Russia

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

Highlights OPEC 2.0 will meet in June to decide whether to continue its production cuts into 2H19. Once again, the leaders are sending conflicting signals – KSA is subtly indicating OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts will need to be extended to year-end. Russia, not so much. Much will depend on whether the U.S. extends waivers on Iran oil-export sanctions when they expire May 2. Not surprisingly, Trump administration officials also are not providing much in the way of forward guidance to markets, other than to insist they want Iran’s exports at zero. Our modeling indicates OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – will need to raise production in 2H19, as markets tighten on the back of Venezuela’s collapse, continued unplanned outages (most recently in Libya) and still-strong demand. This aligns our view somewhat with that of Russia. That said, OPEC 2.0’s leaders – and member states – all benefit from higher prices, as we show below. Some, like Russia, more so than others – e.g., KSA, hard as that is to reconcile with their respective stances on production cuts. But none benefits if EM demand is crushed by high prices. It’s a delicate balancing act, given the aggregate GDP of EM commodity-importing countries exceeds that of commodity-exporting countries (Chart of the Week).1 Chart of the WeekEM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand EM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand EM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand We continue to expect Brent to trade at $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, given our expectation for global supply and demand. KSA and Russia remain the fulcrum of the oil market, as we argued recently, and anticipating their decision-making process remains the critical task for understanding the new political economy of oil.2 Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded opposing forces in Libya cease fighting this week. The country recently lifted oil production over 1mm b/d, but renewed fighting threatens this output. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) earlier this week tee’d up markets to expect higher infrastructure and transportation spending, which lifted steel and iron ore markets. Markets continue to tighten on the back of the Vale high-grade iron-ore supply losses, which could lift prices above $100/MT in the short term. Precious Metals: Neutral. Central banks continued buying gold in February, the World Gold Council reported this week. Central-bank holdings rose a net 51 tonnes in February bringing total additions to 90 tonnes in the first two months of the year. Agriculture: Underweight. The USDA lifted its estimate of global ending stocks for corn by 5.5mm tons for the 2018/19 crop year. With total use estimates unchanged at 1.13 billion tons, this raises ending stocks-to-use estimates, which will continue to exert downward pressure on prices. Feature KSA and Russia share a common feature in that both are petro states, and thus heavily dependent on crude and product exports to fund their governments and economies. Both suffered a near-death experience during the 2014-16 oil-market-share war launched by OPEC, and both have seen their GDPs slowly recover, following the successful production-cutting agreements they jointly engineered to drain excess inventories and restore balance to the market beginning in 2017 and renewed this year (Chart 2). Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. At first blush, it would be logical to assume KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs are driven by the same economic forces of oil supply and demand. In broad terms, they are. Both benefit from higher oil prices, given they are predominantly petro-economies, although Russia tends to benefit more as prices rise (Chart 3). In the post-GFC era, we find that a 1% increase in Brent prices lifts Russia’s GDP ~ 0.07%, while KSA’s goes up ~ 0.03%. Another way of saying this is Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. Chart 2KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Chart 3Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Looking a bit deeper into KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs’ sensitivities to Brent prices, we modeled income growth for both using our Brent forecast (Table 1), the futures markets’ forward curve and compare both to the World Bank’s expectation (Chart 4, bottom panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Given our expectation for EM GDP growth (Chart of the Week), we expect KSA’s GDP to show relatively strong growth with GDP up ~ 5.4% this year and ~ 3.5% next year, propelled partly by higher oil prices (Chart 4, top panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Russia’s GDP goes up ~ 0.25% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. We expect Russia’s GDP to dip then recover in 4Q19, then rise 3.5% by the end of 3Q20 before tapering off toward the end of 2020. This is not surprising given the trajectory for Brent prices in our forecasts and in the futures curves, and the sensitivity of Russia’s GDP to oil prices.We found a similar impact of EM oil demand on Russia and KSA GDPs when controlling for EM FX rates instead of Brent prices (Chart 5).3 Chart 4Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Chart 5While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand U.S. Waivers Dictate OPEC 2.0’s Decision On Production KSA has indicated it sees a need to extend OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal into 2H19, when the coalition’s ministers meet in June. Of late, Khalid al-Falih, KSA’s oil minister, is indicating no further cuts in the Kingdom’s output are needed, however. Russia’s a bit of a cipher. President Vladimir Putin this week stated Russia will continue to cooperate with KSA vis-à-vis managing production, although his energy minister, Alexander Novak, has indicated he sees no reason for extending OPEC 2.0’s production deal. Both sides are waiting on fundamental data, and the decision of the U.S. on its waivers on Iranian oil-export sanctions. There’s also the ever-likely collapse of Venezuela to consider, and renewed violence in Libya, both of which argue against letting the waivers expire. The Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. The countries granted waivers on U.S. sanctions against Iranian crude oil imports appear to be exercising their option to lift additional barrels, based on data showing loadings out of Iran increased for the fourth consecutive month (Chart 6 and Table 2).4 Loadings out of Iran rose to 1.30mm b/d in March, from 1.24mm b/d in February. Chart 6 Table 2Iran Exports By Country 2018-2019 (‘000 b/d) Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Bottom Line: We continue to expect U.S. waivers on Iranian oil sanctions will be extended to year end in some form. The collapse of Venezuela and renewed violence in Libya show how tenuously balanced oil markets are at present. Going into a general election in the U.S. next year, the Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. When they meet in June, ministers from OPEC 2.0 member states will be ideally set up to respond to the Trump administration’s decision on waivers for Iranian oil imports, which expire May 2. We are closing our June 2019 $70 vs. $75/bbl call spread, as the position is close to expiry.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      In the post-GFC world, we find total EM oil demand rises ~ 0.4% for each 1% rise in EM commodity-importers’ GDP, while it only rises ~ 0.3% for each 1% rise in EM commodity exporters’ GDP, based on our modeling. According to World Banks’ constant 2010 USD series, EM commodity importers’ GDP represented 66% of total EM GDP in 2018, up from 56% in 2010. The EM income elasticity of oil demand has remained at roughly ~ 0.60 from 2000 to now, meaning a 1% increase in EM GDP – hence EM income – lifts oil demand by ~ 0.6%. This has been remarkably stable pre-GFC, post-GFC and from 2000 to now. 2      The new political economy of oil is a continuing theme in our research. For an extended discussion of this theme, please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy on February 21 and March 21, 2019. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      When using EM FX rates instead of Brent prices as an explanatory variable, we find KSA’s GDP still increases a little more than 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand, but Russia’s rises closer to 0.6%. NB: All GDP measures use historical World Bank data, and BCA Research estimates using the Bank’s projections in constant 2010 USD.  We proxy EM oil demand using non-OECD oil consumption.  KSA’s production is crude oil only, while Russia’s production is crude and liquids. 4      For a discussion of the waivers’ optionality, please see our BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published on March 21, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Clearly the president will benefit from being vindicated in such an authoritative way. He will not only avoid any mushrooming scandal, which can hurt a president seeking reelection, but will also gain sympathy from at least some voters for having been falsely accused. While Mueller technically did not exonerate Trump from charges of obstruction of justice, he also did not make any such charges. This means that House Democrats could conceivably still use the Mueller report’s evidence of potential obstruction to impeach Trump. But if they do they will fail. Attorney General Anthony Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, have both determined that there was no obstruction. With the special counsel having ruled out any collusion or even coordination with Russia, Trump will remain secure among grassroots Republicans. Hence the senators in his party will not convict him and any impeachment trial will be a charade. Thus to some extent Trump’s odds of reelection must be going up. Right? Wrong. The problem is that any positive impact on Trump’s reelection odds from the Mueller report ultimately matters much less than the inversion of the yield curve on March 22. This curve is the most reliable indicator of forthcoming economic recession. If the inversion is deep and persistent then it makes an election year recession probable. Presidents can survive a grand scandal, but they live or die by recessions. There have only been two presidents in the post-Civil War era who won reelection despite a recession in the calendar year of the election. These were William McKinley in 1900 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Yet in 1900, the recession was drawing to a close and economic conditions were better than when McKinley first took office in 1896. And in 1904, the recession technically ended in August, before the fall campaign began. In ten other cases the ruling party has lost the White House amid a recessionary environment. In recent decades yield curve inversion precedes recessions by anywhere from five to sixteen months. The average is eleven months. This means that if the 10yr/3mo signal proves accurate once again, Trump would get extremely lucky to see the economy rebounding by the fall campaign. Granted, the yield curve could send a false signal. For instance, some take the view that the term premium is historically low for structural reasons and that this makes inversion easier and less indicative than in the past. However, when it comes to politics, President Trump cannot afford to assume that this time is different. It is already clear from his waivers on Iranian oil sanctions and trade negotiations with China that he lives in great fear of the business cycle expiring before November 3 next year, when it will be very long-in-the-tooth. Trump is also more vulnerable to recession than the usual president. He is a self-styled commercial leader – a CEO president and Washington outsider who staked his credibility on the claim that he will create jobs and grow the economy. Trump can possibly survive an election with a large trade deficit or a surge in immigrants on the southern border because these developments would highlight the very policy concerns that he did so much to emphasize: they would not necessarily invalidate his approach. But if unemployment is rising, it is hard to see how this president, let alone any other, could wriggle out of it. If he tries to shift the blame to the Federal Reserve or China in any concrete way, the equity market will riot and exacerbate the downturn. The takeaway is, first, that we should continue to see President Trump show relative risk aversion on market-relevant matters like Iran, China, and the “stimulus cliff” affecting the U.S. budget next fiscal year. Second, that if the current economic wobbles pass and the economic expansion gets a new breath of life, then Trump’s chances of retaining the White House will soar. Trump’s reelection odds have important investment consequences. His reelection will entail policy continuity and the maintenance of a low-tax, deregulatory environment that encourages animal spirits and pads corporate earnings. The more likely it appears that Trump will lose the White House, the more animal spirits will sag. A Democratic win will mean yet another violent vacillation in U.S. policy, like 2016, which will cause a spike in policy uncertainty. It will also bring a probable increase in taxes (including possibly the corporate rate) and regulations across a range of sectors. If a Democrat wins in 2020, he or she will most likely have a fairly left-wing agenda, due to trends in the party, and whoever takes the White House will likely also take the Senate. Since the same goes for the House, a presidential win will deliver full Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches: a window of minimal political constraints in which a sweeping piece of legislation can be enacted, like in 2009 or 2017. Image In short, a Trump loss would not only mean the end of the status quo but likely a united government in favor of a rather left-leaning Democratic agenda. If the market has reason to believe a recession is looming, and that a recession will occasion a lurch to the “anti-business” side of the Left, then the impact on investment decisions and capex intentions will be negative and immediate. Economic policy uncertainty has nowhere to go but up. Matt Gertken,  Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Trepidation engulfs commodity markets like a fog weaving through half-deserted streets. Central bankers huddle in muttering retreats, growing more cautious by the day. EM growth concerns – particularly slowing trade volumes, and the drama surrounding Sino – U.S. trade negotiations – contribute to this. Europe’s slowdown as Brexit approaches, and a U.S. government that seems forever at loggerheads also sap investor confidence. Nonetheless, the level of industrial commodity demand – oil and copper in particular – continues to hold up. By our reckoning, EM growth still is positive y/y. And central bank caution – along with less-restrictive policies – provides a supportive backdrop for industrial commodities down the road. The production discipline we expect from OPEC 2.0 this year sets the stage for a continued rally in oil prices. Given our view on EM growth, we continue to favor staying long oil exposure, and remaining exposed to industrial commodities generally via the S&P GSCI position we recommended on December 7, 2017. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We are closing our open long call spreads in 2019 Brent, having lost the ~ $1/bbl premium in each. We are opening a new set of similar positions in anticipation of the next up-leg in Brent. At tonight’s close of trading, we will go long Brent $70 Calls vs. short $75 Calls in June, July and August 2019. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Metal Bulletin’s benchmark iron ore price index for China traded through $90/MT earlier this week, as supply concerns continue to weigh on markets in the wake of evacuations from areas close to tailings dams used by miners.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Bullion broker Sharps Pixley reported the PBOC’s gold reserves total almost 60mm ounces, up 380k ounces from end-2018 levels. Russia’s state media outlet RT proclaimed: “China on gold-buying spree amid global push to end US dollar dominance” on Tuesday. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Last week’s USDA WASDE report estimates world ending stocks for grains will be up slightly for the 2018-19 crop year at 772.2mm MT vs 766.6mm MT previously estimated in December. A January report was not issued due to the U.S. government shutdown. Feature In discussions with clients in the Middle East last week, few contested the assertion OPEC 2.0 is determined to keep supply below demand this year, in order to draw down global oil and refined product inventories.2 This strategy worked well for the coalition after it was stood up in November 2016. Back then, production cutbacks, an unexpected collapse of Venezuelan output, and random outages in Libya and elsewhere combined with above-average global demand to keep consumption above production. This led to a drawdown in OECD inventories of 260mm barrels between January 2017 and June 2018. OPEC 2.0 is off to a strong start on its renewed effort to rein in production and draw down inventories. OPEC (the old Cartel) cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d.3 The largest cut once again came from KSA, which reported it reduced output by just over 400k b/d m/m in January. This follows a 450k b/d reduction in December 2018 reported by the Kingdom in last month’s OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report. For March, KSA already is indicating it plans to drop production to 9.8mm b/d – 1.3mm b/d less than it was pumping in November 2018. There are some signs of discord within OPEC 2.0. Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin once again is arguing against the coalition’s production-cutting strategy, this time in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin.4 This is not the first time such disagreements were aired: In November 2017, leaders of Russia’s oil industry walked out of a meeting with Energy Minister Alexander Novak following a disagreement with the government on extending OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal launched at the beginning of the year. In the end, the deal was extended after President Putin weighed in.5 A Deeper Look At Demand Uncertainty These supply-side issues are not trivial, and pose significant risks to our price view. All the same, Russia does benefit from higher oil prices, in that inelastic global demand in the short-to-medium term produces a non-linear price increase when supply is reduced. Russia’s OPEC 2.0 quota calls for production to fall from 11.4mm b/d production basis its October 2018 reference level (11.6mm b/d at present) to 11.2mm b/d in 2019. As long as Russia’s participation in the OPEC 2.0 coalition advances its economic and geopolitical interests – i.e., higher revenues than could be expected without having a direct role in global production management, and in deepening its ties with KSA – we expect it to remain a member in good standing in OPEC 2.0. At the moment, the bigger issues center on the state of global demand for industrial commodities. Unlike the situation that prevailed during the first round of OPEC 2.0 cuts, global markets no longer are seeing a synchronized global recovery in aggregate demand. Rather, EM commodity demand growth – the engine of global growth – has been trending down at a slow and constant pace since the beginning of 2018. This is not news: It shows up in our new Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index, and we’ve been writing about it and accounting for it in our metals and oil demand projections for months (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCommodity Demand May Be Bottoming Commodity Demand May Be Bottoming Commodity Demand May Be Bottoming BCA’s GIA index is heavily weighted to EM commodity demand. Based on our estimates, it appears to be close to or in a bottoming phase and ready to turn up within the next quarter. It is worthwhile pointing out that even with the slowdown over the past year or so, BCA’s GIA index still stands significantly higher than the level registered during the manufacturing downturn of 2015-16. This also adds color as to why the OPEC market-share war launched in November 2014 was so devastating to prices – demand was contracting while supplies were surging from OPEC 2.0 states and from U.S. shale-oil producers. Pessimism Is Overdone We have maintained for some time commodity markets are overly pessimistic on the global growth outlook, mainly because of their gloomy view on the Chinese economy, and anticipated knock-on effects for EM growth arising from this view. Our colleagues at BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy succinctly capture the current mood pervading global markets: “… this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors.”6 We continue to expect the slowdown in EM to persist in 1H19 based on our modeling and actual consumption data. Part – not all – of this is due to the slowdown in China, where policymakers are moving to reverse earlier financial tightening with modest fiscal and monetary stimulus in 1H19. We continue to expect the Communist Party leadership in China will want to start increasing stimulus later this year or in 1H20, so that it hits the economy full force in 2021 in time for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP. Such stimulus will bolster industrial commodity demand. Still, this is difficult to call, particularly the form stimulus will take. President Xi appears committed rebalancing China’s economy – i.e., supporting consumer-led growth – and may want to keep policy powder dry, so to speak, to counter a recession in 2020 or thereafter. Stimulating the consumer economy in China could boost consumption of gasoline, and demand for white goods like household appliances at the expense of heavy industrial demand. Oil and base metals used in stainless steel would benefit in such an environment. Timing this rebound remains difficult. It appears to us that oil and, to a lesser extent, base metals have undershot their fair-value levels (based on our modeling) on the back of negative expectations and sentiment. If we are correct in this assessment, this should limit the negative surprises going forward and open upside opportunities for commodity prices (Chart 2). Chart 2Technically, Oil's Oversold Technically, Oil's Oversold Technically, Oil's Oversold Under The Hood Of BCA’s Newest Model Because demand is so difficult to capture, we continually are looking for different gauges to measure it and cross-check against each other. We developed our Global Industrial Activity index to target the actual performance of commodity-intensive activities globally. Each component is selected based on its sensitivity to the cycle in global industrial activity, hence on the cycle of global commodity demand. This is different from the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), which uses a GDP-weighted average of 23 countries’ LEI. By relying on GDP, the LEI weights in the indicator favor DM countries and do not account for the growing share of the service sector in these economies (Chart 3).7 Chart 3GIA Captures Commodity Demand GIA Captures Commodity Demand GIA Captures Commodity Demand Our GIA index focuses on commodity demand, which is fundamentally different from proxies of global real GDP growth or global economic activity. Nonetheless, we included the BCA global LEI with a small weight (~ 10%) in our index to capture DM economies. This inclusion does add information to our new gauge. Our GIA index correlates with Emerging Markets’ GDP, copper and oil prices with lags of one to three months. This index is designed to measure the strength of the underlying demand for commodities. It does not account for the supply side and other idiosyncratic shocks that affects each commodity. For instance, our index captures ~ 55% of the variation in the y/y movement in oil prices; adding our oil market supply and sentiment indicators on top of the demand variable raises this to more than 80% (Chart 4). Chart 4Combined Indicators Work Best Combined Indicators Work Best Combined Indicators Work Best The index is divided into four main components, which gauge the demand-side impacts of (1) trade; (2) currency movements; (3) manufacturing demand; and (4) the Chinese economy, given its importance to overall commodity demand. The GIA index’s Trade Component combines EM import volumes and an estimate of global dry bulk shipping rates to gauge demand. Readers of the Commodity & Energy Strategy are familiar with our use of EM trade volumes as a proxy for EM income.8 This week, we introduce a new proxy for shipping rates using the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) as a proxy of global economic activity. Our methodology is based on the approaches taken by James D. Hamilton and Lutz Kilian in their respective models that use the BDI to proxy global growth.9 We created two alternative measures based on each of their approaches and average them to come up with our own proxy of the cyclical factor of global shipping rates driven by demand. Both of our alternative measures use a rebased version of the real BDI, which uses the U.S. CPI to deflate the nominal value. Because it picks up the surge in shipping activity in 2H18 resulting from the front-running of tariffs in the Sino – U.S. trade war, the Trade Component of our GIA index gives the most positive readings of all the components (Chart 5, panel 1). By the end of this month, we expect the effects of this front-running to avoid tariffs will wash through the gauge, and we will have greater clarity on the state of global trade. Chart 5Performance Of GIA Components Performance Of GIA Components Performance Of GIA Components The Currency Component uses a basket of currencies that are sensitive to global growth – i.e., the currencies of countries heavily engaged in trade – and the Risky vs. Safe-haven currency ratio built by BCA’s Emerging Market Strategy.10 This allows us to capture the information regarding the state of global economic activity contained in the highly efficient and forward-looking currency markets. This component collapsed in March 2018, but seems to have bottomed recently (Chart 5, panel 2). The Manufacturing Component looks at the PMIs and various business conditions and expectations surveys for countries that have large industrial exposures to the economic health of EM.11 Currently, this component signals a continuation of the downward trend first observed at the beginning of 2018 (Chart 5, panel 3). Lastly, the Chinese Economy Component uses two indicators of the country’s industrial output: the Li Keqiang Index, and our China Construction Indicator. Despite the fact that the slowdown in China is at the center of investor pessimism re global demand, this component is still holding well (Chart 5, panel 4). It has a moderate negative trend, but is not alarming for commodity demand. Moreover, we expect some stimulus in the second half of the year, which should keep this component supportive for commodity prices. Industrial Commodity Demand Still Holding Up Our GIA index proxies demand for industrial commodities, which is closely aligned with EM GDP – as GDP grows, demand for industrial commodities grows (Chart 6, panel 1). The GIA index is more correlated with copper prices than with oil prices, but it still provides an excellent snapshot of the state of demand for these commodities (Chart 4). Chart 6GIA, Meet Dr. Copper GIA, Meet Dr. Copper GIA, Meet Dr. Copper Also, it is interesting to note there appears to be only one large specific supply shock that affected the copper market’s relationship with global demand (Chart 6, panel 2). Our new index supports the Market’s “Dr. Copper” argument, in the sense that copper prices are pretty much always aligned with global industrial activity. We also note that the recent Sino – U.S. trade tensions have pushed copper below the value that is explained by our demand proxy. Bottom Line: The resolve of OPEC 2.0 to reduce production is not in doubt. OPEC (the old Cartel) reported this week its member states cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d. On the demand side, new GIA index indicates things are not as bad as sentiment and expectations would indicate. If anything, we expect the combination of OPEC 2.0’s resolve and rising demand for industrial commodities – oil and copper in particular – to lift prices as the year progresses.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Brazil evacuates towns near Vale, ArcelorMittal dams on fears of collapse,” published by reuters.com on February 8, 2019. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition of OPEC states, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC states, led by Russia, which recently agreed to cut production by ~ 1.2mm b/d to drain commercial oil inventories and re-balance markets globally. 3      Please see the February 2019 issue of OPEC’s Monthly Oil Market Report, which is available at opec.org. 4      Please see “Exclusive: Russia’s Sechin raises pressure on Putin to end OPEC deal,” published by uk.reuters.com February 8, 2019. 5      Please see “Russian oil unsettled by talk of longer production cuts,” published by ft.com November 15, 2017. 6      Please see “A Crisis Of Confidence?” published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy, published February 12, 2019.  It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7      The components of the global LEI are also different from our GIA index, and more market-oriented. For details on each series included in the LEI, please see “OECD Composite Leading Indicators: Turning Points of References Series and Component Series,” published February 2019. It is available at oecd.org. 8      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk,” where we discussed the relationship between EM imports volume, EM income and commodity prices, published August 23, 2018, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9      The best approach is still debated in the literature. For more details on Hamilton and Kilian’s measurements, please see James D Hamilton, “Measuring Global Economic Activity,” Working paper, August 20, 2018 and Lutz Kilian, “Measuring Global Real Economic Activity: Do Recent Critiques Hold Up To Scrutiny?” Working paper, January 12, 2019. By selecting EM only import volumes and our proxy shipping rate based on the BDI, we narrow our Trade Component to factors that are mainly linked to industrial activity and commodity-intensive sectors. 10     Our basket of currencies includes Korea, Sweden, Chile, Thailand, Malaysia and Peru. The risky vs. safe-haven currency ratio average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns (including carry). 11     This includes Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China and Australia. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades     TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018 Image

Highlights So What? Our “Black Swan” risks for the year reveal several potential wars. Why? While we think it is premature to expect armed conflict over Taiwan, an outbreak of serious tensions is possible. Russia and Ukraine may have a shared incentive to go renew hostilities this year. Saudi Arabia has received a “blank cheque” from Donald Trump, so it may continue to be provocative. Everyone has forgotten about the Balkans … but tensions are building. A “Lame Duck” Trump could stage a military intervention in Venezuela. Feature Over the past three years, we have compiled a list of five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s list of “Ten Surprises for 2018,” we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.”1 Instead, we believe that the market is seriously underpricing these risks by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Furthermore, some of our events below are obscure enough that it is unclear how exactly to price them. But before we get to our list of the five things that keep us up at night,2 a quick note on the question for financial markets in 2019: Will the economic policy divergence between the U.S. and China continue? At the moment, momentum is building behind the narrative that both the U.S. and China have decided to reflate. In anticipation of this narrative switch, we closed our long DM / short EM equity trade on December 3, 2018 for a 15.70% return (originally opened on March 6, 2018). How sustainable is the EM outperformance relative to DM? Will the rest of the world “catch up” to U.S. growth momentum, thus hurting the U.S. dollar in the process? The global central bank – the Fed – is already expected to “back off,” even though members of the FOMC have simply pointed out that they remain data-dependent. Granting our BCA House View that the U.S. economy remains in decent health, U.S. economic data will continue to come in strong through the course of the year. This means that there is scope for a hawkish Fed surprise for the markets, given that the interest rate market already has dovish expectations, anticipating 4.33 basis points and 16.74 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months respectively (Chart 1). Chart 1 Meanwhile, the global demand engine – China – may disappoint in its reflationary efforts. We refer to China as the “global demand engine” because the combined imports and capex of China and other emerging markets dwarf that of the U.S. and EU (Chart 2 and Chart 3).3 Chinese imports alone make up $1.6 trillion, constituting 23% of the $7 trillion total of EM imports and about half of EM investment expenditures. Given that large swaths of EM are high-beta to the Chinese economy, the EM-plus-China slice of the global demand pie is leveraged to Beijing’s reflationary policies. Chart 2EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chart 3EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chinese policymakers have gestured toward greater support for the economy. The communiqué published following the Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) in December called for a broad stabilization of aggregate demand as a focus of macro policy over the course of 2019. The language was still not very expansionary, but Beijing has launched stimulus despite relatively muted communiqués in the past. The massive stimulus of early 2016, for instance, followed a mixed CEWC communiqué in December 2015. So everything depends on the forthcoming data. Broad money and credit growth improved marginally in December, while the State Council announced that local government bond issuance could begin at the start of the year rather than waiting until spring. Meanwhile, a coordinated announcement by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Development and Reform Commission declares that a larger tax cut is forthcoming – that is, in addition to the roughly 1% of GDP household tax cuts that went into effect starting late last year. Monetary policy remains very lax with liquidity injections and additional RRR cuts. Before investors become overly bullish, however, we would note that Chinese policymakers are focusing their reflationary efforts on fiscal spending and supply-side reforms like tax cuts. The problem with the latter is that household tax cuts will not add much to global demand, given that consumer goods make up just 15% of China’s imports (Table 1). The vast majority of Chinese imports stem from the country’s capital spending. Table 1China’s Consumer-Oriented Stimulus Will Boost Different Imports Than Past Stimulus Five Black Swans In 2019 Five Black Swans In 2019 Fiscal spending, meanwhile, is as large as the overall credit origination in the Chinese economy (Chart 4). But without a revival in credit growth, more spending will mainly serve to stabilize the economy, not light it on fire. It is likely that part of the fiscal pump-priming will be greater issuance of local government bonds. However, even the recently announced 1.39 trillion RMB quota for new bonds this year is not impressive. And even a 2 trillion RMB increase would only be equivalent to a single month of large credit expansion (Chart 5). Chart 4China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending   Chart 5 As such, tactically nimble investors could profit from a reflationary narrative that sees both the global central bank – the Fed – and the global fiscal engine – China – turning more dovish and supportive of growth. However, we agree with BCA’s Emerging Markets Chief Strategist Arthur Budaghyan, who is on record saying that “Going Tactically Long EM Is Akin To Collecting Pennies In Front Of A Steamroller.” The bottom line for investors is that 2019 is the first year in a decade where the collective intention of policymakers – across the world – is to prepare for the next recession, rather than to prevent a deflationary relapse. This cognitive shift may be slight, but it is important. The Fed and Beijing are engaged in a macroeconomic game of chicken. Each camp is trying to avoid having to over-reflate at the end of the cycle. For the Fed, the goal is to have room to cut rates sufficiently when the recession finally hits. For China, the goal is to ensure that its leverage does not get out of hand. Into this uncertain macroeconomic context we now insert the five Black Swans for 2019. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months; Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk; Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of BCA’s geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events – such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe – do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: China Goes To War With Taiwan One could argue that a military conflict between China and Taiwan in 2019 should not technically qualify for our list, as there has been chatter in the media about such an outcome. Indeed, our recent travels across Asia revealed that clients are taking a much greater interest in our longstanding view – since January 2016 – that Taiwan is the premier geopolitical Black Swan. We established this view well before President Trump won the election and received a congratulatory call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, breaking diplomatic practice since 1979. Now, at the beginning of 2019, the exchange of barbs between the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents has raised tensions anew (Chart 6).4 Chart 6Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Nonetheless, Taiwan makes the cut here because we doubt that most of our global clients take the issue seriously. Furthermore, we are concerned that – with fair odds of a U.S.-China trade truce lasting through 2019 – cross-strait tensions could fall out of sight. The basis of our view is that there is a unique confluence of political developments in Beijing, Washington, and Taipei that is conducive toward a diplomatic or military incident that could escalate tensions: Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in addition to taking the presidency in 2016, won control of the legislature for the first time ever (Chart 7). This means that domestic political constraints on President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration are lower than usual. Tsai has angered Beijing by seeking stronger relations with the U.S. and refusing to endorse the 1992 Consensus, which holds that there is only “One China” albeit two interpretations. China’s General Secretary Xi Jinping has removed term limits and placed greater emphasis on the reunification of Taiwan. Xi has consolidated power domestically and has pursued a more aggressive foreign policy throughout his term, including in the South China Sea, where greater naval control would enable China to threaten Taiwan’s supply security. Xi’s blueprint for his “New Era” includes the reunification of China, and some have argued that there is a fixed timetable for reunification with Taiwan by 2050 or even 2035.5 Some recent military drills can be seen as warnings to Taiwan. U.S. President Trump called the One China Policy into question at the outset of his term in office (only later reaffirming it), and has presided over an increase in U.S. strategic pressure against China, such as the trade war and freedom of navigation operations, including in the Taiwan Strait. Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and Assistant Defense Secretary Randall Schriver are seen as Taiwan hawks, while the just-concluded Republican Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA), which imply an upgrade to the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s democracy and security.6 Chart 7 These three factors suggest that, cyclically, there is larger room than usual for incidents to occur that initiate a vicious cycle of tensions. The odds of a full-fledged war are still very low – the U.S. has reaffirmed the One China Policy in its recent negotiations with Beijing, which seem to be progressing, while China has not changed its official position on Taiwan. Beijing’s reunification timetable still has a comfortable 30 years to go. The Chinese economy has not collapsed, so there is no immediate need for Beijing to dive headlong into a nationalist foreign policy adventure that could bring on World War III. However, the odds of diplomatic incidents, or military saber rattling, that then trigger a dangerous escalation and a multi-month period of extremely elevated tensions are much higher than the market recognizes. This is because the U.S. and China may still see strategic tensions flare even if they make progress on a trade deal, while a failure on the trade front could spark a spillover into strategic areas. Any cross-strait incident would be relevant to global investors – and not just Taiwanese assets, which would suffer the brunt of economic sanctions – because the slightest increase in the odds of a full-scale war would be extremely negative for global risk appetite. Over the next 12 months, we would mostly expect Beijing to eschew high-profile provocations. The reason is that President Tsai is unpopular and the recent local elections in Taiwan saw her DPP lose seats to the more China-friendly Kuomintang (Chart 8). An aggressive posture could revive the DPP ahead of the January 2020 presidential election, the opposite of what Beijing wants.7 Chart 8 On the other hand, Beijing could decide to ignore the 1996 precedent and choose outright military intimidation. Or it could attempt to meddle in Taiwan’s domestic politics, as it has been accused of doing in the recent local elections.8 Meanwhile, the U.S. and Taiwan are the more likely instigators of an incident over these 12 months, knowingly or not. Washington and Taipei have a window of opportunity to achieve a few concrete objectives while Presidents Tsai and Trump are still in office – which cannot be guaranteed after 2020. A similar window of opportunity caused a market-relevant spike in China-South Korea tensions back in 2015-17, when the United States, seeing that the right-wing Park Geun-hye administration was falling out of power, attempted to rush through the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea. As a result, China imposed economic sanctions on its neighbor (Chart 9). Chart 9China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD Something similar could transpire over the next year if the U.S. sends a high-level official – say, Bolton, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or even Vice President Mike Pence – to hold talks in Taiwan. Or if the U.S. stages a major show of force in the Taiwan Strait, as it threatened in October, or U.S. naval vessels call on Taiwanese ports. The U.S. could also announce bigger or better arms packages (Chart 10), such as submarine systems, which have been cleared by the Department of State. Given the elevated U.S.-China and China-Taiwan tensions overall, such an incident could cause a bigger escalation than the different participants expect – and even more so than the market currently expects. Chart 10U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing Bottom Line: Cyclically, the period between now and the inauguration of the next Taiwanese president in May 2020 brings heightened risk of a geopolitical incident. Depending on what happens in 2020, tensions could rise or fall for a time. Yet structurally, as Sino-American strategic distrust continues to build, Taiwan will continually find itself at the center of the storm. Black Swan 2: Russia And Ukraine Agree To Go To War Tensions are mounting between Russia and Ukraine in the run-up to the March 31 Ukrainian presidential election. Incumbent President, Petro Poroshenko, has been trailing in the polls for a year. His rival is the populist Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been leading both first-round and second-round polling. Both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko have, at various points in their careers, been accused of being pro-Russian. Poroshenko’s business interests, as with most successful Ukrainian businesspeople, include considerable holdings in Russia. Tymoshenko, on the other hand, was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014 for negotiating a gas imports contract with Russia that allegedly hurt Ukrainian interests. With the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine either cleaved off (Crimea) or in a state of lawlessness (Donetsk and Luhansk), the median voter in the country has become considerably more nationalist and anti-Russian. It therefore serves no purpose for any politician to campaign on a platform of normalizing relations with Moscow. In this context, the decision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople – the first-among-equals of the Christian Orthodox churches – to grant autocephaly (sovereignty) to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in January is part of the ongoing evolution of Ukraine into an independent entity from Russia. This process could create tensions, particularly as parts of the country continue to be engaged in military conflict (Map 1). From Moscow’s perspective, the autocephaly grants Ukraine religious – and therefore some semblance of cultural – independence from Russia. This solidifies the loss of a 43-million person crown jewel from the Russian sphere of influence. Chart Moscow is also not averse to stoking tensions. Although President Putin’s mandate will last until 2024, his popularity is nearly at the lowest level this decade. Orthodox monetary and fiscal policy, along with pension reforms, have sapped his political capital at home. In 2014, tensions over Ukraine spurred nationalist sentiment in Russia, rapidly increased popular support for both Putin and his government (Chart 11). Putin may calculate that another such recapitalization may be needed. Chart 11Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression The danger is therefore that domestic politics in both Ukraine and Russia may create a window of opportunity for a skirmish this quarter. Perhaps something akin to the naval tensions around the Kerch Strait that ultimately cost President Putin a summit with President Trump at the G20 meeting in December. While these incidents may benefit both sides domestically, and may even appear carefully orchestrated, they could also get out of hand in unpredictable ways. Bottom Line: While both Kiev and Russia may see a short-termed conflict as domestically beneficial, such an outcome could have unforeseen consequences. At the very least, it could sap already poor business confidence in neighboring Europe, as it did in 2014-2015. Black Swan 3: Saudi Arabia With A Blank Cheque One of the greatest geopolitical blunders of the twentieth century was Berlin’s decision to give its ally Austro-Hungary a “blank cheque.” Austro-Hungary was an anachronism at the turn of the century – a multiethnic empire held together by allegiance to a royal family. As such, the ideology of nationalism represented an existential threat, particularly given that 60% of the empire’s population was neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Following the assassination of its crown prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a pan-Slavist terrorist in Sarajevo, Vienna decided that a total destruction of Serbia was necessary for geopolitical and domestic political reasons. Today, Saudi Arabia is in many ways an anachronism itself. It is the world’s last feudal monarchy. Its leaders understand the risks and have begun an ambitious and multifaceted reform effort. Unlike Austro-Hungary, Saudi Arabia has learned to embrace nationalism. Riyadh is using the war in Yemen, as well as targeted actions against its own royal family and the religious establishment, to build a modern nation-state. The problem is that, much as nationalism was an ideological kryptonite for Vienna, democratic Islamism is an existential problem for Riyadh and its peers among the Gulf monarchies. Neighboring Qatar, a tiny peninsular kingdom enjoying an oversized geopolitical influence due to its natural gas wealth, has supported various groups across the Middle East that believe that democracy and conservative Islam are compatible. Turkey and Qatar have often cooperated in this effort, as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey has served as a model for many such Islamist parties in the region. Why Qatar hitched its geopolitical wagon to democratic Islamism is not clear. Perhaps its leaders felt that it was the only option unclaimed by an energy-rich sponsor. Regardless, Qatar’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other such groups has clearly irked Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, enough for them to kick Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In 2017, with the pro-Saudi Trump administration ascendant in the White House, Riyadh felt emboldened enough to break off all diplomatic relations with Qatar and impose an economic blockade. Since 2014, another dynamic has emerged in the region that raises further concerns: a scramble for material resources brought on by the end of +$100 per barrel oil prices. Saudi public expenditures have been steadily rising since 2008, both due to population growth, social welfare spending in the wake of Arab Spring rebellions, and astronomical defense spending to counter the rising influence of Iran. And yet, 2014 saw oil prices plunge to decade lows in a matter of months. Saudi Arabia’s fiscal breakeven oil price has doubled, in a decade, from under $40 per barrel to $83 per barrel in 2018 (Chart 12). Meanwhile, Qatar’s GDP is a quarter of that of Saudi Arabia, even though its population is less than 2% of Saudi Arabia’s. Chart 12Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Rumors that the U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis prevented a Saudi invasion of Qatar in 2018 have largely been dismissed by the mainstream media. But should they be? If allegedly “rogue elements” of the Saudi intelligence establishment can dismember a journalist in a consulate, why couldn’t “rogue elements” of its military stage a coup – or an outright invasion – in neighboring Qatar? Such an outcome would truly be extraordinary, but so was the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Meanwhile, President Trump offered an extraordinary level of support for Riyadh by issuing what we can only refer to as a “blank cheque” following Khashoggi’s murder. In the November 20 statement, President Trump essentially created a new policy doctrine of standing with Saudi Arabia “no matter what.”9 Two weeks later, Riyadh “thanked” the U.S. President by slashing the OPEC oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day. From this dynamic, it appears that Washington has made a similar strategic blunder in 2018 that Berlin did in 1914. A weakened, stressed, and threatened ally has been given a “blank cheque” by its stronger ally. Such a sweeping offer of support may lead to unintended consequences as the weaker ally feels that its material and geopolitical constraints can be overcome. In Saudi Arabia’s case, that could mean a more aggressive policy towards Qatar, or perhaps Iran. Particularly now that the White House has seen several realist members of the Trump cabinet – such as Mattis and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – replaced by Iran hawks and Trump loyalists. Bottom Line: A combination of less independent-minded cabinet members in the White House and a clear “blank cheque” from President Trump to Saudi Arabia could cause geopolitical risk to re-emerge in the Middle East. In the near term, this could increase the geopolitical risk premium on oil prices – as measured by the residual in Chart 13. Chart 13 Black Swan 4: The Balkans Become A Powder Keg … Again Bismarck famously said in 1888 – 26 years before the outbreak of the Great War, that “one day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” The Balkans are far less geopolitically relevant today than in the early twentieth century. They are also exhausted following a decade-long Yugoslav rigor mortis in the 1990s which yielded at least three regional wars and now six (or seven, depending who is counting) independent states. The problem is that tensions have not disappeared. Two frozen conflicts remain. First, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sovereign country made up of two political entities, with the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska agitating for independence and aligning with Russia. Second, tensions between Serbia and Kosovo took a turn for the worse late last year as Kosovo imposed an economic embargo on trade with Serbia and called for the creation of a military. Has anything really changed over the course of the decade? We think there are three causes for alarm: Tensions between Russia and the West have become serious, with both camps looking to score tactical and strategic wins across the globe. With the Syrian Civil War all but over, a new battleground may emerge. While Republika Srpska is essentially an outright ally of Russia, Serbia continues to try to straddle the fine line between an EU enlargement candidate and geopolitical neutrality. However, this high-wire act is becoming untenable as… Enlargement fatigue sets in the EU. There is no doubt that the EU enlargement process froze Balkan conflicts. Countries like Serbia and Kosovo have an incentive to be on their best behavior so long as the prospect of eventual EU membership remains. But in the current environment of introspection, the EU may not have enough of a coherent geopolitical vision to deal with the Balkans without a crisis. The global economic cycle may be ending, leading to a global recession in the next 12-to-24 months. While our BCA House View remains that the next recession will be a mild one in the U.S., we think that EM and, by extension, frontier markets could be the eye of the storm in the next downturn. As investors abandon their “search for yield” in riskier geographies, they could exacerbate poor governance, political tensions, and geopolitical cleavages that have been frozen in place by the last economic cycle. Finally, U.S. policy towards the Balkans is unclear. In the past, the U.S. asked all countries in the region to accept the status quo and prepare for EU integration. But with the U.S. now adopting an antagonistic view towards the EU bloc, it is unclear what Washington’s message to the Balkans will be. After all, Trump has personally encouraged all other world leaders to don their own version of the “America First” slogan. The only problem in a place like the Balkans is that “Serbia first” – or Croatia and Kosovo first – is unlikely to go down smoothly in the neighborhood, given the last twenty – or even hundred – years. Bottom Line: The powder keg that is the Balkans has not been dried for decades. However, several tailwinds of stability are gone, replaced with macro headwinds. A renewed conflict on Europe’s doorstep could be the next great geopolitical crisis. If this were to occur, we would bank on greater European integration, especially in terms of military and foreign policy. However, it could also mark the first break in U.S.-EU foreign policy if the two decide to pick opposing sides in the region. Black Swan 5: Lame Duck Trump For our final Black Swan, we are sticking with one of our 2018 choices: a “Lame duck” presidency. “Lame duck” presidents – leaders whose popularity late in their terms have sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy – are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.10 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents can seek relevance abroad. President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains strong (Chart 14), his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 15). Now there is also a Democrat-led House of Representatives to stymie his domestic policy and launch independent investigations into both his administration’s conduct and his personal finances and dealings. Chart 14 Chart 15 We would also add the Senate to the list of problems for President Trump. The electoral math was friendly towards the Republicans in 2018, with Democrats defending 10 Senate seats in states that President Trump won in 2016. In 2020, however, two-thirds of the races will be for Republican-held seats. As such, many Republican senators may begin campaigning early by moving away from President Trump. What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2019? Last year, we identified “China-U.S. trade war,” “Iran jingoism,” and “North Korea” as potentials. In many ways, 2018 was the year when all three mattered. Going forward, however, we think that trade war and the Middle East might take a backseat. First, the bear market in equities has raised the odds of a recession. As such, the potential cost of pursuing the trade war further has been increased. So has an aggressive policy towards Iran that dramatically boosts oil prices. Furthermore, President Trump has signaled that he is willing to withdraw from the Middle East, calling for a full withdrawal from Syria and telegraphing one from Afghanistan. Instead, we see President Trump potentially following in the footsteps of previous U.S. administrations and finding relevance in Latin America. A military intervention in Venezuela, to ostensibly support a coup against the current regime, would find little opposition domestically. First, there is no doubt that Venezuela has become a genuine humanitarian disaster. Second, its oil output is on a downward spiral already, with only 1 million b/d of production at risk due to a potential military conflict (Chart 16). Third, the new Bolsonaro administration in Brazil may even support an intervention, as well as neighboring Colombia. This is a change from the last twenty years, in which Latin American countries largely stuck together, despite ideological differences, in opposition to U.S. interference in the continent’s domestic affairs. Chart 16On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral Finally, even the anti-Trump U.S. foreign policy establishment may support an intervention. Not only is there the issue of human suffering, but Russia and China have used Venezuela as an anchor to build out influence in America’s sphere of influence. Furthermore, the potential promise of Venezuela’s eventual energy production is another reason to consider an American intervention (Chart 17). Chart 17 Bottom Line: American presidents rarely decide to go softly into that good night. It is very difficult to see President Trump become irrelevant. With tensions with China carrying a high economic cost and military interventions in the Middle East remaining politically toxic in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, perhaps President Trump will decide to go “retro,” in the sense of a throwback Latin America intervention.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see, Blackstone, “Byron Wien Announces Ten Surprises For 2018,” dated January 2, 2018, available at blackstone.com. 2 A shoutout to another doyen of the financial industry, Alastair Newton! 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Deciphering Global Trade Linkages,” dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Highlights of Xi’s speech at Taiwan message anniversary event,” China Daily, January 2, 2019, available at www.chinadaily.com.cn; and “President Tsai Issues Statement On China’s President Xi’s ‘Message To Compatriots In Taiwan,’” Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan), January 2, 2019, available at english.president.gov.tw. 5 Please see Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” section 3.12, October 18, 2017, available at www.xinhuanet.com; and Deng Yuwen, “Is China Planning To Take Taiwan By Force In 2020?” South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018, available at beta.scmp.com. 6 Please see United States, H.R. 535, Taiwan Travel Act, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov and S. 2736, Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov. 7 This is precisely what occurred when China chose missile tests in 1995-96 and drove voters toward the very candidate, Lee Teng-hui, that Beijing least desired. The popular Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je may run for president in 2020, and Beijing may see him as preferable to President Tsai. He has spoken of China and Taiwan as being part of the same family and he has held city-to-city talks between Shanghai and Taipei despite the shutdown in direct talks between Beijing and Taipei. 8 Please see Andrew Sharp, “Beijing likely meddled in Taiwan elections, US cybersecurity firm says,” Nikkei Asian Review, November 28, 2018, available at asia.nikkei.com. 9 Please see “Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia,” The White House, dated November 20, 2018, available at whitehouse.org. 10 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him, while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the “surge” of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? A collapse in Venezuelan oil production could cause Brent prices to average $92/bbl next year. Why? Venezuelan oil output is in freefall. Years of mismanagement constrain its production potential, severely denting government revenues. External debt is sky-high. Venezuela faces challenges in repaying its obligations. China and Russia are unlikely to provide the large-scale subsidies necessary to stabilize the regime over a long period. The United States is unlikely to lift sanctions anytime soon. Rather they may expand them. Feature "PDVSA is red, red from top to bottom." - Former Energy Minister Rafael Ramí­rez "It has been an interesting activity, working without payment." - Sergio Requensa, President of the Corporation of Intermediary Industries, on volunteer groups trying to boost oil output. Global oil prices have fallen by 28.5% since their peak on October 4. While the world awaits OPEC 2.0's meeting on December 6 in Vienna, it is important to remember that global spare capacity is low while serious supply risks loom in many corners of the world. One such risk is the deterioration of Venezuela's economic, political and social situation, which has already precipitated steady declines in oil production (Chart 1). The odds of halting or reversing this trend are razor thin. The Nicolás Maduro government has managed to hobble along, but there is no firm basis for projecting a stabilization either of the regime or oil output. Although it is possible that Venezuela will secure enough ad hoc funding to survive another year, we have no solid grounds for arguing that it will. Chart 1On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral In our dominant scenario of steadily declining Venezuelan output, we forecast Brent to average $82/bbl in 2019. The event of a complete collapse could push Brent prices as high as $92/bbl next year (Chart 2). Chart 2A Production Collapse Would Trigger A Price Spike A Production Collapse Would Trigger A Price Spike A Production Collapse Would Trigger A Price Spike Venezuelan Production In Freefall While Venezuelan authorities have stopped reporting official economic data, declining oil production offers clear evidence of a deepening crisis. Venezuela is a founding member of OPEC and was once one of the most prosperous Latin American countries. Decades of gross mismanagement have pushed the country into crisis. Estimated to hold the world's largest crude oil reserves (Chart 3), Venezuela's potential role in global oil markets is massive. Its oilfields have, in the past, accounted for 4% of global oil supply, but have dwindled down to 1% so far this year (Chart 4). Nevertheless, Venezuela's role should not be underestimated. Price risks could be to the upside - on the back of a collapse in output - or to the downside in the unlikely event of production restoration. For now, we project monthly declines will average 35k b/d over the coming year, ending at 681k b/d by the end of 2019. Chart 3Venezuala's Potential Is Unrivaled... Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Chart 4...But Not Captured By Its Dwindling Production Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Continued deterioration in supply comes on the back of decades of economic mismanagement at the hands of former President Hugo Chávez and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The failed 2002 coup attempt and related labor strikes at Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) - the state-owned oil and gas company - led to the firing of thousands of employees and their replacement with Chávez loyalists, Chavistas. This event politicized the country's economic engine, catalyzing a steady loss in capital and technical expertise. Furthermore, regulations imposed on the energy sector are unfavorable to international investors. For example, the 2001 Hydrocarbons Law stipulated a massive rise in royalties paid by foreign companies - increasing from a range of 1%-17% to 20%-30%. Today, taxes per barrel in Venezuela are the highest among the major producers and form the largest cost component per barrel of oil and gas (Chart 5). Chart 5High Tax Rate Is Unattractive Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Other damaging state actions include: A law requiring PDVSA to hold at least 60% equity in joint ventures with foreign firms investing in the Venezuelan oil sector; The nationalization of the Orinoco Belt - a highly fertile region home to the world's largest petroleum deposits; Government expropriation of foreign assets; Payment failures to international oil service companies. These events ultimately culminated in today's production freefall, which has continued despite the rebound in oil prices after 2015. Needless to say, falling revenues are deadly for petro states. Caracas relies on oil sales for 95% of the government's revenue. Falling rig counts are an ominous sign (Chart 6). Chart 6An Ominous Sign An Ominous Sign An Ominous Sign To make matters worse, export figures actually understate the dire economic situation. The U.S. EIA estimates that roughly half of Venezuela's oil exports are not generating cash! The Venezuelan government has mortgaged much of its production in exchange for loans from China and Russia in recent years. Under these loans-for-oil schemes, the government secured emergency funding to keep its ailing economy afloat, but sacrificed the long-term ability to ensure its own liquidity. This arrangement also includes shipments to the Vadinar refinery in India, which is owned by Russia's Rosneft (Chart 7). Chart 7U.S. Exports Are Main Source Of Revenue U.S. Exports Are Main Source Of Revenue U.S. Exports Are Main Source Of Revenue This leaves exports to the U.S. as the main source of revenue for the Venezuelan government. The result is a Catch-22: With fewer oil barrels to go around, Venezuela can either satisfy its foreign creditors to keep open the possibility of future lines of credit, or it can sell to the U.S. in return for badly needed cash. For the moment, Venezuela is opting for cash. Despite having been cut by ~20% since last year, exports to the U.S. appear to have hit a floor. According to EIA data, after coming in at 13.21mm bbl in February, they have rebounded slightly averaging 19mm bbl/month since June. This is occurring despite ongoing production declines. This is ultimately unsustainable, as the evidence of mismanagement goes beyond production facilities: A breakdown in domestic refining facilities has necessitated an increase in Venezuela's imports of U.S. crude. The lighter oil is needed as a diluent - to blend with Venezuela's heavy crude, facilitating transportation. This is forcing Venezuela's economy to divert scarce hard currency to these imports. In fact, imports have picked up even amid declining oil production and the deepening economic crisis. Earlier this year, PDVSA's Caribbean assets fell under risk of being handed over to ConocoPhillips as compensation for Chavez's 2007 nationalization of Conoco's facilities. These Caribbean assets include storage facilities, refineries, and export terminals on the islands of Bonaire, Curacao, St. Eustatius, and Aruba. Terminals there account for 17% of the company's exports - mainly destined for Asia (Table 1). To prevent this transfer, Venezuela has agreed to pay the American company $2 billion in compensation, $345 million of which has been paid. If these payments cannot be met, the Caribbean assets will be in jeopardy once again - and Conoco is by no means the only company preparing lawsuits to claim assets in the event of further defaults. Table 1Caribbean Assets At Risk Of Seizure Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Similarly, CITGO - PDVSA's U.S. refiner and crown jewel - is at risk to being handed over to creditors. A loss of control of CITGO would disrupt one of the most reliable sources of cash for Venezuela. While U.S. sanctions prevent CITGO from sending dividends to Venezuela, it is so far still allowed to purchase Venezuelan crude. CITGO's assets include three U.S. refineries with a total capacity of 750k b/d. To complicate matters, several creditors are claiming stakes in the refiner: Crystallex International, a Canadian mining company whose Venezuelan assets were nationalized in 2011, is making claims on CITGO. In August, a U.S. federal judge ruled in favor of Crystallex, giving it permission to seize shares of PDV Holding Inc., which owns CITGO. However, the judge also issued a temporary stay on Crystallex - which is planning to auction the shares - until an appeal is decided. If the appeal is in favor of Crystallex it will encourage additional asset grabs by aggrieved foreign companies. PDVSA has offered bond investors a 51% claim on CITGO to push back maturing payments to 2020. The remaining 49% of CITGO was put up as collateral for a $1.5 billion loan from Rosneft. The risk - which intensifies with each missed payment - is that as Venezuela defaults on its debts, more of its facilities will be seized, further reducing its production, refining, and export potential. This would ultimately accelerate the total collapse of Venezuelan output. Bottom Line: Venezuelan oil production is steadily crumbling. Almost two decades of mismanagement have preceded this outcome and, as such, it cannot be reversed easily. We expect monthly declines to average 35k b/d, with the probability of a complete collapse in output rising with each passing day. A Macroeconomic Mess Venezuelans today are paying the price for the unsustainable external debt amassed over the past decade (Chart 8). Estimates of external debt place it around a staggering $150-$200 billion! Sovereign and PDVSA bonds due next year are estimated to be about $9 billion (Chart 9). This does not even account for payments due from other forms of debt (Table 2). Chart 8Debt Levels Are Unsustainable Debt Levels Are Unsustainable Debt Levels Are Unsustainable Chart 9It's Payback Time Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Table 2Yikes! Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Total reserves leave little room for optimism (Chart 10). They now stand at less than $10 billion, down from $43 billion less than a decade ago. Chart 10Reserves Cannot Lend Support Reserves Cannot Lend Support Reserves Cannot Lend Support In projecting the country's ability to make payments in 2019, we looked at several oil-price and production scenarios. All scenarios point to default, as shown in Table 3. Even in the optimistic scenario in which production is flat (which is highly unlikely given that it has been declining at an average monthly rate of 47k b/d so far this year), the country needs $14.8 billion in foreign exchange reserves to cover rising PDVSA expenses plus debt-service costs and its total import bill. This will put Venezuela $6 billion in the red. Table 3All Roads Lead To Default Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop This forecast would become even more somber if we were to include payments due on other forms of debt (e.g. private bonds, loans, etc), for which there is no published repayment schedule. Stability is entirely out of reach for the Venezuelan government alone. Maduro's recovery plan announced earlier this year will do nothing to combat the root of the crisis. For instance, the launch of a cryptocurrency - the "petro" - that is backed by five billion barrels of oil reserves, to which the bolivar will be pegged, is not a viable solution.1 In fact, Venezuela's policy options are extremely limited. Only a massive show of support from China and Russia can realistically bring about a substantial improvement. This would require a commitment to pay: (1) debt servicing and import costs; (2) the operating costs of PDVSA and the funds needed to preserve CITGO and other critical assets; (3) the funding of new investment required to revive the oil sector. Over the past decade, China and Russia have provided loans worth ~ $60 billion and ~ $20 billion, respectively. Of these loans, an estimated $28.1 billion and $9.1 billion remain outstanding for China and Russia, respectively.2 Venezuela has paid off not quite half of its debts to these powerful patrons. The last Chinese loan was in 2016. China stopped the credit tap throughout 2017 and most of 2018 amid Venezuelan instability. While China expressed its intention to extend a $5 billion loan in September, this amount is small by comparison with the double-digit billions of loans and direct investment that China provided annually from 2009-15. It would not cover Venezuela's shortfall of funding in our three scenarios even if it were devoted entirely to paying immediate obligations. Moreover, the Chinese loan has not been finalized.3 Thus, China's diplomatic "return" to Venezuela suggests that Beijing is not willing to provide the large-scale subsidies necessary to stabilize the regime over a long period. Indeed, China's state oil firm Sinopec has joined other foreign companies in suing Venezuela for unpaid debts!4 Moreover, Chinese and Russian funds are hardly likely to exceed the large amount invested over the past decade - and those amounts did not prevent Venezuela from falling into its current crisis. Russia is no longer capable of fully financing a satellite state in the way the Soviet Union financed Cuba in the twentieth century. It is hoping that China will foot most of the bill. While China is probably able to do so in cash terms, it is so far unwilling to pay the strategic price of setting up a Soviet-style power struggle with the United States in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.5 Indeed, plowing tens of billions of additional dollars into Venezuela may be unwise if the U.S. reverts back to its tried and tested strategy of directly intervening in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries. Venezuela, being in South America and on the Atlantic coast, is too far away for China to secure in the event of a showdown with the United States. As such, Beijing must understand that any investment in Venezuela could one day become stranded capital in a traditionally American sphere of influence. In fact, China is concentrated on building its own sphere of influence in Asia. While Venezuela is nominally part of the expansive Belt and Road Initiative, the latter is ultimately directed at making China's outward investment more coherent and expanding influence on the Eurasian continent. Neither of these aims is all that favorable for Venezuela. While China certainly wants privileged access to Venezuelan oil, it does not "need" Venezuelan crude for supply security in the way that is often implied. It frequently re-sells the oil on global markets. Nevertheless, Russia and China can offer debt restructuring and relief. Out of the $9 billion outstanding that is owed to Russia, Moscow has agreed to restructure $3.15 billion to be paid over ten years. Other such restructuring deals could be forthcoming (although, notably, China did not agree to a restructuring when Maduro visited in September). Restructuring will not work with U.S. bondholders. The U.S. imposed sanctions on August 24, 2017 seem to prevent U.S. holders of Venezuelan bonds from participating in such arrangements. The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control is unlikely to lift sanctions anytime soon.6 More likely, the United States will expand sanctions, as U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton indicated in a speech in Miami on November 2. There he dubbed Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua the "troika of tyranny" in the western hemisphere. Possible sanctions include: First, the Trump administration has moved to restrict purchases of Venezuelan gold, as the government has been increasing exports to Turkey (and likely China).7 Trump is considering putting Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which will cut off aid and loans. Second, the financial sanctions announced in 2017 could be expanded to cover existing debts, the trading of government and PDVSA bonds on secondary markets, and CITGO's newly issued debt - all areas that the Department of Treasury has so far exempted. Third, sanctions on tanker insurance could impede Venezuela's ability to transport its oil to international destinations. Venezuela does not have the tanker capacity to ship its own oil. Fourth, in the most extreme case, restrictions on U.S. imports of crude oil could punish the Maduro administration. The U.S. is reluctant to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and deal with its second-round effects. But it could ultimately use its leverage as importer to insist that its companies are compensated, one way or another, for Venezuelan defaults. Technically alternative buyers could absorb Venezuela's heavy crude, but the loss of the U.S.'s cash-generating imports would pile more pressure onto an already wobbling regime. Bottom Line: Venezuela has been relying on ad hoc funding to survive thus far. Loans in exchange for oil are now eating up its revenues. President Maduro's recovery plan does not address the root causes of the ongoing macroeconomic mess. All scenarios point to insolvency. A Regime Change Is In Order Hyperinflation and the absence of basic necessities have left Venezuelans pessimistic about their country's future (Chart 11). This is not surprising: A staggering 87% of households are estimated to be below the national poverty line, most of whom are in extreme poverty. GDP per capita is half the level it was only a decade ago (Chart 12). These are the ingredients of a revolutionary brew. Chart 11The Outlook Isn't Rosy The Outlook Isn't Rosy The Outlook Isn't Rosy Chart 12Purchasing Power Has Been Slashed By Half Purchasing Power Has Been Slashed By Half Purchasing Power Has Been Slashed By Half The deepening humanitarian and economic crisis is causing one of the largest outflows of emigrants in recent years. According to the United Nations, 2.6 million Venezuelans live abroad and 1.9 million of them have left since 2015 (Chart 13). Chart 13Venezuelans Are Fleeing Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop The crisis has naturally translated into a massive shift in public opinion against the regime (Chart 14). Maduro's reelection for a second term in May occurred in an environment in which the opposition boycotted the elections and voter turnout was reported at just 46.1%, hardly half of the 80% rate in 2013. Venezuelans have also lost faith in the armed forces and police, which have buttressed the current regime (Chart 15). Chart 14Maduro Lacks Support Maduro Lacks Support Maduro Lacks Support Chart 15Loss Of Faith In Security Institutions Loss Of Faith In Security Institutions Loss Of Faith In Security Institutions Opposition parties do not have the power to force a transition to a new government, but under today's extreme circumstances they are not as divided as they were in the past. They all support regime change, domestic resistance, and international pressure. All have refused to participate in any dialogue unless it is to discuss the terms of Maduro's resignation. This means that a fracture within the regime, or an external factor like U.S. action, could tip the balance. Could a military coup provide the way out of the current morass? Ultimately, yes, in the sense that the military is the ultimate arbiter of Venezuelan society over the course of history. But short-term investors should not hold their breath. The Maduro regime has managed to survive as long as it has by ceding ever more power to the army, meaning that, in a sense, the coup has already occurred. Food distribution and oil production are now directly under the control of the military. Once the regime becomes completely fiscally defunct, military leaders may pin the blame on Maduro and reshape or expunge the Socialist Party. The timing, however, is nearly impossible to predict other than to emphasize that the current situation is unsustainable and we do not believe that Beijing will ride to the rescue. One foreboding sign is that Maduro has authorized hikes to domestic gasoline prices, which are heavily subsidized. A hike of this nature prompted the Caracazo social unrest in 1989, which helped motivate the attempted coups of 1992. Another option may be direct U.S. action. While the U.S. has been reluctant to intervene in Latin America since the short-lived, albeit successful, 1989 intervention in Panama, President Trump did raise the idea of a "military option" in August 2017.8 While Trump's comments were largely ignored, and subsequently opposed by the Pentagon itself, the reorientation of U.S. policy towards confronting China may convince the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment to view Venezuela through the prism of a new Cold War. As such, and especially if the humanitarian crisis grows, investors should not completely dismiss the possibility of a U.S. military-backed coup in Venezuela.9 Bottom Line: Opposition parties are not as divided as they were in the past, in a sign that the current regime is failing to maintain control. Given the unsustainability of the economic situation and the military's ever-growing role, odds are in favor of an army takeover at some point. The relevant takeaway for investors is that things will have to get worse before that occurs - adding pressure on global oil supply and leading to additional debt defaults. Investment Implications Declining Venezuelan oil production will continue weighing on global supply. We model monthly production declines of 35kb/d as the dominant scenario in our supply-demand balances. On this basis, we expect Brent to average $82/bbl in 2019 and WTI to trade $6/bbl below that. A complete collapse in Venezuelan production next year could push prices much higher - up to $92/bbl and $86/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively. While an eventual production collapse is inevitable, Venezuela may be able to hobble along for another year through ad hoc funding. Thus, a premium will be priced into global oil markets in 2019 on the back of falling Venezuelan production - and the risk of its collapse. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate pavelb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The U.S. is already considering sanctions targeting the cryptocurrency. Please see Franco Ordonez, "Top lawmakers in Congress push tough new measures against Venezuela," September 24, 2018, available at www.mcclatchydc.com. For the text of an earlier proposal please see "Venezuela Humanitarian Relief, Reconstruction, and Rule of Law Act of 2018," introduced into the Senate by Senator Robert Menendez (D, NJ) on the foreign relations committee, S. 3486 at www.congress.gov. 2 Please see "Venezuela: Deuda externa per capita del sector público," Prodavinci, available at especiales.prodavinci.com. 3 Please see "China y Rusia desconfían del régimen chavista y aumentan la supervisión de sus inversiones en Caracas," PD América, October 31, 2018, available at www.periodistadigital.com. 4 Please see Jonathan Wheatley, "Sinopec settles with Venezuela's PDVSA, ending 5-year dispute," Financial Times, December 12, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 5 The Monroe Doctrine was reinforced specifically in relation to Venezuela by the "Roosevelt Corollary" in 1902-03. Recently the United States has reasserted the Monroe Doctrine in the face of a widespread perception that China has gained strategic ground on the continent, namely in Venezuela. Please see Vice President Mike Pence, "Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration's Policy Toward China," the White House, October 4, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 6 On the contrary, sanctions are expanding. Please see U.S. Treasury Department, "Treasury Targets Venezuelan President Maduro's Inner Circle and Proceeds of Corruption in the United States," September 25, 2018, available at home.treasury.gov. 7 Please see the White House, "Executive Order Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela," November 1, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 8 Please see Jeremy Diamond, "Trump asked advisers about invading Venezuela in 2017," CNN, July 5, 2018; and Dan Merica, "Trump says he won't rule out military option in Venezuela," CNN, August 11, 2017, both available at www.cnn.com. 9 Even the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, has refused to rule out any options, including military intervention. Pro-Maduro commentators have claimed that the U.S., along with Colombia and other enemies of the regime, supported the apparent attempt to assassinate Maduro by drones in August this year. Please see "Venezuela President Maduro survives 'drone assassination attempt,'" BBC, August 5, 2018, available at www.bbc.com. The New York Times has also reported that the Trump administration sent officials to "listen" to rebel Venezuelan military officers proposing a coup attempt. Please see Ernesto Londono and Nicholas Casey, "Trump Administration Discussed Coup Plans With Rebel Venezuelan Officers," NYT, September 8, 2018, available at www.nytimes.com. We Read (And Liked)... The Great Leveler: Violence And The History Of Inequality From The Stone Age To The Twenty-First Century Professor Walter Scheidel's opus - The Great Leveler - introduces the "Four Horsemen" of equality: warfare, revolution, state collapse, and pandemics.10 These four factors, he argues, explain all significant levelling of wealth and income throughout history. And by history, Scheidel really means all of human history. The thesis behind The Great Leveler is that only through the "aid" of the Four Horsemen has wealth ever been distributed more evenly in human societies. In every grand passage in history, one of the four terrible afflictions has tipped the scales away from capital and landholders and in favor of laborers. Otherwise, when there is not war, revolution, state collapse, or pandemics, capital and landholders acquire sufficient wealth and political capital to stave off any attempts at leveling. Scheidel's focus on World War I and II is particularly interesting. He controversially argues that the prosperity and equality that prevailed in the western world after these wars was to a great extent the product of government measures imposed in order to win the conflict. These included nationalization, direct intervention in production, fiscal policy, and inflationary monetary policy. Mass mobilization necessary to wage and win a total war left western societies, and Japan, "levelled" by the time the wars ended. BCA Research was honored to have Professor Scheidel attend our annual Investment Conference in Toronto this September. In the talk, he warned the room full of investors to "be careful what you wish for," since the suppression of inequality has "only ever brought forth sorrow." Furthermore, Scheidel rejected the hypothesis that wealth and income inequality bring about their own demise. They usually grow unchecked until one of the Four Horsemen appears exogenously. The takeaway from Scheidel's work is that income and wealth inequality are, according to the scales of human history, essentially part of human existence. As such, one should neither fret too much about them nor worry that they will lead to serious efforts to curb them. There are two weaknesses in this argument. First, the book is primarily a treatise on medieval history. The vast amount of empirical evidence that Scheidel has carefully collected occurred before societies became democratic, and specifically before universal suffrage. While Scheidel focuses on the effects of the world wars in the twentieth century as the causes of modern leveling, he barely mentions the role played by the spread of the electoral franchise during and after the conflicts. And it is true that democracy has not prevented the rise of income inequality in much of the developed world since the 1980s - that is, since the laissez-faire revolution. However, the end to that story is yet to be written. Which brings us to the second weakness: Scheidel dismisses GINI coefficient data on income inequality. It does not support his thesis. For example, his tables show that the "market GINI" of many western European countries is as high as that in the United States. However, after accounting for redistributive effects, it is in many cases significantly lower. Instead, Scheidel focuses on the wealth accruing to the top 1%. But again, continental European countries have experienced much lower concentration of wealth than the laissez-faire economies of the U.K. and the United States. Yes, there is growth in concentration even in the social democracies of Europe, but it is at a much slower pace than in the countries that have been the most committed adherents of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. The greatest failing of Scheidel's thesis is that it lacks nuance when it comes to the modern era. Its parsimony over the course of human history is astounding and commendable - it is what makes this a true magnum opus of social science. However, the real world is rarely as parsimonious. The facts are quite different from the theory. Chart 1 shows that the wealth accruing to the top 10% of income distribution in France was higher in the 1950-1970 era than in the U.S., and much higher than in the United Kingdom. Then, the supply-side revolution took hold in the Anglo-Saxon world, while France pursued policies that sought to reverse the causes of the May 1968 social angst. The shift in wealth distribution was jarring. Chart 1No Horsemen Here, Just Social Democracy No Horsemen Here, Just Social Democracy No Horsemen Here, Just Social Democracy From this one example we can draw two conclusions. First, Scheidel is wrong when he says that the march of income inequality is inevitable. It clearly has not been in western Europe in recent memory. Second, Scheidel is also wrong when he argues that the march of income inequality is irreversible. France was once a right-of-center country ruled by elites who saw revenues accrue to their capital and wealth holdings. Then, all hell broke loose in the country, with teenage Baby Boomers joining up with common workers in a (relatively) bloodless socialist revolution. Rather than adopt laissez-faire capitalism with vigor, French policymakers adopted wealth and income taxes that reversed the rising share of income accruing to the top 10%. Only today, after decades of a deliberately orchestrated and significant leveling, are policymakers in France looking in a different direction. Scheidel claims that his book is pessimistic, but that of course depends on the audience. Our audiences tend to be made up of investors, i.e. of savers. As such, Scheidel's thesis is in fact joyous! A historical opus that proves, without a doubt, that income inequality is irreversible short of apocalypse!? Sounds too good to be true! It is. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 10 Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017, 504 pages.

Highlights Gold's performance during the "Red October" equities sell-off, coupled with that of the most widely followed gold ratios (copper- and oil-to-gold), indicates investors and commodity traders are not pricing in a sharp contraction in global growth. These ratios are, however, picking up divergent trends in EM and DM growth (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields Gold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields Gold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields In the oil markets, the Trump Administration appears to have blinked on its Iran oil-export sanctions. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days (Chart 2).1 The higher-than-expected number of waivers indicates the Trump Administration is aligned with our view that the global oil market is extremely tight, despite the recent production increases from OPEC 2.0 and the U.S.2 The U.S. State Department, in particular, apparently did not want to test the ability of OPEC spare capacity - mostly held by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) - to cover the combined losses of Iranian exports, Venezuela's collapse, and unplanned random production outages. No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Chart 2Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Energy: Overweight. Iran's exports are reportedly down ~ 1mm b/d from April's pre-sanction levels of ~ 2.5mm b/d. We assume Iran's exports will fall 1.25mm b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. Close to 45k MT of copper was delivered to LME warehouses last week, according to Metal Bulletin's Fastmarkets. This was the largest delivery into LME-approved warehouses since April 7, 1989. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is trading close to fair value, while the most widely followed gold ratios - copper- and oil-to-gold - indicate global demand is holding up. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's crop report shows the corn harvest accelerated at the start of November, reaching 76% vs. 68% a year ago. Feature Gold Ratios Suggest Continued Growth Gold is trading mostly in line with our fair-value model, based on estimates using the broad trade-weighted USD and U.S. real rates (Chart 3).3 Safe-haven demand - e.g., buying prompted by the fear of a global slowdown or a deepening of the global equity rout dubbed "Red October" in the press - does not appear to be driving gold's price away from fair value. Neither is rising volatility in the equity markets. Chart 3Gold Trading Close To Fair Value Gold Trading Close To Fair Value Gold Trading Close To Fair Value This assessment also is supported by the behavior of the widely followed gold ratios - copper-to-gold and oil-to-gold - which have become useful leading indicators of global bond yields and DM equity levels following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). From 1995 up to the GFC, the gold ratios tracked changes in the nominal yields of 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds fairly closely. During this period, bond yields led the ratios as they expanded and contracted with global growth, as seen in Chart 4. Post-GFC, this relationship has reversed, and the gold ratios now lead global bond yields. Chart 4Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC To understand this better, we construct two variables to isolate the common growth-related and idiosyncratic factors driving these ratios over the long term, particularly following the GFC.4 The common factor is labeled growth vs. safe-haven in the accompanying charts. It consistently tracks changes in global bond yields and DM equities, which also follow global GDP growth closely. If investors were fleeing economically sensitive assets and buying the safe haven of gold, the correlation between these variables would fall. As it happens, the strong correlation held up well following the "Red October" equities rout, indicating investors have not become overly risk-averse or fearful global growth is taking a downturn. When regressing our proxy for global 10-year yields and the U.S. 10-year yields on the growth vs. safe-haven factor, we found this factor explains a significantly larger part of the variation in global yields than U.S. bond yields alone (Chart 5).5 This common factor also is highly correlated with DM equity variability (Chart 6). Chart 5Gold Ratios' Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields ... Gold Ratios" Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields... Gold Ratios" Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields... Chart 6... And DM Equities ... And DM Equities ... And DM Equities The second, or idiosyncratic, factor we constructed, captures the fundamental drivers that impact each of the gold ratios through supply-demand fundamentals in the copper and oil markets, and EM vs. DM economic performance. The latter is proxied using EM equity returns relative to DM returns.6 This analysis shows oil outperforms copper in periods of rising DM and slowing EM economic growth (Chart 7). Our analysis also indicates this idiosyncratic factor explains the divergence of the gold ratios seen in 2018: Copper demand is heavily influenced by EM demand, particularly China, which accounts for ~ 50% of global copper demand, but less than 15% of global oil demand. Oil demand - some 100mm b/d - is much more affected by the evolution of global GDP. Chart 7Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors At the moment, this idiosyncratic factor is driving both ratios apart because of: Relative economic underperformance of EM vs. DM, which favors oil over copper; and Persistent fears of escalating Sino-U.S. trade tensions, which are weighing on copper. Price-supportive supply-shocks in the oil market (sanctions on Iranian oil exports, falling Venezuelan production) and still-strong demand continue to drive oil prices. These dynamics likely will remain in place for the foreseeable future (1H19), which will favor oil over copper. Gold Ratios As Leading Indicators To round out our analysis, we looked at causal relationships between the performance of financial assets - EM and DM stocks and bonds - and the gold ratios.7 From 1995 to 2008, the causality ran from stocks and bond yields to our growth vs. safe-haven factor for the gold ratios. However, since 2009, causality has gone from the common factor to bond yields (Table 1). Table 1Granger-Causality Results Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market In our view, this suggests that the widely traded industrial commodities - copper and oil being the premier examples of such commodities - convey important economic information on the state of the global economy, as a result of their respective price-formation processes.8 It also suggests that in the post-GFC world, commodity markets assumed a larger role in discounting the impacts on the real economy of the numerous monetary experiments of central banks in the post-GFC era. Bottom Line: Our analysis of the factors driving the copper- and oil-to-gold ratios supports our view that demand for cyclical commodities - mainly oil and metals - is still strong. The behavior of our idiosyncratic factor leads us to favor oil over copper due to the rising EM vs. DM divergence, and the price-supportive supply dynamics in the oil market.   Waivers On U.S. Sanctions Roil Oil Markets A week ago, we cautioned clients to "expect more volatility" on the back of news leaks the Trump administration was considering granting waivers to importers of Iranian crude oil, just before the sanctions kicked in this week. We certainly got it. Since hitting $86.1/bbl in early October, Brent crude oil prices have fallen $15.4/bbl (18%), as markets attempt to price in how much Iranian oil is covered by the sanctions and when importers can expect to see it arrive. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days. This was a higher-than-expected number of waivers than we - and, given the volatility in prices - the market was expecting. This pushed down the elevated risk premium, which had been supporting prices over the past few months.9 The combined imports of these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d, according to Bloomberg estimates. The loss of these volumes in a market that was progressively tightening as OPEC 2.0 brought more of its spare capacity on line - while the USD continued to strengthen - likely would have driven the local-currency cost of fuel steadily higher (Chart 8). Because they are a de facto supply increase - albeit temporary, based on Trump Administration statements - they also will restrain price hikes in EM generally, barring an unplanned outage in 1H19 (Chart 9). Chart 8Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms \ Chart 9Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Although it is obvious Iranian sales will recover some of the ~ 1mm b/d of exports lost in the run-up to the re-imposition of sanctions, it is not clear how much will be recovered. We believe the 180-day effective period for the waivers most likely was sought by KSA and Russia to give them time to bring on additional capacity to cover Iranian export losses. Markets will find out just how much spare capacity these states have in 1H19. By 2H19, additional production out of the U.S. from the Permian Basin will hit the market, as transportation bottlenecks are alleviated. This will allow U.S. exports to increase as well. However, it's not clear how much of this can get to export markets, given most of the dredging work needed to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs) in the U.S. Gulf Coast has yet to be done. This could explain why the WTI - Cushing vs. WTI - Midland differentials are narrowing, while WTI spreads vs. Brent remain wide (Chart 10). Chart 10WTI Spreads Diverge WTI Spreads Diverge WTI Spreads Diverge It is important to note the market still is exposed to greater-than-expected declines in Venezuela's production, and to any unplanned outage anywhere in the world. OPEC spare capacity is 1.3mm b/d, according to the EIA and IEA, and most of that is in KSA. Russia probably has another 200k b/d or so it can bring on line. These production increases both are undertaking are cutting deeply into spare capacity, as the Paris-based International Energy Agency noted in its October 2018 Oil Market Report: Looking ahead, more supply might be forthcoming. Saudi Arabia has stated it already raised output to 10.7 mb/d in October, although at the cost of reducing spare capacity to 1.3 mb/d. Russia has also signaled it could increase production further if the market needs more oil. Their anticipated response, along with continued growth from the US, might be enough to meet demand in the fourth quarter. However, spare capacity would fall to extremely low levels as a percentage of global demand, leaving the oil market vulnerable to major disruptions elsewhere (p. 17). Bottom Line: We expected continued crude-oil price volatility, as markets sort out the U.S. waivers on Iranian oil imports. The supply side of the market remains tight, and spare capacity is being eroded by production increases. We believe OPEC 2.0 will use the 180 days contained in the waivers to mobilize additional production. How much of this becomes available is yet to be determined. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "As U.S. starts oil sanctions against Iran, major buyers get waivers," published by reuters.com November 5, 2018. 2 OPEC 2.0 is a name we coined for the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia. Please see "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity" for our most recent supply-demand balances and price assessments, published October 25 by Commodity & Energy Strategy, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 We use the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) and U.S. inflation-adjusted real rates as explanatory variables in these models. As Chart 3 indicates, actual gold prices are in line with these variables. 4 The first factor accounts for ~ 80% of the variation in the gold ratios. The second idiosyncratic factor, which captures (1) supply-demand fundamentals in the oil and copper markets, and (2) divergences in global growth using EM vs. DM equities as proxies, accounts for the remaining ~ 20% of the variation. 5 Throughout this report, we proxy global yield by summing the yield on the 10-year German Bunds, Japanese Government Bonds and U.S. Treasurys. Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds," dated August 2, 2018. Available at eis.bcaresearch.com. The adjusted R2 in the global yield model is 0.94 compared to 0.88 for the U.S. Treasury model. 6 Using MSCI Emerging Market Index and MSCI Word Index price index. 7 To conduct this analysis, we use a statistical technique developed by the 2003 Nobel laureate, Clive Granger. The eponymous Granger-causality test is used to see whether one variable (i.e., time series) can be said to precede the other in terms of occurrence in time. This test measures information in the variables, particularly the effect of information from the preceding variable on the following variable. Please see Granger, C.W.J. (1980). "Testing for Causality, Personal Viewpoint,"Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2 (pp. 329 - 352). 8 This assessment is consistent with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, the literature on which is countably infinite at this point. Sewell notes: "A market is said to be efficient with respect to an information set if the price 'fully reflects' that information set (Fama, 1970), i.e. if the price would be unaffected by revealing the information set to all market participants (Malkiel, 1992). The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are efficient." The EMH has been debated and tested for decades. Please see Sewell, Martin (2011). "History of the Efficient Market Hypothesis," Research Note RN/11/04, published by University College London (UCL) Department of Computer Science. 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity," published October 25, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market

Highlights This Special Report was written with our colleagues in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy, led by Marko Papic. In it, we explore the evolution of Russia's role in European natural gas markets vis-a-vis the fast-growing U.S. natural gas production and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export capabilities. So what? Rise of U.S. LNG exports to Europe will benefit gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. supplies. Russia will grow ever-more dependent on China, while retaining a market share in Europe. Why? Exports of U.S. LNG to Europe are set to surge over the next decade. Russia will not be completely displaced, as American LNG fills the gap in European natural gas production. But U.S. LNG will lead to the end of oil-indexing of long-term natural gas contracts, hurting Russian state coffers on the margin... ... And forcing Russia further into the arms of China. Also... A tighter Trans-Atlantic partnership - soon to involve a deep energy relationship - and a budding Sino-Russian alliance will further divide the world into two camps, producing a Bifurcated Capitalism that may define this century. Feature Russia's obituaries have been written and re-written many times since the end of the Cold War. And yet, Moscow continues to play an outsized role in global affairs that is belied by quantitative measures of its power (Chart 1). Chart 1From Bipolarity To Multipolarity From Bipolarity To Multipolarity From Bipolarity To Multipolarity How so? The fall of the Soviet Union was precipitated by the country's sclerotic managed economy, its failure to escape the middle income trap, and its disastrous military campaign in Afghanistan. But before it died, the Soviet Union sowed the seeds for its resurrection. The $100-130 billion (in 2018 USD) spent on building a natural gas pipeline infrastructure into Western Europe was the elixir that revived Russian power. Just as Russia emerged from its lost decade in the 1990s, it caught a break. Western Europe's natural gas demand rose. At the same time, China's epic industrialization created a once-in-a-century commodity bull market (Chart 2). With demand for its resources buoyed on both sides of the Eurasian landmass, Russia once again saw revenue fill its coffers (Chart 3). With material wealth came the ability to rebuild its hard power and put up a fight against an expansionary Western alliance encroaching on its sphere of influence. Chart 2Chinese Industrialization... Chinese Industrialization... Chinese Industrialization... Chart 3...Filled Russian Coffers ...Filled Russian Coffers ...Filled Russian Coffers Is there an existential risk to Russia's business model looming in the form of surging U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capability (Chart 4)? Not yet. Thanks to a massive drop in European domestic production, U.S. LNG exports will fill a growing supply gap, but will not replace Russia's natural gas exports in the medium term. All the same, the once-lucrative European market no longer holds as much promise as it once did with the arrival of the U.S. LNG supplies. Chart 4U.S. LNG Exports Will Surge American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? In order for Russian natural gas exports to Europe to be permanently displaced, Europe would have to build out new LNG capacity beyond 2020, restart domestic production by incentivizing shale development, or turn to alternative energy sources with large base-load potential, such as nuclear power. None of these are on the horizon. With ~15% of its government revenue sourced from natural gas sales, Russia is as much of a one-trick pony as there is in macroeconomics. While we do not foresee that pony heading off to the glue factory, Russia will face some considerable risks in the future, starting with the shift away from the rigid oil-indexed contracts it favors (which lock the price of natural gas to that of oil). As such, the risk to Russia is not that it loses market share in Europe's energy market, but that this market share yields much smaller income in the future, as gas-on-gas pricing competition increases. The U.S. Shale Revolution Goes Global Our commodity team has presented a compelling case for why investors should expect an increase in U.S. LNG exports beyond the current EIA forecast.1 Increasing volumes of associated natural gas production in the Permian Basin in west Texas, which will have to be transported from the basin so as not to curtail oil production, will drive a large part of the expected growth in LNG exports. Our commodity team expects that a major LNG export center will be developed in south Texas, in Corpus Christi, over the next five years, just as the U.S. surpasses 10 Bcf/d of exports in the middle of the next decade.2 At the same time, global LNG demand is expected to rise at an impressive 1.7% annual rate to 2040 (Chart 5). A few key markets will lead this trend (Chart 6). Based on BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy calculations, world LNG export capacity is expected to go from 48 Bcf/d in 2017 to 61 Bcf/d by 2022 (Chart 7). The majority of the new capacity (53%) will come from the U.S., while 18% will come from Australia and 15% from Russia. Chart 5Global LNG Demand Growth Likely Outpaces Current Expectations American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Chart 6Supply - Demand Imbalances Will Fuel LNG Demand Globally American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Chart 7LNG Export Capacity Growth American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? The pickup in Australian export capacity is already impressive. While being a relatively small natural gas producer - the eighth largest, accounting for 3% of world output - it has already become the second largest LNG exporting country in the world with over 7.5 Bcf/d of exports. The bulk of new liquefaction facilities will be operational in 2019. Most of Australia's LNG trade lies with Asia, given its geography. The U.S., whose LNG export terminals will be located in the Gulf of Mexico, only has 3 Bcf/d of liquefaction capacity today. Most of its LNG exports also go to Asia (Table 1), but that may change as the current capacity expansion will see exports rise to just over 9 Bcf/d in 2020.3 Furthermore, American gas will compete with surging Australian LNG exports and a build-up of Russian pipeline export capacity to China, which is set to start delivering gas to the country in 2019. Table 1U.S. LNG Exports By Country American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Europe, on the other hand, has massive regasification capacity slack and thus requires only minimal capex to begin importing large volumes of U.S. LNG. Europe has 23 Bcf/d regasification capacity, with a very low utilization rate of just 27%. This means that it has ~ 16 Bcf/d capacity available, more than enough to absorb all of expectant U.S. ~ 6-7 Bcf/d exports in the next couple of years.4 Bottom Line: The U.S. shale revolution is going global, with U.S. LNG exports set to surge over the next 5-10 years. While some of that capacity will find its way to Asia, those markets will also be flooded with Australian LNG and Russian piped natural gas. Europe, on the other hand, is filing just a quarter of its LNG import capacity, making a Trans-Atlantic gas alliance a match made in heaven. From Cold War To Gas War? If half of the currently proposed, pre-FID, LNG export projects were built in the U.S., American capacity would grow to potentially ~26 Bcf/d by 2030. Europe would need only one or two extra LNG import terminals to build over the next two decades to absorb this volume, as its current capacity is able to import nearly every molecule coming out of North America (Chart 8). Chart 8Europe Has Plenty Of Regasification Capacity American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Will this new U.S. LNG displace Europe's imports of Russian natural gas? The short answer is no. By 2030, Europe's supply-gap (i.e. domestic supply minus domestic consumption) is estimated to reach 36 Bcf/d. The U.S. could cover a large part of this gap if only half of the proposed pre-FID projects are constructed. However, if Europe's demand remains stable over this period, Europe will still import roughly 20 Bcf/d of Russian natural gas, which in 2017 amounted to 35% of Europe's natural gas consumption. If the U.S. fills 100% of the increase in Europe's supply-gap, it means new Russian natural gas production (the IEA and BP expect Russian production to keep increasing until 2030) will not be sent to Europe. Hence, even if it does not displace old Russian exports, it will limit Russia's ability to export its new natural gas. Europe's demand for natural gas is not likely to be stable. Despite sclerotic growth and generally weak population growth, European governments have tried to incentivize natural gas consumption due to its low emission of CO2 (Table 2). As such, investors should expect further displacement of coal and nuclear power generation in favor of natural gas. Table 2Natgas Emits Less CO2 American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Thus, U.S. exports will simply replace Europe's domestic production, which is facing considerable declines. The U.K. North Sea production will decrease 5% annually due to the lack of capex and the large number of fields reaching a mature state. Meanwhile, the Netherlands is phasing-out its Groningen field by 2030. Finally, Norwegian gas production is likely to stagnate after reaching record levels in 2017. The second reason that Europe will not be able to sever its relationship with Russia is that its LNG import terminals are largely located in countries that are not massively dependent on Russian imports (Map 1). The two major LNG terminals serving Central and Eastern Europe are the Swinoujscie terminal in Poland - finished in 2015 - and the Adria project in Croatia, to be completed in 2020. Map 1European Natural Gas Geography American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? The Polish LNG terminal will do little to alleviate the dependency of countries further East - Belarus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovakia - from Russia as it currently satisfies only one third of Poland's natural gas needs, and is projected to reach 50% by 2022 once the expansion is completed. This could significantly cut Russian exports to Poland, but not completely end them.5 The Croatian LNG terminal will likely make a very small dent in the overall reliance of the Balkans on Russian natural gas, as once it satisfied Croatian demand, little will be left over for the rest of the region. Beyond these two terminals, Europe will have to invest in pipeline infrastructure in order to reverse the flow of pipelines currently taking gas from the East to the West. At some point in the distant future, we could see a scenario where American natural gas flows even through Cold War era, Soviet-built pipelines deep into Central and Eastern Europe. But given the steep declines in West European natural gas production, this day will come after 2030. Bottom Line: Dreams of displacing Russian natural gas in Europe with American are overstated. European imports of U.S. LNG are likely to skyrocket, but that will merely replace the massive decline in West European and North Sea production. What does that mean for geopolitics? It means that Russia will continue to have a role to play in Europe, but its share of European imports will decline. As such, Europe will have options. If it builds more LNG import terminals, it could expand those options beyond American LNG imports. However, Russian geopolitical influence will not be displaced completely. Russian Coffers Will Take A Hit Although Russian natural gas will continue to course through Europe's veins, its state coffers are nonetheless going to take a hit. European governments are actively diversifying away from Russia via U.S. LNG imports, and buyers generally are shortening the tenor of contracts as they seek more flexible pricing.6 The growth in the global LNG market, fueled by surging U.S. production, will ultimately allow Asian and European markets to diversify away from oil-indexed pricing - which tends to be priced higher than gas-on-gas pricing - and expand access to U.S. supplies.7 The EU has co-financed or committed to co-finance LNG infrastructure projects valued at ~ 640mm euros to secure U.S. LNG. Ultimately, as more and more U.S. LNG moves toward Europe, markets will move toward short- and long-term contracts priced in USD/MMBtu (indexed to Henry Hub, LA, prices), much like Brent crude oil priced in USD/bbl. European markets have already seen this shift, as illustrated in Chart 9. Chart 9European Gas-On-Gas Pricing Is Rising American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? The totality of U.S. export prices is determined by gas-on-gas pricing - i.e., gas priced in USD/MMBtu as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. These contracts are without the restrictions found in many oil-indexed contracts. In the U.S., the presence of a deep futures market delivering natural gas to Henry Hub, LA, allows flexible long-term financing and short- and long-term contracting that can be hedged by buyers and sellers. According to Royal Dutch Shell, the spot LNG market doubled from 2010 to 2017, accounting for ~ 25% of all transactions, most of it due to the prodigious increase in U.S. LNG supply. While in Europe the share of LNG spot and short-term deals is small relative to the overall market, it is growing (Chart 10). With U.S. LNG volumes becoming increasingly available in Europe, market participants will be inclined to turn to the LNG spot market to buy or sell outside contracted volumes. This will deepen the development of European natgas markets: in any fully developed market, spot trading is followed by forward contracting, then futures trading using contracts settling against a spot price.8 Chart 10Expect More LNG Spot Trading American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Russia is a low-cost gas producer in Europe and will be committed to maintaining its market in Europe. However, with U.S. LNG export capacity potentially reaching ~14 Bcf/d by 2025, from ~3 Bcf/d today, it is entirely likely that Russia will find itself in a price war defending existing market share in Europe at lower prices. Its preferred way of doing business, via oil price indexed contracts, will be challenged overnight by a surge in U.S. LNG imports. Bottom line: The EU and its member states are actively diversifying gas supply sources away from Russia via U.S. LNG purchases. This will lower the marginal price of all gas bought and sold in Europe, all else equal, resulting in lower margins for all sellers of gas and better prices for consumers. Ultimately, the European natural gas market will resemble every other fully developed commodity market, operating on razor-thin margins. This means whatever rents were available in this market will be dissipated as competition increases. Investment And Geopolitical Implications The immediate investment implication of these developments is that gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, processing trading, and risk-management capabilities should be favored in this evolving market. Beyond the short term, however, we expect several ongoing geopolitical developments to be ossified by the flood of American LNG steaming towards European shores: Sino-Russian alliance deepens: As Russian natural gas exports to Europe stagnate, its pipeline infrastructure build-out will increase its exports to China to 3.8 Bcf/d by 2019. China will become the growth market for Russian energy producers, deepening the move between the two former Cold War foes to stabilize their relationship. Although it may seem obvious that Russia would retain leverage in such a relationship - given that it can "turn off the lights" to Beijing at whim - we actually think that Beijing will hold all the cards.9 Europe will have an incentive to keep diversifying its natural gas supplies. Meanwhile, Chinese demand is likely to keep growing. As such, China will become Russia's main option for revenue growth. And as the old adage goes, the customer is always right. Trans-Atlantic alliance deepens: Despite the fears that the "Trump Doctrine" would lead to American isolationism - fears that we shared in 2017 - the growing U.S.-European LNG connection will ensure that the Trans-Atlantic alliance - forged 70 years ago in blood - will be saved via brisk energy trade.10 A growing European energy deficit with the U.S. will also resolve - or at least alleviate - the main source of marital problems in the relationship: Europe's trade surplus. Bifurcation of capitalism: A key theme of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is that the age of globalization will yield to the world's segmentation into spheres of influence.11 A deepening Trans-Atlantic alliance, when combined with a budding Sino-Russian relationship, will lead to a Bifurcated Capitalism system where the Trans-Atlantic West faces off against the Eurasian East. What would such a Bifurcated Capitalism mean for investors? Time will tell. But it may mean that thirty years of global capitalism (1985 to roughly today) may give way to something more common in human history: a world dissected into spheres of influence where flows of capital, goods, and people within spheres are relatively smooth and unencumbered, yet flows between the spheres are heavily impeded. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy pavelb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy October 4, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "The Price of Permian Gas Pipeline Limits," by Stephen Rassenfoss, in the Journal of Petroleum Technology, published July 19, 2018. 3 Following a two-year pause in project Final Investment Decisions (FIDs) from 2016 to 2017, potential FIDs in 2018 and 2019 could increase the U.S. capacity to ~ 14 Bcf/d by 2025. This will make the U.S. the second-largest exporter of LNG in the world, surpassing Australia. This new wave of investment is yet to be finalized. Therefore, final decisions in 2H18 and 2019 will be crucial to determine the medium-term potential of U.S. LNG. 4 Cheniere Energy, the largest U.S. LNG exporter, expects ~ 50% of its exports to go to Europe, according to S&P Global Platts. Please see "US LNG vs Pipeline Gas: European Market Share War?" published April 2017 by Platts. 5 Additionally, if the Baltic Pipe Project, moving gas from Norway to Poland, reaches FID in 2019, this would help Poland diversify its energy supply from Russia, as the country would cover close to all its domestic demand via its production + LNG and new pipeline imports. 6 Please see "US and Russia step up fight to supply Europe's gas," published by the Financial Times August 3, 2017. See also "Russia's gas still a potent weapon," also published by the FT, re the so-called collateral damage suffered by Europe when Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in January 2009. 7 For the EU, supply diversification is a particularly important goal. On July 25, 2018, the European Commission and the U.S. issued a joint statement, in which the EU agreed to import more LNG from the U.S. "to diversify and render its energy supply more secure. The EU and the U.S. will therefore work to facilitate trade in liquefied natural gas," according to a press release issued August 9, 2018, by the Commission. Re Japan's diversification strategy, please see "Feature: US LNG sources fit with Japan's desire for route diversity: minister," published by S&P Global Platts September 27, 2018. 8 Please see Darrell Duffie, Futures Markets (1988), Prentice-Hall; and Jeffrey C. Williams, The Economic Function of Futures Markets (1986), Cambridge University Press. Longer-term deals already are being signed under flexible Henry Hub futures-based indexing terms in the U.S. This is occurring because the U.S. LNG market is able to tap into futures liquidity that supports hedging by natgas producers and consumers. Please see "Vitol-Cheniere Pact Shows Long-Term LNG Deals Aren't Dead," published by bloomberg.com September 17, 2018. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Embrace Of The Dragon And The Bear," dated April 11, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Recent estimates by ship trackers put the loss of Iranian exports at close to 1mm b/d as of mid-September vs April levels. This loss is higher (and sooner) than our previous baseline expectation, and prompts us to raise our estimate of lost Iranian oil exports to 1.25mm b/d by November, when U.S. sanctions kick in. Venezuela still is close to collapse, but may avoid a complete meltdown with Chinese companies stepping in to safeguard the $50 billion loaned to the country's oil industry.1 We expect production to fall below 1mm b/d next year - to less than half its end-2016 level. With Fed policy likely to continue tightening into 2019 as oil prices surge, the odds of an equity bear market and recession arriving in 2H19 - vs our 2H20 House view - also increase. Our dominant scenario now includes a supply shock and higher prices in 1Q19, which is followed by a U.S. SPR release and price-induced demand destruction (Chart of the Week). As a result, we are raising the odds of Brent prices reaching or exceeding $100/bbl by as early as 1Q19, and lifting our 2019 forecast to $95/bbl. Energy: Overweight. U.S. refining capacity utilization remains close to 19-year highs. At 97.1% of operable capacity, it is within a whisker of the four-week-moving-average highs of 97.3% recorded in August, driven by strong product demand ex U.S. Base Metals: Neutral. The U.S. Treasury granted permission to Rusal's existing customers to continue signing new contracts with the aluminum producer. The announcement stopped short of a full removal of sanctions, which are set to come into effect on October 23. Precious Metals: Neutral. The strong trade-weighted USD continues to hold gold prices on either side of $1,200/oz. We remain long as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's Crop Production report forecasts record yields for corn and soybeans - 181.3 and 52.8 bushels/acre, respectively - which continues to weigh on prices. The bean harvest is expected to be a record. Feature Chart of the WeekBCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens With the loss of Iranian exports occurring faster and sooner than expected, and Venezuela remaining on the brink of collapse, senior energy officials from the U.S., Russia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) are going to great lengths to reassure their domestic consumers everything - particularly on the supply side - is under control. We are inclined to believe their comfort level re global oil supply is inversely proportional to the amount of reassurance they provide their domestic audiences. The more they meet and talk - particularly to the media - the more concerned they are. And right now, they're pretty concerned. Rick Perry, the U.S. Energy Secretary, held a presser in Moscow following his meeting with Alexander Novak, Russia's Energy Minister, saying the U.S., KSA and Russia can lift output over the next 18 months to compensate for the loss of exports from Iran, Venezuela, and other unplanned outages.2 That might be true, but the market's already tightening far faster and far sooner than many analysts expected. Covering a supply shortfall in 18 months does nothing for the market over the next few months, particularly with demand remaining robust (Chart 2) and OECD inventories falling (Chart 3). Since 2017, our factor model shows Brent prices have been supported by two factors acting simultaneously together: Chart 2Fundamentals Support Strong Prices Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Chart 3Inventory Draws Will Accelerate Inventory Draws Will Accelerate Inventory Draws Will Accelerate Strong compliance of OPEC 2.0 members to the coalition's production-cutting agreement, which reduced the OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor's role, and The pickup in global oil demand, particularly in EM economies, which pushed our Global Demand factor up. These effects were partly counterbalanced by the rise in our non-OPEC Supply factor - driven by strong growth in U.S. shale-oil output - which became the largest negative contributor to price movements. Global demand's been strengthening since the end of 1H17 on the back of stellar EM income growth. This remains the fundamental backdrop to global oil for now. While our base case remains relatively supportive for oil prices, we are raising the odds of a price spike resulting from a supply shock as early as 1Q19 on the back of larger- and faster-than-expected Iranian export losses, and continued declines in Venezuelan production. Should this occur, we believe it would trigger a U.S. SPR release, and produce demand destruction at a rate that could be faster than historical experience would suggest (Table 1). This further tightens balances, and leads us to raise our 2019 forecast for Brent crude oil to $95/bbl on average, up from $80/bbl last month, with WTI trading $6/bbl below that (Chart 4). This forecast is highly conditional, given our assumptions re supply-side variables, a U.S. SPR release, and demand destruction estimates. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Chart 4BCA's Oil Balances Tighter BCA's Oil Balances Tighter BCA's Oil Balances Tighter Oil Balances Tighten As Supply Contracts In our monthly balances update, we are incorporating a sharply accelerated loss of Iranian export barrels to the market, which already is evident. Bloomberg this week reported its tanker-tracking service registered a decline in Iranian exports of close to 1mm b/d between April, when sanctions were announced, and mid-September.3 At this rate, the assessment by Platts Analytics last week that as much as 1.4mm b/d of Iranian exports could be lost by the time U.S. sanctions kick in November 4 appears more likely.4 However, to be conservative, we are building in a loss of 1.25mm b/d in our balances, and have it developing over the July - November period in increments of 250k b/d, instead of the November - February interval we assumed in last month's balances. We will monitor this situation and revise our estimates as new information arrives. Also on the supply side, we are assuming the U.S. SPR releases 500k b/d starting a month after Brent prices go over $90/bbl in March 2019. This is in line with the SPR's enabling legislation, which limits drawdowns to 30mm b/d over a 60-day period, after the President authorizes such action to meet a severe energy supply interruption. Lastly, we continue to carry supply constraints arising from the lack of sufficient take-away capacity to get all of the crude produced in the Permian Basin to refining markets in our models. To wit: We continue to expect 1.2mm b/d of supply growth from the U.S. shales, driven largely by Permian production, vs an earlier expectation of 1.4mm b/d of growth. We expect the Permian to be de-bottlenecked by 4Q19. We expect the Big 3 producers Secretary Perry expects to fill supply gaps in 18 months - the U.S., Russia, and KSA - to produce 10.83mm, 11.4mm and 10.4mm b/d in 2H18, and 11.79mm, 11.43mm and 10.4mm b/d next year, respectively. They will get some help from OPEC's Gulf Arab producers - i.e., the core OPEC producers (Chart 5) - but, supply will continue to fall/stagnate in most of the rest of the world, particularly in offshore producers (Chart 6). Chart 5While Core OPEC Can Increase Supply... While Core OPEC Can Increase Supply... While Core OPEC Can Increase Supply... Chart 6... 'The Other Guys' Output Stagnates Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl We also note the EIA and IEA have lowered their supply-growth estimates this month. The EIA this month reduced expected U.S. crude production growth by 210k b/d in 2019, and the IEA lowered its estimate of offshore production growth in Brazil from 260k b/d to just 30k b/d this year. These are non-trivial adjustments in a market that was tight prior to the downgrade in supply growth. Still, there are significant marginal disagreements on the supply side among the major data supporters (the EIA, IEA and OPEC), which can be seen in Table 2. Table 2Comparison Of Major Balances Estimates Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Demand Destruction Likely As Prices Spike In 1Q19 We expect the rate of growth in EM incomes and trade - a proxy for income - to slow slightly this year vs 2017, on the back of a strengthening USD. This will reduce the rate of growth in EM imports and the rate of growth in EM commodity demand, at the margin. However, y/y growth in EM incomes is expected to remain positive over the next 12 months in our baseline scenario, which will keep the level of commodity demand - particularly for oil and industrial metals - robust. This will drive global demand growth of ~ 1.6mm b/d this year, roughly unchanged from last month. Higher prices risk slowing next year's growth. This is where it gets tricky. An oil-supply shock occurring when global demand is strong most likely will produce a price spike, as we've been arguing for the past several weeks.5 This price spike, coupled with continued monetary-policy tightening by the Fed, raises the likelihood of demand destruction globally. Higher oil prices and a stronger USD act as a double-whammy on EM oil demand. The problem we have now is gauging the elasticity of oil demand, particularly in EM. Oil markets are fundamentally different now than at any point in the modern era - roughly beginning in the early 1960s with the ascendance of OPEC - because many big oil-importing EM economies removed or relaxed subsidies following the prices collapse of 2014 - 2016. Prominent among these states are China and India. OPEC states also took advantage of the price collapse to relax or remove subsidies, e.g., KSA.6 The price shock we anticipate, therefore, will be the first in the modern era in which EM consumers - the principal driver of oil demand in the world, accounting for roughly 70% of the demand growth we expect - are exposed directly to higher prices. How quickly they will respond to higher prices is unknown. For this reason, we're introducing what we consider a reasonable first approximation of how EM demand might respond to higher prices and a stronger USD into the scenarios we include in our ensemble forecast (Chart 7). As a first approximation - subject to at least monthly adjustment, as more data become available - we are modeling a 100k b/d loss of demand for every $10/bbl increase in crude oil prices.7 We will continue to iterate on this as new information becomes available. Chart 7Ensemble Scenarios Reflect New Risks Ensemble Scenarios Reflect New Risks Ensemble Scenarios Reflect New Risks Bottom Line: We've raised the odds of a supply shock in the oil markets that takes Brent prices to or through $100/bbl by 1Q19. Should this occur, we expect it will be met by a U.S. SPR release of 500k b/d a month after prices breach $90/bbl. This price spike will set off a round of demand destruction, which we expect will be quicker than history would suggest, given many large EM oil-consuming states have relaxed or eliminated fuel subsidies, leaving their consumers exposed to the price shock. This will be exacerbated by a stronger USD going forward, as the Fed likely looks through the price spike and continues with its policy-rate normalization. In this scenario, a U.S. recession could arrive in 2H19 vs our House view of 2H20 or later. In addition, we would expect an equity bear market to ensue sooner than presently anticipated. We recommend using Brent call spreads to express the view consistent with our research. At tonight's close, we will go long April, May and June 2019 calls struck at $85/bbl and short $90/bbl calls. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Venezuela hands China more oil presence, but no mention of new funds," published by reuters.com September 14, 2018. 2 U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry made this claim at a press conference after meeting with Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak last Friday. Please see "Big Three oil states can offset fall in Iran supplies: Perry," published by reuters.com September 14, 2018. 3 Please see "Saudi Arabia Is Comfortable With Brent Oil Above $80," published by bloomberg.com September 18, 2018. 4 Please see "OPEC crude oil production rises to 32.89 mil b/d in Aug as cuts unwind: Platts survey" published by SP Platts Global September 6, 2018. 5 Please see "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report on September 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. For a discussion of the effect of a stronger USD on global oil demand, please see "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," published by the Commodity & Energy Strategy August 23, 2018. 6 Please see the Special Focus in the World Bank's January 2018 Global Economic Prospects entitled "With The Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014 - 16 Oil Price Collapse," beginning on p. 49. 7 In this simulation, we employ an iterative one-step-ahead forecasting methodology that reduces demand by 100k b/d for every $10/bbl increase in prices. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018 Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl

Dear client, Our publishing schedule will be shifting over the next two weeks. Next Friday, we will publish a Special Report aggregating various pieces from our colleague Matt Gertken of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy detailing the reforms taking place in China and their past and future evolution, and the economic and investment implications for China and the rest of the world. Matt argues that Chinese reforms are in place and here to stay, which should deepen the malaise in EM and support the dollar. We will not publish any report on August 31st. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on September 7. I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights The 1997 Asian Crisis was a deflationary event, causing commodity prices, commodity currencies and the yen to fall against the dollar, but it had a limited impact on the euro. When Russia collapsed in 1998, the LTCM crisis hit the U.S. banking system, with fears of solvency dragging Treasury yields lower, hurting the dollar against the yen and the euro. Today is not 1997, but the tightness of the U.S. economy suggests the Federal Reserve will need a large shock before abandoning its current pace of a hike per quarter; additionally, global liquidity conditions are tightening and China is slowing. The EM crisis is therefore not over, and vulnerable Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia and South Africa could still experience significant pain. Unlike in 1998, the hot potato is not hiding in the U.S. but in Europe. A contagion event is therefore more likely to hurt the euro than 20 years ago; meanwhile, the yen stands to benefit. DXY could hit 100, and commodity currencies still have ample downside, the AUD in particular. Continue to monitor our China Play Index to gauge if Chinese stimulus could delay the day of reckoning for EM; this index can also be employed as a hedge for investors long the dollar or short EM plays. Feature "Misfortune tests the sincerity of friends." - Aesop This summer is oddly reminiscent of that of 1997. The Federal Reserve is tightening policy because the U.S. economy is not only at full employment but is also growing strongly and generating increasing domestic inflationary pressures. But the most familiar echoes come from outside the U.S. Specifically, emerging market trepidations are once again front page news as the Turkish lira, which had already fallen by 24% between January 2018 and July 31st, dropped by an additional 28% at its worst in a mere two weeks. Consequently, investors are now fretting about the risks of contagion across EM markets, one that could reverberate among G10 economies as well. We too worry that the echoes of 1997 are becoming increasingly louder. EM economies have built up large stocks of debt, and have financed themselves heavily by tapping foreign investors. However, these investors can be rather fickle friends, and we are set to test their sincerity. In this piece, we review how the events of 1997-'98 unfolded, what it meant for G10 currencies, and whether the same lessons can be applied today. We find that in 2018, an EM crisis could ultimately be more supportive for the dollar versus the euro, as unlike in 1998, where the hot potatoes were held by U.S. hedge funds, this time the mess sits squarely in Europe. Tom Yum Goong Goes Viral Initiated in the second half of the 1980s, the peg of the Thai baht seemed like a very successful experiment. The stability created by this institutional setup not only contributed to keeping Thai inflation at manageable levels, but by incentivizing capital inflows in the country it also helped Thailand build up its capital stock. At the time, this yielded a large growth dividend, with real GDP growth averaging 9% from 1985 to 1996. However, the economic boost generated by this cheap financing had a dark side. The Thai current account balance ballooned to a deficit of 8% of GDP in 1995-'96. As Herb Stein famously expressed, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Like in Aesop's fable where one of two travelers climbed up a tree to avoid a bear, leaving his friend to fend off the bear on his own, foreign investors abandoned Thailand, which was left on its own to finance its large current account deficit. While the Bank of Thailand was able to fend off the attacks for a few weeks, on July 2nd, 1997, it abandoned its efforts. The THB was left to float freely and dropped 56% against the USD over the subsequent six months. Other EM countries including Malaysia, Brazil and Korea, to name a few, had implemented similar U.S. dollar pegs. They too enjoyed stable inflation, growing money inflows and improved growth, but also experienced growing current account deficits and foreign currency debt loads. It did not take long for investors to extrapolate Thailand's woes to other countries. The Malaysian ringgit and the Indonesian rupiah began falling soon after the THB, while the Korean won began its own steep descent four months later (Chart 1). The economic pain was felt globally. The collapse in EM Asian exchange rates and the deep recessions experienced in these countries caused their export prices to collapse, which created a global deflationary shock (Chart 2). This shock was compounded by a fall in commodity prices that materialized as market participants realized that demand for commodities from the crisis-stricken countries was set to evaporate (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1How The Thai Crisis Morphed Into An Asian Crisis How The Thai Crisis Morphed Into An Asian Crisis How The Thai Crisis Morphed Into An Asian Crisis Chart 2The Asian Crisis Was A Deflationary Shock The Asian Crisis Was A Deflationary Shock The Asian Crisis Was A Deflationary Shock Not only did this deflationary shock lift the USD against EM currencies and commodity currencies, it also caused inflation breakevens in the U.S. to fall significantly (Chart 3). However, because the U.S. economy remained robust through the second half of 1997 and in the early days of 1998, real rates did not respond much (Chart 3, bottom panel). Markets where not very concerned that this shock would force the Fed to cut rates, as it did not seem to affect the outlook for U.S. growth and employment. However, this combination of stable real rates in the face of weaker growth in EM, as well as the collapse in commodity prices ended up having large second-round effects. Russia defaulted in August 1998, prompting a collapse in the ruble. To patch up its finances, Russia began pumping ever more oil out of the ground, causing oil prices to fall below US$10/bbl in December 1998, deepening the malaise in commodity prices. This caused the Brazilian real to collapse in 1999, and the Argentinian peso to follow in 2002 (Chart 4). Chart 31997: Falling Breakevens, Stable Real Yields 1997: Falling Breakevens, Stable Real Yields 1997: Falling Breakevens, Stable Real Yields Chart 4Asian Crisis Goes Global Asian Crisis Goes Global Asian Crisis Goes Global Among these contagions, the Russian default was the event with the greatest systemic impact. This was because it was a direct hit to the U.S. banking system. Long Term Capital Management, a large Connecticut-based hedge fund, had accumulated massive bets on Russia. The country's default plunged the fund into the abyss. However, LTCM had liabilities to banks to the tune of US$125 billion. The exposure was perceived as an existential threat to the banking sector, and the market began to anticipate a repeat of the 1907 panic.1 Junk bond spreads jumped, the S&P 500 fell by 18%, and U.S. government bond yields collapsed by 120 basis points (Chart 5). The Fed was forced to respond, coming out of hibernation and cutting rates by 75 basis points between September and November of 1998. As the Fed forcefully responded to this shock and 10-year Treasury yields fell, the dollar, which had managed to stay somewhat stable against the synthetic euro from July 1997 to August 1998, fell 11%. Within the same one-year window starting in July 1997, the yen dropped 23%, dragged lower by the competitive pressures created by weaker Asian currencies. However, as soon as U.S. bond yields collapsed, the yen began to surge, rising by 36% from August 1998 to January 1999 (Chart 6). Only once the Fed started increasing rates anew did the euro and the yen level off. Chart 5The Russian Default Was The Real Shock For The U.S. The Russian Default Was The Real Shock For The U.S. The Russian Default Was The Real Shock For The U.S. Chart 6The Dollar Buckled After LTCM The Dollar Buckled After LTCM The Dollar Buckled After LTCM In aggregate, the dollar's performance through the 1997-1998 period was very mixed. The trade-weighted dollar managed to rise from July 1997 to August 1998. Nevertheless, this was a complex picture. During this timeframe the dollar rose against EM currencies - against the CAD, the AUD, the NZD and the JPY - but was flat against the euro. The USD then fell against everything from August 1998 to the first half of 1999. Only once the Fed started hiking again in the summer 1999, was the greenback able to resuming its broad ascent, one that lasted all the way until late 2001. Bottom Line: In 1997, the first domino to fall was Thailand. Since many East Asian economies suffered the same ills - current account deficits, foreign currency debt loads and falling foreign exchange reserves - Asian currencies followed, dragging the yen lower in the process. This generated a deflationary shock that hurt commodity prices and commodity currencies, leading to the infamous Russian default of 1998. The associated LTCM bankruptcy threatened the survival of the U.S. banking system, forcing bond yields much lower as the Fed cut rates three times. The dollar suffered because of this policy move, especially against the yen. However, once the Fed resumed its hiking campaign, the dollar recovered across the board, making new highs all the way to late 2001 and early 2002. Is 2018: 1997, 1998, Or 2018? In one key regard, today is not the late 1990s: Dollar pegs are few and far between. However, in many respects, similarities abound. First and most obviously, EM foreign currency debt loads, as measured against exports, GDP or reserves, are at similar levels to those prevailing in the late 1990s (Chart 7). This means that EM economies suffer when the dollar rises, as it represents an increase in their cost of capital, and thus a tightening in financial conditions. Second, the Fed has been increasing interest rates. Most importantly, the Fed is growingly concerned that domestic inflationary pressures in the U.S. are intensifying, courtesy of strong growth - at least relative to potential; a high degree of capacity utilization, especially in the labor market (Chart 8); and, unique to today, the U.S. has received a large degree of unneeded fiscal stimulus. Chart 7EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Have More ##br##Foreign-Currency Debt Than In The 1990s EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Have More Foreign-Currency Debt Than In The 1990s EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Have More Foreign-Currency Debt Than In The 1990s Chart 8The Foreign Pain Threshold For The Fed Is Much Higher ##br##Now Than In 2015 or 2016 The Foreign Pain Threshold For The Fed Is Much Higher Now Than In 2015 or 2016 The Foreign Pain Threshold For The Fed Is Much Higher Now Than In 2015 or 2016 This means it will take a lot of pain to derail the Fed from its desire to hike rates once a quarter. This also makes the current environment very different from 2015, the most recent episode of EM tumult. In 2015-2016, the Fed easily abandoned its hiking campaign. When it hiked rates in December 2015, the Fed anticipated increasing rates four times over the following 12 months. It delivered only one hike in December 2016. The reason was straightforward: Unlike today, the U.S. economy was still replete with slack (Chart 8) and was not on the receiving end of a large fiscal stimulus program, suggesting the Fed could not tolerate the deflationary impact of tightening financial conditions. Third, global liquidity is tightening, which is hurting the global growth outlook. Today, global excess money, as defined by the growth of broad money supply above that of loan growth in the U.S., the euro area and Japan, is contracting. Today, as in 1997, this indicator forebodes important weaknesses in global industrial production (Chart 9). U.S. liquidity is particularly important. Not only is dollar-based liquidity crucial to financing the large stock of dollar-denominated foreign debt, but the U.S. is also driving the fall in global excess money. The pick-up in U.S. economic activity is sucking liquidity from both the rest world and from the financial system to finance U.S. loan growth (Chart 10). This phenomenon was also at play in 1997. Chart 9Excess Money Is Contracting Global Excess ##br##Money Contracting, Just Like In Early 1997 Excess Money Is Contracting Global Excess Money Contracting, Just Like In Early 1997 Excess Money Is Contracting Global Excess Money Contracting, Just Like In Early 1997 Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is ##br##Sucking In Liquidity The U.S. Economy Is Sucking In Liquidity The U.S. Economy Is Sucking In Liquidity Why does this matter? Simply put, U.S. financial liquidity; built as a composite of 3-month T-bills, total bank deposits minus bank loans, bank investments, and M2 money supply; is a wonderful leading indicator. The current collapse in financial liquidity suggests that the global economy is about to hit a rough patch. As Chart 11 illustrates, the weakness of this indicator points to declines in our Global Leading Economic Indicators and in global commodity prices. This suggests the indicator is foretelling that a deflationary scare could materialize, an event normally also associated with a stronger dollar and downside in EM export prices (Chart 12). In a logically consistent fashion, the liquidity indicator is also warning that the AUD, CAD and NZD have substantial downside, while EM equity prices could also suffer more (Chart 13). Finally, it also highlights that even the U.S. stock market may not be immune to upcoming troubles (Chart 14). Chart 11U.S. Financial Liquidity Points To Weaker Growth... U.S. Financial Liquidity Points To Weaker Growth... U.S. Financial Liquidity Points To Weaker Growth... Chart 12...And A Stronger Dollar But Weaker EM Export Prices... ...And A Stronger Dollar But Weaker EM Export Prices... ...And A Stronger Dollar But Weaker EM Export Prices... Chart 13...Falling EM Stocks And Commodity Currencies... ...Falling EM Stocks And Commodity Currencies... ...Falling EM Stocks And Commodity Currencies... Chart 14...And Maybe Even A Correction In U.S. Stock Prices ...And Maybe Even A Correction In U.S. Stock Prices ...And Maybe Even A Correction In U.S. Stock Prices Fourth, gold is sending a similar signal as in the late 1990. As we have argued in the past, gold is a very good gauge of global liquidity conditions. During the Asian Crisis and the Russia/LTCM fiasco, industrial commodity prices only experienced a serious decline after the Thai baht had dragged down Asia into a tailspin. However, gold had been falling since 1996, a move predating the fall in Asian currencies (Chart 15). The precious metal was confirming that global liquidity was tightening and being sucked back into the booming U.S. economy. Today, gold prices are sending an ominous signal. After forming a large tapering wedge from 2011 to 2018, gold prices have broken down below the major upward-sloping trend line that had defined the bull market that began in 2001 (Chart 16). This indicates that gold may be starting another leg of a major bear market. Moreover, as the bottom panel of Chart 16 illustrates, it is true that net speculative positions in the yellow metal have plunged, but they remain far above the large net short positions that prevailed in the late 1990s. If gold is indeed entering another major down leg, this would confirm that tightening liquidity will further hurt EM asset prices, commodity prices and non-U.S. economic activity. Chart 15As Early As 1996, Gold Warned Of Upcoming Problems In Asia As Early As 1996, Gold Warned Of Upcoming Problems In Asia As Early As 1996, Gold Warned Of Upcoming Problems In Asia Chart 16Is A Secular Bear Market In Gold Beginning? Is A Secular Bear Market In Gold Beginning? Is A Secular Bear Market In Gold Beginning? Finally, adding insult to injury is China. The current communist party leadership is hell-bent on reforming the Chinese economy, moving it away from its dependence on capex and leverage. Consequently, China is in the midst of a major deleveraging campaign concentrated in the shadow banking sector, which has already caused money growth and total social financing to plumb to new lows (Chart 17). This is deflationary for the global economy as weaker Chinese credit weighs on capex, which in turns weighs on Chinese imports, as 69% of China's intake from the rest of the world are commodities and intermediate as well as industrial goods. Chart 17Chinese Monetary And Credit Conditions Remain ##br##Tight China Deleveraging Is Biting Chinese Monetary And Credit Conditions Remain Tight China Deleveraging Is Biting Chinese Monetary And Credit Conditions Remain Tight China Deleveraging Is Biting Chart 18No Capitulation ##br##Yet No Capitulation Yet No Capitulation Yet Moreover, the recent wave of renminbi weakness is exacerbating these deflationary pressures. The 9% fall in the yuan versus the dollar since April 11th represents a competitive devaluation that will hurt many EM countries. It also implies downside in China's import volumes, as it increases the prices paid by Chinese economic agents for foreign-sourced industrial goods and commodities.2 All these forces suggest that the pain that started in Argentina and Turkey could continue to spread across other vulnerable EM economies. It is doubtful that economies with large debt loads, large upcoming debt rollovers and other underlying economic problems will find it easy to receive financing in an environment of declining global liquidity, a strong dollar, budding deflationary pressures and a slowing China. Making this worry even more real, EM investors have not capitulated, as bottom-fishing has prompted massive inflows into Turkey in recent days (Chart 18). 2018 may not be 1997 or 1998, but it is likely to be a year to remember. Bottom Line: EM currency pegs to the dollar may not be as prevalent as they were back in the 1990s, but enough risks are present that contagion from Argentina and Turkey to other EM economies is a very real risk. Specifically, the domestic economic situation in the U.S. warrants higher interest rates, which suggests the Fed is unlikely to be fazed by EM market routs unless they become deep enough to present a threat to U.S. growth itself. Moreover, global liquidity conditions are tightening as the U.S.'s economic strength is sucking in capital from around the world. This combination means that EM countries with large dollar debt loads are likely to find debt refinancing a very onerous exercise. Finally, China is slowing and letting the RMB fall, which is exerting a deflationary impact on the world. Investment implications An environment of slower global economic activity, tightening global liquidity conditions and a potential deflationary scare is positive for the dollar. But 1998 shows that if the hot potato hides in the U.S. and the Fed is forced to ease aggressively, the dollar could nonetheless suffer. In order to get a sense as to whether the dollar can continue to strengthen or not, it is important to get a sense of where the exposure to an EM accident may lie. To begin this exercise, we need to first assess which EM countries are most vulnerable to catching the "Turkish Flu." To do so, we collaborated with our colleague Peter Berezin and his team at BCA's Global Investment Strategy to build a heat map of vulnerable EM economies. This heat map is based on the following factors: current account balance, net international investment position, external debt, external debt service obligation, external funding requirements, private sector savings/investment balance, private sector debt, government budget balance, government debt, foreign ownership of local currency bonds, and inflation. This method shows that after Turkey and Argentina, the next six most vulnerable countries are Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Indonesia in this order (Chart 19). Chart 19Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets The Bear And The Two Travelers The Bear And The Two Travelers While our long-term valuation models show that the Colombian peso is already trading at a significant discount to its fair value, the BRL, the CLP, the ZAR, and the MXN are not (Chart 20). This highlights that these markets could provide serious fireworks in the coming months. Moreover, they all have their own idiosyncrasies that accentuate these risks. Brazil will soon undergo elections that will likely not result in a market-friendly outcome.3 Chile has an extremely large dollar-debt load, copper prices are tanking and the CLP is very pricey. Finally, South Africa is contemplating the kind of land expropriations reminiscent of those that plunged Zimbabwe into chaos - not a good optic for a still-expensive currency. So, who is most exposed to this potential mess? The answer is the euro area, most specifically, Spain. As Chart 21 shows, the exposure of Spanish banks to the most vulnerable EM markets totals nearly 170% of the banking system's capital and reserves. This means that 30% of the capital and reserves of the banking systems in the euro area's five largest economies is exposed to these markets. Making the risk even more acute, French banks have large exposure to Spain, and German banks to France. This combined exposure dwarfs the exposure of the U.K., Japan or the U.S. to the most vulnerable EM economies. To be fair to Spain, Spanish banks often have set up their foreign affiliates as separate legal entities. This means that the impact on the balance sheets of the Spanish banking system of defaults in vulnerable EM countries may be more limited than seems at face value. Yet, this is far from certain. Chart 20BRL, CLP, ZAR, And MXN Are Too Expensive##br## In Light Of Their Vulnerabilities BRL, CLP, ZAR, And MXN Are Too Expensive In Light Of Their Vulnerabilities BRL, CLP, ZAR, And MXN Are Too Expensive In Light Of Their Vulnerabilities Chart 21Who Has More Exposure To EM? The Bear And The Two Travelers The Bear And The Two Travelers As a result, we would not be surprised if the European Central Bank is forced by an EM accident to back away from its desire to abandon its extraordinary accommodative stance. The ECB would first use forward guidance to message that a hike will be delayed ever further in the future. The ECB may even be forced to resume government and corporate bonds purchases past 2018. This is a potential nightmare scenario for the euro. In fact, as Chart 22 illustrates, a euro at parity may not be a far stretch. Historically, the euro bottoms when it trades 10% below our fair value model, based on real short rate differentials, relative yield curve slopes and the ratio of copper to lumber prices. Such a discount would correspond to EUR/USD at parity. Because under such circumstances the Fed could be forced to pause its own hiking cycle for a quarter or two, a move to EUR/USD between 1.10 and 1.05 seems more likely than a collapse to parity right now. This also means that in conjunction with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team, we recommend our clients close overweight positions in Spanish assets. Chart 22The Euro Still Has Downside If EM Go Bust The Euro Still Has Downside If EM Go Bust The Euro Still Has Downside If EM Go Bust What about the yen? In the late 1990s, the yen fell against the U.S. dollar as Asian currencies were collapsing, but surged once the Fed backtracked and bond yields tanked in 1998. This time could follow a different road map. Japan does not compete against Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and South Africa in the same way as it was competing against industrial companies in countries like Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea. This means that Japan is unlikely to need to competitively devalue to remain afloat if the BRL, COP, MXN, CLP and ZAR collapse further. However, since an EM shock is likely to prove to be a deflationary event, this means that bond yields could experience downside, especially as positioning in the U.S. bond market is massively crowded to the short side (Chart 23). A countertrend bull market in bonds would greatly flatter the yen. As a result, we are maintaining our short EUR/JPY bias over the coming months. The G10 commodity currency complex is also at risk. Not only does tightening dollar liquidity imply further weakness in this group of currencies, so does slowing EM activity and a deflationary scare. Additionally, the CAD and the NZD are not trading at much of a discount to their fair value, and the AUD trades at a premium (Chart 24). This means we would anticipate these currencies to suffer more in the coming quarters, led by the AUD, which is not only the most expensive of the group, but also the most geared to EM economic activity. Being short AUD/CAD still makes sense. Chart 23A Bond Rally Would ##br##Support The Yen A Bond Rally Would Support The Yen A Bond Rally Would Support The Yen Chart 24TDollar-Bloc Currencies Offer Limited Cushion##br## In The Event of An EM Selloff TDollar-Bloc Currencies Offer Limited Cushion In The Event of An EM Selloff TDollar-Bloc Currencies Offer Limited Cushion In The Event of An EM Selloff Finally, the pound is its own animal. GBP/USD is now quite cheap, but the U.K.'s large current account deficit of 3.9% of GDP, which is not funded through FDIs anymore, means that Great Britain remains vulnerable to tightening global liquidity conditions. Moreover, Brexit negotiations will heat up in the fall, as the March 2019 deadline for reaching a deal with the EU looms large. This means that political tumult in the U.K. will remain a large source of risk for the pound. We will explore the outlook for the pound in an upcoming report this September. Currently, our long DXY trade is posting an 8.5% profit, with a target at 98. The above picture suggests that the dollar could move well past 98, especially as the momentum factor that is so important to the greenback still plays in favor of the USD.4 As a result, we are upgrading our target on the dollar to 100. However, we are also tightening our stop loss to 94.88. We will update our stop loss to 97 if the DXY hits 98 in the coming weeks, in order to protect gains while still being exposed to the dollar's potential upside. Bottom Line: Beyond Turkey and Argentina, the EMs most vulnerable to tightening global liquidity conditions are Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and South Africa. Spanish banks have outsized exposure to these markets, which means the euro area is at risk if the "Turkish Flu" becomes contagious. As such, the ECB could be forced to remain easier than it wants to. The euro is still at risk. The yen could strengthen if global bond yields suffer. Hence, it still makes sense to be short EUR/JPY. While the CAD, AUD and NZD are also all vulnerable to a deflationary scare, the Aussie is the worst positioned of the three. Shorting AUD/CAD still makes sense. The DXY is likely to experience significant upside from here, with a move to 100 becoming an increasingly probable scenario. Risks To Our View Chart 25A Gauge And A Hedge Against Chinese Stimulus A Gauge And A Hedge Against Chinese Stimulus A Gauge And A Hedge Against Chinese Stimulus The biggest risk to our view is China. In 2016, a vicious EM selloff was staunched by a large wave of stimulus that put a floor under Chinese economic activity, and caused China to re-lever. The impact was felt around the world, lifting commodity prices and EM assets while plunging the dollar into a vicious selloff in 2017. It is conceivable that such an outcome materializes anew, especially as China is, in fact, injecting stimulus into its economy. However, as we wrote two weeks ago, the current stimulus still pales in comparison to what took place in 2015. Moreover, reforms and deleveraging have much greater primacy now than they did back then.5 BCA believes that the current wave of stimulus is not designed to cause growth to surge again, as was the case in 2015, but is instead aimed at limiting the negative impact of the ongoing trade war with the U.S. Yet, we cannot be dogmatic. Not only is it hard to gauge the actual degree of stimulus currently applied to the Chinese economy, there is a heightened risk that the flow of policy announcements causes a shift in the dominant narrative among market participants. Such a shift in attitudes could easily cause a mass buying of EM assets and commodities, delaying the day of reckoning for vulnerable EM. As a result, we continue to promulgate that investors track the behavior of our China Play Index, introduced two weeks ago (Chart 25).6 Not only does this index provide a live read on how traders are pricing in Chinese developments, but it also provides a great hedge for investors long the dollar, short EM, or short the commodity complex. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 In the panic of 1907, the Knickerbocker Trust Company went bankrupt, threatening the health of the U.S. banking system. The stock market crashed, money markets went into paralysis, and a consortium of bankers led by J.P. Morgan himself ended up acting as a lender of last resort, staunching the crisis. As a consequence of this panic, the Federal Reserve System was born in 1913. 2 For a more detailed discussion of the deflationary risk created by the RMB, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time", dated July 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus", dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Ibid. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades