Market Returns

Highlights The political economy of oil will become even more complicated, following remarks by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov over the weekend, which suggested policymakers there are considering another market-share war to crash prices to limit the growth of U.S. shales. The logic appears to be that by abandoning OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal and pushing Brent prices below $40/bbl once again for a year or so, Russia will severely reduce investment flow to the U.S. shale-oil patch, allowing it to retake global market share ceded mostly to Texas oil producers.1 The threat of a market-share war was proffered on top of stepped-up rhetoric by senior government officials – ranging from Igor Sechin, head of state-owned Rosneft Oil, to Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) – indicating Russia will be pushing for higher production by OPEC 2.0 in 2H19 at the coalition’s upcoming June meeting. We agree with this assessment: The market will require OPEC 2.0 to lift production in 2H19, given our assessment of supply-demand balances. In our estimation, OPEC 2.0’s position has been strengthened considerably by policy-induced disruptions to the oil market.2 As such, we believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint, particularly since Russia has benefited greatly from higher prices (see below). Our balances and price forecasts this month are largely unchanged (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl. WTI will trade $7 and $5/bbl lower (Chart 2). The balance of price risk has shifted slightly to the left side of the distribution, driven by policy risk and potential miscalculation by the dramatis personae on the international stage, chiefly leaders in the U.S., Russia and China. Chart of the WeekMarkets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Markets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Markets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Chart 2...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts ...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts ...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts Highlights Energy: Overweight. Tensions in Libya could keep ~ 300k b/d of supply from reaching global markets via its Zawiya port near Tripoli. We closed our long June 2019 $70/bbl vs. short $75/bbl call spread last Thursday with a gain of 87.7%.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s latest credit data confirms our view the country’s credit cycle bottomed earlier this year: March Total Social Financing (TSF) increased CNY 2.8 trillion month-on-month vs. consensus expectation of CNY 1.7 trillion. This will support base metals in the coming months. We continue to expect Chinese authorities to expand credit in 2H19.Our long copper trade is up 0.7% since inception on March 7, 2019. We are closing out our tactical iron-ore trade – long 65% Fe vs. short 62% Fe at tonight’s close; it was up 22.9% at Monday’s close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell 4% from its February high on easing inflation concerns and as fears of an equity correction subsided. March U.S. PCE ex-food and -energy dropped to 1.79% yoy from 1.95% in February, while global equities rose 14% YTD. Our long gold recommendation is down 2.4% since last week, but is still up 3.6% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. U.S. corn and wheat farmers are behind schedule in their spring planting, according to USDA data. The top four American corn-producing states had not started planting by last week, while spring and winter wheat producing states are 11% and 3% behind schedule, mostly due to weather conditions. While delays in planting are always cause for concern, we are still early in the planting season, which gives farmers time to catch up. Feature Policy uncertainty vis-à-vis global oil supply was elevated by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov’s comments indicating policymakers are considering reviving an oil market-share war directed at U.S. shale-oil producers. Siluanov said prices could fall to $40/bbl or less, in the event. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now His remarks come on the back of statements from Russian government and oil company officials lobbying for higher output. These comments suggest there is a heavyweight Russian contingent fully supporting these demands for OPEC 2.0 to increase production in 2H19 when it meets in June. Otherwise, the threat implies, Russia will seriously consider leaving OPEC 2.0, and will launch its own market-share war against U.S. shale-oil production, led by the fast-growing Permian Basin in Texas. Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now – nicely above $70/bbl in the Brent market. He also wants to maintain cooperation with OPEC 2.0, particularly its other putative leader, KSA. We continue to believe, however, KSA and Russia become less comfortable with Brent prices moving sharply above $80/bbl.4 Nonetheless, the threat posed by the U.S. shales is non-trivial: In our latest balances estimates, we raised our 2H19 U.S. output estimates to 12.53mm b/d, and slightly decreased our 2020 estimates to 13.35mm b/d”, led by a 1.17mm b/d and 0.84mm b/d increase in shale output this year and next (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales And GOM U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales And GOM However, Russia – and OPEC 2.0 generally – may be overestimating the rate of growth from U.S. shales going forward: In future research, we will be exploring the extent to which capital markets will restrain growth in the U.S. shales, as investors continue to demand higher returns. The days of growing shale production at any cost may be coming to an end. Russia’s Threat Is A Feint We believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint: A market-share war would damage the Rodina’s economy more than the balance sheets of U.S. shale producers, particularly those that hedge the first year or two of their production. The threat needs to be understood in the context of the deterioration of Russia’s position in Venezuela; the increasing tempo of U.S. military operations in its near abroad; and rapidly evolving global oil and gas trade flows, all of which are working against Russian interests and investments.5 The threat appears to be a not-too-subtle reminder of the havoc Russia still can create globally, should it choose to do so, as Vladimir Rouvinski noted recently re Russia’s Venezuela policy.6 Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. Russia’s GDP elasticity to oil prices is more than twice that of KSA’s, which we demonstrated last week.7 This means, from an economic standpoint, it benefits more from higher prices than the Kingdom, based on our modeling. Russia’s oil is exported to refiners and trading companies who pay whatever price is clearing the market, versus KSA, which relies more on direct investments in end-use markets to serve captive demand, and whose GDP has a higher sensitivity to EM economic growth. Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. The coalition’s production-cutting deal this year has reduced global supplies by 1.0mm b/d since the beginning of the year, lifting price from below $50/bbl to more than $70/bbl, in line with our forecast. These production cuts have been supported by strong global demand this year this, which, we expect, will persist in 2020. Of course, Russia could abandon the production-cutting deal with KSA, in the hope of severely reducing investment in U.S. shale-oil production. However, it also would accelerate the loss of foreign direct investment (FDI) in its own hydrocarbons sector, along with those of other OPEC 2.0 member states (Chart 4). Bottom Line: A Russian market-share war aimed at U.S. shale producers would run the very real risk of tanking Russia’s GDP and those of the rest of OPEC 2.0’s member states, as these economies lack the resilience and diversification of the U.S.’s GDP, particularly Texas’s. Even if its fiscal balances are in better shape now, Russia’s economy remains highly sensitive to Brent crude oil prices – moreso than KSA’s, and far moreso the U.S.’s (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Chart 5Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices BCA’s Balances Mostly Unchanged Our updated balances reflect the lower Venezuelan and Iranian output reported by OPEC’s survey of secondary sources (Table 1). As we have noted previously, we believe OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is sufficient to cover the loss of Venezuelan output, and the limited losses on Iranian exports imposed by U.S. sanctions (Chart 6). Beyond that, however, the market will be severely stretched if an unplanned outage removes significant production from global supply. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Russia Posits Oil Market-Share War: Red Herring Or Real Threat? Russia Posits Oil Market-Share War: Red Herring Or Real Threat? On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC and Russia to lift supply in 2H19, following the successful draining of global inventories (Chart 7). We expect OPEC ex-Iran, Libya and Venezuela, led by KSA, will lift 2H19 supply by ~ 400k b/d vs. 1H19 levels, while we expect Russia’s output to rise 200k b/d. Chart 6 Chart 7Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by the renewed easing of monetary policy globally, which will redound to the benefit of EM demand, which also will benefit from the bottoming of China’s credit cycle. Indeed, the EIA added 130k b/d to its estimate of non-OECD demand for this year, on the back of stronger expected growth. We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, with EM growth accounting for 1.1mm b/d of growth this year and 1.3mm b/d next year. In levels, global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. Waivers On U.S. Iran Sanctions Will Be Extended We continue to expect waivers on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil imports will be extended on May 2, owing to the still-tight supply conditions globally with Venezuela output collapsing and ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian oil already forced off the market. This has, as we’ve noted in our discussions of the New Political Economy of oil, strengthened OPEC 2.0’s hand. This will become apparent when the coalition meets in June to consider whether to increase production in 2H19, in line with our expectation. KSA, Russia and OPEC 2.0 member states will have sufficient data on hand to determine whether and by how much to lift output, in a manner that supports their GDPs. Indeed, on Wednesday, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said, “We should do what is more expedient for us.”9 KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not. We also expect U.S. President Donald Trump to try to jawbone OPEC 2.0 into increasing production again, as he did in 2H18. However, we expect those demands to fall on deaf ears, unless fundamental supply dislocations warrant such action. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s strategy is working – it will have maximum flexibility re how it handles its production in 2H19, following the U.S. decision on waivers to its Iran oil-export sanctions on May 2. As we noted last month, KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/Non-OPEC oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It agreed in November to remove 1.2mm b/d off the market, in order to balance global supply and demand and reduce inventories.  Please see “Russia, OPEC may ditch oil deal to fight for market share: Russian minister,” published April 13, 2019, for a re-cap of Siluanov’s remarks. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019; and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’s Price Fulcrum,” published March 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “Oil steadies as market focuses on supply risks,” published April 15 2019 by reuters.com 4      Please see “Putin Says No Imminent Decision on Oil Output Cuts,” published April 10, 2019, by The Moscow Times. 5      Please see for example, “Pentagon developing military options to deter Russian, Chinese influence in Venezuela,” published by cnn.com April 15, 2019; “Destroyer USS Ross Enters Black Sea, Fourth U.S. Warship Since 2019,” published by news.usni.org April 15, 2019; and “U.S. LNG exports pick up, with Europe a major buyer,” published by reuters.com March 7, 2019. 6      Please see “Russian-Venezuelan Relations at a Crossroads” by Vladimir Rouvinski, published by the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute in its February Latin American digest. 7      Please see “Sussing Out OPEC 2.0’s Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy April 11, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8      We discuss the impact of higher oil prices on Russia’s economy in last week’s report, which is cited in footnote 6 above.  Russia’s GDP in 2017 was ~ U.S. $1.6 trillion, according to the World Bank, while the GDP of Texas was ~ $1.7 trillion, American Enterprise Institute. 9      Please see “Russia’s Novak: early to speak about options for oil output deal,” published reuters.com April 17, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image ​​​​​​​ Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights In China, “helicopter” money and the socialist put are positive for growth in the medium term but will prove harmful for the economy over the long run. In the socialist put scenario, a buy-and-hold strategy is inappropriate for Chinese stocks. The enormous amount of money supply in China is “the sword of Damocles” on the yuan’s exchange rate. A new equity trade: Short Chinese banks / long U.S. banks. Take profits on our short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders equity position. Feature Last week’s China credit and money data affirmed that Chinese banks have engaged in another round of massive credit and money injection into the economy. In the first quarter alone, aggregate credit rose by RMB 8.5 trillion (US$1.3 trillion). Aggregate credit growth accelerated to 11.6%, well above first-quarter nominal GDP growth of 8% (Chart I-1). This is in spite of numerous pledges by many of China’s top policymakers that they have no plans to resort to “floodgate irrigation” style stimulus, and that credit/money growth will be kept on par with nominal GDP growth. Our credit and fiscal spending impulse has spiked up, pointing to a potential improvement in economic data in the months ahead (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: No Deleveraging At All China: No Deleveraging At All China: No Deleveraging At All What’s more, there is anecdotal evidence of a revival of housing demand in March, and that property developers have once again commenced bidding up land prices in certain parts of the country. Chart I-2China: Leading Economic Indicators China: Leading Economic Indicators China: Leading Economic Indicators   Regarding investment strategy, two weeks ago we put a stop-buy limit on the MSCI EM stock index at 1125. If this index breaks above this level we will turn tactically positive on EM risk assets. There is anecdotal evidence of a revival of housing demand in March, and that property developers have once again commenced bidding up land prices in certain parts of the country. Below are the pros and cons of upgrading the EM outlook at the current juncture. Pros The credit impulse in China leads both the mainland’s business cycle and the global manufacturing cycle by an average of nine months. Given its bottom was in December 2018, the trough in the mainland business and global industrial cycles should have been around August 2019 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Manufacturing PMI Has Not Led Global Stocks Global Manufacturing PMI Has Not Led Global Stocks Global Manufacturing PMI Has Not Led Global Stocks Our assessment has been that the bottom in EM equities that occurred in late December 2018 was too early. Our basis has been that the Chinese and global manufacturing cycles were not likely to bottom before August 2019, according to their previous relationship with China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse. Consequently, we have been expecting China-related plays in financial markets to experience a setback before a more sustainable buying opportunity emerged. However, as China’s credit recovery is now gaining momentum and infrastructure spending financed by local government special bonds is accelerating, the window of downside risk for share prices is narrowing. There have been no recent major stimulus measures directed at China’s property market, but it appears banks have substantially boosted mortgage loan origination and their financing of property developers by loosening lending standards. Easy financing for both homebuyers and property developers makes a revival in real estate more likely. The property market and construction activity are critical to the mainland’s business cycle. If green shoots in the property market multiply, the odds of an overall growth recovery will rise substantially. Finally, if the EM equity index breaks above our stop-buy limit, it would clear an important technical resistance level, confirming the sustainability of this rally (Chart I-4). Cons EM corporate profit growth is contracting in U.S. dollar terms, and the pace of contraction will deepen into the end of this year. This assessment is based on the previous decline in China’s credit impulse. The latter suggests a bottom in EM EPS in December 2019 (Chart I-5). It is still unclear whether EM share prices can ignore this profit contraction and advance through the entire year without major bumps. Chart I-4EM Stocks Are Facing Technical Resistance EM Stocks Are Facing Technical Resistance EM Stocks Are Facing Technical Resistance Chart I-5EM Profits Will Continue Contracting EM Profits Will Continue Contracting EM Profits Will Continue Contracting   As of March, Chinese domestic smartphone sales (Chart I-6), as well as Korean, Japanese, Singaporean and Taiwanese exports to the mainland, are all still shrinking at double-digit rates from a year ago (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Consumer Spending In March Was Still Weak China: Consumer Spending In March Was Still Weak China: Consumer Spending In March Was Still Weak Chart I-7Exports To China Contracted At A Double-Digit Rate In March Exports To China Contracted At A Double-Digit Rate In March Exports To China Contracted At A Double-Digit Rate In March   Our indicators for marginal propensity to consume for Chinese households and companies remain in a downtrend as of March (Chart I-8). An upturn in these indicators is needed to validate that the fiscal and credit stimulus is accompanied by a greater multiplier effect. Chart I-8China: Marginal Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Enterprises China: Marginal Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Enterprises China: Marginal Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Enterprises Chart I-9Low Vol Precedes A ##br##Regime Shift Low Vol Precedes A Regime Shift Low Vol Precedes A Regime Shift Finally, financial markets’ aggregate volatility is extremely low (Chart I-9). This is especially true for the currency markets (Chart I-10, top panel). Typically, this is a sign of both complacency and a forthcoming major regime shift in financial markets. Chart I-10The Dollar Is Poised To Break Out Or Break Down The Dollar Is Poised To Break Out Or Break Down The Dollar Is Poised To Break Out Or Break Down We would be much more comfortable upgrading the EM outlook if the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar broke down, corroborating the improvement in global/EM growth. So far, the greenback has been moving sideways along its 200-day moving average (Chart I-10, bottom panel). If the dollar breaks out, it would confirm the negative outlook for EM. Investors should closely watch foreign exchange markets and adjust their investment strategy accordingly. “Helicopter” Money Forever = A Socialist Put China’s forthcoming recovery is good news for financial markets. Nonetheless, the long-term outlook for the Chinese economy is deteriorating because the credit and money, as well as property bubbles, will keep expanding. First, China holds the world record with respect to corporate sector leverage (Chart I-11). Second, households in China are more leveraged than those in the U.S. (Chart I-12). Given that borrowing costs for households are higher in China than in the U.S., interest payments take up a larger share of Chinese households’ disposable income. Chart I-11Corporate Sector Leverage: China Holds The World Record Corporate Sector Leverage: China Holds The World Record Corporate Sector Leverage: China Holds The World Record Chart I-12Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than Americans Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than Americans Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than Americans   Third, contrary to popular belief, banks do not channel savings/deposits into credit. They create deposits/money supply when they lend to or buy assets from non-banks. Money supply is the sum of deposits and cash in circulation. Financial markets’ aggregate volatility is extremely low. This is especially true for the currency markets. In a nutshell, credit and money excesses in China are not natural outcomes of the nation’s high savings rate but are the result of reckless credit origination by China’s commercial banks. We have elaborated on this point in a series of reports we have written on credit, money and savings.1 When commercial banks originate a loan, they create new money and new purchasing power “out of thin air.” Nobody needs to save for a bank to make a loan or buy assets. Consequently, new purchasing power for goods and services boosts demand in the real economy and inflates asset prices. Chinese banks have literally been dropping “helicopter” money over the past 10 years. Since January 2009 – the onset of the country’s massive credit binge – banks have created 165 trillion yuan ($25 trillion) of new broad money, based on our measure of M3 broad money. This is triple of the $8.3 trillion broad money supply created in the U.S., the euro area and Japan combined during the same period (Chart I-13, top panel). Chart I-13Helicopter Money In China Helicopter Money In China Helicopter Money In China China’s broad (M3) money supply now stands at 220 trillion yuan, equivalent to $32.5 trillion. What’s astonishing is that Chinese broad money is larger than the sum of broad money in both the U.S. and the euro area (i.e. all outstanding U.S. dollars and euros in the world combined) (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Yet China’s nominal GDP is only 38% of U.S. and euro area’s GDP combined. Credit and money excesses in China are not natural outcomes of the nation’s high savings rate but are the result of reckless credit origination by China’s commercial banks. In a market-based economy, the constraints on banks doing “helicopter” money are bank shareholders, regulators and central banks. Bank shareholders are the primary and largest losers from credit booms because they are highly exposed to non-performing loans. That is why they should be the first to cut credit flows to the economy when they sense non-payments on loans could rise. In China, neither bank shareholders nor bank regulators or the People’s Bank of China have prevented banks from expanding credit/money. Moreover, the authorities have not forced banks to acknowledge non-performing loans. This scenario – whereby banks expand credit without taking responsibility for collecting the loans – only occurs in a socialist system. This is the ultimate socialist put. China’s Potential Growth Roadmaps We have been arguing for several years that China is facing a historic choice between: (1) Moving toward a more market-based economic system that entails making creditors and borrowers take responsibility for their lending/borrowing and investment decisions. If lenders and borrowers are made explicitly accountable for their business/financial decisions, then credit flows will decelerate considerably, bankruptcies will mushroom and a period of deleveraging will be inevitable. However, the quality of capital allocation will improve, enhancing the country’s productivity and potential growth in the long run (Chart I-14). Chart I-14 This is a scenario of medium-term pain, long-term gain. The recent ramp-up in credit growth does not suggest the authorities are willing to embrace this option. Chart I-15China: Structural Growth Tailwinds Have Dissipated China: Structural Growth Tailwinds Have Dissipated China: Structural Growth Tailwinds Have Dissipated (2) “Helicopter money” and a socialist put scenario entails lower potential GDP growth and rising inflation. If China continues opting to keep the socialist put in place, its potential growth rate – which is equivalent to the sum of growth rates in productivity and the labor force – will drop significantly. In the long run, this socialist put discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, reducing productivity growth. In fact, the industrialization ratio is 85% – not 60% as many contend(Chart I-15, top panel). Further, China’s labor force growth has stalled and will be mildly negative in the years to come (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Together, these circumstances point to a slower potential growth rate. Meanwhile, recurring stimulus via “helicopter” money will create mini-cycles around a falling potential growth rate (Chart I-16). Below we discuss the investment strategy this scenario entails. Chart I-16 Implications Of The Socialist Put For The Currency… Slowing productivity and rampant money/purchasing power creation ultimately lead to rising inflation. Higher inflation and low interest rates - required to sustain an ever-rising debt burden - are a recipe for currency depreciation. Chinese households and businesses are eager to diversify their copious and mushrooming renminbi deposits into foreign currencies and assets. The PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion are equal to only 10% of the amount of yuan deposits and cash in circulation. Foreign exchange reserves’ coverage of local currency money supply is much higher in many other EM countries, including Brazil and Russia (Chart I-17). Chart I-17China's FX Reserves Cover Less Local Currency Deposits Than Peers China's FX Reserves Cover Less Local Currency Deposits Than Peers China's FX Reserves Cover Less Local Currency Deposits Than Peers The enormous amount of money supply/deposits in China is “the sword of Damocles” on the yuan’s exchange rate in the long run. It is therefore inconceivable that China can fully open its capital account in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, capital account restrictions will be further tightened. Plus, the current account will become much more regulated so that there is no leakage of capital via trade transactions – such as over-invoicing of imports or under-invoicing of exports. The inability to repatriate capital when needed and structural RMB depreciation are the key risks to long-term investors in China’s onshore capital markets. …And Chinese Stocks In the socialist put scenario, a buy-and-hold strategy is inappropriate for Chinese stocks: Investors should attempt to play the resultant mini-cycles (Chart I-16). In reality, however, economic and especially financial market mini-cycles are not symmetric, and investors can make money only if they time them properly. In fact, this decade Chinese share prices – both in absolute terms and relative to global stocks – have experience wild swings (Chart I-18). Chart I-18Chinese Stocks Are Following Mini-Cycles Chinese Stocks Are Following Mini-Cycles Chinese Stocks Are Following Mini-Cycles Concerning the current outlook for Chinese investable stocks, our take is as follows: On absolute performance, we will turn positive on Chinese share prices if our stop-buy on EM equities is triggered, as per our discussion above. As for their relative performance within EM and global equity portfolios, simply because the stimulus originates in China does not warrant an overweight position in Chinese stocks. The primary losers from credit bubbles are banks and other financial companies. The basis is that they will carry the burden of potential rising non-performing loans unless the government bails them out by purchasing bad assets at par. The latter has not been the case so far this decade. Hence, an underweight position in Chinese banks/financials is currently warranted. Furthermore, the large debtors in the non-financial corporate sector should also be underweighted. When a company increases its debt but its new investments produce little net new cash flow, its equity value declines. It is difficult to find so many high-return investment projects, especially in a slowing economy. Therefore, another round of considerable capital misallocation is currently underway, and shareholders of the companies that are undertaking these investments will end up losing. In a socialist system, shareholders typically do not make money. They lose money. This is the rationale to underweight Chinese stocks within both EM and global equity portfolios. Yet, there is a caveat: This framework may not be pertinent to the two largest companies in the Chinese investable equity index Ali-Baba and Tencent - each of which accounts for 13% of the index. These two companies score well on the above issues but face different non-macro hazards including regulatory, business model and other risks. Weighing the pros and cons, we recommend maintaining a market weight allocation in Chinese equities within an EM equity portfolio. This is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team, which differs from the recommendations of other BCA services that are currently advocating an overweight position in Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio. A New Trade: Short Chinese Bank / Long U.S. Bank Stocks Chinese banks’ equity value will erode as they once again expand their balance sheets aggressively, as per our discussion above. Chinese banks’ EPS have been and will continue to be diluted by the need to raise more capital. U.S. banks are better capitalized, and their asset quality is much better. Since the 2007-08 credit crisis, they have been much more prudent in expanding their balance sheets. U.S. bank stocks have underperformed the S&P 500 index since August 2018 because of falling U.S. interest rate expectations. The odds are high that U.S. bond yields are bottoming and will rise considerably – because the drag from China’s slowdown on the global economy is diminishing. This will help U.S. bank stocks. Although Chinese bank stocks optically appear undervalued, they are “cheap” for a reason. The fact that they have been “cheap” since 2011 and have failed to re-rate confirms that they suffer from chronic problems that have not been addressed yet (Chart I-19). Finally, their relative performance is facing a major resistance level, and will likely relapse (Chart I-20). Chart I-19Chinese Banks Are Cheap##br## For A Reason Chinese Banks Are Cheap For A Reason Chinese Banks Are Cheap For A Reason Chart I-20A New Trade: Short Chinese Banks / Long U.S. Banks A New Trade: Short Chinese Banks / Long U.S. Banks A New Trade: Short Chinese Banks / Long U.S. Banks   Take Profits On Short Chinese Property Developers / Long U.S. Homebuilders Position “Helicopter” money might be temporary positive for mainland property developers. In the meantime, share prices of U.S. homebuilders will be hurt due to rising U.S. bond yields. We are closing this position to protect profits. This recommendation has produced a 90% gain since its initiation on March 6, 2012. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016 and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights BCA’s China Investment Strategy team recommended that investors upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight (both investable and domestic) in a Special Alert last week. Investors had a legitimate macro fundamental basis to go overweight Chinese stocks as of February 15, but we hesitated to shift our stance due to several still-present risks and out of concern that the sheer magnitude of the spike in credit could cause a regulatory response that would constrain credit growth in future months. The March credit data has confirmed that Chinese policymakers have chosen to prioritize growth for now, but we are unconvinced that a shift back to controlling leverage is out of the question over the coming year. Investors should continue to monitor this and several other risks noted below. Despite having already rallied significantly this year, Chinese investable and domestic stocks have the potential to earn double-digit relative returns (12-15%) in an optimistic scenario in US$ terms versus global stocks over the coming year. Conservatively, we expect high single-digit relative returns (6-8%). Feature BCA’s China Investment Strategy team recommended that investors upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight (both investable and domestic) in a Special Alert last week.1 In this week’s report we address several issues concerning the outlook for the economy and for Chinese stocks in a Q&A format where we answer the questions of a hypothetical, representative investor. In particular, we will discuss how much relative equity upside investors can expect over the coming year, whether the recent pace of credit growth significantly increases the chance of another credit overshoot, and when investors should expect to see a pickup in actual economic activity. Q: First, a question about timing. Why did it take so long to recommend upgrading Chinese stocks? Haven’t Chinese equities been forecasting an economic recovery for several months? A: Prior to the release of the January total social financing data on February 15, investors had no legitimate macro fundamental basis to go overweight Chinese stocks and were instead responding to a relatively less important factor for the economy – the Sino/U.S. trade war. We placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in late-February, and waited for confirmation that the spike in credit was not a one-off surge to be reversed by policymakers dead set against “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. As investors are surely aware, no two economic or financial market cycles are exactly alike. This is particularly true in the case of China; its economy experienced a major structural shift a decade ago, and economic and financial market oscillations since then have been highly disparate. As part of our ongoing search to identify tools that reliably predict the Chinese economy, we presented detailed evidence in a November 2017 Special Report2 that suggested monetary conditions, money, and credit growth have been among the most reliable predictors of Chinese “investment-relevant economic activity” (Chart 1). Chinese activity, in turn, has reliably led investable equity earnings growth, and we have therefore followed this framework closely when judging the economic outlook and the attendant implications for investment strategy. Chart 1Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Reliably Lead Chinese Economic Activity Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Reliably Lead Chinese Economic Activity Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Reliably Lead Chinese Economic Activity Given that financial markets typically lead turning points in economic activity, many market participants have incorrectly suggested that the bottom in Chinese stocks in late-October reflected prescient expectations of a durable re-acceleration in Chinese credit growth. Rather, a detailed examination of the events of the past year highlights that the opposite is true: global investors, the most influential “buyer” of Chinese investable stocks, materially lagged or ignored important developments in leading economic indicators and focused instead on a relatively less important factor for the economy – the Sino/U.S. trade war. Two important pieces of evidence support this point: We prominently discussed the risk that a trade war would pose to China’s economy in the first-half of 2018,3 but we underscored numerous times that this risk was on top of an ongoing and much more concerning slowdown in leading indicators for China’s industrial sector. By June of last year our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index had been in a downtrend for 16 months straight (Chart 2), and yet investors only sold Chinese investable stocks once President Trump began imposing tariffs against Chinese exports to the U.S. We placed Chinese stocks on downgrade watch at the end of March 2018,4 well in advance of the selloff versus global stocks, and deftly triggered the downgrade on June 20.5 Relative to the global benchmark, November 2018 represented the largest month of relative performance for Chinese investable stocks. At that time, there was zero credible evidence to suggest that a credit upturn was underway; in fact, money and credit growth weakened on a sequential basis for most of Q4. It is true that monetary policy eased significantly following the imposition of U.S. tariffs in June, but given the extent of the decline in interbank rates, this would have led to a bottom in relative performance in July or August if investors were willing to assume that China’s monetary transmission mechanism would work without impairment. November 2nd marks the clear inflection point for Chinese investable stocks and our BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator (Chart 3), and in our view this proves beyond a doubt that investors have been solely focused on trade: on that day, news broke that President Trump wanted to make a deal with Xi Jinping at the G20 meeting in Argentina later that month, and had instructed aides to begin “drafting terms”.6 Chart 2Until Tariffs Arrived, Investors Completely Ignored The Decline In Leading Indicators Until Tariffs Arrived, Investors Completely Ignored The Decline In Leading Indicators Until Tariffs Arrived, Investors Completely Ignored The Decline In Leading Indicators Chart 3It Was News Of A Trade Deal That Caused A Bottom In China-Related Assets It Was News Of A Trade Deal That Caused A Bottom In China-Related Assets It Was News Of A Trade Deal That Caused A Bottom In China-Related Assets   Besides recommending a tactical overweight stance on December 5,7 we generally failed to forecast and position for a meaningful détante in the trade war, and we acknowledge that this contributed to a period of missed potential outperformance. But our research suggests that a trade deal would have been irrelevant had the drivers of China’s relevant economic activity continued to deteriorate, and investors had no concrete signs to suggest otherwise prior to the release of the January total social financing data on February 15 (Chart 4). We conservatively forecast high single-digit relative returns versus global stocks, on the order of 6-8%. There is even more upside potential in an optimistic scenario. Chart 4Before February 15, There was No Basis To Confidently Project An Upturn In Credit Before February 15, There was No Basis To Confidently Project An Upturn In Credit Before February 15, There was No Basis To Confidently Project An Upturn In Credit Starting on February 15, investors did have a legitimate macro fundamental basis to go overweight Chinese stocks. We responded to the January data by placing Chinese stocks on upgrade watch,8 but we hesitated to move to an outright cyclical overweight at that time due to several still-present risks (discussed below) and out of concern that the sheer magnitude of the spike in credit could cause a regulatory response, discreet or otherwise, that would constrain credit growth in future months. The public spat between Premier Li Keqiang and the PBOC over whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus and the disappointing February credit data were both emblematic of these concerns, but ultimately the March credit data has confirmed that a significant credit expansion is underway. This has indeed raised the odds of a major credit overshoot, although we reiterate below why policymakers are likely to remain reluctant to allow one to occur. Q: Chinese investable stocks have already rallied 22% year-to-date in US$ terms; domestic stocks are up 37%. How much further upside can investors realistically expect? A: In an optimistic scenario, Chinese investable and domestic stocks have the potential to earn double-digit relative returns (12-15%) in US$ terms versus global stocks over the coming year. Conservatively, we expect high single-digit relative returns (6-8%). Chart 5 presents our earnings recession model for the MSCI China index. The recent improvement in credit, forward earnings momentum, and the new export orders component of the official manufacturing PMI have already caused the model probability to peak. The dotted line shows that the odds of a contraction in earnings over the coming year are set to fall very sharply if credit even just continues on a moderate expansion path, and assuming that the current values of the remaining model predictors stay constant. Chart 6 shows that while there has been an earnings “response” to the ongoing economic slowdown in China, the response has so far been less intense than what might be expected. While this raises a near-term risk for Chinese stocks if Q1 & Q2 earnings disappoint (see below), it also implies that the level of 12-month trailing earnings may not trend lower over the coming year. Chart 5The Odds Of An Earnings Decline Over The Next Year Have Peaked And Will Fall Further The Odds Of An Earnings Decline Over The Next Year Have Peaked And Will Fall Further The Odds Of An Earnings Decline Over The Next Year Have Peaked And Will Fall Further Chart 6The 'Response' Of Earnings To A Slowing Economy Has Been Less Intense Than Expected The 'Response' Of Earnings To A Slowing Economy Has Been Less Intense Than Expected The 'Response' Of Earnings To A Slowing Economy Has Been Less Intense Than Expected   If Chinese earnings are largely stable over the next year, we think it is reasonable to expect that investable Chinese stock prices will re-approach or fully return to their early-2018 high. We noted in our March 27 Weekly Report that China’s potential to command a higher multiple than global stocks is probably capped barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth,9 but Chart 7 highlights that Chinese stocks were still cheaper than their global counterparts at their peak early last year. Chart 7Even At Their 2018 High, Chinese Stocks Were Cheaper Than Global Stocks Even At Their 2018 High, Chinese Stocks Were Cheaper Than Global Stocks Even At Their 2018 High, Chinese Stocks Were Cheaper Than Global Stocks It is true that the multiple expansion that occurred for Chinese stocks in 2016 and 2017 was quite large, but in our view this was due to the index addition and growth of technology companies with potential structural growth stories (such as the “BAT” stocks) rather than due to a significant decline in the risk premium assigned to Chinese stocks. These firms are still present in the investable index, and we have no reason to believe that investors over the coming year will perceive their structural earnings potential to be any different than was the case early last year, which suggests that a forward P/E ratio of 14 to 14½ is again achievable. Domestic equities do not directly benefit from the “BAT effect”, but their realized earnings growth has been somewhat superior than the investable index over the past few years. In effect, we have no strong reasons to argue against a return of both domestic and investable forward multiples back to levels seen in early-2018. Chart 8 highlights that a return to these levels would imply a relative price return of about 12% for investable stocks and 14-15% for domestic stocks, in US$ terms. Several risks (highlighted below) underscore the possibility that Chinese stocks will trend higher but not fully return to their early-2018 levels over the coming year. Given this, we conservatively forecast high single-digit relative returns versus global stocks, on the order of 6-8%. As a final point, for investors focused on A-shares, we should note that our domestic equity call is based on the MSCI China A Onshore index, not the CSI 300 or the FTSE/Xinhua A50 index. While the former very closely tracks the latter two, Chart 9 highlights that the CSI 300 and the A50 have rebounded closer to their early-2018 highs than the MSCI China A Onshore index, suggesting that there is somewhat less upside potential for the former than the latter. Chart 8There Is Meaningful Further Upside Potential For Chinese Stocks Vs. Global There Is Meaningful Further Upside Potential For Chinese Stocks Vs. Global There Is Meaningful Further Upside Potential For Chinese Stocks Vs. Global Chart 9A-Shares: Favor MSCI Indexes Over The CSI300 And The A50 A-Shares: Favor MSCI Indexes Over The CSI300 And The A50 A-Shares: Favor MSCI Indexes Over The CSI300 And The A50   Q: What specific trades would you recommend as a result of your change in stance towards Chinese stocks? A: We are making five changes to our trade book, four of which are directly linked to our upgrade recommendation. In addition, we are closing another trade related to iron ore, given that prices have risen to a multi-year high. We are opening the following new trades in response to our recommendation to upgrade Chinese stocks: Open long MSCI China Index / short MSCI All Country World Index (US$) Open long MSCI China A Onshore Index / short MSCI All Country World Index (US$) Open long MSCI China Growth Index / short MSCI All Country World Index (US$) Regarding the latter trade, we noted in a previous report that value stocks have been responsible for more of the rally in China’s investable market versus the global average than their growth peers, and Chart 10 highlights that a long China growth / short broad market trade is strongly correlated with China’s relative performance trend versus global stocks. This means that a long MSCI China Growth Index / short MSCI All Country World Index trade represents a higher octane version of our long MSCI China Index position, which we offer as a riskier trade for investors seeking maximum upside potential in response to a cyclical recovery in China’s economy. Chart 10China Growth: A High Octane Version Of The MSCI China Index China Growth: A High Octane Version Of The MSCI China Index China Growth: A High Octane Version Of The MSCI China Index In addition to these new trades, we are closing the following two existing positions in our trade book: Long MSCI China Low-Beta Sectors / short MSCI China trade, initiated on June 27, 2018 and closed at a modest loss of 0.7% Long September 2019 iron ore futures / short September 2019 steel rebar futures trade initiated on October 17, 2018 and closed at a substantial gain of 22% We initiated our low-beta sectors position soon after we downgraded Chinese stocks in June of last year, which acted as a defensive trade for investors to play while waiting out a selloff in Chinese relative performance. The profit from the trade peaked at approximately 11% in early-October, but has since given back most of its gains. Lastly, we are closing our iron ore / steel rebar pair trade to lock in a healthy profit from the position. An improvement in Chinese economic growth would typically be bullish for iron ore prices, but they have recently surged to a multi-year high in response to supply restrictions. This implies that stronger demand over the coming 6-12 months may not necessarily be positive for prices if it is accompanied by easier supply-side conditions. Q: What are the risks facing Chinese relative equity performance over the coming year? A: A collapse in the trade talks or an underwhelming deal, a lagged and series decline in earnings per share, a sharp slowdown in credit growth after a trade deal is signed, and a meaningful lag between the upturn in credit and an improvement in Chinese “hard data”. There are four non-trivial risks to a bullish relative stance towards Chinese stocks over the coming year. In general, these scenarios pose a risk to the magnitude of an uptrend in Chinese relative performance, but in some cases could prevent Chinese relative performance from trending higher over the coming year (and thus bear monitoring). There are still four non-trivial risks to a bullish relative stance towards Chinese stocks over the coming year. The trade deal between the U.S. and China falls through or substantially underwhelms. Despite signs continuing to point to the likelihood of a deal, a meaningful breakdown in trade talks or an underwhelming deal clearly have the potential to derail an uptrend in Chinese relative performance given that global investors have (incorrectly) treated the conflict as the primary risk factor facing the Chinese economy. A full resumption of the trade war would definitely cause Chinese stocks to actively underperform until evidence presented itself that the inevitable policy response is stabilizing economic activity. An underwhelming deal would probably weigh on the magnitude of China’s outperformance, but would probably not constitute a threat on its own to an uptrend in relative performance unless the “deal” did not result in a significant removal of tariffs (which, to us, is the point of China participating in the negotiations in the first place). Chinese earnings per share decline significantly from current levels. We noted in Chart 6 on page 6 that the earnings “response” to the ongoing economic slowdown in China has been less intense than we expected. Our earnings recession model suggests that the odds of a contraction in earnings over the coming 12 months has fallen meaningfully, but that does not rule out further near-term weakness stemming from the slowdown in activity that has already occurred. Chart 11Any Further Weakness In EPS Growth Should Be Temporary Any Further Weakness In EPS Growth Should Be Temporary Any Further Weakness In EPS Growth Should Be Temporary We noted earlier that Chinese economic and financial market oscillations have been highly disparate since 2010 (when the economy experienced a clear structural shift), and as such we are unable to confidently predict the magnitude of a decline in EPS in response to a given amount of weakness in China’s old economy. For now, the meaningful uptick in net earnings revisions as well as the stabilization in forward EPS momentum (Chart 11) suggests that any further weakness in EPS growth will be temporary, but a larger or more prolonged decline should be acknowledged as a serious risk to our stance. Chinese credit growth slows meaningfully after a U.S./China trade deal is signed. To the extent that Chinese policymakers are still serious about preventing significant further leveraging, it is possible that the recent pace of credit growth will slow following the signing of a trade deal. This could occur because of a shift to tighter monetary policy, or due to the use of informal “administrative controls” to limit the pace of further lending. Chart 12 highlights that the pace of credit growth in the first quarter, if sustained, would actually imply a credit overshoot; our recommendation to upgrade Chinese stocks was based on the assumption of a moderate credit expansion, and thus we would not be surprised (or worried) if the pace of credit growth slows somewhat. However, a more meaningful slowdown, particularly if coupled with signals from policymakers that a much slower pace of growth is desired, could pose a risk to our stance. A recovery in China’s “hard data”, i.e. its coincident activity measures, meaningfully lags the pickup in credit growth. The March credit data has made us sufficiently confident that a rebound in Chinese investment-relevant economic activity is forthcoming, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the data will bottom and whether further near-term weakness is likely. On the latter point, we noted in our April 3 Weekly Report that coincident economic activity sharply converged in January and February with our leading indicator for China’s economy (shown in Chart 1 on page 2), as most if not all of the previously beneficial tariff front-running effect washed out of the data.10 This implies that future changes in activity measures are now more likely to reflect actual changes in underlying economic circumstances, but a lagged response may still occur and could weigh on investor sentiment towards Chinese stocks over the coming few months. Q: What is your best estimate as to when investors can expect to see a pickup in China’s “hard” economic data? A: China’s activity data is likely to bottom between now and the middle of the year, implying that activity will pickup in 2H2019. Chart 13 presents an average correlation profile of our BCA Li Keqiang leading indicator and its main credit component (adjusted total social financing, “TSF”, as a share of GDP) with four activity measures: 1) the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index, 2) nominal manufacturing output, 3) nominal total import growth in US$, and 4) nominal total import growth in RMB. Values to the left of the zero line show that the leading indicator / TSF as a share of GDP tend to lead the four activity measures, with the x-axis values showing by how many months. Chart 12Q1 Credit Growth, If Sustained, Would Lead To An Overshoot Q1 Credit Growth, If Sustained, Would Lead To An Overshoot Q1 Credit Growth, If Sustained, Would Lead To An Overshoot Chart 13Our Indicators Tend To Lead Actual Economic Activity By 4-6 Months Our Indicators Tend To Lead Actual Economic Activity By 4-6 Months Our Indicators Tend To Lead Actual Economic Activity By 4-6 Months China’s activity data is likely to bottom between now and the middle of the year. The chart suggests that our predictors tend to lead actual economic activity by 4-6 months on average, depending on the predictor and the activity measure in question. Our LKI leading indicator technically bottomed in June of last year, although the rise has since been narrowly-based and it has retreated since October. TSF as a share of GDP clearly bottomed in December, which implies that China’s activity data is likely to bottom between now and the middle of the year. This is consistent with our view that the global economy will improve in the second half of the year, as well as our recommendation to overweight Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis. The risk, as noted above, is that investors react negatively to any further weakness in China’s measures of economic activity before they durably bottom. Q: Final question – In your list of potential risks facing Chinese relative equity performance, you cited the issue of whether policymakers are serious about preventing significant further leveraging. It seems as if they are stepping away from that. Will they, and is this fundamentally justified? A: For now, Chinese policymakers have chosen to prioritize growth, out of fear that the economy will decelerate significantly and possibly spiral out of control. But we are unconvinced that a shift back to controlling leverage is out of the question over the coming year. Policymakers have good economic reasons to try and shift China’s economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption, and they are likely to see the act of restraining credit growth as furthering this goal. Arguably, this is one of the most important questions facing global investors over both cyclical and secular time horizons, and it is likely to feature prominently in our research over the coming year. The question of the sustainable growth rate of China’s debt is a controversial one, even among BCA strategists. While it is by no means a conclusive answer, we tackled the question in our October 31 Weekly Report,11 and came down on the side that China’s policymakers have good economic reasons to try and shift China’s economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption. To the extent that attempts to restrain credit growth further this goal, our sense is that it is more wisdom than folly. We noted three key points in our October report: First, while there is a strong empirical cross-country relationship between average rates of investment over the past half-century and the level of real per capita GDP today, that relationship also shows that China’s current rate of investment is nearly off the scale and thus probably cannot be sustained. Second, in 2014, based on the definition of the data from the Penn World Table (GDP share of gross capital formation at current purchasing power parity), China had maintained its investment share above 30% for 12 years. At first blush, there appears to be some precedent suggesting that China’s outsized investment run can go on for longer: among the 80 countries with data available since 1950, 14 of them have experienced a longer continuous run of investment as a share of GDP. However, Chart 14 shows that most of these concurrent experiences occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when global exports as a share of GDP were rising from a very low base. This implies that historical examples of outsized investment runs have largely reflected export-driven catch-up stories, which bodes poorly for China’s ability to continue to invest at its recent massive scale given that global exports to GDP appear to have peaked. Chart 14High And Sustained Rates Of Investment Have Been Driven By Exports High And Sustained Rates Of Investment Have Been Driven By Exports High And Sustained Rates Of Investment Have Been Driven By Exports Third, the historical relationship between investment and real per capita GDP captures the potential gains of profitable and rational investment (the accumulation of a “useful” stock of capital). But an unfortunate reality facing savers is that while one can certainly choose to save or invest, one cannot necessarily choose the accompanying rate of return. If China invests heavily at very low or negative rates of return, the idea that continued heavy investment will lead China out of the middle-income trap is very likely wrong. On the third point, there is good evidence to suggest that the marginal gains from investment in China have been falling. The private sector debt-to-GDP ratio features prominently in the case against profitable investment in China: despite a massive rise in investment and debt from 2002-2007, the ratio barely rose, because this debt was used to accumulate capital that verifiably delivered nominal GDP growth (Chart 15). Yet following 2010 the ratio rose sharply, implying that the returns from the investment that has taken place over the past decade have been (at least so far) considerably lower than those of the prior decade. Also, we noted in our August 29 Special Report that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have accounted for a sizeable portion of the private sector leveraging that occurred after 2010,12 and that the marginal net return on borrowed funds for SOEs has become negative (Chart 16). A gap between the cost/return on borrowed funds strongly implies that the investment channeled through SOEs over the past several years does not represent, on balance, the accumulation of useful capital. Chart 15A Rise In Debt-To-GDP Inherently Implies That Investment Is Increasingly Unproductive A Rise In Debt-To-GDP Inherently Implies That Investment Is Increasingly Unproductive A Rise In Debt-To-GDP Inherently Implies That Investment Is Increasingly Unproductive Chart 16Strong Evidence Against Productive SOE Investment Strong Evidence Against Productive SOE Investment Strong Evidence Against Productive SOE Investment We believe that Chinese policymakers now understand the risks posed with extremely high and prolonged rates of investment. Whereas most modern central banks characterize their monetary policy decisions within the context of a trade-off between growth and inflation, Chinese policymakers now appear to face a trade-off between growth and leveraging. For now, they have chosen growth, out of fear that the economy will decelerate significantly and possibly spiral out of control. But we are unconvinced that a shift back to controlling leverage is out of the question over the coming year, particularly after a trade deal has been signed with the U.S. As noted above, this is a non-trivial risk to our recommendation to overweight Chinese stocks over the coming year, and thus bears monitoring To be continued!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Alert, “Upgade Chinese Stocks To Overweight”, dated April 12, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “The Question That Won’t Go Away”, dated April 18, 2018, “China: A Low-Conviction Overweight”, dated May 2, 2018, “The Three Pillars Of China’s Economy”, dated May 16, 2018, and “A Shaky Ladder”, dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight”, dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral”, dated June 20, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see “Trump Said To Ask Cabinet To Draft Possible Trade Deal With Xi”, Bloomberg News, November 2, 2018. 7 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative”, dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Ready, Aim, But Don’t Fire (Yet)”, dated March 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro and Market Review”, dated April 3, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is China Making A Policy Mistake?”, dated October 31, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging”, dated August 29, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Q1/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -17bps in the first quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio (-40bps), where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions in long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+23bps) after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves. Feature For fixed income markets, the start of 2019 has been categorized by three main trends: falling bond yields, narrowing credit spreads, and slower global growth. Central bankers have been forced to shift to a much more dovish stance on monetary policy, in response to heightened uncertainties over the global economy, helping trigger rallies in both government bonds and credit. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the surprisingly eventful first quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Overweight Credit Pays Off, Below-Benchmark Duration Does Not Chart of the WeekDuration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Duration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Duration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2019 Overall Return Attribution Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad   The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter was 3.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -17bps (Chart of the Week).1 The bulk of the underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio (-40bps) - a function of both our below-benchmark duration tilt and underweight stance on sovereign bonds (Table 1). Of course, the flipside of that government bond underweight is a spread product overweight. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2 Chart 3 The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+11bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+10bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+8bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade financials (+5bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (+4bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-17bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-12bps) Underweight France government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-8bps) Underweight Emerging Markets U.S. dollar denominated corporates (-7bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4 It was a great quarter for global fixed income, as all countries and spread products generated positive total returns. Generally, our allocations did reasonably well. There were more blue bars than red bars on the left side of Chart 4 (i.e. more overweights than underweights where returns were higher), and vice versa on the right side (more underweights than overweights where returns were lower). Some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth. The negative overall Q1/2019 result is obviously not satisfactory, but we are still pleased with the positive returns generated from the spread product side after we did our January upgrade. More importantly, some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth, pushing bond yields higher. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index in the first quarter of the year. The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio, where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions on the long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5 Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will benefit from two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) versus government bonds. In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we are maintaining our tactical overweight tilt, equal to seven percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on global growth, which appears to be bottoming out after the sharp slowdown seen in 2018, to the benefit of corporate bond performance. That faster growth backdrop will also benefit our below-benchmark duration stance through a rebound in government bond yields. This should happen only slowly, however, as global central bankers are likely to keep their newly-dovish policy bias in place for some time until there are more decisive signs of accelerating growth AND inflation. We are maintaining our significant below-benchmark duration tilt (one year short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in Q1 will only be clawed back slowly over the next 3-6 months (Chart 6). As for country allocation, we continue to favor regions where tighter monetary policy is least likely (overweight Japan, the U.K., and Australia, neutral core Europe and Canada). We are staying underweight the U.S., however, as the market’s expectations for the Fed is too dovish, with -25bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next twelve months. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. The overall yield from the model bond portfolio is modestly above that of the benchmark (+7bps). That is admittedly a fairly small amount of positive carry (Chart 7) given the overweight credit position. It is a consequence of our below-benchmark duration stance, which is focused on underweights in longer, higher-yielding ends of government bond yield curves (i.e. we have a bear-steepening bias in the U.S., core Europe and even the very long-end in Japan). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious   Even though we have decent-sized overall tilts on global duration and spread product allocation, our estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) remains low (Chart 8). This is a function of some of the offsetting country and sector tilts within the overall allocations (i.e. more Japan than Germany, more Spain than Italy, more U.S. corporates than EM corporates). We remain comfortable maintaining a tracking error target range of between 40-60bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling, as our internal weightings are helping keep overall portfolio volatility at a modest level. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts Chart Chart In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.2 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, are all driven by what we continue to believe will be the most important driver of market returns in 2019 – the path of U.S. monetary policy. Chart Chart Our Base Case: the Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar remains flat, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index hovers around 15, and there is a mild bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is the case of a pickup in U.S. and global growth that is strong enough to support higher commodity prices, but not intense enough to rapidly boost U.S. core inflation, allowing the Fed to keep rates unchanged. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed does a surprise +25bps rate hike in June or September, the U.S. dollar rises by +3%, oil prices increase +10%, the VIX index climbs to 25 and there is a sharp bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This would occur if the U.S. economy reaccelerates alongside improved global growth, U.S. core inflation and inflation expectations move higher, and market volatility increases from a surprisingly hawkish Fed. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -3%, oil prices decline -15%, the VIX index increases to 35 and there is a sharp bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth momentum fades once again, leaving the Fed little choice but to ease monetary policy as market volatility surges alongside elevated recession risks. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are all unchanged from our late portfolio review in early January (Chart 9). The U.S. Treasury yield changes, however, are more moderate than what we used three months ago (Chart 10). That reflects the Fed’s dovish turn since then, which limits the upside for yields from multiple Fed hikes in 2019. Chart 9Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index by +43bps in our Base Case scenario. This comes from the relative outperformance of credit versus government bonds in an environment of slowly rising bond yields (below-benchmark duration), and tighter credit spreads (overweighting U.S. corporates). In the Very Hawkish Fed scenario, our model portfolio is projected to outperform the benchmark by +29bps. This comes mostly from below-benchmark duration, with more muted credit performance as spreads widen and volatility increases due to the unexpected Fed rate hike. In the Very Dovish Fed scenario, the model bond portfolio is expected to lag the benchmark by -49bps. Performance would get hit from both credit and duration, as government bond yields fall and credit spreads widen sharply against a backdrop of even slower global growth. The overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. While we do not place probabilities on our scenarios in this analysis, if we did, the Very Dovish Fed scenario would be far less likely than the Very Hawkish Fed scenario (by definition, the Base Case is our most likely outcome). Global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the rest of 2019. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. Bottom Line: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Yield curve dynamics, higher oil prices, recovering balance sheets, and compelling valuations and technicals all suggest that energy stocks will burst higher in the coming months.  Melting medical cost inflation, BCA’s rising interest rate expectations along with an economy running at full steam, all suggest that managed health care margins and profits will overwhelm in the coming quarters. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P managed health care index to overweight today. Add the S&P energy index to the high-conviction overweight list today. Table 1 Show Me The Profits Show Me The Profits Feature On the eve of earnings season, the SPX ended last week higher as bank profits delivered and allayed fears of recession. All-time absolute highs in the S&P tech sector and in the Philly SOX index suggest that global growth will likely reaccelerate in the back half of the year, vaulting the broad market to new highs. In addition, the suppressed Treasury term premium1 signals that the path of least resistance for equities is higher on a cyclical time horizon (term premium shown inverted, Chart 1). Chart 1All Clear... All Clear... All Clear... Nevertheless, some caution is still warranted from a tactical perspective. Since March 4 when we first turned short-term cautious on the broad equity market,2 the SPX has moved roughly 100 points both ways. Internal market moves, financial conditions, fund flows, complacency and the current economic backdrop all signal that stocks are not out of the woods yet. Namely, the S&P high beta versus the S&P low volatility tilt has failed to confirm the slingshot in the SPX (Chart 2). Similar to the small cap underperformance, mega cap tech is trouncing small cap tech stocks (Chart 3). Not only do large cap technology stocks have pristine balance sheets, but they also have earnings. In contrast, from the 89 S&P 600 tech constituents 54 have no forward profits. The weak over strong balance sheet underperformance is emitting the same signal (top panel, Chart 3). Chart 2...But Some... ...But Some... ...But Some... Chart 3...Caution... ...Caution... ...Caution... The bond market is also sending a warning shot. High yield corporate bonds are underperforming long-dated Treasurys (middle panel, Chart 2). And, the junk bond option adjusted spread has not fallen to the 2018 lows, let alone all-time lows (not shown). While a lot has been said on easier financial conditions, they have yet to return to the early-2018 lows. In fact, similar to the non-confirmation of the all-time SPX highs in late-September, the GS financial conditions index (FCI) is tracing a higher low, warning that equities have room to fall (FCI shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2). Mutual fund flows on all equity related products are contracting on a net sales basis. Historically, fund flows and equity returns are joined at the hip and the current divergence suggests that equity prices will likely succumb to deficient demand (top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4...Is Warranted ...Is Warranted ...Is Warranted On the economic front, last Wednesday we highlighted in an Insight Report, that lumber – a hyper sensitive economic indicator – failed to corroborate the recent equity market euphoria. The weak Citi Economic Surprise Index, also warns that the economic data has yet to turn the corner and should weigh on equities (bottom panel, Chart 4). What ties everything together is SPX profits. The news on this front is mixed, at least for the next little while: EPS will most likely contract in the first half of the year, but equity investors are looking through this earnings recession. Last year’s U.S. dollar appreciation will dent both revenues and EPS, and Q1/2019 is the first quarter where such greenback strength will subtract from corporate P&Ls (Chart 5). Chart 5Dollar Trouble? Dollar Trouble? Dollar Trouble? What worries us most is the sectorial concentration of 2019 profit growth in one sector, financials. Another source of concern is the heavyweight tech sector’s negative profit path for calendar 2019. Such sudden internal profit moves both in magnitude and in a short time frame are far from reassuring, especially given that overall profit estimates are still trimmed. Chart 6A depicts the current sector profit contribution to 2019 growth, and compares it with the January 22nd iteration (Chart 6B). What a difference three months make. Chart 6 Chart 6 In sum, internal equity and bond market dynamics, financial conditions, the economic soft-patch and the looming profit recession all signal that short-term equity market caution is still warranted. This week we upgrade a health care subsector and reiterate our bullish stance on a deep cyclical sector. Catch Up Phase Looms For Energy Stocks Last week we broadened out our research on the yield curve (YC) inversion beyond the S&P 500 to the GICS1 sectors.3 As a reminder, the SPX peaks following the yield curve inversion and on average the S&P energy sector performs the best from the time the YC inverts until the S&P 500 peters out (please refer to Table 3 from the April 8, Special Report). While every cycle is different, if history at least rhymes, deep cyclical energy stocks will likely outperform as the SPX eventually breaks out to fresh all-time highs. Already, year-to-date the S&P energy sector is the third best performing sector, besting the SPX by over 200bps. More gains are in store, especially given the big dichotomy between the oil price recovery and the relative share price ratio (Chart 7). What is perplexing is the ingrained sell-side analyst pessimism (Chart 6A) and lack of belief that oil prices will remain near current levels or even continue their ascent as our sister Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) service publication predicts. Not only are EPS forecast to contract in every quarter this year, or 10% year-over-year according to IBES, but also revenues are slated to fall in every quarter in 2019. We would lean against this extreme analyst bearishness. While the $3.5/bbl backwardation in WTI oil futures prices one year out, and more than twice that 24-months out, underpins Wall Street’s gloomy energy sector outlook, U.S. oil extraction productivity reinforces sector profits. As U.S. crude oil production hits new all-time highs this is extracted by fewer oil rigs (bottom panel, Chart 7). If BCA’s CES constructive oil price expectation pans out, then energy stocks will easily surpass the profit and revenue bar that analysts have set extremely low for the sector. Delivering on the profit front will likely serve as a catalyst to rerate these deep cyclical stocks higher (Chart 8) and thus a catch up phase looms for energy stocks, at least up to the current level of WTI crude oil prices (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Catch Up Catch Up Catch Up Chart 8Bombed Out Valuation Bombed Out Valuation Bombed Out Valuation Granted, the U.S. dollar is a key determinant of oil prices and if BCA’s view proves accurate that global growth will return in the back half of the year (second panel, Chart 9), that is synonymous with a depreciating greenback, which in turn is bullish the broad commodity complex in general and oil prices (and thus energy stocks) in particular (middle panel, Chart 7). As a reminder, oil prices are an excellent global growth barometer, similar to their sibling Dr. Copper. Recovering global growth will boost energy stocks in an additional way: via a favorable supply/demand crude oil balance. Not only is OPEC rebalancing the global oil market through a reduction on the supply front, but a trio of potential supply shocks from Iranian sanctions, Venezuelan infrastructure and Libyan conflict are providing price support. Further, global growth has historically been tightly correlated with rising non-OECD oil demand (Chart 10). Chart 9Global Growth Beneficiary Global Growth Beneficiary Global Growth Beneficiary Chart 10Favorable Supply/Demand Dynamics Favorable Supply/Demand Dynamics Favorable Supply/Demand Dynamics Meanwhile, the broad energy sector is still licking its wounds from the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession and is stabilizing debt and increasing EBITDA (fifth panel, Chart 11), thus the net debt/EBITDA ratio for the index has collapsed from over 11 to around 2, a level similar to the broad market (second panel, Chart 11). Interest coverage (EBIT/interest expense) is also renormalizing higher and is no longer sending a default warning for the energy space as a whole (third panel, Chart 11). The junk energy bond market corroborates/reflects this balance sheet improvement and is no longer flashing red (bottom panel, Chart 9). Finally, bombed out technical conditions are contrarily positive, and such extreme negative readings have marked the start of playable and sizable relative outperformance periods (Chart 12). Chart 11No Red Flags No Red Flags No Red Flags Chart 12Contrary Alert: Depressed Technicals Contrary Alert: Depressed Technicals Contrary Alert: Depressed Technicals Netting it all out, YC dynamics, higher oil prices on the back of rising global growth and a favorable supply/demand crude oil backdrop, recovering balance sheets, and compelling valuations and technicals suggest that energy stocks will burst higher in the coming months. Bottom Line: We reiterate our above benchmark recommendation in the S&P energy sector and today we are adding it to our high-conviction overweight list. Buy Into Managed Health Care Weakness A little over a year ago we moved to the sidelines in the S&P managed health care index, crystalizing significant relative profits of 28% for our U.S. equity portfolio.4 Now the time has come anew to explore this niche health care index from the long side. While we left some money on the table since our late-May 2018 move, relative share prices have come full circle, valuations have fallen roughly 18% from the late-2018 peak and analysts’ euphoria has been reined in (Chart 13). Chart 13Reset Reset Reset The inter- and intra-industry M&A fever has died down from mid-2018 and the rising momentum of a “Medicare For All” bill has weighed negatively on HMO sentiment. With regard to the latter, our geopolitical strategists believe that passage is possible. If the Democrats can unseat an incumbent president in 2020, they will also likely take the Senate and keep the House. This means they will be in the position to pass a major piece of legislation. While Trump is favored to win, barring a recession, the risk of both a Democratic sweep and a push for “Medicare for All” could be as high as 27%, and this would have a dramatic impact on the health care sector.5 Tack on the near 90bps drop in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield since the November 2018 peak, and factors have fallen into place for a bearish raid in this pure play health insurance index. Thin managed health care margins and profits move in close lockstep with interest rates as roughly 10% of the industry’s operating income is tied to “investment income”. In other words, as insurers receive the premia they typically invest it in Treasurys and that explains the high EPS and margin sensitivity on interest rate moves (Chart 14). While at first sight, the outlook for profits appears grim, BCA’s bond strategists expect a selloff in the bond market to materialize in the back half of the year simultaneously with a pick-up in global growth which will prove a tonic to both margins and EPS. In addition, leading indicators of heath care insurance profit margins are flashing green. Not only are medical costs melting including drug price inflation (second & bottom panels, Chart 15), but also industry cost structures are kept at bay with wages climbing below a 2%/annum rate growth and trailing overall wage inflation (third panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Overdone Overdone Overdone Chart 15Melting Cost Inflation Melting Cost Inflation Melting Cost Inflation On the demand front, as the economy is running at full employment, with unemployment insurance claims probing 60-year lows and with wages representing a headache for small and medium business owners, enrollment should stay healthy (Chart 16). Most importantly, the combination of decreasing medical cost inflation and a healthy overall labor market herald a steep decline in the industry’s medical loss ratio. All of this is unambiguously bullish for margins and profits. Finally, relative valuations and technicals have both corrected from previously stretched levels and offer a compelling entry point for fresh capital (Chart 17). Chart 16Full Employment Is Bullish Full Employment Is Bullish Full Employment Is Bullish Chart 17Unloved And Under-Owned Unloved And Under-Owned Unloved And Under-Owned Netting it all out, despite the risks that “Medicare For All” pose, melting medical cost inflation, BCA’s rising interest rate expectations along with an economy running at full steam, all suggest that managed health care margins and profits will overwhelm in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P managed health care index to overweight today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, ANTH, HUM, CNC, WCG.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      According to the NY Fed: “Treasury yields can be decomposed into two components: expectations of the future path of short-term Treasury yields and the Treasury term premium. The term premium is the compensation that investors require for bearing the risk that short-term Treasury yields do not evolve as they expected.” https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/treasury-term-premia-1961-present.html 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly” dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, “10 Most FAQs From The Road” dated April 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Seeing The Light” dated May 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5      If there is a 60% chance the Democrats nominate a left-wing candidate, and a 45% chance they win the election, then there is a 27% chance that they are in a position to push for “Medicare for All” with fair odds of passage. Everything will depend on the specific outcomes of the Democratic primary, presidential campaign, general election, post-election government policy priorities, and congressional passage. Stay tuned as in the coming months we will be publishing a Special Report on “Medicare For All” and health care sector implications co-authored with our sister Geopolitical Strategy service. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Dear Client, I hosted a Webcast on Thursday, April 4th, during which I discussed the major investment themes and views I see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond. A replay can be accessed from this link. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The exodus of baby boomers from the labor market is likely to lower income growth, which will reduce sales growth among publicly-listed companies over the coming years. After-tax profit margins may also come under pressure, while both the risk-free interest rate and the equity risk premium could rise. While it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of these effects, our best guess is that aging will have a moderately negative, though far from catastrophic, effect on equity prices. Even if the headwinds to equities from population aging turn out to be minimal, long-term investors are still likely to earn subpar returns given that valuations are fairly stretched today. In such an environment, a nimble investment approach, which focuses on the state of the business cycle among other things, will be necessary for generating alpha. Investors should maintain a cyclically bullish stance towards global equities for the time being, but begin paring back exposure late next year in advance of a recession in 2021. Feature Will Grandpa Sink The Stock Market? Chart 1 About 55% of U.S. stock market wealth is held by the baby boom generation – those born between 1946 and 1964 (Chart 1). As baby boomers increasingly exit the labor force and draw down their accumulated savings, there is a growing concern that equity prices will come under pressure.  Financial pundit Robert Kiyosaki published a book more than a decade ago arguing, in his usual hyperbolic style, that retiring boomers would trigger “the biggest stock market crash in history.”1 Conveniently, he even gave a date for the crash: 2016, the year when the first baby boomers would celebrate their 70th birthdays. Kiyosaki’s prophesized crash never happened. But does he still have a point? Will aging populations torpedo stocks? A Framework For Thinking About The Value Of The Stock Market Conceptually, the value of the stock market should equal the present value of the cash flows which shareholders can expect to receive. As Appendix 1 explains, this means that today’s dividend yield should equal the difference between the rate that investors use to discount those cash flows and the expected growth rate of cash flows. The discount rate is the sum of the risk-free rate and an equity risk premium. Cash flow growth tends to track earnings growth. The latter can be broken down into sales growth and margin growth. Thus, one can express the dividend yield ( D/P )  as the sum of four variables: Image The formula shows that an increase in either sales growth or profit margins will reduce the dividend yield (thus implying an increase in equity prices), while an increase in either the risk-free rate (rf) or the equity risk premium (rp) will raise the dividend yield. As we discuss below, demographic trends are likely to shift all four variables in the direction of lower equity prices. As baby boomers increasingly exit the labor force and draw down their accumulated savings, there is a growing concern that equity prices will come under pressure. 1. Aging And Sales Growth At the economy-wide level, business sales closely track GDP growth (Chart 2). GDP growth, in turn, is simply the sum of employment growth and productivity growth. Chart 2Business Sales Closely Track GDP Growth Business Sales Closely Track GDP Growth Business Sales Closely Track GDP Growth As baby boomers continue to age, more and more of them will leave the labor force. This will result in slower labor force growth. While this development will weigh on GDP growth, it is important to recognize that most of the decline in labor force growth in developed economies has already occurred (Chart 3). Chart 3ADM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (I) DM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (I) DM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (I) Chart 3BDM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (II) DM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (II) DM Labor Force Growth: Most Of The Decline Has Already Taken Place (II) The annual growth rate of the labor force in the G7 peaked at 1.7% in 1980, but has averaged only 0.3% over the past decade. The UN estimates that the number of people in G7 economies between the ages of 15 and 64 – a crude proxy for the potential size of the labor force – will contract by 0.1% per year over the next twenty years, a modest step down from positive growth of 0.1% over the past decade. Productivity growth has been quite weak in developed economies since the mid-2000s (Chart 4). Whether this trend persists remains to be seen. On the positive side, robotics, AI, and genetic engineering could all boost productivity growth. On the negative side, cognitive test scores in developed economies have peaked and are now trending lower. Consistent with this observation, Heckman and LaFontaine have shown that properly measured, the U.S. high school graduation rate has been falling since the early 1970s.2 This makes baby boomers arguably the best educated generation in history. An open question concerns the extent to which slower economy-wide GDP growth filters down to sales growth among listed companies. While it is highly likely that S&P 500 sales growth will decline in an environment of weaker growth, the impact of falling GDP growth on sales may be blunted by at least three factors. First, developed economy firms will still be able to benefit from rising sales to emerging markets, even if they are suffering from sluggish sales growth at home. Second, domestic consumption will decelerate more slowly than income growth as older workers deplete their savings. Third, lower productivity growth will coincide with less “creative destruction,” which will benefit incumbent firms. In fact, this is already happening. Chart 5 shows that net firm formation has fallen dramatically since the 1970s. Chart 4In Developed Markets, Productivity Growth Has Been Falling For Over A Decade In Developed Markets, Productivity Growth Has Been Falling For Over A Decade In Developed Markets, Productivity Growth Has Been Falling For Over A Decade Chart 5A Sharp Drop In New Firm Formation A Sharp Drop In New Firm Formation A Sharp Drop In New Firm Formation   2. Aging And Profit Margins Chart 6 Population aging can affect profit margins in two ways: First, it can shift spending across sectors. For example, if age-related spending migrates from sectors with high margins to those with low margins, aggregate profit margins will decline. Second, aging can affect margins within sectors. Looking across sectors, health care spending is likely to rise in response to population aging. According to the Congressional Budget Office, health care expenditures are set to increase from 5.2% of GDP to 9.2% of GDP by 2048 (Chart 6). There once was a time when health care margins were double the S&P 500 average (Chart 7). During the past two decades, however, health care margins have fallen, and are now slightly below the S&P average. Chart 7AS&P 500 Margins By Sector (I) S&P 500 Margins By Sector (I) S&P 500 Margins By Sector (I) Chart 7BS&P 500 Margins By Sector (II) S&P 500 Margins By Sector (II) S&P 500 Margins By Sector (II) Looking out, it is likely that health care margins will continue to contract, as cash-strapped governments look for ways to cut health care costs. Presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris have all championed “Medicare for all.” If implemented, such a policy prescription would decimate health care sector profits by reducing demand for private insurance while giving the federal government more bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices. Most of the decline in labor force growth in developed economies has already occurred. The only silver lining, pardon the pun, for margins is that older people tend to display greater brand loyalty (Chart 8). Whether this is because of experience, habit, or nostalgia is not clear, but older consumers switch products less often, preferring to stick with “what they know.”3 Perhaps reflecting a general tendency for self-reported happiness to increase in old age, elderly consumers also tend to express greater satisfaction with their purchases. Nevertheless, on balance, we expect aging to make a slightly negative contribution to profit margins. Chart 8 3. Aging And The Risk-Free Rate Proponents of the secular stagnation thesis posit that demographic trends have led to a decline in the neutral rate of interest. As Chart 9 shows, aging could depress the neutral rate if an older population causes the aggregate investment schedule to shift inwards or the aggregate savings schedule to shift outwards. Chart 9Two Ways For Real Rates To Fall Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle According to the standard “accelerator” model, the optimal level of investment spending is determined by the growth rate of aggregate demand.4 To the extent that slower population growth discourages firms from expanding capacity, this will lead to a lower neutral rate of interest. That said, as noted above, most of the decline in labor force growth in developed economies has already occurred. This implies that investment spending may not fall much further from current levels. What about savings? At the outset, aging will increase savings as more people move into their prime saving years (ages 30-to-50). Declining fertility rates will also tend to reduce spending on children, while allowing more women to join the labor force. Aging could morph from a force that has dragged down the neutral rate of interest to one that will start slowly pushing it back up. Over time, however, aging is likely to reduce the savings rate, as more workers retire, leaving fewer workers in the labor force. Once health care spending is included, consumption actually increases in old age, especially in the last few years of life (Chart 10). Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers increased from the early 1970s to the middle of this decade, but has now begun to decline (Chart 11). This suggests that aging could morph from a force that has dragged down the neutral rate of interest to one that will start slowly pushing it back up. Chart 10Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart 11The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally   Instead of running larger deficits to finance pension and health care spending, governments could raise taxes. This would reduce private consumption, thus generating additional savings for the economy. While such a step could prevent the risk-free interest rate from rising, some of the tax burden would likely end up falling on the owners of capital in the form of higher taxes on dividends, capital gains, and business profits. This would lead to lower after-tax profit margins and slower sales growth. The end result would still be the same: weaker equity prices. 4. Aging And The Equity Risk Premium When people discuss the impact that aging baby boomers will have on the stock market, they are usually – whether they realize it or not – talking about the equity risk premium. By definition, for every seller of stock there must be a buyer of stock. If baby boomers start selling shares to finance their retirement spending, someone will need to buy their shares, provided the price is low enough. The question is by how much do share prices need to fall to clear the market? In theory, households should accumulate assets over their working years and then deplete their savings in retirement. In practice, uncertainty about the timing of death, the desire to pass on wealth to future generations, and the need to maintain enough assets to finance unforeseen health care expenses all tend to induce households to run down wealth at only a modest pace during retirement. A study by John Ameriks and Stephen Zeldes using a random sample of 16,000 accounts from a major retirement fund found no evidence that households gradually decrease equity allocations as they age.5 Looking out, it is possible that baby boomers will run down their equity holdings more quickly than prior generations. For instance, the decline in family size over the past fifty years and evolving societal norms may end up causing boomers to bequeath smaller estates than in the past. The increasing popularity of annuities may also reduce the likelihood of unintended bequests. In addition, the proliferation of target-date funds may produce a more rapid shift out of equities than would occur if investors had to consciously decide to reduce exposure to the stock market. Nevertheless, we suspect that any additional selling by baby boomers will only put modest downward pressure on equity prices. This is because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households hold 84% of all stock market wealth, while the bottom 50% hold less than 1% (Chart 12). Households in the top one percent of the wealth distribution hold close to half of all stocks. These ultra-wealthy households tend to consume a fairly small share of their assets during retirement. As a result, most of their assets end up being bequeathed to family members and/or charities when they pass away. Chart 12The Wealthiest 10% In The U.S. Own The Bulk Of Equities Foreign Ownership Of U.S. Stocks Has Grown Foreign Ownership Of U.S. Stocks Has Grown Chart 13Foreign Ownership Of U.S. Stocks Has Grown Foreign Ownership Of U.S. Stocks Has Grown Foreign Ownership Of U.S. Stocks Has Grown Foreign purchases of U.S. stocks should also blunt the impact of any selling by retiring baby boomers. Foreigners now hold 27% of U.S. stock market wealth, up from 5% in the mid-1970s (Chart 13). If foreign demand for U.S. equities increases in line with global ex-U.S. real GDP, this will add about $250 billion in demand for U.S. stocks (in constant dollars) over the next twenty years. This is five times greater than the roughly $50 billion in annual net selling that would occur if all investors followed the popular rule of thumb which instructs them to take their age and subtract it from 100 in order to determine how much of their financial wealth to allocate to equities. Investment Implications The discussion above suggests that aging is likely to have a moderately negative, though far from catastrophic, effect on equity prices by: 1) reducing sales growth among listed companies; 2) putting downward pressure on after-tax profit margins; 3) increasing the risk-free rate of interest; and 4) raising the equity risk premium. It is difficult to be precise about how large these effects will turn out to be. Three factors cloud any potential calculation. First, as the equation presented at the outset of this report illustrates, small shifts in any one variable can lead to big changes in the fair value of the stock market. To see this point, let us take the current S&P 500 dividend yield of 2.0% and add 1.5% to account for net share buybacks (gross buybacks less share issuance). This gives a “cash flow to shareholders” yield of 3.5%. Now consider a one percentage-point increase in the equity risk premium. An increase in the equity risk premium of this magnitude would require the cash flow yield to rise to 4.5%. This, in turn, would necessitate that equity prices fall by 22%. That’s a lot. The second factor that makes it difficult to be precise about the extent to which demographic changes will affect stock prices is that there are likely to be interaction effects among the variables in the equation above. For instance, rising labor shortages stemming from the withdrawal of baby boomers from the labor market could put downward pressure on profit margins. The resulting increase in labor’s share of income would likely boost aggregate demand, thereby contributing to a higher neutral rate of interest. Chart 14Japan’s Population Bust Was Largely Foreseen Japan's Population Bust Was Largely Foreseen Japan's Population Bust Was Largely Foreseen At this point, one of two things could happen. On the one hand, if central banks failed to raise rates, this would cause the economy to overheat, leading to higher inflation. Higher inflation could push up the equity risk premium, as was the case in the 1970s. On the other hand, if central banks did raise interest rates, this could cause debt burdens to become unsustainable. That could also push up the equity risk premium. The third factor that makes it challenging to estimate the impact of demographics on stocks is that it is difficult to know the proper baseline for computing the effects of aging on stock market valuations. To the extent that the variables in the equation are all forward-looking, they should incorporate the market’s views on how the retirement of baby boomers will affect the relevant drivers of equity returns. This implies that shifts in equity valuations must stem from forecast revisions rather than from anticipated trends. Thus, as an example, any change to the “sales growth” term should be properly viewed as expressing not how future sales growth will differ from past sales growth, but by how much future sales growth will differ from what investors are currently projecting. It is tempting to assume that the market has already priced in the impact of population aging.  After all, the fact that baby boomers are exiting the labor force is not exactly breaking news. Yet, in the past, markets have proven to be surprisingly oblivious to easy-to-predict demographic developments. For example, Japanese investors were keen to buy stocks and real estate in the late 1980s, despite the fact that published projections at the time showed that the country’s working-age population would decline at an accelerating pace over the subsequent decade (Chart 14). Academic work supports the view that investors tend to understate the importance of demographic forces. Stefano Della Vigna and Joshua Pollet have shown that a trading strategy that exploits predictable age-related changes in spending on such items as toys, bicycles, beer, and life insurance would have earned an annualized risk-adjusted return of approximately six percent.6 Chart 15Poor Long-Term Returns In Store For U.S. Stocks Poor Long-Term Returns In Store For U.S. Stocks Poor Long-Term Returns In Store For U.S. Stocks The fact that equity valuations today are stretched in the U.S., and no better than middling in the rest of the world, should add to investor concerns. Chart 15 shows that the ratio of household equity holdings-to-total financial assets has been an extremely reliable predictor of 10-year equity returns in the post-war era. Today, this indicator is pointing to low single-digit returns for U.S. stocks over the next decade. This suggests that even if the headwinds to equities from population aging turn out to be minimal, long-term investors will still earn subpar returns from stocks relative to recent history. In such an environment, a nimble investment approach, which focuses on the state of the business cycle among other things, will be necessary for generating alpha. As discussed in our recently published Strategy Outlook, investors should maintain a cyclically bullish stance towards stocks for the time being, but begin paring back exposure late next year in advance of a recession in 2021.7   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Image   Footnotes 1      Robert T. Kiyosaki, and Sharon L. Lechter, “Rich Dad's Prophecy: Why the Biggest Stock Market Crash in History Is Still Coming...And How You Can Prepare Yourself and Profit from It!” Time Warner, 2003. 2      James Heckman and Paul LaFontaine, "The American High School Graduation Rate: Trends and Levels," The Review of Economics and Statistics 92:2, (May 2010): 244–262. 3      Please see Rajesh Iyer, Timothy H. Reisenwitz, and Jacqueline K. Eastman, “The Impact Of Cognitive Age On Seniors’ Lifestyles,” Marketing Management Journal, 18:2, (Fall 2008); and Komal Gyani Karani, and Katherine A. Fraccastoro, “Resistance To Brand Switching: The Elderly Consumer,“ Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8:12, (December 2010). 4      In most economic models, the capital-to-output ratio is assumed to converge towards a stable level over time. By definition, the capital stock in Year t is determined by the capital stock in Year t-1 plus whatever net investment (gross investment minus depreciation) takes place in Year t. In general, the optimal net investment-to-GDP ratio will equal the product of the capital-to-output ratio and the growth rate of GDP. For example, suppose that the capital-to-output ratio is three (meaning that the capital stock is three times as large as GDP). If output does not change from one year to the next, no additional net investment would be necessary to maintain a stable capital-to-output ratio. However, if output is growing at 2%, net investment of 3X2%=6% of GDP would be required. 5      John Ameriks and Stephen P. Zeldes, “How Do Household Portfolio Shares Vary with Age?” Working Paper, 2004. 6      Stefano Della Vigna, and Joshua M. Pollet, “Demographics and Industry Returns,” American Economic Review, 97:5 (2007). 7      Please see Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: From Dead Zone To End Zone,” dated March 29, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 16 Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights As long as Chinese policymakers remain committed to their anti-pollution campaign, we believe high-grade iron ore prices will remain supported by demand from newer steelmaking technologies. A continuation of the much-needed consolidation in steelmaking capacity in China – wherein larger, more efficient operators force their less competitive rivals from the market – will reinforce this trend (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekChina's Steel Sector Will Continue Consolidating China's Steel Sector Will Continue Consolidating China's Steel Sector Will Continue Consolidating Over time, the iron ore market will resemble other developed markets – e.g., crude oil – where higher- and lower-grades of the commodity are regularly traded against each other (Chart 2). As this develops, hedgers and investors will be able to fine tune exposures with greater precision, and prices from these markets will better reflect supply-demand fundamentals. The central and local governments also will have a valuable window on how policy is affecting fundamentals as they pursue their “blue skies” policies. We are initiating tactical spread, getting long spot high-grade 65% Fe vs. short spot 62% Fe at today’s Custeel Seaborne Iron Ore Price Index levels, consistent with our view.1 Chart 2Iron Ore Spread Markets Will Continue To Develop Iron Ore Spread Markets Will Continue To Develop Iron Ore Spread Markets Will Continue To Develop Highlights Energy: Overweight. The Trump administration is reviving the Monroe Doctrine with its demand Russia remove its troops and advisors from Venezuela immediately, based on comments by the U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton. In addition, a “senior administration official” said waivers for eight of Iran’s largest crude oil importers could be allowed to expire May 4, and that the administration is considering additional sanctions against Iran.2 Brian Hook, the special U.S. envoy for Iran, this week said three of eight countries granted waivers to U.S. sanctions agreed to take oil imports to zero.3 In a related development, OPEC crude oil output fell to a four-year low of 30.4mm b/d in March, according to a Reuters’s survey, as Venezuelan output falls and Saudi Arabia continues to over-deliver on its production cuts. Base Metals: Neutral. Codelco’s mined copper ore output fell to 1.8mm MT last year, down 1.6% vs. 2017 levels. This took refined output down almost 3% to 1.7mm MT, according to Metal Bulletin. The Chilean state-owned company cited reduced ore content in its mined production as a reason for the decline. MB’s copper treatment and refining charges index for the Asia Pacific region is at its lowest level since March 26, 2018, reflecting the lower concentrate supplies. We remain long spot copper on the back of low inventories, and an expected recovery in demand. Precious Metals: Neutral. Strength in equities has taken some of the luster off gold’s rally in the near term as investors move to increase stock exposures, but we continue to favor gold as a portfolio hedge and remain long. Agriculture: Underweight. USDA’s corn planting intentions report released last week came in much stronger than earlier estimates. Corn and soybeans traded lower following the release of the report, but recovered some this week on the back of positive news from Sino - U.S. trade talks. The USDA estimated farmers intended to plant 92mm acres of corn, and 85mm acres of soybeans this year. Ahead of the report, a Farm Bureau survey estimated corn and soybean acreage would average 91.3mm acres of corn and 86.2mm acres of beans. Trade Recommendations: Our 1Q19 trade recommendations were up an average of 41% at end-March (Quarterly Performance Table below). Including recommendations that were open at the beginning of 1Q19, the average was 31%. Feature China’s push to reduce pollution in its steelmaking sector will continue to support demand for Brazil’s high-grade ores – i.e., ores with iron (Fe) content higher than 65%. Transitory Brazilian iron ore supply losses notwithstanding, China’s push to reduce pollution in its steelmaking sector will continue to support demand for Brazil’s high-grade ores – i.e., ores with iron (Fe) content higher than 65%. This will allow the continued development of an active spread market, not unlike spread markets in commodities like oil, which will expand hedging and trading opportunities for producers, consumers and investors (Chart 2). Older, more polluting steelmaking technology in China will continue to be replaced by plants that favor Brazil’s high-grade ores, then Australia’s benchmark-type grades (62% Fe), then, as a last resort, the lower quality domestic ores. In a steelmaking market still suffering significant overcapacity, we expect policymakers will, at some point, discover the benefit of letting markets forces do the work of forcing older technology offline, as happened with the country’s domestically produced lower-quality iron ore, which has lower iron content and higher impurities than Brazilian and Aussie imports.4 We believe growth in China’s steel and steel products demand – hence iron ore demand – likely has peaked and is in the process of flattening or declining slightly, which will alter the composition of iron ore imports and tilt them in favor of high-grade Fe imports from Brazil over the next 3 - 5 years (Chart 3). This leveling off in steel demand growth will put a premium on more efficient technology to meet future demand, particularly with the pollution constraints that will, we believe, be an enduring feature of this market.5 Chart 3China's Steel Demand Growth Likely Has Peaked China's Steel Demand Growth Likely Has Peaked China's Steel Demand Growth Likely Has Peaked Impurities found in lower-grade iron ore raise steelmaking costs by increasing unwanted mineral build-ups in blast furnaces, increase pollution and lower mills’ efficiency.  With inventories re-building following the winter steelmaking hiatus in China, imports will continue to grow market share at the expense of indigenous lower-quality ores (Chart 4). Imports from Australia, which mostly price to the 62% Fe benchmark, will continue to grow, but we strongly believe that in China’s post-anti-pollution-campaign market, Brazilian imports will see growth increasing (i.e., the 2nd derivative) at a higher rate (Chart 5). Chart 4Chinese Iron Ore Inventories Fall Relative To Steel Production Chinese Iron Ore Inventories Fall Relative To Steel Production Chinese Iron Ore Inventories Fall Relative To Steel Production Chart 5China's Brazil, Australia Import Growth Will Recover China's Brazil, Australia Import Growth Will Recover China's Brazil, Australia Import Growth Will Recover These imports are lower in cost, and higher in quality than the domestic iron ore. This is particularly important when it comes to keeping costs under control – impurities found in lower-grade iron ore raise steelmaking costs by increasing unwanted mineral build-ups in blast furnaces, increase pollution and lower mills’ efficiency. Extended Output Cuts Favor High-Grade Ores The biggest reason supporting our view high-grade iron ores will continue to grow market share at the expense of lower-quality domestic supply and benchmark 62% Fe material is the recent behavior of the central government and local governments vis-a-vis pollution. Both have shown they are not averse to extending operating restrictions on high-polluting industrial plants, even in provinces where steelmaking is a large employer. Last year, major steel producing regions– Hebei, Jiangsu, Shandong, Liaoning – increased production during the winter months, likely driven by higher margins at the steelmakers (Chart 6). This indicates compliance with anti-pollution regulations fell significantly (Chart 7). In turn, this led to higher pollution, according to the latest available data from China’s National Environmental Monitoring Centre, which shows concentrations of particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (i.e., PM2.5) rose again this year (Chart 8). Chart 6Higher Margins, Higher Output Higher Margins, Higher Output Higher Margins, Higher Output Chart 7 Consequently, Chinese authorities decided to tighten anti-pollution measures by extending production cuts beyond the heating season into 3Q and 4Q19.6 Furthermore, the top producing city, Tangshan, in the province of Hebei extended its most elevated level of smog alert on March 1 and deepened production cuts to 70% from 40%, with reported cases of complete operations being halted. Chart 8China's Pollution Is Increasing; Steelmaking Curbs Will Persist China's Pollution Is Increasing; Steelmaking Curbs Will Persist China's Pollution Is Increasing; Steelmaking Curbs Will Persist Last month, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials in Hebei announced plans to cut steel production by 14mm MT this year and next. Going forward, China’s environment ministry said winter restrictions will be extended for a third year during the 2019-2020 winter period. As we argued last year, winter curbs likely will become a permanent feature of China’s steelmaking landscape. Combined with China’s steel de-capacity reforms, iron ore and steel markets will continue to evolve to a less-polluting presence in the country.7 As a consequence, IO grade and form differentials are now crucial input in our analysis.8 We believe a wider than usual premium will remain until new high-grades and pellets supplies come on line in the next few years. Credit Stimulus Vs. Battle For Blue Skies The reversal in China’s credit cycle and in the Fed’s monetary policy stance will be supportive of steel and iron ore prices going forward. In fact, our credit cycle proxy suggests global industrial activity will increase in the next few months (Chart 9).9 Additionally, our geopolitical strategists’ base case suggests a resolution of the Sino-U.S. trade war likely will occur this year. This will support EM income growth, which will stimulate commodity demand generally at the margin. Chart 9Upturn in China's Credit Cycle Will Support Iron Ore Prices Upturn in China's Credit Cycle Will Support Iron Ore Prices Upturn in China's Credit Cycle Will Support Iron Ore Prices We believe China’s credit cycle bottomed in 1Q19 and that Chinese authorities will modestly increase stimulus in 2H19.10 As discussed previously, we do not expect this new round of stimulus to be as large as previous rounds; China’s economy is in better shape now than it was at the start of previous expansionary credit cycles, hence the magnitude of the stimulus needed to revive the economy is lower. Nonetheless, this stimulus will be sufficient to strengthen China’s and EM’s steel-intensive activities in the coming months. As long as China maintains its anti-pollution drive, high-grade iron ore will continue to grow market share. Historically, these sectors correlated positively with the 62% Fe content benchmark (Chart 10). However, the expected stimulus works against Beijing’s critically important battle for blue skies. A revival of China’s industrial activity would increase PM2.5 concentrations above targets. Chart 10China's Stimulus Will Stoke Iron Ore Demand China's Stimulus Will Stoke Iron Ore Demand China's Stimulus Will Stoke Iron Ore Demand These constraints, we believe, mean China’s policymakers will have to incentivize steelmakers to favor lower-polluting high-grade iron ore (Fe > 65%), in order to maximize steel output subject to their emissions target. This will widen the form and grade premiums ahead of next year’s winter period. Bottom Line: As long as China maintains its anti-pollution drive, high-grade iron ore will continue to grow market share, as steelmakers upgrade their technology and inefficient mills are shuttered. This will favor Brazilian exports going forward, and we expect the rate of growth in these imports to increase. In line with our view, we are opening a long 65% Fe spot vs. a short 62% Fe spot position at tonight’s close. This is a tactical position, but could easily become a strategic recommendation.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      This index is published by Beijing Custeel E-Commerce Co., Ltd. 2      We flagged this risk in our February 21, 2019, report entitled “The New Political Economy of Oil.” We noted the odds of a U.S. – Russia military confrontation are low, and that “the U.S. would revive the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and that Russia and China most likely would concede Venezuela is within the U.S.’s sphere of influence, as neither intends to project the force and maintain the supply lines … a confrontation would require.” That said, there is always the risk such a confrontation could go kinetic, or that either or both sides could lunch a cyberattack to disable its adversary. The Roosevelt Corollary refers to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s extension of the Monroe Doctrine at the beginning of the 20th century, which has been used by the U.S. to justify the use of military power in the Western Hemisphere. Our February 21 report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com, as is a Special Report on Venezuela published November 22, 2018, entitled “Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop,” which discusses Venezuela’s debts to China and Russia, et al. See also “Exclusive: Trump eyeing stepped-up Venezuela sanctions for foreign companies – Bolton” and “Oil hits 2019 high on OPEC cuts, concerns over demand ease,” published by reuters.com March 29 and April 2, 2019, respectively. 3      Please see “Three importers cut Iran oil shipments to zero - U.S. envoy” published April 2, 2019, by reuters.com. 4      According to Platts, “at least half of China’s previous 300 million mt plus iron ore mining capacity has left the market for good.” Please see “China’s quest for cleaner skies drives change in iron ore market,” published January 30, 2019, by S&P Global Platts. CRU estimates average iron content in China’s ores is 30%, which means they must undergo costly upgrading to be useful to steelmakers. 5      Australian miners are expected to bring on significant volumes of high-grade iron ore beginning in 2022 - 23, with Fe content as high as 70%, according to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s March 2019 Resources and Energy Quarterly. 6      Please see “Tangshan mulls output curbs for 2nd, 3rd quarters of 2019” published January 22, 2019, by metal.com. 7      Please see China to extend winter anti-smog measures for another year published March 6, 2019, by reuters.com. 8      Grade premium: The chemistry of iron ore supply varies widely in terms of Fe content. Higher Fe content reduces production cost and pollution per unit of steel output. The higher the quality, the higher the volume of steel produced relative to energy consumed. The current global benchmark iron ore is 62% Fe, but China’s evolution to a less-polluting steelmaking sector will raise the importance of higher-grade markets. Form premium: A steelmaker’s blast furnace typically consumes iron ore in pellets, fines or lumps combined with coking coal. Fines are the most common form of iron ore, and account for ~ 75% of total seaborn IO market. This form cannot be directly fed in the blast furnace and requires an extra sintering step. Sintering is highly polluting and coal-intensive process that compresses fines into a more useable form. This process is usually conducted on-site at steel mills. On the other hand, lumps and pellets are direct feedstock and therefore completely avoid the highly polluting sintering step. Both types of premium are primarily affected by environmental policies in consuming countries, coke prices and steelmills’ profitability. 9      Modeling historical iron ore prices remains difficult because of the short sample available for spot iron prices – i.e., the benchmark 62% Fe. Before 2009, iron ore prices were determined using a producer pricing system. Once a year, prices were negotiated by miners and steelmakers and would be fixed for the remaining of the year. Given that iron ore supply was plentiful relative to demand, prices were fairly stable and this mechanism was used for over four decades. The rapid rise of emerging economies – mainly China – during the 2000s forced the pricing system to adjust toward a spot-market pricing system. The short spot-price time series available for analysis increases the distortion of policy-driven exogenous shocks like China’s de-capacity and winter restriction policies. This makes it difficult to identify the underlying relationships between its price and potential explanatory variables, and forces us to rely on theory and analogous experience in other markets like crude oil. 10     Please see BCA Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Bottoming Of China’s Credit Cycle Bullish For Copper Over Near Term,” published March 14, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Two weeks ago, we highlighted that S&P 500 profit margins have likely peaked for the cycle and that our margin proxy, weighed down by mounting concerns over wage growth and nil pricing power, was pointing to a further decline (top panel). We are updating this today to show BCA’s Monetary Indicator (MI) and its confirming negative signal for SPX margins (MI shown inverted, second panel) These profit headwinds have been likely reflected in sell-side estimates that have forward EPS growth rates trailing forward revenue growth rates according to IBES data, implying contracting margins through the first nine months of the year. Including the slight year over year margin contraction in Q4/18, this means a full calendar year of falling margins. Grinding lower margins are a cause for short-term concern. Nevertheless, from a cyclical perspective we reiterate two important points: first, unit labor costs – the best measure of wage growth – remain muted as productivity growth has ramped up recently. Second, using empirical evidence dating back to the 1960s, the ultimate SPX profit margin mean reversion occurs during recessions, when EPS suffer a major setback; as a reminder, BCA’s review remains that the U.S. will avoid recession in the next 12 months. Thus, despite a near-term margin soft patch, we expect a mid-year margin inflection point courtesy of EPS growth green-shoots (please refer to Chart 3 from the March 18th Weekly Report). Dont Fear Peak S&P 500 Margins Dont Fear Peak S&P 500 Margins ​​​​​​​

Highlights Chart 1What’s The Downside? What’s The Downside? What’s The Downside? How low can it go? This is the question most investors are asking these days about the 10-year Treasury yield. Our answer is that it can’t go much lower unless the U.S. economy falls into recession, an event we don’t anticipate in 2019. Considering the main macro drivers of the 10-year Treasury yield, we find that the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 1), U.S. dollar bullish sentiment (not shown) and Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (not shown) are all close to mid-2016 levels. In other words, the economic growth and policy environment is almost identical to the one that produced a 1.37% 10-year Treasury yield in mid-2016. What’s preventing a return to mid-2016 yield levels is that the Fed has delivered nine rate hikes since then, and rising wage growth confirms that the output gap has closed considerably (bottom panel). In other words, with short-maturity yields much higher than three years ago, we would need to see a much more pronounced growth slowdown, i.e. PMIs well below 50, to re-produce a sub-2% 10-year Treasury yield. If 2019 continues to follow the 2016 roadmap and the Global PMI bottoms-out around 50, then the 10-year Treasury yield has probably already found its floor. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +268 bps. The Federal Reserve’s pause opens a window for corporate spreads to tighten during the next few months. We recommend overweight positions in corporate bonds for now, but will be quick to reduce exposure once spreads reach our near-term targets. Aaa spreads are already below target levels and we recommend avoiding that credit tier. Other credit tiers still have room to tighten, though Aa and A-rated bonds are only 3 bps and 5 bps above target, respectively (Chart 2).1 Once spreads reach more reasonable levels for this phase of the cycle, we will be quick to reduce corporate bond exposure because some indicators of corporate default risk are already sending warning signals.2 Most notably, corporate profits grew only 4.0% (annualized) in Q4 2018 while corporate debt rose 5.3% (annualized). The result is that our measure of gross leverage ticked higher for the first time since Q3 2017 (bottom panel). Going forward, with corporate profit growth likely to stabilize in the mid-single digit range, gross leverage will probably stay close to its current level. That would be consistent with a 3% speculative grade default rate, significantly above the 1.7% rate currently projected by Moody’s. Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview   Chart Chart High-Yield: Overweight High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +566 bps. Junk spreads for all credit tiers remain above our near-term spread targets.3 At present, the Ba-rated option-adjusted spread is 235 bps, 55 bps above our target. The B-rated spread is 285 bps, 102 bps above our target. The Caa-rated spread is 802 bps, 244 bps above our target (Chart 3). Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview Elevated spreads mean that investors are currently well compensated for default risk, but that could change later in the year. In a recent report we showed that some leading default indicators – gross leverage, C&I lending standards and job cut announcements (bottom panel) – are showing signs of deterioration.4 Specifically, our model suggests that the speculative grade default rate could be 3% or higher during the next 12 months. Moody’s currently forecasts 1.7%. If the Moody’s forecast is correct, the high-yield default adjusted spread is 306 bps. If the Moody’s forecast turns out to be correct, then investors will take home a default-adjusted spread of 306 bps, well above the historical average of 250 bps. If our 3% forecast is correct, then the default-adjusted spread falls to 230 bps, slightly below the historical average (panel 4). In either case, investors are reasonably well compensated for bearing default risk, but that will change when spreads reach our near-term targets. We will be quick to cut exposure at that time. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 3 bps on the month, driven entirely by an increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The option-adjusted spread (OAS) held flat at 40 bps. Falling mortgage rates since the beginning of the year have caused an increase in refinancing activity, leading to some widening in nominal MBS spreads (Chart 4). However, the tepid pace of new issuance in recent years means that the existing mortgage stock is not very exposed to refinancing risk. Consider that, despite an 80 bps drop in the 30-year mortgage rate, the MBA Refinance index has only risen to 1290. The Refi index’s historical average is 1824. Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Further, housing starts and new home sales appear to have stabilized, meaning that there is probably not much further downside for mortgage rates. As a consequence, we don’t see much more scope for MBS spread widening. While MBS spreads appear relatively safe, the sector does not offer attractive expected returns compared to the investment alternatives. For example, the index option-adjusted spread for conventional 30-year MBS is well below its average historical level (panel 3) and the sector offers less compensation than normal compared to corporate bonds (panel 4). MBS also offer a poor risk/reward trade-off compared to other Aaa-rated spread products, as we showed in a recent report.5   Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +115 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 13 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +334 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 53 bps and Foreign Agencies outperformed by 42 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +139 bps and +151 bps, respectively. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 11 bps in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +20 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. The USD-denominated sovereign debt of most countries continues to look expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit. However, in a recent report we highlighted that Mexican sovereign debt is an exception (Chart 5).6 Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Not only is Mexican sovereign debt cheap relative to U.S. corporates, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service has shown that the Mexican peso is cheap.7 The prospect of a stronger peso versus the U.S. dollar makes the spread on offer from Mexican sovereign debt look even more attractive.   Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 39 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +52 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio rose 1% in March, and currently sits at 82% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and right around the average of 81% that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview The Municipal / Treasury yield ratio for short maturities (2-year and 5-year) remains well below the yield ratio for longer maturities (10-year, 20-year and 30-year). In other words, the best value in the municipal bond space is at the long-end of the curve, and we continue to recommend that investors favor those maturities. Recently released data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that state & local government revenue growth declined in Q4 2018, for the first time since Q2 2017. As a result, our measure of state & local government interest coverage fell from a lofty 17 all the way down to 5 (bottom panel). Positive interest coverage means that state & local governments are still generating sufficient revenue to cover current expenditures and interest payments, and we therefore don’t anticipate a surge in muni ratings downgrades any time soon. We also continue to note that municipal bonds tend to perform better in the middle-to-late phases of the economic cycle, while corporate credit delivers its best returns early in the recovery.8 Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to municipal debt. Treasury Curve: Adopt A Barbell Curve Positioning Treasury yields fell dramatically in March, as the Fed surprised markets with a larger-than-expected downward revision to its interest rate projections. The result is that the overnight index swap curve is now priced for 34 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 7). Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 14 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 1 bp to end the month at 58 bps. In recent reports we urged investors to adopt barbell positions along the yield curve. In particular, investors should avoid the 5-year and 7-year maturities and instead focus their allocations at the very short and long ends of the curve.9 There are three main reasons to prefer a barbell positioning. First, the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in our 12-month discounter. In other words, those yields fall the most when the market prices in rate cuts and rise the most when it prices in rate hikes. As long as recession is avoided, the market will eventually price rate hikes back into the curve. Favor the 2/30 barbell over the 7-year bullet. Second, barbells currently offer a yield pick-up relative to bullets. The duration-matched 2/10 barbell offers 10 bps more yield than the 5-year bullet (panel 4), and the duration-matched 2/30 barbell offers 9 bps more yield than the 7-year bullet. This means that investors will earn positive carry in barbell positions while they wait for rate hikes to get priced back in. Finally, all barbell combinations look cheap according to our yield curve fair value models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 44 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +76 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 7 bps to end the month at 1.88% (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps to end the month at 1.98%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation As we noted in last week’s report, with financial conditions no longer excessively easy, the Fed has pivoted to a more dovish stance in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations at levels more consistent with its 2% target.10 This change should support wider TIPS breakevens, though investors will also need to see evidence of firming realized inflation before meaningful upside materializes. So far, such evidence is in short supply. Note that trimmed mean PCE inflation has rolled over again after having just touched 2% (bottom panel). Trimmed mean PCE is running at 1.84% year-over-year. Nevertheless, we would maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. First, our commodity strategists see further upside in the price of oil (panel 2), and second, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 6 bps too low relative to the fair value from our Adaptive Expectations model (panel 4).11 ABS: Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +40 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 34 bps, exactly equal to its pre-crisis low (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview We showed in a recent report that Aaa-rated consumer ABS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off compared to other U.S. fixed income sectors, a result that is echoed by the Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C.12 This should not be surprising given that Aaa ABS spreads are close to all-time lows. What is surprising is that ABS spreads are so tight while the consumer delinquency rate is rising (panel 3). Although the delinquency rate remains well below pre-crisis levels, it will likely continue to rise going forward. Household interest payments are rising quickly as a share of disposable income (panel 3) and banks are tightening lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans (bottom panel). We recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS, preferring to take Aaa spread risk in MBS and CMBS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +146 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 2 bps to end the month at 73 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat higher than recent tights (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview In a recent report we noted that non-agency CMBS offer the best risk/reward trade-off of any Aaa-rated U.S. spread product.13 While we remain cautious on the macro outlook for commercial real estate, noting that prices are decelerating (panel 3) and banks are tightening lending standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel), we view elevated CMBS spreads as providing reasonable compensation for this risk for the time being. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +74 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 50 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector remains appropriate. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 34 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We do not anticipate any rate cuts during this timeframe, and therefore recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Image Image Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +53 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 53 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of March 29, 2019) Finding The Floor Finding The Floor Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of March 29, 2019) Finding The Floor Finding The Floor Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Finding The Floor Finding The Floor Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Chart 12   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further details on how we arrive at those spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus”, dated January 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Just when it looked like the agricultural complex was starting to perk up, it was slapped down again. After crawling its way back from a mid-2018 crash – retracing more than half of its decline – the CCI Grains and Oilseeds index plummeted in February, declining by nearly 9% (Chart Of The Week). The decline was broad-based, but was led by wheat, which was dragged down by muted demand and accounted for most of the index’s decline. Looking forward, we expect U.S. financial conditions and developments on the trade-war front to remain the main forces driving ag prices. Ample inventories will provide the cushion necessary to moderate the impact of potential supply-side shocks. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Venezuela suffered another power outage earlier this week, indicating the deterioration of its infrastructure is accelerating. While officials claim to have restored power, we expect more such outages going forward, which will severely reduce the country’s production and export capacity. Separately, Aramco announced it will buy 70% of Sabic, a Saudi state-owned petchem producer, for $69 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s MMG Ltd was set to declare force majeure following protests at its Las Bambas mine in Peru earlier this week. The mine produces ~ 385k MT p.a., most of which goes to China. Precious Metals: Neutral. The inversion of the U.S. yield curve put a bid into the gold market this week, as investors sought a safe-haven refuge. Continued weakness in bond yields, and accommodative central banks responding to low inflation expectations globally will continue to support gold. Agriculture: Underweight. A more patient Fed will be supportive of ag prices in 2H19, as we discuss below. Feature Chart of the WeekWheat Had A Rough Start To 2019 Wheat Had A Rough Start To 2019 Wheat Had A Rough Start To 2019 A Patient Fed Will Support Ags In 2H19 While differences across ag markets will arise due to idiosyncratic supply shocks and targeted trade policies, a common determinant of ag price movements more generally is U.S. financial conditions. Since our last assessment of global ag markets, Fed policymakers have adopted a much more patient approach to monetary policy.1 In line with the pause in the Fed’s rates-normalization policy, financial conditions have eased considerably (Chart 2). We believe this will, ceteris paribus, bring relief to commodity markets in general, ags in particular, in the second half of this year. Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Bode Well For Ags Easier Financial Conditions Bode Well For Ags Easier Financial Conditions Bode Well For Ags The bulk of this relief will be transmitted through the impact of a weaker dollar. Since the dollar is a countercyclical currency, its weakness implies an improvement in global growth. This more solid economic backdrop is associated with greater aggregate demand, particularly in EM economies, as well as demand for agricultural products. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. Furthermore, when the USD weakens against the currencies of ag exporting countries, farmers there are incentivized to hoard or cut exports – thus reducing supply – awaiting periods when a stronger greenback will raise their profits. At the same time, ags priced in USD become relatively more affordable for importing nations, incentivizing them to raise consumption. The net impact of this contraction in supply amid greater demand will pull up prices – illustrated by the relatively tight inverse relationship between ag prices and the dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3A Weaker USD Will Be A Tailwind In 2H19 A Weaker USD Will Be A Tailwind In 2H19 A Weaker USD Will Be A Tailwind In 2H19 Going into mid-2019, we expect global economic indicators to continue to be uninspiring. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. However, as these factors fade and give way to an improvement in global economic conditions and easier financial conditions, we expect the dollar to peak around mid-year. As such, a resurgence in global growth in the second half of the year will be reflected in an improvement in the value of the currencies of major ag exporters ex-U.S. (Chart 4). Ceteris paribus, this also benefits ag prices. Chart 4Weak Local Currencies Supporting Farm Profits, Incentivizing Production Weak Local Currencies Supporting Farm Profits, Incentivizing Production Weak Local Currencies Supporting Farm Profits, Incentivizing Production China’s Economy Remains Central Our outlook hinges on developments in the Chinese economy. Peter Berezin – our Chief Global Investment Strategist – expects Chinese authorities to not only stabilize credit growth, but also increase it, creating room for improvement in the world’s second largest economy.2 This combination of supportive global growth and a softer dollar bodes well for ag prices in 2H19. The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. Apart from the currency impact, easy financial conditions are supportive of global growth. A rise in income levels of emerging economies will support demand for goods and services generally, and agricultural commodities specifically.3 The market now expects 36 and 51 basis points of rate cuts over the coming 12 and 24 months, respectively. Similarly, following last week’s FOMC meeting, the median Fed dot indicates no rate hikes this year from the U.S. central bank, and only one in 2020. While our Global Investment Strategists would not be surprised to see a hike this year, the noticeably less hawkish tone in the Fed’s forward guidance and dot plots are positive for ag markets.4 Looking beyond that into late-2020 or early 2021, a potential pick-up in inflation will force the Fed to take a more hawkish stance, and once again support the U.S. dollar. This will weigh down on ag prices over the strategic time horizon. Bottom Line: The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. However, this is unlikely to occur before mid-year. In the meantime, a stronger dollar on the back of the lagged effects of growth dampening events in 2018, will remain a headwind. Ample Inventories Will Cushion Against Supply Shocks Putting aside the more or less uniform impact of U.S. financial conditions, individual supply-demand fundamentals will manifest as idiosyncratic risks and opportunities. The USDA has been revising its projections for ending stocks higher in its monthly World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) across the board since it released the first projections for the 2018/2019 crop year last May. However, we find that solely on the back of fundamentals, soybeans are more likely to resist upward pressure from easier U.S. financial conditions in 2H19 vs. wheat and corn. The USDA’s latest projections for the current crop year indicate that global bean markets are well supplied. Expectations of a global surplus this crop year – for the seventh consecutive year – will add to the growing cushion (Chart 5). Chart 5Beans Surplus Will Add To the Glut Beans Surplus Will Add To the Glut Beans Surplus Will Add To the Glut Since May, global ending bean stocks have been revised higher by a total of 20.47mm MT. The change in projections comes on the back of upward revisions to production and beginning stocks, compounded by downward revisions to consumption. The latter will likely contract further if the U.S. and China do not reach an agreement on the trade front (see below). Consequently, unless a weather disruption weakens supply, we expect soybean inventories to stand at record highs relative to consumption at the end of the current crop year. In the case of wheat, the impact on prices will likely be marginal. The global balance is expected to shift to a deficit in the current marketing year, following five years of surplus (Chart 6). While this is a positive for wheat prices, given that global inventory levels are relatively elevated – capable of supporting 37% of consumption – and the current deficit is relatively small, we do not expect the deficit to pressure prices in the near term. Chart 6Elevated Wheat Inventories Will Cushion Against Minor Deficit Elevated Wheat Inventories Will Cushion Against Minor Deficit Elevated Wheat Inventories Will Cushion Against Minor Deficit Despite continued downward revisions to the USDA’s wheat production projections, expectations of ending stocks have actually risen on the back of downward revisions to consumption. Similarly, corn fundamentals are also unlikely to sway prices much. The grain is expected to remain in deficit for the second consecutive year, which will pull inventories down off their 2016/17 peak to be capable of covering ~27% of global consumption (Chart 7). Despite this contraction in availability, global supplies remain relatively elevated, especially compared to the 2003 to 2012 period. Thus unless there is a significant supply shock, we don’t expect much support from fundamentals. Chart 7A Global Corn Deficit ... A Global Corn Deficit ... A Global Corn Deficit ... Unlike wheat demand, which has been downgraded, the USDA has revised corn consumption up relative to the first projections for the crop year released last May. Nevertheless, stronger expectations of consumption have been overwhelmed by upward revisions to production and beginning inventory levels. Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Since the mid-1990s, U.S. farmers had been planting more corn and wheat at the expense of soybean acreage (Chart 8). On a global level, while wheat remains more popular in terms of acreage, it is generally trending downwards, while corn and soybean plantings are trending up. However, over the longer term, U.S. farmers are expected to dedicate more land to corn relative to soybeans. Chart 8... Will Be Met By Rising U.S. Acreage ... Will Be Met By Rising U.S. Acreage ... Will Be Met By Rising U.S. Acreage Bottom Line: Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Similarly, a global glut in soybean supplies will only add to swelling inventories. The Trade War And Soybeans: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Aside from U.S. financial conditions and supply-demand balances, U.S. trade policy has also been roiling ag markets since China slapped U.S. soybeans with 25% tariffs in mid-2018. In fact, since the escalation of the trade dispute, soybean prices have been moving largely in response to developments on the trade front (Chart 9). As developments since the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires last December have been more favorable, soybean markets are on the path to recovery. Chart 9Markets Optimistic Of A Trade War Resolution Markets Optimistic Of A Trade War Resolution Markets Optimistic Of A Trade War Resolution So far, even though U.S. soybean exports to China picked up over the past two months, total U.S. exports still lag levels typical for this time of year (Chart 10). This comes despite U.S. efforts to raise shipments to other trading partners. Furthermore, U.S. exports will now be in direct competition with the Brazilian crop, which usually dominates trade flows at this time of year (Chart 11). Chart 10 While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. Chart 11 While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. The Trump-Xi meeting that was expected to occur in late-March was postponed; the next most likely date for a meeting is at the G20 summit in end-June. This leaves another 3 months of trade uncertainty. Nevertheless, our models indicate that soybeans are now priced at fair value, based on U.S. financial variables – absent a trade war (Chart 12). Chart 12 Furthermore, the premium priced into Brazilian beans above those traded on the CBOT has returned to its historical average (Chart 13). Thus, we do not expect a further reduction in the premium in the event Sino-U.S. trade negotiations are successful. Chart 13Premium For Brazilian Beans Has Normalized Premium For Brazilian Beans Has Normalized Premium For Brazilian Beans Has Normalized Rather, markets will be disappointed if the U.S. and China are unable to conclude a deal. This would put CBOT prices at risk and support the premium on those traded in Brazil. Given that our geopolitical strategists assign a non-negligible 30% probability that the trade war escalates further, we believe markets are overly optimistic that a deal will be concluded.5 If the trade war drags on and turns into a multi-year conflict, soybean markets will likely take a more meaningful hit. According to the USDA’s latest long-term projections released earlier this month, China’s soybean imports were projected to rise 32.1mm MT during the 2018-28 period – a massive downward revision from the 46mm MT expected for the 2017-2027 period contained in the previous long-run projections. Furthermore, outbreaks of African swine fever in China may put demand there at risk. Over 100 cases have so far been reported in China, with several cases already reported in Vietnam as well. This threatens to depress China’s need for soybean as animal feed, regardless of what happens on the trade front. Bottom Line: A positive outcome from the U.S.-China trade negotiations is not a given. Nevertheless, soybean markets are treating it as such. Our geopolitical strategists assign 30% odds that a final deal falls through. This non-negligible probability threatens to cause soybean prices to relapse anew, should Sino-U.S. trade negotiations break down.   Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy December 13, 2018.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “What’s Next For The Dollar,” dated March 15, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018,” dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Questions From The Road,” dated March 22, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?,” dated March 6, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Image