Commodities & Energy Sector

Special Report

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 Chart 2The 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 Chart 4Asian 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. Chart 6The 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 Chart 8The Foreign Pain Threshold For The Fed Is Much Higher ##br##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 Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is ##br##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... Chart 12...And A Stronger Dollar But Weaker EM Export Prices... Chart 13...Falling EM Stocks And Commodity Currencies... Chart 14...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 Chart 16Is 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 Chart 18No Capitulation ##br##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 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 Chart 21Who Has More Exposure To EM? 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 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 Chart 24TDollar-Bloc Currencies Offer Limited Cushion##br## 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 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

Highlights Our antennae are twitching wildly, as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) walks back a widely telegraphed commitment to surge production. This occurs against the backdrop of a possible loss of as much as 2mm b/d in exports from Iran and Venezuela next year, with demand expected to remain fairly strong. U.S. President Donald Trump remains silent. We believe the proximate cause of KSA's reversal boils down to one or all of the following: President Trump told KSA to expect an SPR release ahead of November mid-terms; KSA found it difficult to maintain higher production; or Short-term demand for KSA's output is falling, so they reduced production. We have questioned the ability of KSA to sustain production above 10.5mm b/d for an extended period in the past. However, we believe July's 200k b/d cut was produced by a combination of No. 1 and No. 3. We expect KSA to build storage ahead of Iran sanctions. On the back of our updated balances modeling we are maintaining our 2H18 Brent ensemble forecast of $70/bbl, and raising our 2019 forecast to $80/bbl from $75/bbl (Chart of the Week): The front-loaded production increase we expected from OPEC 2.0 could be less than expected. Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA reported U.S. crude and product inventories rose 17.4mm barrels for the week ended August 10, 2018. Markets traded sharply lower as a result, falling more than 3% in WTI and 2% in Brent. As we went to press, October Brent was trading just above $70/bbl. We are maintaining our $70/bbl Brent forecast for 2H18. Base Metals: Neutral. Union leaders at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile, the largest in the world, will take proposed contract terms to members this week.1 We were stopped out of our tactical Dec18 copper call spread with a 10.2% loss. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold remains under pressure as the broad trade-weighted USD rises. We remain long as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. USDA export data show year-to-date wheat and soybean exports are down 20% and 10% y/y in the Oct17 - Jun18 period. Feature Forward guidance from OPEC 2.0's leadership and its predecessor, the regular old OPEC, has not been helpful of late.2 This complicates our balances assessment this month (Chart of the Week), and raises the odds volatility will increase sooner than we expected. Chart of the Week2H18 Brent Forecast Stays At $70/bbl, 2019 Moved Up To $80/bbl KSA's reversal in July of its earlier, widely telegraphed decision to sharply raise production in response to aggressive tweeting from U.S. President Donald Trump beginning in May - to as much as 11mm b/d from just over 10mm b/d in the first five months of this year - was followed by an abrupt output cut of ~ 200k b/d last month. Last month, we expected KSA's crude production to average 10.60mm b/d in 2H18, and 10.50mm b/d next year. In our current balances estimate (Table 1), we now expect the Kingdom's output to average 10.28mm b/d in 2H18 and 10.35mm b/d in 2019, down 300k b/d and 150k b/d, respectively. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) Russia, OPEC 2.0's other putative leader, also is complicating assessments of liquids production by the producer coalition. Given the signaling it and KSA were providing over the past couple of months, we expected Russia to raise production 80k b/d in 2H18 to 11.27mm b/d, and by 160k b/d in 2019 to 11.35mm b/d. We still expect Russia to raise its production and revised our baseline estimates to 11.32mm b/d and to 11.43mm b/d for this year and next, respectively. However, it is difficult to reconcile our expectation with the 11.13mm b/d 2H18 liquids production expected by OPEC for Russia in its August Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR), as we are highly confident Russia signed off on that estimate before it was published. Chart 2Physical Deficit Worsens Our global liquids supply estimate for 2H18 now stands at 101.08mm b/d, down 680k b/d from last month's estimate. For 2019, we lowered our supply estimate by 800k b/d to 101.01mm b/d. But this could end up overstating supply, given what we're seeing from OPEC 2.0 presently. On the demand side, we've lowered our 2018 and 2019 expectations slightly - to 1.67mm b/d and 1.62mm b/d, respectively, or ~ 50k b/d on average versus our previous estimates. This is still relatively stout demand growth - supported by still-strong global trade, particularly in the EM economies - which means storage will be forced to draw harder next year than we expected even a month ago (Chart 2). Physical Deficit Worsens In 2019 We expected OPEC 2.0's supply increase would persist at a higher level during 2H18, which would allow refiners to build precautionary inventories going into next year. This no longer is a tenable assumption, given what is being reported for OPEC 2.0's largest producers - KSA and Russia. In addition, we have amended our base case supply model, to reflect the loss of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions for most of next year; we have this occurring in 250k b/d increments in the Nov18 - Feb 19 period, leaving production from March 2019 on at 2.8mm b/d. This replaces our earlier assumption of a 500k b/d by the end of 1H19. We took this action on the back of the increasingly strident rhetoric from the U.S. administration, and press reports indicating widespread compliance with the sanctions is expected - particularly reports suggesting China and India will not be looking to increase purchases of Iranian crude. Offsetting the higher Iranian export losses we foresee, our base case includes a re-start of Neutral Zone production in 2Q19.3 We expect KSA and Kuwait to each bring 175k b/d back on line, for a total of 350k b/d. It is not clear this is counted in both countries' spare capacity, but if it is, then spare capacity will become tighter within OPEC 2.0 next year. In our scenario analysis, we continue to give a relatively high weight to the loss of Venezuela's exports - anywhere from 800k to 1mm b/d - as that country's oil industry continues to degrade. Our ensemble analysis indicates OECD storage will draw more than previously estimated (Chart 3), on the back of these higher assumed Iranian export losses, and a reduction in OPEC 2.0's front-loaded production increases, particularly in 2019. As storage draws, days-forward-cover (DFC) also will contract (Chart 4). In addition to steepening the backwardation in crude forward curves, we expect implied option volatility to increase in 2019 (Chart 5). Chart 3Storage Will Draw##BR##Harder Next Year Chart 4Days-Forward-Cover##BR##Will Fall In 2019 Chart 5Implied Volatilities Will Rise,##BR##As OECD Storage Falls Ensemble Forecast Update In addition to moving the 1mm b/d loss of Iranian exports from a scenario and into our base case - offset somewhat by higher Neutral Zone production - we expect transportation bottlenecks in the Permian Basin to slow production growth in the U.S. shales even more. We have lowered our expected U.S. production growth to 1.21mm b/d this year and 1.22mm b/d in 2019, versus earlier estimates of 1.30mm b/d and 1.34mm b/d, as a result (Chart 6 shows the trajectory we expect from this scenario).4 Coupled with the lower-than-expected production increase from OPEC 2.0 and still-strong demand growth globally, this will lead to tighter markets in 2019. Chart 6Higher Volatility = Wider Expected Price Range We also are including a scenario showing a slowdown in demand growth, which takes y/y growth to 1.43mm b/d in 2018 and 2019, versus our current estimates of average growth of 1.64mm b/d over the two-year interval. Bottom Line: Numerous conflicting data have entered the oil pricing picture over the past month, which greatly complicates our analysis and forecasting. The fact that OPEC 2.0's leadership - KSA and Russia - is providing little in the way of forward guidance does not make this any easier. We admit to being puzzled by KSA's apparent decision to walk back its production increase going into 2019, when the likelihood of losing close to 2mm b/d of exports from Iran and Venezuela becomes markedly higher. Based on our current modeling we expect higher prices next year ($80/bbl vs. our earlier estimate of $75/bbl for Brent), and a steepening of the Brent and WTI backwardations next year. We continue to expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent in 2H18 and 2019. The steepening backwardation will lift implied volatility, particularly next year. We remain long call option spreads along the Brent forward curve in 2019, in expectation prices and volatility will move higher. We continue to believe the balance of price risk is to the upside. However, as the lower-demand scenario in our ensemble forecast shows, an unexpected slowdown in growth can have profound effects on prices. 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 "Chile's Escondida union to take new labor proposal to members," published by reuters.com August 15, 2018. 2 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. At the end of June, the coalition's member states agreed to increase production to bring it into line with the originally agreed deal to remove 1.8mm b/d of output from the market. 3 Please see "Kuwait, Saudi to resume output from Neutral Zone in 2019 - Toyo Engineering," published by reuters.com July 2, 2018. 4 We place our scenarios within the context of a market-generated confidence interval, which we calculate using implied volatilities derived from Brent and WTI options markets. Please see Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009), "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty," particularly Appendix 1 beginning on p. 18, for a derivation of the confidence intervals. The article was published by the U.S. EIA. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Seasonal capacity restrictions in China during the winter heating months - when pollution from steel mills is particularly high - and continued efforts to limit particulate emissions in major cities will drive steel prices higher. The steel rebar market in China is backwardated, indicating physical markets are tight; inventories have been falling since mid-March. We expect prices to remain elevated going into the winter months, when capacity restrictions kick in. Ongoing capacity reductions in steelmaking will favor higher-grade iron ores, which will widen price differentials versus lower-grade ores. We are recommending a long China rebar futures on the SHFE in 1Q19 vs short 62% Fe iron ore futures on the Dalian DCE in 1Q19 at tonight's close, based on our research. Energy: Overweight. Loadings of Iranian crude are expected to be curtailed beginning this month, as the November 4 deadline for the imposition of U.S. secondary sanctions kick in. Our base case calls for the loss of 500k b/d of exports from Iran; our ensemble forecast includes an estimate of 1mm b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. BHP asked the Chilean government to intervene in the strike called by unions at its Escondida mine. Union officials delayed strike action while talks are being held. Negotiators have until August 14 to reach an agreement. Reuters reported Chile's copper production was up 12.3% y/y in 1H18 to 2.83mm MT.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. U.S. sanctions on trading gold and precious metals with Iran went into effect earlier this week. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans could fall 10mm MT over the next year, if pig and chicken farmers switch to lower-protein feed and substitutes like sunflower seeds, and boost local production of the legume, state-run news service Xinhua reported.2 The USDA expects U.S. exports of 55.52mm MT of soybeans in the 2018 - 19 crop year, down 1.22mm MT from last year. Feature Steel prices have performed exceptionally since the beginning of 2Q18, seemingly oblivious to Sino - U.S. trade tensions, a stronger USD, and risks to China's economy roiling other metal markets (Chart of the Week). The MySteel Composite Index we use to track steel prices is up 7% since the beginning of April. With demand growth leveling off, steel's price dynamics highlight the continued relevance of the market's supply-side developments. Most notably, Beijing's battle for blue skies: Winter capacity curbs, and, to a lesser extent, ongoing efforts to retire older, highly polluting capacity will keep prices elevated over the next 9 months. Winter Curbs: China's New Normal As we highlighted in our April 12 weekly, despite the much-ballyhooed reductions in China's steel capacity over the 2017 - 18 winter months, markets in China and globally remained relatively well supplied over the winter.3 However, several key changes this year suggest the impact of these measures will intensify this time around, keeping producers constrained in their ability to ramp up production of the metal. For one, the data suggest strong production levels amid the anti-pollution curbs last winter were a result of an increase in output from regions unaffected by the capacity restrictions (Chart 2). This went a long way in muting the impact of the restrictions in the heavily industrialized Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of northern China. Chart of the WeekSteel Oblivious To Pessimism Chart 22017/18 Winter Cuts: A Net Non-Event This year's curbs will broaden the regions targeted by anti-pollution restrictions. The campaign will encompass 83 cities, up from last year's 28, thereby reducing the potential production ramp up from regions not covered by these measures (Chart 3). This coming winter's closures will cover regions where producers traditionally account for 68% of China's steel output (Chart 4). Chart 3Second Annual Winter Capacity ##br##Restrictions Will Broaden Coverage... Chart 4...And##br## Impact The anti-pollution campaign is one of the three battles prioritized in Xi Jinping's plan for the coming years. These curbs will be implemented during the October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 heating season, extending the duration from last year's mid-November to Mid-March period. Because the minimal effect observed per last year's closures was due to specifying too narrow a range of plants and regions, not to non-compliance, we expect the measures announced for this coming winter to be fully implemented. These measures come amid already-tight market conditions. The steel rebar market in China is in backwardation - meaning a physical shortage is pushing up prompt prices relative to those further out the curve. Inventories have been falling since mid-March, reflecting supply-demand dynamics in other steel product markets. Thus, we expect prices to remain elevated going into the winter months. Capacity Impacts Are Difficult To Gauge Opaqueness and discretionary authority in the new rules clouds the outlook on how anti-pollution reforms will impact the steel market. This makes it difficult to estimate their impact with precision. This time around, China's State Council announced that curbs will be implemented in a more scientific and targeted approach, ensuring maximum efficiency to attain the targets. This means the constraints this year will depend on emissions in each region, which will be set at the discretion of local authorities.4 For example, steel mills in six key cities including Tianjin, Shijiazhuang, Tangshan, Handan, Xingtai and Anyang will be asked to keep capacity below 50% this winter, while producers in the rest of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region will keep production running at less than 70% of capacity. Furthermore, a draft plan by the city of Changzhou - which planned to implement the curbs beginning August 3 - suggests production curbs may vary by company, depending on operational situations and emission levels.5 These restrictions are applied to capacity, rather than production. Without up-to-date and accurate information on crude steel-making capacity across the different regions, it is extremely difficult to accurately quantify the impact. Specifics of the plans are up to the discretion of local authorities. Thus, these restrictions can be applied to different stages in the steel-making process (Diagram 1), impacting furnaces, pig iron or sintering plants. In some cases, the output curbs are not only restricted to the winter heating months. Several regions have been implementing curbs throughout the year on an as-needed basis. The cities of Tangshan and Changzhou are two such examples, implementing restrictions during the summer months as well. Furthermore, all industrial plants in the city of Xuzhou remain shut. High profit margins at steel mills may incentivize the shuttered illegal furnaces to restart. The industry ministry acknowledges this threat, and claims it will carry out checks on these producers to ensure they do not come back online. Diagram 1Steelmaking Production Process: Restrictions Can Be Applied To Different Stages Without full knowledge of these details, quantifying the impact of these restrictions is a challenge. Morgan Stanley estimates the impact of these curbs on steel output to be 78mm MT during the winter period by assuming capacity utilization is restricted to 50% in the key cities, while the rest of the areas cut capacity by 30%. The estimated production loss from these restrictions accounts for 9% of China's 2017 crude steel output.6 China's Ongoing Capacity-Reduction Reforms Most of the planned permanent capacity shutdowns have already taken place. Of the targeted 150mm MT of cuts between 2016 and 2020, 115mm MT have already taken place over the past two years. Furthermore, 1H17 witnessed the closure of all illegal induction furnaces producing sub-par quality steel, estimated to account for 140mm MT of crude steel capacity (Table 1).7 Table 1De-Capacity Reforms Still Ongoing We expect the magnitude of cutbacks to slow considerably. Even though the industry ministry issued a statement in February that it plans to meet steel capacity reduction targets this year - two years ahead of schedule. Furthermore, mills face restrictions on new steel capacity. China's State Council announced it intends to prevent new steel capacity additions in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Guangdong province, and Yangtze River Delta regions, and a cap set at 200mm MT in Hebei by 2020. The capacity replacement plan, which allows a maximum of 0.8 MT of new capacity for each MT of eliminated capacity, will ensure capacity does not grow going forward. In fact, not all mills are eligible to take advantage of the replacement policy. Among others, now-shuttered induction furnace capacity, as well as producers that previously benefited from cash and policy support will not meet the requirements for this program. Steel And Iron Ore Prices Will Not Reconverge As a result of China's reform policies in the steel industry, iron ore prices have diverged from steel. Reduced steel production lowers demand for raw materials, including iron ore. This is reflected in falling Chinese iron ore imports amid contracting production (Chart 5). Chart 5Weak Demand For Iron Ore Chart 6EAF Penetration In China: Still Some Catching Up To Do China's reform and anti-pollution campaigns have had serious consequences on iron ore markets. For starters, China is encouraging the adoption of electric arc furnaces (EAF), rather than additional new blast furnaces.8 While the latter primarily uses iron ore, the former uses scrap steel. EAF penetration in China's steel industry significantly lags the rest of the world (Chart 6). This means that even if the capacity-replacement program allows eliminated furnaces to be replaced with newer, more up-to-date capacity, this will not spur demand for iron ore. Instead, we expect to see higher scrap steel prices (Chart 7). Furthermore, as we first highlighted in our January report, China's anti-pollution campaign coupled with high steel profit margins has incentivized the use of higher grade iron ore and iron ore pellets, widening the price spread between high- and low- grade ores (Chart 8).9 Chart 7EAFs Support Scrap Steel Demand Chart 8IO Grade Premiums Will Remain Elevated While high-grade ores are more expensive, they emit less pollution in the steelmaking process. Similarly, unlike fines, pellets which are direct charge feedstock, are not required to undergo the highly polluting sintering stage and can be fed directly into the furnace. China's Steel Dynamics Overshadow Global Markets The ongoing supply-side reforms in China are overshadowing events in other markets. Globally, steel is expected to remain in physical deficit this year (Chart 9). This is largely on the back of an increase in world ex-China demand, and the decline in Chinese supply, despite expectations of weaker Chinese demand, and increased supply from the rest of the world (Table 2). Chart 9Physical Steel Deficit Will Persist... Table 2...Despite Weaker Chinese Demand And Stronger RoW Supply These figures do not consider the impact of the ongoing Sino - U.S. trade dispute, which could evolve into a full-blown trade war, weighing on EM incomes and demand. In such a scenario, global demand for steel would take a hit, potentially shifting global markets into surplus. In theory, trade barriers on U.S. steel imports could lead to weaker domestic supply for American users and at the same time, leave more of the metal for use by the rest of the world. The net effect of that would be a higher price for American steel relative to the rest of the world. However, since May, 20,000 requests for steel tariff exemptions have been filed in the U.S., of which the Commerce Department has denied 639. To the extent that American steel users are able to obtain tariff exemptions, the impact of the barriers on global steel markets will be muted. Bottom Line: We expect China's steel market to tighten as we go into the winter season, during which capacity cuts will be broadened to 82 cities, from last year's 28. This will keep steel prices elevated. At the same time, we expect prices of 62% Fe material and lower iron ore grades to weaken, as appetite for the steelmaking raw material contracts during these months. Mills still running in the mid-November to mid-March period will have a preference for higher-grade ores and pellets, keeping premiums on these grades elevated. Barring a significant demand-side shock, expect more upside to steel prices and downside to iron ore prices over the coming 9 months. Based on our research, we are recommending a long China rebar futures on the SHFE in 1Q19 vs. short 62% Fe iron ore futures on the Dalian DCE in 1Q19 at tonight's close. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "BHP asks for government mediation in talks at Chile's Escondida," published August 6, 2018, by uk.reuters.com. 2 Please see "Economic Watch: China can cut soybean imports in 2018 by over 10 mln tonnes," published August 5, 2018, by xinhuanet.com. 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Chinese Steel, Aluminum Markets Well Supplied Despite Winter Capacity Cuts," dated April 12, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Chinese steel output cuts to vary from mill to mill next winter," dated July 21, 2018, available at reuters.com. 5 The restrictions will not only apply to the city's steel mills, but also to copper smelters, chemical makers as well as cement producers. Please see "China's Changzhou plans to enforce output curbs in steel, chemical plants," dated July 30, 2018, available at reuters.com. 6 Please see "Shanghai steel resumes rise, coke rallies as China eyes winter curbs," dated August 2, 2018, available at reuters.com. 7 Low-quality steel produced by induction furnaces, also referred to as ditiaogang, is made by melting scrap steel using induction heat, preventing sufficient control over the quality of the steel. Platts estimates ditiaogang production in 2016 to be 30-50mm MT. As we explain in our September 7, 2017 Weekly Report titled "Slow-Down In China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore In 2018," given that ditiaogang is illegal, these closures are not reflected in official steel production figures. Thus the closures of these mills have no impact on actual steel production, but instead raise the capacity utilization rates for Chinese steel producers. 8 China launched a carbon trading system in January 2018, which penalizes blast furnace operators with higher environmental taxes relative to EAF processes. 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore," dated January 11, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Paradox 1: U.S. growth will slow, and this will force the Fed to raise rates MORE quickly. Paradox 2: China will try to stimulate its economy, and this will HURT commodities and other risk assets. Paradox 3: Global rebalancing will require the euro area and Japan to have LARGER current account surpluses. Feature Faulty Assumptions Investors assume that slower U.S. growth will cause the Fed to turn more dovish; efforts by China to stimulate its economy will boost market sentiment towards risk assets; and global rebalancing requires the euro area and Japan to reduce their bloated current account surpluses. In this week's report, we consider the possibility that all three assumptions are wrong. Let's start with the U.S. growth picture. U.S. Growth About To Slow? The U.S. economy grew by 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The composition of growth was reasonably solid. Net exports boosted real GDP by 1.1 percentage points, but this was largely offset by a 1.0 point drag from a slower pace of inventory accumulation. As a result, domestic final demand increased at a robust rate of 3.9%, led by personal consumption (up 4.0%) and business fixed investment (up 7.3%). Unfortunately, the second quarter is probably as good as it gets for growth. We say this not because we expect aggregate demand growth to falter to any great degree. Quite the contrary. Consumer confidence is high and the labor market is strong, with initial unemployment claims near 49-year lows. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' latest revisions revealed a much higher personal savings rate than had been previously estimated (Chart 1). The savings rate is now well above levels that one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 2). This raises the odds that consumer spending will accelerate. Chart 1Households Are Saving More ##br##Than Previously Thought Chart 2Consumption Could Accelerate ##br##As The Savings Rate Drops Rising consumer demand will prompt businesses to expand capacity (Chart 3). Core capital goods orders surprised on the upside in June, with positive revisions made to past months. Capex intention surveys remain at elevated levels. So far, fears of a trade war have not had a major impact on business investment. Fiscal spending is also set to rise. Federal government expenditures increased by only 3.5% in Q2, far short of the 10%-plus growth rate that some forecasters were projecting. The effect of the tax cuts have also yet to make their way fully through the economy. Supply Matters Considering all these positive drivers of demand, why do we worry that growth could slow meaningfully later this year or in early 2019? The answer is that for the first time in over a decade, demand is no longer the binding constraint to growth - supply is. Today, there are fewer unemployed workers than job vacancies (Chart 4). The number of people outside the labor force who want a job is near all-time lows. Businesses are reporting increasing difficulty in finding qualified labor. Chart 3U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex Chart 4Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings New business investment will add to the economy's productive capacity over time, but in the near term, the boost to aggregate demand from new investment spending will easily exceed the contribution to aggregate supply.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that potential real GDP growth is running at around 2%. What happens when the output gap is fully eliminated, and aggregate demand growth begins to eclipse supply growth? The answer is that inflation will rise. Instead of more output, we will see higher prices (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed Rising inflation will force the Fed to engineer an increase in real interest rates, even in the face of slower GDP growth. Such a stagflationary outcome is not good for equities, which is one reason why we downgraded our cyclical recommendation on risk assets from overweight to neutral in June. Higher-than-expected real interest rates will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A stronger dollar will hurt U.S. companies with significant foreign exposure more than it hurts their domestically-oriented peers. If history is any guide, a resurgent greenback will also cause credit spreads to widen (Chart 6). Chinese Stimulus: Be Careful What You Wish For Chinese stimulus helped reignite global growth after the Global Financial Crisis and again during the 2015-2016 manufacturing downturn. With global growth slowing anew, will China once again come to the rescue? Not quite. China does not want to let its economy falter, but high debt levels, and an overvalued property market plagued by excess capacity, limit what the authorities can do (Chart 7). Chart 6A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds ##br##To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads Chart 7China: High Debt Levels Make ##br##Credit-Fueled Stimulus A Risky Proposition Granted, the government has loosened monetary policy at the margin and plans to increase fiscal spending. However, our China strategists feel these actions are more consistent with easing off the brake than pressing down on the accelerator.2 They note that the authorities continue to squeeze the shadow banking system, as evidenced by the continued deceleration in money and credit growth, as well as rising onshore spreads for the riskiest corporate bonds (Chart 8). The Specter Of Currency Wars If Chinese growth continues to decelerate, what options do the authorities have? One possibility is to double down on what they are already doing: letting the RMB slide. Chart 9 shows that the Chinese currency has weakened substantially more over the past six weeks than its prior relationship with the dollar would have suggested. Chart 8Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chart 9The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected ##br##Based On the Broad Dollar Trend Letting the currency weaken is a risky strategy. Global financial markets went into a tizzy the last time China devalued the yuan in August 2015. The devaluation triggered significant capital outflows, arguably only compounding China's problems. This has led some commentators to conclude that the authorities would not make the same mistake again. But what if the real mistake was not that China devalued its currency, but that it did not devalue it by enough? Standard economic theory says that a country should always devalue its currency by enough to flush out expectations of a further decline. Perhaps China was simply too timid? Capital controls are tighter in China today than they were in 2015. This gives the authorities more room for maneuver. China is also waging a trade war with the United States. The U.S. exported only $188 billion of goods and services to China in 2017, a small fraction of the $524 billion in goods and services that China exported to the United States. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. In contrast, China is better positioned to wage a currency war with the United States. The Chinese simply need to step up their purchases of U.S. Treasurys, which would drive up the value of the dollar. Efforts by China to devalue its currency would invite retaliation from the United States. However, since the Trump Administration seems keen on pursuing a protectionist trade agenda no matter what happens, the Chinese may see their decision to weaken the yuan as the least bad of all possible outcomes. Unlike traditional stimulus in the form of additional infrastructure spending and faster credit growth, a currency devaluation would roil financial markets, causing risk asset prices to plunge. Metal prices would take it on the chin, since a weaker RMB would make it more expensive for Chinese businesses to import commodities. China now consumes close to half of the world's supply of copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, and iron ore (Chart 10). Investors should remain underweight emerging market equities relative to developed markets and shun the currencies of commodity-exporting economies. We are currently short AUD/CAD on the grounds that a China shock would hurt metal prices more than energy prices. The Canadian dollar is highly levered to the latter, while the Aussie dollar is more levered to the former. Global Rebalancing: It's Not About Getting To Zero We have argued before that China's high savings rate explains why the country has maintained a structural current account surplus, despite the economy's rapid GDP growth rate.3 Both the euro area and Japan also have an excessive savings problem, minus the mitigating effect of rapid trend growth. The euro area's excessive savings problem was masked during the nine years following the introduction of the euro by a massive credit boom across much of the region (Chart 11). Germany did not partake in that boom, but it was still able to export its excess savings to the rest of the euro area via a rising current account balance. Chart 10China Is A More Dominant Consumer ##br##Of Metals Than Oil Chart 11Germany Did Not Take Part ##br##In The Credit Boom Germany Needs A Spender Of Last Resort Chart 12 shows that Germany's current account surplus with other euro area members mirrored the country's increasing competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the region. In essence, the spending boom in southern Europe sucked in German exports, with German savings financing the periphery's swelling current account deficits. This is the main reason why German banks were hit so hard during the Global Financial Crisis: They were the ones who underwrote the periphery's spendthrift ways. That party ended in 2008. With the periphery no longer the spender of last resort in Europe, Germany had to find a way to export its savings to the rest of the world. But that required a cheaper currency, which Mario Draghi ultimately delivered in 2014 when he set in motion the ECB's own quantitative easing program. So where do we go from here? Germany's excess savings problem is not about to go away anytime soon. The working-age population is set to decline over the next few decades, which means that most domestically oriented businesses will have little incentive to expand capacity (Chart 13). The peripheral countries remain in belt-tightening mode. This will limit demand for German imports. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain have made significant progress in reducing unit labor costs in an effort to improve competitiveness and shift their current account balances back into surplus. Chart 12Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed ##br##Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Chart 13Germans Need To Have More Children The ECB And The BOJ Can't Afford To Raise Rates The private sector financial balance in the euro area - effectively, the difference between what the private sector earns and spends - now stands near a record high (Chart 14). Fiscal policy also remains fairly tight. The IMF estimates that the euro area's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance will be in a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2018-19, compared to a deficit of 3.8% of GDP in the United States (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area: Private Sector ##br##Balance Remains Elevated Chart 15The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight If the public sector is unwilling to absorb the private sector's excess savings by running large fiscal deficits, those savings need to be exported abroad in the form of a current account surplus. Failure to do so will result in higher unemployment, and ultimately, further political upheaval. This means that the ECB has no choice other than to keep rates near rock-bottom levels in order to ensure that the euro remains cheap. Japan has been more willing than Europe to maintain large budget deficits, but the problem is that this has resulted in a huge debt-to-GDP ratio. The Japanese would like to tighten fiscal policy, starting with the consumption tax hike scheduled for October 2019. However, this may require the economy to have an even larger current account surplus, which can only be achieved if the yen weakens further. This, in turn, suggests that the Bank of Japan will not abandon its yield curve control policy anytime soon. We were not in the least bit surprised this week when Governor Kuroda poured cold water on the idea that the BoJ was contemplating raising either its short or long-term interest rate targets. The bottom line is that thinking about global imbalances solely in terms of current account positions is not enough. One should also think about the distribution of aggregate demand across the world. Countries with demand to spare such as the United States can afford to run current account deficits, while economies with insufficient demand such as the euro area and Japan should run current account surpluses. The key market implication is that interest rates will remain structurally higher in the United States, which will keep the dollar well bid. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 This is partly because it can take a while for additional capital spending to raise aggregate supply. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

  Overweight The divergence between rising crude oil prices and the performance of exploration & production (E&P) stocks has grown remarkably wide (top panel). We continue to credit the absence of market belief in the longevity of the increase in oil prices. However, we think soaring industry capex means the view on the ground is much more positive. Planned capex has reached a level not seen since the recession, despite oil prices remaining well below the 2010-2014 highs, implying E&P companies will be a solid capex upcycle play, which remains a key BCA theme for the year (middle panel). Considering the diffusion indexes for unfilled orders and current employment in Texas, both of which set decade highs in July (bottom panel), we see little that stands in the way of the recovery. We reiterate our overweight recommendation on the S&P oil & gas E&P index and our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the broader S&P energy index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, DVN, CXO, MRO, APA, HES, NBL, EQT, COG, XEC and NFX.    

Highlights The eye of the storm is passing over the oil market. OPEC 2.0's recent production increase will temporarily halt the sharp decline in OECD commercial oil inventories, allowing stocks of crude oil and refined products in member states to level off ahead of the sharp drawdowns we expect next year (Chart of the Week).1 This will keep the front of Brent's forward curve in a modest contango going into 4Q18, and suppress short-term price volatility. Thereafter, reduced OPEC 2.0 output post-U.S. midterm elections, and lower Iranian and Venezuelan exports will force OECD inventories to resume drawing sharply, backwardating Brent's forward curve and raising oil price volatility (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekOECD Inventories Rebuild Slightly,##BR##Then Resume Falling Next Year Chart 2Brent, WTI Implied Volatility Vs. Curve Shape:##BR##Implied Vol Is Higher At Storage Extremes Chart 3Physical Oil Deficit Returns##BR##To Oil Market Next Year Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA revised its estimate of OPEC spare capacity down slightly for this year - to 1.7mm b/d from 1.8mm b/d. Spare capacity for next year was raised to 1.3mm b/d from just over 1mm b/d previously. At ~1.5% of global consumption this year and next, spare capacity is chronically low. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese policymakers could sanction new infrastructure spending and easier credit to counter slower growth related to trade tensions, Reuters reported.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. We were stopped out of our tactical long silver position with a 10% loss. Ags/Softs: Underweight. There is more evidence that U.S. ags are finding new markets. EU imports of U.S. soybeans almost quadrupled in recent weeks. This comes amid the June plunge in prices and a thawing in trade tensions, following talks between EU Commission President Juncker and President Trump late last week.4 Feature The oil market sits in the eye of a pricing storm we expect to hit later this year. Following highly vocal - and twitter-textual - jawboning by U.S. President Donald Trump, OPEC's Gulf Arab producers lifted production in June and again in July.5 Reuters survey data indicate the OPEC Cartel (including new member Congo) lifted production by 70k b/d in July, bringing output to its highest level this year (32.64mm b/d).6 KSA boosted its output to 10.6mm b/d in June, up from less than 10mm b/d in the January - May period. This likely was a combination of higher production and inventory draws. OPEC's compliance level fell to 111% of the 1.2mm b/d of cuts agreed in November 2016, versus compliance levels exceeding 150% earlier this year. This is attributed to sharp declines in Venezuela's output, sporadic losses from Libya and Nigeria, and ongoing declines in non-Gulf OPEC states. We expect Russia, the putative co-head of the OPEC 2.0 coalition, will increase production by 200k b/d in 2H18 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Global Oil Market Will Tighten Again Post-U.S. mid-term elections in November - just when the U.S. sanctions are re-imposed against Iranian crude exports - we expect OPEC 2.0 to dial back production increases made at the behest of President Trump. Continued declines in non-Gulf OPEC output, led by ongoing and deep losses in Venezuelan output, and random unplanned production outages also will contribute to a tightening on the supply side going into 2019. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Gulf will keep markets on edge, with a predisposition to push higher. This supply-side tightness will once again come up against strong global oil demand, which we estimate will grow at a 1.7mm b/d rate this year and next. We are not expecting a repeat of the evolution of prices observed following OPEC 2.0's January 2017 agreement, which cut production to reverse the massive accumulation of inventories brought about by the original cartel's market-share war launched in November 2014. This evolution is depicted in the price-decomposition model for Brent shown in Chart 4. We segmented the fundamental price drivers - i.e. demand, supply and inventories - into distinct factors, and estimated an econometric model that allows us to track whether the evolution of prices is consistent with our expectations for these factors. Chart 4Factor Decomposition For Brent Prices Our modeling indicates the 2014 - 15 decline in oil prices was driven by a not-often-seen combination of every single factor, with our OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor accounting for the largest negative contribution to the evolution of prices during this period. Since 2017, our factor model shows Brent prices have been supported by two factors acting simultaneously together: (1) the 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 (2) 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, which became the largest negative contributor to price movements, driven by strong U.S. shale production growth. Return Of Backwardation Will Spur Volatility Our ensemble forecasts for Brent in 2H18 and 2019 are $70 and $75/bbl, with WTI expected to trade $6/bbl below these levels (Chart 5). The supply-side tightening we expect, coupled with continued demand growth, will once again lead to sharp draws in OECD inventories beginning in 4Q18 and continuing into 2019, as seen in the Chart of the Week. This will steepen the backwardations in the Brent and WTI forward curves (Chart 6). Chart 5BCA Brent And##BR##WTI Forecasts Chart 6Backwardation Will Return##BR##To Brent's Forward Curve Our research shows that as the slope of the Brent and WTI forward curves steepen - i.e., backwardations become more positive in percentage terms (or contangoes become more negative) - the implied volatility of options written on these crude oil futures increases, as can be seen in Chart 2.7 All else equal, higher volatility makes options written on these crude futures more valuable. Higher Vol ... Higher Prices ... In the different scenarios we use to produce our ensemble forecast, we view the balance of risks to be on the upside. This can be seen in the different paths our scenarios cover over the next year and a half, which include physical and geopolitical variables affecting price expectations (Chart 7).8 Chart 7Higher Volatility = Wider Expected Price Range Our base case assumes the supply and demand estimates shown in Table 1, which include the loss of 500k b/d due to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iran. However, we also model the loss of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports. Furthermore, we account for the loss of ~ 800k b/d of Venezuelan exports in the event that country collapses and nothing but the 250k b/d of output required to produce refined products for the local market remains online. Lastly, we account for the Permian transportation bottlenecks preventing all of the crude produced in the Basin from getting to refiners or to export markets. In this week's publication, we also include an estimate of the 95% confidence interval derived from Brent and WTI options' implied volatilities, so that our scenarios can be placed in the context of market-derived assessments of the range in which prices will trade. ... Lower Prices ... ? In modeling these risks, we also must account for downside price risks. Most prominent among these is a resolution of the long-simmering U.S. - Iran conflict, which, from time to time, results in physical confrontation. This is an outcome markets were forced to consider earlier this week when President Trump offered to meet Iranian President Rouhani without any preconditions. Among other things, Trump suggested he would have interest in working on a nuclear-arms deal to replace the one negotiated under President Obama's watch, which he scuppered in May. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo walked this remark back later. We believe the odds of such a meeting are extremely low. The odds such meeting would lead to a resolution of animosities - or at least a working understanding between the two sides - are even lower. Even so, investors need to account for this tail risk, which, if realized could take $5 to $10/bbl out of the current oil price structure. That is, until KSA and Russia muster the OPEC 2.0 member states to again reduce production to keep prices at levels that work best for their economies. Bottom Line: Our modeling and the forecasts point to higher prices and a steepening of the backwardation in Brent and WTI forward curves. This will lead to an increase in implied volatilities for options written on these crude oil futures. For this reason, we suggest investors remain long call spreads further out the Brent forward curve in 2019, which can be found in the Strategic Recommendations table on page 10 of this publication. That said, downside risks have emerged, even if, at present, the likelihood of a diplomatic breakthrough that triggers them is remote. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. At the end of June, the coalition's member states agreed to increase production, which we estimate will raise its output ~ 275k b/d in 2H18 (vs. 1H18). We expect a physical deficit of ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 (vs 1H18, Chart 3). 2 "Contango" and "backwardation" are terms of art in commodity markets. In oil trading, when prompt-delivery crude is priced below deferred-delivery material markets are in contango; vice versa for backwardation. 3 Please see "Exclusive: China eyes infrastructure boost to cushion growth as trade war escalates - sources," published by uk.reuters.com July 27, 2018. 4 We discussed this possibility under Option 1 in our July 26, 2018, Commodity & Energy Strategy lead article entitled "Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals." It is published by BCA Research, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see our Special Report entitled "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," published jointly July 19, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "OPEC July oil output hits 2018 peak, but outages weigh: Reuters survey," published July 30, 2018, by uk.reuters.com. 7 Chart 2 shows the V-shaped mapping of implied volatility as a function of the slope of the forward curve - , i.e., the difference between the 1st- and 12th-nearby futures divided by the 1st -nearby future (to get the number in %) - against the at-the-money Implied Volatilities of 3rd-nearby Brent and WTI options (also in %). Our findings extend results published in Kogan et al (2009), who show realized volatilities calculated using historical settlements of crude oil futures have a similar V-shaped mapping with the slope of crude oil futures conditioned on 6th- vs. 3rd-nearby futures returns (in %). Please see Kogan, L., Livdan, D., & Yaron, A. (2009). "Oil Futures Prices in a Production Economy With Investment Constraints." The Journal of Finance, 64 (3), 1345-1375. Strictly speaking, volatility is the standard deviation of percent returns, usually measured on a per annum basis. Realized volatility uses futures prices to calculate returns and standard deviations; options' implied volatility is a parameter of an option-pricing model that is solved for once an option's premium, or price, is known (i.e., clears the market). This makes implied volatility a forward-looking market-cleared parameter, provided market participants agree the model used to calculate its value. Research shows implied volatilities do a better job of forecasting actual volatility than historical volatilities constructed using futures prices. See Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009). "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty." U.S. Energy Information Administration. 8 We do not try to model a closure of the Strait of Hormuz or its prices implications. We do, however, consider this in our Special Report published July 19, 2018, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," referenced above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Feature Downside Risks Haven't Gone Away We downgraded risk assets to neutral in last month's Quarterly Portfolio Outlook,1 citing an increasing number of risks to the equity bull market. Specifically, we warned about the slowdown and desynchronization of global growth, rising U.S. inflation, further deterioration in the trade war, and the ongoing slowdown in China. Markets - particularly in the U.S. - have stabilized somewhat over the past few weeks on the expectation that these risks are not particularly grave, that global growth remains robust, and that central banks will be slow to tighten. We accept that there remain upside risks (which is why we are neutral, not underweight, equities) but think many investors remain too sanguine about the downside risks. On desynchronized growth, it is true that the slowdown in the euro zone seems to have bottomed. The Citi Economic Surprise Indexes (Chart 1) suggest that downward surprises to euro zone and Japanese growth have ended, and that the U.S. is no longer surprising significantly to the upside. However, the likely path of inflation in the two regions looks very different, with U.S. core PCE inflation likely headed towards 2.5% over the next few quarters, while euro zone core inflation is stuck around 1% (Chart 2). Table 1Recommended Allocation Chart 1A Resynchronization Of Growth? Chart 2Core Inflation: Higher In The U.S. Than In The Euro Zone In particular, we think it is only a matter of time before U.S. wages start to accelerate. Unemployment has not been this low since the late 1960s. As happened then, there is typically a lag between the labor market becoming tight and inflation emerging (Chart 3). With the employment/population ratio for the key working-age demographic now back close to its 2007 level (Chart 4), and 601,000 new entrants to the labor force last month alone, that point is probably not far away. Note, too, that people switching jobs are now seeing large wage rises; those staying are not (Chart 5). With strong corporate profit growth, companies will soon start to raise wages to keep staff and fill vacancies. Chart 3Just A Matter Of Time Before Inflation Accelerates Chart 4Little Slack Left In The Labor Market Chart 5Switchers Getting Wage Rises; Stayers Not This all suggests that markets are too nonchalant about the risk of further Fed tightening. The futures market is pricing in only four rate hikes from the Fed over the next 24 months (Chart 6). We think it likely that the Fed will continue to hike by 25 basis points a quarter until something gives. By contrast, the ECB has clearly signaled that it will wait until at least September next year before raising rates; when it does so, it may hike by only 10 basis points. The futures market is close to pricing this correctly (Chart 6, panel 2). We remain concerned about further exacerbation of the retaliatory tariff war. In late July, the European Union and President Trump seemed to agree a truce, especially with regard to auto tariffs. But, even if this proves more than transitory, it is unlikely to be repeated between the U.S. and China. Both sides have raised the stakes so much that it will be politically difficult for either to back down. Further aggressive moves are likely, including a 10% tariff on all USD500 billion of Chinese imports into the U.S, and the Chinese authorities engineering a further depreciation of the Chinese yuan, and making life difficult for U.S. companies that manufacture and sell in China (where their sales total USD350 billion). Businesses around the world have woken up to this risk: capex intentions among U.S. companies have slipped recently and, in the Global ZEW survey, future expectations are now the lowest relative to current conditions since 2007, a bearish indicator (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Is Likely To Hike more Than This Chart 7Businesses Expect Things To Get Worse Moreover, we don't see China launching a massive reflationary stimulus, as it did in 2009 and 2015. In the past few weeks, it has announced some minor easing of monetary policy, targeted tax cuts, and an acceleration of this year's fiscal spending. This will be enough to cushion the downside. But interest rates have not fallen anything like as much as in previous episodes (Chart 8). The authorities have reiterated that structural reform remains the priority. Given the significant slowdown in credit growth over the past year, we expect a further deceleration in the Chinese industrial economy (and, therefore, in imports) through the end of the year. If our macro outlook is correct, it is likely to have the following consequences for financial markets: further rises in long-term interest rates (we forecast 3.3-3.5% for the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield by early 2019), a further appreciation of the U.S. dollar (as monetary policy divergences with the euro area and Japan widen further), and negative performance for emerging market assets (hurt by higher U.S. rates, the rising USD, and the slowdown in China). This points to small negative returns from global government bonds over the next 12 months. Equities are more complicated. Earnings growth remains strong. If S&P500 companies really achieve the 20% EPS growth this year and 10% next year that analysts (and BCA's models) are forecasting, the forward multiple will fall from 16.5x now to 14.0x by end-2019. We would expect to see low single-digit positive returns from global equities over the rest of the year. We accordingly remain neutral on equities, where we can see both upside and downside risks. One key is the timing of the peak in profit margins. This has typically come a few quarters before the start of a recession. Currently margins continue to improve (Chart 9). They are likely to peak around the end of this year, when wages (and input prices, partly because of higher import tariffs) begin to rise faster than sales. We expect to move underweight equities around that time, when this and other recession indicators start to flash warning signals. Chart 8Not 2015 Redux In China Chart 9Watch For The Peak In Profit Margins Currencies: The outlook for the USD remains the key to the performance of other asset classes, particularly emerging markets and commodities. We see the risk of a short-term pullback, since long speculative positions in the dollar have recently built up (Chart 10). But differences in growth, inflation, monetary policy, and long-term rates between the U.S. and other developed economies suggest further moderate dollar appreciation over the coming 12 months. We remain very negative on EM currencies. Central banks in many emerging markets have been forced to raise rates sharply in recent weeks to defend their currencies. This is likely to slow growth over coming quarters. Those central banks that have resisted hiking (for example, Turkey and Brazil) are likely to see sharp rises in inflation. Equities: We prefer developed market equities over emerging ones. Our two overweights are the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. is a defensive market, with a beta to global equities of only 0.9 over the past 20 years. But, if there were to be a last-year equity market melt-up (along the lines of 1999), it is likely to be led by internet stocks, in which the U.S. is particularly overweight, and so the U.S. overweight also acts as a hedge against this upside risk. Our overweight in Japan is based on our view that the Bank of Japan will continue its ultra-accommodative monetary policy (bolstered by the recent tweaks to the operation of the policy), even while other DM central banks are moving towards tightening. There are also some signs of wage growth picking up, which should be positive for consumer sectors. Fixed Income: We remain underweight bonds and, within the asset class, are neutral between government bonds and spread product. U.S. junk bonds continue to have some attraction as long as economic growth remains strong (and the oil price does not fall). But junk bonds typically peak one or two quarters before equities. And, in this cycle, U.S. corporate leverage began to rise rather early, which suggests that at the start of the next recession leverage will be worryingly high (Chart 11) and that junk bonds will, therefore, perform particularly poorly. Chart 10Dollar Long Positions Building Up Again Chart 11Leverage Is High For This Stage Of The Cycle Commodities: Oil has become much harder to forecast in recent weeks, with downside risk to the price of crude coming from the recently announced OPEC production increases, but upside risk from Iran (which is threatening to close the straits of Hormuz in the face of renewed U.S. sanctions) and the collapse in Venezuelan production. BCA's energy strategists see Brent falling a little to average USD70 a barrel in 2H, and at USD75 on average next year, with greater risk of upside surprises than downside.2 Industrial metals prices are likely to remain under pressure if the USD appreciates and China slows further, as evidenced by significant downside moves in copper, iron ore and other metals over the past few weeks. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Review, "Lowering Risk Assets To Neutral," dated 2 July 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated 19 July 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Chart of the WeekTrade Fears Weighing On Ag Complex Bearish sentiment in ag markets is overdone. We believe prices have bottomed. But we are not yet ready to get bullish, given the elevated trade-policy uncertainty dominating markets at present. The evolution of grains and bean prices from here will depend on whether ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and some of its largest ag markets are transitory or permanent (Chart of the Week). Highlights Energy: Overweight. We closed our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread last week with a net gain of 80%. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve in 2019, which are down an average 2.7%, and the SP GSCI, which is up 12.1%. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum prices are down ~ 1.6% in the past week, following indications from U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sanctions against Russian aluminum supplier Rusal could be removed. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices recovered slightly over the past week, but remain under pressure, given continued strength in the broad trade-weighted USD and real U.S. interest rates. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge, nonetheless. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Fundamentals support higher grain and bean prices. However, trade-policy uncertainty - particularly re Sino - U.S. relations - will keep them under pressure (see below). Feature Weather-related uncertainty typically is center stage when it comes to forecasting ag prices during the growing season. This year, trade-policy uncertainty emanating from Washington will contend with weather risk as the dominant influence on prices. We do not expect ag-related trade policies to become more hostile. This means the path of ag prices will be contingent on whether the current trade disputes - primarily between the U.S. and China - are transient or permanent features of international trade. Given what we've seen already, we can expect American farmers will fare poorly in the ongoing trade spats. U.S. agricultural exports have been disproportionately hard hit by tariffs from their most important foreign consumer markets, levied in retaliation against U.S. tariffs (Chart 2). BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy analysts assign a high probability to the escalation of current tensions into a full-blown trade war.1 Nevertheless, we believe the negative sentiment in ag markets is overdone, and that there is not much further downside from here. It is unsurprising that agriculture is a natural first target in this trade dispute. More than a quarter of U.S. crops are exported, with the share rising above 50% in many cases (Chart 3). This provides foreign consumers with ammunition in the dispute. Furthermore, these exports account for a large chunk of global ag trade, in some cases making American exports price makers in the global market. Importantly, many farmers and farm-belt voters cast ballots for Donald Trump. Chart 2American Ags Hit Hard##BR##By Trade Barriers... Chart 3...Because They Are Exposed##BR##To Foreign Markets The USDA's plans announced earlier this week to spend as much as $12 billion between September and end of harvest to help soften the impact of tariff retaliations against U.S. farm states loyal to Trump are not unexpected. The measures will entail (1) direct payments to soybean, sorghum, cotton, corn, wheat, dairy and pork farmers, (2) the procurement and subsequent re-distribution of ag products to nutrition programs, and (3) working with the private sector to promote trade and develop new export markets.2 Trade Spats Hit Grain Markets Hard Grain markets have been especially hard hit in the cross-fire between the U.S. and some of its key trade partners (Table 1). China's retaliatory tariffs are especially consequential, due to its outsized role as a main ag demand market. Table 1Ags Caught In The Crossfire All in all, the Thomson Reuters Equal Weight Grains & Oilseeds Index is down ~ 10% since end-May on the back of these tariffs. Soybeans lead the decline with a 17% loss. We have been foreshadowing this since the beginning of the year.3 Now that it's played out consistent with our previous expectations, it leaves us wondering "now what?" We see three potential scenarios unfolding in the ongoing trade skirmish: Scenario 1: The current tariffs remain in place with no significant increase in ag-relevant trade barriers.4 Scenario 2: The disputes peak soon, and de-escalate. In this scenario, tariffs imposed since the beginning of the year are reversed, ultimately leading to a free and now-fairer global trade order. Scenario 3: A complete breakdown in global trade. This scenario can take on a soft outcome whereby tariffs are increased, or to a more aggressive scenario, resulting in a seismic collapse in world trade agreements. The first two scenarios are clearly more optimistic. In Scenario 1, near-term downside to prices would be restrained, contingent on the responses of major ag consumers. We discuss their four main options and potential courses of action below. Scenario 2 is the most bullish, with price formation once again a function of supply-demand-inventory fundamentals. In this scenario, exogenous risks primarily stem from weather and U.S. financial variables. However, Scenario 3, in which a prolonged trade war pushes the global economy into a recession, would intensify the pain. This would lead to a contraction in the global flow of goods and services, reducing access to foreign markets. Additionally, it would hurt ag demand through the income channel. Consumption growth of ags is correlated with income growth. If the trade war bears down on incomes, it will reduce per-capita demand for ag commodities, which ultimately depresses prices. This is especially true in the case of lower income and emerging economies, where demand is more elastic. Impact Of Tariffs In face of higher costs brought on by U.S. tariffs, foreign buyers are essentially faced with four options: Reduce imports from the U.S., and opt to purchase more from other major producers; Reduce consumption of particular crops by substituting with others; Consume out of inventory, or Continue purchasing U.S. crops, but at a higher price. Chart 4Soybean Farmers Are Most Vulnerable Given the heightened risks surrounding the Sino-American trade dispute, we analyze these possibilities with reference to China. In addition, since soybeans are the most vulnerable of the crops hit by the trade dispute, we focus on beans, arguing that in most cases similar courses of action can be taken for other crops (Chart 4). Chinese authorities have already communicated that they plan to use options 1 - 3, and, as such, have assessed the impact of these restrictions on Chinese buyers to be minimal. Furthermore, according to a comment earlier this month by Lu Xiaodong, deputy general manager of state stockpile Sinograin, China is capable of fully meeting its needs without importing soybeans from the U.S.5 The extent to which buyers are successful in doing so will ultimately determine the overall impact of the trade dispute on U.S. ag markets. We expect China's solution will be a mélange of these four options. Below we assess these possibilities. Option 1: Chinese Buyers Are Turning To Other Major Producers An oft-noted change in Chinese purchasing behavior in reference to U.S. soybeans has been cited as the rationale for the negative sentiment towards U.S. ags. While it is true that Chinese buyers have been shunning American beans, the conclusion fails to recognize a few key points (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Soybean Exports Down On Weak Sales To China First, due to the difference in crop calendars - South American beans are harvested in spring while the U.S. crop is harvested in the fall - there is a clear seasonal pattern in China's purchasing behavior (Chart 6). Thus, greater Chinese imports of Brazilian soybeans are typical for this time of year. In addition, agricultural commodities are fungible, which means a reduction of China's imports of U.S. crops does not mean the U.S. crops will go to waste. While American crops are clearly trading at a disadvantage from the perspective of a Chinese buyer, there are still other foreign markets open to American ag exports. Now that these crops are selling at a discount, they have become much more competitive, incentivizing a shift in trade flows. This has already started - the U.S. has increased exports to consumers such as Egypt and Mexico, and even found soybeans buyers in Argentina and Brazil, both major producers of soybeans (Chart 7)! Chart 6Seasonality Is Partly To Blame Chart 7New Markets Opening Up For American Beans Option 2: China Will Adjust Its Feed Recipe China's decision to remove import tariffs on animal feed ingredients from Asian suppliers also highlights another policy route. To the extent possible, Chinese consumers will attempt to find substitutes for the now-more-costly U.S. imports. This includes supplies from alternative producers, and imports of substitute products. The potential from this option depends on the availability of close substitutes to replace ags exports affected by the Sino - U.S. trade dispute. In the case of soybeans, Chinese bean imports are crushed to produce meal and oil. The former is then used as a primary protein in livestock feed, while the latter is refined to be used in foods. Similarly, the majority of corn is also used as a critical ingredient in animal feed. As such, in face of higher costs, bean crushers will likely turn to meal from other protein substitutes such as rapeseed, peanuts and sunflower seeds. Nevertheless, soybean meal remains the optimal source of protein for livestock. Thus, while China will attempt to reduce its consumption of the tariff-laden U.S. ags, alternatives are not perfect substitutes. Consequently, this option does not completely eliminate the need for soybean imports. Option 3: Eat Into Ag Inventories Chart 8Chinese Stocks Will - Partially -##BR##Cushion The Blow Chinese ag inventories are relatively high and can cushion the blow to supply, at least temporarily (Chart 8). This means we may see a decline in Chinese stocks, on the back of drawdowns to fill in the gap left by lower imports from the U.S. While Beijing's stocks are notoriously large, there are reports that, in some cases, they are of low quality, and are unfit for human and animal consumption. Thus, this policy may appear more feasible on paper than in reality. Without accurate information regarding the size and quality of China's ag inventories, it is impossible to determine the potential of this option. Option 4: Absorb the Price Hike: Continue Importing - Now Pricier - U.S. Ags Chinese buyers likely will attempt to exhaust options 1 - 3 above, before resorting to purchasing now-pricier U.S. grains and beans. Nevertheless, it is inevitable - some U.S. ags will continue to flow to China. The relevant question - admittedly extremely difficult to quantify - is with regards to the magnitude of the impact. This essentially will depend on China's ability to use options 1 - 3, to avoid the now-higher import costs. While in the case of soybeans, U.S. exports have been shunned for now, the true test will come in the fall after the Brazilian harvest is over, and the market is flooded with the American crops. Furthermore, the 25% increase in costs due to the tariffs will, to some extent, be offset by the discount in the price of the American crops. Fundamentals Imply Higher Ag Prices While ag markets have taken several direct hits recently, we believe global fundamentals are not as bearish as current pricing conditions suggest. In the event there is a de-escalation of trade disputes - Scenario 2 above - prices will rebound to levels implied by fundamentals. While soybeans are expected to record a small surplus in the 2018 - 19 crop year, wheat and corn will be in a global deficit (Chart 9). Furthermore, global inventories - measured in stocks-to-use terms - are expected to come down. In the case of corn and soybeans, this will be the second consecutive annual decline (Chart 10). Chart 9Bullish Fundamentals On Back##BR##Of Corn And Wheat Deficits... Chart 10...And Falling##BR##Inventories In the corn market, the inventory drawdown is , to a large extent, driven by Chinese policy which is incentivizing the consumption of stocks by offering lower subsidies to corn farmers vs. soybeans, and through measures to encourage corn use for ethanol. This is expected to bring stocks down to levels last witnessed in the 1960s! On the other hand, U.S. soybean stocks are expected to continue increasing in line with lower demand for American beans by the world's largest soybean consumer (China). As always, weather is the biggest source of near term supply-side uncertainty. Wheat prices are supported by weather concerns in Europe - particularly the Black Sea region - which is damaging crops there. This is especially important given the expectation of a smaller crop there this year. Some Final Notes A couple of distinctions within the ags space reveals some ags are more vulnerable to the ongoing dispute than others. These are the number of sellers and the number of buyers in these markets. For instance, U.S. soybean exports have fewer foreign markets than corn, making them relatively more susceptible to downward price movements as supplies back up and are forced to find alternative markets. This is especially true since China is the single largest consumer of soybeans (Chart 11). Chart 11Global Wheat Market Relatively Insulated From Trade Frictions On the other hand, the global wheat market resembles a perfectly competitive market. This means that there are many buyers and sellers, each with limited ability to influence prices. Given that both the U.S. and China are price takers in this market, wheat prices will be relatively more insulated from trade headwinds. As such, we favor wheat in the current environment. Bottom Line: American farmers will be the losers in the still-evolving Sino - American trade disputes, as barriers are imposed on their exports, rendering them uncompetitive for their most significant foreign consumer. However, this will open markets for other global producers - most notably Brazil, Argentina, and the Black Sea region - making farmers there the winners in this dispute. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," dated July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Factbox: USDA's $12 billion farmer relief package," dated July 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, page 9 from "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, and "Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up," dated May 3, 2018. 4 Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team expect the trade dispute to intensify, especially before the mid-terms. However, tariffs already have been placed on most ag commodities we follow. This leaves little room for further risk from this direct channel, unless tariff rates are increased. 5 Please see "China does not need U.S. soybeans for state reserves: Sinograin official," dated June 12, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights President Trump has taken the next step in the trade war by charging some of America's major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. However, we are not headed for Plaza Accord 2.0, because neither the ECB nor the PBOC will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it. Moreover, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. With the labor market showing signs of overheating, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. The worsening trade dispute is the key risk that investors face and there are growing signs that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that most risk assets will outperform bonds and other defensive sectors in the near term. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. The flattening U.S. yield curve is also worrying. We would not ignore the signal if the curve inverts, although there are reasons to believe that it is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. We wish to see corroborating evidence from our other favorite indicators before trimming risk asset exposure to underweight. A peak in the S&P 500 operating margin would be a strong sign that the end of the cycle is drawing close. Even if trade tensions soon die down and global growth holds up, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. High-quality bonds will of course outperform in the next recession, but yields are likely to rise in the meantime. We believe that U.S. Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields. We also like Agency CMBS. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. Feature We warned in last month's Overview that investors had not yet seen "peak pessimism" on the global trade front. Right on cue, President Trump raised the stakes again in July by threatening to impose tariffs on virtually all imports of Chinese goods. Congress is pushing the President to be tough on China because American voters have soured on trade. China will not easily back down with the authorities responding in kind to the U.S. President's trade threats. They have also allowed the RMB to depreciate to cushion the trade blow (Chart I-1). It is not clear whether the authorities purposely depressed the RMB or whether they simply failed to lean against market pressures. Either way, it is a dangerous approach because it has clearly raised the U.S. President's ire. Chart I-1RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board President Trump has taken the next step in the broader trade war by charging some major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. The script appears to be following previous times that the U.S. sought trade adjustment via tariffs and currency re-alignment: the early 1970s and the 1985 Plaza Accord. Adjusting currencies on a sustained basis requires much more than simply "talking down" the dollar. There must be major changes in relative monetary and/or fiscal policies vis-à-vis U.S. trading partners. On the fiscal front, expansionary U.S. policy is working at cross purposes with the desire to have a weaker dollar and a smaller trade gap. We do not foresee the U.S. President having any success in changing the broad thrust of monetary policy either. Europe and Japan enjoyed booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and thus had the luxury of placating the U.S. by adjusting monetary policy and thereby appreciating their currencies. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that generates major bull markets in their currencies. Neither the ECB nor the People's Bank of China (PBOC) will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it.1 It is also unlikely that the Bank of Japan will raise the 10-year yield target to either strengthen the yen or to help bank profits. This is not Plaza Accord 2.0. Powell Isn't Arthur Burns As for the Fed, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. The Fed is more open and independent today than in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if Fed Chair Powell were amenable, any hint that he is being politically manipulated to change course would result in a bond market riot that would rattle investors to their core. More likely, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. Powell could not be any clearer in his July Congressional Testimony: "With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that-for now-the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the federal funds rate." Investors should not be fooled by the uptick in the U.S. unemployment rate in June. The rise reflected a pop in the labor force participation rate. However, the labor force figures are volatile and there is no upward trend evident in the participation rate. The real story is that the labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. The Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers shows that wage growth is accelerating. Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which leads core CPI inflation by 18 months, has already jumped to almost 3 ½% (Chart I-2). Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on cost increases to consumers (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Inflation Is Percolating Chart I-3U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise The Minutes from the mid-June FOMC meeting included a lengthy discussion of the growing signs of inflation pressure and labor shortage. Firms are responding to the lack of qualified labor by offering training, automating, and boosting wages. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bottlenecks and other cost pressures are boiling over in the transportation sector. Despite an acute shortage of truck drivers, the average hourly earnings data do not show any acceleration in their wages (Chart I-4, second panel). However, these data do not include bonuses, which have been on the rise. The PPI for truck transportation services was up 7.7% year-over-year in June, while the Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices rose 15.9% year-over-year. The latter does not even include fuel costs. These pipeline cost pressures have implications not only for the Fed, but for corporate profit margins as well (see below). Chart I-4U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over The U.S. Yield Curve: A Red Flag? The FOMC expects that the fed funds rate will continue to rise and will temporarily exceed its 2.9% estimate of the neutral rate. If the true neutral rate is higher than the Fed's estimate, then the FOMC could find itself hiking too slowly and the economy could severely overheat. And vice versa if the true neutral rate is below 2.9%. We are keeping a close eye on the yield curve as an indication of policy tightness. If the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would signal that the market believes that policy is turning restrictive. It is possible that the yield curve is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. First, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate in the post-GFC world. The collective market wisdom on this could be wrong. Indeed, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes the case that the neutral rate is rising faster than most investors believe.2 Structural factors have depressed the neutral rate, including population aging and low productivity growth. However, these structural tailwinds for bond prices are now slowly turning into headwinds. Moreover, as Peter argues, cyclical pressures are acting to lift the neutral rate. Private credit growth is rising faster than nominal GDP growth again. The same is true for housing and equity wealth, at a time when the personal saving rate is falling. All this implies strong desired spending which, in turn, suggests a higher neutral rate of interest. It will be important to watch the housing market; if it remains healthy in the face of rate hikes, it means that the neutral rate is still north of the actual fed funds rate. Chart I-5 presents today's market expectation for the real fed funds rate, based on the forward OIS curve and the forward CPI swaps curve. Technical issues may be distorting forward rates in 2019, but we are more interested in expectations further into the future. The real fed funds rate is expected to hover in the 55-75 basis point range until 2024. It then rises to about 1%, but not until almost the end of the next decade. This appears overly complacent to us, suggesting that the risks are to the upside for market expectations of the terminal, or neutral, short-term interest rate. If the neutral rate is indeed higher than the market is currently discounting, then an inverted curve may be premature in signaling that policy is too tight and that an economic slowdown is on the horizon. Moreover, the term premium on long-term bonds may still be depressed by asset purchases by the Fed and the other major central banks, again suggesting that the curve will more easily invert than in the past. There is much disagreement on this issue, even among FOMC members and among BCA strategists. This publication is sympathetic to the work done by the Fed Staff which suggests that the term premium has been substantially depressed by quantitative easing. Chart I-6 shows the annual change in the size of G4 central bank balance sheets (inverted), along with an estimate of the term premium in the 10-year government bonds of the major countries. The chart is far from conclusive, but it is consistent with the view that QE has depressed term premia worldwide. Moreover, forward guidance and the low level of inflation since the GFC have undoubtedly dampened interest-rate volatility, which theory suggests is a key driver of the term premium. Chart I-5Policy Rate Expectations Chart I-6Depressed Term Premiums ##br##Distort Yield Curves The factors that have depressed the term premium are beginning to reverse, including G4 central bank balance sheets. Still, the premium will trend higher from a low starting point, suggesting that an inverted curve today may not necessarily signal a recession. That said, it would be wrong to completely dismiss a U.S. curve inversion, given its excellent track record. Historically, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has worked better than the 2/10 yield slope in terms of calling recessions. An inversion of the 3-month/10-year curve has successfully heralded all seven recessions in the past 50 years with one false positive signal. Nonetheless, the curve tends to be very early, inverting an average of almost 12 months before the recession. And, given the possible distortion to the term premium, we would want to see corroborating evidence before jumping to the conclusion that an inverted curve is sending a correct recession signal. For example, the U.S. and/or global Leading Economic Indicator would need to turn negative. The bottom line is that a curve inversion would not be enough on its own to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, we are not dismissing the message from the yield curve either, especially in the context of a trade war that could prematurely end the expansion. Trade War Hitting Economy? Estimates based on macro models suggest that the damage to global GDP growth from higher tariffs would be quite small. Nonetheless, these models do not incorporate the indirect, or second-round, effects of rising tariff walls. Business leaders abhor uncertainty, and will no doubt hold off on major capital expenditure plans until the trade dust settles. The uncertainty can then ripple through the economy to industries that are not directly affected by the trade action. The extensive use of global supply chains reinforces this ripple effect. Labor is not free to move between countries or between industries to facilitate shifts in production that are required by changing tariffs. Capital is more mobile, but it is still expensive to shift machinery. Some of the world's capital stock could become "stranded", raising the cost of the tariffs to the world economy. Finally, important economies-of-scale are lost when firms no longer have access to a single large global market. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, sorts out the U.S. equity sector winners and the losers from a trade war with China. Spoiler alert: there are not many winners! The bottom line is that the trade threat for the global economy and risk assets is far from trivial. The negative trade headlines have not had a meaningful economic impact so far, but there are some worrying signs. A number of indicators suggest that global growth continues to slow, including the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index, the Global ZEW sentiment index and the BCA Global Credit Impulse index (Chart I-7). The softness in these indicators predates the latest flaring of trade tensions. Nonetheless, business confidence outside the U.S. has dipped (fourth panel). Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies (production related to energy, consumer products and IT remain strong; Chart I-8). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Chart I-8...In Part Due To Capital Spending None of these data are flagging a disaster, but they all support the view that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Even if trade tensions soon die down, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Late Cycle Investing Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods. Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment). This month we look at asset class returns during late cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart I-9). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM manufacturing index. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table I-1 presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the following recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in the margin to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart I-9Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Table I-1Late-Cycle Asset Returns We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cases the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a six month horizon. Similar to Treasurys, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasurys after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative absolute returns after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but relative performance was mixed after margins peaked. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value stocks before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend Aristocrats performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recessions on average, but the performance was not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge Funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns were a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured Product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns were attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during one of the recessions. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The historical return analysis underscores that it is dangerous to remain aggressively positioned late in an economic cycle because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears prudent. Based on this approach, investors should generally remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investors should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak. For fixed income, investors should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. There are some assets other than government bonds that generated a positive average return late in the cycle and during the recession periods, suggesting that they are good late-cycle assets to hold. However, this is misleading because in some cases they experienced a significant correction either during or slightly before the recession (see the maximum drawdown columns in Table I-1; blank cells indicate that the asset did not experience a correction). These include IG credit, CMBS, ABS, Gold and Dividend Aristocrats. The only assets in our list that provided both a positive return across all the phases in Table I-1 and avoided a correction during the recessions, were mortgage-backed securities, Timberland and Farmland. A Special Report from BCA's Global Asset Allocation service found that Timberland is a superior inflation hedge to Farmland, but the latter is a superior hedge against recessions and equity bear markets.3 We believe that Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields (as long as the Treasury selloff is not extreme). Our fixed income team also likes Agency CMBS.4 When Will U.S. Margins Peak? It is impressive that S&P 500 after-tax operating margins are extremely elevated and still rising. The trend has been aided by tax cuts, but corporate pricing power has improved and wage growth has not yet accelerated enough to damage margins. Chart I-10 presents some indicators to monitor as we await the cyclical peak in profit margins. These are generally not leading indicators, but they do provide some warning when they roll over late in the cycle. The first is the BCA Margin Proxy, which is the ratio of selling prices for the non-financial corporate sector to unit labor costs. Margins have tended to fall historically when the growth rate of this ratio is below zero. The same is true for nominal GDP growth minus aggregate wages. The aggregate wage bill incorporates both changes in wages/hour and in total hours worked. We are also watching a diffusion index of the changes in margins for the industrial components of the S&P 500, as well as BCA's Corporate Pricing Power indicator. The latter takes into consideration price changes at the detailed industry level. Chart I-10U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch None of these indicators are signaling an imminent top in margins, but all appear to have peaked except the Corporate Pricing Power indicator. An equally-weighted average of these four indicators, labelled the U.S. Composite Margin Indicator in Chart I-10, is falling but is still above the zero line. We would not be surprised to see S&P 500 margins peak for the cycle late early in 2019. Conclusions: The S&P 500 has so far been largely immune to shocking trade headlines with the help of a solid start to the U.S. Q2 earning season. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that investors should remain fully-exposed to most risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. These risks include a possible hard economic landing in China, crises in one or more EM countries, and an escalation in the trade war among others. Some investors appear to believe that the U.S. can "win" the trade war, but there are no winners when tariff walls are rising. We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. This includes equities, corporate bonds, EM assets and other risky sectors. An inversion of the yield curve could trigger a shift to underweight, although this signal would have to be corroborated by our other favorite U.S. and global indicators. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. The first statements by Jay Powell as FOMC Chair underscored that it is too early to hide in Treasurys. Market expectations for real short-term interest rates are overly benign out to the middle of the next decade. Moreover, the Fed is not in a position to be proactive in leaning against the negative impact of rising tariffs because inflation is near target and the labor market is showing signs of overheating. This means that bond yields are headed higher until economic pain is clearly evident. Keep duration short of benchmark. Long-term rate expectations for the Eurozone appear even more complacent than they do for the U.S. The real ECB policy rate is expected to remain in negative territory until 2028 (Chart I-5)! At some point there will be a convergence of real rate expectations with the U.S., which will boost the value of the euro. Nonetheless, we believe that it is too early to position for rate convergence. Core inflation is still well below target and Eurozone economic growth has softened recently, suggesting that the ECB will be in no hurry to lift rates once asset purchases have ended. ECB policymakers will be disinclined to cater to President's Trump's desire for tighter monetary policy in Europe, which means that the U.S. dollar has more upside versus the euro and in broad trade-weighted terms. An escalation in the trade war would augment upward pressure on the greenback. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. Emerging market assets are particularly vulnerable to another upleg in the dollar because of the high level of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. Favor DM to EM equity markets and currencies. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 26, 2018 Next Report: August 30, 2018 1 For more information on why a replay of the 1985 Plaza Accord is unlikely, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem," dated July 25, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Housing Will Drive the Global Business Cycle...Again," dated July 6, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation Service Special Report "U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer," dated October 24, 2017, available on gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem," dated July 17, 2018, available on usbs.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity-related indicators flashed caution again in July, despite robust U.S. corporate earnings indicators. Forward earnings estimates continued to surge in July. The net revisions ratio and the earnings surprises index remained well above average, suggesting that forward earnings still have upside potential in the coming months. However, several of our indicators suggest that it is getting late in the bull market. Our Monetary Indicator is approaching very low levels by historical standards. Equities are still close to our threshold of overvaluation, at a time when our Composite Technical Indicator appears poised to break down. An overvalued reading is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Equity sentiment is close to neutral according to our composite indicator, but the low level of implied volatility suggests that investors are somewhat complacent. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator has fallen significantly this year, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a ‘sell’ signal in July. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. This month’s Overview section discusses the upside potential for the term premium in the yield curve and for market expectations of the terminal fed funds rate. This year’s dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but we still believe it has some upside while market expectations for the terminal fed funds rate adjust upward. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Global Yields: Flattening government yield curves in the developed world have raised concerns about a potential future growth slowdown. Yet real policy rates will need to move into positive territory before monetary policy becomes truly restrictive and curves invert. This means global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. UST-Bund Spread: The U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). UST Technicals: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains bearish. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Feature In most years, investment professionals can look forward to taking some well-deserved time off in July to hit the beach and read a good book. This year, those same investors are forced to keep an eye on their Bloombergs while responding to the public musings of Donald Trump. The president made comments late last week that threatened the independence of the Federal Reserve, while also accusing China and Europe of currency manipulation. While those headlines can briefly move markets on a sunny summer day, they represent more Trump-ian bluster than any potential change in the conduct of U.S. monetary or currency policy. Chart of the WeekCan Policy Be Truly "Tight"##BR##With Negative Real Rates? The underlying dynamic remains one of mixed global growth (strong in the U.S., slowing almost everywhere else) but with low unemployment and rising inflation in most major economies. That means that independent, inflation-fighting central bankers must focus on their inflation mandates. In the U.S., that means more Fed rate hikes and a firm U.S. dollar, regardless of the desires of President Trump - the author of the large fiscal stimulus, at full employment, which is forcing the Fed to continue hiking rates. In other countries, however, the economic backdrop is leading to varying degrees of central banker hawkishness. That ranges from actual rate hikes (Canada) to tapering of bond buying (Europe, Japan) to merely talking up the potential for rate increases (U.K., Sweden, Australia). The aggregate monetary policy stance of the major developed market central banks is now tilted more hawkishly. So it is no surprise that global government bond yield curves have been flattening and returns on risk assets have been underwhelming (Chart of the Week). Yet the reality is that all major global curves still have a positive slope, even in the U.S. and Canada where central banks have been most actively tightening, while real policy interest rates remain below zero. It would be highly unusual for yield curves to invert before real rates turned positive, especially if central bankers must move to an outright restrictive stance given tight labor markets and rising realized inflation. This implies that there is more scope for global bond yields to rise over the next 6-12 months. We continue to recommend that investors maintain a defensive overall duration stance ... and to focus more on that good book on the beach and less on Trump's Twitter feed. Where To Next For The Treasury-Bund Spread? Chart 2A Pause In The Rising Yield Trend,##BR##Not A Reversal The rise in bond yields in both the U.S. and euro area seen in the first quarter of 2018 has been partly reversed since then. One of the culprits has been a stalling of the rally in oil markets, which has prompted a pause in the rise of inflation expectations on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 2). Yet another factor has been the larger decline in real bond yields, which have fallen around 20bps in the both the U.S. and euro area since the peak in mid-May (bottom two panels). A potential driver of those lower real yields is the growing concern over the potential hit to global growth from rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China (and Europe, Canada, Mexico, etc). This comes at a time when China's economic growth was already slowing and acting as a drag on global trade activity and commodity prices. There has been significant weakness in China's currency and equity market of late, which raises the specter of another broader global selloff as occurred during the Chinese turbulence of 2015/16. Yet the declines in industrial metals prices and emerging market corporate debt have been far more modest so far in 2018 (Chart 3). A big reason for that has been the more subdued performance of the U.S. dollar this year, unlike the massive surge in 2015/16 that crushed risk assets worldwide (Chart 4). A more likely driver of the recent drop in real yields in the U.S. and core Europe was the slump in euro area economic data earlier in 2018. That move not only drove yields lower, but also pushed out the market-implied timing of the first ECB rate hike (Chart 5) and drove the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds to new wides. In our last Weekly Report, we updated our list of indicators in the U.S. and euro area that we have been monitoring to assess if our below-benchmark duration stance was still appropriate.1 The conclusion was that the underlying trends in growth and inflation on both sides of the Atlantic still supported higher bond yields on a cyclical basis, although the pressures were greater in the U.S. Yet at the same time, the gap between U.S. and euro area government bond yields has remained historically wide, with the 10-year Treasury-German Bund spread now sitting at 255bps - the highest level since the late 1980s. Chart 3Slowing Growth##BR##In China... Chart 4...But Not Yet Enough To Threaten##BR##Global Financial Stability Monetary policy differences have historically been the biggest driver of that spread. Today, the Fed is well into an interest rate hiking cycle that began nearly three years ago, and is now in the process of unwinding its balance sheet. Meanwhile, the ECB has been keeping policy rates at or below 0% while engaging in large-scale bond buying (Chart 6). Chart 5A Turn In European Yields##BR##On The Horizon? Chart 6Wide UST-Bund Spread Reflects##BR##Monetary Policy Divergences When looking at more typical fundamental drivers of the Treasury-Bund spread, many of the cross-regional differences are already "in the price". The spread appears to have overshot relative to the three main factors that go into our Treasury-Bund spread valuation model (Chart 7): The gap between Fed and ECB policy rate The ratio of the U.S. unemployment rate to the euro area equivalent The gap between headline inflation in the U.S. and euro area The Fed's rate hikes have now widened the policy rate differential versus the ECB equivalent (the short-term repo rate) to 200bps. At the same time, the rapidly improving situation in the euro area labor market now means that the unemployment ratio has been constant over the past couple of years, while euro area inflation has also caught up a bit toward U.S. levels in recent months. Adding it all up together in our Treasury-Bund valuation model - which also includes the sizes of the Fed and ECB balance sheets to quantify the impact on yields of bond-buying programs - and the conclusion is that the current spread level of 255bps is 50bps above "fair value" (Chart 8). Chart 7UST-Bund Spread Overshooting Fundamentals Chart 8UST-Bund Spread Looks Wide On Our Model Importantly, fair value is still rising, primarily because of the widening policy rate differential. We have consistently argued that the true cyclical peak in the Treasury-Bund spread will occur when the Fed is done with its rate hike cycle. Yet there are opportunities to play that spread more tactically, based on shorter-term indicators. For example, the gap between the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area has been a correlated to the momentum of the Treasury-Bund spread, measured as the 13-week change of the level of the spread (Chart 9). Data surprises are now bottoming out in the euro area while they continue to drift lower in the U.S. As a result, the Treasury-Bund spread momentum has begun to fade, right in line with the narrowing of the data surprise differential. Also from a more technical perspective, the deviation of the Treasury-Bund spread from its 200-day moving average is at one of the more stretched levels of the past decade. Combined with the extended spread momentum, this suggests that the Treasury-Bund spread should expect to see a period of consolidation in the next few months (Chart 10). Chart 9Relative Data Surprises No Longer##BR##Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 10UST-Bund Spread Momentum##BR##Got To Stretched Extremes We have been recommending both a structural short U.S./long core Europe position in our model bond portfolio for over a year now. We also entered into a trade that directly played for a wider 10-year Treasury-Bund spread in our Tactical Trade portfolio. We initiated that recommendation on August 8th, 2017 when the spread was at 162bps. With the spread now at 255bps, we are now closing out that recommendation this week, taking a profit of 7% (inclusive of the gains from hedging the Bund exposure into U.S. dollars).2 At the same time, we feel that it is too early to position for a narrowing of the Treasury-Bund spread. The large U.S. fiscal stimulus will continue to put upward pressure on U.S. bond yields over the next year, both through higher U.S. inflation and the associated need for tighter Fed policy. Already, the Treasury-Bund spread reflects both the relatively larger dearth of spare capacity in the U.S. economy (Chart 11) and the expected widening of the U.S. federal budget deficit compared to reduced deficits in the euro area (Chart 12). Much like the rise in the fair value of the Treasury-Bund spread, this suggests that there is limited downside for the spread on a more medium-term basis. Chart 11UST-Bund Spread Narrowing Will Be##BR##Limited By Faster U.S. Growth... Chart 12...The Result Of Looser##BR##U.S. Fiscal Policy We are taking profits on our tactical spread based on our read of all of our relevant indicators. There is a good chance, however, that we could consider re-entering a spread widening trade on any meaningful narrowing of the spread or adjustment in our indicators. Bottom Line: The fundamental drivers of the 10-year U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread continue to point to the spread staying wide over the next 6-12 months. Yet the spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). A Quick Update On U.S. Treasury Market Technicals One of the overriding aspects of the U.S. Treasury market over the past few months has been the stretched technical backdrop. The combination of oversold price momentum, bearish sentiment and aggressive short positioning have helped keep yields in check, even as U.S. growth and inflation accelerate and the Fed continues to signal more future rate hikes. Back in March, we presented a study of previous episodes of an oversold U.S. Treasury market since the year 2000.3 Our goal was to determine how long it typically took for a resolution of oversold Treasury market conditions. Unsurprisingly, we concluded that the longest episodes of oversold Treasuries occurred when U.S. economic growth and core inflation were both accelerating, and vice versa. At the time of that report, all of the technical indicators that we looked at were signaling that Treasury bearishness was deeply entrenched (Chart 13). Now, four months later, there has been some change in those indicators: Chart 13UST Technical Indicators##BR##Are More Mixed Now The 10-year Treasury yield relative to its 200-day moving average: then, +43bps; now, +18bps The trailing 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index: then, -4.3%; now, -0.6% The J.P. Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders: then, very large underweight duration positioning; now, positioning is neutral The Market Vane index of bullish sentiment for Treasuries: then, near the bottom of the range since 2000; now, still near that same level The CFTC data on speculator positioning in 10-year U.S. Treasury futures: then, a large net short of -8% (scaled by open interest); now, still a large net short of -11%. Therefore, the message from the technical indicators is more mixed now than in March. Price momentum and duration positioning is now neutral, while sentiment and speculative positions remain stretched. The former suggests that there is scope for Treasury yields to begin climbing again, while the latter implies that there may still be room for some counter-trend short-covering Treasury rallies in the near term. In our March study, we defined the duration of each episode of an oversold Treasury market by the following conditions: The start date was when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 30bps above its 200-day moving average and the Market Vane Treasury bullish sentiment index dipped below 50; The end-date was when the yield declined below its 200-day moving average. The details of each of those episodes can be found in Table 1. This is the same table that we presented back in March, but we have now added the current episode. At 150 days in length, this is already the fourth longest period of an oversold Treasury market since 2000. Yet perhaps most surprising is the fact that Treasury yields are essentially unchanged since the start date of the current episode (March 20th, 2018). There is no other period in our study that where yields did not decline while the oversold market resolved itself. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold U.S. Treasury Market Perhaps this can be interpreted as a sign that there is still scope for a final short-covering Treasury rally before this current oversold episode can truly end. Yet as we concluded in our March study, it took an average of 156 days for an oversold market to be fully corrected if U.S. growth was accelerating (i.e. the ISM manufacturing index was rising) and core PCE inflation were both rising at the same time - as is currently the case (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S. Growth/Inflation Backdrop Points To Yields Consolidating, Not Reversing The longest such episode in 2003/04 lasted for 203 days before the 10-year yield fell below its 200-day moving average. Yet the second longest episode (196 days) occurred in 2013/14, and Treasury yields ended up climbing to a new cyclical high before eventually peaking. Given the underlying positive momentum in both U.S. economic growth and inflation, but with a mixed message from the technical indicators, we suspect that this current oversold episode may have further to run. Yet as we concluded back in March, and still believe today, it will prove difficult to earn meaningful returns betting on a counter-trend decline in yields this time, as any such move will likely be modest in size and lengthy in duration. Bottom Line: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains very bearish and there are large speculative short positions. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market", dated July 17th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The return on this trade is calculated using the Bloomberg Barclays 7-10-year government bond indices for the U.S. and Germany, adjusted for duration differences between the indices. The German return is hedged into U.S. dollars, as this trade was done on a currency-hedged basis. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering From Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns