Energy

Highlights So What? Geopolitical risks are not about to ease. Why? Fiscal policy becomes less accommodative next year unless politicians act. Financial conditions give President Trump room to expand his tariff onslaught. Our Iran view is confirmed by rapid escalation of tensions – war risk is high. The odds of a no-deal Brexit have risen. Feature The AUD-JPY cross and copper-to-gold ratio – two market indicators that flag global growth and risk-on sentiment – are hovering over critical points at which a further breakdown would catalyze a renewed flight to quality (Chart 1). Chart 1Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Global sentiment remains depressed amid a rash of negative economic surprises and bonds continue to rally despite a more dovish outlook from the Fed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed The cavalry is on the way: European Central Bank President Mario Draghi oversaw a dramatic easing of monetary policy on June 18, driving the Italian-German sovereign bond spread down to levels not seen since before the populist election outcome of March 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). The Federal Reserve adjusted its policy rate projections to countenance an interest rate cut in the not-too-distant future. More needs to be done, however, to sustain the optimism that has propelled the S&P 500 and global equities upward since the volatility catalyzed by President Donald Trump’s announcement of a tariff rate hike on May 6. Political and geopolitical risks are higher, not lower, since that time as market-negative scenarios are playing out with U.S. policy, Iran, and Brexit, while we take a dim view of the end-game of the U.S.-China negotiations despite recent improvements. Fiscal And Trade Uncertainties This year’s growth wobbles have occurred in the context of expansive fiscal policy in the developed markets. Next year, however, the fiscal thrust (the change in the cyclically adjusted budget balance) is projected to decline in the U.S. and Japan and nearly to do so in Europe (Chart 3). We expect President Trump and the House Democrats to raise spending caps (or at least keep spending at current levels) and thus prevent the budget deficit from contracting in FY2020 – this is their only substantial point of agreement. But this at best neutralizes what would otherwise be a negative fiscal backdrop. Meanwhile it is not at all clear that Brussels will relax its scrutiny of member states seeking to cut taxes and boost spending, such as Italy. Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo would need to arrange for the Diet to pass a new law to avoid the consumption tax hike from 8% to 10% on October 1. He can pull this off, especially if the U.S. trade war escalates – or if he decides to turn next month’s upper house election into a general election and needs to boost his popularity. But as things currently stand in law, the world’s third biggest economy will face a deep fiscal pullback next year (Chart 3, bottom panel). In short, DM fiscal policy will not really become contractionary in 2020, but this is a view and not yet a reality (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Chart 4Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Meanwhile China’s stimulus is still in question – in fact it remains the major macro question this year. The efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining ... An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems.  Since February we have argued that the Xi administration has shifted to sweeping fiscal-and-credit stimulus in the face of the unprecedented external threat posed by the Trump administration (Charts 5A and 5B). We expect China’s credit growth to continue its upturn in June and in H2. Ultimately, we think the whole package will be comparable to 2015-16 – and anything even close to that will prolong the global economic expansion. We do not see a massive 2008-style stimulus occurring unless relations with the U.S. completely collapse and a global recession occurs. Chart 5AStimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Chart 5 The catch – as we have shown – is that the efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining over time because of over-indebtedness and bearish sentiment in China’s private sector. These tepid animal spirits stem from epochal changes: Xi’s reassertion of communism and America’s withdrawal of strategic support for China’s rise. An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems. The magnitude of the tariffs that President Trump is threatening to impose on China, Mexico, the EU, and Japan is mind-boggling. We illustrate this with a simple simulation of duties collected as a share of total imports under different scenarios (Chart 6). Chart 6 China and Mexico are fundamentally different from the EU and Japan and hence the threat of tariffs will continue to weigh on markets for Trump’s time in office – China because of a national security consensus and Mexico because of the Trump administration’s existential emphasis on curbing illegal immigration. But we still put the risk of auto tariffs (or other punitive measures) on Europe at 45% if Trump seals a China deal. The odds are lower for Japan but it is still at risk. Global supply chains are shifting – a new source of costs and uncertainty for companies – as a slew of recent news has highlighted. Already 40% of companies surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in China say they are relocating to Southeast Asia, Mexico, and elsewhere (Chart 7). If the G20 is a flop – or results in nothing more than a pause in tariffs for another three-month dialogue – relocations will gain steam, forcing companies’ bottom lines to take a hit. Chart 7 Even in the best case, in which the Trump-Xi summit produces a joint statement outlining a “deal in principle” accompanied by a rollback of the May 10 tariff hike, uncertainty will persist due to President Trump’s unpredictability, China’s incentive to wait until after the U.S. election, and Trump’s incentive to corner the “China hawk” platform prior to the election. We maintain that, by November 2020, there is a roughly 70% chance of further escalation. At least the U.S.-China conflict is nominally improving. The same cannot be said for other geopolitical risks discussed below: the U.S. and Iran are flirting with war; the U.S. presidential election is injecting a steady trickle of market-negative news; the chances of a no-deal Brexit are rising; and Trump may turn on Europe at a moment when it lacks leadership. This list assumes that Russia takes advantage of American distraction by improving domestic policy rather than launching into a new foreign adventure – say in Ukraine or Kaliningrad. If there is any doubt as to whether political risk can outweigh more accommodative monetary policy, remember that President Trump actually can remove Chairman Jerome Powell. Legally he is only allowed to do so “for cause” as opposed to “at will.” But the meaning of this term is a debate that would go to the Supreme Court in the event of a controversial decision. Meanwhile the stock market would dive. Now, this is precisely why Trump will not try. But the implication, as with Congress and the border wall, is that Trump is constrained on domestic policy and hence tariffs are his most effective tool to try to achieve policy victories. With an ebullient stock market and a Fed that is adjusting its position, Trump can try to kill two birds with one stone: wring concessions from trade partners while forcing the FOMC to keep responding to rising external risks. Bottom Line: Central banks are riding to the rescue, but there is only so much they can do if global leaders are tightening budgets and imposing barriers on immigration and trade. We remain tactically cautious. Oh Man, Oh Man, Oman Iran has swiftly responded to the Trump administration’s imposition of “maximum pressure” on oil exports. The shooting down of an American drone that Tehran claims violated its airspace on June 20 is the latest in a spate of incidents, including a Houthi first-ever cruise missile attack on Abha airport in Saudi Arabia. Two separate attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) demonstrate that Iran is threatening to play its most devastating card in the renewed conflict with the U.S. Chart Chart 8 Hormuz ushers through a substantial share of global oil demand and liquefied natural gas demand (Chart 8). The amount of spare pipeline capacity that the Gulf Arab states could activate in the event of a disruption is merely 3.9 million barrels per day, or 6 million if questionable pipelines like the outdated Iraqi pipeline in Saudi Arabia prove functional (Table 1). Table 1No Sufficient Alternatives To Hormuz Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere A conflict with Iran could cause the biggest oil shock of all time. Even if this spare capacity were immediately utilized, a conflict could cause the biggest oil shock of all time – considerably bigger than that of the Iranian Revolution (Chart 9). Chart 9 We have shown in the past that Iran has the military capability of interrupting the flow of traffic in Hormuz for anywhere from 10 days to four months. A preemptive strike by Iran would be most effective, whereas a preemptive American attack would include targets to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate via Hormuz. The impact on oil prices ranges from significant to devastating. Needless to say, blocking the Strait of Hormuz would initiate a war so Iran is attempting to achieve diplomatic goals with the threats themselves – it will only block the strait as a last resort, say if it is convinced that the U.S. is about to attack anyway. As the experience of President Jimmy Carter shows, Americans may rally around the flag during a crisis but they will also kick a president out of office for higher prices and an economic slowdown. President Trump cannot be unaware of this precedent. The intention of his Iran policy is to negotiate a “better deal” than the 2015 one – a deal that includes Iran’s regional power projection and ballistic missile capabilities as well as its nuclear program. The problem is that Trump has already been forced to deploy a range of forces to the region, including additional troops (albeit so far symbolic at 2,500) (Chart 10). He is also sending Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, to the region to rally support among Gulf Cooperation Council. The week after Hook will court Britain, Germany, and France, three of the signatories of the 2015 deal. Trump ran on a campaign of eschewing gratuitous wars in the Middle East – a popular stance among war-weary Americans (Chart 11) – but there is a substantial risk that he could get entangled in the region. First, he is adopting a more aggressive foreign policy to attempt to compensate for the lack of payoff in public opinion from the strong economy. Second, Iran is not shrinking from the fight, which could draw him deeper into conflict. Third, there is always a high risk of miscalculation when nations engage in such brinkmanship. Chart 10Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Chart 11 The Iranian response has been, first, to reject negotiations. When Trump sent a letter to Rouhani via Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, Abe was rebuffed – and one of the tankers attacked near Oman was a Japanese flagged vessel, the Kokuka Courageous. This is a posture, not a permanent position, as the Iranian release of an American prisoner demonstrates. But the posture can and will be maintained in the near term – with escalation as the result. Second, Iran is increasing its own leverage in any future negotiation by demonstrating that it can sow instability across the region and bring the global economy grinding to a halt. Iran cannot assume that Trump means what he says about avoiding war but must focus on the United States’ actions and capabilities. Cutting off all oil exports is a recipe for extreme stress within the Iranian regime – it is an existential threat. Therefore, the Iranians have signaled that the cost of a total cutoff will be a war that will cause a global oil price shock. The Iranian leaders are also announcing that they are edging closer to walking away from the 2015 nuclear pact (Table 2). If so, they could quickly approach “breakout” capacity in the uranium enrichment – meaning that they could enrich to 20% and then in short order enrich to 90% and amass enough of this fuel to make a nuclear device one year thereafter. The Trump administration has reportedly reiterated that this one-year limit is the U.S. government’s “red line,” just as the Obama administration had done. Table 2Iran Threatens To Walk Away From 2015 Nuclear Deal Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere This Iranian threat is a direct reaction to Trump’s decision in May not to renew the oil sanction waivers. Previously the Iranians had sought to preserve the 2015 deal, along with the Europeans, in order to wait out Trump’s first term. These developments push us to the brink of war. Iran is retaliating with both military force and a nuclear restart. This comes very close to meeting our conditions for an American (and Israeli) retaliation that is military in nature. Diagram 1 is an update of our decision tree that we have published since last year when Trump reneged on the 2015 deal. The window to de-escalate is closing rapidly. The Appendix provides a checklist for air strikes and/or the closure of Hormuz. Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere At very least we expect to see the U.S. attempt to create a large international fleet to assert freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. While Iran may lay low during a large show of force, it will later want to demonstrate that it has not been cowed. And it has the capacity to retaliate elsewhere, including in Iraq, an area we have highlighted as a major geopolitical risk to oil supply. The U.S. government has already reacted to recent threats there from Iranian proxies by pulling non-essential personnel. Iran has several incentives to test the limits of conflict if the U.S. insists on the oil embargo. First, tactically, it seeks to deter President Trump, take advantage of American war-weariness, drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, and force a relaxation of the sanctions. This would also demonstrate to the region that Iran has greater resolve than the United States of America. This goal has not been achieved by the recent spate of actions, so there is likely more conflict to come. Second, President Hassan Rouhani’s government is also likely to maintain a belligerent posture – at least in the near term – to compensate for its loss of face upon the American betrayal of the 2015 nuclear deal. Rouhani negotiated the deal against the warnings of hardline revolutionaries. The 2020 majlis elections make this an important political goal for his more reform-oriented faction. Negotiations with Trump can only occur if Rouhani has resoundingly demonstrated his superiority in the clash of wills. Structurally, Iran faces tremendous regime pressures in the coming years and decades because of its large youth population, struggling economy, and impending power transition from the 80 year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. A patriotic war against America and its allies – while not desirable – is a risk that Khamenei can take, as an air war is less likely to trigger regime change than it is to galvanize a new generation in support of the Islamic revolution. For oil markets the outcome is volatility in the near term – reflecting the contrary winds of trade war and global growth fears with rising supply risks. Because we expect more Chinese stimulus, both as the trade talks extend and especially if they collapse, we ultimately share BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy view that the path of least resistance for oil prices is higher on a cyclical horizon, as demand exceeds supply (Chart 12). We remain long EM energy producers relative to EM ex-China. Chart 12Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Bottom Line: The risk of military conflict has risen materially. This also drastically elevates the risk of a supply shock in oil prices that would kill global demand. The U.S. Election Adds To Geopolitical Risk The 2020 U.S. election poses another political risk for the rising equity market. The Democratic Party’s first debate will be held on June 26-27. The leftward shift in the party will be on full display, portending a possible 180-degree reversal in U.S. policy if the Democrats should win the election, with the prospect of a rollback of Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation of health, finance, and energy. The uncertainty and negative impact on animal spirits will be modest if current trends persist through the debates. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner despite having naturally lost the bump to his polling support after announcing his official candidacy (Chart 13). Biden is a known quantity and a centrist, especially compared to the farther left candidates ranked second and third in popular support– Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Chart 13 Chart 14 Biden is not only beating Sanders in South Carolina, which underscores the fact that he is competitive in the South and hence has a broader path to the White House, but also in New Hampshire, where the Vermont native should be ahead (Chart 14). These states hold the early primaries and caucuses and if Biden maintains his large lead then he will start to appear inevitable very early in the primary campaign next year. Hence a poor showing in the debate on June 27 is a major risk to Biden – he should be expected to be eschew the limelight and play the long game. Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, has the most to gain as she appears on the first night and does not share a stage with the other heavy hitters. If she or other progressive candidates outperform then the market will be spooked. The market could begin to trade off the polls. All of these candidates are beating Trump in current head-to-head polling – Biden is even ahead in Texas (Chart 15). This means that any weakness from Biden does not necessarily offer the promise of a Trump victory and policy continuity. Chart 15 The Democrats also have a powerful demographic tailwind. The just-released projections from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal how Trump’s narrow margins of victory in the swing states in 2016 are in serious jeopardy in 2020 as a result of demographics if he does not improve his polling among the general public (Chart 16). Chart 16 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt as the incumbent president amid an expanding economy, but it is essential to recognize that his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession – i.e. one who is about to lose the White House for his party (Chart 17). Chart 17 Even if there is not a recession, an increase in unemployment is likely to cost him the election – and even a further decrease in unemployment cannot guarantee victory (Chart 18). This is why we see Trump making a bid to become a foreign policy president and seek reelection on the basis that it is unwise to change leaders amid an international crisis. Chart 18 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt ... but his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession. The race for the U.S. senate is extremely important for the policy setting from 2021. If Republicans maintain control, they will be able to block sweeping Democratic legislation – which is particularly relevant if a progressive candidate should win the White House. However, if Democrats can muster enough votes to remove a sitting president with a strong economy – including a strong economy in the key senate swing races (Chart 19) – then they will likely win over the senate as well. Chart 19Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Bottom Line: The 2020 election poses a double risk to the bull market. First, the Democratic primary campaign threatens sharp policy discontinuity, especially if and when developments cause Biden to drop in the polls (dealing a blow to centrism or the political establishment). Second, Trump’s vulnerability makes him more likely to act aggressive on the international stage, whether on trade, immigration, or national security, reinforcing the risks outlined above with regard to China, Iran, Mexico, and even Europe. Rising Odds Of A No-Deal Brexit Former Mayor of London and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson looks increasingly likely to seal the Conservative Party leadership contest in the United Kingdom. It is not yet a done deal, but the shift within the party in favor of accepting a “no deal” exit is clear. None of the remaining candidates is willing to forgo that option. The newest development advances us along our decision tree in Diagram 2, altering the conditional probabilities for this year’s events. We expect the next prime minister to try to push a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May before attempting any kamikaze run as the October 31 deadline approaches. The attempt to leverage the EU’s economic weakness will not produce a fundamental renegotiation of the exit deal, but some element of diplomatic accommodation is possible as the EU seeks to maintain overall stability and a smooth exit if that is what the U.K. is determined to accomplish. Diagram 2Brexit Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere Hence the prospect of passing a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal is about 30%, roughly equal to the chance of a delay (28%). These options are believable as the new leader will have precious little time between taking the reins and Brexit day. The EU can accept a delay because it ultimately has an interest in keeping the U.K. bound into the union. Public opinion polling is not conducive to the new prime minister seeking a new election unless the change of face creates a massive shift in support for the Conservatives, both by swallowing the Brexit Party and outpacing Labour. If the purpose is to deliver Brexit, then the risk of a repeat of the June 2017 snap election would seem excessive. Nevertheless, the Tories’ working majority in parliament is vanishingly small, at five MPs, so a shift in polling could change the thinking on this front. The pursuit of a no-deal exit would create a backlash in parliament that we reckon has a 21% chance of ending in a no-confidence motion and new election. Bottom Line: The odds of a crash Brexit have moved up from 14% to 21% as a result of the leadership contest. The threat that the U.K. will crash out of the EU is not merely a negotiating ploy, although it will be a last resort even for the new hard-Brexit prime minister. Public opinion is against a no-deal Brexit, as is the majority of parliament, but the risk to the U.K. and EU economies will loom large over global risk assets in the coming months. Investment Conclusions Political and geopolitical risks to the late-cycle expansion are rising, not falling. U.S. foreign policy remains the dominant risk but U.S. domestic policy pre-2020 is an aggravating factor. Easing financial conditions give President Trump more ammunition to use tariffs and sanctions. Meanwhile our view that this summer will feature “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran has been confirmed by the tanker attacks in Oman. Tensions will likely escalate from here. Ultimately, we believe Trump is more likely to back off from the Iran conflict than the China conflict. This is part of our long-term theme that the U.S. really is pivoting to China and geopolitical risk will rotate from the Middle East to East Asia. But as highlighted above, the risk of entanglement is very high due to Trump’s approach and Iran’s incentives to raise the stakes. Oil prices will not resume their upward drift until Chinese stimulus is reconfirmed – and even then they will continue to be volatile. We remain cautious and are maintaining our safe-haven tactical trades of long gold and long JPY/USD.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Image

Supply - demand fundamentals point to higher oil prices going forward. Our expectation regarding OPEC production remains unchanged: The original cartel led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) will maintain production discipline this year – likely continuing to over-comply with quotas agreed at the start of the year – to support its long-standing goal to reduce oil inventories globally. Non-OPEC member states in OPEC 2.0 led by Russia also will maintain lower output this year. The OPEC 2.0 coalition will meet July 1 - 2 in Vienna to determine whether it will extend production cuts. On the demand side, we lowered our expectation for this year and next, following the World Bank’s recent downgraded assessment of global GDP growth. Our expectation remains slightly above the EIA’s and the IEA’s. Globally, central bank easing will support demand. Following these adjustments, we are keeping our Brent forecast at $73/bbl this year and lowering our forecast for next year to $75/bbl from $77/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The balance of risk is to the upside. The risk of hybrid warfare (see below) in the Persian Gulf -- and the wider region -- will increase, as Iranian and U.S. positions harden. Highlights Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. Central Command released photos supporting an analysis claiming Iran was responsible for two attacks on commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf last week. The Pentagon deployed an additional 1,000 troops to the region, following this assessment. President Trump, meanwhile, downplayed the attacks, calling them a “very minor event.”1 Base Metals: Neutral. Copper speculators lifted their short position 6k lots to 51.7k lots on CME last week. This is a record short. But the cash market is getting tighter. Treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) moved lower last week, as Fastmarkets MB’s TC/RC Asia – Pacific index hit $54.10/MT, $05.41/lb. This is the lowest level on record for the index, which was launched in June 2013. A low index reading means copper concentrate is in short supply, forcing refiners to lower the price of their services. We remain long the September 2019 $3.00/lb Calls vs. short the September 2019 $3.30/lb calls. Precious Metals: Neutral. Safe-haven demand continues to support gold prices, although news of a Trump – Xi meeting at the G20 in Japan to re-start trade talks reduced the urgency of buying earlier this week. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Rain continued to soak the U.S. Midwest this past week, putting a bid under grains – particularly corn – and beans. This week’s USDA Crop Progress report showed corn planting still behind schedule (at 92% vs. 100% on average in the 2014 – 18 period in the 18 states that accounted for 92% of total acres planted last year). Feature The information flows to oil markets are becoming internally contradictory. On the one hand, recent attacks on commercial oil-product tankers near the Strait of Hormuz – where close to 20% of the world’s oil supply transits daily – raised the ante in the U.S.-GCC-Iran stand-off.  The attacks follow earlier aggression against shipping and pipelines in the region, and prompted KSA’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih to call for a collective response to keep Gulf sea lanes open to allow oil to flow freely worldwide.2 In the post-WWII era, the U.S. has willingly taken on the responsibility of keeping the world’s sea lanes open for the free flow of commodities and finished products. However, based on remarks U.S. President Donald Trump made to Time magazine this week, it would appear the U.S. no longer is willing to shoulder the burden of defending freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.3 The presidential sangfroid in the wake of last week’s attacks in the Gulf – which Pentagon analysts insist were launched by Iran – might be explained by the Trump administration’s belief the global oil market is “very well-supplied,” as U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette contended in an S&P Global Platts interview this past weekend.4 Indeed, this has become part of the narrative whenever the administration discusses oil markets. Brouillette said abundant crude availability prevented oil prices from spiking to $140/bbl in the wake of the attacks on the two commercial tankers. Will The U.S. Defend Gulf Sea Lanes? The global oil market is “well supplied” as long as the Strait of Hormuz – the most critical chokepoint in the world – stays open. Freedom of navigation on the open seas is the sine qua non of a well-functioning oil market – everything from getting supplies to refiners to getting products to consumers depends on it. Oil is a globally traded, waterborne commodity: ~ 60% of all crude exports are loaded on a ship and sent to refiners, directly or via trading companies.5 A liquid crude market requires an unimpeded shipping market, so that refiners can run their operations in a routine manner. In addition, a smoothly functioning shipping market allows refiners to pick and choose among various grades that can be arbitraged against each other, so they can optimize charging stocks. The market cannot absorb the loss of close to 20mm b/d of crude and refined products, which is what would happen if the Strait shut down. It is the most important choke point in the world (Map 1). Chart We’re sure the White House knows this. President Trump’s professed desire to leave the U.S. commitment to maintaining the free flow of oil out of the Gulf is a “question mark” that might be taken as a taunt to up the ante with Iran. Already, in response to the U.S. re-imposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports after unilaterally abrogating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, Iran announced it will resume production of enriched uranium for its nuclear program on June 27.6 As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated. The growing tension in this standoff increases the risk of hybrid warfare in the Persian Gulf, which, should it continue to escalate, increases the risk to global oil flows, as Anthony H. Cordesman at the Center For Strategic & International Studies in Washington recently noted: First, the military confrontation between Iran, the U.S., and the Arab Gulf states over everything from the JCPOA to Yemen can easily escalate to hybrid warfare that has far more serious forms of attack. And second, such attacks can impact critical aspects of the flow of energy to key industrial states and exporters that shape the success of the global economy as well as the economy of the U.S.7 There is a risk this hybrid warfare metastasizes into a full-on war in the Gulf, which would threaten the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Should the Strait be closed, a global oil-price shock almost surely would occur, which most likely would send oil prices through $150/bbl. At that point either the warfare is contained and resolved quickly, or the world has to line up 20mm b/d of crude oil and refined products to replace the lost supply from the Gulf. As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekVolatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Production Discipline Even as tensions in the Persian Gulf escalate, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline. While the producer coalition agreed to remove 1.2mm b/d of production from the market last December, we estimate year-on-year (y/y) year-to-date (ytd) production of OPEC is down ~ 1.4mm b/d in the January-to-May period. For Russia, production over that period y/y is up 310k b/d ytd. For all of OPEC 2.0, we have the group increasing production in 2H19, but we have it ending 2019 with production 480k b/d lower than last month’s forecast. The increase is mainly from Saudi Arabia, which averages ~ 10.2mm b/d of production in 2H19, roughly 130k b/d below quota. We have Russian production averaging ~ 11.5mm b/d, which is close to quota, in 2H19 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices For the year as a whole, we are forecasting OPEC production will fall 1.6mm b/d this year versus 2018 levels, while Russia’s production grows slightly (~ 80k b/d). For next year, OPEC’s production will stay relatively flat (falling ~ 70k b/d), while we expect Russia’s production to increase 230k b/d (Table 1). Outside OPEC 2.0, the U.S. continues to dominate the production-growth story, led by increasing shale-oil output (Chart 2). We expect shale output to grow ~ 1.2mm b/d this year and just over 1mm b/d in 2020. Chart 2U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth Global Demand Is Holding Up While we do expect somewhat lower demand this year and next versus where we were earlier this year, we still expect consumption to remain fairly robust. We expect demand to grow ~ 1.35mm b/d this year and 1.55mm b/d next year, down from 1.50mm and 1.60mm b/d, respectively, in our base case. As always this is led by non-OECD demand growth, which we expect will clock in with an increase of just over 1mm b/d this year versus last year, and 1.3mm b/d next year on average. EM commodity importers will dominate growth, as usual (Chart 3). Trade-war concerns will continue to dominate headlines, but even so, demand remains reasonably stout. While it always is possible the U.S. and China will be able to resolve their trade war – perhaps in dramatic fashion following the G20 meeting in Japan – our colleagues in BCA Research’s doubt it.8 Continuing Sino – U.S. and Iranian – U.S. tension could keep the USD relatively well bid, which will present a headwind to oil demand.  That said, we believe central banks generally will feel compelled to remain accommodative so long as trade wars persist. This accommodation, coupled with fiscal stimulus in many of the systemically important economies, will be supportive of demand overall, EM demand in particular. Chart 3EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World Bottom Line: Supply – demand balances indicate crude oil prices still have room to run in 2H19 and next year. We are maintaining our forecast of $73/bbl for Brent this year. We are lowering our forecast for 2020 to $75/bbl (Chart 4). We expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The combination of stout demand growth, production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers will allow inventories to resume drawing this year (Chart 5). Chart 4Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Chart 5Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Analyst: New Photos Are ‘Smoking Gun’ Proving Iranian Involvement in Tanker Attack published by USNI News, and Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. 2      Please see Saudi Energy Minister calls for collective effort to secure shipping lanes published by reuters.com June 17, 2019. 3      Please see Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. Tessa Berenson reported: “Facing twin challenges in the Persian Gulf, President Donald Trump said in an interview with TIME Monday that he might take military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but cast doubt on going to war to protect international oil supplies.“I would certainly go over nuclear weapons,” the president said when asked what moves would lead him to consider going to war with Iran, “and I would keep the other a question mark.” 4      Please see Interview: Abundant oil supply prevented spike to $140/b after ship attacks - US DOE deputy published by S&P Global Platts June 16, 2019. 5      Please see World Oil Transit Chokepoints published by the U.S. EIA. 6      Please see Iran nuclear deal: Enriched uranium limit will be breached on 27 June published by bbc.co.uk June 17, 2019.  JCPOA agreement between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations – China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. – allowed Iran to return to global markets in exchange for limiting its nuclear development.  Please see The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) at a Glance published by Arms Control Association in May 2018.    7      Please see The Strategic Threat from Iranian Hybrid Warfare in the Gulf published by CSIS June 13, 2019. 8      Please see Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy May 30, 2019, where we reprise the different policy risks oil markets are contending with at present, particularly the trade war.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Closed Image

Highlights The report reviews our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and documents the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We also review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. Energy and consumer discretionary in both markets, along with real estate and financials in the domestic market, have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. Compared with these sectors, investable telecom stocks have exhibited a weaker link between sector and index earnings, but this has occurred because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth. As such, telecom stocks are reliably defensive, but only in the investable market. We conclude by noting the extreme nature of long-term de/re-rating trends that have occurred for several of China’s equity sectors, and argue that the strength of the relationship between earnings and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise over a secular time horizon. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, as further multiple expansion/contraction is unlikely to drive future returns (without an earnings catalyst). Feature Last week’s joint report with our Geopolitical Strategy service provided investors with an update on the trade war in the lead up to the G20 meeting in Osaka.1 While a new tariff ceasefire may emerge from the meeting, the report underscored why the odds are skewed against a positive outcome over the coming 18 months. Our bet is that investors are unlikely to assume that a deal will occur merely in response to a new timetable for talks, implying that any near-term boost to stock prices will be minimal until negotiators provide market participants with evidence (rather than hope) that a deal is achievable. This means that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months, and that a cyclically bullish stance towards Chinese stocks rests on the likelihood of a major policy response in China to counter the likely shock to its export sector. During times of high policy uncertainty, we often take the opportunity to review and update our framework for key asset drivers. In today’s report we review our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and then document the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. We conclude with a summary of what our results would imply over the tactical and cyclical investment horizons given our view of China’s likely growth trajectory, and highlight why several sectors may see a stronger relationship between their earnings and stock prices over the secular horizon. The report illustrates our key conclusions in the body of the text, but reference charts for each sector/industry group in both the investable and domestic market are provided as a convenience on pages 12 - 23. Predicting Chinese Equity Index Earnings Our framework for predicting index EPS is straightforward but reliable. Chart 1Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Chart 1 presents the first element of our framework for predicting Chinese investable earnings per share (EPS) growth. The chart illustrates the strong leading relationship between our BCA China Activity Indicator and the year-over-year growth rate of investable EPS, which underscores that the fundamental performance of Chinese equities is still predominantly driven by China’s “old economy”. The leading nature of our activity index partly reflects the fact that earnings per share are measured on a trailing basis; the key point for investors is that indicators such as our Activity Index have been more successful at capturing the coincident trend in China’s economy than, for example, real GDP growth has over the past several years. Chart 2illustrates that the earnings cycle for the investable and domestic equity markets is the same, with the magnitude of a given cycle accounting for the difference between the two markets. This means that investors exposed to the Chinese equity market should be focused heavily on predicting the coincident trend in the economy, as doing so will lead investors to the same conclusion about the trend in H- and A-share EPS growth. Chart 2Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Chart 3Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity In turn, Chart 3 presents our framework for predicting Chinese economic activity, which we originally laid out in our November 30, 2017 Special Report.2 The chart shows that our leading activity indicator has reliably predicted inflection points in actual activity over the past several years, including the slowdown of the past two years (the leading indicator peaked in Q1 2017). As detailed in the report, our indicator is based on monetary conditions and money & credit growth. Panel 2 of Chart 3 shows that monetary conditions are very easy and credit growth is picking up, though it needs to continue to improve alongside a forceful pickup in money growth in order for the economy to strengthen. The key takeaway for investors is that the overall earnings cycle in China is strongly linked to “old economy” economic activity, which in turn appears to reliably predicted by our indicator. This provides us with a stable platform from which we can examine (and ultimately predict) equity sector EPS. Sector Earnings: Predictability And Cyclicality Given the strong link between Chinese economic activity and equity market EPS that we noted above, the question for equity-oriented investors is then to identify the relationship between sector and overall index EPS. In other words, to what degree are sector EPS in China linked to the overall earnings trend (versus being driven by idiosyncratic factors), and is this relationship pro- or counter-cyclical in nature? Charts 4 and 5 present the answers to these questions, based on the 2011 – 2018 period.3 The charts present the highest R-squared value resulting from a regression of detrended sector EPS versus broad market EPS for both the investable and domestic markets, after accounting for any leading/lagging relationships. The color/shading of each bar denotes whether the beta of the relationship for each sector or industry group is above or below 1. Chart 4 Chart 5 The charts present a mix of surprising and unsurprising results. Among the latter in the investable market, the cyclicality of typically high-beta sectors such as energy, materials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and technology would be readily accepted by most investors, as would the defensive characteristics of financials, telecom services, health care, utilities, and consumer staples. Investable consumer staples, health care, and utilities EPS are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. However, there were several less-intuitive results that emerged from our analysis, related to both the investable and domestic markets: Chart 6 Within the investable market, the low predictability of health care, utilities, and consumer staples EPS is somewhat difficult to explain. A weak relationship would easily be explained if EPS growth for these sectors were somewhat constant in the face of fluctuations in overall index EPS, but Chart 6 shows that the volatility in EPS growth for these sectors are not bottom-ranked (see also pages 16, 17 and 22). In fact, utilities EPS growth vol has been relatively high, and it is higher for health care and consumer staples than it is for financials and banks, whose EPS growth are highly linked to the overall earnings cycle. This result suggests that the determinants of earnings for these sectors are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. The low predictability of consumer staples and utilities EPS observed in the investable market is also evident in the domestic market, suggesting that this finding is not the result of quirky data. We noted earlier that overall index earnings are highly correlated with our BCA China Activity Index, and we have noted in past reports that China’s business cycle continues to be subject to its “old” growth model centered on investment and exports rather than the services and consumer sectors.4 This may explain the relatively idiosyncratic EPS profile for consumer staples, although it still fails to explain the low predictability and relatively high volatility of utilities earnings. Telecom services and technology earnings also have a very low correlation with overall earnings in the domestic market, which is similar to the investable market but more extreme. On the tech front, this is explained by the fact that Alibaba and Tencent, China’s tech giants, are not listed in the domestic market, underscoring that investable tech and domestic tech should be considered by investors to be distinctly separate sectors. In the investable market the low predictability and defensive characteristic of telecom services EPS can be explained by stable, low-volatility growth, but this is not true in the domestic market. In fact, over the past several years the volatility of domestic telecom EPS growth has been among the highest of any of China’s domestic equity sectors, and it has been cyclical rather than defensive in nature. These findings are difficult to explain from a top-down perspective. Finally, while Charts 4 and 5 show a difference in the cyclicality of real estate earnings between the investable and domestic markets, the difference is not substantial: the beta of the former is 1.03 versus 0.94 for the latter. The truly surprising result from real estate stocks is that their EPS growth is not considerably high-beta, given the boom & bust nature of Chinese property prices and the enormous amount of activity that has occurred in Chinese real estate over the past decade. Given that beta is determined relative to the overall index, this is emblematic (and an important reminder) of the underlying cyclicality of China’s economy and its financial markets relative to its global counterparts. Sector Earnings: Relevance For Stock Prices Following our review of the predictability and cyclicality of Chinese sector EPS, Charts 7 and 8 illustrate the relationship between relative EPS and relative stock price performance for these sectors. The charts highlight several notable points: Chart 7 Chart 8 In both the investable and domestic markets, the relative performance of energy and consumer discretionary stocks have been highly explained by the trend in relative EPS. Both of these sectors have also shown reasonably high EPS predictability (based on overall index EPS), suggesting that these two sectors have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. The relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks reflects the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. Chart 9Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Within the investable market, relative EPS has not been successful at predicting relative stock price performance for financials/banks, health care, consumer staples, and industrials. This means that multiple expansion/contraction has been a relatively more important factor in driving returns, which can clearly be seen in Chart 9. The chart shows that investable banks, health care, and industrials have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years, whereas the relative P/E ratio for consumer staples stocks has risen (albeit in a choppy fashion). Domestic consumer staples have also benefited from re-rating, although it has occurred entirely within the past three years and has merely made up for the substantial de-rating that took place in 2012 (Chart 9, panel 2). Taken together, the relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks and industrials reflects, at least in part, the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. The relative EPS trend of utilities in both markets and that of telecom services stocks in the investable market have done a decent-to-good job of predicting relative stock price performance. We noted earlier that investable telecom services earnings appear to have a weak relationship with overall index earnings because of their low variability, meaning that they have also been a good top-down rotation candidate on the defensive side of the spectrum. The high responsiveness of the relative equity performance of Chinese utilities to relative EPS raises the importance of predicting the latter, which is likely to be a topic of future reports for BCA’s China Investment Strategy service. Finally, Chart 7 shows that the most important sector trend in the investable market over the past several years, the outperformance of information technology, has been strongly explained by the trend in relative EPS. This is good news for investors, as it suggests that relative tech returns can be reasonably predicted by accurate earnings analysis. From a top-down perspective, we noted earlier that the relationship between tech and overall index EPS has not been extremely high, which raises the bar for investors to understand the idiosyncratic drivers of earnings for the BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) stocks. Chinese consumer spending remains the most important macro factor for these stocks, but our understanding of this relationship is not complete and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. Investment Conclusions Chart 10 summarizes the results of Charts 4-5 and 7-8, by grouping investable and domestic equity sectors into four quadrants based on top-down EPS predictability (x-axis) and the impact of the trend in relative EPS on relative stock price performance (y-axis): Chart 10 Over a multi-year time horizon, the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices is likely to rise for several sectors. As we noted above, energy and consumer discretionary in both markets along with real estate and financials in the domestic market have had the strongest relationship across both dimensions (top-right quadrant). The EPS relationship is cyclical in both markets in the case of energy and consumer discretionary, whereas it is modestly cyclical for domestic real estate and defensive for domestic financials. Sectors in the top-left quadrant have shown a strong link between earnings and stock price performance, but a weaker link between sector and index earnings. This is the case for telecom services because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth, meaning that telecom stocks are reliably defensive. Fluctuations in the growth of index EPS do not explain the majority of changes in investable tech EPS, but it is an important driver in a cyclical relationship. Sectors in the bottom-right quadrant have a predominantly strong and defensive relationship with index earnings growth (with the exception of domestic industrials), but have experienced significant changes in multiples over the past several years that have materially impacted their relative stock price performance. We showed in Chart 9 that banks have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years; this process appears to have halted at the end of 2017, suggesting that the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices may be stronger going forward. Chart 11Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Finally, sectors in the bottom left quadrant have had relatively idiosyncratic earnings trends, and relative EPS have not explained a majority of the trend in relative performance. We would draw a distinction between investable industrials, real estate, and materials and the rest of the sectors shown, as they are on the cusp of being in the top-right or bottom-right quadrants, and all three appear to have suffered from meaningful de-rating. Investable real estate and materials now trade at over a 40% discount to the overall index (Chart 11), raising a serious question as to whether relative P/Es can continue to compress and explain the majority of relative equity performance. However, investable consumer staples and health care, along with domestic technology and telecom services stocks, do appear to be legitimately idiosyncratic, suggesting that an equity beta approach (regressing sector returns against index returns) is the best top-down method available to investors when allocating to these sectors. For investable staples and health care their equity return betas are clearly defensive, whereas domestic tech and telecom services stocks are market neutral. What does this all mean for investors? Our findings above lead us to some specific conclusions over the tactical (0-3 months), cyclical (6-12 months), and secular (multi-year) horizons: Over the cyclical horizon, we expect Chinese co-incident economic activity to pick up and for overall index EPS to improve, suggesting that global investors have a fundamental basis to be overweight investable energy, consumer discretionary, materials, media & entertainment (within the new communication services sector) and industrial stocks, at the expense of telecom services and financials.5 Investable health care, consumer staples, and utilities stocks are also likely to underperform, although this view is based on a statistical/empirical relationship rather than a fundamental one. In the domestic market, our findings support substituting real estate for technology in comparison to the investable sectors we listed above, but we are concerned that policymakers may crack down more heavily on the property sector if they allow overall credit growth to rise meaningfully as part of a stimulative response. For now, we would not recommend aggressive bets in favor of the domestic real estate sector. Chart 12Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Over the tactical horizon, however, we would advise either the opposite stance, or a benchmark sector allocation. In addition to our view that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months to force policymakers to address the economic weakness that an escalated tariff scenario would entail, broad-market Chinese EPS growth continues to decelerate (Chart 12). We see this continued slowdown as a lagged response to past economic weakness, which we expect will be reversed over the coming year due to stronger money & credit growth. However, sectors with pro-cyclical earnings growth may fare poorly in the near term until investors gain confidence that the (inevitable) policy response will stabilize the earnings outlook. Over the secular horizon, the most important conclusion is that there have been several long-term sectoral de/re-rating trends within China’s equity market. In the investable market, health care, consumer staples, and consumer discretionary (of which Alibaba is heavily represented) trade at 100-200% of a premium relative to the broad equity market on a trailing earnings basis, whereas financials, materials, and real estate stocks trade at a 40-60% discount. These divergences also exist in the domestic market, although the range is somewhat less extreme. A simple contrarian instinct might be to strategically overweight/underweight expensive/cheap sectors, but to us the simpler conclusion is that the extreme nature of these trends means that the strength of the relationship between EPS and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, a question that is very likely to be the topic of additional China Investment Strategy reports this year. Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Reference Charts Energy Chart 13 Energy Energy Chart 14 Energy Energy Materials Chart 15 Materials Materials Chart 16 Materials Materials   Industrials Chart 17 Industrials Industrials Chart 18 Industrials Industrials   Consumer Discretionary Chart 19 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Chart 20 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary   Consumer Staples Chart 21 Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Chart 22 Consumer Staples Consumer Staples   Health Care Chart 23 Health Care Health Care Chart 24 Health Care Health Care   Financials Chart 25 Financials Financials Chart 26 Financials Financials   Banking Chart 27 Banking Banking Chart 28 Banking Banking   Information Technology Chart 29 Information Technology Information Technology Chart 30 Information Technology Information Technology   Telecom Services Chart 31 Telecom Services Telecom Services Chart 32 Telecom Services Telecom Services   Utilities Chart 33 Utilities Utilities Chart 34 Utilities Utilities   Real Estate Chart 35 Real Estate Real Estate Chart 36 Real Estate Real Estate   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong”, dated June 14, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      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. 3      S&P Dow Jones and MSCI Inc. implemented major structural changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) in Q4 2018 that substantially altered the sector composition of the MSCI China Investable index. The weight of the information technology sector in the investable index dropped dramatically after the GICS changes occurred. Investors should note that we used Q3 2018 as the end date of our analysis in order to remove any impact from the GICS sector change; the reference charts shown on pages 12 – 23 provide all data since 2011. 4     Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Three Pillars Of China’s Economy”, dated May 16, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Due to the changes to the GICS classification structure noted in footnote 3, the tech sector relationships that we highlighted above now apply to the consumer discretionary sector (level 1) and media & entertainment industry-group (level 2, within the new level 1 communication services sector. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Few issues in the global oil and gas markets are as closely followed as the development of the U.S. shales. In this Special Report, we examine the extent to which the growth of oil and gas production in the shales will be constrained by capital discipline in the U.S. – something unheard of in years past. For the E&P companies large and small comprising this sector, success will depend on their ability to manage investors’ expectations for competitive returns – not their ability to grow production simply for the sake of growing production. We see early signs these companies – majors and independents alike – are behaving like capital-constrained firms that must provide a return greater than their cost of capital to attract and retain the funding necessary to ensure their growth and survival (Chart of the Week). Chart 1 Feature Since the 2014-15 global oil-price collapse, U.S. shale production has been driving non-OPEC liquid fuels production growth, expanding by an annual average ~ 1.13mm b/d vs. 0.61mm b/d for the other non-OPEC producers.1 We expect U.S. shale to remain the main vehicle of production growth over the next 2 years (Chart 2, panel 1). Our latest expectations for global supply – demand balances remain positive for the U.S. shale-oil producers. We have U.S. lower 48 production expanding by 1.3mm b/d in 2019, and 0.9mm b/d in 2020, led by shale production. This is slightly above the EIA and OPEC forecasts (Chart 2, panel 2). We have consistently exceeded the EIA’s and IEA’s production estimates for U.S. onshore production since August 2016 (Chart 3). This is not to say we believe the E&Ps will once again recklessly expand production in excess of the ability of their free cash flow (FCF) to support. In the past, we have tended to fade the independent E&Ps’ declarations of capital-discipline – e.g. in 2017 – 2018. We’ve staunchly maintained higher oil prices would compel the E&Ps to grow production beyond the ability of their FCF to support it. Nonetheless, this time could be different. Chart 2U.S. Shales Vs. Non-OPEC Production U.S. Shales Vs. Non-OPEC Production U.S. Shales Vs. Non-OPEC Production Chart 3 In point of fact, we now believe the independent E&P model is transitioning to a mature business model – i.e., these companies will, over time, look more like firms in other industries that seek to maximize shareholder value in order to retain their access to capital to grow and invest (Charst 4A &  4B). If the sector evolves in this direction, we could witness a sea change in the development of the U.S. shales, which leads to lower production growth. Chart 4AMajors Sensitive To Shareholder Concerns ... Majors Sensitive To Shareholder Concerns ... Majors Sensitive To Shareholder Concerns ... Chart 4B... As Are Independent E&Ps ... As Are Independent E&Ps ... As Are Independent E&Ps In this 2-part Special Report, we review our forecasting methodology for U.S. shale production, assess whether capital discipline demands by investors will affect current production forecasts, and explore ongoing logistical constraints in the Permian Basin and the U.S. Gulf Coast. E&Ps Transitioning To A Mature Business Model Historically, the U.S. E&P model prioritized sharp production growth above all else, making these companies highly dependent on external capital to finance that growth. In fact, since 2011, public E&Ps outspent their operating cash flow by ~ 40% on average, using a mix of debt, asset sales and equity financing (Chart 5).2 Chart 5 Efficiency gains allowed producers to be almost as profitable in 2018, with oil prices hovering around $65/bbl, as they were in 2014 with prices above $100/bbl. Since 2016, equity financing and asset sales have supported most of the over-spending. The equity financing window appears to have closed in 2018, as a large part of the equity issuance of smaller E&Ps was forced on them by banks to reduce leverage following their semi-annual credit re-determinations. Still, most E&Ps stock prices have remained depressed during the 32% surge in WTI prices in 1Q19 (Chart 6, panel 1). Investors remain skeptical about the E&P model, and are demanding proof this sector is moving toward a business model that can withstand the oil-price volatility that is endemic to these markets. This has – and will continue to – limited E&Ps’ ability to easily source funding from Wall Street via equity and debt financing. In fact, investors are demanding a higher premium to hold high-yield energy debt (Chart 6, panel 2), in the wake of the recent exceptional volatility oil markets have experienced. Chart 6Equities, Oil Prices Disconnected Equities, Oil Prices Disconnected Equities, Oil Prices Disconnected Ideally, the independent E&P cohort’s behavior would move closer to that of the Majors – i.e. spend less on capex than is generated via operating cash flow (OCF), using this margin to support dividends, and return of capital to shareholders via share buybacks. We expect most U.S. E&Ps to meet investors’ expectations, and to register positive FCF growth this year.3 Efficiency gains allowed producers to be almost as profitable in 2018, with oil prices hovering around $65/bbl, as they were in 2014 with prices above $100/bbl (Chart 7). Chart 7Efficiency Gains Drive EBIT Efficiency Gains Drive EBIT Efficiency Gains Drive EBIT E&P 2019 Production And Spending Guidance The last time BCA examined E&Ps’ finances – and their ability to sustain profitable growth – was in April 2018. At that time, we identified a sharp divergence in production vs. capex intentions. We argued then that these numbers were incompatible, and that E&Ps’ capital expenditures would have to increase above guidance to sustain the large production increases these firms were projecting. Actual 2018 numbers confirmed our thesis: E&P capex grew by ~ 16% y/y. Nonetheless, despite outspending their 2018 guidance, these producers needed only a limited amount of external capital. Most of the additional capex was financed from higher-than-expected operational cash flow, due mostly to higher WTI prices, cost reductions and productivity gains. Output per well slipped, all the same, while rig turnover increased, resulting in higher overall production (Chart 8). Our updated analysis for 2019 shows our group of producers is guiding toward ~ 14% y/y increase in production, and ~ 17% y/y decrease in capex. Again, these expectations are inconsistent, in our estimation. We calculate E&Ps’ production guidance is in line with our 15% y/y shale production growth forecasts. Achieving this growth will require flat to higher capex. Chart 8Well Output Down; Rig Turnover Up Well Output Down; Rig Turnover Up Well Output Down; Rig Turnover Up We estimate the exploration and development cost of adding a new barrel of oil-equivalent production in 2018 was around $32,100 for our group of 41 E&P companies (ex-property purchase and other expenses)(Chart 9). Assuming ~ 5-10% cost-inflation  and an estimate of property purchase for 2019, the ~ 1.7mm b/d of new production expected from our group – including the replacement of legacy production declines (more on this below) – would cost > $60 billion. This is above the companies’ current guidance. Achieving this would require further efficiency gains from technology improvement and geology high-grading – i.e., producers would have to focus their drilling activity on their best geologies to increase production per well, while reducing overall activity/expenditure in second-tier regions. Chart 9 We doubt this can happen. Our concerns about new wells’ productivity are increasing. The spacing of new wells appears to interfere with nearby older wells’ output, decreasing the overall pressure and productivity for both the newer and older wells. This often is referred to as the “parent-child” problem. The jury is still out re whether the industry has reached a tipping point in terms of well proximity that lies at the heart of this problem. However, reverting to wider spacing between wells would effectively reduce available drilling acreage in E&Ps’ tier-1 locations. Based on the most recent U.S. EIA Drilling Productivity Report (DPR) data, we cannot entirely substantiate these concerns – it is too early to detect a tipping point in the data (Chart 10). Nonetheless, we believe efficiency gains will be limited from here on, as the inventory of tier-1 wells has been decreasing in the past few year, and lateral and proppant growth slows. Importantly, this means the accelerating decline rates of U.S. production, as the share of new oil production coming from shale increases, will require more drilling and capex as new wells risk being less productive. Even in the prolific Permian Basin, new production per new well appears to have peaked in 2018. Moreover, there are growing risks of logistical bottlenecks in U.S. Gulf Coast exporting facilities that could further limit growth, a subject we will address in next week’s report. Chart 10Tipping Point For Productivity? Tipping Point For Productivity? Tipping Point For Productivity? Increasing Decline Rates Require More Capex With tight-oil production as a share of total production increasing, overall production decline rates are increasing – i.e. the downhole pressure which pushes the oil out of the well against the force of gravity dissipates much faster in shale oil wells.4 This is an underappreciated aspect of E&P production forecasts. In our view, attaining the production levels E&Ps currently are guiding toward, while accounting for massive production decline rates, will require capex to surprise to the upside and grow y/y.  Shale technology does allow for a more elastic oil supply, as it can be brought on line quickly in response to rising prices. However, the associated production declines can exceed 70% in the first year – i.e., production at a specific well (in b/d) will fall by 70% from its peak in the first year of operation – and another ~ 30% in the second year, compared to an average <10% for conventional onshore wells. This as large consequences for rig count in the U.S. Chart 11 Our updated decline-curve estimates show U.S. shale production will fall by ~ 37% in the next 12 months (Chart 11). This implies ~ 2mm b/d will be lost by the end of 2019. Hence, maintaining a flat level of production would require 750 rigs on average per month – given current well-per-rig and new-production-per-well rates. Accounting for the 14% y/y growth based on production guidance, this implies a total of 3.3mm b/d of new onshore U.S. production (Chart 12). In our view, attaining the production levels E&Ps currently are guiding toward, while accounting for massive production decline rates, will require capex to surprise to the upside and grow y/y. Chart 12Higher Rig Counts Needed Higher Rig Counts Needed Higher Rig Counts Needed Producers Will Remain Profitable, And Within OCF We expect U.S. E&P spending to remain within the limits of the operating cash flow. This will allow E&Ps to deliver on investors’ expectations of higher FCF and return on capital employed (ROCE). Two points support this expectation: (1) higher WTI prices, and (2) a higher inventory of Drilled-but-Uncompleted (DUCs) wells. Higher WTI prices. Our most recent oil price forecast sees WTI prices averaging $66/bbl in 2019, and $72/bbl in 2020, vs. $65/bbl in 2018.5 Most public E&Ps base their capex projection on a $50 - $55/bbl WTI price. The higher prices we expect will allow capex to increase above guidance while remaining within the limits of cash flow. Assuming no efficiency gains, this alone would increase OCF by ~ 20% compared with a $55/bbl price – depending on each company's hedging program. Including the expected 14% y/y volumes increase in 2019 adds another 14% to OCF. Hence, we believe there is room for an additional ~ $10 billion capex increase by our group of producers vs. last year solely based on our oil price and production projections. This outcome is highly contingent on our prices forecast. If prices remain in the low $50s/bbl, most producers’ cash flow will fall below the capex required to achieve current production growth forecasts. In this scenario, smaller shale producers would scramble to raise external funding to cover their expenses. As mentioned above, debt and equity financing will remain scares this year as investors demand financial discipline. This would either result in lower production growth or additional asset sales and increasing drilling partnerships. DUCs completion. Since mid-2018, Permian production has been constrained by a lack of pipeline takeaway capacity to move increasing oil production out of the basin. This put pressure on Midland, TX, prices, and incentivized additional truck and rail transportation (Chart 13, panel 1). Not unexpectedly, this led to a slowdown in completions relative to drilling activity (Chart 13, panel 2), and increased the number of DUCs. As a result, Permian producers built an inventory of excess DUCs awaiting pipeline expansions (Chart 13, panel 3). The process of drilling and completing wells produces a normal inventory of uncompleted wells, because of the time lag between the moment wells are drilled and the time they are completed. The development of multi-well pad drilling in U.S. shale basins structurally increased the time lag between drilling and completion to ~ 5 months. This implies a normal level of DUC inventory that corresponds to ~ 5 - 6 months’ worth of drilling activity. We define any DUC above our estimate of normal as an excess DUC well. It also implies that, as rig count expands, the normal level of DUCs will rise accordingly. Hence, simply looking at the absolute level of DUCs can be misleading. DUCs should be analyzed in relation to drilling. Chart 13Expect More From DUCs Expect More From DUCs Expect More From DUCs We estimate current excess DUCs to be ~ 1,700 in the top five shale basins, and 1,100 in the Permian alone. If completed, this represents a potential 1mm b/d and 700k b/d of additional production in top five basins and the Permian, respectively – at current well productivity. On average, completion accounts for ~ 65% of the total well costs. This implies adding new production from the 1mm b/d inventory of DUCs would require a 35% lower capital expenditure. This will support our expectation of higher E&P production while keeping expenses within OCF. In our projections, we include a monthly increase of 40k b/d of oil production from DUC completions from October 2019 to end-2020, given the 1.8mm b/d of additional pipeline capacity from the Permian to Gulf Coast that will be built before the end of the year, along with another 1.5mm b/d of new pipe that will be operational by 2021 (Chart 14). Additionally, 2mm b/d of additional takeaway capacity projected to be built from Cushing to the Gulf by 2021. This will completely relieve the transportation constraint and allow the > 900k b/d of additional production we expect by December 2020 to be moved toward export facilities. Chart 14 Beyond 2020, our group of E&P companies could be forced to raise external financing, as a large portion of their long-term debt will need to be paid off, or re-financed (Chart 15). This alone could capture more than 50% of E&Ps’ FCF, leaving little room to expand production within cash flow from operations. Chart 15 Permian Natgas Bottlenecks Remain A Risk To Oil Production Growth The exceptional growth in Permian tight oil production was mirrored by a glut in the volume of associated gas output (Chart 16, panel 1). While oil-takeaway investment has proceeded apace to get those molecules out of the Basin, supporting infrastructure development failed to produce the necessary natural-gas pipeline-takeaway capacity. This pushed gas supply above local demand and pipeline capacity, forcing natgas prices at Waha Hub lower – at times, to less than zero (e.g., in April and May 2019) (Chart 16, panel 2). In other words, producers are willing to pay midstream companies to move their gas out of the Permian. Delays in pipeline completion in Mexico led to an under-utilization of the current capacity from the Waha Hub to the Mexican border via the Trans-Pecos, Comanche Trail and Roadrunner pipelines (Chart 17). Chart 16Associated Gas Production Soars Associated Gas Production Soars Associated Gas Production Soars The completion of the Fermaca pipelines carrying gas toward central Mexico; and gas pipelines from the Permian to the U.S. Gulf Coast are expected to start coming on line in 2H19, which ultimately will bring an additional 9.8 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity to this market by 4Q20. This lack of capacity forced oil producers either to flare their additional gas or to reduce oil production – thereby reducing associated gas production. Most producers chose the former. As a result, flaring in the Permian reached ~ 610 MMcf/d in 4Q18 and a record high of 661 MMcf/d in 1Q19.6 By comparison, total residential natgas consumption in the entire state of Texas averaged 544 MMcf/d over the 2010 – 17 period, according to the U.S. EIA.7 Chart 17 When accounting for flaring and low Mexican pipelines utilization, we expect a marked supply-surplus until the end of the year, which will keep downward pressure on Waha prices (Chart 17, panel 2-3). Over the next 12 months, additional natgas pipeline takeaway will allow more gas to be shipped out of the Permian Basin: The completion of the Fermaca pipelines carrying gas toward central Mexico; and gas pipelines from the Permian to the U.S. Gulf Coast are expected to start coming on line in 2H19, which ultimately will bring an additional 9.8 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity to this market by 4Q20. This will provide the required feedstock for the ongoing Gulf Coast LNG buildout centered around Corpus Christi, TX. We expect > 5 Bcf/d of export capacity will be completed by end-2021. Nonetheless, the resumption of tight-oil production in the Permian in 2H19 is expected to build before the natgas system takeaway capacity comes on line. This will once again pressure natgas prices, and could stymie the growth in oil production in the Permian at the margin, given this would require additional flaring. How these issues are resolved partly depends on the Texas Rail Road Commission’s (RRC), which will have to rule on exemptions from the state’s Rule 32. Operators in Texas are allowed to flare gas while drilling, and for up to 10 days after completion. After this, each well’s owner must apply for a 45-day flare permit, and prove it is necessary for it to flare gas at specific wells. Texas RRC staff can issue these permits for a maximum of 180 days, beyond which an extension has to be approved via a Commission Final Order.8 Despite this strict process, YTD, none of the more than 20 requests for exception to Rule 32 in the main Permian Districts (7C, 08 and 8A) have been rejected.9 In general, the lack of existing pipeline capacity has been treated as a reasonable cause to grant exceptions to Rule 32. As long as the RRC allows these exceptions, oil production growth in the Permian will be primarily restrained by oil-pipeline takeaway constraints in the Basin, and export constraints in the Gulf. Nonetheless, these abnormal levels of flaring and venting are already gaining exposure in the media. The public opinion could switch rapidly and environmental protests could emerge, demanding the RRC enforces Rule 32 to E&P companies. This remains a risk to monitor. Bottom Line: The growth in U.S. shale-oil production could be slowing as E&P companies exercise greater capital discipline, and productivity gains begin to level off. It is still early days on the capital-discipline front – we have been here before – but we believe E&Ps are behaving in a manner consistent with that of other capital-constrained companies, and are prioritizing shareholder interests over their desire to increase production. The next big step in this evolution will be demonstrating to investors that lower-risk plays like the Permian Basin can provide the long-term returns necessary to sustain E&Ps access to capital. This will be critical as decline curves steepen in the Permian Basin and the other big U.S. shale plays.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com  Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      U.S. shale production denotes the sum of Anadarko, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Permian and Niobrara crude oil production. In this analysis, non-OPEC liquid fuels production excludes Russia, as it jointly leads the producer coalition we’ve dubbed OPEC 2.0, which was formed at the end of 2016 to manage global oil production and drain the unintended inventory accumulation resulting from OPEC’s 2014 – 16 market-share war. 2      Our analysis is based on a group of 41 public U.S. E&P companies. As a group, these companies represent ~3.3mm b/d of production (or around 38% of U.S. onshore production). 3      Not all E&Ps will perform similarly. Well-capitalized shale producers are on track to reach positive FCF by year-end. However, smaller companies with weak fundamentals will continue to face increasing default risk as external funds from Wall Street dry up. Indeed, a management premium – well-run vs. poorly run firms – almost surely will be a defining feature of the E&P market. 4      This downhole pressure is crucial for oil production. In general, wells are not abandoned when oil is completely depleted, but when pressure reaches levels so low that almost no oil is naturally pushed up the wellbore. Pass this point, artificial lifts or re-pressurization methods are needed to continue extraction from this well, requiring additional capex. 5      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Oil Market Volatility Reflects Recession Fears,” dated June 6, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6       Please see Permian "Natural Gas Flaring And Venting Reaching All-Time High," published by rystadenergy.com, June 4, 2019. 7      Based on EIA data, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_CONS_SUM_DCU_STX_A.htm. 8      Please see Texas Railroad Commission's flaring regulation, https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/resource-center/faqs/oil-gas-faqs/faq-flaring-regulation/. 9      Based on Texas Railroad Commission data, https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/hearings/dockets/oil-gas-proposals-for-decision-and-orders/index-for-332/.

Crude oil price volatility surged over the past week, and likely will remain elevated. Underlying prices continue to reflect heightened policy risk ranging from continuing Sino – U.S. trade-war tensions; new tariff threats against Mexico from the Trump administration; global growth concerns, which are fuelled by rising oil inventories in the U.S.; and the continued threat of war in the Persian Gulf (Chart of the Week). These factors are exacerbating recession fears in the U.S., where the yield curve is pricing in a greater than one-in-three chance of a recession one year forward (Chart 2). Given the above-trend performance of the American economy relative to other DM economies, this is disconcerting re global growth generally, and re EM GDP prospects in particular. EM GDP drives EM commodity demand. Given EM commodity demand is the principal driver of global commodity demand, it is especially important in our modeling. Chart of the WeekVolatility Surges on Policy-Risk Concerns Volatility Surges on Policy-Risk Concerns Volatility Surges on Policy-Risk Concerns   Reducing EM GDP growth from 4.2% and 4.5% this year and next to 3.8% and 4.1% shaves ~ $2/bbl off our 2019 Brent price expectation and $3/bbl off our 2020 expectation. Chart 2Bond Market Pricing High Odds of U.S. Recession Bond Market Pricing High Odds of U.S. Recession Bond Market Pricing High Odds of U.S. Recession To be conservative, our oil-demand assumptions for EM GDP have followed World Bank estimates, which means they’ve been below post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) trend (Chart 3). Chart 3 Cutting right to the chase: Reducing EM GDP growth from 4.2% and 4.5% this year and next to 3.8% and 4.1% shaves ~ $2/bbl off our 2019 Brent price expectation and $3/bbl off our 2020 expectation. This brings our Brent forecast to $73/bbl and $77/bbl for this year and next.1 We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below Brent this year and next. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We expect OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – to extend its production cuts to year end when it meets later this month or next month. This will still allow OPEC 2.0 to raise production in 2H19 over 1H19 if needed, due to the group's current over-compliance with the agreed cuts. KSA's production is currently close to ~500k b/d below its output target. We believe Wednesday’s inventory report released by the U.S. EIA showing a 22.4mm-barrel increase in commercial crude oil and refined products inventories all but assures OPEC 2.0’s production cuts will be extended when the producer coalition meets. Base Metals: Neutral. Union members who voted to strike a Codelco copper mine over the weekend remain on the job, after Chilean government officials joined to mediate negotiations, according to Fastmarkets MB. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold rallied above $1,340/oz – up 4% over the past week – as global trade tensions and other factors riling equity, bond and commodity markets intensified. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA reported corn plantings were running at 67% this week, vs. an average of 96% percent over the 2014 – 18 period. The department surveyed 18 states, which account for 92% of all 2018 corn acreage. Feature Global oil demand concerns are manifesting themselves in the almost-relentless selling of futures seen in the past two weeks. This coincided with an increasing risk premium noted in our price decomposition, and with rising concerns over the health of the global economy generally.2 Markets are becoming increasingly concerned U.S. and Chinese trade and foreign policy will spill into the larger global economy and result in a full-blown global trade war. Already, Mexico and Canada have been drawn into this vortex once again – the former is being threatened with U.S. tariffs once more, after presumably having agreed to a revised NAFTA treaty, the latter via increased inspection of meat imports into China.3 On Wednesday, the World Bank lowered its global growth forecast, taking 0.3 percentage points off its 2019 growth estimate – lowering it to 2.6% in 2019 – and reducing its 2020 forecast to 2.7% from 2.8% earlier.4 The Bank noted, “Emerging and developing economy growth is constrained by sluggish investment, and risks are tilted to the downside. These risks include rising trade barriers, renewed financial stress, and sharper-than-expected slowdowns in several major economies.” Assessing Lower EM Growth Prospects We follow the World Bank’s GDP growth estimates closely, largely because the Bank’s forecasts tend to be lower than those of the IMF, which induces a measure of conservatism to our forecasts. We use the Bank’s EM GDP estimates (levels and growth rates) to estimate oil demand in our modelling. Prior to the Bank’s updated forecast released on June 4, we re-estimated EM oil consumption, by shaving 0.4 percentage points from our earlier EM GDP forecast. This means our simulation is 0.1 percentage point below the Bank’s most recent estimate for EM GDP this year, and 0.3 percentage points below the Bank’s 2020 estimate. Using the World Bank's revised forecasts as inputs to our fundamental model – and leaving all other assumptions unchanged – the lower EM GDP estimate for 2019 would take our average Brent expectation to $71/bbl. Averaging this with our existing expectation of $75/bbl leads us to change our 2019 forecast to $73/bbl. To hit this new estimate of $73/bbl would require 2H19 Brent prices to average ~ $79/bbl, which we believe is not unreasonable. For 2020, the slowdown in EM GDP we used gives an expectation of $73/bbl for Brent, versus our previous estimate of $80/bbl. We average these as well, and change our estimate for 2020 Brent to $77/bbl. OPEC 2.0 Remains Focused On Lower Inventories Our lower EM GDP estimates take growth rates to those roughly prevailing during the 2015 – 16 oil-price collapse. This episode was a true global shock, particularly for commodity exporters, which was not offset by higher growth in the GDPs of commodity importers (Chart 4). This go-round is different, however: The 2015 – 16 oil price collapse was a self-inflicted shock, occasioned by OPEC’s decision to launch an all-out market-share war in 2014. This had a devastating effect on EM commodity-exporting countries, particularly the oil exporting countries. We expect OPEC 2.0 to extend production cuts, even though we believe the market will need an additional 900k b/d of production from the producer coalition. This time, the global backdrop is considerably different. For one thing, the oil-price collapse laid the foundation for the formation of OPEC 2.0, which has shown remarkable production discipline since it was founded in November 2016, and took on the mission of reducing the massive unintended inventory accumulation brought on by the combination of the OPEC market-share war and surging U.S. shale production (Chart 5). The nominal target for this mission is OECD inventories. Chart 4EM Oil Demand vs. GDP EM Oil Demand vs. GDP EM Oil Demand vs. GDP Chart 5Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing We continue to stress this founding principal of OPEC 2.0, because its leadership continues to make it a focal point when engaging with the press and guiding the market. It is for this reason we expect OPEC 2.0 to extend production cuts, even though we believe the market will need an additional 900k b/d of production from the producer coalition to keep prices below $85/bbl. KSA’s Energy Minister, Khalid al-Falih, this week said, “We will do what is needed to sustain market stability beyond June. To me, that means drawing down inventories from their currently elevated levels.”5 Fiscal, Monetary Policy Support EM Demand The other noteworthy aspect of the current market is central banks globally are more accommodative than they were during the 2015 – 16 oil-price collapse. In addition, fiscal stimulus is being deployed globally, and likely will be increased. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to see monetary or fiscal policy being the sort of headwind it has shown it can be post-GFC. As our colleague Peter Berezin noted in last week’s Global Investment Strategy, “politicians will pursue large-scale fiscal stimulus” to avoid a slide into deflation.6 U.S. – Iran Tensions High, But Ebbing Lastly, oil markets seem to have reduced their concern over U.S. – Iran tensions in the Persian Gulf. This may be due to the fact that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. was “prepared to engage in a conversation (with Iran) with no pre-conditions. We are ready to sit down.”7 All the same, the U.S. recently deployed an aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf, where it now is on station, and B52 bombers. From the oil market’s perspective, any thawing in the potential military standoff in the Gulf would require the U.S. to abandon its stated goal of reducing Iran’s oil exports to zero. In and of itself, a resumption of official Iranian oil exports would simply re-distribute production cuts and the make-up production OPEC 2.0 is providing markets in the wake of Venezuela’s collapse, where oil production has fallen to ~ 850k b/d from ~ 2mm b/d when OPEC 2.0 was formed. Bottom Line: Wednesday’s massive 22.4mm-barrel build in U.S. crude and refined product inventories shocked the global oil market, and pushed Brent prices toward $60/bbl as we went to press. Almost surely, this will harden KSA’s and OPEC 2.0’s resolve to maintain production cuts into 2H19 to drain oil inventories globally. The lower prices also will act as a headwind to U.S. shale producers, a topic we will take up in a two-part Special Report next week and the following week. We’ve established rig counts in the U.S. shales are closely tied to WTI price levels and curve shape: Lower prices and a flattening forward curve will restrain drilling in the shales, and the rate of growth in U.S. output. Lastly, fiscal and monetary policy globally will be supportive of commodity demand, and EM oil demand in particular, as this stimulus is deployed. We continue to expect prices to rally from here, but have lowered our forecasts slightly to $73 and $77/bbl for Brent this year and next. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7 and $5/bbl below these levels in 2019 and 2020.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please note, we ran our simulations earlier this week, prior to the World Bank’s most recent forecast released June 4.  This means our simulation is 0.1 percentage point below the Bank’s most recent estimate for EM GDP this year, and 0.3 percentage points below the Bank’s 2020 estimate.  2      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium,” dated May 23, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      The amounts involved in the stepped up meat inspections in China are small. However, they can be read as an extension of the foreign-policy imbroglio involving the possible extradition of Huawei Technologies’ CFO from Canada to the U.S. to face trial on charges she and the company allegedly conspired to commit bank and wire fraud to avoid U.S. sanctions on Iran.  Chinese officials deny there is any connection.  Please see “Canada says China plans more meat import inspections, industry fears disaster,” published by reuters.com June 4, 2019. 4      Please see Global growth to Weaken to 2.6% in 2019, Substantial Risks Seen , published by the World Bank June 4, 2019. 5      This quote came from a reuters.com report that relayed what al-Falih told Arab News. Please see “Saudi’s Falih says OPEC+ consensus emerging on output deal in second half,” published June 3, 2019. 6      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “MMT And Me,” dated May 31, 2019, which discusses the prospects for large-scale fiscal stimulus and accommodative monetary policy globally.  It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com.  Peter also expects a détente in the Sino – U.S. trade war, arguing both sides would benefit from reducing trade tensions and tariffs. 7      Please see U.S. prepared to talk to Iran with 'no preconditions', Iran sees 'word-play' published by reuters.com June 2, 2019.  This followed news that Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said his country is willing to speak with the U.S. if it shows respect. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights So What? U.S.-China relations are still in free fall as we go to press. Why? The trade war will elicit Chinese stimulus but downside risks to markets are front-loaded. The oil risk premium will remain elevated as Iran tensions will not abate any time soon. The odds of a no-deal Brexit are rising. Our GeoRisk Indicators show that Turkish and Brazilian risks have subsided, albeit only temporarily. Maintain safe-haven trades. Short the CNY-USD and go long non-Chinese rare earth providers. Feature The single-greatest reason for the increase in geopolitical risk remains the United States. The Democratic Primary race will heat up in June and President Trump, while favored in 2020 barring a recession, is currently lagging both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in the head-to-head polling. Trump’s legislative initiatives are bogged down in gridlock and scandal. The remaining avenue for him to achieve policy victories is foreign policy – hence his increasing aggressiveness on both China and Iran. The result is negative for global risk assets on a tactical horizon and possibly also on a cyclical horizon. A positive catalyst is badly needed in the form of greater Chinese stimulus, which we expect, and progress toward a trade agreement. Brexit, Italy, and European risks pale by comparison to what we have called “Cold War 2.0” since 2012. Nevertheless, the odds of Brexit actually happening are increasing. The uncertainty will weigh on sentiment in Europe through October even if it does not ultimately conclude in a no-deal shock that prevents the European economy from bouncing back. Yet the risk of a no-deal shock is higher than it was just weeks ago. We discuss these three headline geopolitical risks below: China, Iran, and the U.K. No End In Sight For U.S.-China Trade Tensions U.S.-China negotiations are in free fall, with no date set for another round of talks. On March 6 we argued that a deal had a 50% chance of getting settled by the June 28-29 G20 summit in Japan, with a 30% chance talks would totally collapse. Since then, we have reduced the odds of a deal to 40%, with a collapse at 50%, and a further downgrade on the horizon if a positive intervention is not forthcoming producing trade talks in early or mid-June (Table 1). Table 1U.S.-China Trade War: Probabilities Of A Deal By End Of June 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 We illustrate the difficulties of agreeing to a deal through the concept of a “two-level game.” In a theoretical two-level game, each country strives to find overlap between its international interests and its rival’s interests and must also seek overlap in such a way that the agreement can be sold to a domestic audience at home. The reason why the “win-win scenario” is so remote in the U.S.-China trade conflict is because although China has a relatively large win set – it can easily sell a deal at home due to its authoritarian control – the U.S. win set is small (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Tiny Win-Win Scenario In U.S.-China Trade Conflict GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 The Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates, making him look weak on his own pet issue of trade with China. This is especially the case if a stock market selloff forces Trump to accept small concessions. His international interest might overlap with China’s interest in minimizing concessions on foreign trade and investment access while maximizing technological acquisition from foreign companies. He would not be able to sell such a deal – focused on large-scale commodity purchases as a sop to farm states – on the campaign trail. Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates. While it is still possible for both sides to reach an agreement, this Diagram highlights the limitations faced by both players. Meanwhile China is threatening to restrict exports of rare earths – minerals which are critical to the economy and national defense. China dominates global production and export markets (Chart 1), so this would be a serious disruption in the near term. Global sentiment would worsen, weighing on all risk assets, and tech companies and manufacturers that rely on rare earth inputs from China would face a hit to their bottom lines. Chart 1China Dominates Rare Earths Supply France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Over the long haul, this form of retaliation is self-defeating. First, China would presumably have to embargo all exports of rare earths to the world to prevent countries and companies from re-exporting to the United States. Second, rare earths are not actually rare in terms of quantity: they simply occur in low concentrations. As the world learned when China cut off rare earths to Japan for two months in 2010 over their conflict in the East China Sea, a rare earths ban will push up prices and incentivize production and processing in other regions. It will also create rapid substitution effects, recycling, and the use of stockpiles. Ultimately demand for Chinese rare earths exports would fall. Over the nine years since the Japan conflict, China’s share of global production has fallen by 19%, mostly at the expense of rising output from Australia. A survey of American companies suggests that they have diversified their sources more than import statistics suggest (Chart 2). Chart 2Import Stats May Be Overstating China’s Dominance U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator The risk of a rare earths embargo is high – it fits with our 30% scenario of a major escalation in the conflict. It would clearly be a negative catalyst for companies and share prices. But as with China’s implicit threat of selling U.S. Treasuries, it is not a threat that will cause Trump to halt the trade war. The costs of conflict are not prohibitive and there are some political gains. Bottome Line: The S&P 500 is down 3.4% since our Global Investment Strategists initiated their tactical short on May 10. This is nearly equal to the weighted average impact on the S&P 500 that they have estimated using our probabilities. Obviously the selloff can overshoot this target. As it does, the chances of the two sides attempting to contain the tensions will rise. If we do not witness a positive intervention in the coming weeks, it will be too late to salvage the G20 and the risk of a major escalation will go way up. We recommend going short CNY-USD as a strategic play despite China’s recent assurances that the currency can be adequately defended. Our negative structural view of China’s economy now coincides with our tactical view that escalation is more likely than de-escalation. We also recommend going long a basket of companies in the MVIS global rare earth and strategic metals index – specifically those companies not based in China that have seen share prices appreciate this year but have a P/E ratio under 35. U.S.-Iran: An Unintentional War With Unintentional Consequences? “I really believe that Iran would like to make a deal, and I think that’s very smart of them, and I think that’s a possibility to happen.” -President Donald Trump, May 27, 2019 … We currently see no prospect of negotiations with America ... Iran pays no attention to words; what matters to us is a change of approach and behavior.” -Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi, May 28, 2019 The U.S. decision not to extend sanction waivers on Iran multiplied geopolitical risks at a time of already heightened uncertainty. Elevated tensions surrounding major producers in the Middle East could impact oil production and flows. In energy markets, this is reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the price decompositions that include both supply and demand factors (Chart 3). Chart 3The Risk Premium Is Rising In Brent Crude Oil Prices Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Tensions surrounding major oil producers ... are reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the Brent price decomposition. Already Iranian exports are down 500k b/d in April relative to March – the U.S. is acting on its threat to bring Iran’s exports to zero and corporations are complying (Chart 4). Chart 4Iran Oil Exports Collapsing Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator What is more, the U.S. is taking a more hawkish military stance towards Iran – recently deploying a carrier strike group and bombers, partially evacuating American personnel from Iraq, and announcing plans to send 1,500 troops to the Middle East. The result of all these actions is not only to reduce Iranian oil exports, but also to imperil supplies of neighboring oil producers such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia which may become the victims of retaliation by an incandescent Iran. Our expectation of Iranian retaliation is already taking shape. The missile strike on Saudi facilities and the drone attack on four tankers near the UAE are just a preview of what is to come. Although Iran has not claimed responsibility for the acts, its location and extensive network of militant proxies affords it the ability to threaten oil supplies coming out of the region. Iran has also revived its doomsday threat of closing down the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil supplies transit – which becomes a much fatter tail-risk if Iran comes to believe that the U.S. is genuinely pursuing immediate regime change, since the first-mover advantage in the strait is critical. This will keep markets jittery. Current OPEC spare capacity would allow the coalition to raise production to offset losses from Venezuela and Iran. Yet any additional losses – potentially from already unstable regions such as Libya, Algeria, or Nigeria – will raise the probability that global supplies are unable to cover demand. Going into the OPEC meeting in Vienna in late June, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects OPEC 2.0 to relax supply cuts implemented since the beginning of the year. They expect production to be raised by 0.9mm b/d in 2H2019 vs. 1H2019.1 Nevertheless, oil producers will likely adopt a cautious approach when bringing supplies back online, wary of letting prices fall too far. This was expressed at the May Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee meeting in Jeddah, which also highlighted the growing divergence of interests within the group. Russia is in support of raising production at a faster pace than Saudi Arabia, which favors a gradual increase (conditional on U.S. sanctions enforcement). Both the Iranians and Americans claim that they do not want the current standoff to escalate to war. On the American side, Trump is encouraging Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to try his hand as a mediator in a possible visit to Tehran in June. We would not dismiss this possibility since it could produce a badly needed “off ramp” for tensions to de-escalate when all other trends point toward a summer and fall of “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran. If forced to make a call, we think President Trump’s foreign policy priority will center on China, not Iran. But this does not mean that downside risks to oil prices will prevail. China will stimulate more aggressively in June and subsequent months. And regardless of Washington’s and Tehran’s intentions, a wrong move in an already heated part of the world can turn ugly very quickly. Bottom Line: President Trump’s foreign policy priority is China, not Iran. Nevertheless, a wrong move can trigger a nasty escalation in the current standoff, jeopardizing oil supplies coming out of the Gulf region. In response to this risk, OPEC 2.0 will likely move to cautiously raise production at the next meeting in late June. Meanwhile China’s stimulus overshoot in the midst of trade war will most likely shore up demand over the course of the year. Can A New Prime Minister Break The Deadlock In Westminster? “There is a limited appetite for change in the EU, and negotiating it won’t be easy.” - Outgoing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May Prime Minister Theresa May’s resignation has hurled the Conservative Party into a scramble to select her successor. While the timeline for this process is straightforward,2 the impact on the Brexit process is not. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased but so has the prospect of parliament passing a soft Brexit prior to any new election or second referendum. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased. Eleven candidates have declared their entry to the race and the vast majority are “hard Brexiters” willing to sacrifice market access on the continent (Table 2). Prominent contenders such as Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab have stated that they are willing to exit the EU without a deal. Table 2“Hard Brexiters” Dominate The Tory Race GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 Given that the average Tory MP is more Euroskeptic than the average non-conservative voter or Brit, the final two contenders left standing at the end of June are likely to shift to a more aggressive Brexit stance. They will say they are willing to deliver Brexit at all costs and will avoid repeating Theresa May’s mistakes. This means at the very least the rhetoric will be negative for the pound in the coming months. A clear constraint on the U.K. in trying to negotiate a new withdrawal agreement is that the EU has the upper hand. It is the larger economy and less exposed to the ramifications of a no-deal exit (though still exposed). This puts it in a position of relative strength – exemplified by the European Commission’s insistence on keeping the current Withdrawal Agreement. Whoever the new prime minister is, it is unlikely that he or she will be able to negotiate a more palatable deal with the EU. Rather, the new leader will lead a fractured Conservative Party that still lacks a strong majority in parliament. The no-deal option is the default scenario if an agreement is not finalized by the Halloween deadline and no further extension is granted. However, Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow recently stated that the prime minister will be unable to deliver a no-deal Brexit without parliamentary support. This will likely manifest in the form of a bill to block a no-deal Brexit. Alternatively, an attempt to force a no-deal exit could prompt a vote of no confidence in the government, most likely resulting in a general election.3 Chart 5British Euroskeptics Made Gains In EP Election Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator While the Brexit Party amassed the largest number of seats in the European Parliament elections at the expense of the Labour, Conservative, and UKIP parties (Chart 5), the results do not suggest that British voters have generally shifted back toward Brexit. In fact, if we group parties according to their stance, the Bremain camp has a slight lead over the Brexit camp (Chart 6). Thus, it is not remotely apparent that a hard Brexiter can succeed in parliament; that a new election can be forestalled if a no-deal exit is attempted; or that a second referendum will repeat the earlier referendum’s outcome. Chart 6Bremain Camp Still Dominates Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: While the new Tory leader is likely to be more on the hard Brexit end of the spectrum than Theresa May, this does not change the position of either the European Commission or the British MPs and voters on Brexit. The median voter both within parliament and the British electorate remains tilted towards a softer exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on the likes of Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab if they take the helm of the Tory Party. These leaders may ultimately be forced to try to push through something a lot like Theresa May’s plan, or risk a total collapse of their party and control of government. Still, the odds of a no-deal exit – the default option if no agreement is reached by the October 31 deadline – have gone up. In the meantime, the GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. GeoRisk Indicators Update – May 31, 2019 Last month BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy introduced ten indicators to measure geopolitical risk implied by the market. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. A currency or bourse that falls faster than it should fall, as implied by key explanatory variables, indicates increasing geopolitical risk. All ten indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. We will continue to highlight key developments on a monthly basis. This month, our GeoRisk indicators are picking up the following developments: Trade war: Our Korean and Taiwanese risk indicators are currently the best proxies to measure geopolitical risk implications of the U.S.-China trade war, as they are both based on trade data. Both measures, as expected, have increased more than our other indicators over the past month on the back of a sharp spike in tensions between the U.S. and China. Currently, the moves are largely due to depreciation in currencies, as trade is only beginning to feel the impact. We believe that we will see trade decline in the upcoming months. Brexit: While it is still too early to see the full effect of Prime Minister May’s resignation captured in our U.K. indicator, it has increased in recent days. We expect risk to continue to increase as a leadership race is beginning among the Conservatives that will raise the odds of a “no-deal exit” relative to “no exit.” EU elections: The EU elections did not register as a risk on our indicators. In fact, risk decreased slightly in France and Germany during the past few weeks, while it has steadily fallen in Spain and Italy. Moreover, the results of the election were largely in line with expectations – there was not a surprising wave of Euroskepticism. The real risks will emerge as the election results feed back into political risks in certain European countries, namely the U.K., where the hardline Conservatives will be emboldened, and Italy, where the anti-establishment League will also be emboldened. In both countries a new election could drastically increase uncertainty, but even without new elections the respective clashes with Brussels over Brexit and Italian fiscal policy will increase geopolitical risk. Emerging Markets: The largest positive moves in geopolitical risk were in Brazil and Turkey, where our indicators plunged to their lowest levels since late 2017 and early 2018. Brazilian risk has been steadily declining since pension reform – the most important element of Bolsonaro’s reform agenda – cleared an initial hurdle in Congress. While we would expect Bolsonaro to face many more ups and downs in the process of getting his reform bill passed, we have a high conviction view that the decrease in our Turkish risk indicator is unwarranted. This decrease can be attributed to the fact that the lira’s depreciation in recent weeks is slowing, which our model picks up as a decrease in risk. Nonetheless, uncertainty will prevail as a result of deepening political divisions (e.g. the ruling party’s attempt to overturn the Istanbul election), poor governance, ongoing clashes with the West, and an inability to defend the lira while also pursuing populist monetary policy. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   France: GeoRisk Indicator Image U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Image Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Image Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Image Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Image Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Image Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Image Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Image Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Image Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Image What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Image Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium,” dated May 23, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 The long list of candidates will be whittled down to two by the end of June through a series of votes by Tory MPs. Conservative Party members will then cast their votes via a postal ballot with the final result announced by the end of July, before the Parliament’s summer recess. 3 A vote of no confidence would trigger a 14-day period for someone else to form a government, otherwise it will result in a general election. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights In the political economy of oil, an awareness of the speed at which policy in systematically important states can change can restrain risk taking and investment. This can keep markets in an agitated state of anticipation, awaiting the next policy shift – or the fallout from earlier decisions – and can separate prices from fundamentals. Crude oil markets are in such an agitated state. Fundamentally, oil markets are tight and likely will get tighter, as backwardations in benchmark forward curves indicate (Chart 1). Oil demand continues to grow, with EM growth offsetting DM declines (Chart 2). Production is being restrained by OPEC 2.0, and could remain so in 2H19. U.S. shale-oil producers appear to be taking capital discipline seriously, and prioritizing shareholder interests, which likely will keep production growth within the limits dictated by free cash flow. Chart of the WeekBackwardations In Brent & WTI: Evidence Of Tight Oil Markets Backwardations In Brent & WTI: Evidence Of Tight Oil Markets Backwardations In Brent & WTI: Evidence Of Tight Oil Markets Chart 2EM Continues To Lead Global Oil Demand Growth EM Continues To Lead Global Oil Demand Growth EM Continues To Lead Global Oil Demand Growth   The combination of these fundamentals will keep supply growth below demand growth this year, which means balances will remain tight (Table 1 below). This will drain inventories and keep forward curves backwardated (Chart 3). Globally, monetary policy will remain largely accommodative. However, policy risks – chiefly Sino – U.S. trade tensions and rising U.S. – Iran tensions – are taking their toll, increasing uncertainty re demand growth, and raising concerns over the security of oil supply from the Persian Gulf, which accounts for ~ 20% of global output. The combination of these policy-risk factors is putting a bid under the USD, which creates a demand headwind by raising the cost of oil ex-U.S.1 This is, in our view, keeping Brent prices below $70/bbl, vs. the $75/bbl we expect this year. Chart 3Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton declared Iran was responsible for naval mines attached to oil tankers off the coast of the UAE earlier this month, which damaged four ships, two of them belonging to Saudi Arabia. Bolton also said the Iranian naval operation was connected to a drone attack on the Saudi East – West pipeline two days later, and an unsuccessful attack on the Saudi Red Sea port of Yanbu.2 Base Metals: Neutral. Global copper markets continue to tighten: Fastmarkets MB’s Asian treatment and refining charges (TC/RC) weekly index dropped to its lowest level since it was launched June 2013 at the end of last week – to $58.30/MT, $0.0583/lb. Lower TC/RC charges reflect lower raw ore supplies available for refining. Global inventories remain low – down 22% y/y at the LME, COMEX, SHFE and Chinese bonded warehouses – and a threatened strike at on of Codelco's Chilean mines could tighten supplies further. We are re-establishing our tactical long July $3.00/lb Comex copper vs. short $3.30/lb Comex copper call spread at tonight’s close, expecting continued tightening in markets. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices appear supported on either side of $1,280/oz, as trade, foreign and monetary policy risks remain elevated. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Heavier-than-expected rains are hampering plantings in the U.S. Midwest, which is driving grain prices higher. Corn, wheat, oats and beans surged Tuesday as markets re-opened from a long holiday weekend in the U.S. Feature Within the context of the political-economy framework we use to frame our analysis of oil markets, foreign policy and trade policy – particularly in the U.S. and China – are dominating fundamentals. Indeed, absent the threat of war in the Persian Gulf between Iran and the U.S., and their respective allies, and an uncertainty surrounding an expanded Sino – U.S. trade war, Brent crude oil would be trading above $75/bbl in 2H19, based on our modeling. As things stand now, we believe markets are under-pricing the risk of war in the Persian Gulf, and are over-estimating the short-term effects of the Sino – U.S. trade war. The longer-term consequences of a deeper and more protracted Sino – U.S. trade war, however, continue to be under-estimated. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices U.S. – Iran War Risk Is Under-priced We have noted in the past the risk of an escalation in the military confrontation in the Persian Gulf remains acute for global oil markets, most recently in our latest balances report.3 In particular, we believe the risk of this scenario is not fully priced, given market participants’ mark-down of the probability of the price of Brent for December 2019 delivery exceeding $75/bbl and $80/bbl from 39% to 26% and 25% to 16% over the past month in options markets. The probability of Brent for March 2020 delivery exceeding $75/bbl and $80/bbl has similarly been marked down from 38% to 28% and 26% to 19% (Chart 4). Chart 4 An escalation of attacks on soft targets – specifically Saudi and UAE oil shipping and pipeline networks, as occurred earlier this month – likely would provoke a U.S. response against Iran or its proxies, given U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton’s declaration this week re Iran, which we noted above. A direct attack on the U.S. military presence in the Gulf would be met with extreme force, according to U.S. President Donald Trump.4 A shooting war in the Gulf would, once again, raise the odds of a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been threatened in the past by Iran. Some 20% of the world’s oil supply transits the Strait daily.5 A credible attack against shipping in the Strait would send oil prices sharply higher. If Iran were to succeed in blocking transit through the Gulf, an even sharper move in prices – above $150/bbl – could be expected. Markets Too Sanguine Re Sino – U.S. Trade War Commodity markets are not fully pricing the recent escalation of Sino – U.S. trade war, which were dialled up recently when Chinese President Xi Jinping declared China is embarking on a “New Long March” at a domestic political visit.6 The size of the tariffs thus far imposed by the U.S. against China and the EU are trivial in the context of global trade flows of ~ $19.5 trillion this year (Chart 5).7 According to the WTO, the USD value of merchandise trade rose 10% last year to $19.5 trillion, partly on the back of higher energy prices, while the value of services increased to $5.8 trillion, an 8% gain. Against this, U.S. tariffs of 25% on $250 billion worth of goods imported from China remain trivial. U.S. tariffs so far on EU imports by the U.S. are de minimis. Trade concerns do matter, however, in the longer run. Our geopolitical strategists make the odds of a no-deal outcome 50%, vs. a 40% chance of a deal being reached, and a 10% chance trade talks extend beyond the G20 talks scheduled for June. Chart 5 If markets become convinced the current Sino – U.S. trade war will evolve into a larger standoff between the U.S. and China – military or economic – capex and global supply chains will undergo profound changes. Globally, states likely will find themselves in the orbit of one of these powers, which will fundamentally alter investment flows and, ultimately, the profitability of global businesses. A full-blown trade war could become a Cold War, in other words, which would re-order global supply chains.8 Should this occur, an increase in demand for oil, bulks like iron ore, and base metals could ensue, as China ramps its fiscal and monetary stimulus, and the U.S. and others in its sphere of influence bid up commodity prices as they are forced to pay for other higher-cost alternatives for once-cheaper goods and services.9 USD Will Remain A Short-Term Headwind Globally, central banks remain accommodative, which will support aggregate demand domestically. However, the combination of rising U.S. – Iran tensions and the prospect of a widening Sino – U.S. trade war have put a bid under the USD in the short term. Our FX strategists expect the USD will appreciate another 2 – 3% before cresting and heading lower later in the year. In the short term, USD strengthening is a headwind for oil prices. A stronger dollar translates into higher prices in local currencies ex U.S., which reduces demand, all else equal. On the supply side, a stronger dollar lowers local production costs, which stimulates supply ex U.S. at the margin. Together, these militate against higher oil prices. Assuming the USD does weaken later in the year, as our FX strategists expect, oil prices could pick up a slight tailwind. However, policy risk and supply-demand fundamentals will continue to drive oil prices for the balance of the year. Bottom Line: Oil prices are being restrained by policy risk – particularly U.S. and Chinese trade policy and U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. We believe markets are under-estimating the odds of Brent prices being above $75/bbl for barrels delivering in December 2019, and in March 2020. A resolution of Sino – U.S. trade tensions is less likely than a no-deal outcome (40% vs. 50%), with the odds of trade talks continuing beyond next month’s G20 meeting being very slim (10%). A deepening of the Sino – U.S. trade war will have longer-term consequences for commodity demand – possibly positive in the wake of Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled“President Trump And The Dollar”, dated May 9, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see “Iranian naval mines likely used in UAE tankers attacks: Bolton,” published by reuters.com on May 29, 2019.  See also BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity”, dated October 25, 2018, and BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report “U.S.-Iran: This Means War?”, dated May 3, 2019, both available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled“Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium” , dated May 23, 2019, available at cesbcaresearch.com. 4      Please see Trump issues harsh warning to Iran, tweeting it would meet its "official end" if it fights U.S. posted by cbsnews.com on May 20, 2019. 5      Please see BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report titled “U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic”, dated July 19, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6      For an excellent discussion of these developments, please see BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled “Is Trump Ready For The New Long March?”, dated May 24, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. The “New Long March” is a reference to the 8,000-mile retreat of Chinese Communist Party fighters so they could regroup and ultimately prevail in their civil war in 1934-35. In recalling the Long March, “President Xi … told President Trump to ‘bring it on,’ as he apparently believes that a conflict with the U.S. will strengthen his rule,” according to Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. 7      Please see “Global trade growth loses momentum as trade tensions persist,” published by the WTO April 2, 2019. The World Trade Organization expects the growth in merchandise trade volume to drop from 3% last year to 2.6% in 2019, with a slight improvement next year back to 3% growth. Importantly, the WTO notes this is “dependent on an easing of trade tensions.” 8      The odds of a “hot war” between the U.S. and China also are rising, particularly in the South China Sea, according to Adm. James Stavridis (USN, Retired). Please see Collision course in the South China Sea published by the Nikkei Asian Review May 22, 2019. 9      Please see BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled“Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals” dated May 9, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

In our recent research, we have highlighted that our confidence in our constructive cyclical equity view has been shaken. There is budding evidence that the global growth recovery anticipated for the back half of the year could be pushed out to Q1/2020. In China, apparent diesel demand is adding insult to injury and warns that the ongoing Chinese easing has not translated into rising economic activity. Importantly, despite being collected prior to President Trump’s May 5th tweet, this data signals that global growth will likely remain downbeat in the coming months. Moreover, it underscores that more equity market pain lies ahead (see chart), as historically, Chinese diesel consumption growth and SPX momentum have been joined at the hip. Granted, there is a caveat as Beijing has been clamping down on highly polluting diesel fuel, suggesting that part of the recent plunge in apparent diesel consumption might have been exacerbated by the ongoing smog crackdown. Nonetheless, as it still powers trucking freight and infrastructure activity, Chinese diesel demand is telling us something about the weakness in domestic activity. Bottom Line: Stay cautious on the broad equity market. Chinese Diesel Demand And The SPX Chinese Diesel Demand And The SPX

Highlights The risk premium in crude oil prices is rising again, as policy risk – and the potential for large policy-driven errors – increases (Chart of the Week).1 This is not being fully reflected in options markets, where implied volatilities are trading close to their long-term average levels (Chart 2). In the past month, risks to oil flows – military and otherwise – and supply have risen, which is keeping a bid under prices. The Sino – U.S. trade war has worsened, and threatens to put global supply chains at risk, along with EM demand growth in the medium term. Meanwhile, amid global monetary easing, the USD has strengthened, producing a more immediate headwind for EM commodity demand. Against this backdrop of opposing forces, oil prices remain elevated and relatively stable in the low $70/bbl range for Brent. Our balances estimates and price forecasts have not changed materially this month. However, the balance of risks has widened in both tails of the price distribution. We expect implied volatilities in the crude oil options markets – particularly Brent – to move higher, as a result. As for prices, we continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, with WTI trading $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA moved closer to our fundamental assessment and Brent forecast in its most recent market update, lifting its Brent spot-price expectation for this year to an average of $70/bbl, ~ $5/bbl above its April forecast. The EIA’s revision reflects “tighter expected global oil market balances in mid-2019 and increasing supply disruption risks globally.” Base Metals: Neutral. In the wake of Vale’s January supply disaster at its Córrego do Feijão mine, iron ore shipments from Brazil were down 60% in April y/y. Cyclones disrupted supply in Western Australia, pushing 62% Fe iron ore prices to a 5-year high above $100/MT last week. Chinese steelmakers registered a 12.7% y/y gain in crude steel output last month, which, along with dockside iron ore inventory draws of ~ 20 MT ytd, is supporting prices generally. Precious Metals: Neutral. A stronger USD is weighing on gold. Global geopolitical tensions – chiefly in the Persian Gulf and in Sino – U.S. trade relations – are keeping prices above $1,270/oz. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Severe weather conditions in the Midwest continues to delay corn planting, and is contributing to a rally this week in corn prices to $3.94/bushel on Tuesday, up $3.48/bushel from last week’s level. Feature The risk of a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran is higher than it was a month ago and rising. Should it erupt, such a confrontation would threaten oil exports from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, where ~ 20% of global supply transits daily.2 Bellicose rhetoric from the U.S. – some of it directed at materially reducing Iran’s influence in Iraq – alternately is ramped up and walked back, while attacks on soft targets in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – e.g., oil shipping and west-bound oil pipelines – draw attention to the exposure of this critical infrastructure, upon which global oil markets rely.3 Iran, meanwhile, uses the media to prepare its population for further economic deprivation, and to lob its own vituperative rhetoric at the U.S. Chart 1 Venezuela’s collapse as an oil producer and exporter continues unabated, keeping markets for the heavier sour crude favored by U.S. refiners tight. Civil war threatens to cut into Libyan production, which we are carrying at just over 1mm b/d, while whiffs of another Arab Spring can be detected in Algeria, where popular discontent with ruling elites grows.4 On the demand side, the summer driving season is about to kick off in the Northern Hemisphere, heralding increased gasoline demand. Countering that, the Sino – U.S. trade war shows signs of devolving into a Cold War, which could force a re-ordering of supply chains globally, lifting costs and consumer-level inflation in the process. Longer-term, this could work against central-bank easing globally, and retard growth in EM consumer demand. The risk of a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran is higher than it was a month ago and rising. Should it erupt, such a confrontation would threaten oil exports from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. For the present, we continue to expect EM demand growth to hold up, expanding by 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year. This will be supported by continued monetary easing globally, and additional fiscal stimulus from China if its trade war with the U.S. worsens. There is a chance weakness in DM demand will persist, but we think the odds of a normal seasonal pick-up in 2H19 will continue to support demand overall (Chart 3). That said, given the threats to demand growth – an expanded Sino – U.S. trade war and stronger USD, in particular – we will continue to monitor the health of EM demand closely. Chart 2Brent Implied Volatility Will Move Higher Brent Implied Volatility Will Move Higher Brent Implied Volatility Will Move Higher Chart 3DM Oil Demand Growth Wobbles, EM Steady DM Oil Demand Growth Wobbles, EM Steady DM Oil Demand Growth Wobbles, EM Steady   OPEC 2.0 Maintains Production Discipline Chart 4OPEC 2.0's Production Discipline, Strong Demand Drained Inventories OPEC 2.0's Production Discipline, Strong Demand Drained Inventories OPEC 2.0's Production Discipline, Strong Demand Drained Inventories The goal of OPEC 2.0 from its inception at the end of 2016 has been to drain OECD inventories, which swelled to 3.1 billion barrels in July 2016, on the back of a market-share war launched by the old OPEC under the leadership of KSA, and a surge in U.S. shale-oil production. KSA continues to stress the need to restrain crude oil production so as to draw down global oil inventories, and has done much of the heavy lifting this year to make that happen (Chart 4). The other putative leader of OPEC 2.0, Russia, continues to express misgivings with such a strategy, arguing instead the producer coalition should make more oil available to the market. We are more aligned with Russia’s view, and continue to believe OPEC 2.0 will need to increase production. In our balances (Table 1), our base case assumes those producers that can lift production – core OPEC and Russia – will do so to keep prices below $85/bbl (Chart 5). We expect OPEC 2.0 will be able to offset the loss of ~ 700kb/d from Iran exports by increasing production gradually from May to September in proportion to its quota agreement. In our base case, we have Iranian exports falling to 600k b/d. We continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to be able to offset the loss of Venezuela’s production throughout the year, which we expect to fall to 500k b/d by December (vs. ~ 735k b/d presently). Going into next month’s Vienna meeting, we do not expect KSA to dramatically increase production, but would not be surprised if it took production from its current 9.8mm b/d level closer to its OPEC 2.0 quota of 10.33mm b/d in 2H19. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Policy Risk Sustains Oil's Unstable Equilibrium Policy Risk Sustains Oil's Unstable Equilibrium Going into next month’s Vienna meeting, we do not expect KSA to dramatically increase production, but would not be surprised if it took production from its current 9.8mm b/d level closer to its OPEC 2.0 quota of 10.33mm b/d in 2H19. We also expect Russia to lift its production closer to 11.6mm b/d from ~ 11.4mm b/d at present. Even with OPEC 2.0 lifting production ~ 900k b/d in 2H19 vs. 1H19, the bulk of global production increases will be concentrated in the U.S., where we expect shale-oil output to grow 1.2mm b/d this year, and 840k b/d next year. This will account for 85% of the overall increase of 2.4mm b/d we expect in the U.S. this year and next. Our estimates of production growth in the U.S. shales is tempered by a growing conviction the large integrated oil majors and stand-alone E&P companies will continue to put the interests of shareholders above their desire to increase production just for the sake of increasing it, as was done in the past. This is driven by a desire to attract and retain capital, which will be critical to the majors and the big E&Ps in the years ahead.5 We continue to see demand growth exceeding supply growth this year. This will produce a physical deficit, which will continue to drain inventories. Even with these production increases, we continue to see demand growth exceeding supply growth this year. This will produce a physical deficit, which will continue to drain inventories (Chart 6). Chart 5Core OPEC 2.0 Will Lift Production Core OPEC 2.0 Will Lift Production Core OPEC 2.0 Will Lift Production Chart 6Balances Continue To Tighten Balances Continue To Tighten Balances Continue To Tighten   Spare Capacity Will Be Stretched Chart 7 In addition to Iran and Venezuela, we are closely following what appears to be the early stages of another civil war in Libya, which threatens the ~ 1mm b/d of production flowing from there. In addition, we are seeing signs of growing civil discontent in Algeria not unlike that of 2011, which was sparked by popular dissatisfaction with ruling elites throughout the Middle East in the lead-up to the Arab Spring. We have maintained existing spare capacity can handle the loss of Iranian and Venezuelan production and exports we’ve built into our balances and price-forecast models. However, covering these losses will stretch the capacity of global supply to accommodate unplanned outages, which could leave markets extremely tight in the event of production losses in Libya or Nigeria, or in producing provinces prone to natural disasters (e.g., Canadian wildfires or U.S. Gulf hurricanes). At present, markets appear to be comfortable with OPEC 2.0’s ability to cover losses from Iran and Venezuela, given current spare capacity of ~ 3mm b/d, most of which remains in KSA, and continued growth in non-OPEC output (Chart 7). As inventories continue to draw globally, markets’ attention will turn more toward this spare capacity.   Expect Higher Volatility We remain long Brent call spreads in July and August 2019, which are up an average 101% since they were recommended in February. These positions benefit from higher prices and higher volatility. Chart 8Geopolitics, Increasing Backwardation Support Higher Brent Implied Volatility Geopolitics, Increasing Backwardation Support Higher Brent Implied Volatility Geopolitics, Increasing Backwardation Support Higher Brent Implied Volatility Our fundamental assessments of supply, demand and inventory levels remain fairly steady. Thus, our price forecasts – $75 and $80/bbl this year and next for Brent, with WTI trading $7 and $5/bbl under that – remain unchanged. With OPEC 2.0 maintaining production discipline and U.S. shale producers maintaining capital discipline, the rate of growth on the supply side will be restrained, and below the rate of growth in global demand. These forces combine to keep inventories drawing this year, which will lead to a steeper backwardation in forward curves, particularly Brent’s (Chart 8). Coupled with true uncertainty re how the U.S. – Iran confrontation in the Persian Gulf is resolved, and how the Sino – U.S. trade war plays out, this steepening backwardation will lead to higher implied volatility in crude oil options markets. Bottom Line: Our expectation of higher prices and steepening backwardation in forward curves is supported by our analysis of fundamentals and the current political economy of global oil markets, which emphasizes policy risk arising from the actions of geopolitically significant states. These factors also will push implied volatility in options markets higher. As a result, we remain long Brent call spreads in July and August 2019, which are up an average 101% since they were recommended in February. These positions benefit from higher prices and higher volatility. We also remain long 2H19 Brent vs. short 2H20 Brent futures in line with our view backwardation will increase; this position is up 155.4% since it was initiated in February, as a result of the steepening of backwardation in the forward curve. Steepening backwardation also will benefit our long S&P GSCI recommendation, which is heavily weighted to energy markets; this position is up 8% since inception. Lastly, we remain long spot WTI, which is up 34.6% since it was recommended in January.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the price decomposition shown in our Chart of the Week, we account for the contribution that changes in global supply, demand and inventory levels make to the evolution of Brent prices, using a proprietary econometric model. We treat the residual term of the model – what’s left of the price decomposition after these fundamental variables are accounted for – as a measure of the risk premium in prices. An expansion of the risk premium – in the positive or negative direction – is coincident with an expansion of the implied volatility of Brent crude oil options typically expands (sometimes with a lag or two), and vice versa. This is intuitively appealing, since risk premia and volatility expand as uncertainty in the market rises. 2 We considered this topic in depth in a Special Report written with BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy entitled “U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic,” published July 19, 2018, and in “Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf,” published July 5, 2018. Both reports are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Iran’s influence in Iraq is an internally divisive issue, and a focal point of the U.S., a view we share. Please see, “Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply,” a Special Report we published with BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy September 5, 2018. KSA and Western intelligence agencies allege Iran is behind the attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure. Please see “Saudi Arabia accuses Iran of ordering drone attack on oil pipeline,” published by reuters.com. The westbound pipelines in KSA are critical to maintaining the Kingdom’s export capacity, as we noted in “Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy October 25, 2018. This report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Algeria Has a Legitimacy Problem,” posted on the LSE’s Middle East Centre Blog by Benjamin P. Nickels on May 20, 2019, and “Algeria’s Second Arab Spring?” by Ishac Diwan posted at project-syndicate.org March 28, 2019. 5 We will be exploring this topic in depth in a Special Report next month. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Policy Risk Sustains Oil's Unstable Equilibrium Policy Risk Sustains Oil's Unstable Equilibrium Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in Policy Risk Sustains Oil's Unstable Equilibrium Policy Risk Sustains Oil's Unstable Equilibrium