction that China's economy is slowing. However, the wide range among the components suggests that indicator's message about the intensity of the slowdown is less uniform than it has been in the past, meaning that investors should be sensitive to a sustained pickup in the top end of the range. Equity Market Signals Chart 8: The Beta Of Our BCA China Sector Alpha Portfolio Chart 8 revisits a unique insight that we presented in our May 16 Weekly Report.6 The chart shows the rolling 1-year beta of our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio versus the investable benchmark alongside China's performance versus global stocks, and suggests that the former may reliably lead the latter. While we noted in the report that drawing market-wide inferences from the beta characteristics of risk-adjusted performers is a not a conventional approach, finance theory is supportive of the idea. If investors are seeking to maximize their risk-adjusted returns and are engaging in tactical allocation across sectors, then it is entirely possible that beta-adjusted sector returns reflect the risk-on/risk-off expectations of market participants. For the purposes of China-related investment strategy over the coming year, our emphasis on Chart 8 will increase markedly if we see a sharp decline in the beta of our Sector Alpha Portfolio. As we noted in our May 16 report, the model is for now sending a curiously bullish signal, which we see as partial validation of our view that investors should have a high threshold to cut exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Chart 8Watch For A Decline In The Beta Of ##br##Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Watch For A Decline In The Beta Of Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Watch For A Decline In The Beta Of Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Chart 9Decelerating Earnings Growth Could##br## Undermine Investor Sentiment Decelerating Earnings Growth Could Undermine Investor Sentiment Decelerating Earnings Growth Could Undermine Investor Sentiment Chart 9: Ex-Tech Earnings Versus The Li Keqiang Index We noted above that predicting the Li Keqiang index (LKI) is at the core of our view, and Chart 9 highlights why. The chart shows that a model based on the LKI closely fits the year-over-year growth rate of Chinese investable ex-tech earnings and, crucially, provides a lead. While the chart does not suggest that an outright contraction in ex-tech earnings is in the cards over the coming year, it does show that earnings growth is about to peak. This is potentially problematic, and warrants close attention, for two reasons: First, our leading indicator for the LKI suggests that it will decelerate further over the coming year, which could push our earnings growth estimate towards or below zero. Second, the peak in earnings growth could dampen investor sentiment towards Chinese ex-tech stocks, especially since bottom up analyst estimates for 12-months forward earnings growth have recently moved higher and are currently above what is predicted by our model. Chart 10: The Alpha Of Chinese Banks By now, the narrative surrounding Chinese banks is well known among global investors. The enormous leveraging of China's non-financial corporate sector is viewed by many as a clear sign of capital misallocation, meaning that a (potentially material) portion of the loan book of Chinese banks will have to be written off as bad debt. The ultimate scope of the bad debt problem in China is far from clear, but these longstanding concerns about loan quality suggest that Chinese bank stocks are likely to materially underperform their global peers if China's shadow banking crackdown begins to pose a significant threat to growth via restrictions on the provision of credit to the real economy. As such, we recommend that investors monitor Chart 10 over the coming year, which shows the rolling 1-year alpha significance for Chinese banks vs their global peers. While the rolling 1-year alpha of small banks has become less positive over the past few weeks, it remains in positive territory, similar to that of investable bank stocks. So, for now, this indicator supports our earlier conclusion that recent divergence between the interbank market and actual borrowing rates highlighted in Chart 1 is not heralding a material tightening in Chinese financial conditions. Chart 10Investors Should Monitor Chinese Bank Alpha ##br##For Significant Declines 11 Charts To Watch 11 Charts To Watch Chart 11No Technical Breakdown (Yet) In Ex-Tech Relative Performance No Technical Breakdown (Yet) In Ex-Tech Relative Performance No Technical Breakdown (Yet) In Ex-Tech Relative Performance Chart 11: The Technical Performance Of Ex-Tech Stocks BCA's approach to forecasting financial markets rests far more on top-down macroeconomic assessments than it does on technical analysis. However, technical indicators do contain important information, particularly when our top-down macro approach signals that a change in trend may be imminent. In this regard, technical indicators can provide valuable opportunities to enter or exit a position. To the extent that the technical profile of Chinese ex-tech stocks is informative in the current environment, Chart 11 shows that it is telling investors to stay invested despite the myriad risks to the economic outlook. This message is consistent with that of Table 1, namely that the negative performance of Chinese ex-tech stocks has been in response to global rather than idiosyncratic, China-specific risk. From our perspective, a technical breakdown in relative Chinese ex-tech stock performance in response to China-specific news would serve as a strong basis for a downgrade within a global equity portfolio, and we will be monitoring closely for such a development over the coming weeks and months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy", dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Tightening In China: How Much Is Too Much?" dated January 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Question That Won't Go Away", dated April 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Three Pillars Of China's Economy", dated May 16, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations