Equities

Our thesis of a playable rally in energy services stocks (see our Weekly Report of 11 October, 2016 for more details) was based on three key factors: troughing rig counts, cresting global oil inventories and falling production growth. Clearly, our upgrade was early, but a review of leading profit indicators continues to signal that value creation abounds. The global rig count hit its nadir in 2015, and has staged its best recovery since 2009 (second panel), with a greater than 50% increase in oil-directed rig count since November, 2016. Importantly, the growth in total OECD oil inventories is moderating quickly with recent large storage draws. The OPEC 2.0 agreement to extend current production cuts through March 2018 means that non-OPEC production growth will need to accelerate to satisfy climbing global demand. Ongoing inventory rebalancing augurs well for even more robust oil field services demand. The key missing ingredient has been pricing power. The prior cycle's excesses created a large overhang. However, our pricing power proxy is finally exiting the deflation zone, and further gains loom later this year as utilization rates rise with rig counts. This should unlock the industry's substantial operating leverage. We are doubling down on our high-conviction overweight in the S&P energy services index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE- BHI, CAM, DO, ESV, FTI, HAL, HP, NOV, SLB, RIG.

Special Report

Dear clients, Instead of our usual Weekly Report, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Marko Papic and Matt Gertken with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service. In this piece, Marko and Matt argue that impeachment is a political, not legal, process in the U.S. political system. If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in 2018, Trump will almost certainly be impeached. Otherwise, it would require “smoking gun” evidence of criminal behavior to turn House Republicans against the president. For now, financial markets will largely ignore impeachment risks and focus on tax cuts. Midterm elections will accelerate their tax-cutting attempts. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Highlights Impeachment is a political, not legal, process; The House of Representatives decides what is impeachable; The Senate is judge, jury, and executioner; Democrats will impeach Trump if they take the House in 2018; Republicans will not impeach, unless there is a "smoking gun." Markets will look through impeachment risks to tax cuts, for now. Feature "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office." - Representative Gerald Ford, April 15, 1970 Chart 1Trump's Support Abysmal Since the election of President Donald Trump we have been inundated with client questions regarding the probability of impeachment. We have hesitated to put our thoughts on paper due to the fact that the House of Representatives plays a crucial role in impeachment proceedings and that the Republican Party enjoys a comfortable 21-seat majority in that legislative chamber. Since the election, however, President Trump has continued to confound supporters and critics alike with controversial moves. His firing of FBI Director James Comey, reportedly without consulting any of his political advisors, is the latest in a string of unorthodox decisions. Leaks and accusations are swirling in the aftermath. In addition, his overall approval numbers continue to languish at historically abysmal levels for the start of a presidency (Chart 1), which portends a tough midterm election for the Republican Party in the House of Representatives (Chart 2). The American political context remains as polarized as ever, with the quantitative measure of ideological polarization at a record high (Chart 3).1 This dataset treats the North-South division of the Civil War differently from ideological polarization; the current level of ideological polarization is the highest since the post-Civil War period. In this environment, we suspect that, were the Democrats to win a majority in the House of Representatives, the probability of impeachment would be very high. Trump would have to hope that Republican Senators have his back, which at that point is by no means a foregone conclusion.2 Chart 2Republicans Heading For Huge Defeat In 2018 Chart 3Record-High Polarization In U.S. Politics According To Key Quantitative Measure We will not get into the "merits" of a case against President Trump. It suffices to repeat Gerald Ford's quip from the top of this report: "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be." Given the vitriol and polarization of American politics at the moment, we therefore suspect that impeachment will almost certainly occur if the House falls to the Democrats. Otherwise, for the Republicans to impeach one of their own, even one as loosely allied with the GOP as Trump, would require "smoking gun" evidence of the president's direct hand in a grave scandal. A Guide To Impeaching The President Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "the President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This is a low bar for impeachment, not a high bar. "Misdemeanors" is a slippery term and the House of Representatives determines what it means. There is no appeals process and no interjection by the Supreme Court. The most important point about the U.S. impeachment process is that the "House decides." Decides what? Everything. Hence impeachment proceedings can be started by the House for whatever crime the legislative body deems worthy of impeachment proceedings. Once the House approves the "articles of impeachment," the Senate must hold a trial and vote on whether to remove the president from office by a two-thirds majority (67 votes). Historically the first presidential impeachment was that of President Andrew Johnson, who assumed the presidency following the assassination of President Lincoln in 1865. Johnson was a Democrat who ran with Republican President Lincoln on a National Union ticket. Johnson was impeached on the grounds that he violated the Tenure of Office Act (which is no longer applicable) by firing his Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. But the real political backdrop to the proceeding was that Johnson, a Southern Democrat, favored quick restoration of state rights to the rebellious South and was firing members of the Lincoln cabinet whom he deemed too abolitionist. Johnson was ultimately acquitted in the Senate by just one vote. President Bill Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached, with the GOP-held House of Representatives largely voting along party lines on the two articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate failed to get the 67 votes required for conviction, with Republican Senators from the Northeast (Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont) and Pennsylvania siding with the Democrats. Both the Johnson and Clinton impeachment were more about the deeply polarized environment in Washington and the country at large than about actual crimes. Only the impeachment proceedings initiated against President Nixon provide a clear example of high crimes and misdemeanors. However, President Nixon was never actually impeached as he resigned before the House of Representatives could consider the articles of impeachment against him. He had been warned he would not survive, given the "smoking gun" evidence of his direct personal involvement in the Watergate break-in scandal, and he did not want to be the first president to be removed from office. Thus, as far as a U.S. president is concerned, the House of Representatives is the accuser and the Senate is the judge, jury, and the executioner. Because the bar for adopting impeachment articles in the House is so low (simple majority), we are almost certain that a Democratic-held House would find a reason to impeach President Trump. Whether the Senate then removes President Trump would depend on the severity of his alleged crimes, which we have no way to assess at this point in time. One crucial point to note - particularly in the case of President Trump - is that the House of Representatives can vote on articles of impeachment that deal with alleged crimes committed prior to coming to the office. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the House decides and there is no appeals process.3 Therefore, if the House decides that the president can be impeached for alleged crimes and misdemeanors committed before or outside of his office, then he can. Bottom Line: Impeachment is an intrinsically political process. As such, the legal merits of the accusations matter less than the political context in which the House considers impeaching the president. Given the historically high level of political polarization in the U.S., the extremely low levels of Trump's popularity, and his unorthodox policymaking process, we expect that there is a high probability that a Democratic-held House would impeach President Trump on some grounds. Whether President Trump would then be removed from office would depend on whether the accusations of the House of Representatives have sufficient merit - both in terms of the weight of the crimes and the political interests - for Senate Republicans to abandon the president. A Guide To A Constitutional Coup D'état Intriguingly, the U.S. Constitution provides for a procedure by which the president can be removed from office even without an impeachment process.4 The 25th Amendment, passed following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, gives the Vice President and the Cabinet the authority to remove the president from power. Section 4 of Article 25 states: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [Cabinet members] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. If the above paragraph sounds like a constitutional coup d'état, that is because it is one. If the president challenges the argument that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the issue goes before Congress, where it would require two-thirds of each legislative body to vote to remove the president. As such, the 25th Amendment has a higher hurdle than the impeachment process in Congress, but it could be a quicker way to remove a sitting president who is incapacitated for health reasons, becomes mentally unstable, or broadly-speaking loses touch with reality.5 Chart 4GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump In the case of President Trump, this process would require a complete loss of confidence in his leadership by Vice President Pence, the Cabinet, and Republican members of Congress. Given Trump's high level of support with Republican voters (Chart 4), we are nowhere close to the risk of the 25th Amendment being invoked. However, if Trump's popularity declines precipitously, his own Cabinet has the ability to eject him from the Oval Office without any accusation of legal misconduct. Presumably Trump would have taken concrete action that proved plainly detrimental to the national interest in order to set this process in motion - at which point any number of earlier erratic behaviors or statements could come into play against him. Bottom Line: Impeachment is not the only process by which a sitting U.S. president can be removed from office. Article 25 of the Constitution, Section 4, offers a constitutional coup d'état process that avoids the messiness of a Senate trial. However, the legislative hurdle for this procedure is even higher than the impeachment process. As such, it would require Donald Trump to completely lose the faith of Republican voters and legislators. Signposts To Impeachment We do not intend to prosecute claims against President Trump in this or any future report. First, we are not legal experts. Second, we do not have access to full information. Third, as we pointed out above, the impeachment process is a highly political process. As such, key triggers are political, and only minimally criminal. First, either Democrats win the House of Representatives, or GOP voters turn against President Trump in large numbers. As such, investors should keep close attention to Chart 4 data, at least until the midterm elections. Second, President Trump has to lose the confidence of Republican legislators, particularly in the Senate. Nonetheless, there are several other, more specific, issues we will watch carefully. Special investigation: In both Nixon's and Clinton's scandals, a special committee investigated executive wrongdoing. In Nixon's case this was the Senate Watergate Committee; in Clinton's case it was the special investigation led by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Starr's investigation initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Why it matters today? The precedent of special investigations and committees is strong in American politics. It will be difficult for President Trump to deny the public a special investigation of his campaign team's dealing with Russian officials. The Clinton example illustrates the danger of such investigations: what began as an investigation into a suspicious real estate deal concluded with perjury accusations on a completely unrelated matter. In other words, once independent investigators start digging, there is no telling what skeletons they will exhume. Subpoenas: Congressional committees investigating impropriety can subpoena individuals or physical evidence to appear before the committee. Such subpoenas can reveal potential crimes and misconduct only tangentially related to the original investigation. The Watergate Tapes were critical to the eventual resignation of President Nixon. The White House challenged their subpoena, but the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs. Nixon, July 1974, that executive privilege did not allow President Nixon to deny the release of the tapes. Why it matters today? Currently, the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and has issued a subpoena to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for documents regarding his interactions with Russian officials. President Trump will not be able to claim ignorance if sufficient members of his inner circle are found to have colluded with a foreign power. It didn't work for President Nixon. Furthermore, it should worry President Trump that three Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are either former GOP primary opponents (Marco Rubio of Florida) or vocal critics (Susan Collins of Maine and Tom Cotton of Arkansas). Law enforcement: The President, as the head of the executive and as the attorney general's direct superior, is in charge of all U.S. federal law enforcement agencies. He therefore has the constitutional prerogative of summarily firing various members of the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies. However, this does not mean that those same agencies will stay loyal and not collude with the opposition or the press to undermine the president's authority. In the Watergate scandal, Associate Director of the FBI, Mark Felt, was the "Deep Throat" source that fed Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein the information that ultimately led to President Nixon to resign. Felt's actions were by no means selfless. Why it matters today? President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey under unorthodox circumstances. While the official reason is that Comey mishandled the investigation into Secretary Hillary Clinton's email scandal, sources close to Comey (read: Comey) argue that it was because the FBI Director wanted to expand the agency's investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. Trump also seems to have feared that Comey was after him personally. Given the penchant of U.S. intelligence agencies to leak embarrassing information on members of Trump's inner circle - e.g. the transcript of Flynn's conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak - we assume that members of the FBI who remain loyal to Comey could leak further information. In other words, President Trump has from the beginning of his presidency made powerful enemies in U.S. law enforcement agencies. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing on any front, we suspect that it will leak. Bottom Line: Once congressional committees begin investigating, subpoenaing documents and witnesses, there is no telling where or how the process ends. What begins as an investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election can end up somewhere completely different. Given that the Senate Intelligence Committee is already holding investigations and that President Trump has made powerful enemies in the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence community, we have to accept that there is a high probability that the investigations into impropriety expand. Whether they expand to the point of causing the impeachment preconditions listed above is anyone's guess at this point. Investment Implications Of Impeachment Given the small number of cases, it is difficult to rely on historical precedents to make broader conclusions on how the market would react to impeachment or severe political scandal in the White House. Chart 5 looks at market performance during the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974), and President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999). Of the three, Teapot Dome did not result in impeachment proceedings, but only because President Harding died in office in 1923 - and neither his death nor the unfolding scandal prevented the stock market from "roaring" through the mid-1920s.6 Chart 5AEquities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 5BVolatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals The market reaction to the Lewinsky Affair was also highly muted. Like Teapot Dome, it occurred amidst one of the greatest bull markets in U.S. history. Of course, U.S. equities did fall 19% mid-way through the Clinton impeachment process. Watergate appears to have affected both equity markets and volatility. The S&P 500 fell 39% from February 7, 1973 - when the Senate established a select committee to investigate Watergate - to Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. That said, the scandal alone did not cause the correction, but rather it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, and a massive insurance fraud. Writing in the summer of 1973, BCA's own Tony Boeckh remarked that a speculative, "Watergate-inspired," attack on the dollar further contributed to a short-term capital outflow, but that the macro-fundamentals of the economy would ultimately persevere: Particularly in recent weeks, the Watergate affair has had an effect on the market much like a slow presidential assassination might... The Watergate affair, while primarily of psychological importance in the short run, clearly has had the effect of sustaining the weakness in the dollar and adding greatly to an already deeply negative psychology. If one can see these basic factors as temporary, then the whipsaw possibilities are obvious.7 Tony's analysis ultimately proved prescient, with stocks rallying briskly from Nixon's resignation in August 1974 and throughout 1975. What would happen this time around? If scandals surrounding Russian interference in the election grow over the next several months, the market may begin to price in a loss of the House in November 2018, which would obviously stall Trump's populist, "pump-priming" agenda. We think that the market could fret if the scandals worsen for three main reasons: Legislative agenda - An embattled White House would be a distracted White House. It is difficult to see how the White House could provide leadership on health and tax reform. The seriousness of the alleged crimes - President Clinton was impeached for having an extra-marital workplace affair and lying about it. If the Russian electoral interference charges stick, the Trump administration would be essentially accused of treason. The White House lashes out - An embattled President Trump could shift gears from domestic to foreign policy, as he faces few constitutional constraints on the latter. President Clinton faced off against Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic mid-way through the impeachment process, finally ordering NATO air strikes on the heels of his acquittal by the Senate. President Trump could shift his focus on North Korea, Iran, or "unfair" trading partners. Despite good reasons to worry that impeachment will become a possibility after the midterm elections, we think the market will continue to focus on the prospects for tax reform. And on that front, it is highly unlikely that a growing scandal in the Trump administration would matter. Provided, of course, that there is not some material evidence that accelerates the crisis and forces even a GOP-controlled House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reform. We would therefore largely look through the risks of impeachment - as our predecessors at BCA did amidst the Watergate scandal - at least until the months before November 6, 2018 (midterm election date). In particular, there are three main reasons to fade any near-term equity market volatility: President Mike Pence - Under both impeachment rules and the 25th amendment, the U.S. president would be replaced by the Vice President. Vice President Pence's approval rating largely tracks that of President Trump and is in the 40% area, but investors should note that he once stood at nearly 60% during the campaign (Chart 6). As such, the worst case scenario for investors in case of a post-midterm impeachment is that Trump is replaced by Mike Pence, an orthodox Republican, and that Pence has to deal with a split Congress. It would grind reforms to a halt, but at least tax reform would be out of the way by then. Given the market's focus on tax reforms, it is difficult to see why this tail-risk would have to be priced in over the next 12 months. Midterm Election - If the Trump White House becomes engulfed in scandal, Republicans in the House will fear losing their majority. Yes, the partisan drawing of electoral districts - "gerrymandering" - has reduced the number of competitive U.S. House districts from 164 in 1998 to 56 in 2016 (Chart 7). But the Democrats managed to win the House in 2006 and the Republicans managed to take it back in 2010, so there is no reason the roles cannot be reversed yet again. However, this is not a risk, it is an opportunity. It will motivate the GOP in Congress to lock in tax and healthcare reform well ahead of the midterm elections. Given that they plan to use a FY2018 budget reconciliation bill to pass tax reform, it means that passage by April or May of 2018 is highly likely. Then they can campaign all summer on how they kept their promises to give tax relief and create jobs. Counter Revolution - With Trump embattled and facing impeachment, the market may give a sigh of relief because it would mark a clear defeat of populist politics in the U.S. Much as with electoral outcomes in Europe, investors may want to cheer the defeat of an unorthodox, anti-establishment movement in the U.S.8 Chart 6Could Be Worse Than Pence Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces ##br##Competitive House Seats As such, we would push against any "Russia scandal"-induced volatility in the U.S. markets, at least until the midterm election. We think the market would digest the volatility and realize that Trump's impeachment, were it to occur post-midterm elections, would not arrest the Republican agenda before the midterms. After all, the GOP has waited over 15 years to make Bush-era tax cuts permanent and the opportunity to do so may evaporate within the next 12 months. The one risk we do not account for here is that a "smoking gun" of Trump campaign collusion with Russia is unearthed well before the midterm election. This could force the GOP in the House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reforms. We do not expect this to happen, but we also have no evidence to support our view. At this point, however, there is absolutely no proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Do we agree that Trump's impeachment would signal the end of populism? No. As our colleague Peter Berezin has repeatedly said - and our clients ought to listen given that he correctly predicted Trump's victory in September 20159 - American voters voted for "Trumpism," not Trump. As Peter recently pointed out, "either Trump will start delivering on the promises that endeared him to blue-collar workers in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, or he will go down in flames in the next election."10 Of course, if Trump "goes down in flames" in an impeachment scenario, Peter's point about blue-collar workers still stands. The next election, in 2020, will still feature populism, especially if the U.S. experiences a recession in the meantime and if Trump's policies do not help the median voter by that time. In that case, the election in 2020 will not feature moderates such as Pence, but rather unorthodox policymakers from both the left and the right. We intend to publish a report on populism in America over the next several weeks and elucidate our pessimistic view of politics, the economy, and the markets after 2017. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 The data for polarization analysis uses "nominate" (nominal three-step estimation), a multidimensional scaling method developed to analyze the preference and choice of legislators based on their roll-call voting record in the U.S. Congress. According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level ever. Their research shows that the "primary dimension of polarization," the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy, explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension. Please see Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal, "D-Nominate After 10 Years: A Comparative Update To Congress: A Political-Economic History Of Roll-Call Voting," Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1 (Feb. 2001), pp. 5-29. 2 Especially when one considers that President Trump's fate may at some point in the near future be in the hands of Senators "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco." 3 Please see Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the jurisdiction of the Senate in the impeachment proceedings and confirmed that no judicial appeals process exists. As a side point, the case had nothing to do with former President Richard Nixon, but rather was brought against the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon. 4 We thank our former colleague, and expert on the U.S. Constitution, Mike Marchio for pointing out this loophole. 5 The only time the Section 4 of the 25th Amendment was seriously contemplated was in 1987, due to President Ronald Reagan's growing "inattentiveness" and "laziness" (probably early signs of Alzheimer disease). Incoming Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker Jr. was asked by his predecessor Donald Regan to carefully examine whether President Reagan was capable of performing his duties. President Reagan passed the test. Please see Jason Linkins, Huffington Post, "Happy 50th Birthday To The 25th Amendment To The Constitution!" dated February 10, 2017, available at huffingtonpost.com. 6 "Teapot Dome" was for decades the largest corruption scandal in U.S. history. It involved President Warren G. Harding, his Secretary of the Interior, other officials, and a number of oil companies that were given extremely favorable leases to drill oil on federal land in Wyoming. Investigations and prosecutions lasted through 1927. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Stock Market And Business Forecast," June 1973 - Vol. XXIV No.12 and July 1973 - Vol. XXV No. 1, copies available on request. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Establishment Strikes Back," dated April 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Our upgrade of packaged food stocks to overweight (see our Weekly Report of 23 May, 2017 for more details) was based on the expectation of near-term margin expansion followed by an eventual sales recovery. This thesis is supported by recent data showing solid consumer outlays on food & beverage and a reacceleration in wholesale food manufacturing prices; both of these indicators have historically heralded positive sales growth. Meanwhile, input costs look well contained as grain, the key commodity input, continues to get cheaper, another indicator that margin expansion is on the horizon. Further, the slide in sales of the past 2 years has reinforced strict industry cost control to maintain margins; these efforts should deliver outsized profits as the top line recovers. Net, we continue to expect domestic demand to lead a sales recovery with above-normal profit contributions and remain overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK - MDLZ, SJM, KHC, CPB, MKC, CAG, TSN, MJN, GIS, HSY, HRL, K.

Feature Table 1 Growth And Its Implications We still see little on the horizon to undermine a continued rally in risk assets over the next 12 months. U.S. economic growth will be propelled by an acceleration in both consumption and capex - leading indicators for both point to further upside (Chart 1). The weak U.S. GDP growth in Q1, just 1.2% annualized, was dragged down by two, less meaningful elements: inventories (which fell, deducting 1 ppt from growth) and imports (which rose, deducting 0.6 ppt). Regional Fed GDP "nowcasts" are pointing to 2.2-3.8% growth in Q2. Corporate earnings had their best quarter in five years in Q1, with S&P500 sales up 8% and EPS up 14% - but, despite this, analysts have barely revised up their calendar year EPS growth forecast, which stands at 10%. In Europe, loan growth has picked up to 2.5% YoY, with the credit impulse indicating that GDP growth is likely to remain above trend at around the 2% it achieved in Q1 (Chart 2). But the stronger growth has implications. It suggests the market is too complacent about the probability of Fed tightening. Futures are pricing a hike on June 14 as a near certainty but, after that, imply little more than one further 25bp rise by end-2019 (Chart 3). We expect two hikes before the end of 2017. Not least, the Fed will be cognizant of how financial conditions have recently eased, not tightened, despite its raising rates in December and March (Chart 4) and will want to put in place insurance against inflation rising sharply in 12 months' time, especially given that it may wish to hold back from hikes early next year as it begins to reduce its balance-sheet. Chart 1Consumption And Capex On Track to Rebound Chart 2Euro Credit Growth Looks Good For GDP Chart 3 Will The Fed Really Be This Slow? As a result, 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields are likely to move back up. The 40bp fall from the peak of 2.6% in March was caused partly by softer growth and inflation data, but also reflected a correction after the excessive pace at which rates had run up - the fastest in 30 years (Chart 5). The combination of stronger growth, a 50bp higher Fed Funds Rate, and a moderate acceleration of inflation as wages begin to pick up again, should push the 10-year yield to above 3% by year-end. Chart 4Fed Must Worry About Easing Conditions Chart 5Rates Couldn't Keep Rising This Fast Momentum for risk assets over the coming months is likely to slow a little. Global PMIs have probably peaked for now (Chart 6) and investors should not expect to repeat the 19% total return from global equities they have enjoyed over the past 12 months. And there are potential pitfalls: China could continue to slow, and European politics could come into focus again (with early Austrian and Italian parliamentary elections looking increasingly possible for the fall). Investors may also worry about the chaotic state of the Trump White House. However, we never believed the U.S. presidential election had much impact on markets (the S&P500 has risen by 2% a month since then, whereas it had risen by 4% a month over the previous nine months). If anything, there could still be a positive catalyst if Congress is able to pass a tax cut before year-end - which we see as likely - since this is no longer priced in (Chart 7). Chart 6Momentum For Equities Will Slow A Little Chart 7No One Expects A Corporate Tax Cut On balance, then, we continue to see equities outperforming bonds comfortably over the next 12 months, and so keep an overweight on equities within our asset class recommendations. We also maintain the generally pro-cyclical, pro-risk and higher-beta tilts within our multi-asset global portfolio. Equities: The combination of cyclical economic growth, accelerating earnings, and easy monetary conditions represents a positive environment for global equities. Valuations are not particularly stretched: forward PE for the MSCI All Country World Index is 15.9x, almost in line with the 30-year average of 15.7x (Chart 8). The Vix (30-day implied volatility on S&P500 options) may look low - famously it dipped below 10 last month, raising fears of complacency - but the Vix term structure is fairly steep, implying that investors are hedging exposure three and six months out (Chart 9). Within equities, our preference remains for DM over EM. The latter will be hurt by the slowdown in China (Chart 10), a rising dollar, the ongoing slowdown in credit growth in most EM economies, and continual political disappointments (most recent example: Brazil). We like euro zone equities, on the grounds of their high beta and greater cyclicality of earnings. We are overweight Japan (with a currency hedge), since rising global rates will weaken the yen and boost earnings. Chart 8Global Equity Valuations Are Not So High Chart 10China's Slowdown Should Hurt EM Fixed Income: As described above, we expect the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to reach 3% by year-end. This should mean a negative return from global sovereign bonds for the year as a whole, for the first time since 1994. Accordingly, we remain underweight duration and prefer inflation-linked over nominal bonds in most markets. In this positive cyclical environment, we continue to overweight credit, with a preference for U.S investment grade (which trades at a 100 bp spread over Treasuries) over high-yield bonds (where valuations are not as attractive) and euro area credit (which will be hurt when the ECB starts to taper its bond purchases). Currencies: The temporary softness in the dollar has probably run its course. Interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other G7 countries point to further dollar appreciation (Chart 11). At the same time as we expect the Fed to tighten more quickly than the market is pricing in, we see the ECB setting monetary policy for the euro periphery (especially Italy) which, given weak fundamentals (Chart 12), cannot bear much tightening. The Bank of Japan, too, will stick to its yield curve control policy which, as global rates rise, ought to significantly weaken the yen. Chart 11Interest Differentials Point To Stronger USD Chart 12Italy Can Not Bear A Rate Hike Chart 13OPEC Cut Agreement Showing Through Commodities: The recently agreed extension of the OPEC agreement should push crude oil prices up to around $60 a barrel in the second half. OPEC production has already fallen noticeably since the start of the year, but the response from non-OPEC producers - including North American shale - to boost output has so far been subdued (Chart 13). Metals prices have fallen sharply over the past two months (iron ore, for example, by 36% since March) as Chinese growth slowed as a result of moderate fiscal and monetary tightening. They could have further to fall. But China, with its key five-year Party Congress scheduled for the fall, is likely to take measures to boost activity if economic growth slows much further, which would help commodities prices stabilize. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights In the near term, the PBoC is likely to set a stronger fixing rate against the dollar and dampen market expectations for further RMB declines. The PBoC hinted that the exchange rate can be used as a "countercyclical" policy tool, which could signal a major shift, as previously the central bank had mostly stressed maintaining exchange rate stability as its main policy target. Chinese growth remains reasonably buoyant. Listed firms' Q1 earnings improved significantly, confirming the profit cycle upturn. This bodes well for private sector capex, and supports our positive cyclical stance on H shares. Feature The People's Bank of China (PBoC) last week changed how it sets the RMB's official fixing rate against the dollar, making an already opaque mechanism even less transparent. With the latest tweak, it appears the PBoC intends to assert greater discretion over the RMB exchange rate, a notable departure from its recent moves toward a more market-driven system. Odds are high that the central bank will try to stabilize the trade-weighted RMB around current levels in the near term, unless the dollar takes a sudden sharp turn in either direction. Technical details aside, fundamental factors are no longer unanimously bearish for the RMB, as we discussed in a recent report.1 Meanwhile, most of Chinese-listed firms have reported first quarter earnings, which show strong improvement compared to a year ago. This buttresses our positive stance on Chinese H shares. It also bodes well for capital spending in the private sector as well as overall business activity. Why? And Does It Matter? Technically, the PBoC appears to be trying to correct a problem inherently built into its old exchange rate-setting formula. Up until the recent changes, the RMB official fixing rate was determined by the closing exchange rate of the previous trading day as well as the RMB's performance against a currency basket. As such, a lower onshore spot CNY against the dollar automatically led to a lower official fixing on the following day, which in turn anchored expectations for further RMB depreciation in the spot market - setting in motion a series of self-feeding mini-vicious circles. This became increasingly obvious in recent months (Chart 1). The dollar has depreciated broadly against other currencies since the beginning of the year, which should have led to a higher CNY/USD. In reality, the RMB official fixing rate has been essentially flat, and the onshore CNY spot rate has constantly traded below the official fixing rate, reflecting market expectations of further declines in the RMB. In the new formula, by adding in an unspecified "countercyclical" factor, the PBoC intends to reset market expectations and arrest the automatic extrapolation of the recent RMB trend into the future. More fundamentally, the PBoC hinted that the exchange rate can be used as a "countercyclical" policy tool. If true, this would signal a major shift, as previously the PBoC had mostly stressed maintaining exchange rate stability as its main policy target. In a press release accompanying the latest change, the PBoC argued that China's recent growth improvement suggests that a weaker RMB is no longer warranted, which fits the PBoC's broader policy stance. By the same token, it also suggests the PBoC will actively guide the RMB exchange rate lower at times of weakening growth to reflate the economy. Historically, the PBoC had mostly sat idle with the exchange rate at times of heightened volatility in the global currency market, which exposed the Chinese economy to sharp swings in the trade-weighted RMB (Chart 2). For example, the PBoC effectively pegged the RMB to the dollar during the global financial crisis between mid-2008 and early 2010 - despite the rollercoaster ride other Asian currencies experienced. Similarly, the central bank held the RMB largely steady against the dollar between 2013 and mid-2015 amid sharp declines in other currencies against the dollar, leading to sharp RMB appreciation in trade-weighted terms and creating relentless deflationary pressure for the Chinese economy. The slide of the RMB against the greenback since August 2015 has been a catch-up to its Asian neighbors to the downside. Chart 1The PBoC Wants A Stronger RMB Fixing? Chart 2The RMB: Moving Towards Dirty Float How the PBoC manages the exchange rate under the new mechanism remains to be seen, and it is too soon to draw definite conclusions just yet. In the near term, the PBoC is likely to set a stronger fixing rate against the dollar and dampen market expectations for further RMB declines. Longer term, if the central bank indeed intends to use the exchange rate as a countercyclical macro policy tool, it will have to more actively manage the trade-weighted RMB according to the cyclical profile of the Chinese economy. This will move the RMB closer to a true "dirty float" currency, which also means much greater volatility for the RMB cross rate with the dollar than in the past. The Earnings Scorecard The latest macro numbers confirm that the Chinese economy is losing some steam, but overall growth momentum remains largely stable . Both manufacturing and service PMI numbers released early this week remained in expansionary territory. and some key components such as export orders, orders backlog and employment showed a pick-up compared with the previous month. We expect the economy to remain fairly buoyant in the next two to three quarters, even if year-over-year growth numbers continue to moderate. As far as investors are concerned, the important development is that China's profit cycle upturn remains in place. Total profits of industrial firms increased by 24% in the first four months of 2017 compared with a year ago. In addition, most of domestic-listed firms have released first-quarter earnings, which show similar profit growth (Chart 3). A few observations can be made: Chart 3Profit Acceleration Table 1A-Share Companies' Earnings Scorecard All domestic-listed A-share firms reported a 23% increase in Q1 earnings compared with last year, or 34% if financials and energy companies are excluded. Profit acceleration was more pronounced in the materials and energy sectors, but was also fairly broad-based (Table 1). Top line revenue growth accelerated, a key factor behind rising profits (Chart 4, top panel). Excluding financials and energy, A share-listed firms' total revenue increased by almost 20% from 2016 according to our calculation, a marked acceleration compared with previous years. Profit margins also increased modestly, which helped boost profits (Chart 4, bottom panel). Net margins still pale in comparison to pre-crisis levels, though are now close to their long-term trend line. In short, China's profit cycle upturn reflects a pickup in both price increase and volume expansion in the overall economy, and defies the assertion by some that China's growth improvement since last year has been purely driven by credit. Looking forward, our model suggests that profit growth will likely begin to roll over (Chart 5), but there is no evidence that profits will contract anytime soon. Chart 4Improvement In Both Revenue And Margin Chart 5Profit Growth Is Rolling Over, But No Contraction What does this mean? First, profit growth in the industrial sector is good news for the banking system. Materials producers and energy companies, the major trouble spots in banks' asset quality in recent years, experienced the biggest increase in profit growth among the major sectors. This should reduce non-performing loans (NPL) from these industries. The pace of banks' NPL increase will likely continue to decelerate, and asset quality stress in the banking sector should ease. Second, profit recovery in the industrial sector bodes well for capital spending, which in turn will support overall business activity. Private enterprise investment is mostly profit-driven. Therefore, rising profits should lead to stronger incentive to expand capex. We maintain the view that the multi-year downshift in China's capital spending cycle will likely bottom up going forward (Chart 6). Finally, strong profit growth should also be good news for Chinese equities. Chinese H shares are trading at 32% and 24% discounts compared with the global benchmark, based on trailing and forward price-to-earnings ratios respectively (Chart 7). Without a major profit contraction in Chinese-listed companies, the large valuation gap between Chinese shares and global equities is unreasonable and unsustainable - and will eventually narrow. In short, we remain cyclically positive on H shares, and overweight China against global/EM benchmarks. Chart 6Profit Improvement Bodes Well For Capex Chart 7Mind The Gap Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

The S&P managed care index has steadily outperformed the S&P 500 over the past six months. Despite this outperformance, relative valuations have barely budged, underscoring that gains remain fundamentally-driven. After surging in late-2016, our managed care cost proxy has plunged in recent months (second panel). Premiums are set on a trailing cost basis, underscoring that there should be a window for upside margin surprises as revenue enjoys a pricing power bump from the previous rise in cost inflation, while current cost inflation melts. Importantly, consumer spending on health care is waning as a share of total spending, signaling fewer claims ahead, and an ongoing reduction in cost pressures. Further, an ACA overhaul, in whatever form it takes, is likely to be less restrictive in coverage for higher-risk, higher-cost members than its previous manifestation, implying ongoing earnings improvement. We reiterate our overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC.

Highlights Through the 18 years of the euro, growth in 'core' Germany and France and 'periphery' Spain has equalled that in the U.S., U.K. and Canada. But Italy has severely underperformed since 2008. Italy's economic underperformance is due to the uncured malaise in its banks. Fixing Italian banks will fix Italy and reduce euro breakup risk. Euro area equities and periphery bonds do offer long-term relative value on the premise that euro breakup risk does ultimately fade. But for those who can time their entry, await the outcome of the Italian election. Feature The euro recently had its 18th birthday.1 Through the formative, testing and often tempestuous first 18 years of its life, how have the euro area's main economies performed - and how do these performances compare with the developed world's other major economies? The answers might come as a surprise (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekItaly Has Severely Underperformed Since 2008. Why? To allow for the different demographics, we must look at growth in real GDP per head.2 On this metric, the gold medal goes to Japan, with 34% growth. During the euro's lifetime, Japan's real GDP has grown by 18%, but its working age population has shrunk by 12%, resulting in the developed world's best real growth per head.3 The silver medal winner is probably not surprising: Germany, with 28% growth. But the bronze medal winner might surprise you. It is a euro 'periphery' country: Spain, with 26% growth - a medal shared with the U.K. Then come Canada, 24%; the U.S., 22%; and France, 19%. So through the 18 years of the euro, Germany, France and Spain have performed more or less in line with the U.S., U.K. and Canada. Making it very difficult to argue that being in the single currency has penalized the growth of either 'core' Germany and France or 'periphery' Spain. Italy Isn't Partying... But Don't Blame The Euro Unfortunately, there's a problem - Italy. Through the 18 years of the euro, Italy's real GDP per head has grown by just 5%, substantially below any other G10 or G20 economy. If the euro is to blame for the significant underperformance of its third largest economy with 60 million people, then the single currency's long-term viability has to be in serious doubt. However, two pieces of evidence suggest that the euro per se is not to blame for Italy's painful underperformance. First, observe that through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head kept up with many of its G10 peers. Even without a substantial tailwind from a credit-fuelled housing boom - which other economies had - Italian real growth per head performed in line with France, the U.S. and Canada (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Through 1999-2007, Italy Grew In Line With France, The U.S. And Canada Second, in the post-crisis years, there was little to distinguish the economic performance of Italy from Spain until 2013 (Chart I-3). Only after 2013 has a huge gap opened up. While Italy has struggled to grow, Spain has taken off, expanding by more than 12%. This recent strong recovery in Spain makes it hard to attribute Italy's underperformance to membership of the single currency (per se). Chart I-3Post-Crisis, There Was Little To Distinguish Italy and Spain Until 2013 Fix Italian Banks To Fix Italy We believe that Italy's economic underperformance is down to the as yet uncured malaise in its banks. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in the U.S., U.K., Spain and Ireland did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Crucially, the acute financial crises in the U.S., U.K., Spain and Ireland forced their policymakers to recapitalize the banks, and thereby allowed the bank credit flow channel to function again. For example, Spain's turning point came in 2013, when bank equity capital as a multiple of non-performing loans (NPLs) started to recover (Chart I-4), allowing Spanish banks to operate more normally. Chart I-4Spanish Banks' Solvency Recovered In 2013 But Spanish banks' health did not recover because NPLs declined; indeed, if anything, NPLs continued to increase (Chart I-5). Spanish banks' health improved because of a large injection of bailout equity capital (Chart I-6). By contrast, Italian banks have not yet received the injection of equity capital that is desperately needed to fix Italy's bank credit flow channel. Chart I-5NPLs Continued To Rise Everywhere Chart I-6French And Spanish Banks Have Raised Equity. Italian Banks Have Not. To lift Italian banks' equity capital to NPL multiple to the lowest level that Spanish banks reached before recovery would require €80-100 billion of fresh bank equity capital. Which equates to 5-6% of Italian GDP. The good news is that this is an affordable price if it kick starts long-term growth. The bad news is that Italy's avoidance of outright financial crisis (thus far) has now tied its hands. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the state bailout escape route that Spain and Ireland used. Granted, in a crisis, the BRRD would allow Italian government state intervention to aid a troubled bank. But the overarching aim would be to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. "Other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." Without a crisis, the process to recapitalise Italian banks and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Our concern is that such a protracted nursing to health will keep Italy's bank credit channel dysfunctional, thereby leaving economic growth in a 60 million people economy sub-par for an extended period. Only when the Italian banks are adequately recapitalized, will the danger of a financial or political tail-event - and a euro breakup - be fully exorcised. Unfortunately, the danger may first have to rise before policymakers allow the necessary action. But ultimately they will. Some Investment Thoughts If euro breakup risk does ultimately fade, then euro area equities will receive a tailwind relative to other markets. This is because relative to these other markets, euro area equity prices are discounted to generate a 1.5% excess annual return through the next 10 years - as a risk premium for euro breakup.4 So if this risk premium suddenly and fully vanished, relative prices would have to rise by 15%. Likewise, euro area periphery bond yields can compress further - as the yield premium effectively equals the perceived annual probability of euro breakup multiplied by the expected currency redenomination loss after the breakup. So euro area equities and periphery bonds do offer long-term relative value on the premise that the policy steps needed to boost Italian growth are affordable and relatively minor - and that euro breakup risk does ultimately fade. However, for those who can time their entry, await the outcome of the Italian election due to take place within the next year. Breakup risk may flare up again before it does ultimately fade. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The euro was born on January 1st 1999. 2 Zeal GDP divided by working age (15-64) population 3 1.18/(1-0.12)=1.34 4 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Suspended In Disbelief" published on April 13 2007 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-7 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Communications equipment stocks have diverged negatively from the broad tech sector and now trade broadly in line with telecom carrier stocks - a key end-market, with a slight lag. The latest signal from telecom services stocks is bearish, and we recommend a downgrade to a below-benchmark allocation in the S&P communications equipment group. While valuations look compelling, the risk of further near-term losses and a longer-term value trap remains high; all three key communications equipment end-markets point to additional demand weakness ahead. First, a full blown price war has engulfed the telecom services industry, driving outright deflation. In the absence of revenue growth, telecom capex is unlikely to reaccelerate. Secondly, delays/uncertainty with regard to U.S. fiscal policy and the Trump administration's strict budget control warns that the government's purse strings will remain tight for some time, representing another source of drag. Finally, export markets are unlikely to offset domestic cooling, as soaring Chinese & European telecom equipment exports suggest that U.S. manufacturers are losing competitiveness, and market share. Meanwhile, deflationary industry specific forces such as virtual networking will also contribute to margin pressure. We recommend shifting to underweight. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for this index are: BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, HRS, MSI, JNPR, FFIV.

Highlights This week, we are reprising and updating "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" from our sister service Energy Sector Strategy (NRG), because it so well captures the state of oil production outside the U.S. shales, Middle East OPEC and Russia. "The Other Guys" account for ~ half of global supply. Next week, we'll publish a joint report with NRG analyzing today's OPEC meeting. The aptly named "Other Guys" account for ~ 42mm b/d of production, which they are struggling to maintain at current levels, let alone increase. These producers supply nearly half of global production, and have been stuck in a pattern of slow decline for years despite high oil prices. Beginning in 2019, we expect production declines to accelerate. This will put enormous pressure on the three primary growth regions, which markets likely will start pricing in toward the end of next year. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 is expected to extend its 1.8mm b/d of production cuts to the end of 1Q18 at its meeting in Vienna today. Going into the meeting, markets were being guided to expect even deeper cuts. Our long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short $45/bbl puts, and our long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent positions are up 75.0% and 509.5% respectively, following their initiation on May 11, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Steel and iron-ore prices are getting a boost from China's anti-pollution campaign, which is expected to run through the end of this month. This was launched ahead of the anti-pollution campaign we expected after the Communist Party Congress in the fall. Iron ore delivered to Qingdao is up 3.1% since May 9, when Reuters reported the campaign began.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold was well bid earlier in the week on the back of a weaker USD. Our long gold position is up 1.9%, while our long volatility trade, which we will unwind at tonight's close, is down 98.5%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The weaker USD takes some pressure off wheat and beans over the short term, and might prompt a short-covering rally. We remain bearish, however, as the USD likely will bottom in the near future.2 Feature U.S. Onshore, Middle East OPEC (ME OPEC), and Russia combine to produce ~43 MMb/d of oil plus another ~11 MMb/d of other liquids (NGLs, biofuels, refinery gains, etc.). Combined, these producers increased crude production by 5 MMb/d plus another 1 MMb/d of other liquids production over the past three years (2014-2016), creating the oversupply that crashed prices. We expect these producers to add another 1.60 MMb/d of oil plus 1.14 MMb/d of other liquids by 2018 (over 2016 levels), dominated by nearly 2.0 MMb/d of oil and NGLs from the U.S. shales. Oil production from the other 100+ global oil producers also represents about ~42 MMb/d, but on balance has been slowly eroding since 2010, failing to grow even when oil prices were $100+/bbl. Despite some 2017 recovery from Libya, we expect total production to continue to fall in both 2017 and 2018. The few recently expanding producers among the Other Guys are running out of growth. Canada, Brazil, North Sea and GOM account for ~13 MMb/d of oil production in 2016, adding ~1.5 MMb/d over the past three years (2014-2016). North Sea production is projected to resume declines starting in 2017; GOM will reach it peak production sometime in 2017 or 2018, then start to ebb; large new Canadian oil sands projects will add ~310k b/d in 2017-2018, but scarce additions are scheduled beyond that; and Brazil's once-lofty growth plans have slowed to a crawl in 2016-2018. Global deepwater drilling activity and exploration spending have collapsed, lowering the reserve base, and undermining the stability of current production levels. Outside Of Just Three Regions, Oil Supply Picture Looks Worrisome Often overlooked in our discussions about world oil markets are the supply contributions of over 100 geographic regions. This collection of suppliers (which we will call the "Other Guys") is defined as all producing regions in the world other than: 1) U.S. Onshore (shales, specifically), 2) OPEC's six Middle East members, and 3) Russia. The Other Guys deliver nearly half of global production, try to maximize production every day (even OPEC nations among the Other Guys have not had production constrained by quotas), and still have endured consistent, albeit modest, production declines over the past six years. Chart 1Outside Of A Very Few Regions,##BR##Oil Production Has Struggled At the end of 1Q17, oilfield-services leader Schlumberger voiced sharp concerns regarding stability of supplies from these ignored producers, warning that aggregate capital expenditures within these regions will sustain an unprecedented third straight year of decline in 2017, with total spending only about half of 2014 levels. Chart 1 shows the divergent production histories of the three growing regions versus the rest of the world. Chart 1 also shows production of the Other Guys excluding the especially dramatic declines/volatility of Libyan production. Even though these producers benefitted from the same incentives and profitability from high oil prices as the three growing regions, as a group, they have been unable to expand production. As oil prices have plunged, drilling activity in these nations has also plummeted, raising concerns that production declines could start accelerating in the near future. Chart 2 shows that oil-directed drilling activity among the international components of the Other Guys (Chart 2 excludes GOM and highly-seasonal Alaska and Canada) has crashed by ~40%, from an average of over 800 rigs during the five-year period of 2010-2014 to under 500 rigs for the past year. Offshore drilling has collapsed even a little more sharply for these producers than overall oil-directed drilling, falling ~43% from an average of over 280 rigs to only 160 today (Chart 3, excludes GOM). Chart 2Other Guys' Drilling##BR##Has Collapsed 40% Chart 3International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%,##BR##Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production Offshore Production Declines To Accelerate Chart 4Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed As a particularly worrisome trend for the Other Guys' production stability, offshore drilling activity has collapsed in some of the most important offshore oil producing regions in the world, including the GOM, North Sea, West Africa, and Brazil (Chart 4). Considering the multi-year lag between drilling activity and the start of oil production, and the large well size and quick declines associated with offshore wells, the oil production impacts of this drilling collapse that started two years ago have not really been felt yet. When these regions get past the wave of new production from 2015-2017 project additions (projects started during 2011-2014), they will face a dearth of new projects maturing in 2018-2022 due to this collapse in drilling, with new production likely to be inadequate to offset the declines of legacy production. Brazil, the North Sea, West Africa, and GOM together account for about 12 MMb/d of oil production (Chart 5). These four offshore regions have benefitted from intense investment from 2010-2015 as shown by the surging rig counts during that period in Chart 4. This investment/drilling drove 1.1 MMb/d of oil production growth in Brazil, the GOM, and the North Sea from 2013 to 2016, without which total production from the Other Guys would have declined by 1.4 MMb/d rather than just 0.3 MMb/d. Despite strong investment, production in West Africa merely held flat outside of Nigeria during 2013-2016 while falling by 0.4 MMb/d within Nigeria (mostly in 2016 due to pipeline disruptions from saboteurs). Chart 5Offshore Production Will Stop Expanding, Then Decline Brazil offshore drilling activity over the past year is less than half of levels during 2010-2013. As a result, production growth will moderate significantly over the next few years, expanding far less (250k b/d in 2018 vs. 2016, based on our balances data) than the rapid 470,000 b/d step-up in production during 2013-2014. While Brazil still has a rich endowment of pre-salt reserves, marshalling capital and the International Oil Companies' (IOCs) focus to resurrect development activity will take years. We expect no growth during 2019-2020. The North Sea has seen production cut in half from the time of peak production in 1999 until 2013. Production declines were briefly halted and re-expanded by ~300,000 b/d during 2014-2016 due to a concerted drilling effort and brownfield maintenance program incentivized and financed by $100/bbl oil prices. Drilling has since declined 35% from average 2010-2014 levels, and production is expected to resume its downward trend in 2017-2018. Overall oil-directed offshore drilling in the GOM has been cut by over 50% from 2013-2014 levels. Based on our field-by-field analysis published in January, we estimate GOM oil production will hit a peak in a year and a half or less and then will succumb to declines due to lack of new drilling. West Africa has suffered production declines for the past several years due to both geologic challenges as well as more recent (2016-2017) political/sabotage related disruptions in Nigeria. With offshore drilling activity plummeting 70%-80%, we expect production declines will accelerate and it will take years of increased drilling to yield new production that can stem the declines. The collapse in Nigerian drilling, from 10 rigs in 2010-2013 to only 2-3 rigs over the past year, likely means that Nigerian production is incapable of returning to 2015 levels even if its recent sabotage issues are resolved. In aggregate, as shown in Chart 5, we expect production from these four offshore regions to stagnate during 2017-2018 (North Sea and West Africa decline while Brazil and GOM expand) before declining by ~0.5 MMb/d in each 2019-2020 due to the dramatic curtailment of investment during 2015-2017. SLB Talks Its Book, But Makes A Strong Point At an industry conference at the end of March, Schlumberger (again) railed against the inadequacy of the cash flow-negative U.S. shale industry to single-handedly supply enough production growth to satisfy continuing global demand growth, especially once the Other Guys start seeing more pronounced negative production effects from the sharply reduced investments over 2015-2017. "The 2017 E&P spend for this part of the global production base...is expected to be down 50% compared to 2014. At no other time in the past 50 years has our industry experienced cuts of this magnitude and this duration." - Paal Kibsgaard, CEO of SLB. SLB highlighted an analysis of depletion rates constructed with data from Energy Aspects. (The March 27 presentation can be found at www.slb.com). Annual depletion rates (annual production/proved developed reserves) in the GOM had spiked to over 20% in 2016 from a long-term level of only ~10% during 2000-2013. Similarly, depletion rates in the U.K. and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea also surged from ~10% to ~15% over the past three years. In both the GOM and the North Sea, oil production had recently been expanded, but proved developed reserves declined. Due to such low drilling investments during 2015-2016, producers have replaced only about half of the oil reserves that they've produced in the GOM and North Sea over the past three years (2014-2016). Eventually, this lack of investment in cultivating tomorrow's resources will catch up to the industry, and production will decline. Investors must take SLB's commentary with a grain of salt, as they could be construed as sour grapes. The immense pull of new capital spending to the U.S. shales has substantially benefitted SLB's primary competitors more than it has benefitted SLB (SLB is much more focused on international and offshore projects). Still, investors are too complacent about the stability of non-U.S. production. SLB's analysis and warnings of accelerating production declines should not be ignored. Bottom Line: Outside of the three regions of sharply growing production (U.S. onshore, ME OPEC and Russia) that investors are focused on, the other half of global production has been stagnant to declining despite high oil prices and high levels of drilling during 2010-2015. Now that drilling and capex in these regions has declined by 40%-50%, production declines should accelerate in coming years. Offshore production, especially, has not seen enough drilling to replace reserves, and is poised to decline within the next 2-3 years. The accelerating declines of the "Other Guys" will allow more room for growth from U.S. shales, ME OPEC and Russia. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President, Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see "China steel hits nine-week peak amid crackdown, lifts iron ore," published by reuters.com May 22, 2017. 2 Please see the feature article in last week's edition of BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy entitled "Bloody Potomac," in which our colleague Mathieu Savary lays out the case for an imminent USD rebound. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Upgrade packaged food stocks to overweight. Enough value creation has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Get ready to book profits. Resist the temptation to bottom fish in steel stocks. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues should weigh on steel profits. Recent Changes S&P Packaged Foods - Upgrade to overweight. S&P Utilities - Downgrade Alert. Table 1 Feature The market waffled last week, but quickly recovered. The upshot is that investors still appear content to look through the circus in Washington, focused instead on the positive reflationary dynamics supporting the corporate sector. Financial conditions have eased considerably ever since the Fed resumed its tightening campaign last December. Equity price gains, narrowing credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar have more than offset the negative impact of the back-up in bond yields. Cheap equity capital also remains easily accessible. While the labor market is tightening, BCA argues that the headline unemployment rate may understate slack given the large number of part-time workers that want to work full-time and prime-age workers that are still out of work. With core inflation surprising to the downside in recent months, there is no urgency for the Fed to slam the brakes. In other words, there is more than enough monetary fuel to sustain the equity overshoot. Easy financial conditions will allow investors to extrapolate the profit recovery (Chart 1), especially since it has been sales driven for the first time in years. It is notable that while consumer price inflation has softened, in aggregate, businesses are not feeling any renewed deflationary pressure. The depreciation in the U.S. dollar has been a critical support for U.S. businesses. Our corporate sector pricing power proxy continues to accelerate (Chart 1), arguing that revenue growth should persist. The combination of muted consumer price inflation yet positive corporate sector inflation is a stock market positive, all else equal. Digging beneath the surface, divergent sector inflation trends are increasingly evident. The commodity-linked energy and materials sectors have lost upward pricing power momentum (Chart 2), courtesy of the cooling in China. Technology sector selling prices are sinking deeper into deflationary territory, albeit the FANG juggernaut pays no attention to sector specific forces. Telecom services pricing power has also taken a header (Chart 2). On the plus side, other defensive sectors, including utilities, are still able to raise prices at a much greater rate than overall inflation. Even the pace of financial sector price hikes is at the top end of its long-term range (Chart 3). Chart 1Sustained Profit Expansion ##br##Requires Easy Financial Conditions Chart 2Some Softness In ##br##Cyclical Pricing Power... Chart 3...But Defensive Selling##br## Prices Are Resilient The upshot is that selectivity remains a critical portfolio input rather than simply tracking the broad S&P 500. These forces should allow the market to continue grinding higher into overshoot territory. The latter means that the market is increasingly vulnerable to minor external shocks. Ergo, we continue to recommend a selective weighting in some 'safe' areas, such as consumer staples, which are undervalued in relative terms and will buffet portfolios should volatility escalate further. This week we are taking advantage of the drubbing in food stocks to augment positions. Packaged Foods: Going Against The Grain After a surge to all-time relative performance highs in mid-2016, the S&P packaged foods index has deflated by roughly 20%. Two key reasons are behind the downdraft: the allure to hold stable cash flow companies has diminished since the November election, and weak industry-specific metrics - in particular pricing power and sales contraction amid private label competition. Despite these negatives, our sense is that enough value destruction has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Relative valuations reflect most of these investor worries. The relative forward P/E ratio has de-rated to below the two-decade average, and our Valuation Indicator (VI) is near one standard deviation below the historical mean. In fact, every time the VI falls to such an undervalued extreme, relative performance stages a sizable comeback (Chart 4). Technical conditions are also washed out. Relative performance momentum has plunged to the lowest level in a decade, and likely fully reflects investor angst. Deeply oversold readings and undervaluation suggest that a full bearish capitulation has occurred, which is contrarily positive. Encouragingly, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Grain price deflation (shown inverted, third panel, Chart 4) suggests that industry input costs are well contained, and will underpin profit margins. It is normal for falling grain prices to coincide with upward revisions to analyst profit estimates (second panel, Chart 4). While industry sales are mired in deflation, there are high odds that top line growth will exit deflation by early 2018. Consumer outlays on food and beverages are brisk, and wholesale food manufacturing prices have recently reaccelerated. Chart 5 shows that industry revenues follow the trend in consumption and pricing power, underscoring that profitability is set to expand anew. True, private label competition and grocery store market share wars have put pressure on industry pricing power. But as long as food manufacturers can keep input costs under control, profit margins should remain wide. A simple industry profit margin gauge (PPI food manufacturing versus PPI crude food) gives us comfort that margins will remain resilient (bottom panel, Chart 5). Importantly, packaged food producers are well positioned to fight back against food retailers' demands for price concessions. Robust consumer outlays on food and beverages are corroborated by real retail sales at food stores, which are bucking the deceleration in overall retail sales (third panel, Chart 6). The hook up in food manufacturing hours worked confirms that industry activity is on the mend, which bodes well for productivity gains. Sell-side analysts have taken notice. Positive earnings revisions will continue to outstrip negative ones. Chart 4Buy Against The Grain Chart 5End Of The Revenue Lull... Chart 6...As Demand Recovers Finally, food and beverage exports have held onto recent double-digit growth gains despite the strong greenback. Now that the U.S. dollar is under some pressure, especially against the euro and emerging market currencies, foreign sales should provide a further relief valve should domestic pricing pressures persist for a little longer than we expect (second panel, Chart 6). In sum, while investors have rushed for the exits in the defensive S&P packaged foods index, a buying opportunity has emerged. Relative valuations have corrected to the lower end of their historic range and already reflect investor profitability worries. Our thesis is that a domestic demand-driven recovery has commenced and strict cost control, along with food commodity deflation, should sustain profit margins. Bottom Line: Start a buy program in the S&P packaged foods index, and boost exposure to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK - MDLZ, SJM, KHC, CPB, MKC, CAG, TSN, MJN, GIS, HSY, HRL, K. Our Utilities Overweight Is Starting To Pay Off Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Importantly, the five factors that drove this decision are starting to play out1, albeit in varying degrees of magnitude. Chart 7 shows that the U.S. economic soft patch has persisted. Hard data have not yet caught up to the surge in 'soft' data, such as sentiment and confidence surveys. The Citi Economic Surprise Index is inversely correlated with the relative share price ratio. Similarly, the ISM manufacturing index has crested. Our analysis shows that forward relative returns are strong after the ISM manufacturing survey hits extremely high levels, given that mean reversion ultimately occurs. The upshot is that utilities relative performance has more upside. The yield curve has also moved favorably for utilities stocks. The 10/2 Treasury curve has flattened since early January, as economic data continue to surprise to the downside, underscoring that the tactical utilities buy signal remains intact. The third reason to augment utilities exposure was the ebbing in inflation expectations. The latter continues unabated (Chart 7). Our recent Special Report highlighted that utilities suffer in times of inflation2. But the opposite is also true: utilities stocks outperform in times of disinflation/deflation. This reflects the stable rate of return regulated utilities enjoy, in addition to the increased appeal of dividend yields and cash flow during times of economic volatility and uncertainty. Finally, natural gas prices are firm. Utilities pricing power moves in lockstep with natural gas prices (middle panel, Chart 8). The latter are the marginal price setter for non-regulated utilities, and the recent price reacceleration could be a positive catalyst (bottom panel, Chart 8). Nevertheless, the utilities share price reaction has been more muted than we had expected, at least so far, perhaps reflecting the ongoing outperformance of stocks vs. bonds, and the weakness in electricity production growth (Chart 9). If the five factors begin to lose momentum, we will recommend booking profits in this tactical overweight position. Chart 7Prepare To Book Profits... Chart 8...When Utilities Turbocharge Chart 9Two Utilities Risks To Monitor Bottom Line: Stick with overweight exposure in the S&P utilities sector for now, but get ready to book profits in the coming weeks. Put utilities on downgrade alert. Rusting Steel Stocks Steel stocks have come full circle. Following the initial euphoria since the Trump election, the relative share price ratio is now roughly where it was in early November. There is more downside ahead. China is tapping the monetary brakes, attempting to contain the shadow banking system. However, it is difficult to target one segment of the economy through monetary policy. Tight policy is starting to backlash onto commodity prices, including steel and iron ore. A number of indicators suggest that China's internal dynamics will further undermine global steel share prices. The top panel of Chart 10 shows that the recent Chinese yield curve inversion is pointing toward more pain ahead for U.S. steel producers. Further, the Chinese credit impulse is waning. Historically, BCA's Chinese Credit Impulse Indicator (CII) has an excellent track record forecasting relative performance momentum. The latest grim CII reading warns that U.S. steel stocks have more downside (second panel, Chart 10). Slower Chinese credit creation will continue to weigh on infrastructure spending. Chinese capital expenditure and loan growth are joined at the hip. Feeble loan growth suggests that fewer projects will come to fruition (third panel, Chart 10). Sinking iron ore prices reflect this grim outlook. The implication is that overly optimistic relative profit estimates are vulnerable to disappointment (bottom panel, Chart 10). True, Chinese steel exports and domestic production have eased, which suggests that the risk of a steel inventory glut has receded. Nevertheless, U.S. steel imports have climbed anew, despite ongoing steel tariffs. As steel imports command a larger share of U.S. domestic production, price deflation is necessary to resolve this imbalance (Chart 11). This will cast a shadow on steel profit prospects. Steel industry troubles are not endemic to China. Worrisomely, U.S. steel demand dynamics remain unfavorable. Two key domestic end-markets are quickly losing steam. Commercial real estate and automobile excesses are starting to correct. Banks are reining in credit to both loan categories according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey (second panel, Chart 12). Simultaneously, within commercial real estate, construction and land development credit demand is also anemic. With regard to consumer loan categories, auto loan demand has registered the worst showing. Chart 10China Macro Weighs On Steel Chart 11Steel Deflation Looms Chart 12Weak Domestic End-Markets Provide No Relief Already, non-residential construction is flirting with contraction and light vehicle sales are sinking like a stone (third panel, Chart 12). As a result the steel industry's new orders-to-inventories ratio has come off the boil, exerting a gravitational pull on scrap steel prices (bottom panel, Chart 12). The implication is that steel price deflation will undermine industry profits. Adding it up, the U.S. steel industry's earnings hurdle is sky-high. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues signal that U.S. steel producers' profits will surprise to the downside. Bottom Line: Continue to avoid steel stocks. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P 1500 steel index are: BLBG: S15STEL - TMST, ATI, CMC, X, AKS, CRS, HAYN, RS, ZEUS, WOR, SXC, STLD, NUE. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Great Expectations?" dated April 3, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs," dated December 5, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.