Energy

Overweight S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) stocks have closely tracked crude oil prices, but recently a wide gap has opened and we reckon that it will likely narrow via a catch up phase in the former (top panel). Even natural gas prices have come out of hibernation and caught a bid of late and similarly suggest that relative share prices are uncharacteristically depressed by steeply deviating from the underlying commodities (second panel). There is so much pessimism ingrained in the E&P space with net EPS revisions sinking to “as bad as it gets” warning that even a modest rise in oil prices can serve as a catalyst to raise the profile of this unloved corner of the deep cyclical universe (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index. Please refer to the following Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: S5OILP – COP, PXD, DVN, HES, APA, MRO, XEC, COG, CXO, EOG, FANG, NBL.

Highlights   Portfolio Strategy Firming relative profit prospects, rising likelihood of an oil price spike and higher geopolitical risk premia, bombed out valuations and extremely oversold technicals all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P energy sector. Rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities were range bound last week, digesting the aftermath of the drone attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities and the kneejerk oil price spike, and the Fed’s at the margin hawkish interest rate cut (Chart 1). While the U.S./China trade war news headlines took the back seat, it is disquieting that the largest oil production disruption in recent memory came to the forefront. Crude oil prices spiked and oil volatility skyrocketed as market participants were not pricing in any geopolitical risk premium on crude prices (Chart 1). This is a wake-up call for market participants and there are longer-term ramifications if the previously dormant geopolitical risk premium returns with a vengeance in the oil markets as we expect. Chart 2 shows that historically, an oil price shock is coincident with a U.S. recession. Given that our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) service would not rule out another oil price surge in the coming months, a near doubling in oil inflation would likely be the straw that broke the camel’s back and check the final box for recession. Chart 1Mind The Oil Vol Spike Chart 2Doubling In Oil Prices Are A Bad Omen For Stocks To be precise, since the mid-1970s a 91% year-over-year oil price increase – using end of period monthly data – is synonymous with recession, with no false positives. In order for that prerequisite to be satisfied, WTI crude oil would have to surge to roughly $86/bbl by December (top panel, Chart 2). While this may seem as a tall order, our CES service has started assigning a rising probability to a sizable oil price jump in the coming months. With regard to equities, in all previous five oil price shocks the S&P 500 suffered significant losses, and if history at least rhymes, then the SPX would steeply contract anew (middle panel, Chart 2). While the U.S. economy is not currently in recession, it is fragile enough that an exogenous oil price shock would tilt it in recession. As a reminder, the U.S. benefits from the “good deflation” i.e. lower oil prices and suffers from oil spikes. Chart 3 depicts this inverse correlation. Importantly, re-reading James D. Hamilton’s “Historical Oil Shocks” NBER paper was insightful.1 In this piece Hamilton documents that “All but one of the 11 postwar recessions were associated with an increase in the price of oil, the single exception being the recession of 1960.” Hamilton then argues that “The correlation between oil shocks and economic recessions appears to be too strong to be just a coincidence…This is not to claim that the oil price increases themselves were the sole cause of most postwar recessions. Instead the indicated conclusion is that oil shocks were a contributing factor in at least some postwar recessions (emphasis ours)”. Chart 3GDP And Oil Are Inversely Correlated  This week, we update a deep cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Table 2Real GDP Growth (Annual Rate) And Contribution Of Autos To The Overall GDP Growth Rate In Five Historical Episodes While only the energy sector benefits from the oil price shock, the consumer, and most other sectors of the economy, have to contend with rising energy input costs. Hamilton finally makes a key point on auto production and a link to output: “one of the key responses seen following an increase in oil prices is a decline in automobile spending, particularly the larger vehicles manufactured in the United States”. He shows this relationship in Table 2 that we have replicated.2 Chart 4 also shows a number of different automobile-related economic series, and the current message is grim. It is clear that, were an oil price shock to hit, the motor vehicle-related production destruction would subtract from overall output and raise the probability of recession. Chart 4What’s Up With Autos? In sum, geopolitical risk is getting priced into the crude oil markets and were an oil spike to take place near $86/bbl, then this external shock would most likely tilt the economy in recession as has happened in all previous such oil inflation surges since the 1970s. We would refuse the temptation to listen to pundits that, similar to the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, would declare that “this time is different”. As a result of all this heightened uncertainty, we remain cautious on the prospects of the overall equity market. This week, we update a deep cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Energy’s Time To Shine? The recent drone attacks in Saudi Arabia’s oil processing and production facilities have re-concentrated investors’ minds on reassessing geopolitical risk premia in the crude oil market (top panel, Chart 5). Given the heightened risk of a future oil price spike that BCA’s CES and Geopolitical Strategy services outlined recently, we remain overweight in the S&P energy sector and re-iterate our high-conviction overweight status.   Rising oil prices will also filter through to rising inflation expectations and further boost the allure of the S&P energy sector (middle & bottom panels, Chart 5). This crude oil supply disruption comes at an inopportune time as U.S. crude oil inventories have been depleting recently; this represents another source of support for the relative share price ratio (crude oil supply shown inverted, second panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Energy Catch Up Phase Looms Chart 6Energy Can Burst Higher On the demand front, non-OECD demand remains on an upward trajectory since the start of its recovery path in the aftermath of the 2015/2016 manufacturing recession. Importantly, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index is accelerating driven by the emerging markets and signals that recent easing monetary policy measures in EM economies will put a lid under EM oil demand (Chart 6). As a result, still depressed relative S&P energy sales expectations should turnaround (third panel, Chart 6). Turning over to the financial statements of this now niche deep cyclical sector, there are no major red flags waving. Net debt-to-EBITDA is near 2x, on a par with the broad nonfinancial sector, and interest coverage is at a respectable 5x (Chart 7). The sector has been more stringent with shareholder friendly activities and the dividend payout ratio has fallen back to the historical mean (not shown). In more detail, the S&P energy sector sports the highest dividend yield compared with the rest of the GICS1 sectors, a full 185bps above the SPX, offering a relatively safe home for yield hungry investors in the era of depressed global interest rates (bottom panel, Chart 7). In fact, the S&P energy sector is so extremely undervalued that all of its 28 constituents combined are now worth as much as one stock, Microsoft. Indeed, our relative Valuation Indicator has plunged and is now roughly two standard deviations below the historical mean, a three decade low (second panel, Chart 8). Chart 7Repaired B/S With The Highest GICS1 Sector Dividend Yield Chart 8Oversold And…   Energy sector technicals are also bombed out, with our relative Technical Indicator in deeply oversold territory. Such depressed levels have marked prior reversals and a violent snap back would not surprise us. Internal energy sector dynamics reveal a similarly extreme picture, with both the percentage of subgroups trading above the 40-week moving average and with a positive 52-week rate of change perched at the zero lower bound (fourth & fifth panels, Chart 8). Sell-side analysts are equally pessimistic, assigning a low probability in energy sector revenues and profits besting the overall market. This is not only a near-term phenomenon, but the sell side has also thrown in the towel on a 5-year time horizon (Chart 9). All of this extreme bearishness overshadowing the S&P energy sector is contrarily positive. One key risk to our overweight stance in the S&P energy sector is the U.S. dollar. Historically, the higher the greenback goes the lower oil prices and energy shares fall. This multi-decade inverse correlation remains intact and were the U.S. dollar to materially increase from current levels, it would heavily weigh on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 8). BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy’s relative profit growth macro-models have an excellent track record in forecasting relative profit trends as they accurately capture most of the key profit drivers. Currently, the relative EPS models are in a slingshot recovery, which stands in marked contrast to the overly pessimistic sell side analyst community (second panel, Chart 9). Chart 9…Undervalued Netting it all out, firming relative profit prospects, rising likelihood of an oil price spike and higher geopolitical risk premia, bombed out valuations and extremely oversold technicals all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P energy sector. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy sector. This deep cyclical sector also remains on our high-conviction overweight list. Double Down On Exploration & Production Stocks S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) stocks have closely tracked crude oil prices, but recently a wide gap has opened and we reckon that it will likely narrow via a catch up phase in the former (top panel, Chart 10). Even natural gas prices have come out of hibernation and caught a bid of late and similarly suggest that relative share prices are uncharacteristically depressed by steeply deviating from the underlying commodities (second panel, Chart 10). There is so much pessimism ingrained in the E&P space with net EPS revisions sinking to “as bad as it gets” warning that even a modest rise in oil prices can serve as a catalyst to raise the profile of this unloved corner of the deep cyclical universe (bottom panel, Chart 10). While the energy default rate has risen lately, the high yield E&P option adjusted spread is neither surging a la 2015/2016 nor sending a distress signal. If anything, given the recent jump in oil prices and prospects of an oil price surge, independent oil producers’ bond holders should further breathe a sigh of relief (junk spread shown inverted, middle & bottom panels, Chart 11). Chart 10Primed To Follow Oil Prices Higher Adding it all up, rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. With regard to operating metrics, free cash flow has more than doubled since the 2016 trough and has now stabilized (second panel, Chart 12). This highly capital intensive industry has gotten forced to live within its means and be more careful with expansion plans financed by rising indebtedness. Use of cash has also come under scrutiny. Capex as a percentage of overall cash flow rose from 35% to over 60% at the recent cyclical peak and has now corrected to 47%, just above the two decade average (Chart 12). Chart 11No Yellow Flags Chart 12Cash Discipline Should Start To Pay Off Similar to the broad energy space, E&P stocks are compellingly valued irrespective of the valuation metric chosen. To name a few, the dividend yield differential is at 150bps versus the broad market, relative price-to-sales has corrected from 3x to par, and on an EV/EBITDA basis E&P stocks trade at a 35% discount to the broad market (Chart 13). Nevertheless, there is a risk to our still constructive view of the E&P index. Oil prices have to stay above the $50-$55/bbl range in order for the shale oil space to breakeven and sustain crude oil production at recent all-time high levels. As a reminder, an industry capex collapse is synonymous with oil price plunges and major relative share price drawdowns (Chart 14). Chart 13Bombed Out Valuations Chart 14Capex Collapse Is A Big Risk Adding it all up, rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: S5OILP – COP, PXD, DVN, HES, APA, MRO, XEC, COG, CXO, EOG, FANG, NBL.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   footnotes 1      https://www.nber.org/papers/w16790 2      Ibid. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives   (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Special Report

Highlights The attack on Saudi Arabian energy facilities brought oil price shocks back onto investors’ radar screens: Benchmark crude prices in Europe and the U.S. blasted higher following the September 14th attacks on Saudi oil installations. Although the initial price spike largely unwound, the incident demonstrated that oil infrastructure is vulnerable: Saudi officials say output will be restored sooner than markets initially feared, but oil production is now in play for bad actors. The probability of supply-driven price shocks has increased. How vulnerable is the U.S. economy to an oil price shock?: A whole heck of a lot less than it was at the time of the 1973-74 oil embargo. The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer, and is on its way to becoming a net exporter. Higher oil prices now amount to much more than a tax on U.S. households and corporations. Feature On Saturday, September 14th, Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq crude-oil processing facility and its Khurais oil field were struck by air attacks that caused multiple explosions. Yemeni forces claimed responsibility, in retaliation for Saudi Arabia’s involvement in its protracted civil war, though the Saudi and U.S. governments asserted that Iran was to blame. As our Commodity & Energy and Geopolitical Strategy colleagues have written, Iran’s involvement makes the situation more ticklish.1 It is unclear where escalating rounds of provocations between the U.S. and Iran might end up, but the geopolitical, energy and economic impacts could be quite serious. There are a lot of moving parts, and we will not rehash our colleagues’ analysis here. From the U.S. Investment Strategy perspective, the biggest takeaway is that Middle Eastern oil infrastructure is more vulnerable to malign state and non-state actors than markets previously realized. It is remarkable that the world’s single most important oil processing facility could be so easily and precisely targeted, though anyone who began flying after September 11th would likely be amazed to learn that passengers once boarded planes without anyone giving the contents of their baggage a second thought. Regardless of how quickly Abqaiq operations are fully restored, Middle East oil infrastructure has been exposed as a soft target. The net economic impact of higher oil prices is the sum total of a broad range of gross subsidiary impacts. The global oil market is therefore more vulnerable to shocks from unplanned supply outages than previously assumed, and should begin to price in a terrorism premium. Any given economy’s exposure to oil price shocks is a more important consideration than it was before the attack on Aramco operations. In this Special Report, we examine the U.S. economy’s susceptibility to an oil price shock. The good news is that we find the U.S. to be considerably less vulnerable to an oil price shock than it was at the time of the Arab oil embargo; the net “tax” from higher oil prices is a good bit lower than it was then, and it is no longer exclusively paid to foreign entities. Six Channels Of Economic Impact We count six primary channels through which oil prices impact the U.S. economy: consumption, capital expenditures, corporate profits, the trade balance, employment and financial conditions (Figure 1). Higher oil prices are unequivocally bad for consumption, because they reduce households’ discretionary income. They should be a net positive for capital expenditures, because oil exploration and production is a capital-intensive pursuit that would likely outweigh incremental cutbacks in investment by businesses in the rest of the economy. They directly increase input costs for the wide range of goods that incorporate petroleum, and the goods and services that use oil as fuel, though other businesses’ reduced profits will be offset somewhat by domestic oil producers’ increased profits. As long as the U.S. remains a net oil importer, they will act to widen the trade deficit; once it becomes a net exporter, possibly within the next few years, they will narrow it. Their net impact on employment and financial conditions is mixed. Figure 1Oil Prices And The Economy Consumption Consumption is the linchpin of the oil-shock/recession narrative, as typified by the 1973-74 oil embargo. During the October 1973 war between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, OPEC members angered by American support for Israel ceased exporting oil to the U.S. and sharply reduced production. Although the embargo lasted just six months, oil prices tripled. Inflation surged, consumer confidence suffered mightily amid ubiquitous images of gasoline lines, and a sharp recession and punishing equity bear market laid siege to the U.S. economy. Chart 1The '70s Oil Shocks ... The overthrow of Iran’s pro-western monarch in 1979 generated a second oil price shock (Chart 1). The U.S. soon entered the first phase of the Volcker double-dip recession, and the notion that oil price shocks cause recessions became entrenched in the introductory macroeconomics curriculum. Filling up the tank consumes a much smaller share of household budgets today than it did in the ‘70s, however, so household spending is nowhere near as vulnerable as it was then (Chart 2). Energy is no more expensive relative to the PCE basket than it was at the end of the ‘70s (Chart 3), allowing fuel efficiency gains to translate directly to increased discretionary income (Chart 4). The household savings rate is lower, as well (Chart 5), clearing the way for consumers to spend more of their discretionary income.2 Chart 2... Took A Big Bite Out Of Consumers' Wallets Chart 3Relative To Other Consumer Prices, Oil Costs What It Did After The Second Shock Chart 4New-Model Mileage Has Doubled Chart 5Consumers Are More Willing To Spend Than They Were In The '70s ... Bottom Line: Consumption will be undermined by higher oil prices, but not nearly to the degree it was in the 1970s, when fuel costs ate up a greater share of discretionary income. Corporate Profits Higher input costs stoked the wage-price cycle in the ‘70s, but low inflation expectations and supine unions have all but stamped out cost-push inflation pressures today. Chart 6... And Economic Output Is Far Less Dependent On Oil Higher oil prices’ negative impact on input costs is as clear-cut as their impact on consumption. Higher input costs helped trigger the ‘70s and ‘80s recessions, dragging down corporate profits and exacerbating cost-push inflation pressures as employees demanded higher wages to keep up with rising prices. That dynamic still applies, but its force is considerably attenuated, as tepid inflation expectations and the decline of unions’ collective bargaining power have all but wiped out cost-push inflation pressures. The continuing shift from manufacturing to services also limits the impact of higher input costs; the oil intensity of the U.S. economy is little more than a third of what it was at the time of the embargo (Chart 6). Growing energy self-sufficiency keeps some of the increased input costs from escaping the domestic economy. It is still valid to think of higher energy prices as a tax on businesses and consumers, but at least some of the tax revenue now accrues to U.S. parties. Shale drillers, pipeline companies, vendors and workers, and the states and localities where they reside, all share in the benefits. That limits the drag on domestic corporate profits, and the second-order drags on fixed investment, employment, consumption and creditworthiness. Capital Expenditures And The Other Channels Energy production’s increasing role within the U.S. economy came to the fore when crude prices collapsed from $107 to $26/barrel between June 2014 and February 2016. Per the ‘70s foreign-oil-dependency template, households would have gotten a huge discretionary income boost, while corporate margins would have surged. Employment and investment would likely have followed, and the consequent increase in consumption would have fed back into even more investment. Improved U.S. terms of trade would have improved living standards, and the trade balance would have narrowed. The U.S. economy no longer has a simple one-way relationship with oil price moves. Those happy growth outcomes did not materialize in the latest oil bust. Consumption growth was robust for the six quarters through 2Q16, but nonresidential fixed investment staggered across 2015 and into 2016 (Chart 7), failing to surpass its 4Q14 level (in real terms) for good until 3Q16. Swooning oil prices had no apparent effect on the trade deficit, which continued to grow at a steady pace (Chart 8). Chart 7Consumption Growth Surged During The Oil Bust, But Capex Growth Crashed Chart 8The Oil Bust Didn't Affect The Trade Deficit, ... Financial conditions tightened as high-yield credit spreads blew out, driven by bankruptcies and defaults in the oil patch (Chart 9, top panel). Oil patch capex evaporated as lenders and equity investors deserted the sector. That would happen in any oil bust, but it spread to the broader economy because shale plays had come to account for a close to a sixth of high-yield bond issuance (Chart 9, bottom panel). The net result was to reduce the supply of loanable funds for non-oil entities, while increasing their cost, bringing about a sharp tightening of financial conditions. Chart 9... But It Tightened Financial Conditions Employment suffered at the margin, as five years of steady oil and gas job gains from 2010-14 were wiped out in 2016 alone. Oil-related employment doesn’t account for a meaningful share of overall employment, but it has been a critical driver of new manufacturing employment since the crisis (Chart 10). The bottom line is that the economy’s failure to respond more positively to 2014-16’s long and steep oil price decline showed that it no longer has a one-way relationship with oil prices. Where sharply lower oil prices would previously have been an unmitigated boon for the economy, they now produce a range of offsetting effects. Chart 10Help Wanted In The Shale Patch Investment Implications Modeling the quantitative impact of a given rise in oil prices on any one factor is beyond the scope of this report, and there is no lack of published studies which have attempted to do so. Research recently cited by Dallas Fed President Kaplan suggests that a 10 percent increase in the real price of oil from a supply-driven oil price shock would lead to a roughly 10- to 30-basis-point decline in real GDP growth.3 In a general sense, we agree with both the direction and the magnitude of those studies’ conclusion. Higher oil prices would be a drag on the U.S. economy, but an increasingly modest one as domestic oil production rises and the country approaches true energy independence. Figure 1 shows that the modest negative net impact on the economy is the aggregation of several individual gross impacts, implying that the key investment takeaways are some layers below the broad macro level. When the arrows conflict within any of the individual channels in the figure, there may be an opportunity for investors to pair exposures. The need to protect vital oil infrastructure could bolster defense stocks, which have long been a favorite of our U.S. Equity Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy services. U.S. airlines, which (with one exception) scorn the idea of hedging their fuel costs, could be an attractive short/underweight candidate to pair with a defense overweight. From a macro perspective, the increased potential for oil price shocks enhances the appeal of TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. As long as an oil supply shock would act as a headwind for U.S. growth, investors seeking to add some inflation protection to their portfolios should focus on shorter-maturity TIPS. A supply shock pushes inflation higher in the short term, but weighs on it in the long term, as investors revise their long-run inflation expectations lower upon factoring in its long-run growth-dampening effect.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the September 16, 2019 and September 19, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raise Questions About U.S. Response,” and “Policy Risk, Uncertainty Cloud Oil Price Forecast,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Disposable income is after-tax income. Discretionary income is what’s left of disposable income after the costs of necessities, like food, rent, clothing, gasoline and utilities, are backed out. 3 Kaplan, Robert S., “A Perspective on Oil,” June 19, 2018. Downloaded September 16, 2019 from https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/news/speeches/kaplan/2018/rsk180619.pdf.

Energy Stocks Are Heading North Banks Clamoring For Higher Rates And A More Hawkish Fed Homebuilding Stocks Are Catching Up To Housing Starts Will Global Trade Get “Fed-Exed”? Do Not Try To Bottom Fish… ... In Cyclicals Vs. Defensives​​​​​​​

Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference in New York City next week, we will not be publishing a report on Friday, September 27. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Friday, October 4, when we will be sending out our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The spike in oil prices underscores the vulnerability of key Saudi oil facilities. The fact that OPEC spare capacity is on the low side is an added source of concern. Fortunately, if oil prices do rise again, the impact on the global economy will be mitigated by the following: 1) the amount of oil necessary to produce one unit of real GDP is much lower than in the past; 2) oil prices are currently nowhere near restrictive levels; 3) higher oil prices will boost investment in the energy sector; and 4) unlike in the past, central banks will not need to hike rates to quell oil-induced inflationary pressures. The Federal Reserve is likely to cut rates once more in October and then keep rates on hold through 2020. The Fed will also begin expanding the size of its balance sheet to alleviate tensions in funding markets. Investors should remain overweight equities relative to bonds and start tilting exposure towards EM assets and cyclical stocks later this year. Feature All Aboard The Crude Oil Roller Coaster Chart 1A Price For The Books After gapping up by nearly 20% to $72/barrel on Monday morning – the biggest one-day spike in history – Brent oil prices have retreated to the $64-$65 range, representing a markup of around 7% over last Friday’s close (Chart 1). The near-term direction of oil prices will be governed by how quickly the Saudis are able to restore lost output. Brent fell by over $3/barrel on Tuesday following news reports quoting key Saudi sources saying that state-run Saudi Aramco would be able to bring production back to normal in the next two-to-three weeks. Bob Ryan, BCA’s chief commodity strategist, is skeptical of this reassurance. He notes that the drone attacks destroyed highly sophisticated “one-of-a-kind” equipment that had been specially built for the Abqaiq facility. Beyond the near-term impact, the longer-term question is whether Sunday’s pre-dawn strike is the start of a new violent trend. The fact that much of Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure is densely concentrated in the eastern part of the country makes it vulnerable to further attacks. The proliferation of drone technologies is also a source of concern since such devices can be used to wreak significant havoc at minimal cost.  Chart 2Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Chart 3Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Iran’s apparent involvement in the attack further complicates matters. As Matt Gertken, BCA’s chief geopolitical strategist, has argued, the drone strike may have been orchestrated by hardliners in Iran who regard President Rouhani’s efforts to restart negotiations with the United States as evidence of appeasement (some of these hardliners are also profiting from the sanctions by smuggling crude out of the country). President Trump’s decision to sack John Bolton over Bolton’s opposition to making any deal with the Iranians may have created a sense of urgency among the hardliners. In this respect, attacking Iran would probably give the hardliners what they want. All this has occurred at a time when OPEC spare capacity – the difference between what the cartel is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is below its historic average (Chart 2). Crude oil reserves have also been trending lower within the OECD. Saudi Arabia’s own reserves have fallen by over 40% since peaking in 2015 (Chart 3). Oil And The Economy: How Big A Risk? While a major spike in oil prices is not our base case, it cannot be ruled out completely. If the price of crude were to increase significantly, how much damage would this do to the global economy? History is certainly not encouraging: Every single U.S. recession since 1970 has been preceded by  a large jump in oil prices (Chart 4). Chart 4Oil Spikes And Recessions Chart 5The Global Economy Is Less Oil Intensive The fact that we are dealing with a potential supply disruption only makes things worse. It is one thing if oil prices are rising in response to stronger global growth; it is quite another if prices rise at a time, such as the present, when global growth is under pressure. Despite these concerns, there are four reasons to be optimistic that higher oil prices will not precipitate a major global economic downturn. First, the global economy is less reliant on oil than in the past. Chart 5 shows that the amount of oil necessary to produce one unit of real GDP has fallen by half since 1990. Second, oil prices are still quite low by historic standards. Even after this week’s jump, Brent is still 24% below where it was last October (Chart 6). In real terms, both Brent and WTI are more than 60% below their 2008 highs. Chart 6Oil Prices Are Well Off Their 2008 Peak Third, if oil prices do stay elevated, this will encourage investment in the oil patch, which will eventually bring prices back down. It is worth remembering that rising oil prices reduce aggregate demand in part by shifting wealth from oil consumers, who tend to spend most of their disposable income, to oil producers, who are often inclined to save the windfall from higher oil prices in such entities as sovereign wealth funds. However, if higher oil prices cause producers to expand production, the positive “investment effect” could offset much of the negative “consumption effect” on aggregate demand. Ironically, this means that a transfer of production from easily accessible oil deposits, such as those in Saudi Arabia, to less accessible shale or deep-sea deposits has the effect of increasing overall energy-sector capital spending, even if it does entail a loss of average efficiency. Fourth, higher oil prices today are unlikely to dislodge long-term inflation expectations. This represents a critical difference between the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s when central banks often felt the need to hike rates in the face of rising oil prices (Chart 7). These days, central banks are more likely to see oil price increases – especially those due to supply-side disruptions – as negative income shocks. Such shocks warrant looser, rather than tighter, monetary policy. Chart 7Core Inflation No Longer Driven By Oil Prices FOMC Cuts Rates As Expected This brings us to this week’s Fed meeting. As widely expected, the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. It also lowered the projected policy rate path. Compared to the Summary of Economic Projections released in June – which suggested no rate change in 2019, one rate cut in 2020, and one rate hike in 2021 – the median dots in the September Summary of Economic Projections released this week show two cuts in 2019, no rate change in 2020, one rate hike in 2021, and one rate hike in 2022. Seven out of 17 participants penciled in a projected third cut for 2019. Judging from the tone of his post-meeting press conference, Jay Powell, dressed in his trademark bipartisan purple tie, was likely among those advocating for further easing. While it is far from a done deal, an additional rate cut in October appears more likely than not. In total, we expect 75 basis points in cuts, equivalent to the amount of easing orchestrated during both the 1995/96 and 1998 mid-cycle slowdowns (Chart 8). The Fed appears to be using these two episodes as a template for its current thinking. Chart 8Will The Fed Follow The 1990s Template Of 75 Bps Of Mid-Cycle Easing? The Fed is also likely to start expanding the size of its balance sheet starting in November. The spike in funding rates this week, while not at all related to the sort of counterparty risk that prevailed during the financial crisis, still underscored the fact that bank reserves are becoming increasingly scarce. To the extent that the Fed creates bank reserves when it purchases assets, this would help alleviate funding pressures. We are assuming that rate cuts beyond 75 basis points in total are possible. However, this would require a significant deceleration in U.S. growth, which looks unlikely. Real personal consumption spending is on track to increase by 3.1% in Q3, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow (Chart 9). While business capex spending continues to be weighed down by the manufacturing recession, rays of light are emerging. Industrial production rose by 0.6% in August, well above the consensus forecast of 0.2%. Despite an ongoing drag from the auto sector, manufacturing output rose by a solid 0.5%. Chart 9Inventories And Net Exports Have Subtracted From Growth Chart 10Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Globally, the growth picture remains shaky. Looking out, the sharp easing in financial conditions should boost activity (Chart 10). The nascent de-escalation in trade tensions, if sustained, should also help. As such, we continue to expect global growth to stabilize in the coming months and accelerate into year-end. Investment Conclusions Oil prices are likely to rise over the next 12 months. Geopolitical tensions could contribute to any upward pressure on the price of crude, but most of the increase in prices will probably be driven by stronger global growth. If global growth does pick up, the dollar will probably weaken (Chart 11). A weaker dollar will further boost oil prices, along with other commodity prices (Chart 12). Chart 11The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 12A Weaker Dollar Bodes Well For Commodities Stronger global growth, rising commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will hurt safe-haven government bonds but boost stocks. EM and cyclical equity sectors should gain disproportionately.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Feature News reports suggesting the U.S. agrees with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) assessment that the unprecedented attacks on the Kingdom’s oil infrastructure over the weekend were conducted with Iranian weapons will keep markets in overdrive sussing out the scope of an expected retaliation.1 Given the magnitude of this provocation, it is highly unlikely this war-like aggression goes unanswered. The U.S. has a range of retaliatory options, but the U.S. belief that the attacks originated in Iran makes for a much higher constraint for President Donald Trump to respond with direct air strikes, i.e. strikes on Iranian territory. On Wednesday, Trump ordered additional sanctions against Iran. This, combined with Trump’s dovish, establishment pick for a new national security adviser, suggests that whatever retaliatory strikes the U.S. authorizes, its intention will be to minimize the potential for escalation. Iran continues to deny any involvement in the attacks. Its response to any direct retaliation will be telling. If Iran’s response is to up the ante even further, events could escalate to head-on confrontation with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Even as tensions rise, a possible diplomatic off-ramp cannot be dismissed, given the political constraints confronting President Trump as the U.S. general election looms.2 KSA has stated its desire to bring the United Nations into the picture, presumably to either help it form a coalition to prosecute the actors determined to be responsible for the attacks, or to work out a diplomatic solution to de-escalate tensions in the Persian Gulf. In addition, the EU, which has maintained diplomatic relations with Iran, could be asked by the U.S. to mediate negotiations among the dramatis personae to avoid further escalation. For its part, Iran is ruling out any discussions with the U.S., insisting it does not want to give Trump anything that might be useful to him politically. Lastly, markets must fold in U.S. monetary policy – particularly as it affects the evolution of the USD – into its calculations, given the damage a strong dollar already has inflicted on oil demand globally over the past year or so.3 The Fed’s monetary accommodation could be significantly muted by similar efforts by central banks globally, keeping the broad trade-weighted USD well bid. This would continue to weigh on industrial commodity demand. Fundamentals driving price formation are highly dependent on how these issues resolve themselves. Considerable uncertainty exists on all fronts, given the forces shaping the evolution of supply, demand and prices are shaped by political outcomes, which still are in flux.4 At the very least, this will firmly embed a risk premium in prices – the range of which still is being defined – going forward. Despite Attacks, Fundamentals Remain Stable As tumultuous as the past week has been, little has changed in our base case supply-demand estimates, or in our price forecast. KSA officials are indicating repairs to its damaged 7-million-barrel-per-day processing facility at Abqaiq will mostly be completed by month-end. They indicate KSA has been able to use its 190mm barrels of storage – domestic and global – to meet contractual obligations while these repairs are underway.5 As tumultuous as the past week has been, little has changed in our base case supply-demand estimates, or in our price forecast (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) This leaves our price forecasts similar to last month, with Brent averaging $65/bbl for this year and $74/bbl next year (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect WTI to trade $6.50/bbl below Brent this year, and $4.00/bbl lower next year. While demand growth has weakened, available evidence suggests this process has bottomed. Chart of the WeekOil Fundamentals, Price Forecasts Little Changed, Despite Supply Shock On the supply side, the U.S. continues to be the dominant source of output growth going into next year, even as rig counts continue to fall due to lower prices at the end of last year and in 1H19. Despite the supply shock the attack on KSA induced, global physical imbalances have  largely been minimized, given the Abqaiq facility will be returned to service over the course of the coming month, and KSA has been able to supply contractual volumes out of global storage (Chart 2).  However, this implies global inventories will continue to draw (Chart 3), which will steepen the backwardation in crude-oil forward curves (Chart 4). Chart 2Absent Long-Lasting Shock, Balances Remain Unchanged Chart 3Inventories Will Continue To Draw Chart 4Crude Oil Backwardation Likely Steepens Chart 5U.S. Shales Continue To Drive Global Oil Supply Growth Chart 6U.S. Shale-Oil Output Rises In Top Five Basins On the supply side, the U.S. continues to be the dominant source of output growth going into next year, even as rig counts continue to fall due to lower prices at the end of last year and in 1H19 (Chart 5). Even so, U.S. shale-oil well completions continue to rise as more drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells are brought online (Chart 6, top panel). Nonetheless, DUCs are not being completed as fast as we expected earlier, suggesting productivity gains to date are high enough to offset this slower DUC-completion rate (Chart 6, bottom panel). Geopolitics Dominates A Fraught Oil Market Moreso than at any point in the past, our base-case estimate is highly conditioned on what happens in the geopolitical realm. Markets are being forced to assess probabilities on outcomes that are, at this moment, highly uncertain. To account for some of the risk and uncertainty that will drive supply-demand fundamentals, we model several scenarios assessing the impact of prolonged production outages. Chart 7 shows our estimates of the price impact of 2.85mm b/d of KSA production remaining offline until the end of September (Scenario 1), October (Scenario 2), and December (Scenario 3). These scenarios are largely in line with guidance from KSA that processing and production will be fully restored by November. The end-December scenario makes the point that, without any adjustments in demand and supply elsewhere, prices will spike sharply if Saudi production fails to come back online completely by year-end.6 Chart 7Prolonged Loss of KSA Output Leads To Higher Prices Production outages of the sort simulated in scenario 3 above likely would be destabilizing to markets generally, which, all else equal, would strengthen the USD, as market participants sought safe-haven investments. A stronger USD, coupled with higher absolute oil prices, would lead to demand destruction. The effects of higher prices and a stronger dollar most likely would become apparent in 2020 (Chart 8). We would expect demand destruction would be most acute in EM economies, although DM would not be immune.7 Chart 8Demand Destruction Would Follow Higher Prices and Stronger USD Oil Market Enters Unknown Terrain The attacks on KSA – either by Iran or its proxies – indicates U.S. sanctions against Iran’s oil exports are forcing it to take increasingly desperate measures. Iran would prefer to remove sanctions than engage a large-scale war with the U.S., or with a U.S./GCC military coalition. Nevertheless we continue to believe Iran has a higher threshold for pain than the Trump administration. Under extreme economic sanctions, Iran believes it must show it can strike deep into the heart of KSA’s oil industry, almost at will. At present, we believe any KSA or U.S. militarily retaliation against Iran will be mostly symbolic – e.g., cyber-attacks, pinprick strikes at specific areas where the attack was launched from, or at Iran’s militant proxies across the region rather than at Iran proper. The point would be a warning back to Iran. If no action is taken by the U.S. or KSA, then Iran will conclude that it can continue pressing aggressively. Its previous actions this year – e.g., against tankers in Hormuz, the shooting down of an American drone – have not led to U.S. retaliation, so it has pressed on. This is dangerous because it erodes credibility of U.S. security guarantees in the region – and invites Iran to take even bolder actions. The U.S. public is opposed to wars in the Middle East and an expanding conflict threatens an oil price shock and recession that would get Trump kicked out of the Oval Office. This is a compelling set of reasons not to re-escalate tensions with Iran, but only to seek symbolic retaliation. Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani, has a clear incentive to push and test Trump: He suffered the most from Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal – i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed Iran back into the oil export markets. Although his government is still in power, it is dealing with the fallout from U.S. economic sanctions. He has a great interest in renegotiating the deal – preferably with a Democratic President but possibly also with Trump. But Rouhani must be extremely hawkish in order to get it done and secure political cover at home. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) do not accept Rouhani’s approach and do not want rapprochement with Donald Trump. Moreover they ultimately have an interest to create a conflict that would unify Iran and buttress the regime.  Therefore, chances are that the regime hardliners triggered the attack against KSA to poison the atmosphere, prevent talks, and force Rouhani into a corner where he can no longer pursue diplomacy with the U.S. The chances of a political settlement between the U.S. and Iran are fading rapidly. The U.S. will need to retaliate somehow, diplomatically, economically, or militarily.  Either way it will push back the time frame for a political settlement with Iran. President Trump would need to make an incredibly bold diplomatic overture to convert this incident into a new nuclear deal and political settlement – he would have to give sanctions relief, rejoin the JCPOA, and, most important,  he would have to be matched by Rouhani’s own steps in the context of Iranian factional struggle. Given the fact that Trump ordered new sanctions on Iran Wednesday, the odds of any political settlement are approaching zero. President Trump is reportedly nominating Patrick C. O’Brien as his new national security adviser to replace John Bolton. O’Brien is an establishment Republican pick — he has worked with Senator Mitt Romney as well as the George W. Bush administration. He is also manifestly a “dovish” pick, not only in relation to the uber-hawkish Bolton but even compared to other candidates for the position. He has a specialty in hostage negotiations and legal work representing marginal groups as well as powerful U.S. interests. This suggests that President Trump is seeking negotiations rather than war as his ultimate objective and staging a “tactical retreat” from his aggressive foreign policy so far this year. However, O’Brien is only a single person and the underlying dynamic — Iran’s higher pain threshold for conflict and awareness of Trump’s fear of oil shock and recession — still entails that Trump will need to heighten deterrence, or Iran will press its advantage further. This means we are far from de-escalation in the wake of Abqaiq and markets will continue to add a risk premium. Bottom Line: The U.S. and KSA agree that Iran is responsible for the attacks. It is still unclear that they were launched from Iran by Iranians, however. Ahead of any formal finding, President Trump ordered increased sanctions against Iran on Wednesday. We strongly believe the U.S. will retaliate against Iran or its proxies in the Middle East in response to the attacks on KSA. But the retaliation will be limited because of U.S. political and economic constraints. Iran has the higher pain threshold, and it remains uncertain whether this dynamic will escalate into a full-on kinetic engage­ment involving Iran against the U.S., KSA and their GCC allies.     Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      Please see Saudi oil attacks came from southwest Iran, U.S. official says, raising tensions, published by reuters.com September 17, 2019. 2      We discuss these in detail in the Special Report Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raise Questions About U.S. Response published jointly by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy September 16, 2019. 3      We examined the impact of the strong USD on industrial-commodity demand in two reports – Central Bank Easing Key To Oil Prices and Industrial Commodity Demand Recovery Will Boost Metals, Oil, published September 5 and 12, 2019. We conclude dollar strength, along with China’s deleveraging campaign in 2017 – 18 likely explains a significant amount of the dramatic contraction in oil demand over the 2H18 – 1H19 period. The Sino-U.S. trade war also contributed to lower demand, in our estimation, but its primary effect has been to increase firms’ reticence to fund longer-term capex and households’ desire to hold precautionary savings balances. 4      We are referring once again to Knightian uncertainty, i.e., risks that are “not susceptible to measurement.” This differs from the “risk” we routinely consider in this publication, which can be measured via implied volatilities in options markets. A pdf of Dr. Knight’s 1921 book "Risk, Uncertainty and Profit" can be downloaded at the St. Louis Fed’s FRASER website. 5      In our Special Report earlier this week (see footnote 1), we estimated KSA could cover ~ 33 days of its contractual obligations from its storage, if the outage remained at 5.7mm b/d. The Saudi Press Agency detailed the loss as follows: 4.5mm b/d are accounted for by Abqaiq plants going off line. Please see Saudi says oil output to be restored by end of September, published by khaleejtimes.com. 6      NB: This is the marginal price impact. It is not a forecast. Should production stay off line for an extended period, we would expect other OPEC members’ production to increase, and, at a minimum, the U.S. SPR would release barrels to the market. Eventually, demand destruction – from higher prices – would force oil prices lower. 7      Our demand-decline scenario in Chart 8 shows the impact of a stronger USD and lower demand brought on by high prices. We raise the probability of a stronger USD to 30% in our ensemble model, and simulate a loss of demand equal to 250k b/d next year – 200k b/d from non-OECD economies and 50k b/d from OECD economies. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Dear Client, BCA’s New York conference takes place next week on September 26-27, and I look forward to meeting some of you there. Because of the conference, our next report will come out on October 3. Dhaval Joshi Highlights If the WTI crude oil price breached $70, Germany’s net export growth would suffer a short-term relapse. If the WTI crude oil price breached $90, Germany’s economic growth would suffer a much longer setback. The WTI crude oil price is now trading at $59, well below even the first pain threshold. Hence, at the moment, the oil price ‘spike’ is a minor irritant rather than a major risk to a German (and European) economic rebound in the fourth quarter. Stay overweight the Eurostoxx50 versus the Shanghai Composite and Nikkei225. If the WTI price stabilises well below $70, we intend to initiate an overweight to the DAX versus global equities. German bunds are a structural short relative to U.S. T-bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekOil Price Oscillations Have Explained German Growth Oscillations With A Spooky Precision It is touch and go whether Germany suffered a technical recession through the second and third quarters.1 We will know in about six weeks’ time, once the statisticians have finished crunching the numbers. But for the financial markets, this is old news. A technical recession in Germany during the second and third quarters is already baked in the market cake. The economy and financial markets are entwined in a perpetual dance. In a dance, sometimes one person decides the steps and sometimes the other person does, but the couple always moves together. And so it is with the economy and markets. The ZEW indicator of (German) economic sentiment recently hit its lowest level since 2011, and the performance of the DAX versus global equities has moved in near perfect lockstep (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A German Recession Is Already Baked In The Market Cake Some people try to predict the movement of markets based on the releases of backward-looking economic data or even supposedly real-time economic data, such as sentiment surveys. Good luck with that. The markets instantaneously discount those releases. To predict the markets, the key question is: what will the future releases look like? If the German economy rebounds in the fourth quarter, then the stark underperformance of the DAX constitutes a compelling buying opportunity versus other equity markets. That said, a new potential risk has emerged: the spike in the crude oil price. Germany Is Highly Sensitive To The Oil Price Europeans are large importers of energy, with 55 percent of all energy needs met by net imports. Moreover, the volume of energy they import tends to be price inelastic. Hence, when energy prices plunge, it boosts net exports and thereby it boosts growth. Conversely, when energy prices soar – as they have recently – it depresses net exports and thereby it depresses growth.2  98 percent of Germany’s consumption of oil depends on imports. This is especially true for Germany whose energy import dependency, at 65 percent, is well above the European average. The most important energy source is still oil which accounts for over a third of Germany’s primary energy use (Chart I-3). Moreover, 98 percent of Germany’s consumption of oil depends on imports.3   Chart I-3Germany Is Highly Sensitive To The Oil Price Most of Germany’s oil consumption is for transport. On a timeframe of decades, the planned decarbonisation of all sectors by 2050 should all but eliminate fossil oil from German energy consumption. However, on a timeframe of quarters, oil consumption for transport is highly inelastic and non-substitutable. Hence, in recent years, swings in the oil price have always caused swings in Germany’s net exports (Chart I-4). Based on this excellent relationship, a likely rebound in German net exports in the fourth quarter would be threatened if the WTI crude price reached and stayed in the mid $70s. Chart I-4Swings In The Oil Price Cause Swings In Germany's Net Exports For Economic Growth, The Oil Price Impulse Is What Matters Empirically, we have found that the German economy is much more sensitive to the oil price than other European economies (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). This could be because other drivers of the economy such as credit developments are less significant in Germany. Chart I-5Germany Is More Sensitive To The Oil Price... Chart I-6...Than Other European ##br##Economies Most analysts argue that it is the change in the oil price that is relevant for the economy. This is obviously correct for the impact on inflation, which is, by definition, the change in a price. However, it is incorrect to argue that the change in the oil price drives economic growth. Instead, it is the impulse of the oil price – the change in its change – that drives economic growth. To understand why, consider a simplified example. Let’s say a 20 percent drop in the oil price added to Germany’s net exports, causing the economy to grow 1 percent. In the following period, another 20 percent drop in the oil would cause the economy to grow again by 1 percent, so growth would stay unchanged. On the other hand, if the oil price dropped by 10 percent, the economy would still grow, but now at a reduced rate of 0.5 percent. Therefore somewhat paradoxically, though the oil price has declined by 10 percent, growth has slowed. This is because the second drop in the price (10 percent) is less than the first (20 percent) – which means the tailwind impulse has faded.   Now let’s put in the actual numbers for the oil price’s 6-month impulse. The period ending around June 2019 constituted a severe headwind impulse. This is because a 30 percent increase in the oil price followed a 40 percent decline in the previous period, equating to a headwind impulse of 70 percent.4 Allowing for typical lags of a few months, this severe headwind impulse is a likely culprit, or at least a contributing culprit, for Germany’s slowdown during the second and third quarters. As the Chart of the Week compellingly illustrates, oscillations in the oil price’s 6-month impulse have explained the oscillations in Germany’s 6-month economic growth with a spooky precision. Empirically, other explanatory factors are not needed.  The period ending June 2019 constituted a severe headwind impulse from the oil price. Now the good news. Until the last few days, the oil price’s severe headwind impulse had eased – and this fading of the headwind strongly suggested a rebound in German economic growth during the fourth quarter and beyond. This raises a crucial question: to what level would the crude oil price have to spike for the maximum headwind impulse to return, and thereby extinguish the chance of such a rebound? By reverse engineering the price from the maximum headwind impulse, the answer is the WTI crude price at $90. Pulling all of this together, the first pain threshold is WTI breaching $70, at which Germany’s net export growth could suffer a short-term relapse. The second and greater pain threshold is WTI breaching $90, at which Germany’s economic growth could be stifled for much longer.  Having said all that, WTI is now trading at $59, well below even the first pain threshold. Hence, at the moment, this is a minor irritant rather than a major risk to a German (and European) economic rebound. Stay overweight the Eurostoxx50 versus the Shanghai Composite and Nikkei225. And in the coming week or so, if the WTI price stabilises well below $70, we intend to initiate an overweight to the DAX versus global equities. The ECB Fired A Dud So much for the ECB’s promise to ‘shock and awe’ the markets. The bazooka ended up firing a dud! Unlimited QE is not really unlimited when the ECB’s asset purchase program is running close to its individual issuer limit, and its country composition cannot deviate too far from the ECB’s capital key. QE is nothing more than a signal of intent to keep policy interest rates ultra-low for a protracted period. In any case, QE is nothing more than a signal of intent to keep policy interest rates ultra-low for a protracted period. But once the markets have fully discounted this intent – as they have in the euro area and Japan – the monetary policy armoury is effectively out of ammunition (Chart I-7-Chart I-10). So it is not surprising that the ECB fired a dud. Chart I-7Monetary Policy Is Exhausted In The Euro Area... Chart I-8...But The U.S. Still Has ##br##Ammunition Chart I-9Monetary Policy Is Exhausted In Japan... Chart I-10...But China Still Has Ammunition Some people counter that there are even more exotic monetary policy options in the pipeline, such as ‘helicopter money’. However, as Mario Draghi correctly pointed out, “giving money to people in whatever form is not a monetary policy task, it’s a fiscal policy task.” Helicopter money might be a step too far, but its notion encapsulates the shape of things to come in Europe. With euro area monetary policy exhausted, the baton is passing to fiscal policy. The upshot is that in a bond portfolio, German bunds are a structural short relative to U.S. T-bonds. Fractal Trading System* Although we are structurally overweight Italian long-dated BTPs, the 130-day fractal dimension is signalling that the pace of the rally is now technically extended and therefore vulnerable to a countertrend correction. This week’s trade recommendation is to express this via a short position in the Italian 10-year BTP, setting a profit target of 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short the U.S. 10-year T-bond quickly achieved its profit target, while short financial services versus market reached the end of its holding period in slight loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We define a technical recession as two consecutive quarters of contraction in real GDP. 2 Energy dependence = (imports – exports) / gross available energy. 3 According to the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources. 4 The 6-month steps in the WTI crude oil price were $74.15, $45.21, and $58.24. The first change equated to a 40 percent decrease and the second change equated to a 30 percent increase. So the 6-month impulse was 70 percent. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations