Energy

Key Portfolio Highlights The S&P 500 has started 2019 with a bang as dovish cooing from the Fed has proven a tonic for equities. While we have not entirely retraced the path to the early-autumn highs, our strategy of staying cyclically exposed, based on our view of an absence of a recession in 2019, has proven a profitable one as investor capitulation reached extreme levels (Charts 1 & 2). Chart 1CapitulationChart 2Selling Is Exhausted Importantly, risk premia have been deflating as the end-of-year spike in volatility has subsided and junk spreads have narrowed from the fear-induced heights in December (Chart 3). Chart 3Risk Premia Renormalization Nevertheless, in order for the reflex rebound since the late-December lows to morph into a durable rally, the macro/policy backdrop has to turn from a headwind to a tailwind. We are closely monitoring three potential positive catalysts: A definitively more dovish Fed, which would help restrain the greenback A continuation of the earnings juggernaut A positive U.S./China trade resolution With respect to the first of these, the S&P 500 convulsed following the December 19 Fed meeting and suffered a cathartic 450 point peak-to-trough fall two months ago. The Fed likely made a policy error, and Fed Chair Powell’s resolve is getting tested as has happened with every Chair since Volcker (Charts 4 & 5). Chart 4Powell's Resolve Getting Tested Chart 5Fed Policy Mistake The rising odds of a pause in the Fed tightening cycle, at least for the first half of the year, will likely serve as a welcome respite for equities. Our second catalyst has been gaining steam through the Q4 earnings season which has seen continuation of the double-digit earnings growth of the prior three quarters. Our earnings model points to a moderation of earnings growth in the year to come, in line with sell-side expectations (Chart 6). Our 2019 year-end target remains 3,000 for the SPX, based on $181 2020 EPS and a 16.5x multiple.1 This represents a 6% EPS CAGR, assuming 2018 EPS ends near $162. Chart 6EPS Growth > 0 In Chart 7, we show that financials, health care and industrials are responsible for 61% of the SPX’s expected profit growth in 2019 while technology’s contribution has fallen to a mere 7.2%. While the risk of disappointment encompases financials, health care and industrials, there are high odds that tech surprises to the upside as it has borne the brunt of recent negative earnings revisions (Charts 8 & 9). Chart 8Earnings Revisions... Chart 9...Really Weigh On Tech Lastly, the negativity surrounding the slowdown in China is likely fully reflected in the market (Chart 10), implying an opportunity for a break out should a positive resolution to the U.S./China trade spat be delivered. China’s reflation efforts suggests that the Chinese authorities remain committed to injecting liquidity into their economy (Chart 11). Chart 10China Slowdown Baked In The Cake Chart 11Reflating Away Already, the PBOC balance sheet, with over $5.5tn in assets, is expanding anew. Empirical evidence suggests that SPX momentum and the ebb and flow of the PBOC balance sheet are joined at the hip, and the current message is positive (Chart 12). All of these underlie our style preferences for cyclicals over defensives2 and international large caps over domestically-geared small caps. Chart 12Heed The PBoC Message Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com S&P Financials (Overweight) The divergence between the directions for our CMI and valuation indicator (VI) for S&P financials has reached stunning levels, with the former accelerating into pre-GFC territory and the latter falling to two standard deviations below fair value. Our technical indicator (TI) is sending a relatively neutral message, though this does not diminish the most bullish signal in our cyclical indicator’s history (Chart 13). Chart 13S&P Financials (Overweight) The ongoing strength of the U.S. economy is the driver of such a positive indicator, particularly with respect to the key S&P banks sub index. Our total loans & leases growth model and BCA’s C&I loan growth model (second & bottom panels, Chart 14) are in positive territory. The latter is significant given that C&I loans are the single biggest credit category in bank loan books. Importantly, C&I loans have gone vertical recently topping the 10.5% growth mark despite softening capex intentions and CEO confidence. Further, multi-decade highs in consumer confidence are offsetting the Fed’s tightening cycle and suggest that consumer loans, another key lending category, will also gain traction (third panel, Chart 14). In the context of the generationally high employment rate, the implied lower defaults should drive amplified profit improvement from this credit growth. We reiterate our overweight recommendation. Chart 14Loan Growth Drives Profits S&P Industrials (Overweight) The still-solid domestic footing has maintained our industrials CMI close to its cyclical highs, which are also some of the most bullish in the history of the indicator. However, stock prices have not responded accordingly and our VI has descended mildly from neutral to undervalued. Our TI sends a much more definitive message and stands at a full standard deviation into oversold territory (Chart 15). Chart 1515. S&P Industrials (Overweight) While their cyclical peers S&P financials are almost exclusively a domestic play, S&P industrials have been weighed down by trade flare ups for most of the past year (bottom panel, Chart 16). Accordingly, much of the benefit of positive domestic capex indicators and the more tangible capital goods orders maintaining a supportive trajectory has failed to show up in relative EPS growth (second & third panels, Chart 16), though the latter has recently hooked much higher. Chart 16Industrial Earnings Growth Has Recovered S&P Materials (Overweight) Our materials CMI has made a turn, rising off its lowest level in 20 years. This has coincided with our VI bouncing off its cyclical low, though it remains in undervalued territory. The signal is shared by our TI which has only recently recovered from a full standard deviation into the oversold zone, a level that has historically presaged S&P materials rallies (Chart 17). Chart 17S&P Materials (Overweight) When we upgraded the S&P materials sector to overweight earlier this year, we noted that China macro dominates the direction of U.S. materials stocks. On the monetary front, the Chinese monetary easing cycle continues unabated and the near 150bps year-over-year drop in the 10-year Chinese Treasury yield will soon start to bear fruit (yield change shown inverted and advanced, bottom panel, Chart 18). The renminbi also moves in lockstep with relative share prices. The apparent de-escalation in the U.S./China trade tensions has boosted the CNY/USD and is signaling that a playable reflation trade is in the offing in the S&P materials sector (top panel, Chart 18). Chart 18Chinese Data Drives Materials Performance S&P Energy (Overweight) Our energy CMI has moved horizontally for the past six quarters, though this followed a snap-back recovery from the extremely depressed levels of 2016 and 2017. Meanwhile both our VI and TI have descended steeply into buying territory with the former approaching two standard deviations below fair value (Chart 19). Chart 19S&P Energy (Overweight) As with the CMI, the relative share price ratio for the S&P energy index has moved laterally since our mid-summer 2017 upgrade to overweight. Interestingly, the integrated oil & gas energy subindex neither kept up with the steep oil price advance until the end of September, nor with the recent drubbing in crude oil prices (top panel, Chart 20). Put differently, oil majors never discounted sustainably higher oil prices, and are also refraining from extrapolating recent oil prices weakness far into the future. Chart 2020. The Stage Is Set For A Recovery In Crude Prices Nevertheless, the roughly 30% per annum growth in U.S. crude oil production is unsustainable and, were production to remain near all-time highs and move sideways in 2019, then the growth rate would fall back to the zero line. Such a paring back in the growth rate would likely balance the oil market and pave the way for an oil price recovery (oil production shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 20). This echoes BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service, which continues to forecast higher oil prices into 2019, a forecast which should set the stage for a sustainable rebound next year in S&P energy profits, the opposite of what analysts currently expect (Chart 7). S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) An improving macro environment is reflected in our consumer staples CMI that has vaulted higher in recent months. However, the strong recent relative outperformance has also shown up in our VI which, though still in undervalued territory, has recovered significantly. Our TI has fully recovered and now sends a neutral message (Chart 21). Chart 21S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) The surging S&P household products sector has been carrying the S&P consumer staples index on its back as solid pricing efforts have been dragging results and forward guidance higher. While household product sales have been enjoying a multi-year growth phase (second panel, Chart 22), it has largely been driven by volumes. However, the recent resurgence in pricing power (third panel, Chart 22) has given volume gains an added kick, pushing sales further. Meanwhile, exports have continued their two-year ascent despite the tough currency environment and the upshot is that relative EPS growth will likely remain upbeat (bottom panel, Chart 22). In light of challenged EM consumer spending growth, this signal is very encouraging. Chart 22Household Products Is Carrying Staples S&P Health Care (Neutral) Our health care CMI has been treading water recently. Further, a recovery in pharma stocks has taken our VI from undervalued to a neutral position, while our TI sends a distinctly bearish message as health care stocks have been overbought (Chart 23). Chart 23S&P Health Care (Neutral) Healthcare stocks have outperformed in the back half of 2018. Recently a merger mania that has swept through the pharma and biotech spaces has underpinned relative share prices. The last three months have seen an explosion of deals, including the largest biopharma deal ever (Bristol-Myers Squibb buying Celgene for approximately $90 billion) with other global deals falling not too far behind (Takeda buying Shire for $62 billion mid-last year). Such exuberance has clearly confirmed that merger premia are alive and well in the S&P pharma index. It is not merely rising premia that have taken pharma higher either. Pricing power has entered the early innings of a recovery (top panel, Chart 24) while the key export channel points to increasingly bright days ahead (second panel, Chart 24). However, the rise of regulatory pressure from the Trump administration may cause better pricing to prove fleeting. Chart 24Merger Mania In Pharma Further, pharma’s consolidation phase has come at a cost to sector leverage ratios that have dramatically expanded (bottom panel, Chart 24). Such profligacy may come to haunt the sector should the pricing power recovery falter. S&P Technology (Neutral) Our technology CMI has been moving laterally for the better part of the last three years, though the S&P technology index has ignored the macro headwinds and soared higher over that time. Our VI remains on the overvalued side of neutral, despite the recent tech selloff while our TI has been retrenching into oversold territory (Chart 25). Chart 25S&P Technology (Neutral) Until the end of last year, we maintained a barbell portfolio within the sector by recommending an overweight position in the late-cyclical and capex-driven technology hardware, storage & peripherals and software indexes while recommending an underweight position in the early-cyclical semi and semi equipment indexes. However, we recently upgraded the niche semi equipment to overweight for three reasons. First, trade policy uncertainty has dealt a blow to this tech subindex. Not only are 90% of sales foreign sourced, but a large chunk is also China-related sales. Second, emerging market financial indicators are showing some signs of life, underscoring that semi equipment demand may turn out to be marginally less grim than currently anticipated (second panel, Chart 26). Third, long term semi equipment EPS growth estimates have recently collapsed to a level far below the broad market, indicating that the sell side has thrown in the towel on this niche sector (third panel, Chart 26). Chart 26A Bottom In Semi Equipment Overall, and despite our more bullish view on semi equipment, we continue to recommend a neutral weighting in S&P technology. S&P Utilities (Underweight) Our utilities CMI has recovered recently, bouncing off its 25-year low, driven by the modest easing in interest rates, (Chart 27). This has also manifested in a recovery in the S&P utilities index as this fixed income proxy has reacted to the recent fall in Treasury yields (change in yields shown inverted, top panel, Chart 28) and jump in natural gas prices. Further, utilities are typically seen as a domestic defensive play and the recent trade troubles have made utilities soar in a flight to safety. Chart 27S&P Utilities (Underweight) We think the tailwinds lifting utilities are transitory and likely to shift to headwinds. First, one of our key themes for the back half of the year is rising interest rates; a move higher in yields will have a predictably negative impact on these high-dividend paying equities. Second, a flight to safety looks fleeting; the ISM manufacturing new orders index usually moves inversely in lock step with utilities and the most recent message is negative for the S&P utilities index (ISM manufacturing new orders index shown inverted, second panel, Chart 28). Meanwhile, S&P utilities earnings estimates have continued to trail the broad market, having taken a significant step down this year (third panel, Chart 28). Chart 28Rising Rates In Late-2019 Will Be A Headwind For Utilities Our VI and TI share this bearish message as the VI is deeply overvalued and the TI is in overbought territory (Chart 27). S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Our real estate CMI has recently started to turn up, though this is off the near decade-low set last year and remains deeply depressed relative to history (Chart 29). This is principally the result of the backup in interest rates since late last year and the lift they have given to the sector, which has been a relative outperformer over the past six months (top panel, Chart 30). Much like the S&P utilities sector in the previous section, and in the context of BCA’s higher interest rate view, we continue to avoid this sector. Chart 29S&P Real Estate (Underweight) Along with the modest reprieve in borrowing rates, multi family construction continues unabated (second panel, Chart 30), likely driven by all-time highs in CRE prices (third panel, Chart 30). In the absence of an outright contraction in construction, recent weakening in occupancy (bottom panel, Chart 30) will likely prove deflationary to rents, and thus profit prospects. Chart 30Falling Occupancy Will Hurt REIT Profits Our VI suggests that REITs are modestly overvalued, though the recent outperformance has driven our TI to an overbought condition (Chart 29). S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Our consumer discretionary CMI has ticked up recently, pushed higher by resiliency in consumer data. However, the S&P consumer discretionary index has clearly responded, pushing against 40-year highs relative to the S&P 500 and taking our VI to two standard deviations above fair value (Chart 31). Much of this should be attributed to Amazon (roughly 30% of the S&P consumer discretionary index) and their exceptional 12% outperformance relative to the broad market over the past year. Chart 31S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) While we have an underweight recommendation on the S&P consumer discretionary index, we have varying intra-segment preferences, highlighted by the recent inception of a pair trade going long homebuilders and short home improvement retailers (HIR). Housing starts and building permits are extremely sensitive to interest rates, depend on first time home buyers and move in lockstep with the homeownership rate. Currently, interest rates are easing, the homeownership rate is coming out of its GFC funk and first time home buyers are slated to make a comeback this spring selling season. This is a boon for homebuilders at the expense of HIR (top & middle panels, Chart 32). Further, the price of lumber is a key determinant of relative profitability: lumber represents an input cost to homebuilders whereas it is an important selling item in Big Box building & supply retailers that make a set margin on it. The recent drubbing in lumber prices should ease margin pressures on homebuilders but eat into HIR profits (momentum in lumber prices shown inverted and advanced in bottom panel, Chart 32). Chart 32Long Homebuilders / Short Home Improvement Retailers S&P Communication Services (Underweight) As the newly-minted communication services has little more than four months of existence, we do not have adequate history to create a cyclical macro indicator. However, we have created Chart 33 with a number of valuation indicators, though we caution that they too are less reliable than the other indicators presented in the preceding pages, owing to a dearth of history. Chart 33S&P Communication Services (Underweight) Rather, we refer readers to our still-fresh initiation of coverage on the sector3 and look forward to being able to deliver something more substantive in the future. Size Indicator (Favor Large Vs. Small Caps) Our size CMI has been hovering near the boom/bust line, as it has for most of the last two years (Chart 34). Despite the neutral CMI reading, we downgraded small caps in the middle of last year,4 and moved to a large cap preference, based on the diverging (and unsustainable) debt levels of small caps vs. their large cap peers (bottom panel, Chart 35). This size bias remains a high conviction call for 2019. Chart 34Favor Large Vs. Small Caps Macro data too has turned against small caps. Recent NFIB surveys have shown that small business optimism has continued to fall through the end of the year, albeit from a very high level (top panel, Chart 35). This has coincided with the continued slide of small cap stocks relative to their large cap peers. Chart 35Small Caps Have A Big Balance Sheet Problem Further, the percentage of small businesses with planned labor compensation increases continues to set new all-time highs and deviates substantially from the national trend (second panel, Chart 35). This divergence becomes more worrying when plotted against those same firms increasing prices (third panel, Chart 35), which has trailed for some time and recently flattened. The inference is that margin pressure is intensifying and likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In the context of the absence of small cap balance sheet discipline during the past five years, ongoing large cap outperformance seems ever more likely. Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “ Catharsis,” dated January 14, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “ Don't Fight The PBoC,” dated February 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Daily Insight, “New Lines Of Communication,” dated October 1, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Daily Insight, “Small Caps Have A Big Balance Sheet Problem,” dated May 10, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Hyman Minsky famously said that “stability begets instability.” The converse is also true: Instability begets stability. None of the preconditions for a U.S. recession are in place yet. The Fed’s decision to press the pause button on further rate hikes ensures that it will take at least another 18 months for monetary policy to turn restrictive. Global growth should accelerate by mid-2019, as Chinese stimulus kicks in and the headwinds facing Europe dissipate. Investors should overweight global equities and underweight bonds over the next 12 months. The leadership role in the equity space will gradually shift outside the United States. Feature The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis   "Stability begets instability” declared Hyman Minsky in his widely cited, seldom-read book.1 By this, Minsky meant that periods of economic tranquility often encourage excessive risk-taking, sowing the seeds of their own demise. We would not quarrel with Minsky’s assessment, but we would point out that the converse is also true: Instability begets stability. Following periods of intense financial stress, lenders become more circumspect about whom they lend to, while borrowers become reluctant to take on debt. The result is economically bittersweet. On the plus side, the newfound caution of lenders and borrowers alike ensures that financial imbalances are slow to build up again. On the negative side, sluggish credit growth restrains spending. The net effect is a recovery that is often slow and uneven, but one which lasts longer than expected. Few Signs Of Major U.S. Economic Imbalances This is the world in which we find ourselves today. It took a decade following the subprime crisis for the U.S. to return to full employment. Much of Europe is not even there yet. Lenders continue to take risks. However, they have been quicker than usual to scale back exposure at the first sign of trouble. For example, as U.S. auto loan defaults began rising in 2015, banks tightened lending standards. As a result, the share of auto loans transitioning into delinquency peaked in Q4 of 2016 and has since drifted down modestly (Chart 1). Chart 1Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days: The Case Of Autos A similar thing happened when corporate credit spreads blew out in 2015 following the crash in oil prices (Chart 2). Banks tightened lending standards starting in late 2015. Once defaults peaked in early 2017, banks started easing standards. Chart 2Banks Were Quick To Tighten Lending Standards In 2015 Tellingly, the distress in corporate debt markets in 2015-16 did not cause the financial system to seize up, as evidenced by the fact that financial stress indices only increased marginally during that period. This suggests that financial imbalances never had a chance to rise to a level that threatened the overall economy. The Preconditions For The Next U.S. Recession Are Not Yet In Place Today, the U.S. private-sector financial balance – the difference between what the private sector earns and spends – stands at a healthy surplus of 2.1% of GDP. Both of the last two recessions began when the private-sector balance was in deficit (Chart 3). Chart 3The Private Sector Is Not Living Beyond Its Means The Way It Was Before The Last Two Recessions This raises an intriguing question: If the U.S. private sector is not suffering from any major imbalances, what is going to cause the next recession? That’s a very good question, with no obvious answer! The past two recessions were triggered by the bursting of asset bubbles – first the dotcom bubble and then the housing bubble. Today, U.S. equities are far from cheap, but with the S&P 500 trading at 16.1-times forward earnings, they are hardly in a bubble (Chart 4). The housing market is also on much firmer footing: The homeowner vacancy rate is near all-time lows, while the quality of mortgage lending has been very high (Chart 5). Chart 4While U.S. Stocks Are Not Cheap, They Aren't In A Bubble Chart 5Housing Fundamentals Are Solid Of course, recessions can occur for reasons other than the bursting of asset bubbles. The 1973-74 recession and the recessions of the early 1980s were triggered by a surge in oil prices, requiring the Fed to hike rates aggressively. Luckily, such an oil-induced recession is highly unlikely today. Inflation expectations are better anchored, while oil consumption represents a much smaller share of GDP than it did back then (Chart 6). In addition, the U.S. has become a major oil producer, which implies that the drag to consumers from higher oil prices would be partly offset by increased capital spending in the energy sector. At any rate, the ability of shale producers to respond to higher prices with additional output limits the extent to which prices can rise in the first place. Chart 6An Oil Price Shock Is Unlikely To Cause A Recession Past economic downturns have also been caused by major adjustments in the cyclical parts of the economy. As a share of GDP, cyclical spending is lower today than it has been at the outset of most recessions (Chart 7). The proliferation of just-in-time inventory systems has also reduced the influence that inventory swings have on the economy (Chart 8). Chart 7Cyclical Spending Is Not Extended A severe tightening of fiscal policy can also trigger a recession.2 Fortunately, the end of the government shutdown reduces the risk of such an outcome. Rightly or wrongly, voters blamed President Trump for the recent closure (Chart 9). As we speak, the Trump administration is negotiating with Democrats to avert another shutdown slated to begin on February 15. The key item of contention concerns funding for a border wall with Mexico. Even if a deal falls through, rather than shuttering the government again, Trump will probably pursue funding for the wall by declaring a national emergency. Our geopolitical strategists believe such an action will be challenged by the Democrats, but is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court. Chart 9''I Am Proud To Shut Down The Government'' Global Growth Should Improve Admittedly, the external environment now has a greater influence on the U.S. economy than in the past. Nevertheless, given that exports are only 12% of GDP, it would take a sizeable external shock to knock the U.S. into recession. We think that such a shock is not in the cards. The trade war is likely to go on hiatus as Trump seeks to take credit for a deal with China. In addition, as we discussed two weeks ago, China will scale back its deleveraging campaign now that credit growth has fallen close to nominal GDP growth (Chart 10).3    Chart 10China: Time To Scale Back Deleveraging Euro area growth should reaccelerate over the coming months thanks to lower oil prices, a revival in EM demand, modestly more stimulative fiscal policy, and the palliative effects from the decline in government bond yields across the region. We have also argued that the risks of a “Hard Brexit” should abate.4   Waiting... And Waiting For Inflation To Rise When the next recession rolls around, it will probably be sparked by a surge in inflation, which forces the Fed to raise interest rates much more rapidly than it has so far. Here is the thing though: Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It usually only peaks long after a downturn has started and troughs after the recovery is well underway (Chart 11).   Consider the example of the 1960s. The unemployment rate fell below NAIRU in 1964, but it took another four years for inflation to break out in earnest (Chart 12). The U.S. unemployment rate has been below NAIRU only since 2017. The unemployment rate in Germany and Japan has been below NAIRU for much longer, yet inflation remains stubbornly low in both countries (Chart 13). Chart 12It Took An Overheated Economy For Inflation To Take Off In The Late-1960s Chart 13The U.S., Japanese, And German Economies Are At Full Employment Cheer Up This leaves us with a striking conclusion: Perhaps the next U.S. recession is not around the corner, as some grumpy economists seem to think. Perhaps this economic expansion can endure beyond 2020. The recent U.S. data has certainly been consistent with that thesis. The ISM manufacturing index rose 2.3 percentage points to 56.6 in January. New orders jumped by 6.9 percentage points to 58.2. Payroll growth has also accelerated. Real aggregate earnings are up 4.2% from a year earlier, the fastest pace since October 2015 (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S. Labor Income Growth Has Been Accelerating Housing data are showing tentative evidence of stabilization. New home sales are rebounding, while mortgage applications are back near cycle-highs (Chart 15). Chart 15Housing Activity Is Stabilizing After Last Year's Weakness Reflecting these positive developments, the Citigroup economic surprise index has jumped into positive territory (Chart 16). The New York Fed’s estimate for Q1 2019 GDP growth has also moved up to 2.4%. Chart 16U.S. Economic Data Are Beating Low Expectations Investment Conclusions Recessions and bear markets usually overlap (Chart 17). With the next recession still at least 18 months away, it is premature to turn bearish on equities. We upgraded stocks in December following the post-FOMC sell-off. Although our tactical MacroQuant model is pointing to an elevated risk of a setback over the next few weeks, we continue to see global equities finishing the year 5%-to-10% above current levels. As global growth bottoms out mid-year, the leadership role in equity markets should increasingly move away from the U.S. towards EM and Europe. Chart 17Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Bonds are a tougher call. We do not expect the Fed to raise rates again at least until June. This will limit the upside for bond yields, as well as the dollar, in the near term. Nevertheless, with the fed funds futures pricing in no rate hikes for the next few years, even a modest shift back to tightening in the second half of this year and beyond will push up bond yields, dampening total returns to fixed income. Looking beyond 2019, the case for maintaining a short duration stance in fixed-income portfolios is very strong. The longer the Fed allows the economy to overheat, the greater the eventual overshoot in inflation will be. Inflation expectations have fallen over the past few months (Chart 18). They should have risen. Ultimately, Gentle Jay Powell’s decision to press the pause button on further rate hikes means that rates will end up peaking at a higher level during this cycle than they would have otherwise. Chart 18Inflation Expectations Have Declined   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      As argued in Hyman P. Minsky, “Stabilizing an Unstable Economy,” Yale University Press, (1986). 2      Severe episodes of fiscal tightening have normally followed military demobilizations. These include the recessions following WW1, WW2, and the Korean War, and to a much lesser extent, the 1990-91 recession which was exacerbated by cuts to the defense budget at the end of the Cold War. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” dated January 18, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Venezuela’s stability is deteriorating rapidly along the lines of our projections in recent years. Regime failure is at this point a high probability and poses immediate risks to global oil production. Our conviction is high because of the unprecedented combination of internal and external factors working against the regime: Economic collapse: Economic collapse has translated into total social collapse, as indicated by the large-scale emigration from the country (Chart 1). The current mass protests are the largest ever and are gaining momentum, while the opposition movement is coalescing into a single force against the regime as a whole for the first time. Political illegitimacy: What remained of the Maduro administration’s political legitimacy has eroded with his decision to ignore the results of the 2015 election and rig the election of 2018. The President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, has declared himself President of the Republic based on an interpretation of the Venezuelan constitution and his leadership of the democratically elected National Assembly.1 International opposition: The erosion of Maduro’s legitimacy is reinforced by a rapidly changing international environment, with several countries becoming more assertive in opposing the regime. The United States and Colombia, on January 23, formally recognized Guaidó as president. They are joined by Canada and several other Latin American states, including Brazil, which is taking a more confrontational posture under the newly inaugurated President Jair Bolsonaro. This marks a rare coordination of North and South American states in pursuing a harder policy toward Venezuela. U.S. intervention: The United States, in particular, is taking a more interventionist stance through tighter sanctions. Indeed a limited U.S. military intervention is one of our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” for this year. Such an intervention could be further motivated by President Donald Trump’s need to distract from his domestic woes (Chart 2). His weak popular approval is comparable to that of President Ronald Reagan at this stage in Reagan’s first term, when he intervened in the small island state of Grenada. Venezuela is not Grenada, but the U.S. is also not considering outright invasion. Trump is facing a serious risk of becoming a “lame duck” due to the fall in his popularity amid the government shutdown and gridlock in Congress. A foreign policy response to a humanitarian crisis is an obvious way for him to try to increase his influence over the remainder of his term. Moreover, the U.S. diplomatic and defense establishment may agree on the need to reinforce the Monroe Doctrine against anti-democratic politics and growing Chinese (and Russian) influence in Venezuela. Chart 2Trump May Distract From His Woes What remains is to see whether the U.S. adds force (tougher sanctions) to its more aggressive diplomatic posture, and whether the Venezuelan opposition remains mobilized and unified in rejecting anything except a transition to a new government. The U.S. is already considering expanding sanctions, including a likely deathblow that would involve sanctioning Venezuelan oil imports and the export of diluents necessary to process Venezuela’s heavy sour crude. Within Venezuela, the opposition’s momentum and the role of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces will be decisive: so far there are small signs of fracture (Table 1), but no sign of a substantial turn against the Maduro regime.Sufficient popular pressure can create a “tipping point,” however, after which the military and security forces are no longer effective in executing the government’s writ and the socio-political situation declines beyond the ability of the regime to stay in power. Persistent large-scale protests concentrating on Maduro’s departure and/or a split in the security forces could precipitate the final stage of transition to a new interim government in the short to medium term. Table 1Military Insurgencies Have Been Small And Unsuccessful … So Far Impact On The Oil Market In this context, we are raising the likelihood of a collapse of that state to an 80% probability, from our prior assessment (33%). We use the word “collapse” to stand for Venezuela’s production falling to 250k b/d to feed domestic refineries, from ~ 1mm b/d at present. In our simulation of how a collapse could affect oil prices, we make the following assumptions based on recent history – i.e., the run-up to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iranian oil exports. These assumptions are driven by our prior belief that the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which we’ve dubbed OPEC 2.0, and the Trump administration will attempt to hold Brent crude oil prices at or below $80/bbl in the event of a collapse in Venezuela’s oil production. Here are our assumptions: Venezuela collapses next month; OPEC 2.0 responds with a one-month lag, and increases production by 500k b/d in March 2019. If Brent spot prices trade to $85/bbl, OPEC 2.0 raises production an additional 100k b/d. If prices continue to rise toward $100/bbl, OPEC 2.0 adds another 300k b/d to global supply. Further increases lead to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) releasing 100k b/d as needed to reduce Brent prices to $80/bbl or less. If spot Brent prices rise toward $100/bbl, we assume there will be 200k b/d of demand destruction globally. Chart 3 shows how Brent and WTI prices would evolve per these assumptions. Because Venezuela’s production has fallen so much, we believe the collapse of that country’s oil industry can be managed by OPEC 2.0, and, if necessary, via U.S. SPR releases. Of course, a similar trajectory likely would occur in the event Venezuela’s oil industry collapses later.2 Chart 3A Venezuela Collapse Would Trigger OPEC 2.0 and U.S. Supply Responses In our simulation, the Brent spot price trades to $85/bbl in December 2019, and OPEC 2.0 adds an additional 100k b/d to global supply. Prices continue to rise, and we assume OPEC 2.0 member states release a combined 300k b/d in March 2020. The U.S. release 100k b/d of SPR in 2020. In addition, we do see demand destruction of 200k b/d in 2020, as prices reach close to $100/bbl. With all of this, prices are contained and start decreasing in mid-2020. Of course, whether these surges can be maintained indefinitely – i.e., until Venezuela comes back on line, or comparable crude grades can be shipped south from Canada – is an open question. Even so, there is no doubt that the leaders of OPEC 2.0 silenced more than a few critics by means of their 4Q18 production surge. KSA stands out in this regard, taking its November 2018 production over 11mm b/d from ~ 10mm b/d in 1H18 (Table 2). Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) As a practical matter, we have no way of knowing how OPEC 2.0 or the U.S. SPR would respond to a collapse in Venezuela’s oil industry. In these simulations, we’re making a call on how and when OPEC 2.0 might choose to release its spare capacity once again, as they did in the run-up to the U.S.’s Iran oil export sanctions last year (Chart 4). As the members of OPEC 2.0 – mostly KSA, when it’s all said and done – dig deeper into spare capacity, less is available to meet another unplanned outage – e.g., Libya or Nigeria lose significant barrels to civil unrest. That is, we are sure, a discussion OPEC 2.0 is and will be having among its members, and with the U.S. SPR. The global oil market still is exposed to a sharp loss of Iranian barrels on top of the loss of Venezuela’s supplies in the event that country’s oil industry collapses. This argues strongly for an extension of the waivers granted by the Trump administration in November for anywhere from 90 to 180 days, depending on how the Venezuela situation evolves. These waivers expire at the end of May. This would require us to change our balances assessment, should it occur.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Articles 233, 333, 350 of the Venezuelan constitution. The domestic and international legal debate is beside the point: the effective power of the people, the security forces, and the international community will determine the outcome. 2 For more information on global supply and demand balances, and our most recent oil price forecasts, please see “OPEC Starts Cutting Oil Output; Demand Fears Are Overdone,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy today. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.  

OPEC 2.0 is building physical optionality, to deal with different possible moves the U.S. can make on Iranian oil export sanctions and waivers. This comes despite an apparent break in the sense of urgency Saudi Arabia and Russia feel re production cuts. The coalition’s market monitoring committee meets in April, followed by a full gathering in May, when U.S. waivers expire. If the U.S. extends waivers, OPEC 2.0 can extend production cuts; if it doesn’t, it can add supply as needed.1 On the demand side, markets appear to be overly concerned about a sharper-than-expected slowdown in China, which, if borne out, would restrain EM growth. We believe these fears are overdone, and expect a slight improvement in EM demand generally this year and next. In our new balances estimates, we see the OECD commercial oil inventory overhang clearing in 1H19, on the back of resilient demand, OPEC 2.0 discipline, and a more moderate level of growth in U.S. shale oil output. This keeps Brent on track to average $80/bbl this year and $85/bbl next year, with WTI trading $74/bbl this year, and $82/bbl next year. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Mandatory cuts of 325k b/d, coupled with additional exports of ~ 190k b/d due to additional train and pipeline capacity out of Canada, will drain the 35mm barrels of excess crude oil inventories targeted by the Alberta government in December by 1H19. The WCS – WTI spread narrowed to -$10/bbl from -$50/bbl on these mandatory cuts. By 2H19, we expect Canadian production cuts to average 95k b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum output in China surged 11.3% y/y in December, hitting 3.05mm MT, according to Metal Bulletin. Total output for 2018 was 35.8mm MT, a 7.4% y/y increase. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is holding its recent gains, as markets become more comfortable with the Fed pausing on its rates-normalization policy until 2H19. Agriculture: Underweight. Hot and dry weather in Brazil is threatening crop yields there. The unfavorable weather is expected to affect three-quarters of cotton-growing regions, half of sugar areas, a third of first-crop corn acreage, and a quarter of soy regions. Feature The first signs of fraying in the relationship between the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0 – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which cut production ~ 450k b/d m/m in December, and Russia, which raised output – are emerging, as world leaders meet in Davos. While this casts doubt on the leadership’s carefully cultivated amity, and their shared willingness to abide by the recently agreed output cuts, we do not believe it signals the end of the historic cooperation between these states. Total OPEC output – estimated by production-tracking sources outside the Cartel – stood at 31.6mm b/d in December, a prodigious 751k b/d reduction m/m. We expect continued oil production cuts from core OPEC states and decline-curve losses among non-Gulf OPEC and non-OPEC states within the coalition this year to remove at least 1.2mm b/d from the market, per the quotas agreed by members in December (Chart of the Week, Table 1). On top of this, mandatory Canadian production cuts of 325k b/d in 1H19 and 95k b/d in 2H19 will keep average production cuts at ~ 1.4mm b/d this year. Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0 Will Resume Production CutsTable 1OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Could Exceed Quotas OPEC 2.0’s cuts could persist into 2020, depending on how the U.S. deals with Iranian oil-export sanctions and waivers. Even though KSA and Russia apparently do not share the same sense of urgency re production cuts right now, we believe OPEC 2.0 is committed to draining oil inventories, particularly in the OECD.2 To do so, they’re increasing their operational flexibility – creating physical options, in a manner of speaking – to deal with a range of uncertain outcomes when U.S. waivers on Iranian export sanctions expire in May. Sanctions And OPEC 2.0’s Physical Options Despite the waivers granted to its eight top consumers shortly after U.S. sanctions took effect in November, Iranian exports plunged below 0.5mm b/d in December. As of December, China had substituted almost all of its Iranian imports for alternative barrels.3 This coincided with a production surge by OPEC 2.0 at the behest of the U.S. leading up to the November sanctions deadline of November 4, 2018, which swelled OECD inventories and took them above their rolling 5-year average level (Chart 2). India retained 30% of its May import levels from Iran, while Europe complied at 100% with U.S. sanctions (Table 2). Chart 3 shows the decrease in exports in preparation for the sanctions over the course of 2018. Chart 2OECD Inventory Overhang Will Draw As OPEC 2.0 Cuts and Losses Kick InTable 2Iran Exports By Destination 2018 (‘000 b/d) Whether or not the waivers are extended is anyone’s guess. It is possible waivers will be extended for 90 or 180 days, as a way to counter OPEC 2.0 production cuts, and to offset the lag between filling new pipeline takeaway capacity in the Permian. We expect importers to queue up for Iranian barrels as the market tightens in 1H19. OPEC 2.0’s market monitoring committee will meet in April, followed by a ministerial meeting in May, just ahead of the expiration of the waivers.4 If the U.S. extends them, OPEC 2.0 can extend production cuts after it meets in May; if waivers are not extended, the Cartel can calibrate an appropriate supply response. Either way, we expect OPEC 2.0 will closely align its production schedule with any U.S. action on the sanctions and waivers. This will, we believe, keep change in the overall market’s supply side relatively constant, except for the month or two required to adjust OPEC 2.0 output. Permian Will Drive OPEC 2.0 Policy The larger issue for OPEC 2.0 comes in 4Q19, when ~ 2mm b/d of new pipeline takeaway capacity comes on line in the Permian Basin in West Texas. With additional takeaway capacity due to come on in 2020, the Cartel will have its work cut out for it next year.5 Our models show a slight decrease then flattening in U.S. rig counts over the coming months, as a result of the 4Q18 sell-off in WTI, with a rebound around mid-year (Chart 4). This is because rig count lags oil prices by ~4 months. Chart 4U.S. Shales Continue to Drive Lower 48 Production Growth (ex GOM) We are expecting production in the Big 5 shale basins to average 8.4mm b/d in 2019 and 9.0mm b/d next year, a somewhat higher level than projected by the EIA. Growth in the shales accounts for close to 80% of the 2.3mm b/d of growth in the U.S. over 2019 – 2020. Globally, U.S. shales will continue to provide the bulk of y/y crude oil production growth, accounting for 73% of the 2.5mm b/d of growth we will see over the next two years. Given the near-death experience OPEC 2.0 member states had in the price collapse of 2014 – 2016, we remain convinced OPEC 2.0 member states will once again have to embark on a strategy to backwardate the Brent forward curve as they did in 1H18, to moderate the growth of shale-oil production in the U.S. (Chart 5). Reducing production in the short term will force refiners to draw inventories to supply their units and produce products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and a wide range of petrochemicals. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Needs Backwardated Brent Forwards This will backwardate the Brent forward curve – i.e., prompt-delivery barrels will be more expensive than deferred-delivery barrels. A backwardated forward curve means OPEC 2.0 member states with term contracts indexed to spot prices receive higher prices for their oil than shale producers hedging 2 years forward, all else equal. The trick for OPEC 2.0 will be to keep the Brent forwards backwardated when the Permian takeaway capacity starts to fill, and exports from the U.S. rise in the early 2020s, as deep-water harbors are brought on line. If OPEC 2.0 is successful in keeping the Brent forwards in backwardation, this will, over time, moderate the growth of shale production: Hedgers’ revenue is constrained by lower forward prices.6 We would not be surprised if OPEC 2.0 states started announcing final investment decisions on select investments in spare capacity to augment existing resources, so they are able to quickly bring production to market in the event of unplanned outages that could lift the entire forward curve and incentivize hedging at higher prices. Demand Still Looks Good Oil markets continue to fret over a possible hard landing in China – resulting either from an internal policy error or a ratcheting up of tensions in the Sino – U.S. trade war. This is causing markets to extrapolate into the wider EM space, and take oil-demand projections lower on an almost-daily basis. In a word, markets are overwrought. Chinese policymakers are sensitive to the tight financial conditions that prevailed in 2H18, which, along with the trade war with the U.S., slowed growth and fostered uncertainty among households and firms in China. We agree with our Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy groups that presidents Trump and Xi are pragmatists dealing with restive populations, and want to deliver a deal ahead of U.S. elections and the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021.7 We’ve been expecting the government to deploy a modest amount of stimulus in 1H19, which will begin having an effect on the Chinese economy in the second half of this year. Toward the end of the year and into 2020, we expect the larger stimulus to be deployed in the run-up to put a bid under industrial commodities – oil, base metals and bulks in particular. Overall, we are seeing signs global growth may be reviving over the next few months via an apparent bottoming in our Global LEI Diffusion index (Chart 6). The diffusion index measures the proportion of countries where Leading Economic Indicators (LEIs) are rising relative to those in which LEIs are falling. As is apparent in Chart 6, the diffusion index suggests the downturn in the global LEI has bottomed. The index leads the global LEI by a few months. Chart 6BCA's Global LEI Likely Bottoming In our latest supply-demand balances, we are expecting Chinese oil demand to average 14.3mm b/d this year, and 14.8mm b/d next year. Along with India – expected to consume 5.0mm b/d this year, and 5.2mm b/d next year – these two states account for 36% of the total 54.3mm b/d of EM demand we expect in 2019 and 2020 (Table 3).8 Table 3BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Overall EM demand, the powerhouse of global oil-demand growth led by China and India, is expected to increase 1.1mm b/d this year – slightly more than we estimated last month – and 1.3mm b/d in 2020. DM demand growth, as always, comes in lower, at 390k b/d this year and 280k b/d next year. Oil Supply-Demand Balances Will Tighten We expect global oil production to average 100.9mm b/d this year and 102.9mm b/d in 2020. Consumption is expected to average 101.8mm b/d this year and 103.4mm b/d next year, respectively (Chart 7). This puts OECD inventories back on a downward trajectory, as storage draws resume (Chart 2). Chart 7Global Oil Balances Will Resume Tightening On the back of these estimates, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl this year and $85/bbl next year, with WTI averaging $74/bbl and $82/bbl, respectively. Given our expectation for higher prices in Brent and WTI, we continue to favor being long crude oil exposure. We are long outright WTI spot futures; long July 2019 Brent vs. short July 2020 Brent; long call spreads along the 2019 forward Brent curve, and long the S&P GSCI. Bottom Line: Markets will continue to tighten as a combination of lower supply growth and rising consumption allows OECD commercial oil inventories to resume their downward trajectory. The apparent lack of a shared sense of urgency by OPEC 2.0’s leaders – KSA and Russia – will be resolved, in our view. OPEC 2.0 will once again focus on backwardating the Brent forward curve, in order to gain some control over the rate at which U.S. shale oil production grows. We continue to favor long exposures to the crude oil futures.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy PavelB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      In last week’s Commodity & Energy Strategy we noted these upcoming meetings, and OPEC 2.0’s resolve to drain the market.  Please see “Fed’s Capitulation Will Boost Oil,” published by BCA Research January 17, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Bloomberg reported this week KSA’s and Russia’s oil ministers cancelled a planned meeting in Davos, following al-Falih’s criticism of the pace at which Russian oil production is being cut.  Please see “Saudi, Russian Energy Ministers Cancel Planned Davos Meeting,” published by bloomberg.com January 22, 2019.  KSA cut its crude oil output 450k b/d m/m in December to 10.64mm b/d from 11.09mm b/d in November.  Russia increased crude and liquids production to a record 11.65mm b/d in December, an 80k b/d increase m/m, according to OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report published January 17, 2019.  OPEC expects Russian oil output to average 11.47mm b/d in 1H19, and 11.49mm b/d in 2019.  We are carrying something close to this in our balances (11.51mm b/d) for 2019 and 2020. 3      China imported 10.3mm b/d of crude oil in December after posting a record 10.4mm b/d of imports in November 2018, just as sanctions were kicking in. 4      In our base case estimate, we assume Iran’s crude oil output will average ~ 2.8mm b/d, down ~ 1.0mm b/d from its 3.8mm b/d production level in 1H18, which was prior to the U.S.’s announcement it intended to re-impose export sanctions.  One way or another, we expect OPEC 2.0 to adjust production to compensate for whatever production is lost due to sanctions.  5      Please see “Permian tracker: Production growth slowing as pipeline race still on,” published by S&P Global Platts July 2, 2018, for a discussion of the new takeaway capacity planned for the Permian Basin by midstream companies in 2019 and 2020. 6      The Permian basin is closely tied to hedging activity in the WTI futures market.  It is the only basin for which WTI commercial short open interest is an explanatory variable for rig counts in our modeling.  Commercial short open interest in the WTI futures also Granger causes Permian rig counts. 7      Please see the Special Report entitled “Is China Already Isolated,” published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy January 23, 2019.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. 8      Our EM demand assumptions are driven by the IMF and World Bank EM GDP forecasts. This week the IMF lowered its global growth forecast for 2019 and 2020 by 0.2 and 0.1 percentage points to 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively. This is only slightly down from our lower estimate last month, but still above the World Bank’s expectation. We are using these variables directly in regressions to estimate prices and EM consumption. This replaced our earlier income-elasticity models used to calculate EM oil consumption.  We proxy EM demand with non-OECD oil consumption. We discuss this in “Fed’s Capitulation Will Boost Oil,” published by BCA Research January 17, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 4q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Summary Of Trades Closed In 2018

Special Report

Highlights MLPs’ one-of-a-kind legal structure offers investors gaudy distribution yields and tax-saving advantages. They boomed alongside fracking, enjoying spectacular growth between 2009 and 2014. MLPs used to exhibit a high correlation with utilities, but since the 2014 oil bust, they have performed in step with the rest of the energy sector. Improved valuations have recently put MLPs back on investors’ radar. However, structural impediments and heterogeneous balance-sheet quality argue against broad index exposure. Investors would be better served by concentrating their efforts on picking individual stocks. Opportunities reside within smaller-cap MLPs and MLPs exposed to the Permian basin. Feature Dear Client, In place of a Weekly Report written from South Africa, where I have been meeting with clients, we are sending you this Special Report on Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), written by my colleague Jennifer Lacombe.* Like mortgage REITs, which U.S. Investment Strategy followed from 2011 to 2013, MLPs are a yield play that investors might find to be an appealing bond alternative. We trust that you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy * This report was initially published by our Global ETF Strategy service on November 15, 2018. It has been lightly revised to update charts and reflect subsequent market developments.   Q: What are MLPs and their tax benefits? Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) are publicly listed partnerships involving two classes of partners. A General Partner (GP) controls the assets and manages the daily operations of the business. Limited Partners (LPs) - and public investors - provide the capital and collect cash flow distributions. Unlike corporations, which pay corporate taxes on their income, MLPs have the ability to pass through all of their income to their owners, along with deductible items like amortization and depreciation expenses. MLP investors, in turn pay income tax at their own individual marginal tax rates. MLP owners are thereby shielded from the double taxation that would otherwise apply when the corporation paid taxes on its income, and the shareholder paid taxes on the dividend distributed from the corporation’s income. Q: Why are they predominantly found in the energy sector? Concerns about the potential loss of federal income led Congress to limit MLP eligibility to companies in the energy and real estate sectors when it overhauled the tax code in 1986. Since the 1986 Act took effect, MLPs have had to generate at least 90% of “qualifying income” from their energy or real estate operations. Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code defines “qualifying income” as income derived from exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, transportation or marketing of any mineral or natural resource, as well as certain passive-type income including interest, dividends and real property rents. Over the years, the shale revolution and the rise of new technologies, such as horizontal drilling and fracturing, created elevated demand for energy infrastructure. Today, MLPs almost exclusively operate in the natural resources space (Chart 1). Q: Why did MLPs outperform assets of all stripes following the Great Financial Crisis? A combination of several factors led MLPs to record stunning returns between 2009 and 2014. The Alerian MLP Total Return Index grew by a whopping annualized rate of 38% during that time. Decreasing interest-rate environments are typically supportive of yield plays’ outperformance. Powered by high single-digit to double-digit distribution yields, MLPs led Treasuries, utilities stocks, high-yield bonds and even the S&P 500 over that six-year stretch (Chart 2). With the shale revolution in full swing, sustaining strong demand for pipelines and other energy infrastructure, investors’ funds flowed abundantly into the energy MLP space (Chart 3). Prices - a mathematical function of multiples and earnings - soared as money kept pouring in and P/E tripled in the first 7 years following the Great Financial Crisis (Chart 4). Chart 2Decreasing Interest Rates Are A Boon To Yield Plays   Chart 3Horizontal Drilling Attracted A Lot Of Money...   Chart 4...Sending Multiples Soaring Q: Why has such outperformance not attracted more institutional and foreign investors? Because of U.S. tax rules, MLPs are relatively unattractive to tax-exempt investors and non-U.S. investors. The tax rule for U.S. tax-exempt investors – institutional investors such as pension funds, university endowments, charities and IRAs – treats MLP earnings as unrelated business taxable income (UBTI), making them subject to income tax. Moreover, to retain their own pass-through status and tax shield, open-ended funds – like many mutual funds and ETFs – can allocate no more than 25% of their total holdings to MLPs, and no more than 10% to a single MLP. U.S. tax rules consider foreign owners of MLPs to be engaged in a business in the U.S., and require them to file and pay U.S. federal income tax. Therefore, only U.S. individuals can truly reap the full benefits of the MLP structure. Though they easily access these securities on public exchanges, the tax shield comes at the price of convoluted accounting treatments. Unitholders receive Schedule K-1 tax forms that can be complicated enough to result in significant accounting costs. They are most suited for high net worth investors’ portfolios, although smaller investors who are not daunted by accounting burdens have also embraced the vehicle. Q: Why are MLP yields so high? The typical MLP partnership agreement incentivizes a GP to distribute all available cash to unitholders, after retaining reserves for business operations and liabilities. Not only does the corporate tax exemption increase the amount of available cash, but the General Partner also has wide discretion over the amount of retained reserves. Because distributions are the main determinant of any yield play’s performance, GPs have historically emphasized distribution yields – sometimes at the expense of retained earnings. The more assurance investors have that they will receive reliable cash flows, the better the MLP will perform in the market. Q: Do MLPs trade like other bond proxies? The distribution model worked beautifully during the shale-oil boom. Low retained reserves never became an issue because MLPs collected steady revenues – a function of prices and volumes of oil or gas processed - and could fund distributions in excess of operating cash flow by issuing new debt or equity. Investors were so eager to invest that GPs found themselves at the controls of a positive feedback loop in which the more cash they distributed to investors, the more capital flowed in to fund even higher distributions. The infrastructure-heavy business model and high payout ratios echoed companies in the utilities sector and, indeed, MLP returns correlated strongly with utilities stocks. However, the discretion embedded in the MLP model reached a breaking point soon after the oil bust arrived in mid-2014. The price-led decline in revenues necessitated distribution cuts and severed the correlation with utilities (Chart 5). Chart 5A Utilities Proxy No More... Q: Were MLPs immune to energy price swings before the 2014 bust? Conventional investor wisdom maintains that MLPs are immune to commodity price swings in the aggregate because of their utility-like characteristics and because long-term contracts lock in selling prices. Actually, however, MLP revenue structures differ greatly from one line of activity to the other. Natural gas pipeline transportation accounts for a quarter of aggregate MLP activity. Prices per unit of volume transited are contractually locked in 5-to-20-year contracts, providing immunity to spot price moves during the entire duration of the contract. Storage (natural gas not immediately needed, or crude oil waiting to be refined) accounts for another quarter of aggregate activity and is subject to a similar pricing model as natural gas pipelines. Only the contract lengths are much shorter, ranging from 1 to 5 years. Petroleum pipeline transportation accounts for 44% of MLP activity. Contracts locking prices over the long run are not typical in this line of business. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) also imposes a yearly price increase amounting to the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, plus a 1.23% adjustment. MLP revenue structures are therefore varied, and only natural gas pipeline transportation’s revenue streams - a quarter of the sector – are truly immune to fluctuations in spot prices, thanks to their long-term contracts. It follows that MLPs in aggregate are indeed correlated with energy price swings and trade closely in line with energy stocks (Chart 6). Chart 6...An Energy Proxy Instead Up until recently, their correlation to spot oil prices in particular was even more striking. However, they failed to match the 2017-18 recovery in oil markets (Chart 8). Because cash flow reliability is a key driver of the investment decision for any yield play, distribution cuts are bound to make any MLP investors skittish, and oil prices may have to enter an extended bull market before they overcome their fears (Chart 7).   Chart 8...Kept MLPs Depressed In Spite Of Oil Price Recovery Q: So, how cheap are they now? Since its peak in the summer of 2014, the Alerian MLP Total Return index has declined by 38% and is now flirting with the two-standard-deviation-cheap zone (Chart 9). Their profit margins have also strongly recovered (Chart 10). Chart 9Cheap Valuations...   Chart 10...Amid Recovering Profit Margins Because of the infrastructure-heavy nature of MLPs, traditional valuation metrics such as price-to-earnings can be misleading. High depreciation charges have significant impacts on earnings. Cash flows are an appropriate measure as they best inform a firm’s ability to maintain its distributions. Q: Great! So which ETF should I buy? The Alerian MLP index’s low multiples and recovering profit margins are not sufficient endorsements in themselves. An index is not an investible vehicle and even the best of index-tracking instruments can only imperfectly replicate an exposure. In the MLP space in particular, structural impediments reduce the attractiveness of exchange-traded products. Because ETFs are subject to the previously mentioned 25% cap on MLP holdings, many supplement their portfolios with regular pipeline or infrastructure stocks. Although the overall fund provides a decent exposure to the energy infrastructure sector, the diluted MLP exposure does not offer distribution yields anywhere comparable to the yields direct MLP owners receive. An alternative is to opt for a C-corporation structure. The flagship Alerian MLP ETF (ticker: AMLP) falls into this category. This structure allows for an undiluted exposure to MLPs, all the while relieving an ETF shareholder from having to deal with the complicated and costly accounting treatment that direct MLP ownership involves. However, C-corporations are subject to corporate income taxes, which cancels out the tax benefits of investing in MLPs in the first place. The resulting cumulative tax drag on returns can become substantial over time (Chart 11). Investors seek MLP exposure for the high distribution yields made possible by tax advantages. A fund will indeed provide diversification and accounting relief, but at the cost of surrendering either some yield or some of the tax advantages. This is not to mention that the bulk of the exchange-traded vehicles are Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs). Unlike ETFs, they do not own any underlying shares or units of securities. Instead, they are instruments issued and backed by financial institutions. Even in the case of well-established lending institutions, we shy away from these types of products, as we are not keen on taking unnecessary counterparty risk. Many MLP exchange-traded products are also illiquid, or have not gathered a significant mass of assets under management. The expense ratios are also high in the MLP exchange-traded product space, a result of the complicated accounting treatment of K-1 forms that are borne by the ETF or ETN sponsor (Table 1). Table 1ETNs Constitute Two Thirds Of A Relatively Illiquid Universe Q: What about the flagship Alerian MLP ETF? It’s clearly well-established. The flagship Alerian MLP ETF (ticker: AMLP) tracks the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index and has gathered close to USD 10bn of AUM under its belt since its inception in 2010. Amid all the above limitations, it is the only viable option. However, it comes with its own set of yellow flags. Because it tracks a market-capitalization weighted index, half of the fund’s assets under management are concentrated in its five largest holdings. As we go to press, these are Magellan Midstream Partners LP, Enterprise Products Partners LP, Energy Transfer LP, Plains All American Pipeline LP and MPLX LP. These companies’ distribution yields have recovered since the 2014 oil crash, but the question of the sustainability of these cash flows is of utmost importance. Although retained earnings are at all-time highs, so is the level of debt (Chart 12). The fact that 50% of the fund is concentrated in these top 5 constituents dilutes the diversification benefits of index investing. Chart 12Distributions Are Financed By Cash Flows...And A Lot Of Debt Q: So, what are my options? The MLP universe is heterogeneous. Wide disparity in valuation (Chart 13), debt levels (Chart 14) and performance (Chart 15) indicate that opportunities reside further down the capitalization scale.     Because an index is a weighted average, a heterogeneous market does not warrant broad-index exposure, especially when the smallest constituents offer the best opportunities. Amalgamation is always a process of blending wheat and chaff together, but in this case it disproportionately favors the chaff. Stock picking thrives against this backdrop. Our expertise does not extend to evaluating individual energy MLPs. We leave the honor of recommending the best-in-class opportunities to the professional bottom-up analysts, backed by thorough and diligent review of company fundamentals and management capabilities. Where we can add value is in the analysis of economic cycles and secular macroeconomic forces. Despite the sharp fall in prices over the past two months, brought about by the surprise eleventh-hour waivers granted to Iranian oil importers, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service believes the global oil market remains tight. Our strategists expect that oil prices will recover in 2019 as OPEC producers, Russia, and Canada reduce output by an aggregate 1.4 million barrels a day, and the Iran-driven supply glut is worked off. While a 2019 oil spike would be a tailwind to petroleum pipeline MLPs, surging production in U.S. shales – led by the Permian Basin in West Texas – means the new pipeline capacity being built to accommodate higher output will find a ready market. Regardless of what happens with prices, our energy strategists foresee a localized surge in demand for transportation and other midstream services in the U.S. shales. In line with IEA projections, they expect U.S. crude oil production to grow by approximately 1.3 million barrels a day in 2019 once the constraints imposed by a lack of pipeline capacity in the fecund Permian basin ease. MLPs positioned to resolve the transportation bottleneck should be able to count on a bright near-term future. “Location, location, location” applies to pipelines as well as real estate, and reinforces a bottom-up focus when selecting MLPs.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com

The Fed’s near-term capitulation on its rates-normalization policy highlighted by our fixed-income desks will provide a tailwind for EM oil demand this year by weakening the USD. This will reduce refined-products’ costs in local-currency terms ex-U.S., as it buoys EM growth prospects.1 If, as we expect, Chinese policymakers also deploy modest stimulus, global oil demand still will remain on track to grow 1.4mm b/d this year, per our forecast. We are mindful of potential upside surprises on the demand side, particularly, if, as we noted in our last balances update, the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021 provokes policymakers to deploy large-scale stimulus in 2H19 or 2020.2 The odds of this occurring before 2H19 are low, and we are not yet raising our demand estimates. A partial defusing of the Sino – U.S. trade war is possible, as the 90-day negotiating window agreed at the December G20 meeting starts to close next month. This could trigger a short-term rally in commodities, but, absent durable agreements on the technology front, this potential thawing will be transitory. Highlights Energy: Overweight. China’s crude oil imports surged 30% y/y in December 2018, which helped lift total 2018 imports by 10% vs. 2017 levels. This partly was the result of independent refiners scrambling to use up 2018 import quotas at year-end, so that they could retain those levels this year, according to S&P Global’s Platts.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s copper ore and concentrate imports were down 11.5% y/y in December – the largest y/y decline since May 2017 – in line with slowing growth there. Precious Metals: Neutral. We expect gold to continue to rally over the next 3 – 6 months on the back of a weaker USD in 1H19, as the Fed likely pauses on its rate-hiking schedule. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains likely will get a short-term price lift as the Fed dials back its rates-normalization policy. Feature For the moment, the Fed’s apparent capitulation on its rates-normalization policy reduces the risk the U.S. central bank will err on the side of being overly aggressive, which would have thrown a spanner into EM growth prospects this year. An easier Fed monetary policy will buoy EM GDP and weaken the USD over the short term, which will, support oil prices via stronger demand (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekEM GDP Growth On Track, Keeping Oil Demand Growth On Track On the supply side, we remain convinced OPEC 2.0 is resolved to drain the global inventory overhang as quickly as possible. This unintended inventory accumulation resulted from OPEC 2.0’s production surge and the granting of waivers on U.S. export sanctions against Iran by the Trump administration in November (Chart 2). This conviction was strengthened earlier this week, following the announcement of a proposed earlier-than-expected meeting of the coalition’s market monitoring committee in Baku, Azerbaijan, in mid-March to assess global supply and demand conditions. This could be followed by a full OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna in mid-April, following up on their December meeting in Vienna, according to S&P Global Platts.4 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Is Resolved To Drain Inventory Overhang Pieces Of The Price Puzzle Falling Into Place The Fed is signaling it has put its rates normalization policy on hold, given indications global economic growth is slowing in a manner similar to what occurred in 2014 – 15. Then, the U.S. central bank was attempting to escape the zero lower bound of its monetary policy, following the end of its QE program. In the event, the Fed only raised rates once in December 2015, as the slowdown in growth stayed its hand. Our colleagues at BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy note, “the downturn in cyclical growth indicators like manufacturing purchasing managers indices (PMI) and the global leading economic indicator (LEI) … reached levels last seen after that 2014/15 episode” as 2019 unfolded (Chart 3).5 The slowdown in global growth could stabilize, as the LEI diffusion index suggests, but the Fed, at least for now, appears to be comfortable waiting for clear evidence this is the case. Chart 3Global Growth Slowdown Provokes Fed Restraint In and of itself, the Fed’s near-term capitulation to the market will not be sufficient to reverse the “darkening prospects” foreseen by the World Bank in its most recent forecast, but it will be supportive of oil prices.6 On the back of our expectation the Fed will take a break from its rate-normalization, we are expecting a weaker USD over the short term, which will support oil demand and EM GDP growth. All else equal, this will create a tailwind for oil prices, given EM is the main driver of demand growth (Chart 4). Chart 4USD Near-Term Trajectory Will Support Oil Prices The Chart of the Week introduces a new model we developed to understand the effect of EM GDP growth on oil prices. The level of EM demand is mean reverting to a linear trend, and anchors other variables – oil prices and FX rates, for example – that oscillate randomly with the arrival of new information to the market. Our modeling indicates Brent and WTI prices can be expected to increase (decrease) 94bp and 73bp for every 1 percent increase (decrease) in EM GDP, assuming the broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) for the USD remains unchanged. A 1 percent decrease (increase) in the USD TWIB (holding EM GDP constant) translates into an increase (decrease) in Brent and WTI prices of ~ 4.0% and 3.6%, respectively. We have found EM GDP levels to be as useful an explanatory variable for Brent and WTI prices as non-OECD oil consumption, our proxy for EM demand. Indeed, it is perhaps even cleaner, since using it directly in our models does not require us to estimate an income elasticity of demand for EM economies, in order to forecast prices.7 We are not raising our expectation for demand growth on the back of the Fed’s apparent moderation in its rates policy. We are keeping our 2019 demand growth estimate at 1.4mm b/d, with 1.0mm b/d of that coming from EM and the remainder from DM. Should the Fed signal a further pause in its rates-normalization policy – extending perhaps deep into 2H19 – we would be inclined to raise our demand-growth estimates. Additional Stimulus Coming From China? China is not the be-all and end-all of EM growth. All the same, next to the U.S., it is the second-largest consumer in the world, accounting for ~ 14% of the 103.75mm b/d of global demand we expect this year. Next in line is India, which accounts for ~ 5% of global demand. The news coming out of China at the moment is confusing. While the Xi administration prosecutes its “Three Tough Battles” – i.e., deleveraging, pollution and poverty – it also is pulling policy levers to counter the economic damage inflicted by its trade war with the U.S.8 Government policymakers are signaling fiscal and monetary stimulus will be forthcoming via tax cuts and bond issuance this year, to counter these headwinds.9 However, we do not expect a massive deployment of stimulus. More than likely, the big stimulative measures arrive in 2H19 or next year. The key target dates for policymakers are further in the future, and are focused on the upcoming 100th Anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021. By 2020, the Xi administration is targeting a doubling of real GDP vs. 2010 levels, and a doubling of rural and urban incomes (Chart 5). Chart 5China Keeping Powder Dry For 2021 "Centenary Goal" So the real stimulus out of China likely comes later this year or next year. As our Geopolitical Strategy service notes: “If China launches a large-scale stimulus now, peak output will occur in 2020 and the economy will be decelerating into 2021. This would be bad timing for the centenary. It would make more sense for China to save some dry powder for 2019 or 2020 to ensure a positive economic backdrop in 2021.” There is, as we noted in our last balances update, a low-probability chance stimulus could surprise to the upside if growth – particularly employment – falls precipitously. For now, we are comfortable with our House view that the more extensive fiscal and monetary stimulus will be saved for later this year or next in the run-up to the Communist Party’s anniversary.10 Bottom Line: The Fed appears to have capitulated to markets in the short term, and likely will hold off on another rate hike in 1H19. All else equal, this will weaken the USD and buoy EM GDP over the short term. Together, these effects will keep oil demand on track to growth 1.4mm b/d, per our forecast. Markets are reacting to news of fiscal and monetary stimulus coming out of China. We have been expecting modest stimulus to be deployed this year, most likely in 2H19. We continue to expect a larger package of fiscal and monetary stimulus later in the year and next year in the run-up to the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see “Enough With the Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis,” published January 15, 2019, by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy. It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. See also “Buy Corporate Credit,” published by BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy January 15, 2019. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see “Oil Volatility Will Persist; 2019 Brent Forecast Lowered to $80/bbl,” published January 3, 2019, by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “China’s 2018 crude oil imports rise 10% to 9.28 mil b/d,” published by S&P Global Platts January 14, 2019, online. 4      OPEC 2.0 ministerial meetings usually are held in May/June and again November/December. Please see “OPEC eyes mid-March monitoring committee meeting, mid-April full ministerial,” published by S&P Platts Global January 14, 2019. The cartel also will meet in early February to put the finishing touches on a charter formalizing the coalition. We will be delving deeper into the supply side next week, when we update our balances. 5      Please see footnote 1 above. 6      The World Bank’s most recent forecast can be found in its Global Economic Prospects, published January 8, 2019. The lead article is entitled “Darkening Skies.” 7      We use forecasts of EM GDP and GDP growth published by the World Bank and IMF in our modeling. This is useful for us for a number of reasons, particularly since it is calculated externally by well-regarded global institutions tasked with this function. Like other estimates and projections – e.g., the EIA’s, IEA’s and OPEC’s supply/demand estimates – we can take a view on these data relative to our House view or our own Commodity & Energy Strategy view. NB: Because these are cointegrated systems, regressions in levels is appropriate. 8      This campaign is discussed in depth in “China Sticks To The ‘Three Battles’,” published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy October 24, 2018. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9      Please see “China signals more stimulus as economic slowdown deepens,” published by uk.reuters.com January 15, 2019. 10     Please see footnote 2 above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018