Oil

Highlights Bear markets occur in phases, and their narrative can mutate. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. We are reiterating our short positions in the EM equity index and a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar as well as our defensive positioning in EM domestic bonds and credit markets. We are taking profits on our long gold/short oil and copper trade. Oil prices may stabilize, but risks are still skewed to the downside. We are also booking gains on our long Russian domestic bonds/short oil position. Feature Chart I-1A Record Low Currency VOL Is Followed By Major Market Disturbances A Record Low Currency VOL Is Followed By Major Market Disturbances A Record Low Currency VOL Is Followed By Major Market Disturbances Global financial markets are witnessing the unwinding of the policy put. For the past several years, the consensus in the global investment community was that risk assets could not go down because of policy puts from the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury and President Trump, the European Central Bank and the Chinese authorities. Similarly, crude oil prices had been supported by OPEC 2.0’s put from December 2016 until recently. The latest panic and broad-based liquidation of risk assets has been due not only to fear and uncertainty related to the rapid escalation in COVID-19 cases around the world, but also to investor realization that these policy puts are ineffectual. The Fed’s 50-basis-point intra-meeting rate cut proved incapable of stabilizing global risk assets. Investors have begun to doubt the efficacy of policy puts and have thrown in the proverbial towel. Crucially, the high-speed and intensity of the selloff was due to widespread complacency and overbought conditions in risk assets. In our January 23 report, we quoted Bob Prince, co-CIO of Bridgewater, who stated in Davos that “…we have probably seen the end of the boom-bust cycle.” This comment was consistent with prevalent complacency in global financial markets, reflected in very tight credit spreads worldwide, high US equity multiples and record-low implied volatility in various asset classes. In the same January 23 report, we wrote: “Any time an influential person has made a similar declaration in the past, it marked a major turning point in financial markets. Remarkably, implied volatility for the US dollar has plummeted to a record low, as it has for EM currencies and a wide range of equity markets. Chart I-1 illustrates the implied volatility for EM currencies and the US dollar. Such low levels of implied currency market volatility historically preceded major moves in currency markets and often led to a material selloff in broad EM financial markets.” In that same report , we recommended going long implied EM currency volatility. Since then JP Morgan’s EM currency volatility has risen from 6% to 10%. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. Consistent with this thesis, we reinstated our short EM equity index recommendation in the following week’s report – on January 30. The MSCI EM stock index is down 11% since then. Our target is 800, which is 18% below current levels (Chart I-2, top panel). Chart I-2EM Stocks: A Breakdown In The Making EM Stocks: A Breakdown In The Making EM Stocks: A Breakdown In The Making Market Narratives Mutate Chart I-3VIX Surge In Early 2018 Was A Trigger Not Cause Of Selloff VIX Surge In Early 2018 Was A Trigger Not Cause Of Selloff VIX Surge In Early 2018 Was A Trigger Not Cause Of Selloff Narratives of all large market moves are always expounded in retrospect. Only after a selloff is well-advanced do investors and commentators come up with reasons for it and build a plausible narrative describing it. Critically, bear markets occur in phases, and their narrative can evolve. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. For example, the early 2018 selloff in global equities and industrial commodities was at the time attributed to the spike in US equity volatility (Chart I-3, top and middle panels). In retrospect, January 2018 marked a major top in the global business cycle (Chart I-3, bottom line). Hence, the true reason for the late-January 2018 top in global stocks and industrial commodities was a downturn in global manufacturing and trade and not the surge in the VIX. The key question investors are currently wrestling with is the following: How deep will this selloff be, and how long will it last? Our view is that the selloff in EM and global risk assets is not yet over. As such, we are reiterating our short positions in the EM equity index and a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar, as well as our defensive positioning in EM domestic bonds and credit markets. Gauging The Downside There is no doubt that global growth will be affected by the spread of COVID-19 and the precautionary measures taken by the authorities, companies and households around the world to contain the outbreak.   Further, growth visibility is extremely low, and that uncertainty is raising the risk premiums that investors demand. The latter is weighing on risk assets in general and global share prices in particular.  Presently, precise forecasts for GDP growth and a potential trajectory of COVID-19 cases are not credible, and hence cannot be relied upon to formulate a sound investment strategy. If the current bloodbath in risk assets persists, a market bottom could be reached well before bad economic data are released or COVID-19 infection cases peak. Given the uncertainty related to both the global growth trajectory and the Covid-19 epidemic, the only way for investors to gauge a market bottom is to continuously examine valuations, technicals and market internals. With respect to valuations and technicals, we have the following observations: The EM equity index seems to breaking below its major support lines. If this breakdowns transpires, there is an air pocket until the index reaches its next technical support, which is 18% below its current level (please refer to the top panel of Chart I-2 on page 3). If the EM MSCI equity index drops to this support range, it would be trading at 11 times its trailing earnings (please refer to the bottom panel of Chart I-2 on page 3). At those levels, the EM equity index would be discounting a lot of bad news, making it immune to dismal economic data and general uncertainty. For the S&P 500, if the current defense line – which held been during 2011, 2015 and 2018 selloffs – is violated, the next long-term technical support is around 2400-2500 (Chart I-4). Inflows to EM fixed-income funds were enormous in 2019. Meanwhile, EM corporate and sovereign spreads have broken out (Chart I-5). Provided this selloff commenced from very overbought and expensive levels, the odds are that liquidation forces will not abate right now and that the selloff in EM fixed income has further to go. Chart I-4S&P 500: Where Technical Support Lies? S&P 500: Where Technical Support Lies? S&P 500: Where Technical Support Lies? Chart I-5EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Have Broken Out EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Have Broken Out EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Have Broken Out   In a nutshell, we suspect that EM local currency bonds and credit markets received a lot of inflows from European investors in recent years because yields were negative across European fixed-income markets. A weak euro was a boon for European investors investing in EM. That, however, is reversing. Since the recent sharp appreciation in the euro and the nosedive in EM currencies, EM financial market returns in euros have collapsed. This will likely prompt an exodus of European investors from EM financial markets. Chart I-6A Major Breakdown In This Cyclical Indicator A Major Breakdown In This Cyclical Indicator A Major Breakdown In This Cyclical Indicator Even though the EM equity index is not expensive or overbought, rising EM USD and local currency bond yields herald lower share prices, as we discussed at length in last week’s report. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1  has plummeted below its major technical support and the next level is significantly lower. In other words, this indicator is also in an air pocket (Chart I-6). Given it is extremely well-correlated with EM share prices, the latter will not bottom until this indicator stabilizes. Technical configurations of high-beta and cyclical segments of the global equity universe are consistent with failed breakouts. Such a profile is typically not followed by a correction, but by a major drawdown. These include the European aggregate equity index, the Nikkei, global industrials and US high-beta stocks (Chart I-7). Chart I-7AFailed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Chart I-7BFailed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Chart I-8The Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio Is Back To 2011 Levels The Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio Is Back To 2011 Levels The Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio Is Back To 2011 Levels Finally, the global stock-to-bond ratio has decisively broken below the upward sloping channel that has been in place since 2009 (Chart I-8). Typically, when a market or ratio experiences such a major breakdown, the recovery does not occur quickly and is unlikely to be V-shaped. In short, the structural breakdown in the global stocks-to-bond ratio suggests that global share prices will likely stay under downward pressure for some time. Bottom Line: Odds are that risk assets remain in a liquidation phase and investors should avoid catching a falling knife. The odds are also high that EM share prices in US dollar terms have another 18% downside. We reckon at those levels – where the MSCI EM equity index is around 800 – it would be safe to start accumulating EM equities, even if the global growth outlook remains mired in uncertainty. For now, we recommend playing EM on the short side. What To Do With Oil Plays Despite periodic spikes in crude prices over the past few years, we have held our conviction that oil is in a structural bear market. We doubted the sustainability of the OPEC 2.0 arrangement, arguing that Russia would not cooperate with Saudi Arabia in the long term. Russia did cooperate much longer than we had expected, temporarily supporting oil prices. Ultimately, Russian President Vladimir Putin abandoned the cartel late last week, and the Saudis have hit back with massive price discounts amid large output increases. Consequently, oil prices have crashed and are presently oversold (Chart I-9). Given the uncertainty related to both the global growth trajectory and the Covid-19 epidemic, the only way for investors to gauge a market bottom is to continuously examine valuations, technicals and market internals. However, there will be no rapprochement between the Saudis and the Russians for some time. Given the drop in demand amid sharp increases in supply, crude oil prices may well slide further. Since July 11, 2019, we have been recommending a long gold/short oil and copper trade (Chart I-10). This position has generated a large 40% gain. Today, we are taking profits on this trade. Instead, we are replacing it with a new position: long gold/short copper. Chart I-9A Long-Term Profile Of Oil Prices A Long-Term Profile Of Oil Prices A Long-Term Profile Of Oil Prices Chart I-10Book Profits On Long Gold / Short Oil And Copper Trade Book Profits On Long Gold / Short Oil And Copper Trade Book Profits On Long Gold / Short Oil And Copper Trade   Among oil plays, we have been overweight Mexico and Russia within EM, both in fixed income and equity universes. That said, for absolute return investors, we have not been recommending unhedged long positions in either Mexico or Russia because of our expectation of a drop in oil prices and the ensuing broad-based EM selloff. Regarding Russia, for investors who were looking to gain exposure to local currency bonds, we have been recommending that they hedge this position by shorting oil since November 14, 2019. This recommendation has paid off well, and we are closing this position with a 26% gain. We will be looking to buy Russian local bonds unhedged in the weeks ahead. Chart I-11Relative Performance Of Russian And Mexican Domestic Bonds Is Facing Near-Term Headwinds Relative Performance Of Russian And Mexican Domestic Bonds Is Facing Near-Term Headwinds Relative Performance Of Russian And Mexican Domestic Bonds Is Facing Near-Term Headwinds In Mexico, we have also been reluctant to recommend naked exposure to local currency or US dollar bonds because of our bearish view on oil and the risk of large outflows from EM that would hurt the peso. Indeed, the oil crash and outflows from EM have led to a plunge in the Mexican currency. Instead, in Mexico we have been recommending betting on yield curve steepening. The proposition has been that short rates are anchored by a disinflationary backdrop and tight fiscal policy in Mexico while the long end of the curve could sell off in a scenario of capital outflows from EM. As with Russia, we are monitoring Mexican markets and are looking to recommend buying domestic bonds without hedging the currency risk in the weeks or months ahead. Bottom Line: We are taking profits on our long gold/short oil and copper trade. Oil prices may stabilize, but risks are still skewed to the downside. In the near term, the relative performance of Mexican and Russian stocks and local currency bonds versus their respective EM benchmarks could be undermined by capital outflows from EM in general and these countries in particular (Chart I-11). Nevertheless, both nations’ macro fundamentals remain benign, and their fixed-income and equity markets will outperform their EM peers in the medium term. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1     Calculated as ratio of equal-weighted average of total return indices of cad, aud, nzd, brl, idr, mxn, rub, clp & zar relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry); rebased to 100 at January 2000. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Oil prices fell 30% when markets opened Monday morning, following a split between OPEC 2.0’s putative leaders – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – over production cuts to balance global oil markets (Chart 1). If KSA and Russia are able to repair the break in what OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo once called their “Catholic Marriage” the sudden collapse in prices could serve a useful purpose in reminding producers, consumers and investors of the need for full-time management of production and inventories, and restore prices to the $60/bbl neighborhood in 2H20.1 If not, markets could be in for a drawn-out market-share war lasting the better part of this year, with damaging consequences for all involved, with Brent prices remaining closer to $30/bbl (Chart 2). Feature Much as we rely on modeling to guide our expectations, this is purely political at the moment. How Long Will The Oil Price Rout Last? That’s the question that repeatedly is being asked by clients following the breakdown in Vienna last week, and news over the weekend that KSA would engage a market-share war opened by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak prior to departing Vienna. Novak gave every impression of renewing a market-share war after Russia rejected the plan put forth by OPEC to remove an additional 1.5mm b/d of production from the market, to combat the demand destruction expected in the wake of COVID-19. The only answer we have to the question: No one knows with certainty. Chart 1Oil Sell-Off Accelerates, As Market-Share War Looms Oil Sell-Off Accelerates, As Market-Share War Looms Oil Sell-Off Accelerates, As Market-Share War Looms Chart 2A Market-Share War Will Keep Oil Prices Depressed A Market-Share War Will Keep Oil Prices Depressed A Market-Share War Will Keep Oil Prices Depressed Neither of the principal actors responsible for the 30% rout in oil prices on Monday morning when markets opened for trading – KSA and Russia – are providing guidance at present. Prices since recovered slightly and were down ~ 20% Monday afternoon. Much as we rely on modeling to guide our expectations, this is purely political at the moment. There are two large personalities involved – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Russian President Vladimir Putin – who have staked out opposing positions on the level of production cuts needed to balance markets in the short term, as the COVID-19 outbreak spreads beyond China leaving highly uncertain demand losses in its wake.2 If a meeting of OPEC 2.0’s leadership can be arranged before the end of March, a hope expressed by Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh in a Bloomberg interview over the weekend,3 the stage could be set for a rapprochement between KSA and Russia allowing them to repair the rupture in the OPEC 2.0 leadership. Should that occur, the rally in prices could be dramatic – maybe not as dramatic as today's price collapse when markets awoke to the opening rounds of a full-on market-share war between OPEC and Russia. But, over the course of the next few weeks, prices for 2H20 Brent and WTI would begin recovering and moving back toward $60/bbl as markets price in lower inventories on the back of a return to production discipline by OPEC 2.0. If we do not see such a meeting next week, markets will be forced to price in a prolonged price-war that could extend into the end of this year, which will not be easy to arrest. If, as seems to be the case, the Russians' goal is to directly attack shale-oil production in the US with a market-share/price war, the effort most likely will fail. True, there will be an increase in bankruptcies among the shale producers and their services companies. This will set up another round of industry consolidation – i.e., more M&A in the US shales – with the large integrated multinational oil companies that now dominate these provinces adding to their holdings. It is worthwhile remembering that US bankruptcy law recycles assets; it does not retire them permanently. In addition, the acquirers of bankrupt firms’ assets get them at a sharp discount, which greatly helps their cost basis. So, shale assets will change hands, stronger balance sheets will take control of these assets, and a leaner, more efficient group of E+Ps will emerge from the wreckage. What’s Being Priced? It is in neither KSA’s nor Russia’s interest to engage in a prolonged market-share war that keeps Brent prices closer to $30/bbl than to $70/bbl. We estimate oil markets now have to price in the return of ~ 2.8mm b/d of OPEC 2.0 production at the end of this month – i.e., a 10% increase of GCC output, led by KSA’s production getting up to 11mm b/d by year-end; ~ 600k b/d of cuts we were assuming would be approved in last week’s Vienna meetings; and ~ 260k b/d from Russia (Chart 3). This could be understated, as KSA claims 12.5mm b/d of capacity (including its spare capacity). Unchecked supply growth would force inventories to build this year (Chart 4).  In fact, absent a return to production-management by OPEC 2.0, oil markets will extrapolate the higher production and low demand into an expectation for steadily rising inventories, that will – once it becomes apparent the supply of storage globally will be exhausted – force prices toward $20/bbl. Weaker-than-expected demand growth would accelerate this process. Chart 3Higher Production Will Overwhelm Demand In Market-Share War Higher Production Will Overwhelm Demand In Market-Share War Higher Production Will Overwhelm Demand In Market-Share War Chart 4Market-Share War Could Exhaust Storage Forcing Production Out of The Market Market-Share War Could Exhaust Storage Forcing Production Out of The Market Market-Share War Could Exhaust Storage Forcing Production Out of The Market It is in neither KSA’s nor Russia’s interest to engage in a prolonged market-share war that keeps Brent prices closer to $30/bbl than to $70/bbl. The apparent unwillingness of Putin and the Russian oligarchs running the country’s oil companies to make relatively small additional production cuts – vis-à-vis what KSA already has delivered – to support prices has not been well explained by Russian producers. The revenue benefits from small production cuts almost surely exceed the additional revenue that would accrue from a 200-300k b/d increase in  output and keeping prices in the $30-$40/bbl range, a level that is below Russian producers' cost of production onshore and offshore, according to the Moscow Times.  KSA's costs are ~ $17/bbl on the other hand.4 Russia’s economy was wobbly going into the Vienna meetings, which makes sorting this out even more complicated. One thing that can be said for certain is that over the past six months Vladimir Putin has entered into another consolidation phase in attempting to quell public unrest, improve the government’s image, and tighten up control over the country, while preparing for another extension of his time as Russia’s supreme leader. A Battle For Primacy? At one level, it would appear the Russians were pushing back against an apparent demand by OPEC (the old cartel led by KSA) to fall in line. Russia’s rejection of the OPEC proposal could be read as an assertion of their position to show they were, at the very least, KSA’s equal in the coalition. A stronger read of the rejection, given the Russian Energy Minister’s comments following the breakdown in Vienna at the end of last week – "... neither we nor any OPEC or non-OPEC country is required to make (oil) output cuts” – would be Russia was attempting to assert itself as the leader of OPEC 2.0. Giving Russia what amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum on production cuts was a high-stakes gamble on KSA’s part. On KSA’s side, it is likely the Saudis grew irritated with the Russian failure to get on board to address a global oil-demand emergency that was spreading beyond China, when they were discussing extending and deepening production cuts in the lead-up to last week’s meetings. Giving Russia what amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum on production cuts was a high-stakes gamble on KSA’s part, to say the least. However, as OPEC’s historic kingpin, KSA may have believed its role was to lead the coalition.  Russia’s in a better position now relative to KSA in the short term vis-à-vis foreign reserves ($446 billion), budget surplus (~ $8 billion), and its lower fiscal breakeven price for oil ($50/bbl) vs KSA’s ($84/bbl), as we discussed in our Friday alert (Chart 5). However, with Russian per-capita GDP at ~ half that of KSA’s, it is highly likely – if this market-share war is prolonged – its citizens are going to be hit with the consequences of the oil-price collapse in short order: FX markets are selling ruble heavily today, and, in short order this will feed through into higher consumer prices and inflation. Indeed, we estimate a 1 percentage-point (pp) depreciation in the ruble vs. the USD y/y leads to a 0.14pp increase in Russian inflation (Chart 6). Chart 5Foreign Exchange Reserves Foreign Exchange Reserves Foreign Exchange Reserves Chart 6Russian Ruble Sell-Off Presages Inflation Russian Ruble Sell-Off Presages Inflation Russian Ruble Sell-Off Presages Inflation The Saudi riyal is pegged to the USD, and does not move as much as the ruble. However, KSA’s citizens also will be buffeted once again by a collapse in oil prices, as they were during the 2014-16 market-share war when government revenues came under severe stress. Things To Watch The OPEC 2.0 joint market-monitoring committee could meet again next week in Vienna, but that is not a given. If they do meet, the agenda likely will be dominated by trying to find a face-saving way for both sides to resume production management. Arguably, the presumptive target of the Russian strategy – US shale producers – will be severely damaged by this week’s price collapse, and both could argue the short-term tactic of threatening a price war was a success. The Saudis could also go for a quick solution, if their primary objectives are to sort things out with Russia, stabilize the global economy, and keep President Trump in office, rather than to push down prices in an adventurous attempt to escalate Iran’s internal crisis. We believe Russia badly miscalculated, and was too early in making a play for dominance in OPEC 2.0, if that was its intent. If, on the other hand, these large personalities cannot agree, the price collapse begun today will continue until global oil storage – crude and products – is filled, forcing prices through cash costs of all but the most efficient producers in the world. This level is below $20/bbl. These lower prices could redound to the benefit of China, as fiscal and monetary stimulus provided by policymakers there in the wake of COVID-19 to get the economy back on track for 6% p.a. growth gets super-charged by low oil prices. Bottom Line: We believe Russia badly miscalculated, and was too early in making a play for dominance in OPEC 2.0, if that was its intent. Russian GDP has twice the sensitivity to Brent prices that KSA does, which means such a tactic takes a toll on it as well as the shale producers (Chart 7). Capital markets had the US shale producers on the ropes, so it is difficult to argue there was a need to accelerate the process and shock the world. We again note a full-blown market-share war will set up another round of industry consolidation in the US shales, but, over the medium to longer term, the shale assets of bankrupt companies will only be re-cycled to more efficient operators, as we saw following the last market-share war. This will contribute to a stronger shale sector in the US in the medium term. Chart 7Russian GDP More Sensitive to Brent Prices Russian GDP More Sensitive to Brent Prices Russian GDP More Sensitive to Brent Prices The only other consolation for Russia is a higher likelihood of regime change in the US (more political polarization in the US benefits Russia), and yet the Trump administration has been the most pro-Russian administration in years so this is not at all a clear objective. We will be watching very closely for a meeting of OPEC 2.0’s joint committee next week. If we get it and a face-saving resolution is agreed by KSA and Russia we would expect stronger demand growth in 2H20 to absorb whatever unintended inventory accumulation a still-born price war causes. If not, we will expect a price war into the end of the year, after which the economies of oil producers globally will have been sufficiently battered to naturally force production lower and investment in future production to contract sharply. At that point, oil and oil equities will be an attractive investments for the medium and long term.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russia and Saudi Arabia Hold 'Catholic Marriage' with Poem and Badges, Form Enormous Oil Cartel published by Newsweek July 3, 2019. 2     We will be updating our demand estimates in Thursday’s publication, after we get fresh historical data from the principal providers (EIA, IEA, OPEC). 3     Please see Iran's Oil Minister Wants OPEC+ Output Cut, Hopes for Russia Meeting Soon published by Bloomberg, March 8 2020. 4     Please see Russian Oil Production Among Most Expensive in World published November 12, 2019 by The Moscow Times.  

Highlights Crude oil prices fell ~ 10% Friday after Russia refused to support additional production cuts agreed by OPEC in Vienna (Chart 1). As we go to press, Brent is trading close to $45/bbl and WTI is trading ~ $41/bbl. OPEC producers could implement the go-to strategy they’ve employed in the wake of past demand shocks and cut production on their own, in order to balance the market. That said, there are indications the Saudis will not shoulder the market-balancing role alone. Russian producers have consistently demanded relief from production restraints since 2017, when OPEC 2.0 took over balancing the market. With shale-oil producers on the back foot owing to parsimonious capital markets, Russia could finally be able to deliver the coup de grâce it has been waiting for. This supply shock hits the market as COVID-19 threatens demand globally. Whatever Russia’s intent – be it removing the near-certainty of a production cut, which it always agreed to in the past, or crippling US shale production – two-way risk has returned to these Vienna meetings. Feature Oil markets once again are faced with a possible price collapse – not unlike the swan dive seen when OPEC’s market-share war took Brent from more than $110/bbl in mid-2014 to $26/bbl by early 2016. The proximate aim of that market-share war – led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – was to significantly reduce the revenue Iran would receive when it returned to export markets, following its agreement with the US to end its nuclear program in 2015. Tanking oil prices was the most expedient way of accomplishing this. Secondarily, shale-oil producers also may have been targeted, although such a goal was never clearly articulated by KSA’s leadership. Chart 1Russia's Supply Shock Craters Brent, WTI Prices Russia's Supply Shock Craters Brent, WTI Prices Russia's Supply Shock Craters Brent, WTI Prices OPEC’s market-share war did thin the US oil-shale herd, but it did not destroy the industry. If anything, it forced shale-oil producers to focus on their best drilling prospects with their best rigs and crews. This produced a leaner more productive technology-driven cohort of drillers, which posted record production levels on a regular basis. Indeed, by the end of 2019, US production topped 12.9mm b/d – 8.2mm b/d of which was accounted for by shale-oil output – making the US the largest oil and gas producer in the world. The market-share war also brought KSA and Russia together in November 2016 as the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0. The sole mission of this unlikely coalition was to clear the global inventory overhang left in the wake of the market-share war by managing OPEC and non-OPEC production. Russia’s Coup de Grâce Managing global production and inventories with KSA – while US shale-oil producers continued to raise their output to new records regularly – never sat well with Russia’s oil producers.   Managing global production and inventories with KSA – while US shale-oil producers continued to raise their output to new records regularly – never sat well with Russia’s oil producers. Ahead of OPEC 2.0 meetings in Vienna, Russian oligarchs could be counted on to demand higher output levels, and President Vladimir Putin could be counted on to deliver something close to agreed production cuts in time to assuage markets. This semi-annual ritual came to resemble a tightly choreographed set-piece, which may have inured market participants to the oligarchs’ resolve to ultimately increase production levels. Russia certainly was well-prepared when it delivered Friday’s supply shock. Time will tell, but Friday’s breakdown in Vienna could be the coup de grâce Russia’s oligarchs have been waiting to deliver to US shale producers since the formation of OPEC 2.0. Or it could be a well-timed reminder that nothing in oil markets is certain – particularly Russian compliance with production-restraint agreements. The once-certain 11th-hour agreement to adhere to whatever production-cutting agreements OPEC 2.0 came up with is now gone. And with it, the high-probability bet that, regardless of the tensions leading up to the Vienna meetings, a production-management agreement would be delivered, and shale-oil producers would live to fight another day. Chart 2Russia, KSA Foreign Exchange Reserves Russia, KSA Foreign Exchange Reserves Russia, KSA Foreign Exchange Reserves Whatever the case, Russia certainly was well-prepared when it delivered Friday’s supply shock. It has steadily built its foreign-exchange reserves since the price collapse begun in 2014, which now stand at $446 billion, up 45% from their nadir of 2015 (Chart 2). KSA’s foreign-exchange reserves, on the other hand, fell sharply in the wake of the 2014 – 2016 market-share war and have languished at lower levels since. Chart 3Russia, KSA Per-Capita Income Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets Still, the Kingdom is not without stout resources. It’s gross national income per capita is ~ 2x that of Russia’s (Chart 3), and its days-forward import cover expressed in terms of days of foreign reserves is similarly stout (Chart 4). Chart 4Russia, KSA Import Cover Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets The economies of both KSA and Russia are exquisitely linked to Brent oil prices (Chart 5). So tempting another market-share or price war is a strategy that could not be sustained by either country for an extended period of time. Chart 5Russia, KSA GDP vs Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP vs Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP vs Brent Prices Chart 6Russia, KSA GDP Highly Sensitive To Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP Highly Sensitive To Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP Highly Sensitive To Brent Prices The End Of OPEC 2.0? Post-GFC, we estimate Russia’s real GDP elasticity to changes in oil prices is close to twice that of Saudi Arabia. This suggests Russia’s strategy could have dismal consequences for its economy. Oil markets will gnaw on Friday’s breakdown in Vienna, sorting out the signals that were missed in Russian messaging, and figuring out what happens next. Neither Russia nor KSA have the resources to wage an indefinite war of attrition with US shale producers. Both are highly dependent on oil revenues to sustain their economies (Chart 6). Of the two, Russia’s economy is more sensitive to Brent oil prices than KSA’s, as it markets more of its output in trading markets. Post-GFC, we estimate Russia’s real GDP elasticity to changes in oil prices is close to twice that of Saudi Arabia. This suggests Russia’s strategy could have dismal consequences for its economy. Russia’s $50/bbl fiscal breakeven price vs. KSA’s $84/bbl price might give Russia more staying power in the short run, but with per-capita income at roughly half that of Saudi citizens, it will not want to revisit the dire days of 2014-16 when its economy last suffered through an oil-price collapse.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights OPEC 2.0 ministers continue to negotiate oil production cuts to replace those expiring this month. We expect cuts of 1mm b/d – perhaps more – extending to end-June, undertaken to offset COVID-19-induced demand destruction. Making the not-unreasonable assumptions of no change in US sanctions-related output losses – 1mm b/d in Venezuela and 2mm b/d in Iran – and that 1mm b/d of Libyan output stays offline, the 1mm b/d cut coming out of this week’s meeting in Vienna will push average 1H20 OPEC 2.0 outages – planned and unplanned – to ~ 5mm b/d. The US economy is growing ~ 2.7% p.a., suggesting the Fed’s surprise 50bp rate cut this week is aimed at reducing global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU), lowering its accompanying USD safe-haven demand, and guarding against a collapse in US money velocity (Chart of the Week). This will weaken the USD, thereby supporting EM incomes and oil demand. We continue to expect policymakers in China to overshoot on fiscal and monetary stimulus, as they scramble to deliver 6% pa growth this year. Feature In the wake of ongoing negotiations – right into today’s meeting in Vienna – we expect OPEC 2.0 to deliver a production cut of at least 1mm b/d for 2Q20. Maybe more. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been lobbying for a large cut – 1mm b/d at least. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA) consistently lobbied for such cuts, and was instrumental in achieving the 1.7mm b/d output reduction for this quarter when the coalition met at the end of last year in Vienna. KSA’s partner in OPEC 2.0, Russia, has been slow to support production cuts going into this week’s meeting, which is the stance it typically takes during these negotiations. Nonetheless, it did agree in December to cuts, and we expect they will do so again this week. After this go-round, we’re likely to see an agreement to meet in June to determine whether cuts should be extended and/or expanded.1 Chart of the WeekFed Rate Cut Meant To Reduce Uncertainty Fed Rate Cut Meant To Reduce Uncertainty Fed Rate Cut Meant To Reduce Uncertainty The 1mm b/d in planned outages for 2Q20 coming out of this week’s meetings would add to the ~ 4mm b/d of unplanned outages in Venezuela, Iran and Libya this year. If the producer coalition fails to agree to a significant output cut this week, we would expect a sell-off in crude oil that takes Brent prices below $50/bbl, and WTI into the mid-$40s (Chart 2). An agreement to remove at least 1mm b/d of output likely will push Brent into the mid-$50s and WTI into the low-$50s during in 2Q20. Assuming the COVID-19 outbreak subsides by then, we expect Brent to rally in 2H20, with prices trading above $60/bbl and WTI trading $4/bbl below that on average. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and forecasts when we get fresh historical data from the key agencies (EIA, OPEC and IEA). The 1mm b/d in planned outages for 2Q20 coming out of this week’s meetings would add to the ~ 4mm b/d of unplanned outages in Venezuela, Iran and Libya. If these persist to end-June, planned and unplanned OPEC 2.0 production outages would average more than 5mm b/d in 1H20 (Chart 3). Chart 2A Failure To Cut Production Would Push Benchmark Crudes Lower A Failure To Cut Production Would Push Benchmark Crudes Lower A Failure To Cut Production Would Push Benchmark Crudes Lower Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Will Agree Cuts Core OPEC 2.0 Will Agree Cuts Core OPEC 2.0 Will Agree Cuts On the demand side, the big global hit to growth from China in 1Q20 should be out of the system by the end of 1H20, assuming the COVID-19 outbreak does not shut down global commerce the way it did in China. We think the odds of such a shutdown are low, given such policies only can be implemented by a central government in which all power is consolidated in a ruling party. Besides, given the massive hit to China’s manufacturing – auto production was down 80% y/y in February, e.g. – such policies are unlikely to be recommended in all but the most dire of circumstances. We continue to expect Chinese policymakers to overshoot on their fiscal and monetary stimulus, as they scramble to get 2020 GDP growth back above a 6% p.a. rate. Our view aligns with BCA’s China Investment Strategy, which last week observed, “It is becoming evident that the Chinese leadership is willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda in exchange for a rapid economic recovery.”2 Our colleagues go on to note, “Monetary conditions are already more accommodative than during the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. The recently announced policy initiatives on infrastructure, housing, and automobile sectors also resemble policy supports that led to a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016.” Fed Cuts Rates To Reduce Uncertainty The economic pressure arising from a strong USD is particularly acute for EM economies. Even before the COVID-19 outbreak in China at the end of last year, global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU) and the broad trade-weighted USD (USD TWIB) were hitting new highs. This was driven by trade wars, the emergence of left- and right-wing populists globally, uncertainty over the effectiveness of monetary policy, and a host of other issues that drove investors, firms and households to seek safe-haven assets like the dollar (Chart 4). In fact, these variables became highly correlated over the past 3-, 4- and 5-year intervals.3 The novel coronavirus outbreak in China, which literally shut down China’s economy in January and February, added to this uncertainty. It continues to lurk in the background now that the coronavirus has spread globally. This also contributes to safe-haven USD demand. While a rate cut cannot address the COVID-19 directly, it can loosen financial conditions – thus removing some uncertainty at the margin – and reduce USD strength. The economic pressure arising from a strong USD is particularly acute for EM economies, which are the dominant source of commodity demand growth globally (Chart 5). At the margin, this demand for dollars arising from increased global policy uncertainty suppresses oil demand growth in EM economies, by raising its cost in local-currency terms ex-US and ex-GCC producing states with currencies pegged to the dollar. It also incentivizes production at the margin, as local-currency costs are depressed, which reduces local costs, while revenues are realized in USD – the perfect arb. Chart 4Global Uncertainty Was High Before COVID-19 Hit Markets Global Uncertainty Was High Before COVID-19 Hit Markets Global Uncertainty Was High Before COVID-19 Hit Markets Chart 5EM Growth Suppressed By Strong USD EM Growth Suppressed By Strong USD EM Growth Suppressed By Strong USD Exploring The Dominant Currency Paradigm The USD’s dominance of global trade is receiving considerable attention in academia and at the Fed. The USD’s dominance of global trade is receiving considerable attention in academia and at the Fed. One theory we find useful is the “Dominant Currency Paradigm,” which holds the dollar is the dominant currency in the world and is used disproportionally vis-à-vis its GDP weight in the global economy (Chart 6). Its dominance is reflected in (1) invoicing of international trade, (2) bank funding, (3) corporate borrowing, (4) central-bank reserve holdings, and (5) the relatively low expected returns accruing to USD-denominated risk-free assets that violate uncovered interest-rate parity no-arbitrage conditions – i.e., the dollar’s so-called “exorbitant privilege.”4 Chart 6USD Is The Dominant EM Invoicing Currency OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices Demand for USD rises when global economic policy uncertainty rises, which is why dollar liquidity is crucial: When demand for safe asset spikes, there is a need for aggressive liquidity (supply) of dollar to avoid a market collapse (Chart 7).5 By cutting US rates now, the Fed is effectively increasing USD supply and/or removing some of the demand for USD relative to other currencies. This will be especially important if global economic policy uncertainty remains strong. This somewhat buffers EM corporates and governments with high levels of USD-denominated debt against a rush to safe-haven USD holdings. We believe this will ease financial conditions in EM economies, which should, all else equal, provide more of a shock absorber for uncertainty generally. Chart 7Dollar Liquidity Mutes US Dollar Appreciation Dollar Liquidity Mutes US Dollar Appreciation Dollar Liquidity Mutes US Dollar Appreciation   Our modeling suggests higher global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU) can shock the USD TWIB, US 10-year Treasurys and EM trade volumes directly. In addition, USD-denominated debt is relatively pronounced in some EM economies (Chart 8). USD appreciation increases domestic banks’ liabilities vs. assets. This is negative for bank’s balance sheets and leads to a tightening in financial conditions, which limits growth. EM corporate bond issuers are exquisitely sensitive to USD movements as they affect their capacity to service foreign-currency debt. Chart 8A Strong US Dollar Hurts Vulnerable EM Economies OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices It is important to remember the US economy continues to perform relatively strongly against other major economies, with 1Q20 US GDP growth estimated by the Atlanta Fed’s Nowcast at 2.7% p.a. The fact that the Fed surprised markets with a 50bp rate cut suggests to us it is concerned with EM growth slowing sharply if the coronavirus becomes a global threat. The Fed also is likely to be concerned that lower US consumer confidence will lead to a decrease in the velocity of money. This concern also is addressed by increasing money supply pre-emptively. Our modeling suggests higher global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU) can shock the USD TWIB, US 10-year Treasurys and EM trade volumes directly, and that these shocks can persist (Chart 9).6 The Fed's policy action today will, if our modeling is correct, reduce demand for USD as a safe haven, all else equal, reduce long-term US rates and boost EM trade volumes. Bottom Line: We expect OPEC 2.0 to deliver at least 1mm b/d of production cuts in 2Q20, which will be reviewed at the end of June to determine whether they should be extended or deepened. Global economic policy uncertainty remains high, supporting demand for the USD. We believe the Fed’s surprise rate cut this week was directed at alleviating some of the global uncertainty keeping the USD well bid, in an attempt to buffer EM economies affected by USD demand. It also is a safeguard against a collapse in the velocity of money in the US that could occur if uncertainty were to suddenly rise. Chart 9GEPU Shocks Are Transmitted To USD And US Treasurys OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight The EIA’s weekly inventory report gives no evidence of a COVID-19-induced backup in crude and product inventories in the US. Total stocks of crude and products fell almost 12mm barrels last week on the back of strong product draws, led by gasoline and distillates, both of which were down close to 5mm barrels on the week. Commercial crude oil inventories were mostly unchanged at ~ 445mm barrels. Crude oil exports rose almost 500k b/d last week to 4.15mm b/d, accounting for most of the 9.73mm b/d of crude and product exports from the US. (Chart 10). Base Metals: Neutral Expectations China will deploy aggressive stimulus targeting infrastructure and manufacturing activities in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, along with Brazil reporting a 15% month-on-month decline in exports of iron ore helped iron ore and steel futures post significant gains earlier this week, with the Singapore Exchange's 62% Fe Iron Ore futures closing 5.6% higher on Monday. However, these gains were short-lived – and will remain capped in the short-term – as weak Chinese demand persists and steel rebar inventories remain at record highs. Precious Metals: Neutral Amid a broader market sell-off gold prices dipped 4.5% on Friday – the worst performance since 2013 – but have since recovered, on the back of the Fed’s surprise rate cut this week. The US central bank delivered an emergency 50bps rate cut on Tuesday, gold erased all the losses with spot prices rising 3.2% at the close, to reach $1645.27/oz. Silver followed a similar pattern rebounding 2.9% on Tuesday, closing at $17.22/oz. We are long both metals and believe more upside is yet to come if central banks around the world coordinate on additional monetary easing (Chart 11). Ags/Softs:  Underweight Expectations of a stronger stimulus in response to COVID-19 pushed soybeans higher for a third consecutive day on Tuesday, with prices hitting a 6-week high intraday. Bean prices then retreat and close 0.3% higher than the previous session. Gains were capped by favorable weather conditions in Brazil, leading analysts to expect a record harvest this season. Wheat also rebounded on the Fed’s rate-cut news after a sluggish week that saw prices falling almost 5%. Uncertainty still reigns though, as the Australian Bureau of Agriculture crop report predicts wheat output to recover 41% to 21.4 Mn Mt in 2020, due to rainfall ending a period of severe drought. The most active wheat futures were up 0.8% at Tuesday’s close. Chart 10US Crude Oil Exports Are Rising US Crude Oil Exports Are Rising US Crude Oil Exports Are Rising Chart 11Lower Real Rates Will Support Gold Lower Real Rates Will Support Gold Lower Real Rates Will Support Gold       Footnotes 1     We do not rule out the possibility KSA or the GCC core producers shoulder the lion’s share of the cuts they seek, in order to balance the market. 2     Please see China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy February 26, 2020. It is available as cis.bcaresearch.com. 3    This heightened uncertainty – i.e., the increase in “unknown unknowns” markets are attempting to process – is a recurrent theme in our research. See, e.g., 2020 Key Views: Policy Uncertainty Continues To Drive Commodity Markets published December 19, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see Gopinath, Gita and Jeremy Stein. “Banking, Trade, and the Making of a Dominant Currency,” Working Paper currently under revision for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. 5    Gopinath (2016) finds that the dollar’s share as an invoicing currency for imported goods is approximately 4.7 times the share of U.S. goods in imports. Please see Gopinath, Gita. “The International Price System.” Jackson Hole Symposium Proceedings, published in January 2016. See also Obstfeld, Maurice (2019), “Global Dimensions of U.S. Monetary Policy,” presented at the Federal Reserve Board Conference on Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communication Practices (A Fed Listens Event) in Washington June 4, 2019. 6    Our results reflect the vector autoregression (VAR) model we use to study the interaction of GEPU shocks and the USD TWIB and US 10-year treasurys.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices

Highlights The COVID-19-induced demand shock in China – and a stronger USD – will reduce growth in global crude oil consumption to just over 1mm b/d this year, vs. earlier expectations of ~ 1.4mm b/d. Significant fiscal and monetary stimulus from China will be required to put economic growth back on track over the critical 2020-21 interval. An accommodative monetary-policy backdrop globally also will support demand. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 likely will cut output by an additional 600k b/d in 2Q20, which will remove 2.3mm b/d off member states’ official quotas. For 2H20, we expect the coalition to revert to its 1.7mm b/d in cuts to keep markets balanced. US shale-oil output growth will continue to slow under market-imposed capital discipline. We are revising our baseline price forecasts in 2020 lower to $62/bbl and $58/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively (Chart of the Week). This is down $5/bbl vs our previous forecast. Price risk is to the upside, however. 2021 Brent and WTI forecasts remain at $70/bbl and $66/bbl, respectively, as we do not expect long-lived demand destruction from the COVID-19 outbreak. A growing consensus around policy stimulus and production cuts makes us leery. Feature Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 continues to hammer Chinese oil demand, forcing refiners there to drastically reduce output. This crude oil is ending up in inventories, but, so far at least, overall storage capacity in China is not being maxed out by the unintended accumulations of crude and product inventories. Data are difficult to come by, but there are a few observations that provide some insight into the state of the refining market in China as the COVID-19 episode unfolds. Platt’s reported independent refiners in Shandong Province, which has ~ 3.4mm b/d of refining capacity, cut runs to a four-year low of ~ 40% of capacity this month, down from a January rate of 63.5%. Shandong refiners represent 50%-60% of China’s independent refining capacity.1 We estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. Ursa Space Systems’ radar satellite monitoring of inventories close to coastal refineries indicated Chinese oil storage at the beginning of the month was at 60% of capacity.2 This figure likely is higher, given refinery runs remain low, but it does not yet suggest storage capacity in China will be exhausted in the near future. In our modeling of the COVID-19 impact on oil demand, we estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. This leads us to believe EM oil demand will increase by 1mm b/d this year, down from our earlier expectation of 1.26mm b/d pre-COVID-19. For DM economies, demand growth also will disappoint, revised down by 100k b/d on the back of a warmer-than-expected winter and stop-and-go growth in manufacturing induced by COVID-19. Policy Stimulus Will Revive Chinese Demand The COVID-19 outbreak will result in a significant hit to China’s GDP, which will require substantial stimulus to put growth back on a 6% p.a. track this year. This growth rate is required for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to deliver on its pledge to double GDP and per-capita income over 2010-20, a pledge that was memorialized in writing following the Party’s 2012 Congress. In addition, next year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP, and, we believe, it is an all-but-foregone conclusion the Party’s leadership will not want a faltering economy on display as it celebrates this important milestone. Given these considerations, the possibility policymakers will over-stimulate the economy to get it back on track is a non-trivial upside risk.3 We do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. Our baseline 2020 forecast envisions prices will falter somewhat versus our previous expectation – with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, and WTI trading $4/bbl below that, vs. $67/bbl and $63/bbl previously. We are mindful of the impact Chinese policy stimulus can have on the global oil markets. The effects on GDP growth following demand shocks of past stimulus can be seen in the response of China’s GDP following the 2003 SARS outbreak; the 2008-09 GFC; the 2011-12 eurozone debt crisis; and even in China’s 2015-16 slowdown (Chart 2). For this reason, we do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. And it is for this reason that we believe price risk tilts to the upside this year. Our updated Ensemble price forecast includes two additional demand-side simulations to assess its sensitivity to changes in EM oil demand: Chart 2Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Higher EM demand scenario (20% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as short-lived, with only a temporary impact on China’s economy. Consumer demand and industrial production in China converge to pre-COVID-19 levels rapidly in 2H20. Chinese policymakers overstimulate in 2Q20, over fears the virus could have severe long-term consequences on the economy. This scenario assumes EM demand increases by 100k b/d vs. our base case in 2020 and 2021. Lower EM demand scenario (10% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as a severe and long-lasting event. This triggers a negative feedback loop for EM oil demand; collapsing demand forces production lower, which reduces employment and pushes demand further down. This reverberates to other EM economies and affects global supply chains. This scenario assumes EM demand decreases by 240k b/d in 2020 and returns to our base case in 2021, supported by China stimulus. Oil-Demand Reduction (Not Destruction) The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). The COVID-19 outbreak in China caused us to reduce our expectation for global oil demand growth by ~ 360k b/d, taking 2020 year-on-year growth to ~ 1.04mm b/d, versus our earlier expectation of 1.4mm b/d. The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). Dollar strength produces a headwind for EM GDP growth, which suppresses oil-demand growth. The combination of the COVID-19-induced demand reduction and the stronger USD TWIB likely will compel OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline until the global policy uncertainty abates and the USD TWIB retreats. Such a reversal in trend would become a tailwind for commodity demand (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders. We expect the hit to global demand to be offset by increased production cuts from OPEC 2.0, which will be agreed next month. OPEC 2.0 production also will be impacted by continued output losses in Iran and Venezuela, which have seen y/y production fall by ~ 1.8mm b/d in 2019. Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders – via stock buybacks – and for steady and increasing dividends to make their equity competitive with alternative sectors (e.g., tech). These capital-market pressures – in addition to growing pressure from Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investors – will continue to have a profound effect on capital availability for oil and gas E+P companies for decades to come. This is a theme we will return to often in future research. We summarize these supply-demand dynamics in Chart 4. For OPEC 2.0, the 1.7mm b/d reduction in output the coalition agreed for 1Q20 remains in place, as do losses from Iran and Venezuela. For 2Q20, we assume the coalition adds another 600k b/d of production cuts. After that, we assume OPEC 2.0 reverts to its earlier production cuts of 1.7mm b/d for 2H20. In 2021, we assume OPEC 2.0 takes production cuts back down to 1.2mm b/d in January 2021, then gradually increases its production over 1H21 to balance the market and to avoid spiking prices. We also expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to remove 300k b/d of overcompliance next year, as markets tighten. In 2H21, we see OPEC 2.0 production levels remaining flat at ~ 44.8mm b/d (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Chart 4Supply-Demand Balances Supply-Demand Balances Supply-Demand Balances Chart 5Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. For the US, we reduced our Lower 48 production assumptions, and now have 740k b/d growth in 2020 and 300k b/d in 2021. Shales account for almost all of this increase. We also include a scenario in which US production comes in lower in our ensemble forecast. These fundamentals combine to put global oil inventories back on a downward trajectory in 2H20 (Chart 5). That said, there is an important caveat going into 2H20: If the US Economic Policy Uncertainty Index starts rising in 2H20 on the back of US election risks, markets will continue to price in a stronger USD in 2020 vs. what we now expect. For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. Odds favor a return to the pre-COVID-19 price trajectory for oil next year, with continued upside risk from Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus, and a globally accommodative monetary-policy backdrop. Higher Spare Capacity Reduces Risk Premium The market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. The risk premium in oil prices evaporated following the drop in demand and the increase in spare capacity due to the large OPEC 2.0 cuts. When China’s economy resumes its normal activity, demand will pick up and the market will balance, increasing the impact of possible supply disruptions. However, the market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. In addition, if production capacity of ~ 300k-500k b/d in the Neutral Zone shared by KSA and Kuwait is restored, the risk premium could drop even lower, given this production is expected to be retained as spare capacity. If this is the case we could have lower prices in 2020 vs. our current forecast (down to ~ $60/bbl). We will be exploring the changes in OPEC 2.0 spare capacity and the consequences for overall production in future research. Bottom Line: Assisted by Chinese policy stimulus, oil demand will recover this year from the COVID-19-induced demand shock. On the supply side, the combination of deeper OPEC 2.0 production cuts – which we expect will be settled at the upcoming March meeting – and capital-market-imposed reduction in US oil production will push oil markets to a supply deficit. The ongoing demand shock forces us to reduce our 2020 Brent price forecast to $62/bbl from $67/bbl previously. For 2021, we maintain our $70/bbl target. Risks to our view are mounting. Three crucial pieces to our 2020 and 2021 expectations remain uncertain: The duration and magnitude of the impact of the coronavirus shock, The level of production cuts by OPEC 2.0 and the degree of compliance by all members, and The trajectory of the US dollar – if global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated the USD could remain well bid, which would continue to pressure EM GDP growth – and commodity demand – at the margin. Our base case remains that prices will rise from here, but our conviction level is slightly lower. One reason for this is the apparent consensus emerging around the likelihood of Chinese stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. If either of these assumptions prove wrong, oil prices likely would move lower.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight As of Tuesday’s close, Brent prices were up 8% from their Feb 10 low of $53.27/bbl, supported by receding COVID-19 fears and rising expectations OPEC 2.0 will deepen its production cuts at its March meeting. Earlier this week, oil prices received an additional lift from the newly-imposed US sanctions on Rosneft Trading SA – a subsidiary of Russia’s state-own company – for its activities with Venezuela’s PDVSA. Rosneft Trading intensified its involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector and now handles the majority of the country’s crude exports, providing vital support to the Maduro government. The US restrictions include a 90-day wind-down period for companies to end their activities with Rosneft Trading. Base Metals: Neutral Chinese steel consumption – which accounts for ~50% of global demand – has been hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak. Steel and iron ore prices in China plunged 11% and 3% YTD (Chart 6). Steel mills’ inventories increased to record levels, reaching full capacity. Mills are now forced to export their surplus at reduced prices – flooding seaborne steel markets – or to cut output. Accordingly, more than 33% of steel mills are considering cutting steel production, according to a recent Platts survey. Margins at producing mills are declining and could harm high-grade iron ore prices. This is a short-term risk to our view. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices surged past $1,600/oz on Tuesday – overlooking positive manufacturing data in the US. Silver shadowed gold’s movement, closing at $18.13/oz. Precious metals are bought as insurance against risks of a wider-than-expected spread of the coronavirus and should remain well bid until uncertainty dissipates. Gold is somewhat overbought based on sentiment, momentum and technical indicators (Chart 7). If, as we expect, the daily increase in confirmed cases ex-Hubei slows meaningfully over the coming months, gold and silver prices will lose some steam. Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT March wheat futures surged 4.4% on Tuesday after Australia’s government sharply lowered its estimate of the country’s wheat harvest as severe drought affected crops. The Australian agricultural agency said the crop totaled 15.17 mm MT, the lowest since 2008, paving the way for stronger US exports. Corn also moved higher, with the prompt contract gaining 1.26% on the back of a new round of Chinese tariff exemptions on US goods. A USDA report showed US soybean export inspections bound for China were still half of last year's volumes. Soybeans futures closed 1.25 cents lower at $8.915/bu as markets await large Chinese purchases of US soybeans. Chart 6Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Chart 7Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market     footnotes 1     Please see China's Shandong independent refiners cut run rates to 4-year low of 40% in Feb, published by S&P Global Platts February 13, 2020. 2     Please see Oil demand falls on coronavirus: how much will inventories rise? posted by Ursa Space Systems February 7, 2020. 3     Please see Iron Ore, Steel Poised For Rally, published January 13, 2020, for a discussion of the significance of 2020 vis-à-vis the Communist Party’s pledge to double GDP and per-capita income vs. 2010 levels, memorialized by the CCP at its 2012 Peoples Congress.  We also discuss the 100th anniversary of the Party’s founding next year, which also will be a significant milestone for the CCP – and another reason the Party will not want the Chinese economy faltering as it is celebrated.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20

Highlights Geopolitical sparks in the Mediterranean point to the revival of realism or realpolitik in places where it has long been dormant. Europe is wary of Russia but will keep buying more of its natural gas. This will be a source of tension with the United States. Turkey is wary of Russia but will continue choosing pragmatic deals with Moscow that fly in the face of Europe and the United States. Turkey’s intervention in Libya is small but symbolic. Increases in foreign policy aggressiveness are negative signs for Turkey as they stem from domestic economic and political instability. Short Turkish currency, equities, and local government bonds. The recent increase in immigration into Europe will fuel another bout of populism if it goes unchecked. Feature “Multipolarity,” or competition among multiple powerful nations, is our overarching geopolitical theme at BCA Research. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not lead to the United States establishing a global empire, which might in theory have provided a stable and predictable trade and investment regime. The United States lashed out when attacked but otherwise became consumed by internal struggles: financial crisis and political polarization. Under two administrations the American public has demanded a reduced commitment to international affairs. Europe is even less likely to project power abroad – particularly after being thrown on the defensive by the Syrian and Libyan revolutions and ineffectual EU responses. Turkey’s aggressive foreign policy is a symptom of global multipolarity – which makes the world less predictable for investors. Emerging markets have risen in economic and military power relative to their developed counterparts. They demand a redistribution of global political power to set aright historical grievances and address immediate concerns, such as supply line insecurities, which increase alongside a rapidly growing economy. Multipolarity is apparent in Russia’s resurgence: pushing back on its borders with Europe and NATO, seeking a greater role in the Middle East and North Africa, interfering in US politics, and cementing its partnership with China. Multipolarity is equally evident when medium-sized powers – especially those that used to take orders from the US and Europe – seek to establish an independent foreign policy and throw off the shackles of the past. Turkey is just such a middle power. Strongman President Recep Tayyip Erdogan initially sought to lead Turkey into a new era of regional ascendancy. The Great Recession and Arab Spring intervened. Domestic economic vulnerabilities and regional instability have driven him to pursue increasingly populist and unorthodox policies that threaten the credit of the nation and security of the currency. A coup attempt in 2016 and domestic political losses in 2019 drove Erdogan further down this path, which includes aggressive foreign policy as well as domestic economic stimulus. The Anatolian peninsula has always stood at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, as well as Russia and Africa. Turkey’s efforts to change the regional status quo to its favor, increase leverage over its neighbors in Europe and the Middle East, and deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin from a position of strength, are causing the geopolitics of the Mediterranean to heat up. It has now intervened in the Libyan civil war. In this special report, we focus on this trend and ask what it means for global investors. Unfinished Business In Libya Chart 1Haftar Is Weaponizing Libya’s Oil The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean As the Libyan conflict enters its sixth year this spring, the battle for control of the western bastion of Tripoli rages. Multiple efforts to mediate the conflict between Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar of the Libyan National Army (LNA) and Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj of the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) have failed. Ceasefire talks in Moscow, Rome, and Berlin have fizzled. Instead, fighting has finally hit oil production, with the state-run National Oil Corp (NOC) declaring force majeure on supplies on January 18. Tribal leaders who support Haftar have blockaded eastern ports (Chart 1). Previously the mutual dependence of the rival factions on oil revenues ensured production and exports went mostly undisturbed. LNA forces control nearly all key oil pipelines, fields, ports, and terminals in Libya. The exceptions are the Zawiyya and Mellitah terminals and offshore fields (Map 1). However the National Oil Company (NOC), headquartered in the GNA-controlled Tripoli, is the sole entity controlling operations and the sole marketer of Libyan oil. Map 1Libya’s Oil And Natural Gas Infrastructure: Monopolized By Haftar The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean General Haftar’s blockade – which has ground oil production to a halt – displays his ability to weaponize oil to obtain concessions from the Tripoli-based government. Tribal leaders behind the blockade are calling for a larger share of oil revenues, for which they are at the mercy of the LNA and NOC. With little progress in Haftar’s push to gain control of Tripoli, and Libya more generally, the conflict has reached a stalemate. Not one to back down, Haftar’s decision to cut off oil sales from the Tripoli government, which also cuts off revenues to his own parallel administration, is a brute attempt to force a settlement. Haftar’s gambit follows Turkey’s decision to intervene in Libya on behalf of Sarraj and the GNA. Turkey has deployed roughly 2,000 Syrian fighters, as well as 35 Turkish soldiers in an advisory capacity. Turkey apparently feared that Haftar, who has substantial backing from Egypt and the Gulf Arabs as well as Russia and France, was about to triumph, or at least force a settlement detrimental to Turkish interests. Bottom Line: Turkey’s decision to intervene in the Libyan civil war – while limited in magnitude thus far – raises the stakes of the conflict, which involves the EU, Russia, and the Arab states. It is a clear signal of the geopolitical multipolarity in the region – and a political risk that is flying under the radar amid higher profile risks in other parts of the world. Political Interests: Islamist Democracy Versus Arab Dictatorship The Libyan civil war is a proxy war between foreign nations motivated by conflicting economic and strategic interests in North Africa and the Mediterranean. But there is an ideological and political structure to the conflict that explains the alignment of the nations: Turkey is exporting democracy while the Arab states try to preserve their dictatorships. Haftar’s primary supporters include Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia. These states see monarchy as the way to maintain stability in a region constantly on the edge of chaos. Islamist democracy movements, such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, pose a threat to their long-term authority and security. They try to suppress these movements and contain regimes that promote them or their militant allies. They are willing to achieve one-man rule by force and thus support military strongmen like Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Libya’s General Haftar. On the other side of the conflict stand the backers of the GNA – Turkey and Qatar – which support political Islam and party politics (Chart 2). Turkey’s Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) are sympathetic to Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. They want to ensure a lasting role for Islamic parties in the region, which strengthens their legitimacy. They do not want Libya’s Islamists to suffer the same fate as their affiliates in the Muslim Brotherhood – removal via a military coup. Chart 2Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Chart 3Turkey Steps In Amid Qatar Embargo The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The political conflict is mirrored in the Persian Gulf in the form of the air, land, and sea embargo imposed on Qatar in 2017 at the hands of the Saudis, Egyptians, and Emiratis. The Qatar crisis followed a 2014 diplomatic rift and the 2011 Arab Spring, when Qatar supported protesters and democracy movements against neighboring regimes. The embargo strengthened Turkey-Qatar relations, as Turkey stepped in to ensure that Qataris – who are heavily dependent on imports – would continue to receive essentials (Chart 3). Bottom Line: The alliances forged in the Libyan conflict reflect differing responses to powerful forces of change in the region. Established monarchies and dictatorships are struggling to maintain control of large youth populations and rapidly modernizing economies. Their response is to fortify the existing regime, suppress dissent, and launch gradual reforms through the central government. Their fear of Islamist movements makes them suspicious of Tripoli and the various Islamist groups allied with the GNA, and aligns them with Khalifa Haftar’s attempt to impose a new secular dictatorship in Libya. Meanwhile Turkey, with an active Islamist democracy, is seeking to export its political model, and Muslim Brotherhood-esque political participation, to gain influence across the region, including in Libya and North Africa. Economic Interests: The Scramble For Energy Sources Chart 4Europe Addicted To Russian Gas The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Libyan proxy war is also about natural resources, for all the powers involved. Turkey’s intervention reflects its supply insecurity and desire to carve a larger role for itself in the east Mediterranean economy. Turkey needs to secure cheap energy supplies, and also wants to make itself central to any emerging east Mediterranean natural gas hub that aims to serve Europe. Europe’s increasing dependency on natural gas imports to meet its energy demand, and Russia’s outsized role – supplying the EU with 40% of its needs – have encouraged a search for alternative suppliers (Chart 4). Israel is attempting to fill that role with resources discovered offshore in the eastern Mediterranean. Given its strategic location, Turkey hopes to become an energy hub. First, it is cooperating with the Russians. Presidents Putin and Erdogan inaugurated the Turkish Stream pipeline (TurkStream) at a ceremony in Istanbul on January 8. The pipeline will transport 15.75 billion cubic meters (Bcm) of Russian natural gas to Europe via Turkey. This is part of Russia’s attempt, along with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to bypass Ukraine and increase export capacity, strengthening its dominance over Europe’s natural gas market (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Latest Pipelines Bypass Ukraine The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Europe and its allies are wary of Russian influence, but the EU is not really willing to halt business with Russia, which is a low-cost and long-term provider free from the turmoil of the Middle East. Despite the significant growth in US natural gas supplies, the relatively higher cost makes Russian supplies comparatively more attractive (Chart 5). Chart 5Russian Gas Is Competitive In European Markets … The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Chart 6… As US Attempts To Gain Market Share The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The result will be tensions with the United States, which expects the Europeans to honor the security relationship by buying American LNG (Chart 6) and will always abhor anything resembling a Russo-European alliance. American legislation signed on December 20 would impose sanctions on firms that lay pipes for Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream. Second, Turkey wants to become central to eastern Mediterranean energy development. A series of offshore discoveries in recent decades has sparked talk of cooperation among potential suppliers (Table 1). There is a huge constraint on developing the fields quickly, as there is no export route currently available for the volumes that will be produced. While the reserves are not significant on a global scale, their location so close to Europe, and growing needs in the Middle East, has generated some interest. Table 1Recent East Mediterranean Discoveries Are Relatively Small, But Geopolitically Attractive The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean However, Europe and Israel – the status quo powers – threaten to marginalize Turkey in this process: A meeting of the energy ministers of Egypt, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan in Cairo last July resulted in the creation of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum to promote regional energy cooperation. Turkey – along with Lebanon and Syria – was excluded. Turkey seeks access to natural resources – and to prevent Israel, Egypt, and Europe from excluding it. The EastMed Pipeline deal – signed by Greece, Cyprus, and Israel on January 2 – envisages a nearly 2,000 km subsea pipeline transporting gas from Israeli and Cypriot offshore fields to Cyprus, Crete and Greece, supplying Europe with 9-12 Bcm per year (Map 3). The project enjoys the support of the European Commission and the US as an attempt to diversify Europe’s gas supplies and boost its energy security.1 But it would also be an alternative to an overland pipeline on Turkish territory. Map 3The Proposed EastMed Pipeline Would Marginalize Turkey The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Egypt has two underutilized liquefied natural gas plants – in Idku and Damietta – and has benefited from the 2015 discovery of the Zohr gas field. Egypt has recently become a net exporter of natural gas (Chart 7). It signed a deal with Israel to purchase 85.3 Bcm – $19.5 billion – of gas from Leviathan and Tamar fields over 15 years. Egypt sees itself as an energy hub if it can re-export Israeli supplies economically. Note that Russia and Turkey have some overlapping interests here. Russia does not want Europe to diversify, while Turkey does not want to allow alternatives to Russia that exclude Turkey. Thus maintaining the current trajectory of natural gas projects is not only useful for Russia’s economy (Chart 8) but also for Turkey’s strategic ambitions. Chart 7Egypt Also Aims To Become East Mediterranean Gas Hub The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Of course, while Russian pipes are actually getting built, the EastMed pipeline is not – for economic as well as geopolitical reasons. Europe is currently well supplied and energy prices are low. At an estimated $7 billion, the cost of constructing the EastMed pipeline is exorbitant. Chart 8Maintaining Energy Dominance Advances Russia’s Strategic Ambitions Too The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Still, Turkey must make its influence known now, as energy development and pipelines are necessarily long-term projects. The chaos in Libya presents an opportunity. Seizing on the Libyan GNA’s weakness, Turkey signed an agreement to provide for offshore maritime boundaries and energy cooperation as well as military aid. The EastMed pipeline, of course, would need to cross through Turkish and Libyan economic zones (see Map 3 above).2 Turkey is incapable of asserting its will militarily in the Mediterranean against powerful western naval forces. But short of war, it is capable of expanding its claims and leverage over regional energy and forcing the Israelis and Europeans to deal with it pragmatically and realistically rather than exclude it from their plans. Part of Turkey’s goal is to cement an alliance with Libya – at least a partitioned western Libyan government in any ceasefire brokered with Haftar and the Russians. Bottom Line: While Turkey and Russia support opposing sides in the Libyan conflict, both benefit from dealing directly with each other – bypassing the western powers, which are frustrated and ineffectual in Libya. Both would gain some direct energy leverage over Europe and both would gain some influence over any future eastern Mediterranean routes to Europe. In Libya, if either side triumphs and unites the country, it will grant its allies oil and gas contracts almost exclusively. But if the different foreign actors can build up leverage on opposing sides, they can hope to secure at least some of their interests in a final settlement. Turkey Needs Foreign Distractions The foregoing would imply that Turkey is playing the game well, except that its foreign adventures are in great part driven by domestic economic and political instability. After all, Turkey’s maritime claims are useless if they cannot be enforced, and offshore development and pipeline-building are at a low level given weak energy prices and slowing global demand. Economically, in true populist fashion, Erdogan has repeatedly employed money creation and fiscal spending to juice nominal GDP growth. The result is a wage-price spiral, currency depreciation, and current account deficits that exacerbate the problem. The poor economy has mobilized political opposition. Over the past year, for the first time since Erdogan rose to power in 2002, his Justice and Development Party is fracturing. Former Turkish deputy prime minister Ali Babacan, a founding member of the AKP, as well as former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, have both announced breakaway political parties that threaten to erode support for the AKP. Local elections in 2019 resulted in a popular rebuke in Istanbul. Thus Erdogan is distracting the public with hawkish or nationalist stances abroad that are popular at home. Turkey has taken a strident stance against the US and Europe, symbolized by its threats to loose Syrian refugees into Europe and its purchase of S400 missile defense from Russia despite being a NATO member. Military incursions in Syria aim to relocate refugees back to Syria (Chart 9). Chart 9Erdogan Is Distracting Turks With Popular Foreign Stances The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Chart 10No Love Lost Toward The West The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Turkish public opinion encourages close cooperation with Russia and a more aggressive stance against the West (Chart 10). This is a basis for Russia and Turkey to continue cutting transactional deals despite falling on opposite sides of conflicts in Syria, Libya, Iran, and elsewhere. Erdogan’s pretensions of reviving Ottoman grandeur in the Mediterranean fall in this context. Elections are not until 2023, but we expect Erdogan to continue using foreign policy as a distraction. The opposition is trying to unite behind a single candidate, which could jeopardize Erdogan’s grip on power. The insistence on stimulus at all costs means that Erdogan is not allowing the economic reckoning to occur now, three years before the election. He is trying to delay it indefinitely, which may fail. Libya may not get resolved, however. Allies of Haftar’s LNA – specifically Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – will be motivated to intensify their support of him for fear that a loss would revive domestic interest in political Islam. Egypt especially fears militant proxies being unleashed from any base of operations there. The LNA currently serves as a buffer between Egypt and the militant actors in Libya. If Haftar is defeated, Egypt’s porous western border would provoke a harsh reaction from Cairo. The threat of a revival of Islamic State in Libya has united the Egyptian people – a critical variable in the administration’s vision of a stable country. That has provided Egypt’s Sisi an excuse to flex his muscles through military exercises. Neither Russia nor NATO will be moved to bring a decisive finish to the conflict, as neither wishes to invest too heavily in it. Bottom Line: Erdogan has doubled down on populism at home and abroad. His assertive foreign policy in Syria and now Libya may end up exacerbating economic and political pressures on the ruling party. What Is The Endgame In Libya? There are three possible scenarios to end the current stalemate between the Haftar’s forces and the internationally recognized GNA: Military: An outright military victory by either Haftar or Sarraj is highly unlikely. While Haftar’s forces enjoy military and financial support from the UAE, he lacks popular support in Tripoli – which has proved to be challenging to takeover. Similarly, Sarraj’s army is not strong enough to confront the eastern forces and reunify the country. The merely limited involvement of foreign actors – including Turkey – makes a military solution all the more elusive. The most likely path to a quick military victory comes if foreign actors disengage. This will only occur if they are punished for their involvement, and thus it requires a major neutral power, perhaps the United States, to change the calculus of countries involved. But the US is eschewing involvement and the Europeans have shown no appetite for a heavy commitment. Diplomatic: A negotiated settlement is eventually likely, given the loss of oil revenues. A ceasefire would assign some autonomy to each side of the country. Given Haftar’s ambitions of conquering the capital and becoming a strongman for the country as a whole, the diplomatic route will be challenging unless his Gulf backers grow tired of subsidizing him. Financial: Haftar could win by breaking the NOC’s monopoly on oil. In the past, the LNA failed at selling the oil extracted from infrastructure under its control. If Haftar manages to market the oil without the aid of the NOC then he will be able to guarantee a stream of revenue for his forces and at the same time starve the Tripoli government of financing. This would pose an existential risk for the GNA. The key challenge in this scenario is to obtain international backing for LNA sales of Libyan crude supplies. Libya’s partition into two de facto states is the likeliest outcome. Bottom Line: Unless one of the constraints on a military, diplomatic, or financial end to the conflict is broken, the current stalemate in the Libyan conflict will endure. A partition of Libya will be the practical consequence. Turkey hopes to boost its regional influence through Tripoli, and thus increase its leverage over Europe, but a heavy investment could result in fiscal losses or spiral into a broader regional confrontation. Investment Implications While it is not clear how long the current blockade on Libyan ports will last – or the associated over 1 million barrels per day loss of production – oil supplies will remain at risk so long as the conflict endures. However, unlike supplies in the Gulf or in Venezuela, Libyan crude is of the light sweet grade. There is enough global spare capacity – from US shales – to make up for the Libyan loss, at least over the short term. The fall in Libyan supplies is occurring against the backdrop of oil markets that have been beaten down by the decline in demand on the back of the coronavirus impact (Chart 11). The OPEC 2.0 technical panel recommended additional output cuts of 600 thousand barrels per day last week, and is waiting on a final decision by Russia. We expect the cartel to tighten supplies to shore up prices. The instability in Libya could also affect Europe through immigration. The conflict re-routes migrants through the western route and thus could result in an increased flow to Spain and Portugal, rather than Italy which was previously their landing pad (Chart 12). A meaningful pick up would have a negative impact on European domestic political stability, especially with Germany in the midst of a succession crisis and incapable of taking a lead role. Chart 11Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Chart 12Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Erdogan’s foreign adventurism, and aggression against the West, poses a risk for Turkish markets. We remain underweight Turkish currency and risk assets. Our Emerging Markets strategists expect foreign capital outflows from EM to weigh on Turkey’s currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit relative to EM benchmarks. Go short the Turkish lira relative to the US dollar. Bottom Line: Historically, the Mediterranean was the world’s most important waterway. It was the “life line” of the British empire. The US succeeded the British as the guarantor of Suez and corralled both Turkey and Greece into a single alliance under the Truman Doctrine. This status quo held until the twenty-first century. Since 2000, Russia has revived, US foreign policy in the Middle East has become erratic, and the Europeans have lost clout. Turkey is seeking to carve a space for itself and challenge the settlements of the past, all the way back to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Yet in the wake of the Great Recession its economy is unstable and its populist leaders are taking greater risks abroad. The result will be greater friction with Europe, or the Arab states, or both. Given Turkey’s mismanagement at home, and limited gains to be made in Syria or Libya, Turkish assets will be the first to suffer from negative surprises.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019 is an American bi-partisan bill the lends full support for the East Med pipelines and greater security cooperation with Israel, Cyprus, and Greece. The US Senate also passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last June which ended the arms embargo on Cyprus. 2 Turkey has also been engaging in drilling activities in disputed waters near Cyprus – which Ankara argues it is undertaking in order to protect Turkish-Cypriot claims – motivating EU economic sanctions in the form of travel bans and asset freezes on two Turkish nationals.

Highlights Base metals appear to be pricing the impact of the Chinese 2019-nCoV coronavirus in line with the 2003 SARS outbreak. We expect an earlier peak in reported (ex-Hubei) cases than is currently discounted by markets, implying Asian economies – and base metals – will recover sooner than expected, perhaps by end-February. We estimate the marginal impact of 2019-nCoV on global oil demand implied by the recent sell-off translates to a loss of ~ 800k b/d over February-July 2020. This leads us to expect OPEC 2.0’s technical committee will recommend additional cuts of 500k b/d for 2Q-4Q20 to the full coalition, following their meetings in Vienna. This would be bullish, if Asian economies recover as quickly as we expect. Safe-haven assets – chiefly gold and the USD – rallied but do not signal an exodus from risky assets. After breaching $1,580/oz last week, gold traded lower, while the broad trade-weighted USD index rallied 1%, mildly reversing a decline begun at the end of 2019. Risky-asset markets are anticipating monetary accommodation by systemically important central banks will remain in place this year; fiscal stimulus in China and EM economies is likely. This remains supportive of commodity demand. Feature Our view differs from the markets’, which makes us relatively more bullish base metals prices. There is a tight relationship between Asian economic activity and base metals prices, which provides a window on how markets currently expect the 2019-nCoV outbreak will impact aggregate demand in Asia (Chart of the Week). Our view differs from the markets’, which makes us relatively more bullish base metals prices. Chief among the assumptions driving our view is our expectation markets will stage a recovery once the number of 2019-nCoV cases peaks outside the epicenter of the outbreak in Wuhan, a city of 11mm people in Hubei Province, which remains locked down per Chinese containment efforts.1 This is our House view, as well. Alert: The peak in cases ex-Wuhan could come sooner than expected. Our colleagues at BCA’s China Investment Strategy (CIS) note, “New cases outside of the epicenter continue to rise, but a peak may be in sight. Our sense is that financial markets are likely to bottom earlier than the consensus expects. The economic impact on China from the outbreak will be large, but manufacturing activities in the majority of Chinese cities should resume by the end of February.”2 Chart of the WeekBase Metals Prices Lead Changes in Asian Economies Base Metals Prices Lead Changes in Asian Economies Base Metals Prices Lead Changes in Asian Economies This will be important for base metals demand. China accounts for ~ 50% of global supply and demand for refined base metals (Chart 2). These markets are exquisitely attuned to the decisions of Chinese policymakers, so much so that they resemble a vertically integrated system: Policymakers allocate and direct credit to industries and projects – creating a demand signal – and the supply side, which includes numerous state-owned enterprises, responds. What cannot be consumed domestically is exported to neighboring economies. Chart 2China Dominates Base Metals Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock This largely explains why base metals are so entwined with Chinese economic activity, and with Asian activity generally. Our research indicates base-metals prices lead our Asia Economic Diffusion index, reflecting the information-processing capacity of these markets vis-à-vis the evolution of the regional economies.3 This is one reason we use base-metals markets as information sources in conjunction with our proprietary models and indicators. At present, it appears base metals markets are pricing in a recovery trajectory similar to what was seen during the 2003 SARS episode. Chart 3Markets Price Metals Hit Similar To SARS Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock At present, it appears base metals markets are pricing in a recovery trajectory similar to what was seen during the 2003 SARS episode (Chart 3), when the LMEX fell 9% from February to April, then fully recovered by year end (Chart 4). Also noteworthy is the fact that most commodity markets were processing this information and reflecting it in their own trajectories, as seen in the path taken by our proprietary Global Commodity Factor (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Once SARS Infection Peaked, Base Metals Recovered Quickly Once SARS Infection Peaked, Base Metals Recovered Quickly Once SARS Infection Peaked, Base Metals Recovered Quickly The market call from our CIS colleagues implies base metals – summarized by the LMEX – will begin to rally this month as the odds of a peak in 2019-nCoV cases outside Hubei increases. We expect this rally will be aided by increased fiscal stimulus in China (e.g., infrastructure and construction spending), and monetary stimulus (Chart 5), which will renew the lift in manufacturing that appeared toward the end of 2019 (Chart 6).4 Chart 5Higher China Policy Stimulus Expected Higher China Policy Stimulus Expected Higher China Policy Stimulus Expected Chart 6Early 2019-nCoV Peak Would Revive China's Growth Early 2019-nCoV Peak Would Revive China's Growth Early 2019-nCoV Peak Would Revive China's Growth Oil Marches To A Different Drummer Oil markets primarily are pricing to expectations of a deep hit to crude oil demand, driven by 2019-nCoV’s impact on China’s consumption.5 Based on our modeling, we estimate the marginal impact of 2019-nCoV on global oil demand priced into WTI and Brent prices earlier in the week translates to a loss of ~ 800k b/d over February-July 2020. This leads us to expect OPEC 2.0’s technical committee will recommend additional cuts of 500k b/d for 2Q-4Q20, following meetings in Vienna this week. These cuts would be in addition to the 1.7mm b/d cuts agreed by the coalition at its November 2019 meeting, for the January to March 2020 period. OPEC’s (the old cartel) crude oil production in January fell 640k b/d from December levels to 28.35mm b/d, as the additional cuts of 1.7mm b/d agreed in November kicked in, according to Reuters. Additionally, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states over-complied on their cuts. Output from Libya also is down by ~ 1mm b/d since last month. Importantly, the latest OPEC output levels are ~ 1.3mm b/d below average 2019 production, which Platts estimates at 29.66mm b/d – the lowest output since 2011. We will be updating our balances and price forecasts in two weeks, which will reflect these data more fully. This will allow us to include more information on the demand destruction in China, the evolution of 2019-nCoV, and OPEC 2.0 supply decisions. Additional production cuts by OPEC 2.0 as demand recovers – along with the likely acceleration of the slow-down in US shale-oil production following the recent oil price rout and continued parsimony in capital markets – also would allow backwardation to return to the oil forward curves. Although China’s share of global oil demand amounts to ~ 14% – far less than its share of base metals’ supply and demand – the fact that more than 70% of its 10.2mm b/d of imports comes from OPEC 2.0 is focusing the coalition on the need to restrain supply (Chart 7).6 If, as discussed above, 2019-nCoV cases peak sooner than expected, Asia’s economies likely will recover sooner than expected, which will rally oil prices sooner than expected. Additional production cuts by OPEC 2.0 as demand recovers – along with the likely acceleration of the slow-down in US shale-oil production following the recent oil price rout and continued parsimony in capital markets – also would allow backwardation to return to the oil forward curves (Chart 8). Chart 7China's Share Of Global Oil Demand China's Share Of Global Oil Demand China's Share Of Global Oil Demand Chart 8An Early Peak In 2019-nCoV Cases Would Restore Backwardation To Oil An Early Peak In 2019-nCoV Cases Would Restore Backwardation To Oil An Early Peak In 2019-nCoV Cases Would Restore Backwardation To Oil Based on this assessment, we are getting long 4Q20 WTI vs. Short 4Q21 WTI at tonight’s close, in expectation of a return to backwardation. Bottom Line: Base metals markets could rally sharply if, as we expect, 2019-nCoV cases peak sooner than expected outside the epicenter of Wuhan. This also will lift oil demand in China and Asia. Lastly, it will restore backwardation in the benchmark crude oil curves – Brent and WTI – which is why we are going long 4Q20 WTI vs. short 4Q21 WTI at tonight’s close. Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Uncertainty around the potential impact of the new coronavirus in China pushed WTI prices down to $49.6/bbl as of Tuesday’s close, a 22% drop since the onset of the outbreak. Oil speculators are rapidly exiting the market; non-commercial long WTI positions fell to 564k from 626k on January 7, 2020. On the supply side, OPEC’s oil production dropped to 28.4mm b/d in January, according to Bloomberg, in line with Reuters estimate. This partly reflects the collapse in Libya’s oil production following the closure of its main export terminals by forces loyal to General Khalifa Haftar. Production there was estimated at 204k b/d – the lowest level since the uprising against Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 – vs. an average of 1.1mm b/d in 2019. Base Metals: Neutral China’s net export of steel products declined throughout 2019 amid strong production growth and range-bound inventories. This suggests steel consumption in China remained buoyant, supported by strong new property starts and infrastructure investments (Chart 9). Our commodity-demand indicators suggest most metals’ fundamentals turned constructive in late 2019. However, the coronavirus outbreak will delay the rebound in prices we expected. Over the medium term, we continue to expect prices to pick up, fueled by accommodative monetary policy, and stronger-than-expected monetary and fiscal stimulus in China to offset the negative effect of the 2019-nCoV. Precious Metals: Neutral Fears of wider contagion of the coronavirus are keeping gold above $1,550/oz despite the rise in the US dollar powered by upbeat US manufacturing data. Over the long term, periods of elevated uncertainty are associated with rising households’ precautionary demand for savings as future income becomes increasingly uncertain. This pushes up asset prices as total savings increase, and specifically safer assets, such as gold, until uncertainty abates. This high savings rate acted as a floor to gold prices in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and is currently a crucial contributor to its elevated price (Chart 10). Ags/Softs:  Underweight Abating fears of a pandemic spread of the 2019-nCoV lifted CBOT March corn futures to $3.8225/bu on Tuesday, reversing some of the damage done by disappointing export reports from the USDA and favorable crop conditions in South America supporting expectations for a large corn harvest there. Strong sales of soybeans to Egypt and favorable export inspections helped beans reverse last week's negative trend. USD strength on the back of the 2019-nCoV, particularly against the Brazilian real, remains a headwind to bean prices. Chart 9China's Steel Consumption Remained Buoyant In 2019 China's Steel Consumption Remained Buoyant In 2019 China's Steel Consumption Remained Buoyant In 2019 Chart 10Uncertainty Drives Demand For Safe Havens Uncertainty Drives Demand For Safe Havens Uncertainty Drives Demand For Safe Havens     Footnotes 1     It is important to note this is a highly speculative call, and that even the public-health experts are groping for understanding on the trajectory of 2019-nCoV at this point. It is possible the virus is not contained and extinguished as SARS was in 2003, but becomes a recurrent feature of the flu season globally. Please see Experts envision two scenarios if the new coronavirus isn’t contained, published by Stat February 4, 2020. Stat is a life sciences and medical news service produced by Boston Globe Media. 2     Please see Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted, published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy February 5, 2020. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3    Our Asia Economic Diffusion index was developed by BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy team. The “information” we refer to here is the actual buying and selling of base metals, and contracting for services related to the economic activity accompanying a revival in manufacturing, infrastructure buildouts and construction that drives that demand. This will show up in various measures of economic activity, among them BCA’s Asia Economic Diffusion index and different gauges used by the IMF and World Bank. In other words, base metals prices lead the Asia Economic Diffusion index based on our analysis of Granger causality. This is valuable because the metals price in real time. In earlier research, we showed that, among commodity markets, base metals prices – via copper prices, the LMEX, and the IMF’s metals index – can be used to confirm the signals from our econometric indicators and models of EM and global economic activity. Please see World Bank Lowers Growth Forecast; Commodity Demand Will Pick Up, published January 16, 2020, and Godot … Trade Deal … Wait For It … Base Metals Are Primed For A Rally, published November 28, 2019, by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. They are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    Iron ore and steel prices also will revive on the back of this economic recovery; we will be looking into this next week. 5    Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported the initial hit to oil demand in China amounted to 3mm b/d – the largest such hit since the Global Financial Crisis. This represented ~ 20% of daily Chinese oil demand. 6    We discuss China’s position in the global oil market – and, importantly, in the global air-transportation markets – in last week’s publication, Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock Metals Pricing To SARS-Type Demand Shock

Highlights The intense focus on the weakening of global oil demand expected in the wake of another coronavirus outbreak in China – dubbed 2019-nCoV – obscures likely supply-side responses by OPEC 2.0. The producer coalition likely will rebalance markets by extending production cuts from end-March to at least the end of June when it meets in Vienna March 5-6.  OPEC 2.0 producers will be exquisitely sensitive to Asian refiner demand. They will use it as a gauge for how severe 2019-nCoV’s impact will be on EM demand, and adjust production and exports accordingly. On the demand side, it is difficult to analogue the 2019-nCoV outbreak to the 2003 SARS outbreak, given all the conflicting fundamentals at play at that time.  Forward curves for the principal benchmark crude oils – Brent and WTI – remain backwardated, in spite of the 2019-nCoV-related sell-off. Longer-dated WTI (out to December 2023) traded below $50/bbl earlier in the week, roughly in line with shale-breakeven costs reported by the Dallas Fed earlier this month. This likely will continue to pressure capex in the US shales, keeping future supply growth constrained. Feature Forward curves for the principal benchmark crude oils – Brent and WTI – remain backwardated, in spite of the 2019-nCoV-related sell-off. Chart of the WeekChina's Oil Demand Drives Global Growth China's Oil Demand Drives Global Growth China's Oil Demand Drives Global Growth Oil markets are rightly focused on the demand implications of the 2019-nCoV outbreak in China.1 Since 2000, China has accounted for 42% of annual oil-demand growth worldwide (Chart of the Week). China is second only to the US in oil demand, accounting for 14% of total global demand of 100.7mm b/d at the end of 2019; its oil imports averaged more than 10mm b/d last year, and are expected to remain strong as it continues to build out its refining sector. Chart 2Asian Air Travel Hit Hard By SARS Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Historical analogues for 2019-nCoV are difficult. The immediate analogue is the SARS coronavirus outbreak identified in China in February 2003, which lasted six months and hit Asian air travel especially hard (Chart 2). During the height of the SARS outbreak in April 2003, air-travel passenger demand in Asia plunged 45%, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). This pushed jet fuel prices lower in Asia and in other key markets, along with distillate prices generally (Chart 3).2 Chart 3Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices China now is an extremely large share of global jet fuel consumption. Chart 4BCA Models, Base Metals Prices Suggest SARS Effect Was Short-Lived BCA Models, Base Metals Prices Suggest SARS Effect Was Short-Lived BCA Models, Base Metals Prices Suggest SARS Effect Was Short-Lived The industry now is more reliant on Chinese travelers. Since 2003, the number of annual air passengers has more than doubled, with China growing to become the world’s largest outbound travel market. In 2003, close to 7mm passengers from China traveled on international flights. By 2018, that number had grown close to 64mm people, according to China’s aviation authority.  As Chart 2 demonstrates, China now is an extremely large share of global jet fuel consumption. Still, oil is a global market – the avoidance of China during the SARS outbreak in 2003 would have impacted global air travel, and, as a result, global jet-fuel prices. Our proprietary EM commodity-demand models and the behavior of base metals prices, which were and remain heavily influenced by China’s economy, suggest China’s GDP growth slowed in 2003 (mainly 1H03) because of the SARS outbreak (Chart 4).  The LME’s base metals index fell 9% between February and July 2003, while copper prices fell 11%. By year-end, these markets had fully recovered. Oil-Supply Management Drives Price Evolution In the modern era of the oil market beginning roughly around 2000, there have been numerous demand shocks requiring a supply response from OPEC.  During the SARS outbreak in 2003, oil-market fundamentals at the time were complicated by the sudden loss of Venezuelan output in December 2002 to a general strike, which lasted three months and removed more than 2mm b/d from the market, and the US invasion of Iraq on March 2003. Both of these supply-side shocks hit markets just as demand was being hit by SARS. This makes it difficult to extract a pure price response on the demand side to the SARS episode. In the modern era of the oil market beginning roughly around 2000, there have been numerous demand shocks requiring a supply response from OPEC. These including the 9/11 terror attacks in the US in 2001; the SARS outbreak in late 2002-03; the Global Financial Crisis in 2007-08; and the euro debt crisis in 2011-12 (Chart 5).3 Chart 5Demand Shocks Abound In 21st Century Demand Shocks Abound In 21st Century Demand Shocks Abound In 21st Century Chart 6OPEC Lost Key Members' Output During SARS Outbreak OPEC Lost Key Members' Output During SARS Outbreak OPEC Lost Key Members' Output During SARS Outbreak   OPEC 2.0’s goal – similar to OPEC’s goal before it – is to avoid an unintended inventory accumulation. Importantly, these demand shocks were accompanied by supply shocks – Venezuela's general strike; the US invasion of Iraq continues to play havoc with global supply; the BP Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010; the Arab Spring and the loss of Libyan output in 2011 – all of which complicated OPEC’s decision making (Chart 6). Much of OPEC’s adjustment then and now is made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which functions as the central bank of the global oil market increasing and decreasing production to balance markets (Chart 7). Chart 7KSA Primarily Balances Markets During Supply, Demand Shocks Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock OPEC 2.0’s goal – similar to OPEC’s goal before it – is to avoid an unintended inventory accumulation, which would push prices lower and severely alter the forward curves for the principal crude oil pricing benchmarks, WTI and Brent (Chart 8). Chart 8OPEC 2.0’s Goal: Avoid Unintended Inventory Accumulation Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Navigating The 2019-nCoV Outbreak Oil prices – like all commodity prices – are a function of supply and demand, which clear the market instantaneously (here and now), and across time as buyers and sellers contract for forward delivery. The relentless focus on the demand-side consequences of the 2019-nCoV outbreak is not helpful in determining how oil prices will trade going forward. Oil prices – like all commodity prices – are a function of supply and demand, which clear the market instantaneously (here and now), and across time as buyers and sellers contract for forward delivery. The discussion above is meant to highlight this, by recalling OPEC’s production management during various demand shocks, not just the SARS outbreak in 2003. OPEC then, and OPEC 2.0 now, is not forced to produce oil and export regardless of the physical realities it confronts. It can adjust production and exports in response to direct demand indications from its refinery buyers and traders lifting its crude oil. Demand slowdowns, all else equal, typically will show up in falling crack-spread differentials between refined products and crude oil prices (Chart 9).4 Chart 9Crack Spreads Inform Crude Oil Production Decisions Crack Spreads Inform Crude Oil Production Decisions Crack Spreads Inform Crude Oil Production Decisions It still is too early to gauge the extent of the fall-off in demand arising from 2019-nCoV, but it will become apparent in cracks and in OPEC 2.0 producers’ responses to lower refiner demand. Falling crack spreads inform crude oil producers they need to throttle back on production – refiners are not able to profitably run all the crude being made available to them and crude and product are backing up in inventory.  It still is too early to gauge the extent of the fall-off in demand arising from 2019-nCoV, but it will become apparent in cracks and in OPEC 2.0 producers’ responses to lower refiner demand, which will determine how much production they need to cut in order to balance the market. This will be done against a backdrop of supply concerns that are not too dissimilar to those prevailing during the 2003 SARS crisis – e.g., instability in Iraq and Iran that could threaten production, and the loss of Venezuelan exports. Bottom Line: Markets still are in the process of assessing how damaging 2019-nCoV will be for industrial commodity demand – oil, bulks and base metals, in particular. As has been the case in all such demand shocks, OPEC’s supply response (and now OPEC 2.0’s) will determine how deeply and for how long prices are impacted.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices fell 8% since last Monday amid the coronavirus outbreak in China. The number of confirmed cases is rapidly expanding, reaching more than 6,000 as of Wednesday which surpasses the trajectory of SARS in the first month of the outbreak in 2003. Nonetheless, the fatality rate remains below that of SARS, estimated at less than 3% vs. ~ 10% for SARS. Separately, the WCS discount to WTI averaged -$23/bbl this month. This is in line with our view that the discount would drop below -$20/bbl in 1Q20. This level is appropriate to incentivize additional rail transportation to the US. We expect the discount will remain close to current levels and for crude-by-rail volumes to pick up this year (Chart 10). Base Metals: Neutral Base metals have been severely impacted this week by the coronavirus outbreak – copper, aluminum, zinc, and lead are down 9%, 4%, 9%, and 5%. A prolonged slowdown in China’s economic activity – the driver of the global industrial activity recovery we expect – would plunge metals’ prices. China’s base metal consumption more than doubled since 2003. Thus, the potential impact of 2019-nCoV is much larger compared to SARS and market participants are pricing in the probability of damaging scenarios to global growth. This explains the pronounced decline in metals’ prices this year vs. 2003. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold was one of the few commodities in the green since last week. The yellow metal rose 1% since last Monday, supported by renewed safe-haven demand flows. Gold and the USD have been rising simultaneously amid the virus outbreak, which is typical of uncertain periods. The spectrum of possible outcomes is wide and negatively skewed. This warrants protection through safe-haven assets. We remain strategically long gold as a portfolio hedge. Our recommendation is up 28% since inception. Ags/Softs: Underweight Corn markets focused on USDA reports of rising exports, highlighted by the sale of 124,355 MT to Mexico. CBOT March corn futures were up 6% Tuesday, reversing earlier losses Monday. Beans remain under pressure, as traders await tangible evidence that China will go ahead with purchases announced in the so-called phase-one deal negotiated between the US and China (Chart 11).  Chart 10WCS Discount Under Pressure WCS Discount Under Pressure WCS Discount Under Pressure Chart 11Markets Waiting For China Demand Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock   Footnotes 1     The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019-nCoV website highlights the marked differences between China’s response to the current coronavirus outbreak vs the 2003 SARS outbreak. One notable response by the Chinese government this time around – besides the rapid lockdown on travel – has been the alacrity with which officials posted the genome for the virus to a global research database, which allowed US researchers to quickly compare it to the strain they isolated. Separately, Reuters reported Australian researchers were able to grow the virus in a lab, which could accelerate development of a vaccine.  2     Distillates comprise the so-called middle of the refined barrel, and include jet fuel, diesel fuel and heating oil (also known as gasoil). These are primarily associated with industrial markets – mining and transportation, e.g. – and are key barometers of economic activity generally.  3     The "modern" era for oil began roughly in 2000, when oil prices became a random walk. WTI prices were mean-reverting from 1986 to roughly 2000, then became a random walk. Please see Helyette Geman, (2007), "Mean Reversion versus Random Walk in Oil and Natural Gas Prices," in Advances in Mathematical Finance, Birkhäuser, Boston; and Haidar, I. and C.R. Wolff, "Forecasting crude oil price (revisited)," The proceeding of the 30th USAEE Conference, Washington , D.C. USA. 9-12 October, 2011. 4     The “crack spread” is the USD/bbl difference between refined-product prices and crude-oil prices. It represents the gross margin of refiners.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock