Asset Allocation

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Bank profits are unlikely to match those of the broad market if the Fed hikes interest rates and loan demand cools. Sell into strength. Gold shares are looking increasingly attractive, but we will refrain from upgrading until the U.S. dollar is closer to a peak. Drug pricing power is worse than government data suggests, warranting a downshift in our previously upbeat view toward pharmaceutical equities. Recent Changes S&P Health Care - Removed from our high conviction list. Upgrade Alert Gold Shares - Currently neutral. Downgrade Alert S&P Pharmaceuticals Index - Currently overweight. S&P Biotech Index - Currently overweight. Table 1 Feature Chart 1From Greed To Fear The gaping mismatch between fundamentals and broad market valuations remains intact, but will be in jeopardy of re-converging should the Fed signal an intention to tighten monetary conditions through next year. As previously outlined, our view is that the economy, particularly the corporate sector, will struggle further if financial conditions become more restrictive and/or election uncertainty persists. Indeed, investors have been scrambling to buy protection, aggressively bidding up near-term VIX contracts, especially relative to longer-term contracts. While it is tempting to view this increase in fear as a contrary positive, this measure typically sinks lower when investors turn cautious. Chart 1 shows that tactical broad market vulnerability still exists. On a more fundamental basis, the non-financial corporate sector's return on equity has already fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years (Chart 2). Yet the median price/sales and price/earnings ratios are flirting with all-time highs (Chart 2). That divergence is not sustainable, given the direct link between ROE, profit growth and valuations. Central bank benevolence has underwritten this gap. Third quarter earnings have failed to impress thus far, keeping the equity market locked in a tight range. So far, one nascent trend is that domestic and consumer-linked equities appear to be gaining traction at the expense of global, business-dependent sectors. We expect the complexion of earnings contributions to become more lopsided in the quarters ahead, in support of most of these budding trend changes. The inevitable upshot of a strong U.S. dollar is deteriorating profit breadth. Chart 3 shows that the number of industry groups experiencing rising forward earnings estimates is likely to erode as the currency strengthens. Clearly, industries most reliant on exports and/or capital spending are most vulnerable. The corporate sector has run up debt levels and is struggling to generate profit growth. In turn, business spending has been compromised, as measured by the contraction in core durable goods orders (Chart 3). On the flipside, consumers have rebuilt their savings and are enjoying the benefits of a positive wealth effect. The increase in real wage and salary growth is underpinning real median household income. The latter surged 5.2%, posting the largest percentage increase in the history of the data. Consumer income expectations are well supported (Chart 3, top panel). The implication is that consumption-oriented plays should be well positioned to deliver profit outperformance, even if the labor market slows. From an investment theme perspective, the upshot is domestic-oriented areas are poised to make a comeback relative to globally-exposed sectors after a burst of speed in recent months (Chart 4). Net earnings revisions are already shifting in that direction, with more upside ahead based on U.S. dollar strength, as well as dirt cheap relative valuations (Chart 4). Chart 2A Disturbing Mismatch Chart 3Consumers Are Stronger Than Corporates Chart 4Favor Domestic Vs. Global One exception is the banking sector, where there is limited scope for earnings outperformance and/or valuation expansion. Bank Stocks Are Showing Signs Of Life, But... Bank stocks have moved higher, following the sell-off in global bond markets and steepening in yield curves sparked initially by the Bank of Japan's curve targeting shift and a reversal of incremental easing expectations from the Bank of England. However, we are not convinced that the relative performance bear market is over. A Special Report published on October 3 surveyed the performance of banks during Fed tightening cycles, to help put context around the widely held view that Fed rate hikes will bolster bank stocks on a sustained basis. History shows there has been only a loose relationship between the Fed funds rate and net interest margins. It would take rising rate expectations within the context of a steeper yield curve, improving credit quality and rapid loan growth to justify an optimistic profit outlook. Bank profits have not been able to outpace the broad corporate sector since the beginning of 2015 (Chart 5, top panel), even though loan growth has been healthy and overall earnings were crushed by the implosion in commodity prices during that period, allowing most other sectors to show earnings outperformance. Will another 25 bps interest rate hike remedy this? The Fed is keen to hike rates partially because it views them as being overly accommodative for an economy operating close to full employment, and is keen to reestablish firepower in advance of the next economic downturn. But there is scant evidence of economic overheating to support the view that rates have been 'too low'. Inflation and inflation expectations, while up from very depressed levels, are still historically low and the economy is struggling to grow at, let alone above, trend. Consequently, a strident Fed would boost the odds of a policy mistake. The market appears to share that view, given the failure of the yield curve to stop narrowing since the taper talk started, notwithstanding the recent blip up (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5Why Would Bank Profits Outperform Now? Chart 6Beware U.S. Dollar Strength Now that the USD is strengthening anew, the odds of imported deflation have climbed, to the detriment of corporate profits and bank stock relative performance (Chart 6, top panel). While nominal yields have backed up, real 2-year yields have declined, which is not consistent with an upgrading in economic expectations. Indeed, C&I loan growth has dropped sharply in recent weeks (Chart 6). By extension, it is hard to envision long-term yields rising much, if at all, which will keep net interest margins thin. Furthermore, if overall earnings remain stuck in neutral, corporate credit quality will undoubtedly worsen given the debt binge in recent years. Non-performing loans have only just begun to increase. Higher interest rates will not solve these problems. Instead, the downturn in credit quality could accelerate via more onerous debt servicing requirements, given the lack of a corporate sector balance sheet cushion. Perhaps more worrying is that banks are no longer pruning cost structures, which is unusual given that credit standards are tightening on most credit products outside of traditional mortgages. In the last 25 years, or as far back as we have the data, bank stocks lagged the broad market after bank employment started rising. The only exception was in the aftermath of the tech bubble, when all non-TMT sectors outperformed (Chart 7). If banks continue to expand their wage bill, without a widening in net interest margins and/or reversal in increased loan loss reserving, bank profits will fail to match the growth rate of the overall S&P 500. The optimal, but not exclusive, time for banks to outperform is typically exiting recession, when policy is easing and the yield curve is steepening, and in the late innings of an expansion. In fact, productivity is sagging throughout the financial sector. Financial sector employment is probing new highs (Chart 8), reflecting a more onerous cost structure required to meet regulatory obligations. Employment is now growing faster than sales, a reliable indication of flagging productivity. The implication is that financial sector profits will continue to lag those of the broad market. Chart 7Beware Rising Bank Employment Chart 8Sectoral Productivity Drain Bottom Line: Strength in bank stocks is a chance to sell. Is It Time To Buy Back Gold Shares? Gold shares are bouncing after having been punished in the last few months. Overheated technical conditions and prospects for a more hawkish Fed led us to recommend taking profits in August, despite a positive long-term outlook. Indeed, the likelihood of a prolonged period of negative to ultra-low real interest rates is high given startlingly low potential GDP growth in most of the developed world. Gold shares typically do well in the aftermath of a debt binge, as proxied by our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, shown advanced, Chart 9). It is unnerving that the CHM has suffered such a broad-based deterioration without any back up in interest rates. Low interest rates and tight credit spreads have cushioned what has otherwise been a stark erosion in debt servicing capabilities: there is little scope for a parallel upshift in the global interest rate structure. These are bullish conditions for gold shares, as captured by the upbeat reading in our Cyclical Gold Indicator (Chart 9, top panel). As such, when we took profits we advised that we would look to return to an overweight position once tactical downside risks had been reduced. Are we there yet? Chart 10 suggests that extreme bullishness toward the yellow metal has not yet fully unwound. While the share price ratio has dropped back to its 200-day moving average, cyclical momentum remains elevated, as measured by the 52-week rate of change. Sentiment in the commodity pits is still elevated, flows into gold ETFs are still strong and net speculative positions have not yet made a full retreat (Chart 10), especially in view of the recent politically-motivated pop in market volatility. The implication is that there could be additional selling pressure in the coming weeks. Chart 9Cyclically Appealing, But... Chart 10... Still Tactically Frothy Chart 11The Currency Is Critical In terms of potential buy triggers, anything that causes the U.S. dollar to lose its bid is a strong candidate. Ironically, a Fed rate hike could produce such an outcome, contrary to popular wisdom. In our view, the U.S. (and global) economy cannot handle tighter financial conditions, and a rise in interest rates would need to be offset by a weaker currency. Gold shares perform well when economic expectations are faltering (Chart 11, shown inverted), and a hawkish Fed would likely raise global economic fears. On the flipside, a go-slow Fed could keep the currency bid. That would allow the economy more time to heal and recover, and possibly overheat, thereby potentially boosting future returns on capital, certainly relative to other countries where output gaps remain larger. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on gold stocks, but put them on upgrade alert in recognition that an upgrade back to overweight could occur sooner rather than later, i.e. by yearend, depending on macro dynamics. What To Do With Drug Stocks? A number of drug wholesalers reported earnings misses and provided disappointing guidance, specifically citing worse than expected generic pricing pressure, enough to offset ongoing branded drug price increases. In the current environment of political uncertainty toward health care companies, the knee jerk reaction has been to abandon all pharmaceutical-related equities, regardless of exposure to branded or generic medicines. Our pharmaceutical equity view has noted that the time to worry about the pace of drug price increases would be if they sparked a change in consumption patterns and/or buyer behavior. The fact that major buying groups such as health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are balking at generic drug price increases constitutes such a shift. Consumer spending on drugs has slowed, albeit that has not been confirmed by neither strong retail drug store sales nor booming hospital employment (Chart 12). Nor is there an unwanted inventory build (Chart 12). Nevertheless, in light of new information, which implies that company-reported pricing pressure is worse than current government data shows, we are downgrading our outlook for drug-related shares. Still, rather than sell after the index has already taken a large hit, pushing relative performance to oversold and undervalued levels (Chart 12), we will await a more opportune moment to lighten positions, especially in view of our preference for defensive equities. Keep in mind that the drug price increases are still well in excess of the overall rate of inflation as branded drug prices continue to rise (Chart 13), and earnings stability should be increasingly desirable as the U.S. dollar climbs. In the meantime, drug-related shares are now on downgrade alert and the overall health care sector is off our high-conviction list. The good news is that other parts of the health care sector should benefit if drug inflation cools. For instance, a reduction in the rate of drug price increases, and in the case of generics, outright price cuts, is a blessing for the S&P managed care industry. Cost inflation had been perking up, but should ease in the coming quarters as drug expenses abate. Health insurance premiums are growing at a faster rate than overall inflation, while job growth remains decent (Chart 14), underscoring that top-line growth is still outpacing that of the overall corporate sector. If cost inflation eases while revenue climbs, the index should move to at least a market multiple from its current discounted valuation. Importantly, technical readings have improved. Chart 12Under The Gun... Chart 13... But Pricing Power Remains Strong Chart 14Celebrating Reduced Cost Inflation Cyclical momentum has begun to reaccelerate from neutral levels after unwinding overbought conditions (Chart 14), suggesting that a breakout to new relative performance highs is in the offing. Bottom Line: The pain in drug-related shares should provide a gain to health care insurers. Stay overweight the S&P managed care index. However, look to lighten the S&P pharmaceutical and biotech indexes on a relative performance bounce in the coming weeks, both are now on downgrade alert. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights Bond yields have room to move higher in the near run, but a move above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. U.S. elections are too close to call. Even if Trump wins, we caution that federal fiscal spending programs will have to work hard to offset the ongoing drag from sluggish state and local spending. Economic and inflation data will not stand in the way of a Fed rate hike in December. But heightened market volatility associated with the elections could still derail their plans. Feature October was a tough month for Treasuries, as the 10-year climbed 25 basis points since October 1. The sell-off puts Treasury yields closely in line with our bond strategists' estimate of fair value. This week, we review the factors that argue for or against a further rise in bond yields. Our conclusion is that the Treasury sell-off is likely to continue in the near run. Yields above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. The primary bearish driver for Treasuries in the next two months is the Fed. As we discuss below, recent economic data has been decent enough to meet the Fed's threshold for a rate hike and inflation indicators are moving towards the Fed's 2% target. Indeed, the FOMC statement released last Wednesday sent a mildly hawkish signal by highlighting that growth has improved, while both inflation expectations and realized inflation are tracking higher. The statement very much keeps a December rate hike in play, but it does not elevate the odds. In the FOMC meeting just prior to last year's rate hike, the Fed specifically mentioned the "next meeting" as a possibility for a rate increase. The Fed did not go as far this time around1 as policymakers are no doubt wary of spooking the markets when uncertainty is running high ahead of the U.S. election. Whether the Fed actually pulls the trigger in December will continue to hinge on the incoming economic data and the behavior of the markets following the election, but our base case remains that the Fed will follow through with a rate hike. The market is currently priced for a 65% chance of a rate move before the end of the year. This is roughly the same as the probability of a 2015 rate hike at this time last year (Chart 1). As long as the economic data remain reasonably firm, as we expect, then rate hike probabilities should follow last year's path and move to 100% by the December 13-14 FOMC meeting. Last year, the revision in the rate hike probability from November-December corresponded with a 35 bps rise in the 10-year Treasury. Chart 1Room For Expectations To Move Higher Since last year, the Fed has drastically downgraded its long-term rate projections. Recall that ahead of the December 2015 FOMC meeting, the Fed projected that the Fed funds rate would reach 1.4% in 2016. Since then, the Fed has revised downward its interest rate forecast to two rate hikes in 2017. Assuming the Fed does not revise these forecasts, it is unlikely that Treasuries respond as negatively as they did in 2015. Moreover, as we noted above, at 1.8% today, Treasuries are already roughly at fair value. During last year's sell-off, bond yields were starting from a substantially overbought level. This argues for a somewhat more muted reaction to a Fed rate hike, although we still expect yields could move higher. Beyond December, i.e. once the rate hike is priced in, our base case is that yields trend sideways for a time. The Fed's forecast for growth in 2017 is 2.0%, which would represent an increase of 0.5% from the first three quarters of 2016. If economic growth meets the Fed's expectation of 2%, then it is reasonable to expect that policymakers would increase twice next year, i.e. in line with their current forecasts. As shown in Chart 1, the Treasury market is not yet priced for this outcome: market participants currently assign only 80% odds to one rate hike by the end of 2017. The message is that the Fed, even with a reasonable (for the first time in years!) forecast for growth, will end up being a source of upward pressure on bond yields beyond 2017. There is nonetheless an important mitigating factor for bond yields: the U.S. dollar. A stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. Indeed, a central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. In the current environment, the Fed knows that the process of normalizing interest rates will trigger bouts of volatility, because its actions will be exaggerated by movements in the currency. The bottom line is that we expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. Given that the bond market is not yet priced for this, the recent sell-off in bond yields will continue, perhaps to as high as 2%. Thereafter, we would expect Treasuries to trade in a fairly narrow range, with 2% representing the higher end of the band. A Coin Toss Election In the very near term, the U.S. elections pose an important risk to the view expressed above. For the past several months, market odds of a Trump Presidency have been positively correlated with the uncertainty index and negatively correlated with Treasury yields (Chart 2 and Chart 3). On the eve of the election, the race is once again too close to call. Our expectation has been that any flight-to-quality related to a Trump victory will be short-lived. However, with equity market multiples stretched and the earnings outlook still leaving much to be desired, equity markets are ripe for a correction. Chart 2Bond Market Tracks Uncertainty Chart 3Trump And Uncertainty In our September 26 Weekly Report, we warned that investors may be assigning too low odds of a Trump Presidential win. We posited that if the polls remained tight, the potential for further volatility was high. We followed up in mid-October, advising clients how to implement portfolio insurance against downside market risks, and specifically against a Trump election win. One recommended vehicle for insurance that we highlighted was the U.S. dollar, which is part of our Protector Portfolio (Chart 4 and Chart 5). We believe the currency will rally due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows on the back of a Trump win. True, this strategy has not held up in recent days, as the U.S. dollar has softened while Trump improves in the polls and risk assets have corrected. Still, the dollar's reputation as a safe-haven currency is well-deserved. It has consistently outperformed during times of crisis - even when the U.S. itself was the source, as most recently demonstrated during the summer 2011 budget impasse. Chart 4Protector Portfolio Components Chart 5Protector Portfolio Returns In a recent report,2 our geopolitical strategists outline several things to watch for on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath. The immediate developments most relevant for investors are anything that prolongs the period of uncertainty regarding voting. For example, the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. Although the 2000 election was held on November 7, the official result was not declared until November 26; Al Gore did not concede until December 12. This time, any number of things could delay declaring a winner, including a tie in the electoral college, or a "faithless elector," i.e. an electoral college member that does not cast his/her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote, and therefore causes the Supreme Court to intervene. A delay in declaring the election result would increase uncertainty and therefore be negative for risk assets. Longer term, the margin of victory has become important for policy. It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, it is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives are zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. The probability of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining and puts in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The likelihood of more fiscal spending in 2017 has become common lore among investors. Thus, a disappointment on that front would be negative for risk assets. Post-Election Government Spending Throughout the twists and turns of the U.S. election campaign, one higher conviction view that has endured at BCA is that popular sentiment is shifting away from fiscal austerity and that 2017 would feature more ambitious spending programs. That would be quite welcome, given that real government consumption and investment - at all levels of government - has been a drag on growth during most of the recovery since the Great Recession. Ongoing weakness at the Federal level is due to restraint in defense expenditure, while state and local spending has been weak due to a significant downtrend in tax revenues. It is notable that the decline in state tax revenues is not confined to oil-producing states. A recent report by the Rockefeller Institute compiled state tax revenue forecasts for 2017 and concludes that the decline in tax revenues from all sources (sales, income and corporate) will be slow to recover next year.3 Remember that states can only spend what they take in outside of infrastructure spending. If state and local governments can manage to cut the drag on real GDP to 0%, that would still leave a major onus for government spending on the federal government. Assuming the contribution to real GDP from state and local spending is zero, it would require a 6% annual growth in federal spending to return total government spending as a contribution to GDP back to its historic average of 0.4% (Chart 6). As Chart 7 shows, fiscal spending of that magnitude rarely occurs outside of recession. Chart 6(Part 1) How Much Fiscal Spending? Chart 7(Part 2) How Much Fiscal Spending? Importantly, how much long-term effect a fiscal boost will deliver depends on how well fiscal multipliers - which measure how much a dollar of increased government spending or reduced taxes raises output - are working. Indeed, the magnitude of fiscal multipliers continues to be a massive source of disagreement in policy circles. Recent work by the IMF suggests that the multiplier, in some economies and under certain interest rate settings, could be as high as four: for each dollar the U.S. government spends, it will generate another $4 dollars of GDP!4 Other academics put the fiscal multiplier at less than 0.5. The wide range of forecasts is due to several factors, but there are nonetheless some generally held principles: Fiscal stimulus tends to be more effective when the output gap is large: when output is well below its potential, the monetary policy response to an increase in spending is likely to be limited. In other words, fiscal multipliers are larger in recessions than in expansions.5 The type of fiscal stimulus matters, a lot. Table 1 shows a range of CBO estimates for different types of government activity. For example, income tax cuts on high income earners tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Multiplier effects tend to last no more than eight quarters when output is close to potential. Fiscal stimulus tends to have a more impressive impact, although short-lived (four quarters) when the output gap is large. Table 2 shows the CBO-estimated effect of an increase in demand over eight quarters under two different economic scenarios. The first is when monetary policy is constrained, and the second is when monetary policy responds to the increase in demand from government stimulus. Our guess is that we are currently somewhere in between the two economic scenarios presented: there is still an output gap and monetary policy is already off the zero bound. Thus, the fiscal multiplier is likely a little above than one, meaning that government spending does not "crowd out" private spending. Table 1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Table 2The Effect Of A $1 Increase In Aggregate Demand Over Eight Quarters Overall, government expenditures will contribute positively to GDP next year, though the amount of fiscal expansion is dependent on the political configuration in Washington after the elections. Similarly, the impact of any spending will depend on what form new fiscal measures takes. CBO research suggests that the fiscal multiplier will be slightly above 1. Business Sentiment: Neither Euphoria Nor Misery Without further participation from the government sector, the economy is likely to achieve above 2% real GDP growth. A more optimistic scenario could unfold if capex improves substantially and/or a Trump win significantly opens the fiscal taps. Recent private sector data shows that businesses are continuing on a mild expansion path. The ISM surveys of business confidence were little changed in October - sentiment among manufacturers is broadly unchanged, while respondents from the service sector were slightly less optimistic than the previous month (Chart 8). Still, the major indices remain above their boom/bust lines and respondents' comments suggest neither euphoria nor misery. Meanwhile, payrolls increased by 161,000 in October. Although this was slightly below the consensus forecast of 175,000, there was a cumulative 44,000 in upward revisions to the prior two months. Elsewhere, wages accelerated more than expected and average hourly earnings rose 0.4% m/m, pushing the annual growth rate to a new cyclical high of 2.8% (Chart 9). Chart 8ISM Surveys Are Steady Chart 9Wage Growth Is Perking Up To paraphrase from this week's FOMC statement, the employment report provides some further evidence that the U.S. economy is progressing towards the Fed's dual mandate. In itself, it reinforces the case for the Fed raise interest rates in December. It seems now that the only thing that could derail the Fed is an election surprise and related heightened market volatility. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151028a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "It Ain't Over 'Till The Fat Man Sings," dated November 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/state_revenue_report/2016-09-21-SRR_104_final.pdf 4 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1493.pdf 5 "How Powerful Are Fiscal Multipliers In Recessions? Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, NBER Reporter 2015, http://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number2/auerbach.html

Dear Client, In addition to this week's regular Weekly Report, you should have also received a Client Note written by my colleague Marko Papic discussing the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Marko argues that the election is now too close to call. Donald Trump's resilience in the polls continues to baffle most observers. Not us. Back in September of 2015, when most pundits were laughing off Trump's chances, we wrote a report arguing that Trump's rhetoric would resonate with voters much more than most people thought possible. That report, entitled "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," is as relevant today as it was back then. Best regards, Peter Berezin Highlights Spare capacity has narrowed substantially within the developed world. Most of the decline in spare capacity is attributable to lackluster supply, rather than stronger demand. Potential GDP growth is likely to remain weak over the coming years. Narrowing output gaps will put upward pressure on inflation. We are long Japanese and German inflation protection. As spare capacity continues to dwindle, forward guidance will become a more effective tool for central banks. At least in this respect, central bankers may find themselves with a few more bullets in their arsenals. Stay long the dollar and position for gradually higher government bond yields. Global equities are highly vulnerable to a near-term correction, owing to a more hawkish Fed and growing U.S. election uncertainty. Once the dust has settled, European and Japanese stocks will outperform their U.S. peers. Feature Spare Capacity Is Dwindling A persistent shortfall of aggregate demand has been the defining feature of the global economic landscape ever since the financial crisis erupted. This chronic lack of spending has kept inflation below target in most developed economies, forcing central banks to adopt ever more radical easing policies. That is starting to change. Spare capacity continues to decline, allowing once dormant supply-side constraints to reimpose themselves. In this week's report, we take stock of where we are in this process. Mind The (Output) Gap The simplest measure of spare capacity is the so-called output gap, which estimates the difference between what economies are actually producing and what they are capable of producing without putting undue upward pressure on inflation. According to the IMF, the output gap for advanced economies has narrowed from a high of 3.8% of GDP in 2009 to 0.8% at present. The OECD's measure shows a similar decline (Chart 1). Chart 1AOutput Gaps Have Narrowed Chart 1BOutput Gaps Have Narrowed The IMF reckons that the output gap has nearly closed in the U.S. and the U.K. The Fund estimates that Japan's output gap currently stands at 1.5% of GDP. The OECD also sees the U.K. output gap as being fully closed. However, it calculates a smaller output gap for Japan but a larger output gap for the U.S. than the IMF does. Both institutions peg the euro area's output gap at around 1%-to- 1.5%. Not surprisingly, there is a fair bit of variation within continental Europe. The output gap in Germany has fully disappeared, but still stands at 2%-to-3% of GDP in Italy and Spain. Naturally, one should take these numbers with a grain of salt. Output gaps are notoriously difficult to calculate and are subject to large revisions. The OECD, for example, tends to rely on statistical approaches to estimate output gaps.1 These typically involve employing tools such as the so-called "Hodrick-Prescott filter" to smooth out historical GDP data and then treating the resulting trendline as an estimate for potential GDP. Such methods have their uses, but they can go badly awry in situations where GDP is slow to return to its "true" underlying trend. This is a particular worry in the current environment, considering that recoveries following burst asset bubbles tend to be lethargic even in the best of times. The fact that fiscal policy has been fairly tight and monetary policy has been constrained by the zero lower bound has further dampened the recovery. With that in mind, rather than relying on purely statistical techniques, it is useful to measure spare capacity directly. We do this by gauging the extent to which the existing factors of production - labor and capital - are being effectively deployed across the major developed economies. As we argue below, this approach suggests that slack may be modestly higher in Japan than what the IMF and the OECD calculate, and more meaningfully understated in peripheral Europe. The Message From Headline Unemployment Rates Unemployment has been falling in almost all major developed economies (Chart 2). In the U.S. and the U.K., the jobless rate is back to pre-crisis levels. In Germany and Japan, it is below where it was before the Great Recession. As such, it is unlikely that unemployment can decline much in these economies. Chart 2AUnemployment Rates Have Declined Chart 2BUnemployment Rates Have Declined In contrast, while unemployment rates in peripheral Europe have been trending lower over the past three years, they are still quite high by historical standards. There is some debate over whether they can fall much further. The OECD, for example, contends that Spain is already close to full employment, even though the country's unemployment rate still stands at nearly 20%. We find this implausible. The OECD essentially takes a moving average to calculate structural unemployment rates in various economies. As noted above, this can be highly misleading in circumstances where the forces pushing an economy towards full employment are impaired. In general, this suggests that both the IMF and the OECD estimates of labor market slack in the euro area are too low. This is consistent with a recent ECB research paper, which calculated that the euro area's output gap was 6% of GDP in 2015, a far cry from the European Commission's estimate of 1.1%.2 Disguised Unemployment The unemployment rate is probably the single best measure of labor market slack. However, it can understate the true amount of spare capacity during periods when many people have stopped looking for work, or when those who are employed are not working as much or as intensively as they would like. The nature of this additional labor market slack differs from region to region. In the U.S., it has mainly manifested itself in lower labor force participation rates; whereas in Europe - perhaps in keeping with the more egalitarian nature of European society - it has mainly taken the form of fewer hours worked and a higher incidence of involuntary part-time employment. Chart 3 shows that labor force participation rates among prime-age workers (those between the ages of 25-and-54) in Europe are generally higher now than they were before the financial crisis. In contrast, the share of workers who have part-time jobs but desire full-time employment remains elevated across most of continental Europe (Chart 4). The average annual number of hours worked per employee has also declined in most European economies (Chart 5). Chart 3ALabor Force Participation Rate ##br##Has Risen In Europe, But Fallen In The U.S. Chart 3BLabor Force Participation Rate ##br##Has Risen In Europe, But Fallen In The U.S. Chart 4AEurope: Higher Incidence Of ##br##Involuntary Part-Time Employment Chart 4BEurope: Higher Incidence ##br##Of Involuntary Part-Time Employment In the U.S., the prime-age labor force participation rate is still 1.9 points lower than it was in 2007. Part of this is cyclical. As long as the labor market continues to improve, participation rates among prime-age workers should continue to recover. That's the good news. The bad news is that ongoing structural forces are likely to prevent the participation rate from returning back to its pre-crisis levels. Chart 6 shows that labor force participation rates among U.S. prime-aged males has been trending lower since the 1960s. The decline has been particularly acute among less-educated workers. Why this has happened remains a source of intense debate. Conservative commentators have argued that cultural shifts have reduced the social pressure on men to maintain gainful employment. Liberal commentators have contended that falling real wages at the lower end of the skill distribution have reduced the incentive to work. Whatever the reason, it will be difficult to boost labor participation substantially from current levels. At present, 11% of U.S. prime-aged nonparticipants report wanting a job, only modestly higher than before the recession (Chart 7). It is possible that some fraction of those who do not want to work will change their minds - indeed, this year has seen a modest inflow of "disabled" people back into the labor force. Realistically, however, this is unlikely to boost labor participation by more than one percentage point. Chart 5Hours Worked ##br##In Europe Have Declined Chart 6U.S.: The Less Educated ##br##Are Shunning The Labor Force Chart 7U.S.: Fewer Potential Workers ##br##On The Sidelines Chart 8Japan's Underutilized Labor Force The incidence of involuntary part-time employment in Japan has returned to where it was prior to the Great Recession. However, in absolute terms, it remains quite high - in fact, nearly as high as in Europe. Japanese full-time employees may also not be as productively engaged as they could be. As evidence, note that output-per-hour in Japan is 37% lower than in the U.S. and 33% lower than in Germany (Chart 8). From this we conclude that there is somewhat more labor market slack in Japan than the headline unemployment rate suggests. Industrial Capacity Utilization Goods-producing sectors typically account for less than a third of GDP in most advanced economies. Nevertheless, because the demand for goods tends to be more volatile than the demand for services, fluctuations in industrial production often account for the bulk of the changes in output gaps. As Chart 9 shows, after a brisk recovery following the financial crisis, the U.S. industrial capacity utilization rate has been trending lower for the past two years. It currently stands at 75.4%, 5.6 percentage points lower than at its pre-recession peak. The Institute for Supply Management's semi-annual capacity utilization survey also suggests that many U.S. manufacturing businesses are operating substantially below potential (Chart 10). Much of the deterioration in U.S. industrial utilization reflects the effects of the energy bust and a stronger dollar. Business capex has decelerated sharply as a consequence of these forces, falling by over two-thirds in the case of energy capex. This should cut into excess capacity. Chart 9U.S.: Industrial Capacity ##br##Utilization Remains Low Chart 10U.S.: Less Slack In Services ##br##Than Manufacturing The dearth of new investment elsewhere in the world should also help prop up utilization rates (Chart 11). Industrial utilization is close to its historic average in Europe. Unlike in the case of labor markets, there is not a lot of regional variation in capacity utilization rates across the euro area. If anything, Italian spare capacity is actually closer to its pre-recession level than Germany's. Chart 11AEurope: Idle Industrial Capacity Is Shrinking Chart 11BEurope: Idle Industrial Capacity Is Shrinking Chart 12Excess Capacity Has Declined In Japan Capacity utilization has also returned to its long-term trend in Japan. Encouragingly, the Tankan Factor Utilization Index has risen to its highest level since the early 1990s (Chart 12). Nevertheless, the strong yen is starting to put pressure on Japan's industrial sector. This suggests that further monetary easing from the BoJ will be necessary. Economic And Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that spare capacity has narrowed substantially within the developed world, although for some countries not quite as much as output gap estimates from the IMF and the OECD indicate (particularly in the case of peripheral Europe). Unfortunately, most of the decline in spare capacity is attributable to lackluster supply, rather than faster demand growth (Chart 13). Interestingly, a cyclically-induced withdrawal of workers from the labor market has only played a modest role in explaining the slowdown in potential GDP growth and the resulting decline in output gaps. Instead, most of the deceleration in potential GDP growth stems from lower productivity gains. Chart 13AWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Chart 13BWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Some of the decline in productivity growth reflects cyclical factors, especially weak business investment. However, as we have discussed in past reports, much of it reflects structural forces such as declining educational achievement and a shift in focus of internet innovation away from business productivity applications towards consumer services such as social media.3 Looking out, narrowing output gaps will put upward pressure on inflation. We are long Japanese and German inflation protection via the CPI swap market. Governor Kuroda has made it clear that he wants Japanese inflation to rise above 2% to make up for the fact that inflation has perpetually undershot the BoJ's target. The Bundesbank may not want higher inflation, but the ECB's need to reflate Southern Europe all but guarantees such an outcome. As spare capacity continues to dwindle, forward guidance will become a more effective tool for central banks. The essence of forward guidance is the commitment to keeping monetary policy ultra loose even when the economy begins to overheat. If people believe that the central bank will keep the punch bowl filled, this could cause long-term inflation expectations to rise, leading to lower real yields and increased spending today. Such a commitment is likely to be regarded as more credible if people expect it to be carried out over the next few years, rather than at some distant point in the future. The Bank of Japan has already moved in that direction with its pledge to engineer an inflation overshoot by keeping the 10-year JGB yield anchored at zero. Chart 14China: On The Mend, Cyclically The U.S. has the smallest output gap, but the highest neutral interest rate, among the major developed economies. This week's FOMC statement strongly hinted at a December rate hike. As we discussed two weeks ago, in addition to one hike this year, we expect the FOMC to hike rates twice next year.4 This should cause the real broad trade-weighted dollar to appreciate by 10% over the next 12 months. A stronger dollar will mitigate some of the upward pressure on U.S. bond yields. Nevertheless, as slack continues to erode and inflation shifts higher, Treasury yields, along with bond yields elsewhere, should continue trending higher. Global equities are currently highly vulnerable to a near-term correction, owing to a more hawkish Fed and growing U.S. election uncertainty. We are currently short the NASDAQ 100 futures as a hedge, a trade that has gained 3.1% since we initiated it. Once the dust has settled, European and Japanese stocks will outperform their U.S. peers. This is partly because U.S. stocks are relatively expensive, but it is also because an ascending dollar will hurt U.S. multinationals. Investors should overweight Japanese and European stocks on a currency-hedged basis within the developed market universe. The outlook for emerging markets is mixed. On the one hand, the recent uptick in Chinese growth - as evidenced by this week's better-than-expected PMI data (Chart 14) - should provide some support to commodity prices and EM assets. On the other hand, a stronger dollar will weigh on commodities, while making it more onerous for some emerging market companies to refinance their dollar-denominated loans. Higher U.S. rates could also reduce the global pool of dollar liquidity, making it difficult for some emerging markets to finance their current account deficits. On balance, a modestly underweight stance towards EM assets is warranted. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The IMF uses a more ad hoc approach. Desk economists have significant leeway in how they estimate output gaps for their respective economies. Most economists rely on statistical models and production function calculations, intermixed with educated guesswork. 2 Marek Jarocinski, and Michele Lenza, "How Large Is The Output Gap In The Euro Area," ECB Research Bulletin 2016, July 1, 2016. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Slower Potential Growth: Causes And Consequences," dated May 29, 2015; and Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends* Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights By now, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia have figured out that if each cuts 500k b/d of production, the revenue enhancement for both will be well worth the foregone volumes. Even without additional cuts from other OPEC and non-OPEC producers - most of whom already have seen output drop as a result of OPEC's market-share war - KSA and Russia benefit. A 1mm b/d cut would accelerate the draw in oil inventories next year, allowing U.S. shale-oil producers to quickly move to replace shut-in output. Importantly, shale producers' marginal costs will then begin to set market prices. Longer term, KSA and Russia would have to manage their production in a way that keeps shale on the margin. Whether they can continue to cooperate over the long term remains to be seen. Energy: Overweight. We are recommending investors go long February 2017 $50 Brent calls vs. short $55 Brent calls, in anticipation of a production cut from KSA and Russia. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, despite the better-than-expected PMIs for China reported earlier this week. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are moving our gold buy-stop to $1,250/oz from $1,210/oz, expecting higher core PCE inflation. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We are recommending a strategic long position in Jul/17 corn versus a short in July/17 sugar. Feature The options market gives a 43% probability to Brent prices exceeding $50/bbl by the end of this year (Chart of the Week). We think these odds are too low, given our expectation KSA and Russia will announce production cuts of 500k b/d each at the OPEC meeting scheduled for November 30, 2016 in Vienna. Chart of the WeekOptions Probability Brent Exceeds $50/bbl By Year-End Is Less Than 50% A production cut totaling 1mm b/d - plus whatever additional volumes are contributed by GCC OPEC members - will, in all likelihood, send Brent prices back above $50/bbl by year end. This is a fairly high-conviction call for us: We are putting the odds prices will exceed $50/bbl by year-end closer to 80%. As such, we are opening a Brent call spread, getting long February 2017 $50 Brent calls vs. short $55 Brent calls, in anticipation of this production cut from KSA and Russia.1 There are two simple facts driving our assessment: KSA and Russia are desperate for cash - they're both trying to source FDI, and will continue to need external financing for years. They can't wait for supply destruction to remove excess production from the market, given all they want to accomplish in the next two years. The vast majority of income for these states is derived from hydrocarbon sales - 70% by one estimate for Russia, and 90% for KSA - and both have seen painful contractions in their economies during the oil-price collapse, which forced them to cut social spending, raise fees, issue bonds and sell sovereign equity assets.2 With the exception of KSA, Russia, Iraq and Iran, most of the rest of the producers in the world have seen crude oil output fall precipitously - particularly poorer non-Gulf OPEC states (Chart 2), and market-driven economies like the U.S. (Chart 3). Thus, KSA's insistence that others bear the pain of cutting production has already been realized. Iran and Iraq, which together are producing ~ 8mm b/d, maintain they should be exempt from any production freeze or cut, given their economies are in the early stages of recovering from economic sanctions related to a nuclear program and years of war, respectively. Chart 2GCC OPEC Production Surges, ##br##Non-Gulf OPEC Production Collapses Chart 3Russia' Gains Lift Non-OPEC Production;##br## U.S. Declines Continue Why Would KSA And Russia Act Now? Neither trusts the other, which is why neither cut production unilaterally to accelerate storage drawdowns. Any unilateral cut would have ceded market share to the arch rival. Both states have gone to great efforts to show they can increase production even in a down market, just to make the point that they would not give away hard-won market share (Chart 4). Chart 4KSA and Russia Devoted##br## Significant Resources to Lift Production These states are at polar-opposite ends of the geopolitical spectrum - KSA is supporting Iran's enemies in proxy wars throughout the Middle East, while Russia is supporting Iran and its allies. In the oil markets, they are both going after the same customers in Asia and Europe. Each state had to convince the other it could endure the pain of lower prices, which brought both to the table at Algiers, and allowed their continued dialogue since then to flourish. Globally, the market rebalancing already is mostly - if not completely - done. Excess production has been removed from the market, and very shortly we will see inventory drawdowns accelerate. But, if KSA and Russia leave this process to the market, we may be looking at 2017H2 before stocks start to draw hard. By cutting production now, KSA and Russia accelerate the stock draw and hasten the day when shale is setting the marginal price in the market. While shale now is comfortably in the middle of the global cost curve, it still sits above KSA's and Russia's cost curve, which means the marginal revenue to both will be higher than if their marginal costs are driving global pricing. Both states have a lot they want to do next year and in 2018: Russia is looking to sell 19.5% of Rosneft; KSA is looking to issue more debt and IPO Aramco. Both must convince FDI that the money that's invested in their industries will not be wasted because production has not been reined in. And, they both must keep restive populations under control. Cutting production by 1mm b/d or more would push prices back above $50/bbl, perhaps higher, resulting in incremental income of some $50mm to $75mm per day for KSA and Russia. Viewed another way, the incremental revenue generated annually by higher prices brought on by lower production would service multiples of KSA's first-ever $17.5 billion global debt issue brought to market last month. Both KSA and Russia will be able to lever their production more - literally support more debt issuance - by curtailing production now. KSA will need that leverage to pull off the diversification it is attempting under its Vision 2030 initiative. Russia would be able to do more with higher revenues, as well. Balances Point To Supply Deficit Next Year The meetings - "sideline" and otherwise - in Algiers, Istanbul and Vienna over the past month or so at various producer-consumer conclaves were attended mostly by producers that already have endured painful revenue cutbacks brought on by the OPEC market-share war declared in November 2014. Even those producers that did not endure massive production cuts - e.g., Canada, where oil-sands investments sanctioned prior to the price collapse continue to come on line despite low prices - will see far lower E&P investment activity going forward, given the current price environment. Chart 5Oil Markets Will Go Into Deficit Next Year Global oil supply growth will be relatively flat this year and next (Chart 5). This will create a physical deficit in supply-demand balances, even with our weaker consumption-growth expectation: We've lowered our growth estimate to 1.30mm b/d this year, and expect 1.34mm b/d growth next year. We revised demand growth lower based on actual data from the U.S. EIA and weaker projections for global growth.3 Among the major producers, only Iran, Iraq, KSA, and Russia increased output yoy. North America considered as a whole is down despite Canada's gains, and will stay down till 2017H2, based on our balances assessments. South America is essentially flat this year and next. The North Sea's up slightly this year, down more than 5% yoy in 2017, while the Middle East ex-OPEC is flat. Lastly, we expect China's production to be down close to 7% this year, and almost 4% next year. Managing The KSA-Russia Production Cut If KSA and Russia can cut 1mm b/d of production, they'd have to actively manage global balances so that the U.S. shale barrel meets the bulk of demand increases, while conventional reserves fill in decline-curve losses. Iran and Iraq together will be up 1mm b/d this year, but only 350k b/d next year. Both states are going to have a tough time attracting FDI to accelerate production gains, although ex-North America, these states probably have a higher likelihood of attracting investment than Non-Gulf OPEC, which is in terrible shape, and will have a hard time funding projects. Recently recovered Libyan and Nigerian output likely is the best they will be able to do until additional FDI arrives.4 At low price levels, even KSA can't realize the full value of the assets it is attempting to sell and the debt it will be servicing (lower prices mean lower rating from rating agencies). This is a worry for KSA, as it looks to IPO 5% of Aramco and issue more debt.5 Without higher prices, they will need to continue to slash spending, cut defense budgets, salaries and bonuses, and begin to levy taxes and fees. Below $50/bbl Brent, Russia faces similar constraints, and cannot expect to realize the full value of the 19.5% share of Rosneft it hopes to sell into the public market. Net, if KSA and Russia can get prices up above $50/bbl by cutting 1mm from their combined production and increase their gross revenues doing so, it's a major win for them. Such a cut would bring forward the global inventory drawdown we presently see picking up steam in 2017H2 without any reductions in production. In addition, because International Oil Companies (IOCs) are limited in terms of capex they can deploy to invest in National Oil Company (NOC) projects, conventional oil reserves will not be developed in the near term due to funding constraints. That, and higher capex being devoted to the U.S. shales, will keep a lid on production growth ex-U.S. Given how we see investment in production playing out over the medium term - i.e., 3 - 5 years - it will fall to the U.S. shales and Iran-Iraq production to find the barrels to meet demand increases and to replace production lost to natural declines. Given that we expect non-Gulf OPEC yoy production in 2017 to be down close to 1.3mm b/d (or -13%), and that we expect Brazil to be flat next year, cutting 1mm b/d from KSA and Russia's near-record levels of production is a bet both states will find worth taking, in order to lift and stabilize prices over the medium term. GCC OPEC production is expected to be up ~ 1% next year, or ~ 150kb/d, so these states have some scope for reducing output, as well. Price Implications If KSA and Russia Cut If we do indeed see KSA and Russia reduce output 1mm b/d as we expect, we expect storage draws will likely accelerate next year, which will flatten WTI and Brent forward curves, and send both into backwardation (Chart 6). We also would expect prices to move toward $55/bbl in the front of the WTI and Brent forward curves, once the storage draws start backwardating these curves. This would be a boon to KSA's and Russia's gross revenues, generating ~ $75mm a day of incremental revenue post-production cuts. Chart 6Expect Backwardation With ##br##A KSA-Russia Production Cut Given this expected dynamic, we recommend going long a February 2017 Brent call spread: Buy the $50 Brent call and sell the $55/bbl Brent call. We also recommend getting long WTI front-to-back spreads expecting a backwardation by mid-year or thereabouts: Specifically, we recommend getting long August 2017 WTI futures vs. short November 2017 WTI futures. This scenario also will be bullish for our Energy Sector Strategy's preferred fracking Equipment services companies, HAL and SLCA. ...And if They Fail to Cut Production? If KSA and Russia fail to cut production, and instead freeze it or raise output following the November OPEC meeting, the market will quickly look through their inaction and continue to price to the actual supply destruction we've been observing for the better part of this year. In such a scenario, prices will push into the lower part of our expected $40 to $65/bbl price range for a longer period of time, which not only will prolong the financial stress of OPEC and non-OPEC producers, but will keep the probability of a significant loss of exports from poorer OPEC states elevated. Either way, global inventories will be significantly reduced by the end of 2017, either because of a production cut by KSA and Russia, or because of continued supply destruction brought about by lower prices. Bottom Line: We expect KSA and Russia to announce a 1mm b/d production cut at the upcoming OPEC meeting at the end of this month. This will rally crude oil prices above $50/bbl, and accelerate the drawdown in global storage levels, which will backwardate Brent and WTI forward curves. We recommend getting long Feb17 $50/bbl Brent calls vs. short $55/bbl Brent calls, and getting long Jul17 WTI vs. short Nov17 WTI futures in anticipation of these cuts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Sugar: Downgrade To Strategically Bearish, Look To Go Long Corn Vs. Sugar We downgrade our strategic sugar view from neutral to bearish, as we expect a much smaller supply deficit next year. We also downgrade our tactical sugar view from bullish to neutral, as prices have already surged over 120% since last August. We expect corn to outperform sugar in 2017. Brazil will likely increase its imports of cheaper U.S. corn-based ethanol. We look to long July/17 corn versus July/17 sugar if the price ratio drops to 17 (current: 17.94). If the position gets filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss to limit the downside risk. Sugar prices have rallied more than 120% since last August on large supply deficits and an extremely low global stock-to-use ratio (Chart 7). Falling acreage and unfavorable weather have reduced sugarcane supplies from major producing countries Brazil, India, China and Thailand. Chart 7Sugar Tactically Neutral, Strategically Bearish Tactically, We Revise Our Sugar View From Bullish To Neutral. Sugar prices are likely to stay high over next three to six months on tight supplies. The global sugar stock-to-use ratio is at its lowest level since 2010 (Chart 7, panel 3). Inventories in India and China fell to a six-year low while inventories in the European Union (EU) were depleted to all-time lows. These three regions together accounted for 36.7% of global sugar consumption last year. However, we believe prices will have limited upside over next three to six months. Despite tight inventories, India and China likely will not increase imports. India currently has a 40% tax on sugar imports, and the government also imposed a 20% duty on its sugar exports in June to boost domestic supply. China started an investigation into the country's soaring sugar imports in late September. The probe will last six months, with an option to extend the deadline. In the meantime, other sugar importers likely will reduce or delay their sugar purchases because of currently high prices. Lastly, speculative buying is running out of steam, as traders already are deeply long sugar - net speculative positions as a percentage of total open interest is sitting at record-high levels (Chart 7, panel 4). Strategically, We Downgrade Our Sugar View From Neutral To Bearish. Assuming normal weather conditions across major producing countries next year, we believe the global sugar market will have a much smaller supply deficit over a one-year time horizon. Although sugar prices in USD terms reached their highest level since July 2012, prices in other currencies actually rose to all-time highs (Chart 8). Record high sugar prices in these countries will encourage planting and investment, which will consequently result in higher sugar production, especially in Brazil, India and Thailand. This year, due to adverse weather during April-September, the USDA has revised down its sugarcane output estimates for Brazil and Thailand by 3.2% and 7.1%, respectively. Assuming a return of normal weather next year, we expect sugarcane output in these two countries to recover. Farmers in China and India have cut their sown acreage for sugarcane this year on extremely low prices late last year and early this year. With prices up significantly in the latter half of this year, we expect sugar output in these two countries to rebound on acreage recovery as well. In addition, Brazilian sugar mills have clearly preferred producing sugar over ethanol so far this year on surging global sugar prices. According to the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA), for the accumulated production until October 1, 2016, 46.31% of sugarcane was used to produce sugar, a considerable increase from 41.72% for the same period of last year. We expect this trend to continue in 2017, adding more sugar supply to the global market. Moreover, as the market becomes more balanced next year, speculators will likely unwind their huge long positions, which may accelerate a price drop sometime next year (Chart 7, panel 4). Where China Stands In The Global Sugar Market? China is the world's biggest sugar importer, the third-largest consumer and the fifth-biggest producer, accounting for 14.2% of global imports, 10.3% of global consumption and 4.9% of global production, respectively (Chart 9, panel 1). Chart 8Sugar Supply Will Increase In 2017 Chart 9Chinese Sugar Imports May Slow Sugar production costs are much higher in China than in Brazil and Thailand, due to higher wages and low rates of mechanization. Falling sugar prices in 2011-2015 further reduced the profitability of Chinese sugar producers. As a result, the sugarcane-sown area in China has dropped 24% in three years, resulting in a huge supply deficit (Chart 9, panel 2). Because domestic prices are much higher than global prices, the country has boosted its imports rapidly in recent years (Chart 9, panel 3). We believe, in the near term, the recently announced investigation into surging sugar imports will slow the inflow of sugar into the country, which will be negative for global sugar prices. In the longer term, the sugarcane-sown area in China will recover on elevated sugar prices, indicating the country's production is set to rebound, which likely will reduce its sugar imports. This is in line with our strategic bearish view. Chart 10Corn Is Likely To Outperform Sugar In 2017 Risks To Our Sugar View In the near term, sugar prices could rally further on negative weather news or if the USDA revises down its estimates of global sugar production and inventories. Prices also could go down sharply if speculators unwind their huge long positions before the year end. We will re-evaluate our sugar view if one of these risks materializes. In the long term, if adverse weather occurs and damages the Brazilian sugarcane yield outlook for next season, which, in general starts harvesting next April, we may upgrade our bearish view to bullish. How To Profit From The Sugar Market? In the softs market, we continue to prefer relative-value trades to outright positions. With regards to sugar, we look to go long corn vs. short sugar, as we expect corn to outperform sugar in 2017. Both sugar and corn are used in ethanol production. Ethanol is also a globally tradable commodity. While sugar prices rose to four-year highs, corn prices fell to seven-year lows, resulting in a significant increase in Brazilian sugar-based ethanol production costs and a considerable drop in U.S. corn-based ethanol production costs. We believe the current high sugar/corn price ratio is unlikely to sustain itself, as Brazil will likely increase its imports of cheaper U.S. corn-based ethanol (Chart 10, panels 1, 2 and 3). In addition, global ethanol importers will also prefer buying U.S. corn-based ethanol over Brazilian sugar-based ethanol. Eventually, this should bring down the sugar/corn price ratio to its normal range. Therefore, we look to long July/17 corn versus July/17 sugar if the price ratio drops to 17 (current: 17.94) (Chart 10, panel 4). If the position gets filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss to limit the downside risk. In addition to the risks related to the fundamentals, this pair trade also faces the risk of a steep contango in the corn futures curve, and a steep backwardation in the sugar futures curve. The July/17 corn prices are 6.2% higher than the nearest futures prices and July/17 sugar prices are 5.2% lower than the nearest sugar futures prices. Long Wheat/Short Soybeans Relative Trade On another note, our long Mar/17 wheat/short Mar/17 soybeans relative trade was stopped out at a 5% loss on October 26. We still expect wheat to outperform soybeans over next three to six months. We will re-initiate this relative trade if the ratio drops to 0.41 (current: 0.426) (Chart 10, bottom panel). Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 The Feb17 options expire 22 December 2016, three weeks after the OPEC meeting. 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On The Need For Cash," dated September 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 The IMF expects slightly slower global GDP growth this year (3.1%), and a slight pick-up next year (3.4%). Please see "Subdued Demand, Symptoms and Remedies," in the October 2016 IMF World Economic Outlook. 4 Please see "OPEC Special-Case Nations Add 450,000 Barrels in Threat to Deal," by Angelina Rascouet and Grant Smith, published by Bloomberg news service November 2, 2016. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," dated January 14, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights Chile's economy is headed for recession. Facing strong external and domestic headwinds, any policy stimulus will be too late to prevent the impending contraction in economic activity. Investors should receive 3-year interest swaps and stay short CLP / long USD. South Africa's cyclical and structural outlook remains bleak. Banks have been selling foreign assets and repatriating capital which has helped the rand to appreciate. However, as this capital repatriation tapers, the rand will enter a renewed bear market. Stay short the rand versus the U.S. dollar and long MXN / short ZAR. Feature Chile: Stimulus Will Arrive Too Late To Prevent Recession Chart I-1Chile: From Stagflation To Recession? The stagflationary environment in Chile over the past two years - a combination of sluggish growth and high inflation - will give way to outright recession (Chart I-1). As economic activity downshifts further, we are doubtful that policymakers will be able to push through stimulus measures in time, and of sufficient size, to stave off recession. On the fiscal front, the government is unlikely to preemptively engage in a significant spending push. The deceleration in economic activity will soon translate into lower fiscal revenue at a time when the fiscal deficit is already quite wide, at 2.8% of GDP. Furthermore, a renewed fall in copper prices (more on this below) means mining revenue will also be weaker than currently expected, inflicting substantial damage on the government's budget. Meanwhile, monetary policy is unlikely to become stimulative in the near term. Having concluded a two-year battle to tame sticky core inflation, the central bank is unlikely cut interest rates too fast. Besides, as the current term of Central Bank President Rodrigo Vergara ends in December, chances of a new rate cut cycle before he is replaced are low. On the whole, the lack of imminent policy stimulus means economic growth is set to fall much further. Investors can profit by receiving 3-year swap rates (Chart I-2). Although the central bank will be late to cut rates, long-term interest rates will fall because Chilean growth is facing strong headwinds on several fronts: Copper prices have failed to rally amid the reflation trade of the past nine months, and are set to drop to new lows as Chinese property construction and demand for industrial metals contracts anew (Chart I-3). As a result, copper exports will continue to act as a serious drag on Chilean growth (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Receive 3-Year Interest ##br##Rate Swaps In Chile Chart I-3China's Industrial Metals ##br##Demand To Contract Chart I-4Exports Will Remain ##br##A Drag On Growth Capital expenditures will contract, partially due to very downbeat business confidence owing to the uncertain political environment created by the government's reforms agenda since 2014 (Chart I-5, top panel). As discussed in detail in our December 2014 Special Report on Chile,1 from a big-picture perspective, these reforms have shifted the structure of the economy toward higher government expenditures at the expense of the private sector. This has severely eroded business confidence. In addition, the downturn in the housing market will gain momentum, further depressing activity (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Meanwhile, employment growth has been weak and income growth has been decelerating steadily - and we foresee further downside ahead (Chart I-6). Importantly, the economy's credit impulse is now turning negative (Chart I-7). Higher delinquencies in turn will force banks to curtail lending going forward. Chart I-5Chile: Capex To Remain Weak Chart I-6Chile: Labor Market Will Weaken Further Chart I-7Negative Credit Impulse##br## Will Weigh On Growth Finally, narrow (M1) money supply growth, a very good leading indicator for economic activity, is now decelerating sharply (Chart I-8). Consistently, our marginal propensity to consume proxy points to weak spending and lower consumer price inflation (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Chile: Narrow Money Growth, ##br##Economic Activity And Inflation Chart I-9Consumption Is Set ##br##To Decelerate Further The economy has developed considerable downward momentum. Any policy stimulus is likely to come too late to prevent the economy from falling into recession. Therefore, local interest rates in Chile are headed to new lows. An economic recession and lower copper prices are clearly bearish for the Chilean peso, and we maintain that its 8.5% rally this year versus the U.S. dollar will be followed by new lows (Chart I-10). Turning to equities, lower interest rates will help only marginally as equity valuations are not cheap (Chart I-11). Moreover, as Chilean banks account for 20% of the MSCI market cap and, while they are better run and more conservative than many others in the EM, they are not immune to a decelerating credit and business cycle. Besides, this bourse's Latin American consumer plays will also likely disappoint. As such, dedicated EM investors should stay neutral on Chilean stocks relative to the EM equity benchmark (Chart I-12). Chart I-10Chilean Peso Valuation Chart I-11Chilean Equities Are At Fair Value Chart I-12Chilean Equities: Stay ##br##Neutral Relative To EM Benchmark Lastly, as highlighted in our recent in-depth Special Report on EM corporate credit,2 credit investors should stay long Chilean and Russian corporate debt versus China. Chilean corporate credit will likely outperform Chinese corporate credit, as the latter is more frothy - overbought and expensive. Bottom Line: The Chilean economy is heading into recession, and policymakers will be late with stimulus to prevent it. Fixed-income investors should receive 3-year interest rate swaps. Dedicated EM equity investors should maintain a neutral stance on the Chilean bourse versus the EM equity benchmark. Stay short CLP / long USD. Santiago E. Gomez Associate Vice President santiago@bcaresearch.com South Africa: Flows Versus Fundamentals Chart II-1Improving Trade Has Helped The ZAR The South African rand has rallied since the start of the year on the back of an improving trade balance (Chart II-1) and strong capital inflows. However, it is facing a key technical resistance level, as are many other EM assets. We expect these resistance levels to hold for EM risk assets in general and the South African rand in particular. The underlying reasons behind our outlook center around our expectations of a stronger U.S. dollar, rising U.S. and G7 bond yields and a relapse in commodities prices. This is in addition to a lack of cyclical recovery and poor structural fundamentals in South Africa. A well-known explanation as to how South Africa has been able to finance its wide current account deficit is that there have been strong foreign portfolio inflows stemming from the global search for yield. What is less known is that South African banks have in the past year been selling foreign assets and repatriating capital back into South Africa (Chart II-2). Over the past 12 months, this repatriation of capital has amounted to US$ 6.5 billion, which effectively allowed the country to fund 50% of its current account deficit. While there is no doubt that this repatriation of capital has aided the rally in the rand and domestic bonds, it remains to be seen whether these flows will continue. Our suspicion is that with South African banks' holdings of foreign bonds dropping from US$ 18 billion in December 2015 to US$ 12 billion at the end of June 2016, and G7 bond yields rising, the speed of capital repatriation will likely slow. In the meantime, fundamentals in South Africa remain weak: The household sector, which accounts for 60% of GDP, has been sluggish. Private consumption growth has been anemic and credit growth to households has been falling rapidly (Chart II-3). Chart II-2South Africa: Banks Have Been ##br##Repatriating Capital Enormously Chart II-3South African ##br##Consumption Is Anemic The corporate sector is not painting a reassuring picture either. South African firms are not investing; real gross fixed capital formation is contracting (Chart II-4, top panel) and business confidence is at an all-time low (Chart II-4, bottom panel). The ongoing dynamic of persistently high wage growth - despite negative productivity growth - only reinforces the gloomy outlook as it creates downward pressure on corporate profit margins, or upward pressure on inflation (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Contracting Capex And ##br##Record-Low Business Confidence Chart II-5Toxic Structural Dynamics: Contracting ##br##Productivity And High Wage Growth Along with renewed weakness in the rand, higher wage growth will raise interest rate expectations. The fixed-income market is currently discounting no policy rate hikes during the next 12 months making it vulnerable to potential depreciation in the rand. In addition to a poor economic backdrop, uncertainty regarding economic policy is considerable. Chart II-6South Africa's Central ##br##Bank's Liquidity Injections First, fiscal policy will not be market friendly. The poor performance of the ANC in the last municipal elections shows the ANC is clearly losing support from the population. This will lead President Zuma and ANC to adopt even more populist policies. This is bearish for both the fiscal accounts and the structural growth outlook. As such, this will cap the upside in the rand and put a floor under domestic bond yields. Second, the central bank will not defend the exchange rate if the latter comes under selling pressure anew. In fact, monetary policy remains somewhat unorthodox. Specifically, the Reserve Bank of South Africa continues to inject liquidity into the system to cap interbank rates (Chart II-6). This will facilitate ZAR depreciation. Investment Conclusions Stay short the rand versus the U.S. dollar. Three weeks ago we also initiated a long MXN / short ZAR trade, and this trade remains intact as the MXN is oversold and the ZAR is overbought. Dedicated EM equity investors should maintain a neutral allocation to South African stocks. On the back of a fragile and deteriorating consumer sector, we recommend staying short general retailer stocks. Their share prices seem to be breaking down despite the rebound in the rand and a drop in domestic bond yields (Chart II-7). Policy uncertainty and pressure for populist policies is still an overarching issue for South Africa, especially compared to Russia. As such we suggest fixed income investors continue to underweight South African sovereign credit within the EM sovereign credit universe (Chart II-8), and maintain the relative trade of being long South African CDS / short Russian CDS. Chart II-7Stay Short South ##br##African General Retailers Chart II-8Stay Underweight South ##br##African Credit And Short Rand Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy & Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled, "Chile: A New Economic Model?," dated December 3, 2014 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red," dated September 14, 2016. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model The model significantly reduced the weight of France by six percentage points due to change in liquidity condition, the other downgrade, albeit much smaller, was the U.S. All other countries had been upgraded as a result, with Germany being the largest beneficiary. Japan and U.K. remain the two largest underweights (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 27 basis points (bps) in October, driven completely by the Level 2 model (as U.K and Australia underperformed the euro area). The Level 1 model was in line with the benchmark. Since going live, the overall model performed slightly better than its benchmark. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850 GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of October 31, 2016. The momentum component has shifted Financials from underweight to overweight. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Recommended Allocation Central Banks Still In The Driving Seat Markets continue to obsess about every move from the three major DM central banks. With two of them (the Fed and the ECB) likely to withdraw accommodation cautiously over the coming 12 months, the upside for risk assets is limited. The Fed is signaling that it will probably hike in December and the futures market is pricing in a 70% probability of that happening (roughly the probability one month before the rate rise in December last year). Inflation expectations have picked up recently (Chart 1) and core PCE inflation ticked up to 1.7% in August, within "hailing distance", as Fed vice-chair Stanley Fischer put it, of the Fed's 2% target. There is a political angle, too: having forecast four rate rises for the year, the Fed would endanger its credibility (and risk an audit from Congress) if it failed to deliver even one. At the same time, with growth in the Eurozone running a little above trend, the ECB is likely to announce in December an extension to its asset purchase program beyond March 2017 but eventually at a slower pace (a "tapering"). Reflecting these factors, government bond yields have moved up in recent months (Chart 2), and the trade-weighted dollar has strengthened by 4% since mid-August. None of these moves are good for risk assets, which have consequently moved sideways since August. But neither do they presage a big selloff since central banks will err on the side of caution. Inflation in the U.S. is unlikely to jump: wage growth will be kept under control by a gradual rise in the participation rate, which will prevent unemployment falling much further (Chart 3). The Fed's leaders continue to sound dovish. Janet Yellen even raised the question in a recent speech of "whether it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects [from the 2007-9 Global Financial Crisis] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy'", though she emphasized this was a suggestion for further economic research not her view. More practically, the FOMC will have a more dovish tilt in 2017, as the three regional Fed presidents who voted for a hike in September rotate out. Chart 1Have Inflation Expectations Bottomed? Chart 2Bond Yields Moving Higher Chart 3Core Workers Reentering The Labor Force Meanwhile, economic data remain somewhat sluggish. The U.S. manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISMs both rebounded sharply in September, suggesting that the very weak August prints were, as we suggested, an anomaly. Q3 U.S. real GDP growth come in at 2.9%, but the New York Fed's NowCast points to a slowdown to 1.4% in Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 4) has also turned down again recently, with notable weakness in consumer spending and housebuilding. We expect this sluggish pace to continue through 2017: consumption should hold up as wage rises come through, but it is hard to forecast a strong recovery in capex, given the low capacity utilization rate (Chart 5), even if investment in the mining and energy sectors bottoms out next year. Eurozone growth could stutter too. It is driven substantially by credit growth, but historically European banks have tended to curtail lending after their share prices have fallen, as has been the case recently (Chart 6). Chinese growth has stabilized (at least in the GDP data, which seems to come in regularly at 6.7%, bang in the middle of the government's target range), thanks to the government's reflation policy from earlier this year. While the Chinese authorities have now reined back a little on stimulus, given their worries about the run-up in house prices,1 they offer an option since they would undoubtedly reflate again should growth slow. Chart 4Data Surprising Negatively Again Chart 5Hard To See More CAPEX Indeed Chart 6Share Prices Influence Lending All this suggests that returns from investment assets will be low, but positive, over the coming 12 months. With economic growth anemic but stable, bond yields prone to drift up, and equities expensive (but not as expensive as bonds), we expect risk-adjusted returns from the major asset classes to be broadly similar. We continue to recommend therefore a neutral weighting between bonds and equities, and suggest that investors look to pick up extra return through tilts to investment-grade corporate credit, inflation-linked over nominal bonds, and alternative assets such as real estate and private equity. Equities: Our preference remains for U.S. equities over European ones in USD terms. The dollar is likely to strengthen further, and the worst is not over for Eurozone banks - the time to buy into them will be at the point of maximum pain, which may come if German or Italian banks have to be bailed out by their governments. We continue to recommend a small (currency-hedged) overweight on Japan. The Bank of Japan's new policy to cap 10-year government bond yields at 0% has worked so far: the yen has weakened to JPY 104 to the dollar and equities have risen moderately. We expect further fiscal or wage-control measures from the government to give inflation an extra push. We remain wary of EM equities: earnings growth is negative, loan growth has started to slow (with the credit impulse having a high correlation with earnings and economic growth), and there is still little sign of structural reform. Some sectors in EM - notably IT and Healthcare - are attractive, however. Fixed Income: U.S. Treasury bond yields are likely to rise further - our model suggests fair value is a little below 2% (Chart 7) - and so we remain underweight duration. A moderate pickup in inflation suggests that TIPs will outperform nominal bonds (as described in detail in our recent Special Report).2 We lowered our recommendation in high-yield corporate debt to neutral last month because, at 65 BPs, the default-adjusted spread no longer offers sufficient return to justify the risk. At the start of the year it was 400 BPs (Chart 8). We continue to like investment-grade debt, where the spread over government bonds is 120 BPs in the U.S. and 100 BPs in the Eurozone, higher than at any point in 2005-2006 during the last expansion. Chart 7Treasury Yields Could Rise Further Chart 8Junk No Longer Offers Enough Return Currencies: We expect the U.S. dollar to continue to appreciate given the differential in growth and monetary conditions between the U.S. and other developed economies. The dollar looks expensive, but is nowhere near the over-bought levels it got to at the peak of previous rallies in 1985 and 2002 (Chart 9). China seems likely to allow a further weakness of the RMB against the dollar, repegging it to a trade-weighted currency basket. This could push down other emerging market currencies too particularly if, like Brazil recently, they try to cut rates to boost growth. Chart 9USD Not As Overvalued As In The Past Commodities: Oil has probably overshot in the short-term on expectations that Saudi Arabia and Russia will cap, or even cut, production. We think this talk has been overhyped and that the OPEC meeting in November could prove a disappointment. Nonetheless, we still see the equilibrium level for crude over the next two years at USD 50 a barrel, the marginal cost for U.S. shale producers. Industrial commodities are likely to fall further (they peaked in June) if we are right that the dollar appreciates. We continue to like gold as an inflation hedge, but short-term are nervous because it, too, is negatively correlated with the dollar. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010" dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "TIPS For Inflation-Linked Bonds," dated October 28, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

Special Report

Highlights With inflation probably having bottomed, especially in the U.S., investors are starting to worry about inflation tail-risk and wonder whether inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are an efficient way to hedge this risk. This Special Report explains how ILBs work in different countries and analyzes their performance characteristics over time. We find that ILBs, a rapid growing asset class, can be a beneficial addition to a balanced global portfolio even though recent history does not show as strong portfolio diversification benefits as a longer history. The lower nominal duration of ILBs is a useful feature for portfolio duration management. ILBs have proven to be a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment, but they underperform nominal bonds in a disinflationary environment. As such, the balance between ILBs and nominal bonds should be managed tactically based on an investor's views on inflation dynamics and valuation. Overweight U.S. TIPS; avoid U.K. linkers. Australian TIBS are a cheap yield enhancer, but higher yielding Mexican Udibonos are a dangerous yield trap. Feature BCA's view is that the 35-year bull market in bonds is ending and that the path of least resistance for bond yields globally is up.1 Even though the level of inflation in the U.S. is still below the Fed's target of 2%, we think it's clear that U.S. inflation has bottomed for this cycle. Globally, loose monetary policy together with the likelihood of more fiscal stimulus, present the risk of higher inflation down the road. Global Asset Allocation has recommended investors to overweight U.S. TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) relative to nominal U.S. government bonds throughout 2016. Many clients have asked for details on how TIPS work, whether there are similar securities in other countries, and how ILBs fit into a balanced global portfolio. In this Special Report, we take a detailed look at inflation-linked bond markets globally and recommend some strategies for asset allocators to use them to help navigate a world of low returns and possibly higher inflation. 1. What Are Inflation-Linked bonds (ILBs)? Inflation Protection: Inflation-linked bonds are designed to hedge inflation risk by indexing the bonds' principal to the official inflation index in the issuer country. While the methodology and what the bonds are called differ from country to country, the underlying concept is the same: the holders of ILBs will get the stated real return even in an inflationary environment since both the nominal face value and the nominal coupon payments change based on an official inflation measure. Deflation Floor: In the case of sustained deflation such that the final nominal face value falls below the initial face value, however, the repayment of principal at maturity is guaranteed in the majority of the countries, but not, for example, in the U.K., Canada, Brazil, or Mexico (Table 1). Table 1Basic Information Of Global ILB Markets Inflation Measure: ILBs are linked to actual inflation with a time lag. As shown in Table 1, the inflation measure used varies slightly by country: in the U.S. it's the non-seasonally adjusted CPI; in the U.K. it's the retail price index (RPI); while in the euro area, France and Italy both have ILBs linked to local CPI ex tobacco and EU HICP ex tobacco, with the former primarily for domestic retail investors. The time lag is three months in most countries, but can vary from one to eight months as shown in Table 1. A Rapidly Growing Asset Class: The earliest recorded ILBs were issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 17802 during the Revolutionary War. Finland introduced indexed bonds in 1945, Israel and Iceland in 1955. Brazil introduced its indexed bonds in 1964 and has become the largest ILB market in the emerging markets and the third largest globally. When the U.K. issued its first "linkers", it originally used eight months of inflation lag to make sure the next coupon payment is known at the current coupon payment date. In 1991 Canada issued its first ILBs and the "Canadian Model", which uses a three-month lag to the inflation index and calculates a daily index ratio using linear extrapolation, has been adopted widely since; even the U.K. adopted it in 2005. The largest ILB market now is the U.S. TIPS with a market cap of USD 1.2 trillion. TIPS were first issued in 1997, using the Canadian model. Chart 1 shows the evolution of the ILB markets globally. Since the Bloomberg Barclays Universal Government Inflation-linked Bond Index was constructed in July 1997, the market cap has increased to over USD 3.2 trillion from a mere USD 145 million at the end of 1997. It's worth noting that the actual amount of ILBs outstanding globally is slightly larger than this because not all debts are included in the index.3 Even though many countries have issued ILBs, and emerging markets (EM) grew very fast in the 2000s, the global market is still dominated by the top three countries (the U.S., U.K., and Brazil) with a combined share of 70% of global market cap. Chart 1ILBs: A Fast Growing Asset Class Chart 2U.S. BEI Vs. Inflation Expectations Country Differentiation: Nominal government bonds come with different features in different countries, and the same is true with ILBs. Table 2 shows that even though the U.S. accounts for 43.6% of the developed markets (DM) index in terms of market cap, it contributes only 28.8% to overall duration while the U.K. accounts for 53% of the overall duration, because the U.K. linkers have much longer duration than the U.S. TIPS. The Canadian real return bonds (RRBs) have the second longest average duration at 16 years. Table 2Key Features of the Bloomberg Barclays Government ILB Indexes* 2. How Do ILBs Compare To Nominal Bonds? Break-Even Inflation (BEI) And Inflation Expectations: The difference between the yield on a nominal bond and the yield on a comparable ILB (a comparator) is defined as the BEI, the market-based inflation rate at which an investor is indifferent between holding a real or a nominal bond. If realized inflation over an ILB's life turns out to be higher than the BEI at purchase, then holding the ILB is better than holding its nominal counterpart. BEI on its own is not an accurate gauge of inflation expectations, because it is the sum of inflation expectations, the inflation risk premium, and the liquidity premium. One of the long-term inflation expectation measures that the U.S. Fed keeps track of is the five-year forward five-year inflation calculated using the Fed's own fitted yield curves.4 Even this measure, however, contains the inflation term premium and the relative supply/demand of 10-year BEI vs 5-year BEI. Three important observations from Chart 2 for investors to pay attention to when assessing the inflation outlook are: U.S. breakeven inflation rates have been consistently below the Fed's inflation target of 2% since 2014 (panel 4); The CPI swaps markets priced in a much higher inflation rate than the TIPS market and the Fed's measure derived from fitted curves (panels 2 & 3), largely caused by the supply and demand imbalance in the inflation swaps market: there is excess demand to receive inflation, but no natural regular payer of inflation other than the U.S. Treasury via TIPS, therefore a higher fixed rate has to be paid to receive inflation; The 10-year inflation expectation from the Cleveland Fed's model5 (panel 1), exhibits very different behavior from the other measures. It has been below the 2% target since 2011. This model attempts to combine survey-based inflation expectations and that derived from the CPI swaps market. It's intended to be a "superior" measure of inflation expectations from a monetary policy perspective.6 For investors, however, it's advisable to take into account all these measures when assessing inflation dynamics. Duration and Yield Beta: Duration is measured as the bond price change in relation to the yield change. Chart 3 shows that ILBs have higher duration than their nominal counterparts. These two durations, however, are not directly comparable because ILB duration is related to "real yield" while nominal bond duration is related to "nominal yield". The conversion from one to another is not straightforward because the relationship between real and nominal yields can be complex.7 In practice, however, we can run a simple regression to get ILB's yield beta to change in nominal yield.8 Some practitioners simply assume 0.5 in the emerging market.9 Our research shows that in the developed market the relationship between real yield and nominal yield can vary over different time periods and in different countries, but the moving 3-year and 5-year yield betas are always less than 1 and mostly above 0.5, which is the full sample average.(Chart 4). This is a useful feature for duration management and curve positioning. For example, everything else being equal, 1) replacing nominal government bonds with comparable ILBs can reduce portfolio duration, and 2) replacing a short-dated nominal bond with a longer-dated ILB could maintain the same duration. Chart 3Average Government Bond Duration Chart 4ILBs' Yield Beta Total Return: By design, ILBs should do well in an inflationary environment and they should outperform their nominal bonds when realized inflation is higher than the break-even inflation rate. How have ILBs performed in the real world? Unfortunately, we do not have a long enough data history to cover different inflation cycles. Chart 5 confirms that in nominal terms ILBs outperform their nominal counterparts when inflation rate trends higher. What's interesting, however, is that it is disinflation, rather than deflation, that hurts ILBs the most. Within the available data history, only 2009 experienced a brief deflation scare globally, yet the rebound in ILBs actually led economies out of the deflationary environment. Over the long run, U.K. linkers have underperformed nominal gilts since their first issuance in 1981 when inflation was running at 12%. Since 1997 when the Bloomberg/Barclays ILB indexes were constructed, however, ILBs have performed slightly better than their nominal comparable bonds in most countries, with the exception of the euro area where ILBs have fared slightly worse (Chart 5). Risk-Adjusted Return: On a risk-adjusted basis, the available data history shows that ILBs performed slightly better in the U.S. and Australia, and also the DM aggregate on a hedged basis, but slightly worse in the euro area, the U.K. and Canada. It's worth emphasizing, however, that in either case the difference is not significant (Table 3). Chart 5ILB Performance Vs Inflation Table 3ILBs Approximately Equal To Nominal Bonds 3. What's The Role Of ILBs In A Balanced Portfolio? Bridgewater Associate showed that adding ILBs to a balanced euro zone stock/bond portfolio significantly improved the efficient frontier over the very long run, from 1926 to 2010.10 Since there were no ILBs in the early part of that history, ILB returns were calculated based on inflation. Our research, based on data from the Bloomberg/Barclays Inflation-Linked Government Bond Index with a much shorter history, however, does not yield the same results, probably because the much shorter recent history does not include any highly inflationary periods from which ILBs benefit the most. Table 4 shows the statistics of replacing a certain portion of the nominal bonds with comparable ILBs in a DM 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio. On a standalone basis, the hedged USD DM ILBs are less volatile and have the best risk-adjusted return of 1.3 in the sample period (Portfolio 8). When combined with equities, however, the nominal bonds are a slightly better diversifier than the ILBs. Why? The answer lies in the correlation. Chart 6 shows that the ILBs have much higher correlation with equities than the nominal bonds do with equities. This makes sense because equities could rise in an inflationary environment if the higher inflation were driven by stronger growth, while inflation is always bad for nominal bonds. Again, the differences in risk-adjusted returns are not significant, varying from 0.77 to 0.7 (Portfolios 2-6) in line with the findings in Section 2. Table 4Balanced Global Portfolio Statistics* Chart 6Global Stocks-Bonds Correlations 4. Inflation Has Bottomed BCA's Fixed Income Strategy team has written extensively about the outlook for U.S. and global inflation.11 We concur with their view that, even though inflation in most DM countries is still below the targets set by their central banks (Chart 7), in most countries it has probably bottomed (top three panels in Chart 7), and especially in the U.S., where all indicators point to rising wage pressures as labor market slack diminishes (Chart 8). Chart 7Inflation Still Below Target Chart 8Accelerating Wage Pressure 5. Investment Implications Overweight U.S. TIPS Over Nominal Treasuries: We have shown that ILBs outperform comparable nominal bonds in a rising inflation environment and have argued that inflation has bottomed in the U.S. These views support our recommendation to overweight U.S. TIPS relative to nominal U.S. Treasuries. In addition, our TIPS valuation models (Chart 9) show that breakeven inflation rates in the U.S. are still below fair values based on underlying economic and financial drivers. Being the largest ILB market with a market cap of over USD 1.2 trillion, TIPS are very easy to trade. Currently, only five-year TIPS have a negative yield, so there are plenty of opportunities for investors to preserve real purchasing power by holding longer maturity TIPS. Avoid U.K. Linkers: The U.K. linkers market is the second largest after the U.S., with a market cap of about USD 810 billion. Unfortunately, these linkers are among the most expensively priced real return bonds, with negative yields at all maturities (Chart 10, panel 3). For example, 10-year linkers are currently yielding -1.98%, which means that investors are guaranteed to lose 18% of real purchasing power in 10 years by holding the bonds to maturity. Granted, the U.K. linkers have always traded at a premium to U.S. TIPS and many other ILB markets due to the nature of the U.K. pension schemes which link pension liabilities to inflation (CPI or RPI). With insatiable appetite from pension funds, demand greatly exceeds what the linkers and inflation swaps markets can supply. U.K. real yields have been driven lower and lower, causing an increasing funding gap which in turns drives yield further down.12 In addition, our fair value model (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2) shows that the U.K. linkers' current breakeven rates are above fair value. The collapse in the linkers' yields after the Brexit vote is also consistent with a skyrocketing in the CPI swaps rate, indicating that the probable rise in inflation due to the collapse of the GBP has now largely been priced in (panel 4). Investors who are not constrained by U.K. pension regulations should avoid U.K. linkers. Chart 9Overweight U.S. TIPS Chart 10Avoid U.K. Linkers Yield Enhancement From Australia, Not From Mexico: The U.S. TIPS market is liquid but yields are low, albeit higher than U.K. linkers. Among the smaller markets with higher yields, we prefer Australian Treasury Indexed Bonds (TIBS) over Mexican Udibonos, even though the 10-year Udibonos have a higher yield of 2.8% compared to the 10-year TIBS yield of 0.62%. As shown in Chart 11 and Chart 12, the Australian TIBS are very cheap while the Mexican Udibonos are very expensive. The BEI in Mexico is above the central bank's target of 3% while in Australia it's still at the lower end of the target range of 2-3%. Chart 11 Australian TIBS: A Cheap Yield Enhancer Chart 12 Mexico ILBS: Too Expensive 6. ETFs Some of our clients always want to know if there are ETFs for the asset classes we cover. For ILBs, the most liquid ETF is the iShares TIPS Bond ETF with an AUM of USD 19 billion and an expense ratio (ER) of 20 bps. For non-U.S. global ILBs, the SPDR Citi International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF has an AUM of USD 620 million and an expense ratio of 50bps. The Appendix on page 14 gives a sample list of the exchange traded ILB funds. For more information about ETFs, please see BCA's newly launched Global ETF Strategy service. AppendixSample List Of ILB ETFs*** Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The End of the 35-year Bond Bull Market," July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Robert Shiller, "The Invention of Inflation-Linked Bonds in Early America," NBER Working Paper 10183, December 2003. 3 Barclays Index Methodology, July 17, 2014. 4 Refet S. Gurkaynak et al., "The TIPS Yield Curve and Inflation Compensation," May 2008, Federal Reserve publication. 5 Joseph G Haubrich et al., "Inflation Expectations, Real Rates, and Risk Premia: Evidence from Inflation Swaps," Working Paper 11-07, March 2011, Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland. 6 Joseph G. Haubrich And Timothy Bianco, "Inflation: Nose, Risk, and Expectations," Economic Commentary, June 28, 2010, Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland. 7 Francis E. Laatsch and Daniel P. Klein, "The nominal duration of TIPS bonds," Review of Financial Economics 14 (2005). 8 Mattheu Gocci, "Understanding the TIPS Beta," University of Pennsylvania, 2013. 9 Thor Schultz Christensena and Eva Kobeja, "Inflation-Linked Bond from emerging markets provide attractive yield opportunities," Danske Capital, May 2015. 10 Werner Kramer, "Introduction to Inflation-Linked Bonds," Lazard Asset Management, 2012.

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights Chart 1Model Weights In October, the model outperformed global equities in USD and local-currency terms; it also outperformed the S&P 500 in local-currency terms, while performing in line with the S&P in USD terms. For November, the model trimmed its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). The model increased its weighting in French, Dutch, and Swedish stocks at the expense of the U.S., Japan, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Emerging Asia. Within the bond portfolio, allocation to New Zealand and the U.K. was increased, while the allocation to U.S., Australian and Spanish paper was reduced. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in October, while the bond risk index improved noticeably. Feature Performance In October, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 0.6% in local-currency terms, and was down 1% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a loss of 1.4% for the global equity benchmark, and a 1% loss for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The higher allocation to EM stocks in October was timely, but the boost to bonds was a drag on the model's performance. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 67% to 66% and increased its bond weighting from 21% to 26%. The allocation to cash was decreased from 12% to 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model reduced its allocation to New Zealand equities by 3 points, Emerging Asia by 2 points and U.S., Japan, Germany and Switzerland by 1 point each. Meanwhile, it increased allocation to Dutch, French and Swedish stocks by 4 points, 3 points and 1 point, respectively. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to U.K. and New Zealand paper was increased by 6 points and 5 points respectively, while allocation to Australia, Spain and the U.S. was cut by 3 points, 2 points and 1 point, respectively. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of October 27, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated in October and investors should position for additional dollar strength. Our Dollar Capitulation Index seems to be breaking out to the upside following a pattern of lower highs. Since 2008, such breakouts have been followed by a significant rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators Our model continues to exclude commodities from the portfolio. The risk index for this asset class remains at the highest level in over two years (Chart 4). For the first time since June 2014, the risk index for global equities is above the neutral line (Chart 5). The higher overall risk reflects deteriorating liquidity and momentum readings. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the third month in a row. Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The value component of the risk index for U.S. stocks improved in October, but this was overshadowed by worsening liquidity and momentum readings. The model slightly trimmed its allocation to U.S. equities (Chart 6). Even after the latest small uptick in the risk index for Dutch equities, it remains one of the lowest among the model's universe. The allocation to this bourse was increased. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Netherlands Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. stocks declined slightly in October, but remains firmly in high-risk territory both compared to its own history and its global peers. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 8). The model slightly upgraded Swedish equities, despite a worsening risk index. The continued favorable liquidity backdrop remains a boon for Swedish stocks (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Swedish Stock Market And Risk After declining for four consecutive months, the overall risk index for bonds is not at extreme high-risk levels anymore. The increase in yields has helped completely unwind overbought conditions, as per our momentum indicator. The model used the latest selloff to increase its allocation to bonds (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined markedly in October, but a few other markets also feature improved risk readings. As a result, the model downgraded U.S. Treasurys (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The selloff in New Zealand bonds has pushed the momentum indicator into oversold territory, boosting the allocation to this asset class (Chart 12). The risk index for euro area bonds remains firmly in the high-risk zone even after a notable decline. However, there are select bond markets in the common-currency area that have relatively more favorable risk readings (Chart 13). Chart 12New Zealand Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Within the euro area, Italian bonds feature a risk reading that has fallen below the neutral line. While the cyclical indicator continues to move into more bond-negative territory, it is currently being offset by the oversold reading on the momentum indicator (Chart 14). U.K. gilt yields moved up as the post-Brexit inflation backdrop became gilt-unfriendly and growth surprised on the upside. Now, with momentum moving from overbought to oversold over just a couple of months, any negative economic surprises could potentially weigh on gilt yields. The model has added this asset class to the portfolio (Chart 15). Chart 14Italian Bond Yields and Risk Chart 15U.K. Bond Yields And Risk A more hawkish Fed could push the dollar higher. The 13-week momentum measure for the USD remains above, but close to the neutral line. The recovery of the 40-week rate of change from mildly negative levels which have represented a floor since 2012 would suggest that a new leg in the dollar bull market is in the offing (Chart 16). Both the 13-week and 40-week momentum measures for the euro are below the neutral line (Chart 17). Growing monetary divergences could continue weighing on EUR/USD before the technical indicators are pushed into more oversold territory. Fears of hard Brexit knocked down the pound. The 13-week rate of change is now close to its post-Brexit lows, while the 40-week rate of change measure is at the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). At these technical levels the pound seems overdue to find a temporary bottom (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Dear Client, The growth of the electric-vehicle market, particularly re its implications for hydrocarbons as the primary transportation fuel in the world, will remain a key issue for energy markets, particularly oil. The IEA estimates transportation accounted for 64.5% of oil demand in 2014, the latest data available, compared to natural gas's 7% share and electricity's 1.5% share.1 Last week, Fitch Ratings published a report concluding, "Widespread adoption of battery-powered vehicles is a serious threat to the oil industry." For example, the agency contends that "in an extreme scenario, where electric cars gained a 50 per cent market share over 10 years about a quarter of European gasoline demand could disappear." This is not a widespread view in the energy markets. IHS Energy published a report in 2014 finding, "Past energy transitions took decades to unfold and were driven by a combination of market factors: cost, scarcity of supply, utility and flexibility, technology development, geopolitical developments, consumer trends, and policy.2" While our view is more aligned with IHS's, it is undeniable electric vehicles are a growing market. For this reason, we are publishing an analysis by BCA Research's EM Equity Sector Strategy written by our colleague Oleg Babanov, which explores the lithium-battery supply chain and how investors can gain exposure to this critical element of the fast-growing global electric-vehicle market. Separately, we are downgrading our strategic zinc view from neutral to bearish, and recommending a Dec/17 short if it rallies. Robert P. Ryan Senior Vice President, Commodity & Energy Strategy Lithium is a rare metal with a costly production process and a high concentration in a small number of countries. Difficulty in production is comparable to deep-sea oil drilling. Lithium is the key element in lithium-ion batteries. Demand is rapidly increasing as more countries adopt environment-protection policies and electric-car production is on the rise. We recommend an overweight on the lithium battery supply chain (Table 1), on a long-term perspective (one year plus). We estimate demand for the raw material to rise by approximately 30% over the coming years, driven by the main electric vehicle production clusters in Asia and the U.S. Table 1Single Stock Statistics For Companies##br## In The Lithium Battery Supply Chain (Oct 2016)* What Is Powering Your Battery? Being a relatively rare and difficult to produce metal, lithium demand is rapidly increasing due to the metal's unique physical characteristics, which are utilized in long-life or rechargeable batteries. Rapidly rising demand from portable electronics manufacturers, and the push of the auto industry to develop new fuel-efficient technology, backed by the widespread support of many governments to reduce transportation costs and improve CO2 emissions, are driving prices for the metal higher. We believe that companies in the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain, from miners to battery producers and down to EV manufacturers, will benefit from the change in environmental policies and the growing need for more portable devices with larger energy storage. As the focus of the wider investment community remains tilted towards the U.S. (and Tesla in particular), many companies in the lithium battery supply chain, as well as EV producers, remain overlooked and undervalued. EV Production Expected To Surge We expect a continuation of the push towards energy-saving vehicles among car manufacturers, driven by government incentives and new tougher regulations (EU regulations for CO2 emissions in 2020 will be the strictest so far). Over one million EV vehicles of different types were sold in 2015. In countries such as Norway, the penetration of PEVs is reaching up to 23% (Chart 1). Based on the current growth rates (Chart 2), the compound annual growth rate of EV production is estimated at 30% to 35% over the next 10 years. Japan will remain in top spot in EV penetration (the current HEV rate is around 20% of the overall market). Japan's market (controlled by Toyota and Honda) is dominated by the HEV type of vehicles, and we expect it to remain this way. Chart 1PEV Penetration By Country Chart 2EV Sales By Country We expect the largest boost in market share gains to happen on the European market, based on very stringent CO2 emissions regulation (Chart 3) and ambitious EV targets set by the larger countries. EV market share is set to reach 20% (from the current 5%) in the coming seven to 10 years. The EU is closely followed by South Korea. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) has developed an ambitious plan of growth, by which EV market share should reach 20% by 2020 and 30% by 2025. New EVs will receive special license plates, fuel incentives, and new charging stations. MOTIE wants the auto industry to be able to produce 920,000 NEVs per year, of which 70% should be exported. Among other large markets, the U.S. and China will remain the two countries with lowest EV penetration rates, although growth rates will be impressive. This will be due to low incentives from the government and cheap traditional fuel supply (in the U.S.), or a low base, some subsidy cuts, and infrastructure constraints (in China). Especially in China's case, the numbers remain striking (Chart 4). According to statistics published by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), EV sales in 2015 grew 450% YOY. The market is estimated to grow at an average rate of 25% over the next 10 years. Chart 3EU CO2 Emission Targets Chart 4Monthly NEV Sales China In this report we will highlight companies from the raw material production stage: Albermarle (ALB US), Gangfeng Lithium (002460 CH), Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH), and Orocobre (ORE AU); to added-value battery producers: BYD (1211 HK), LG Chem (051910 KS), and Samsung SDI (006400 KS); down to some electric vehicle companies: Geely Automobile Holdings (175 HK) and Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH). The Supply Side Driven by demand from China and the U.S., the raw material base for lithium has shifted in the past 20 years from subsurface brines to more production-intensive hard-rock ores. Brine operations are mostly found in the so-called LatAm "triangle" - Argentina, Chile and Bolivia - while China and Australia produce lithium from spodumene (a mineral consisting of lithium aluminium inosilicate) and other minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates world reserves at 14 million tonnes in 2015, with Bolivia and Chile on top of the table (Chart 5). The main lithium producing countries, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are Australia, Chile, and Argentina (Chart 6). Chart 5Lithium Reserves Concentrated In LatAm Chart 6Lithium Production Dynamics By Country The lithium mining process starts with pumping lithium-containing brine to subsurface reservoirs and leaving the water to evaporate (from 12 to 24 months) until the brine reaches a 6% lithium content. From here there are three ways to process the concentrate, or the hard-rock in mineral form: Treatment with sulfuric acid (acidic method) Sintering with CaO or CaCO3 (alkali method) Treatment with K2SO4 (salt method) Further, lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), a poorly soluble solution, is isolated from the received concentrate and transferred into lithium chloride, which is purified in a vacuum distillation process. Storage is also difficult: as lithium is highly corrosive and can damage the mucous membrane, it is most commonly stored in a mineral oil lubricant. Due to the rare nature of the metal, lithium comes mainly as a by-product of other metals and comprises only a small part of the production portfolio. This is the reason why the underlying metal price and the share prices of the largest producers of lithium have low correlation (Chart 7). Albermarle, SQM, and FMC Corp currently control as much as three-quarters of global lithium production, but price performance is not keeping up with the price of the underlying metal. For best exposure to the metal, we concentrate on companies with a large degree of dedication to mining lithium and close ties to the end-users. We recommend one established market leader (by volume) - Albermarle (ALB US); one company that just started operations - Orocobre (ORE AU), whose assets are concentrated in Argentina; and two lithium miners from China - Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium (002460 CH) and Tianqi Lithium (002466 CH). These companies display much higher correlation to the metal price (Chart 8). Chart 7FMC Corp., SQM And ##br##Albermarle Vs. Lithium Price Chart 8Orocorbe, Jiangxi Ganfeng And##br## Tianqi Lithium Vs. Lithium Price Albermarle (ALB US): U.S. company with EM exposure (Chart 9). After the acquisition of Rockwood Holdings in 2015, Albermarle became one of the largest producers of lithium and lithium derivatives. Lithium accounts for more than 35% of the company's revenue stream (+20% YOY), which compares favourably to the 20% of the Chilean producer SQM and the 8% of another large US producer FMC Corp. Chile comprises 31% of global production. Albermarle's 2Q16 results on 3 August came broadly in line with market expectations. Some deviation from expectations occurred because of discontinued operations in the Surface Treatment segment. Group sales contracted by 7%, due to divestures started in previous quarters (Chemetal). Positively, lithium sales grew 10% YOY due to both better pricing and higher volumes, and EBITDA in the segment improved by 20%. Group EBITDA (adjusted) grew by 5% YOY and the bottom-line (adjusted) expanded by 11% YOY. Management appears confident about FY16 operations, guiding 1% improvement in EBITDA, as well as 3% in FY EPS and aims to maintain EBITDA margins in the lithium segment at over 40%. We see high growth potential due to Albermarle's portfolio composition. The market is currently expecting an EPS CAGR of 9% over the next four years. Albermarle is trading at a forward P/E of 23.1x. Orocobre (ORE AU): An Australian company mining in Argentina (Chart 10). Orocobre is an Australian resource company, based in Brisbane. As in the case with Albermarle, the majority of operations are located in EM, so we see it as appropriate to include the company into our portfolio. Chart 9Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Albermarle vs MXEF Index Chart 10Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Orocobre vs MXEF Index Orocobre is at an initial stage in the lithium production process. The only division working at full capacity is Borax Argentina (acquired from Rio Tinto in 2012), an open-pit borate mining operation (producing 40 kilotonnes per annum (ktpa)). The flagship project (65% share), launched in a JV with Toyota Tsusho Corp, is the Olaroz lithium facility, a salt lake with an estimated 6.5 million tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) reserves. The planned capacity is at 17.5 ktpa. Due to the geological structure, it comes with one of the lowest operational costs ($3500 per tonne). The production ramp-up to 2,971 tonnes of lithium, reported on 19 July together with the 4Q16 results, came a notch below market expectations. The management lowered the production guidance, delaying full operational capacity by two months until November (realistically it might take even longer). Positive points in guidance included an LCE price exceeding $10,000/tonne in the upcoming quarter and confirmation that the company turned cash flow positive in the first half of this year.3 Orocobre is already planning capacity expansion at the Olaroz facility to 25 ktpa, with diversification into lithium hydroxide. Further exploration drilling is underway in the Cauchari facility, just south of Olaroz. The market forecasts the company to produce a positive bottom-line in FY17 and grow EPS by a CAGR of 25% for the next four years. Orocobre is currently trading at a forward P/E of 36.1x. Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium (002460 CH): one of the largest lithium producers in China (Chart 11). Gangfeng is a unique company in the lithium space in the sense that it is a raw material producer with added processing capabilities. The main trigger for our OW recommendation was the acquisition of a 43% stake in the Mt Marion project in Australia. From 3Q16 onwards the bottleneck in raw material supply will be removed and the company can count on approximately 20 thousand tonnes (kt) of lithium spodumene. On the back of this news, the company announced a production expansion into lithium hydroxide (20 kt) from which 15 kt will be battery grade and 5 kt industry grade. This has the potential to lift Ganfeng to one of the top five producers in the world. Ganfeng reported stellar 2Q16 results on 22 August. The top-line grew two times YOY, while operating profit increased by 7.8x. Operating margin jumped from 9.8% to 35.9%, and the bottom-line expanded five-fold YOY. The profit margin also improved from 8.55% to 25.3%. We expect less strong, but still robust, YOY growth for the upcoming quarters. Market projects EPS CAGR of over 50% during the next four years, as the production run-up will continue. The company is currently trading at a forward P/E of 36.8x. Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH): Making the move (Chart 12). Tianqi is the third largest producer in the world (18% of global capacity). Recently the company got into the news on rumors of its attempted expansion by taking a controlling stake in the world's largest lithium producer, Chile's SQM. Chart 11Performance Since October 2015:##br## Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium vs MXEF Index Chart 12Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Tianqi Lithium vs MXEF Index SQM has an intricate shareholding structure, with the involvement of the Chilean government and a rule that no shareholder is currently allowed to own more than a 32% stake in the company (this rule can be changed only through an extraordinary shareholder meeting). At the moment the largest shareholder is Mr. Ponce Lerou (son-in-law of former President Augusto Pinochet), who owns just under 30% and has a strategic agreement with a Japanese company, Kowa, which makes the combined holding 32%. During the last week of September Tianqi acquired a 2% stake (for USD209 m) from US-based fund SailtingStone Capital Partners, which held a 9% stake, with the option to buy the remaining 7%. In a further step, Tianqi is trying to negotiate a deal with one of Mr. Ponce Lerou's companies which holds a 23% stake. It is said that Mr. Ponce Lerou has got into a political stalemate with the Chilean government on a production increase at one of its deposits and is looking to exit the company. Tianqi reported strong Q2 results on 22 August. Revenues grew by 2.4x YOY, and operating profit improved by 3.9x YOY. Operating margin grew from 42.99% in 2015 to 69.35% in 2Q16, and bottom-line increased twofold QOQ as production ramp-up continued. At the same time profit margin reached 48.9%, up from 2.8% a year ago. The company is currently trading at a forward P/E of 23.4x, and the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 13% over the next three years. The Demand Side4 Lithium is used in a wide range of products, from electronics to aluminium production and special alloys, down to ceramics and glass. But battery production takes the largest share of utilization (Charts 13A & 13B). Chart 13ALithium UsageChart 13BLithium Batteries Most Widely Used As confirmed by import statistics (from the U.S. Geological Survey), demand in many Asian countries, as well as the U.S., has been constantly rising. Among the main importers, South Korea is in fourth place with the largest number of new lithium-related projects started. In top position is the U.S., where we expect a strong demand increase, once the Tesla battery mega-factory in Nevada is completed, followed by Japan, which has the highest penetration of electric vehicles (EV), and China (Chart 14). Chart 14Composition Of Lithium Imports By Country Because of its low atomic mass, lithium has a high charge and power-to-mass ratio (a lithium battery generates up to 3V per cell, compared to 2.1V for lead-acid or 1.5V for zinc-carbon), which makes it the metal-of-choice for battery electrolytes and electrodes, and makes it difficult to replace with other metals, due to its unique physical features. Lithium is used in both disposable batteries (as an anode) and re-chargeable ones (Li-ion or LIB batteries, where lithium is used as an intercalated compound). Li-ion batteries are used in: Portable electronics, such as mobile phones (lithium cobalt oxide based); Power tools / household appliances (lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese oxide); EVs (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC). The most produced battery is the cylindrical 18650 battery. Tesla's Model S uses over 7000 of these type of batteries for its 85 kWh battery pack (the largest on the market until mid-August, when Tesla announced a 100 kWh battery pack). The amount of lithium used in a battery pack depends on the kW output. Rockwood Lithium (now Albermarle), estimated in one of its annual presentations that: A hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) uses approximately 1.6kg of lithium A plug-in hybrid (PHEV) uses 12kg An electric vehicle (EV) uses more than 20kg (but all depends on make, model, and technology). An average car battery (PHEV/EV) would use over 10kg of lithium, assuming 450g per kWh (please note that real-life calculations suggest a usage of up to 800g per kWh of lithium. We have used the lower end of the range for our estimates), with Tesla's battery consuming around 70kg of lithium. Simple math suggests that with the completion of the mega-factory (estimated production of 35 GWh or 500k batteries p.a.), Tesla alone will be consuming at least half of world lithium production by 2020, and create a large overhang in demand. Among car battery producers, we like global players with dominant market positions and strong ties to end-users, such as LG Chem, Samsung SDI in Korea, and BYD in China. Those three companies together control more than half of global battery production (Chart 15) and will most likely maintain market share in the foreseeable future, as barriers to entry are high due the amount of investment required into technology and production facilities, and the end-product is difficult to differentiate on the market. BYD Corp (1211 HK): Build Your Dreams, it's in the name (Chart 16). Founded in 1995 and based in Shenzhen, BYD covers the whole value chain, from R&D and production of batteries (phone and car batteries) to automobile production and energy storage solutions. It is currently the largest battery and PHEV producer in China. The total revenues stream consists of 55% from auto and auto components sales, 33% portable electronics battery, and 12% car battery sales. Chart 15Largest Lithium ##br##Battery Producers Chart 16Performance Since October 2015: ##br##BYD Corp vs MXEF Index We believe the company is best positioned to reap multi-year rewards from the recent drive of the Chinese government to promote new electronic vehicle (NEV) growth through subsidies, support of charging infrastructure, and changes in legislation. The introduction of carbon trading in August (carbon credit will be measured on the number of gasoline-powered vehicles in the producer's fleet) will give BYD a benefit over other car manufacturers. BYD's model pipeline and battery manufacturing capacity (expected to reach 20 GWh by FY17), as well as favourable pricing ($200 kWh compared to over $400 kWh for Tesla) put the company into a leadership position. BYD reported 2Q16 results on 28 August, which came out very strong. Revenues grew by 52.5% YOY and 384% on a semi-annual perspective, driven by all three business segments and especially strong in EV sales (+29% YOY). This came with a significant beat of consensus estimates and later we saw a 68% upwards adjustment. As a result operating margin and profit margin improved from 3.8% and 2.2% in 2Q15 to 8.5% and 5.8% in 2Q16. Bottom-line was up 4x YOY. The market is currently pricing in an EPS CAGR of 12% over the next three years. BYD is trading at a forward P/E of 23.9x. LG Chem (051910 KS): Catering for the US market (Chart 17). LG Chem is the largest chemical company in South Korea, operating in three different divisions: petrochemicals (from basic distillates to polymers), which account for 71% of total revenues, information technology and electronics (displays, toners etc.), which represent 13% of total revenues, and energy solutions, 16% of total revenues. LG Chem is the third largest battery producer in the world, manufacturing a pallet from small watch and mobile phone batteries down to auto-packs. LG's North American operations in Holland, Michigan produce battery packs for the whole range of GM (Chevrolet, Cadillac) EVs (including the most popular Volt range), as well as for the Ford Focus. In Europe, customers include Renault; in Asia, LG is working with Hyundai, SAIC, and Chery. The company reported better-than-expected 2Q16 results on 21 July. Revenues grew by 3% YOY and operating profit by 8.5% YOY, driven solely by the petrochem division (up 10% YOY). Bottom-line expanded by a healthy 8% YOY. LG Chem trades at deeply discounted levels (forward P/E of 11.6x) due to the remaining negative profitability in the battery segment (partly due to licensing issues in China, which represents 32% of total revenues), but we estimate that the trend will turn in the following quarters, as Chevrolet is ramping up demand with new product lines and management is guiding for a resolution in China. Furthermore, plans released by the Korean government in June/July (renewable energy plan and EV expansion plan) will increase demand for batteries by more than 30% CAGR in the next five years. The market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 9% over the upcoming four years. Samsung SDI (006400 KS): Investing into the future (Chart 18). In contrast to LG Chem, Samsung SDI is fully focused on Li-ion battery production, with 66.5% of total revenues coming from this division (BMW and Fiat among clients). The company also produces semiconductors and LCD displays, which account for 35.5% of total revenue. Chart 17Performance Since October 2015: ##br##LG Chem vs MXEF Index Chart 18Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Samsung SDI vs MXEF Index Samsung SDI is currently in a reorganization phase, as the company is spinning off "Samsung SDI Chemicals" and has announced it will invest $2.5 bn into further development of its car battery business. The proceeds from the sale of Samsung SDI Chemicals (taken over by Lotte Chemicals in April for around $2.6 bn) will also be directed towards the car battery segment. Samsung SDI reported weak 2Q16 results on 28 July, as expected. Revenues continued to contract on a YOY basis, although the rate of decline slowed compared to Q1 and even registered 2% QOQ growth. The bottom-line was positive due to a one-off gain (the sale of the chemical business). The main headwinds came from delays in licensing Chinese factory production and a strong Japanese yen. On the positive side, Li-ion batteries in portable devices performed well, due to better than expected Galaxy S7 sales, as well as OLED sales, due to increased demand and capacity constraints in the mobile phone and large panel spaces. Due to the high concentration of EV battery-related revenues in its portfolio, we believe that Samsung SDI will be the largest beneficiary of government's renewable energy and EV expansion plans. The company is also ideally positioned to take advantage of the fast-growing Chinese market (35% of revenues coming from China), once the issue with licensing is resolved (which management guided will happen in Q3). The recent problems with overheating or exploding batteries, reported by users of the new Samsung phones, have sent the share price lower. We believe that this offers an excellent entry point, as ultimately the company will replace/improve the technology, and, at the same time, there are no alternatives which could threaten Samsung SDI's leadership in the portable battery space. The temporary issue in China has weighted on valuations, as Samsung SDI is trading at a forward P/E of 27.7x, while the market expects EPS to increase fivefold in the coming four years. Accessing The Chinese EV Market Best access to the fast growing Chinese market is through local car manufacturers, such as Geely (Chart 19). The subsidy schemes, put in place by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), currently cover only domestic-made models (except the BMW i3). Furthermore, import duties are making foreign-made vehicles uncompetitive in terms of price. We recommend to overweight Geely (0175 HK) and electric bus producer Yutong Bus (600066 CH) on the 30% NEV rule for public transport procurement. Chart 19Accessing The Chinese EV Market Geely ("Lucky" in Mandarin) Automobile Holdings (175 HK): A company with large ambitions (Chart 20). Probably best known for its two foreign car holdings, Volvo and the London Taxi Company, Geely grew from a small appliances manufacturer to the second largest EV producer in China, with an ambitious goal to manufacture 2 mn units by 2020. We see the main positive driver in Geely's big push into the EV market. The goal set by management is to have 90% of its fleet powered by electricity by 2020. The so called "Blue Geely" initiative is based on a revamp of Geely's current fleet into HEVs/PHEVs (65% as per plan) and EVs (35%). In May the company raised $400 mn in "green bonds" in a first for a Chinese car company, to support its R&D and manufacturing project, Ansty, to produce the first zero-emission TX5 black cabs in the U.K. The company reported strong 1H16 results on 18 August. Revenues were up 30% YOY, driven by higher production volume (up 10% YOY) and a sales price hike of around 15% YOY. The co-operation with Volvo seems to be working well (Volvo's design, Geely's production capabilities). The average waiting time for new models in China is approximately two months. The bottom-line expanded by 37.5% YOY despite a high density of new model launches, and we expect to see some margin improvement in the coming quarters. The market forecasts an EPS growth CAGR of 25% over the coming four years. Geely is currently trading at a forward P/E of 15.6x. Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH): An unusual bus manufacturer (Chart 21). Yutong Bus Company is the world's largest, and technologically most advanced, producer of medium and large-sized buses (over 75k units produced in FY15, 10% global market share), with its own R&D and servicing capabilities. Even more important, Yutong is one of the largest producers of electric-powered buses in China and globally. Chart 20Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Geely Automobile Holdings vs MXEF Index Chart 21Performance Since October 2015:##br## Yutong Bus Company vs MXEF Index Due to the 30% EV procurement rule for local governments, the number of electric buses produced in 2015 soared 15 times to 90,000, a quarter of which were produced by Yutong. We expect this number to grow further with the introduction of the new carbon emission trading scheme. We see Yutong as best positioned in the bus manufacturers' space to take advantage of the new trading rules. Yutong reported 2Q16 results on 23 August, which came in broadly in line with market expectations. Revenue expanded by 34% YOY, driven by volume growth (7400 NEV units sold, +100% YOY). The push into EVs came with higher cost-of-sales (warranty and servicing). This did not affect gross margin (up 1% to 25%). Bottom-line grew by 50% YOY. Management maintained an upbeat outlook, guiding 25,000 units of NEV sales in FY16, with an average sales price increase due to higher sales in the large-bus segment. Management also expects to receive the national subsidy for FY15 in 3Q16 and for 2016 in 1Q17. The market currently factors in an EPS CAGR growth of 8% over the next four years. Yutong is trading at a forward P/E of 12.3x. How To Trade? The EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of the listed equities, which would consist of four mining companies, three car battery pack producers, and two EV manufacturers. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): Albermarle (ALB US), Gangfeng Lithium (002460 CH), Orocobre (ORE AU), Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH), BYD (1211 HK), LG Chem (051910 KS), Samsung SDI (006400 KS), Geely Automobile Holdings (175 HK), Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH). ETFs: Global X Lithium ETF (LIT US) Funds: There are currently no funds available, which invest directly into lithium or lithium-related stocks. Please note that the trade recommendation is long-term (1Y+) and based on an OW call. We don't see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). Trades can also be implemented through our recommendation versus MXEF index either directly through equities in the recommended list or through ETFs. For convenience, the performance of both the ETFs and market cap-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To Our Investment Case Because of the broad diversification, we see our portfolio exposed to idiosyncratic risk factors, which could affect single-stock performance, as well as the following macro factors: Mining: Falling lithium prices due to lower demand or a ramp-up in production on some of the Australian projects, could hurt profitability or delay new projects (especially in case of Orocobre). We also see some political risk stemming from the region of operations (Argentina, Chile), especially taking into account the weak performance of Chile's own lithium producer SQM and its role in a Brazil-like political scandal. Battery and EV production. We identify the main risk in drastic changes to governments' environmental and subsidy policies, which would hit the whole supply chain. A slowdown in economic development can make green or power-saving initiatives too expensive and governments will have to rethink their subsidy policies or production/penetration goals. This will hurt profitability through either a negative impact on sales or through smaller subsidies, which producers and end-users are receiving from their governments. One further risk is the dramatic increase in demand for lithium after the completion of Tesla's factory in Nevada, but may also come from other large players such as BYD. We currently see this risk as muted. As with all large Tesla initiatives, you have to take them with a pinch of salt, as the exact end numbers and the time the factory will be working at full capacity are unclear. Furthermore, Tesla, unlike many Chinese competitors, has no supply of lithium of its own, so there is little chance that it can protect supply or control prices. In any case, we see the overall portfolio as balanced, as the mining companies' performance should compensate for a negative impact on the end producers. Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk BASE METALS China Commodity Focus: Base Metals Zinc: Downgrade To Strategically Bearish We downgrade our strategic zinc view from neutral to bearish. We believe zinc supply (both ore and refined) will rise in response to current high prices, resulting in a 10-15% decline in zinc prices over next 9-12 months. Tactically, we still remain neutral on zinc prices as we believe the market will remain in supply deficit over the near term. Chinese zinc ore production will recover in 2017, while the country's zinc demand growth will slow. China is the world's biggest zinc ore miner, refined zinc producer, and zinc consumer. We recommend selling Dec/17 zinc if it rises to $2,400/MT (current: $2,373.5/MT). If the sell order gets filled, put on a stop-loss level at $2,500/MT. Zinc has been the best-performing metal in the base-metals complex, beating copper, aluminum and nickel this year. After bottoming at $1,456.50/MT on January 12, zinc prices have rallied 64.7% to $2,399/MT on October 3 (Chart 22, panel 1). The Rally The rally was supercharged by a widening supply deficit, which was mainly due to a record shortage of zinc ores globally (Chart 22, panels 2, 3 and 4). Late last October our research showed the output loss from the closure of Australia's Century mine, the closure of Ireland's Lisheen mine and Glencore's production cuts would reduce global zinc supply by 970 - 1,020 KT in 2016, which would be equivalent to a 7.1 - 7.5% drop in global zinc ore output.5 Moreover, a 16% price decline during the November-January period spurred additional production cut worldwide. According to the WBMS data, for the first seven months of 2016, global zinc ore production declined 11.9% versus the same period of last year, a reduction never before seen in the zinc market. In comparison, there was no decline in global zinc demand (Chart 22, panel 4). As a result, the global supply deficit reached 152-thousand-metric-tons (kt) for the first seven months of 2016, versus the 230kt supply surplus during the same period last year. What Now? Tactically, We Remain Neutral. On the supply side, we do not see much new ore supply coming on stream over the next three months. On the demand side, both monetary and fiscal stimulus in China has pushed Chinese zinc demand higher. For the first seven months of 2016, the country's zinc consumption increased 209 kt, the biggest consumption gain worldwide. Because of China, global zinc demand did not fall this year. China will continue lifting global zinc demand as its auto production, highway infrastructure investment, and overseas demand for galvanized steel sheet will likely remain elevated over the near term (Chart 23, panels 1, 2 and 3). Inventories at the LME are still hovering around the lowest level since August 2009, while SHFE inventories also have been falling (Chart 23, bottom panel). Speculators seem to be running out of steam, as the open interest has dropped from the multi-year high on futures exchanges. Chart 22Zinc: Strategically Bearish, Tactically Neutral Chart 23Positive Factors In The Near Term The aforementioned factors militate against zinc prices dropping sharply in the near term. However, with prices near the 2014 and 2015 highs, and facing strong technical resistance, we do not see much upside. Strategically, We Downgrade Our Strategic Zinc View From Neutral To Bearish We believe zinc supply (both ore and refined) will rise in response to current high prices, resulting in a 10-15% decline in zinc prices over next 9-12 months. Chart 24High Prices Will Boost Supply In 2017 Zinc prices at both LME and China's SHFE markets are high (Chart 24, panel 1). Last year, many miners and producers cut their ore and refined production due to extremely low prices. If zinc prices stay high over next three to six months, we expect to see an increasing amount of news stories on either production cutbacks coming back or new supply being added to the market, which will clearly be negative to zinc prices (Chart 24, panels 2 and 3). So far, even though Glencore, the world's biggest ore producing company, is still sticking firmly to its output reduction plan, there have been some news reports about other producers raising their output, all of which will increase zinc ore supply in 2017. The CEO of the Peruvian Antamina mine said on October 10 the mine operator will aim to double its zinc output in 2017 to 340 - 350 kt, up from an estimated 170 kt - 180 kt this year, as the open pit operation transitions into richer zinc areas. This alone will add 170 kt - 180 kt new zinc supply to the market. Vedanta said last week that its zinc ore output from its Hindustan Zinc mine located in India will be significantly higher over next two quarters versus the last two quarters. Nyrstar announced in late September that it is reactivating its Middle Tennessee mines in the U.S., expecting ore production to resume during 2017Q1 and to reach full capacity of 50 kt per year of zinc in concentrate by November 2017. Red River Resource is also restarting its Thalanga zinc project in Australia, and expects to resume producing ore in early 2017. Glencore may not produce more than its 2016 zinc production guidance over next three months. But it will likely set its 2017 guidance higher, if zinc prices stay elevated. After all, the company has massive mothballed zinc mines, which are available to bring back to the market quickly. In comparison to the high probability of more supply coming on stream, global demand growth is likely to stay anemic in 2017, as the stimulus in China, which was implemented in 2016H1, will eventually run out of steam. How Will China Affect The Global Zinc Market? Chart 25Look To Short Dec/17 Zinc China is the world's largest zinc ore producing country, the world's largest refined zinc producing country, and the world's largest zinc consuming country. Last year, the country produced 35.9% of global zinc ore, 43.8% of global refined zinc, and consumed 46.7% of global zinc. Over the near term, China is a positive factor to global zinc prices. Domestic refiners are currently willing to refining zinc ores as domestic zinc prices are near their highest levels since February 2011. With inventories running low and domestic ore output falling 7.8% during the first seven months of 2016, the country may increase its zinc ore imports in the near term, further tightening global zinc ore supply. Domestic zinc demand and overseas galvanized steel demand are likely to stay strong in the near term. However, over the longer term, China will become a negative factor to global zinc prices. China's ore output the first seven months of 2016 was 221 kt lower than the same period of last year as low prices in January-March forced widespread mine closures. The country's mine output may not increase much, as the government shut 26 lead and zinc mines in August in Hunan province (the 3rd largest zinc-producing province in China) due to safety and environmental concerns. The ban will be in place until June 2017. Looking forward, elevated zinc prices and a removal of the ban will boost Chinese zinc ore output in 2017. Regarding demand, we expect much weaker Chinese zinc demand growth next year as this year's stimulus should run out of steam by then. Risks If global zinc ore supply does not increase as much as we expect, or global demand still have a robust growth next year, global zinc supply-demand balance may be more tightened, resulting in further zinc price rallies. If Chinese authorities resume their reflationary policies next year during the lead-up to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in the fall, which may increase Chinese and global zinc demand considerably, we will re-evaluate our bearish strategic zinc view. Investment Ideas As we are strategically bearish zinc, we recommend selling Dec/17 zinc if it rises to $2,400/MT (current: $2,373.5/MT) (Chart 25). If the sell order gets filled, put on a stop-loss level at $2,500/MT. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see p. 32 of the 2016 edition of the International Energy Agency's "Key World Energy Statistics." The IEA reckons global oil demand in 2014 averaged just over 93mm b/d. 2 Please see the Financial Times, p. 12, "Warning on electric vehicle threat to oil industry," in the October 9, 2016, re the Fitch Ratings report, and IHS Energy's Special Report, "Deflating the 'Carbon Bubble,' Reality of oil and gas company valuation," published in September 2014. 3 Because of the early stage of the project, a conventional equity analysis is not yet applicable. 4 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", dated September 20, 2016, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for Base Metal section, "Global Oil Market Rebalancing Faster Than Expected", dated October 22, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades