Energy
Energy services shares have pulled back as oil prices have marked time over the last few weeks, but in the background, the conditions to sustain a rally are falling into place. The growth in total OECD oil stocks has rolled over decisively, and a continued supply/demand rebalancing should occur given that world oil production growth has slipped to nil courtesy of OPEC output cuts. The bond market has increased confidence that oil prices will not tumble anew, as reflected in the sharp narrowing in energy corporate bond spreads. Many companies have used the recovery in oil prices to refinance and bolster balance sheets, underscoring that the financial means to boost exploration exist. With energy services pricing power trying to make an early exit from deflation on only a small boost to the global rig count, there is scope for the attractively valued S&P oil & gas field services index to surprise on the upside. We have this at high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P oil & gas field services index are: BLBG: S5ENRE - SLB, HAL, BHI, NOV, FTI, HP, RIG.
Highlights Crude-oil fundamentals stand out among commodities because of the active efforts by critical producers to rein in supply since the end of last year. This can be seen in even-higher compliance with the production accord - a supply shock in many ways - negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia: Last month, Reuters estimated 94% compliance on the 1.2mm b/d in cuts pledged by OPEC states. We expect compliance to remain high, which will strengthen the divergence between oil prices and the USD, as markets look toward the upcoming summer driving season in the Northern Hemisphere. Active supply management and robust demand growth wrought by lower prices could continue to overwhelm a strong USD's influence on oil prices, if this Agreement becomes a durable modus operandi for KSA and Russia going forward. We give a high probability to this outcome, even as the Fed leans into its interest-rate normalization. Energy: Overweight. This past Thursday, we closed our long WTI Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 backwardation spread at +$0.96/bbl (Dec/17 over); it was initiated February 9 at -$0.11/bbl (Dec/17 under), resulting in a 972.7% gain. We also closed our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread, elected February 6 at +$0.07/bbl (WTI over) at -$1.17/bbl (WTI under), for a gain of 1,771.4%. Base Metals: Neutral. Any demand uptick for base metals' coming from U.S. fiscal stimulus will not hit markets until 2H18 at the earliest. We remain neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. Based on last week's analysis, we are tactically long a Jun/17 gold put spread (long the $1200/oz put vs. short the $1150/oz puts) and call spread (long the $1275/oz call vs. short the $1325/oz calls) at a net debit of $21/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects continued demand from China to keep soybeans relatively well bid versus corn and wheat in the 2017/18 crop year. Total planted area for these crops is expected to be the lowest since 2011, keeping ending stocks flat to lower. Feature Prior to the end of the 1990s, crude-oil prices were, to use one of the most popular catch-phrases in finance, mean-reverting: The price of crude oil imported to the U.S. averaged just over $19/bbl from Mar/83, when WTI futures began trading, to 1999 (Chart of the Week). This meant WTI traded at ~ $20/bbl on average over that period. Prices were volatile, but pretty much returned to $20ish/bbl, which allowed traders to take a view on how soon prices would revert to their mean. Whenever prices were too far removed from that level, markets expected producers - OPEC mostly - to adjust output to meet current and expected demand conditions. Since roughly 2000 - maybe a little earlier - oil prices have followed a random walk.1 During this time, oil prices have been negatively correlated with the broad trade-weighted index (TWI) for the USD. One striking characteristic of oil prices and the USD TWI during this time is both followed random walks, which "like the walk of a drunken sailor, wanders indefinitely far, listing with the wind," to borrow Paul Samuelson's well-turned metaphor (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekOil's Past As Prelude: ##br##A Return To Mean Reversion? Chart 2Oil Prices And The USD Followed ##br##A Common Long-term Trend Until 1Q16 We believe this was caused by OPEC's decision to become a price-taker at the end of the 1990s - shortly after Dec/98 or thereabouts - after years of unsuccessfully trying to manage oil prices via production adjustments. After the price of oil imports in the U.S. dropped below $10/bbl (nominal), it appears the Cartel took the decision to respond to prices set by market forces (supply, demand, inventories and exchange rates), and to abandon its price-management efforts. The long-term correlation between oil and the USD was due to the fact that while oil prices and the USD followed random walks, they followed a common long-term trend as they wandered indefinitely about. This held up to the end of 1Q16, when a massive sell-off in risky-asset markets globally took oil prices below $30/bbl (Chart 3).3 This came on the heels of a price collapse brought about by OPEC's Nov/14 decision to launch a market-share war. By no means did this high correlation mean oil and the USD were always moving in lock step. The collapse in oil prices at the end of the last century led to a production-cutting agreement among OPEC states, Norway and Mexico, which lifted U.S. import prices from less than $10/bbl at the end of 1998 to $30/bbl by Nov/00. Likewise, export disruptions in Venezuela in 2002 - 2003 and, to a lesser extent, hurricane losses in the U.S. Gulf in 2005 sharply curtailed supply and lifted oil prices above what could have been expected given the USD's level at the time, as the Chart of the Week shows.4 End Of Oil's Random Walk? The price collapse of 1Q16 marked the bottom of the price move begun a few months prior to the Nov/14 market-share war declaration. The subsequent divergence between oil prices and the USD since then has been remarkable (Chart 4). The market-share strategy, which essentially allowed Cartel members to produce full-out and grab as much market share as possible, was engineered by KSA, and, we believe, initially was directed at undermining Iran's efforts to restore oil production lost to nuclear-related sanctions. From time to time, it also appeared OPEC was trying to retard the continued growth of shale-oil production in the U.S., which, by 2014, was increasing at an annual rate of more than 1mm b/d, enough to replace the entire output of Libya. Chart 3Close-up Of USD vs. ##br##Brent Divergence Chart 4The Divergence Between ##br##Oil Prices And The USD Is Remarkable This strategy was a complete failure. The price collapse that ensued brought KSA and Russia - both highly dependent on oil revenues - to the brink of financial ruin, compelling them to find a way to work together.5 After several false starts in 2016, they succeeded late in the year with a negotiated production cut. OPEC pledged to reduce output by as much as 1.2mm b/d, and non-OPEC producers agreed to cut output by close to 600k b/d, half of which is expected to come from Russia. Recent tallies by Reuters indicate 94% of the cuts from OPEC states that signed on to the deal have actually been realized.6 Should KSA and Russia find a way to coordinate their and their allies' production in a way that maintains the backwardation we expect later this year - the result of production cuts (Chart 5), and robust demand growth (Chart 6) - we could see oil prices become mean-reverting once again. Chart 5If KSA And Russia Can ##br##Coordinate Production ... Chart 6... And Demand Continues To Grow, ##br##The Oil-Price Backwardation Could Persist This likely requires the forward curves for WTI and Brent to remain backwardated, so as to moderate the growth in shale production, and for prices to remain between $55/bbl and $65/bbl, so as not to set off another shale boom. Gulf sources have indicated KSA prefers prices this year of ~ $60/bbl, which, we believe would allow it to keep some control over the rate at which shale production revives.7 Chart 7Supply Destruction And Robust Growth ##br##Rallied Oil Despite A Strong USD Investment Implications We are not calling for a return to mean-reversion in oil prices just yet. We are, however, highlighting the possibility for such a sea-change in the market if all the supply-side pieces fall into place - i.e., KSA, Russia and their respective allies find a way to work together to moderate U.S. shale-oil production. That said, we will be watching closely to see whether the KSA - Russia Agreement becomes a durable modus operandi in the oil market, particularly as regards the management of inventories and production in the market generally. If these states are able to keep prices ~ $60/bbl, and gain some control over the forward curve's slope - i.e., literally manage their production for backwardation - then there is a chance oil prices could once again become mean-reverting. In a mean-reverting world with backwardated oil prices, commodity-index exposure is favored, since investors would, once again, earn positive roll yields as the indices are rebalanced monthly in the underlying futures markets. Bottom Line: The persistent negative correlation between oil prices and the USD broke down following the global asset sell-off in 1Q16. Since then, the combination of supply destruction and robust demand growth has allowed oil prices to rally despite a strong USD (Chart 7). If KSA and Russia can continue to cooperate in their production-management deal - i.e., find a way to manage production so that prices remain closer to $60/bbl than not - and Brent and WTI forward curves backwardate, markets could once again become mean-reverting. In such a world, commodity-index exposures are favored - particularly those heavy on crude-oil and refined-products price exposure - for their positive roll yield. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Technically, oil prices have been I(1) variables (integrated of order 1) since about 2000, meaning they are mean-reverting in first differences (e.g., today's price minus yesterday's price). Please see Geman, Helyette (2007), "Mean Reversion Versus Random Walk in Oil and Natural Gas Prices," pp. 219 - 228, in Advances in Mathematical Finance. Haidar, Imad and Rodney C. Wolff (2011) obtained similar results, reporting crude prices were mean-reverting from Jan/86 - Jan/98, then random-walking since then; please see pp. 3 - 4 of "Forecasting Crude Oil Price (revisited)," presented at the 30th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference in Washington, D.C., during October 2011. Our own research corroborates these results - we find WTI and Brent were mean-reverting from Mar/83, when WTI futures started trading, to Mar/98; and were random-walking I(1) variables after that. 2 Please see Samuelson, Paul A. (1965), "Proof That Properly Anticipated Prices Fluctuate Randomly," in Industrial Management Review, 6:2. 3 This is to say, these variables were cointegrated, and could be expressed in a linear combination using an error-correction model. 4 Our colleague, Mathieu Savary, who runs BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy, addressed these oil-USD divergences in "Party Like It's 1999," published November 25, 2016. It is available at fes.bcareseach.com. 5 We discuss this at length in the feature article of Commodity & Energy Strategy published September 8, 2016, entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." Both states were burning through cash reserves, and were trying tap foreign markets for additional funds by selling interests in their most valuable holdings - via the IPO of, and via the sale of just under 20% of Rosneft held by the Russian government. Russia placed its Rosneft shares late last year with Glencore and Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, while KSA is expected to IPO Aramco in late 2018. 6 Please see "OPEC compliance with oil curbs rises to 94 percent in February: Reuters survey," published by the news service online February 28, 2017. 7 Please see "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia wants oil prices to rise to around $60 in 2017 - sources," published by Reuters online February 28, 2016. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights Global manufacturing inventories are low but this does not guarantee higher share prices for global cyclical stocks. If an increase in inventories is accompanied by strengthening final demand, it will be very bullish for the global business cycle. If final demand growth falters, global cyclical plays will relapse amid rising inventories. China's inventory depletion has been due to the large fiscal and credit impulse in the past 12 months - i.e., improving final demand has been instrumental to inventory shedding. Looking forward, the mainland's aggregate credit and fiscal impulse seems to have topped out raising the odds of a reversal in EM/China plays sooner than later. The risk/reward of EM/China plays remains unattractive. Feature Global Manufacturing Inventories Global manufacturing inventories have been depleted over the past 12 months, and inventory levels are generally low (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1Global Manufacturing Inventories Are Low Chart I-2Global Manufacturing Inventories Are Low Could inventory re-stocking extend the current manufacturing cycle recovery worldwide? Will low inventories and re-stocking in China lengthen the nation's business cycle upswing? Chart I-3 demonstrates inventory cycles and manufacturing production within manufacturing-intensive economies. The correlation is not stable. Currently, this entails that low manufacturing inventories and a potential rise in inventories over the course of this year do not guarantee acceleration in industrial output growth. Having reviewed manufacturing inventory cycles and their correlation with share prices, we conclude that the key to share prices is final demand - not inventory swings. Manufacturing inventories have dropped in the past 12 months because final demand has been robust (Chart I-4). Historically, periods of re-stocking have often coincided with poor equity market performance. Indeed, Taiwanese, Korean, Japanese and German non-financial share prices have no stable correlation with their respective manufacturing inventory cycles (Chart I-5). In short, manufacturing inventories could rise in the months ahead, but this does not guarantee higher share prices in cyclical industries. Chart I-3Inventories And Production ##br##Are Not Always Correlated Chart I-4Robust Demand Has Led ##br##To Inventory Depletion Chart I-5Non-Financial Share Prices And##br## Inventories: Little Correlation By and large, the outlook for corporate profits is contingent on final demand rather than re-stocking. All of the above confirms that inventories are a residual of demand and supply. Stronger-than-expected demand is bullish for share prices, though it also often coincides with declining inventories. By contrast, rising inventories typically reflect demand falling behind output growth (one can define it as involuntary re-stocking) and these periods are not favorable for share price gains in cyclical industries. One caveat is that there could be a re-stocking cycle amid strengthening demand or, in other words, voluntary re-stocking. If this transpires in the coming months, it will be extremely bullish for share prices as it will supercharge output growth. While the latter scenario - inventory re-stocking amid strengthening final demand - could very well occur within the advanced economies this year, odds of such positive dynamics are low in EM/China. Bottom Line: Share prices in global cyclical sectors are driven by swings in final demand - not in inventories. Going forward, global manufacturing inventories will rise. If this rise is accompanied by strengthening demand, it will be very bullish for the global business cycle. Otherwise, global cyclical plays will relapse as inventories rise. What Drives China's Inventory Cycles Chart I-6 shows that China's manufacturing inventories typically deplete when the credit and fiscal impulse is rising, and vice versa. China's manufacturing inventories have been exhausted because demand has been strong in the past 12 months. In turn, demand strength has originated from the country's massive fiscal and credit stimulus push from the first half of 2016. Chart I-6China: Strong Policy Stimulus Led To Manufacturing Inventories Reduction That said, China's aggregate fiscal and credit impulse seems to have recently rolled over, pointing to a top in its manufacturing mini-cycle and commodities prices (Chart I-7). This signals a potential deceleration in final demand. On the whole, the ongoing modest tightening by the People's Bank of China and by the bank regulator (the China Banking Regulatory Commission) amid a lingering credit bubble is raising the odds of a moderate credit slowdown in the months ahead. Even modest credit growth deceleration will result in a negative credit impulse (Chart I-8, top panel). Meanwhile, the mainland's fiscal impulse has already dropped (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7China: Aggregate Credit And Fiscal##br## Stimulus Has Topped Out Chart I-8China: A Breakdown Of Credit ##br##And Fiscal Impulses On the whole, these developments are leading us to maintain our negative bias toward EM risk assets and China plays. What has gone wrong in our view/analysis on China in the past 12 months is that the nation's credit growth has stayed much stronger than we expected. In our April 13, 2016 report,1 we did a scenario analysis and argued that China's large fiscal stimulus push would be offset by a negative credit impulse if credit growth slowed from 11.5% to below 10%. In reality, credit growth has been between 11.5-12.5%, producing a positive credit impulse. Barring tightening by the central bank or bank regulators, mainland banks can continue originating loans/money at a double-digit pace, as they have been doing for many years (Chart I-9). In general, commercial banks do not need savings to create money/loans and there are few limits on Chinese banks originating loans "out of thin air," as we argued in our Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment.2 Chart I-9China's Credit/Money Growth##br## Remains Rampant Therefore, if credit growth does not slow, our negative view on China's growth will be off-the-mark again. The pressure point in such a case will be the exchange rate. Unlimited money creation/oversupply of local currency is bearish for the value of the RMB. The RMB will continue depreciating, but it is not certain if it will hurt EM risk assets. It is a major consensus view nowadays that the Chinese authorities will not allow growth to suffer ahead of the Party Congress in autumn of this year. Yet, the PBoC and bank regulators are modestly tightening to "normalize" credit growth. Some clients may wonder why we are placing so much emphasis on the rollover of credit and fiscal impulses now, while placing little emphasis on these same indicators in 2016 when they were recovering. The rationale is as follows: when there is a credit bubble - as there is in China now - we tend to downplay the importance of policy easing and put more significance on policy tightening. The opposite also holds true: when the credit/banking system is healthy, we tend to downplay the impact of moderate policy tightening and put greater emphasis on policy easing. In a credit bubble, it does not take much tightening to trigger a downtrend that unwinds excesses. Similarly, moderate tightening in a healthy credit system should not be feared. From a big picture perspective, we turned bearish on China's growth several years ago due to the formation of a credit bubble. The bubble has only gotten larger and an adjustment has not yet even started. This does not justify altering our fundamental assessment of China's growth outlook. It would have been ideal to turn positive tactically on EM/China plays a year ago. Unfortunately, we did not do that. Presently, chasing the market higher might not be the best investment idea. Based on all this and given: the sharp rally in EM/China plays and widespread investor complacency and consensus that "everything" will be fine before the end of this year; modest tightening in Chinese monetary policy amid lingering credit and asset (property and the corporate bond market) bubbles; our outlook for higher U.S. bond yields and a stronger U.S. dollar; the fact that financial markets are forward looking, and timing is impossible; We believe the risk/reward of EM/China plays remains unattractive. In regard to EM ex-China, as we documented in last week's report, domestic demand in the developing economies has not recovered at all, or is mixed at best. DM final demand strength and global manufacturing inventory rebuilding will certainly help Korea and Taiwan, but not other emerging economies. The most important variables for other EM economies including China are domestic demand and/or commodities prices. If commodities prices relapse along with China's credit and fiscal impulse (Chart I-7, bottom panel), EM financial markets will suffer regardless of the growth trends within advanced economies. In fact, strong U.S. growth could lead to higher U.S. interest rate expectations and prop up the U.S. dollar. This will also be a bad omen for EM and commodities. Bottom Line: China's inventory depletion has been due to the large fiscal and credit impulse in the past 12 months - i.e., improving final demand has been instrumental to inventory shedding. Looking forward, the mainland's aggregate credit and fiscal impulse seems to have topped out, raising the odds of a reversal in EM/China plays sooner than later. Industrial Metals Inventories And Prices There is no good data reflecting industrial metals inventories globally. London Metal Exchange and Shanghai Futures Exchange data are likely not indicative of global metals stockpiles. China accounts for close to 50% of global demand for industrial metals, and its demand is critical to prices. Given that the large spike in metals prices in the past several months has coincided with improving Chinese economic data, one would expect the mainland to be the driving force behind the rally. However, Chart I-10 demonstrates that China's imports of industrial metals actually contracted in 2016. This is puzzling, but we have to take it at face value. The top panel of Chart I-11 depicts that traders' net long positions in copper are at a six-year high. This might partially explain the rally in copper in the recent months. Chart I-10China's Import Of Base Metals##br## And Base Metals Prices Chart I-11Traders Are Long ##br##Copper And Oil Clearly, China has been depleting its stock of industrial metals, and is likely primed to increase its imports. Nevertheless, periods of metals re-stocking by the mainland have historically not entailed higher industrial metals prices (Chart I-10). On the contrary, rising Chinese imports of metals have actually coincided with falling prices. One can interpret this relationship as China buying industrial metals when prices are falling. This is consistent with China attempting to buy commodities on dips. As to metals inventories in China, the picture is as follows: Steel inventories have plummeted and are low (Chart I-12). One can safely argue that there will be an inventory re-stocking cycle in China. Nevertheless, it is highly uncertain if this will be bullish for steel prices and steel stocks. In fact, there has been a mild negative correlation between steel prices and inventories; historically, when inventories have risen, prices declined (Chart I-12, top panel). This confirms that inventory levels are a residual of demand and supply, and prices are often driven by final demand - not inventories. This is also corroborated by the bottom panel of Chart I-12, which illustrates that share prices of global steel companies are sometimes negatively correlated with China's steel inventories. Stock prices occasionally sell off when inventories rise, and rally when inventories are shrinking. In contrast to steel and steel products, iron ore inventories have risen, and it seems the re-stocking cycle is well advanced (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China: Steel Inventories And Prices Chart I-13China: Iron Ore Inventories And Prices Yet, again there is no strong correlation between inventories and prices of iron ore (Chart I-13). In our discussions with clients, investors often attribute the rally in industrial metals in general and steel prices in particular over the past 12 months to supply cutbacks in China. While supply reductions have helped in the case of certain metals, it is also evident that the rally in industrial commodities has been driven by rising demand globally and in China. First, China's aggregate credit and fiscal impulse was positive until very recently, implying strengthening demand and thereby higher metals prices. Second, if there were only production cutbacks in steel and other commodities and not demand recovery, the mainland's manufacturing PMI would not have risen (Chart I-14). Finally, steel production has risen both in China and the rest of the world (Chart I-15). Hence, world steel supplies have expanded in the past 12 months. Given this has coincided with rising steel prices, it confirms there has been notable improvement in demand for steel. Chart I-14China: Steel Prices Are Up ##br##Because Of Strong Demand Chart I-15Chinese And Global ##br##Steel Production We are not experts in the ebbs and flows of commodities supplies, but it seems the Chinese government's mandated steel capacity cutbacks have not prevented rising steel output in China. In the meantime, rising prices amid rising production and falling inventories are indicative of robust final demand for many metals. Bottom Line: Industrial metals prices have risen because demand in the real economy and among financial investors has been strong. That said, a rollover in China's fiscal and credit impulse and a strong U.S. dollar will likely create headwinds for industrial metals prices over the course of this year. A Word About Oil Inventories OECD oil product inventories have continued to rise, despite supply cuts (Chart I-16, top panel). At the same time, our proxy for change in China's oil inventories has been very elevated for a while, depicting strategic and/or commercial inventory building on the mainland (Chart I-16, bottom panel). It is true that supply curtailments have been instrumental to the rally in oil prices, but the continued inventory buildup also indicates that supply is still outpacing demand. Besides, traders' net long positions in crude have spiked close to their 2014 highs (Chart I-11, bottom panel). This corroborates that demand for crude, like for copper, has partially been financial rather than from final consumers. Finally, U.S. rig counts have recovered somewhat, which may be indicative of a continued rise in America's oil output (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Oil Inventories Keep On Rising Chart I-17U.S. Rig Counts And Oil Production Bottom Line: While we do not have expertise to follow or forecast oil supply dynamics, we are biased in believing that the risk-reward for oil prices is unattractive because of a strong U.S. dollar and potentially weak EM/China asset prices, which could trigger a reduction in net long positions in crude. Investment Conclusions Complacency reigns in the global financial markets. EM equity volatility has fallen close to its cycle lows, the U.S. VIX is depressed, U.S. equity investor sentiment is very elevated and EM corporate credit spreads have plummeted to a ten-year low (Chart I-18). While the timing of a reversal is impossible, the risk-reward profile of EM financial markets is greatly unattractive. The U.S. trade-weighted dollar has consolidated recently, and might be primed for another upleg. As the U.S. dollar resumes its uptrend, EM risk assets will likely sell off. Finally, EM share prices have failed to outperform the developed bourses much, despite the rally in commodities and amelioration in Chinese growth (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Complacency Reigns Chart I-19EM Equities Have Not Yet Outperformed Remarkably, analysts' net earnings revisions for EM stocks have so far failed to turn positive (Chart I-20). Either analysts' EPS expectations were originally still too high, or companies are failing to deliver profits. Whatever the reason, the implication is that the consensus is more bullish on EM than is suggested by the underlying fundamentals. Within an EM equity portfolio, our overweights remain Taiwan, Korea, India, China, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. We are neutral on other bourses. Finally, the EM equity benchmark is at a critical technical resistance level (Chart I-21) but odds do not favor a sustainable breakout. Chart I-20EM EPS Net Revisions Are Still Negative Chart I-21EM Stocks: A Breakout Attempt Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses", dated April 13, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment, titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses" dated October 26, 2016, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB", dated November 23, 2016 and "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?", dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights We expect the high level of compliance with the OPEC - non-OPEC production agreement engineered by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia will endure, leading to significant reductions in global oil inventories this year and next. All else equal, this should backwardate WTI and Brent forward curves later this year. However, recent developments in the North American pipeline market - i.e., U.S. President Donald Trump's orders to revive development of the Keystone XL (KXL) and completion of the Dakota Access (DAPL) pipelines - could send as much as 1mm barrels/day (bbl/d) of crude south from Canada and the Bakken, which would boost inventories at Cushing and other Midwest storage facilities later in this decade. Depending on when these pipelines are completed - likely by 2020 in the case of KXL - the WTI forward curve could return to a sustained contango.1 The expanded flows of heavy crude via KXL, and light-tight oil south via the DAPL could undo a subtle benefit arising from the backwardation induced by the KSA - Russia production pact, which we uncovered in our modeling. Energy: Overweight. At Tuesday's close, our short Dec/19 WTI vs. long Dec/19 Brent spread elected last week at $.07/bbl (WTI over) was up 700%. Our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI front-to-back spread, entered into at -$0.11/bbl on Feb 9/17, was up 263%. Base Metals: Neutral. BHP declared force majeure at its Escondida mine, which accounts for ~ 5% of global supply, after workers voted to strike. Union leaders agreed to another round of government-mediated talks with BHP management. Precious Metals: Neutral. Fed Chair Yellen's Senate Banking Committee testimony was more hawkish than expected, which rallied the USD and muted gold's overnight strength. We continue to look to get long gold at $1,180/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA revised grain and soybean supply/demand estimates last week, showing markets tightening slightly, with ending stocks for the 2016/17 crop year expected to be a touch lower. We remain bearish. Feature Chart of the WeekStorage Drawdowns Should Accelerate ##br##As U.S. Oil Imports Slow Regular readers of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service will not be surprised by the very high compliance levels seen in the wake of the OPEC - non-OPEC production Agreement engineered by KSA and Russia late last year.2 Because the stakes are so high for KSA and Russia - and their respective oil-producing allies - we expect compliance to remain high into June, resulting in a drawdown of global oil storage, the stated goal of the deal. We believe the pact will result in both WTI and Brent forward curves returning to backwardation, as global storage levels fall some 300mm bbl (Chart of the Week). We are positioned for this outcome by being long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI. We are expecting to see the last of the Persian Gulf export surge to the U.S. this month, as the 45- to 50-day sailing time from the Gulf to the U.S. implies the last of these vessels will be arriving this week or next. This backwardation will, in all likelihood, restrain the rate at which U.S. shale-oil producers return rigs to the market next year. Chart 2Curve Shape Can Affect Rig Counts WTI Term Structure And Rig Counts: It's Complicated Recent modeling we've completed suggests curve shape can affect rig counts in the U.S. light-tight oil fields. When we regress U.S. rig count on the WTI forward curve, we find rig counts can be expected to increase when the forwards are in contango, and to decline when the market is backwardated. A flat forward curve can be expected to keep rig counts fairly constant (Chart 2).3 Obviously, the starting point for these outcomes is critical. We simulated rig counts by assuming Monday's closing prices for March through June WTI futures, then assumed different levels for July WTI futures as a starting point for estimating rig counts to end-2018. We used $50, $55 and $60/bbl in July as our starting point. All else equal, with the July/17 WTI at ~ $55/bbl and the forward curve backwardated by 10% 18 months out, we would expect to see average rig counts fall by 4.38 rigs/month in 2018, given the three-to-four month lag between rigs actually being deployed and the price signal being sent by the futures market. A contango term structure produces the opposite result. With the July/17 WTI at ~ $55/bbl and the forward curve in a contango of 10% 18 months out, we would expect to see rig counts increase by 4.57 rigs/month in 2018. There obviously is a price threshold from which the forward curve originates in this analysis, which we believe to be between $50 and $55/bbl. Below this level, we would expect shale producers to retreat back to their core production areas, and await a price signal to increase their rig counts. Above $60/bbl, backwardation and contango matters for rig counts over the next 2 to 2.5 years. A backwardated forward curve will, all else equal, incentivize a slightly lower level of rigs being deployed than a contango. For example, a 10% contango with a $60/bbl starting point results in 5.24 rigs/month being deployed, while 10% backwardation would lead us to expect 5.02 rigs/month being deployed. Sustaining Backwardation Will Be Difficult A sustained backwardation will be threatened later in this decade by the expansion of the North American pipeline grid, following U.S. President Trump's orders to revive the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline's development and the completion the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The KXL and DAPL buildouts, if approved, will expand U.S. midcontinent crude deliveries by 1mm bbl/d, according to Genscape's tally.4 The KXL volumes would add close to 600k bbl/d to Canadian exports, and would flow directly into Cushing, OK. Another 400k bbl/d of light-tight oil from the Bakken LTO fields will flow to the midcontinent refining market via the DAPL. "Increased flows into Cushing due to the addition of Keystone XL could lead to a bottleneck of inventories at the hub, which would put downward pressure on crude prices," Genscape notes. Work on the KXL could start this year, and be completed before 2020. The DAPL is ~ 95% complete, and should be done in 6 months or less. Genscape believes the DAPL could be built and line fill could be in place in less than three months. Indeed, "drilling under Lake Oahe in southern North Dakota for Energy Transfer Partner's Bakken-to-Patoka, IL, Dakota Access (DAPL) crude pipeline began immediately upon receiving an easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on February 8, according to a company spokesman. It is expected to take 83 days for construction and linefill... ." We will monitor these pipeline buildouts closely, given the profound implications they have for U.S. midcontinent and Gulf Coast refiners, who could once again find themselves benefiting from a widening of the Brent vs. WTI differential, and Canadian E&Ps, who can be expected to increase production into this KXL buildout. The key market to watch as these pipelines are under construction will be the WCS vs. WTI spreads (Chart 3). As pipeline capacity opens up, exports of heavy crude from Canada will increase and the WCS - WTI differential will narrow, which will benefit Canadian E&Ps (Chart 4). A return of contango following the opening of these pipelines would benefit U.S. refiners, who can be expected to increase exports. Chart 3Expanding the N. American Pipeline Network##br## Will Widen WTI Differentials Chart 4Crude Differentials Will##br## Adjust To Pipeline Buildouts Bottom Line: The backwardation of the WTI and Brent forwards should accelerate as the last of the surge in exports from the Persian Gulf arrives in the U.S. President Trump's decision to expedite KXL and the completion of the DAPL in 6 months or less will have a profound impact on crude movements and storage levels in the U.S. later in the decade. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 President Trump's decision to revive KXL was endorsed by House and Senate leaders in the U.S. last month, which greatly raises the odds it will go ahead. In addition, the DAPL received an easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete construction. 2 Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Raising The Odds Of A KSA-Russia Oil-Production Cut," dated November 3, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our previous modeling indicates Granger causality goes from WTI prices to rig counts - i.e., E&P companies drilling decisions are driven by price levels and curve shape. We believe this relationship arises from the hedging behavior of shale-oil producers, many of whom hedge their forward revenues in the futures markets over a two-year interval. 4 Please see "Keystone XL, Dakota Access Could Cause Bottlenecks at U.S. Mid-Continent Storage Hubs, Shift Crude Prices," published on Genscape's blog February 14, 2017. Genscape is a near-real-time pipeline, storage and shipping monitoring service. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in
Highlights Weekly swings in U.S. inventories notwithstanding, we believe global storage is on track to draw ~ 10% by early- to mid-3Q17, which will have achieved the goal of the OPEC - Russia production Agreement negotiated late last year. This will not require an extension of the pact beyond June, based on our modeling. Unexpectedly high compliance by OPEC producers to agreed cuts is being offset somewhat by increased production in those states exempted from the deal. Strong oil consumption on the back of a synchronized global uptick in GDP growth, which started to emerge late last year, provides the impetus for sustained storage draws. Markets are overestimating offshore production's resilience, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, where we see material declines beginning to set in next year. Backwardation likely persists in 2018, absent a U.S. policy-induced USD rally that crimps EM demand and spurs production ex U.S. Energy: Overweight. The return of contango in the WTI forward curve gives us the opportunity to reset our strategic front-to-back position (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) at tonight's close. Our balances assessment supports our view backwardation will return in the deferred part of the curve. Our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread buy stop was elected at $0.07/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, but are keeping a close watch on copper. Unions working at BHP's Escondida mine, the world's largest, are set to strike today. Negotiations resumed this week, following BHP's request for government mediation. Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to look to get long gold at $1,180/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain fundamentals remain unsupportive for a rally. We remain underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Oil Storage On Track For 10% Drop Global oil storage levels remain on track to hit the ~ 10% draw targeted in last year's OPEC - Russia production Agreement by early- to mid-3Q17, weekly gyrations in U.S. inventories notwithstanding. This means an extension of the agreement beyond its June expiry will not be required. Early reports suggest compliance with the deal is unexpectedly high by OPEC states that agreed to cut production by up to 1.2mm b/d - exceeding 80% by various accounts. However, OPEC states not required to cut - Libya, Nigeria, and Iran - have increased production and partially offset those declines, which took total reductions in OPEC output to ~ 840k b/d, based on a Bloomberg tally last week.1 This brought total Cartel compliance to ~ 60% of the agreed cuts, which, as we noted in our 2017 Commodity Outlook in December, would be sufficient to achieve the Agreement's goal of pulling inventories in the OECD down by ~ 10% by 3Q17.2 Non-OPEC producers also appear to be complying with the Agreement. Notable among them is Russia, which is ahead of its commitment with cuts of close to 120k b/d in January, due partly to extreme cold in Siberian fields. We expect cuts in Russia to average 200k b/d in 1Q17, going to 300k b/d in 2Q17. These cuts will allow demand to outstrip supply in 1H17 and into year-end. By early- to mid-3Q17, draws to OECD storage of 300mm bbl can be expected, without extending the OPEC - Russia production agreement (Chart of the Week). We expect to see these cuts show up in OECD inventory data this month and next and continue into the end of 2017. For non-OECD states, the draws will show up in JODI data beginning in March.3 The physical deficits - i.e., supply less than demand - will force storage to draw, backwardating the WTI forward curve later this year (Chart 2).4 If markets are not surprised by a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of a U.S. border-adjustment tax (BAT), or a too-aggressive tightening by the Fed as it seeks to normalize monetary policy, we expect the drawdown in inventories to continue keeping markets backwardated. Even with production returning to pre-Agreement levels in 2H17 in states with the capacity to expand and reliably sustain production - Gulf Arab producers, Russia and U.S. shales - we expect storage to continue to draw through the year and into 2018 (Chart 3). Chart 2We Continue To Expect Backwardation Chart 3Storage Drawdown On Track In 4Q16 the impact of the higher Kuwaiti and UAE output is apparent, along with higher Russian production. This put more crude on the market, which found its way into storage late in 4Q16 and early 1Q17, reversing the trend in draws seen earlier in 2H16. This put the market back in a temporary surplus condition, with the result being more storage will have to be worked off in 1H17 than our earlier estimates indicated. But these draws will occur, following the implementation of the production accord. Extending The KSA - Russia Deal Beyond June Is Unnecessary In our estimates, OPEC crude production increases by ~ 850k b/d in 2H17 versus 1H17 levels. Despite this recovery, the storage drawdown continues. Our modeling assumes Gulf OPEC will account for slightly more than +1mm b/d growth, and non-Gulf OPEC will see production continue to fall by 170k b/d. Russia's total liquids production goes from 10.95mm b/d in 1H17 to 11.34mm b/d in 2H17. We estimate U.S. shale production grows at an average rate of ~ 300k b/d in 2H17, while total U.S. liquids production increases 720k b/d over the same interval. Setting aside the possibility of a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of too-aggressive Fed tightening or a border-adjusted tax becoming the law of the land, both of which would depress demand and raise production ex U.S., we expect the crude-oil market to remain backwardated next year. The globally synchronized upturn in GDP will keep demand robust, with growth coming in close to even with this year's rate of ~ 1.50mm b/d. We have global liquids production and OPEC crude output growing less than 1.0% next year. We believe the market is overestimating the resilience of offshore production next year, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, based on the stout performance put in last year and expected for this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, U.S. production growth since October has almost exclusively been from the Gulf of Mexico's new projects. Output in the Gulf continues to increase due to the lagged effect of final investment decisions made during 2012 - 2014, when WTI prices were consistently trading above $100/bbl. GOM production will peak in 2017 then decline in 2018 due to lack of new investments made since 2014. Indeed, as "increasing decline rates overwhelm a shrinking inventory of new projects, GOM production should peak sometime in 2017 and then start decreasing. The EIA's estimate for another 200,000 b/d increase in GOM production in 2017 seems overly-optimistic."5 Once this becomes apparent to the market, we believe backwardation will reassert itself and persist into 2018. The backwardation of the forward curve structure will affect U.S. shale production economics in 2018. However, our base case is for U.S. shale-oil production in the "Big Four" basins - Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara - to grow 700k b/d next year, given the current structure of the WTI forwards, which were taken higher along with the WTI price rally at the front of the curve. This triggered the revival of rig counts; however, we want to point out that different curve shapes at different price levels produce different expected rig-count responses.6 Chart 4Barring a Policy Shock Demand Will Remain Robust Global Demand Firing On All Cylinders Robust demand growth - ~ +1.50mm b/d in 2017 and 2018 in our modeling - provides the impetus for the continued draws in storage this year and next (Chart 4). We revised our demand estimates for 2015 - 16 in line with the IEA's just-revised assessment of global consumption published in its January 2017 Oil Market Report.7 The IEA brought 2016 oil demand growth up to 1.50mm b/d, in line with our earlier estimates, but significantly revised 2015 demand growth upward to 2.0mm b/d. The Agency expects higher prices to crimp demand this year, taking it to 1.30mm b/d; our estimate, however, is higher, largely on the back of the first global synchronized growth we've seen since the Global Financial Crisis, which will be supported by accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, all else equal.8 Investment Implications Our analysis suggests there will be no need to extend the OPEC - Russia production accord into 2H17. In addition, it reinforces our view markets will backwardate later this year and stay backwardated in 2018, provided we do not see a BAT-induced rally in the USD, or an overly aggressive Fed normalization trajectory. As we noted in previous research, a BAT would lift the value of the USD, which would lower demand ex U.S. and raise supply at the margin.9 We make the odds of a BAT becoming the law of the land in the U.S. this year 50:50, so this is a non-trivial risk. This would be unambiguously bearish for oil prices. While we do not expect oil to be included among the imported commodities subject to a BAT, we do, nonetheless, expect the imposition of a BAT to lift the USD by 10%. This, coupled with the 5% increase in the greenback we'd already penciled in due to the Fed's monetary-policy normalization, will lift the USD 15% if it goes through. Should this occur, we would be preparing for prices to again fall below $50/bbl and push back to the $40/bbl area, which would cause supply and capex to once again contract significantly. That said, we are reinstating our long front-to-back WTI recommendation (long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI), given our updated balances assessment. Our expectation for inventories to continue to draw after the OPEC - Russia production-cutting agreement expires in June supports this recommendation. In addition, if we do see a BAT in the U.S., we believe markets will take the deferred WTI curve significantly lower in expectation of reduced demand and higher marginal supplies that almost surely will ensue in 2018. While the Dec/17 contract also will trade lower, more damage to prices will occur in 2018 contracts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC Cuts Oil Output, But More Work Needed to Fulfill Deal," published by Bloomberg February 2, 2017. Iraq stands out among OPEC producers agreeing to cut, but apparently not following through as diligently as the rest of the Gulf Arab states; we are assuming production of 4.5mm b/d for 1H17, going to 4.6mm b/d in 2H17 for Iraq. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 JODI refers to the Joint Organisations Data Initiative, a supranational producer-consumer oil-market data provider headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4 "Backwardation" describes a forward price curve in which the price for a commodity for prompt delivery (e.g., tomorrow) exceeds the price of a commodity delivered in the future (e.g., next year). It is the opposite of a contango curve structure. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy "Gulf Of Mexico Oil Production Likely To Peak In 2017," dated January 11, 2017, available nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 In next week's report, we will present scenario analysis of shale-oil production as a function of WTI forward curve shape - i.e., the implications of backwardation for shale rig counts. This will update our assessments of price sensitivities to interest rates and USD movements. 7 Please see the IEA's Oil Market Report of 19 January 2017. 8 We discuss this in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy feature article entitled "Gold Will Perform...," dated February 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Taking A BAT To Commodities," dated January 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights The evolution of U.S. tax policy - chiefly the border-adjustment tax (BAT) proposed by House Republicans - will preoccupy commodity markets for the balance of the year. Our House view gives 50-50 odds to the passage of a BAT, which, even though these are coin-toss odds, still are significantly higher than the consensus view of 20ish percent. While oil and apparel likely will be exempted from the BAT, steel, bulks, base metals, and ags probably won't be. The BAT's effect on the USD and EM commodity demand could be deflationary longer term. Energy: Overweight. The likelihood of crude oil and refined products being exempted from the BAT exceeds 50%, in our view, which means oil-market fundamentals likely will continue to be dominated by the supply-side adjustments. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese reflationary policies will dominate pricing short term. Longer term, markets will have to price in the effects of the U.S. BAT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold could trade higher in the near term (i.e., until Congress is done with the BAT), as the Fed holds off on any adjustments to policy rates until the Trump administration's fiscal policies come more clearly into view. Passage of a BAT will complicate monetary policy by lifting the broad trade-weighted USD and tightening monetary conditions in the U.S. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Heavy rains in Argentina could support soybeans. We remain underweight. Longer term, the BAT will be an important driver of prices. Feature We give 50-50 odds of BAT legislation passing in the U.S. Congress and being signed into law by President Trump this year. The BAT would tax imports into the U.S. and subsidize U.S. exports. This scheme would replace existing corporate income taxes.1 While apparel and energy products likely would be exempt, we think other commodities - chiefly base metals and ags - would be taxed, and would thus alter global trade flows in these commodities over the short run. Longer term, depending on how onerous the BAT legislation is, we would expect retaliatory taxes ex U.S., which could negate the initial benefits to U.S. commodity exporters. In addition, we would expect a stronger USD following passage of a BAT, which would be bearish for commodities generally. At this point it is impossible to know the tax rate that will be imposed on imports, as U.S. Congressional negotiations have yet to begin. President Trump, however, did tell business leaders he met with earlier this week to prepare for a "very major" border tax and significant deregulation, according to the Financial Times.2 The price effects for commodities subject to it are fairly straightforward: domestic prices will increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate). A 20% tax would increase domestic prices by 25%, which would benefit domestic commodity producers, and disadvantage commodity importers. The BAT would incentivize U.S. exports and narrow the U.S. trade deficit, as a result. This would, in theory, rally the USD as well. If the BAT were set at 20%, the USD would, in theory, appreciate by 25%.3 It is early days on the BAT. Based on our in-house assessment, we think the BAT scheme could rally the USD by as much as 15%. This 15% includes the 5% increase in the USD's trade-weighted value we expect this year, absent any BAT effects. A stronger USD would raise the price of commodities subject to the U.S. BAT outside the U.S. in local-currency terms, thus crimping international demand, but encouraging output ex U.S. to increase as local-currency production costs fall. Both effects are decidedly bearish longer term for commodities subject to the BAT. Servicing of USD-denominated debt would become more expensive for EM borrowers, as the USD appreciated, which also would negatively affect income growth. Oil Markets Handle The BAT While we believe oil and apparel will be exempt from a BAT, if such a tax did gain traction in Congress, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures, the U.S. benchmark, likely would trade at a premium to the global Brent benchmark, reversing years-long discount pricing. Indeed, markets already started pricing this potential outcome toward year-end 2016 (Chart of the Week), taking WTI delivering in Dec/17 from a roughly $2.00/bbl discount to parity with Brent, before retreating a bit in recent sessions. Clearly, markets have been attempting to discount the BAT, as the WTI - Brent differential shows, and this will continue as the debate and negotiations on the measure pick up in the near future. A BAT that included oil would super-charge U.S. exports, which already are growing, and domestic production (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekDeferred WTI Trades Flat To Brent Chart 2A BAT Applied To Oil ##br##Would Super-Charge U.S. Exports Bottom Line: We would fade any rally in the WTI - Brent spread toward the end 2017, or in the 2018 and '19 deliveries - selling the spread if it rallies significantly above flat (i.e., $0.00/bbl in the differential), given our expectation oil will be exempt from the BAT scheme. A BAT's USD Impact Will Matter For Commodities Generally Odds favor a USD rally - even if apparel and oil are excluded - given the BAT scheme would shrink the U.S. trade deficit. Our House view is the USD was on course to appreciate 5% this year anyway, on the back of the economy's relative performance and a continuation of the Fed's effort to normalize monetary policy. Even with a BAT becoming law in a somewhat watered down form, as our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service anticipate, the USD could rally another 10%, based on our assessment of the impact of the tax scheme. This would encourage higher production ex U.S., where local-currency drilling costs once again would fall (think Russia). And it would seriously dent EM commodity demand, particularly oil and base metals demand, as a stronger USD makes commodities more expensive in local-currency terms ex U.S. (Chart 3). The combination of higher output due to lower costs ex U.S., and lower EM consumption brought about by a stronger USD could unravel the production-cutting accord KSA and Russia agreed last year, as prices weaken once again and producers scramble to make up for lost revenue with higher volumes. Given these effects, there's a good chance the U.S. would see deflationary blowback from this, if oil and base metals prices resume their downtrend (Chart 4). Chart 3A Stronger USD Once Again ##br##Will Weaken Global Oil Prices Chart 4Lower Oil Prices Could Drag ##br##Inflation Expectations Lower BAT Effects On EM Commodity Demand Oil and base-metals demand are closely aligned with EM income growth. Indeed, the evolution of EM income maps closely to EM oil and base metals demand. This is important for the evolution of the Fed's preferred U.S. inflation gauge, the core PCEPI. Indeed, the co-movement between the core personal consumption expenditures index and EM demand for industrial commodities is extremely high. In earlier research, when we modeled EM oil demand as a function of U.S. financial variables, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWI) is consistent with a 23bp decrease (increase) in consumption. For global base metals, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI corresponds with a 27bp drop (increase) in demand. From this, our general rule of thumb is each 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI is roughly corresponds to a 25bp drop (increase) in EM demand for oil and base metals. We also found a 1% decrease in EM oil demand corresponds to nearly a 50bp decrease in the core PCEPI, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge.4 If the USD appreciates by 15% this year following the imposition of a BAT consistent with our in-house view, the effect on commodity demand and EM economic growth prospects would be unambiguously negative. If this was fully passed through to the core PCEPI, the gauge's yoy rate of change could drop more than 1.5%, pushing the yoy change in the Fed's preferred inflation index to just above zero, from its current level of ~ 1.65% yoy growth. We will be exploring the implications for this on the Fed's monetary policy in next week's publication, when we cover gold markets. However, it is worthwhile noting here that the BAT's effect on commodity prices and EM income could significantly restrain the Fed in its desire to normalize monetary policy. BAT Would Raise Volatility Following passage of a BAT consistent with our aforementioned expectations, higher commodity-price volatility would ensue: A sharply higher USD would crush EM oil and base metals demand. The import tax side of the scheme would incentivize additional supply (and exports) to come on line in the U.S. - domestic prices would rise faster than costs under the BAT - while, ex U.S., local-currency production costs would fall, leading to increased supplies. The import tax side of the BAT will create an umbrella for domestic oil and metals producers to lift prices to U.S. customers, since their only other choice for charging stocks and ore supplies are imports, which would be taxed under the scheme. In and of itself, this would be inflationary for the domestic U.S. economy. The only party that unambiguously wins in the short run in this scenario would be U.S. shale producers and domestic base-metals producers. In the case of the latter, copper, nickel and aluminum producers already supply more than 60% of domestic requirements, suggesting they have room to expand production at the margin, as tax-induced price hikes outpace cost increases (Charts 5 and 6). Chart 5U.S. Base Metal Production Could Expand Under A BAT Scheme Unstable Equilibrium At the end of the day, the BAT-induced changes in trade flows represent an unstable equilibrium. Second-round effects following the passage of the BAT - i.e., after the initial lift to domestic U.S. prices arising from the imposition of the BAT - are bearish. Chart 6U.S. Nickel And Copper Exports ##br##Could Expand Initially Under A BAT Scheme Recall that in the first round of price adjustment to the BAT, prices theoretically increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate), which most likely will be faster than the increase in domestic production costs. In the second round of price adjustment, production costs catch up to prices, narrowing profit margins and reducing the free cash flow that supports higher production. Domestic demand in the U.S. for refined products - oil and metals - will fall, as prices to consumers rise (e.g., gasoline prices will increase at the margin in line with the BAT tax rate). Meanwhile, ex U.S., as the local-currency costs of production fall, supply is increasing at the margin. And, the stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex U.S., thus reducing demand. The supply- and demand-side effects combine to lower prices, all else equal. In the case of oil, producers ex U.S. - most likely KSA and the Gulf Arab states, and Russia - would once again find themselves in a fight for market share as U.S. production and exports increased. Markets would, once again, have to contend with rising storage levels and lower prices, as supplies increase at the margin and demand falls. This likely happens in 2018, and would return oil prices to our lower trading range of $40 to $65/bbl. In addition, our central tendency for WTI prices would return to $50/bbl from $55/bbl now. Depending on how OPEC and non-OPEC producers respond to rising U.S. production and falling global demand, the downside volatility we saw in 2016 could easily be repeated in 2018 - 2020. In the case of base metals, China still accounts for ~ 50% of total demand. If the USD strengthens significantly, China's demand - along with other EM demand - will fall as local-currency prices rise. Potentially higher U.S. base metal exports on the back of higher domestic prices supporting expanded U.S. supplies will be competing for market share against, e.g., copper volumes from Chile and Peru displaced from the U.S. market. Bottom Line: The BAT scheme could incentivize higher U.S. production and exports, and rally the USD. Together, these effects would pressure commodity prices lower - particularly oil and base metals - as supply increased and demand decreased. This would lower inflation and inflation expectations, complicating the Fed's policymaking later this year. We will develop these themes in subsequent research. Next week, we take up gold markets and how they are likely to respond to the evolution of BAT legislation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Our colleague Peter Berezin last week published a Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017" in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy, which examined the BAT in depth, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Investors seek clarity from Trump on tax changes and trade restrictions" in the January 24, 2017, issue of the FT. 3 Please see p. 3 of the BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue for 2017" cited above, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see pp. 3 and 4 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Commodities Could Be Hit Hard By Fed Rate Hikes" in the September 1, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017
Highlights China's monetary and fiscal policy in 2017 will likely remain accommodative, in order to achieve the goal of an average 6.5% GDP growth over the next five years. China's policies related to its property market will be much more restrictive than the previous two years. Chinese metal demand will grow at a slower pace than last year, as reflationary policies are throttled back. Feature Base metals and bulk markets had a fantastic year in 2016, a complete reversal of their miserable performance in 2015 (Chart 1, panels 1 and 2). Last year, the LMEX base metal index, steel prices and iron ore prices were up 30%, 75%, and 91%, respectively (using average prices in January and December). In comparison, during the same period of 2015, the LMEX index, steel and iron ore were down 22%, 30%, and 41%, respectively. Massive supply reductions, and recovering demand caused by China's reflationary fiscal and monetary policies, were the driving forces behind these sharp rallies in bulks and base metals prices last year. Both the official manufacturing PMI and Keqiang index, which are broadly used as key measures of Chinese economic conditions, reached a three-year high in late 2016 (Chart 1, panels 3 and 4). Clearly, metal prices had already discounted a positive outlook vis-a-vis Chinese economic growth, which was boosted by a series of reflationary policy initiatives in the past two years. The question now is: will reflationary monetary and fiscal policies continue into 2017? If so, on how large a scale will it be? What factors could limit or even prevent reflationary policies in China? A look back China's reflationary policies actually started in late 2014, when the property market and overall economy showed signs of weakness. The country accelerated its reflationary policies throughout 2015 and maintained a moderate reflationary stance in 2016, in order to spur domestic economic growth. Monetary policy: China cut its central-bank directed policy rate five times in 2015 from 5.6% to 4.35%, the lowest level since the data started in 1980 (Chart 2, panel 1). The People's Bank of China (PBoC), the country's central bank, also lowered the reserve requirement ratio at banks - the amount of reserves banks must keep on hand - four times in 2015 and once in 2016 from 18% to 15%, the lowest level since May 2010 (Chart 2, panel 2). Chart 1China Reflationary Policy Drove ##br##Metal Price Rallies In 2016 Chart 2Both Monetary and Fiscal Policies ##br##Were Reflationary Last Year Fiscal policy: China halved its 10% sales tax on passenger cars with engines up to 1.6 liters in October 2015, which boosted auto sales and production significantly last year (Chart 2, panel 3). The country also maintained its high-growth infrastructure investment last year (Chart 2, panel 4). Real estate-related policy: China loosened its housing-related policies extensively since September 2014, by among other things, reducing down-payment requirements for first-time home buyers, and reducing down payments needed to finance second homes. The goal of the policies was to reduce elevated housing inventories. Indeed, those policies, along with the combination of falling mortgage rates, revived the Chinese property market in 2016, and sparked a massive rally in steel-making commodities - metallurgical coal and iron ore - and in base metals. For the first 11 months of last year, the average selling prices of 70 cities and the total floor-space-sold area rose 13.6% and 24.3% yoy, respectively, which considerably improved from the 2015 same period's 6% and 7.4% yoy growth. The floor-space-started area had an even more significant improvement - a growth of 7.6% for the first 11 months of last year versus a deep contraction of 14.7% yoy for the same period of 2015 (Chart 3). What now? This year, we continue to expect accommodative monetary and fiscal policy in China. "Stability" was the key word during the three-day Central Economic Work Conference (December 14-16, 2016), an annual meeting that set out economic targets and policy priorities for next year. "Stability" means the country's leaders will try to implement policies designed to keep the country's GDP growth around 6.5% this year, the average GDP growth target for the five years between 2016 and 2020, under China's five-year plan. China's economic growth is on a downtrend, coming in at 6.9% in 2015, and a predicted 6.7% in 2016 (for the first three quarters of 2016, China's GDP growth was all 6.7%) (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 3Property Market Policy: ##br##Greatly Loosened In 2015 And 2016 Chart 4We Expect Chinese Monetary And Fiscal Policies ##br##To Stay Accommodative This Year The market's expectation for China's 2017 GDP growth currently is 6.5%. Even though President Xi has stated he is open to growth in China falling below 6.5%, too far below this level - for example, below 6% - could cause widespread disappointment in the country and trigger the "instability" leaders are trying to avoid. Hence, monetary accommodation likely will persist in 2017. As both headline inflation and core inflation in China still are not elevated, we do not expect any rate hikes or increases in the reserve requirement ratio to be announced by the PBoC this year (Chart 4, panel 2). In addition, the RMB depreciated considerably last year, which helps the country's exports and, to some extent, stimulates domestic economic growth (Chart 4, panel 3). In mid-December last year, Chinese policymakers raised the tax on small-engine autos slightly - from 5% last year to 7.5% this year - but this is still below its normal 10% level. This also indicates the country wants to maintain a moderate, but not too expansionary, level of fiscal stimulus In 2017. In 2016, most of Chinese automobile production growth came from small-engine passenger cars, which clearly benefited from this policy (Chart 4, panel 4). This year, we still expect positive growth in Chinese vehicle production but at a much slower rate than last year. Curbing Property Market Exuberance Regarding the Chinese property market, our take-away from the Central Economic Work Conference was that "curbing the speculative home purchases, containing asset bubbles and financial risks" will be among the country's top 2017 priorities. In comparison, back in 2016, reducing housing inventories was the focus. Indeed, with property sales recovering, inventory has fallen from its 2015 peak. Inventories still are elevated, but most of the overhang is in third- and fourth-tier cities, with some of it in even smaller cities (Chart 4, panel 5). A continuation of stricter housing policies deployed since last September to cool the over-heated domestic property market is expected. For example, Beijing raised the down payment for first-time homebuyers from 30% to 35%. Down payments for second homes rose from 30% to a minimum of 50%. For a second home larger than 140 square meters, the down payment is now 70%. So far, more than 20 cities have declared similarly strict policies to control speculative buying in property markets. Currently, a record high 20% of people surveyed plan to buy a new house in the next three months, which indicates further cooling measures are needed for the property market (Chart 5, panel 1). In the meantime, new mortgage loans as a share of home sales in value also reached a record high of 49%, and real estate-related loans as a share of total new bank loans now stand at a 6-year high, signaling financial risk in these markets is rising (Chart 5, panels 2 and 3). All of these factors signal that the Chinese authorities will maintain their restrictive property market policies in 2017. This will be negative for the country's bulk and base metals demand, as the property market accounts for some 35% of demand for these commodities. In conclusion, China's monetary and fiscal policies are likely to stay accommodative in 2017, while the country's housing market is facing restrictive policies. Shifting Economic Drivers For Bulk and Base Metal Demand We would like to remind our clients that China's economic structure is shifting: Services (also known as the "tertiary sector") account for a rising share of GDP, and are not big users of bulks or metals, while manufacturing (i.e., the "secondary sector) demand for these commodities is slowing. Services now account for 51.4% of GDP, while manufacturing now accounts for 39.8% (Chart 6). The GDP weight of services is up from 42% ten years ago, while the GDP weight of manufacturing is down 8 percentage points over the same period. Chart 5Property Market Policy Will Remain ##br##Restrictive in 2017 Chart 6China's Economic Structure Shift Is ##br##Negative To Metals Demand This shift is negative for metal demand growth, as the related manufacturing activity growth slows faster than the overall GDP growth. Overall, we believe Chinese bulk and base metal demand growth in 2017 will slow as a result of less expansionary policies than prevailed last year, and a more restrictive domestic housing market. Next week The Chinese Central Economic Work Conference also emphasized that 2017 will be a year to deepen supply-side structural reforms, which we will discuss in our next week's pub. We also will address the impact of Chinese environmental policy on Chinese metal output. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com ENERGY Chart 7Evidence Of Production Cuts Will Lift Oil Prices Oil Production Expected To Fall Reports of production cuts and reduced volumes being made available to U.S. and Asian refiners have been trickling out since the start of the year, lending underlying support to prices globally (Chart 7). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is reducing exports of heavy-sour crudes favored by U.S. Gulf refiners, and boosting light-sweet sales, which will compete with North Sea volumes and U.S. shale production. This should tighten the spread between the light-sweet benchmarks Brent and WTI vs. Dubai (medium/heavy-sour). Reduced volumes being shipped by KSA to Asian refiners - particularly to Chinese refiners - will support Brent prices. We continue to expect the production cuts negotiated under the leadership of KSA and Russia to become apparent next month, and for inventories to draw in response. Continued high output by Iraq likely will be reduced in the near future. U.S. shale-oil output most likely will increase in 2H17 by ~ 200k to 300k b/d on average, given higher prices supporting drilling economics. Our expectation for global demand growth remains ~ 1.4mm b/d this year, roughly in line with 2016 growth. Given these underlying fundamentals, we expect inventories will begin showing sharp draws, causing backwardation in crude-oil markets to re-emerge in 2H17. As such, we are re-establishing our Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 WTI front-to-back spread - i.e., buying Dec/17 WTI and selling Dec/18 WTI against it. This spread was in contango going to press, making it particularly compelling. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017
Highlights Portfolio Strategy A battle between tighter monetary conditions and the anticipation of fiscal largesse will be a dominant market theme this year. Our high-conviction equity allocation calls do not require making a major directional global economic bet, or second guessing the Fed's desire to continue tightening. The bulk of our calls could currently be considered contrarian, based on recent market momentum and sub-surface relative valuation swings. Recent Changes S&P Insurance Index - Downgrade to high-conviction underweight. Nasdaq Biotech Index - Downgrade to high-conviction underweight. Feature Stocks have already paid for a significant acceleration in earnings and economic growth this year and beyond. Fourth quarter earnings season will be the first real test of investor expectations since the post-election market surge. While recent data have been encouraging, forward corporate profit guidance is unlikely to be robust in the face of the U.S. dollar juggernaut. Currently, the hope is that fiscal stimulus will offset tighter monetary settings, ultimately delivering a higher plane of economic activity. The major risks are that the economy loses momentum before fiscal spending cranks up, and/or that profits diverge from a more resilient economic performance than liquidity conditions forecast. Indeed, fiscal stimulus isn't slated to accelerate until next year (Chart 1), while the impact of anti-growth market moves is far more imminent. Our Reflation Gauge has plunged, heralding economic disappointment (Chart 1). With the economy near full employment, Fed hawkishness could persist even in the face of any initial evidence of economic cooling. Under these conditions, the gap between nominal GDP and 10-year Treasury yields could turn negative in the first half of the year (Chart 2), which would be a major warning sign for stocks. Chart 1Fiscal Stimulus Is Still A Long Way Off Chart 2Warning Signal As a result, while the market has recently been focused almost solely on return, our emphasis at this juncture is on minimizing risk. That is consistent with the historic market performance during Fed tightening cycles. Going back to the early-1970s and using the last seven Fed interest rate hiking periods, it is evident that non-cyclical sector relative performance benefits immensely on both a 12 and 24 month horizon from the onset of Fed tightening (Charts 3 and 4). Cyclical sectors typically lag the broad market, while financials generally market perform1. Chart 312-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 424-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Some of the other major macro forces that are likely to influence the broad market and sectoral trends are: Ongoing strength in the U.S. dollar and its drag on top-line growth: loose fiscal policy and tight monetary policy is a classic recipe for currency strength. Tack on high and rising interest rate differentials due to policy divergences with the rest of the world (Chart 5), and exchange rate strength is likely to persist in the absence of a major domestic economic downturn. A tough-talking Fed. Wage growth is accelerating and broadening out, and will sharpen the Fed's focus on inflation expectations. With dollar strength constraining revenue growth potential, strong wage gains are profit margin sapping (Chart 2). A divergence between economic growth and profit performance, i.e. stronger growth is unlikely to feed into equal growth in corporate sector earnings given the squeeze on profit margins from a recovery in labor's ability to garner a larger share of aggregate income. Disappointment and/or uncertainty as to the timing and rollout of the much anticipated fiscal spending programs and unfunded tax cuts. Favoring domestic vs. global exposure will remain a key theme. Emerging markets (EM) have not validated the sharp jump in the global vs. domestic stocks, nor cyclical vs. defensives (Chart 6). Chart 5Greenback Is A Drag##br## On S&P 500 Top Line Growth Chart 6Mind##br## The Gap EM stocks are pro-cyclical, and outperform when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign liabilities to service. The U.S. PMI is gaining vs. the Chinese and euro area PMI (Chart 7, second panel), heralding a rebound in cyclical share price momentum. World export growth remains anemic and will remain so based on EM currency trends (Chart 7). When compared with the reacceleration in U.S. retail sales, the outlook for domestically-sourced profits is even brighter. The other key sectoral theme is to favor areas geared to the consumer rather than the corporate sector. Consumer income statements and balance sheets are far healthier than those of the corporate sector (Chart 8). As a result, they are in a more propitious position to spend and expand. Chart 7Domestics Will Rise To The Occasion Chart 8Consumers Trump The Corporate Sector We expect all of these forces to truncate rally attempts in 2017. The market is already stretching far enough technically to flag risk of a potentially sizeable correction in the first quarter, i.e. greater than 10%, particularly given the significant tightening in monetary conditions and overheating bullish sentiment that have developed. In other words, it is not an environment to chase the post-election winners, nor turn bearish on the losers that have been eschewed. Against this backdrop, we are introducing our top ten high-conviction calls for 2017. As always, these calls are fundamentally-based and we expect them to have longevity and/or meaningful relative return potential, rather than just reflect recent momentum trends. We recognize the difficulty of trading in and out of positions on a short-term basis. Energy Services - Overweight Chart 9Playable Rally The energy sector scores well in relative performance terms when the Fed is hiking interest rates2, supporting a high-conviction overweight in the energy services group. OPEC's agreement to curtail production should hasten supply/demand rebalancing that was already slated to occur via non-OPEC production declines through 2017. U.S. shale producers slashed capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies reduced capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. OPEC's decision to trim output should mitigate downside commodity price risks, providing debt and equity markets with confidence to restore capital availability to the sector. With easier access to capital, producers, especially shale, will be able to accelerate drilling programs in a stable commodity price environment. The three factors traditionally required to sustain a playable rally are now in place. The rig count has troughed. The growth in OECD oil inventories has crested. The latter is consistent with a gradual rise in the number of active drilling rigs. Finally, global oil production growth is falling steadily. Pricing power is likely to be slow to recover this cycle given the scope of previous capacity excesses, but even a move to neutral would remove a major drag and reduce the associated share price risk premium (Chart 9). Consumer Staples - Overweight 2016 delivered a number of company specific body blows to the consumer staples sector, most notably concerns about the pharmacy benefit manger pricing model, which undermined the retail drug store group. Thereafter, the sector was shunned on a macro level following the election, as it was used as a source of capital to fund aggressive purchases in more cyclical sectors. This has set the stage for a contrarian buying opportunity in a high quality, defensive sector with one of the best track records during Fed tightening cycles3. The sector is now closing in on an undervalued extreme, in relative terms, having already reached such a reading in technical terms (Chart 10). Our Cyclical Macro Indicator is climbing, supported by the persistent rise in consumers' preference for saving. The latter heralds an increase in outlays at non-cyclical retailers relative to sales at more discretionary stores. Importantly, consumer staples exports have reaccelerated, despite the strong U.S. dollar, pointing to a further acceleration in sector sales growth, and by extension, free cash flow. The strong U.S. dollar is a major boon, from an historical perspective, given that it typically creates increased global economic and market volatility. The latter is starting to pick up (Chart 10). A strong currency, particularly bilaterally against China, also implies a reduction in the cost of imported goods sold, and heralds a relative performance rebound (Chart 11). Chart 10Contrarian Buy Chart 11China To The Rescue? Home Improvement Retail - Overweight Enticing long-term housing prospects argue for looking through the recent rise in mortgage rates. Household formation is reaccelerating, as full employment is boosting consumer confidence, and clocking at a higher speed than housing starts. The implication is that pent-up housing demand will be unleashed. In fact, consumers have only recently started re-levering, with banks more than willing to facilitate renewed appetite for mortgage debt. Remodeling activity is booming and anecdotes of house flipping activity picking up steam are corroborating that the housing market is vibrant. Now that house prices have recently overtaken the 2006 all-time highs, the incentive to upgrade and remodel should accelerate. While the recent backup in bond yields has been a setback for housing affordability, the U.S. consumer is not priced out of the housing market. Yields are rising in tandem with job security and wages. Mortgage payments remain below the long-term average as a share of income and effective mortgage rates remain near generationally low levels. Building supply store construction growth has plumbed to the lowest level since the history of the data. Historically, capacity restraint has represented a boost to home improvement retail (HIR) profit margins and has been inversely correlated with industry sales growth. Stable housing data and improving operating industry metrics entice us to put the compellingly valued S&P HIR on our high-conviction buy list for 2017 (Chart 12). Chart 12Benefiting From Enticing##br## Long-Term Housing Prospects Chart 13Healthy Consumer Is A Boon##br## To Consumer Finance Stocks Consumer Finance - Overweight We are focusing our early-cyclical exposure on overweighting the still bruised S&P consumer finance index. This group is levered to the rising interest rate environment and debt-financed consumer spending. The selloff in the 10-year Treasury bond has been closely correlated with relative performance gains and the current message is to expect additional firming in the latter (Chart 13, top panel). Importantly, higher interest rates have boosted credit card interest rate spreads (the industry's equivalent net interest margin metric), underscoring that the next leg up in relative share prices will be earnings led (Chart 13, bottom panel). On the consumer front, consumer finances are healthy, the job market is vibrant and consumer income expectations are on the rise. In addition, house prices have vaulted to fresh all-time highs and are still expanding on a y/y basis. The positive wealth effect provides motivation for consumers to run down savings rates (Chart 13, second & third panels). Health Care Equipment - Overweight Health care equipment (HCE) stocks have been de-rated alongside the broad health care index, trading at a mere market multiple and below the historical mean, representing a buy opportunity. Revenue growth has been climbing at a double digit clip (Chart 14, third panel) and the surging industry shipments-to-inventories ratio is signaling that still depressed relative sales growth expectations will surprise to the upside (Chart 14, top panel). Synchronized global growth is also encouraging for U.S. medical equipment exports, despite the U.S. dollar's recent appreciation. The ageing population in the developed markets along with pent up demand for health care services in the emerging markets where a number of countries are developing public safety nets, bode well for HCE long-term demand prospects. The bottom panel of Chart 14 shows that the global PMI has been an excellent leading indicator of HCE exports and the current message is positive. The recent contraction in valuation multiples suggests that sales are expected to disappoint in the coming year, an outlook that appears overly cautious, especially within the context of the nascent improvement in industry return on equity (Chart 14, second panel). Chart 14HCE Stocks Are Cheap Given##br## Improving Final Demand Outlook Chart 15More Than##br## Meets The Eye REITs - Overweight REITs have traded as if the back up in global bond yields will persist indefinitely, and that the level of interest rates is the only factor that drives relative performance. Improving cash flows and cheap valuations suggest that REITs can decouple from bond yields. Our REIT Demand Indicator (RDI) has climbed into positive territory, signaling higher rental inflation. The latter is already outpacing overall CPI by a wide margin. The RDI is also positively correlated with commercial property prices, implying more new highs ahead. That will support higher net asset values. While increased supply is a potential sore spot, particularly in the residential space, multifamily housing starts have rolled over relative to the total, suggesting that new apartment builds are diminishing. As discussed in previous research reports, contrary to popular perception, relative performance is also depressed from a structural perspective. REIT relative performance is trading well below its long-term trend, a starting point which has historically overwhelmed any negative pressure from a Fed tightening cycle (Chart 15). Tech Hardware Storage & Peripherals - Underweight The S&P technology hardware storage & peripherals (THSP) sector is a disinflationary play (10-year treasury yield change shown inverted, second panel, Chart 16) and benefits when prices are deflating, not when there are whiffs of inflation4. The tech sector has the highest foreign sales/EPS exposure among the top 11 sectors, and the persistent rise in the greenback is weighing on export prospects for the THSP sub-index (Chart 16, third panel), and by extension top and bottom line growth. Computer and electronic products new order growth has fallen sharply recently, warning that THSP sales growth will remain downbeat. Industry investment is also probing multi-year lows (not shown). Asian inventory destocking is ongoing, which will pressure selling prices, but the end of this liquidation phase would be a signal that the worst will soon be over. Technical conditions are bearish. A pennant formation signals that a breakdown looms. Chart 16Tech Stocks Hate Reflation Chart 17Shy Away, Don't Be Brave Biotech - Underweight The Nasdaq biotech index is following the BCA Mania Index, which includes previous burst bubbles in a broad array of asset classes. The top panel of Chart 17 shows that if history at least rhymes, biotech bubble deflation is slated to continue. Only 45 stocks in the NASDAQ biotech index have positive 12-month forward earnings estimates, comprising 27% of the 164 companies in the index according to Bloomberg. There is still a lot of air to be taken out of the biotech bubble. Historically, interest rates and relative performance have been inversely correlated. The back up in bond yields and Fed tightening represent a draining in liquidity conditions which bodes ill for higher beta and more speculative investments. The biotech derating has been earnings driven and a sustained multiple compression period looms, especially given the sector's poor sales prospects (Chart 17, bottom panel) Worrisomely, not only have biotech stocks fallen despite Trump's win, but recent speculative zeal (buoyant equity sentiment and resurging margin debt, not shown) has also failed to reinvigorate biotech equities. The NASDAQ biotech index is a sell (ETF ticker: IBB:US). Industrials - Underweight The industrials sector was added to our high-conviction underweight list late last year so the turn in calendar does not require a change in outlook. The sector has discounted massive domestic fiscal stimulus and disregarded the competitive drag on earnings from the U.S. dollar, trading as if a profit boom is imminent. Recent traction in surveys of industrial activity is a plus, but is more a reflection of an improvement in corporate sentiment and is unlikely to translate into imminent industrials sector profit improvement. The U.S. dollar surge is a direct threat to any benefit from an increase in domestic infrastructure or private sector investment spending. Commodity prices and EM drag when the dollar is strong. Chronic surplus EM industrial capacity remains a source of deflationary pressure for their currencies, economies and U.S. industrial companies. U.S. dollar strength warns of renewed pricing power pressure (Chart 18). Non-tech industrial capacity is growing faster than output, and capital goods imports prices are contracting (Chart 18). Tack on the relentless surge in the U.S. dollar, and a new deflationary wave appears inevitable. Relative forward earnings momentum is already negative, and is likely to remain so given the barriers to a top-line recovery, and a soaring domestic wage bill. The sector is not priced for lackluster earnings. Chart 18Fade The Bounce Chart 19Advance Is Precarious Insurance - Underweight Insurance stocks have benefited from the upward shift in the yield curve and the re-pricing of the overall financials sector, but the advance is precarious. Previously robust insurance pricing power has cracked. The CPI for household insurance is barely growing. The latter is typically correlated with auto premiums, underscoring that they may also slip (Chart 19). While higher interest rates are positive for investment portfolio income, they also imply mark-to-market losses on bond portfolios and incent insurers to underwrite at a faster pace with more lenient standards, which is often a precursor to increased competition and less pricing power. Insurance companies have added massively to cost structures in recent years (Chart 19), while the rest of the financials sector was shedding labor costs. Relative valuations have enjoyed a step-function upshift, but the path of least resistance will be lower for as long as relative consumer spending on insurance products retreats on the back of pricing pressure (Chart 19). 2016 Review... Last year's high-conviction calls were hot out of the gate, and generally had very strong gains until the late-summer/early-fall, but were hijacked by the post-election surge in a few sectors. As a result of the end of year fireworks, our high conviction calls trailed the market by just under 2% for the year ending 2016. Had we had the foresight to predict a Trump win and a massive market rally, we could have closed our positions in early November for comfortably positive gains. In total, our average booked gains in the year were 3% in excess of the broad market since the positions were initiated. We are also closing our pair trades, and will re-introduce a number of new trades in the near future. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy & U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report titled: "Sector Performance And Fed Tightening Cycles: An Historical Roadmap", available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ibid 3 Ibid 4 Please see the U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report titled: "Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs", available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).
Highlights The tactical environment is dynamic, chaotic and unpredictable. ...Chaos also brings opportunity. We must recognize and exploit opportunities when chance presents them. Look for recurring patterns to exploit.1 Feature Highlights Strategically, major commodity markets are balanced with the exception of ags, where we remain underweight on the back of record grain harvests and high stock-to-use ratios. Otherwise, broad exposure to the asset class is warranted. However, within the larger investment context, we believe tactical positioning once again will produce higher returns than strategic index exposure to commodities. Chart of the WeekTactical Positioning ##br##Rewarded In Oil Markets Supply-driven price volatility and erratic monetary policy presented commodity markets strategic and tactical opportunities in 2016, particularly in oil, where our recommendations returned an average of 95% (Chart of the Week). We remain overweight oil, expecting continued opportunities from volatile markets. Going forward, the contribution of demand-side risk to price volatility will increase. This will be evident in iron ore, steel and base metals, where the opacity of China's fiscal and monetary policy - especially re heavily indebted state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the banks that support them - in the lead-up to the Communist Party's Congress abounds. Continued adjustments by the U.S. Fed to random-walking data will again contribute to volatility, particularly in oil and gold markets. A stronger dollar resulting from continued Fed tightening will hit U.S. ag exports, and benefit competitors such as Argentina and the EU. However, uncertainty re the Trump administration's fiscal and trade policies could keep the Fed looser for longer, particularly if border-adjusted taxation favoring exports over imports is realized. Geopolitics - particularly vis-à-vis U.S. and China trade and military policy - will become more important if America tilts toward dirigisme, i.e., actively managing its economy by adjusting taxation and policy to support favored industries. Governments typically allocate resources inefficiently, which distorts fundamentals. If border-adjusted taxation becomes law in the U.S. we will look to get long volatility across commodity markets: Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand for commodities generally and lift supply by lowering local costs. This would run smack into higher U.S. inflation arising from the increasing cost of imported goods. This is a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Russia lurks in the background: U.S. sanctions in the wake of alleged interference in American presidential elections, and Russia's response, will keep oil markets on edge. 2017 Weightings Energy: Overweight. The OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to limit production could evolve into a durable modus operandi for managing oil supply. Markets will judge the pact effective if tanker chartering out of the Persian Gulf falls, and global inventories draw by mid- to end-February. Base Metals: Neutral. Bulks and base metals prices will remain rangebound, until greater clarity on China's fiscal and monetary policy emerges. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. will have a marginal effect on demand toward year-end. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will remain sensitive to shifts in U.S. fiscal and monetary policy expectations. The possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. Should it pass, the Fed could be forced to keep interest rates lower for longer to offset the massive tightening in financial conditions such a tax would impose. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We see limited downside for grains, despite record harvests. We favor wheat and rice over corn and beans. A stronger USD will be bearish for grain exports. Feature Commodities as an asset class remain attractive. However, constantly changing information flows affecting these markets compel us once again to favor tactical positioning over a broad strategic exposure to the asset class. Fundamentals - supply, demand, inventories - and financial variables remain in a state of flux. In the oil market, the durability of the OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to reduce oil production will be tested, following a year-end surge in global production. Markets will closely follow shipping activity - particularly out of the Persian Gulf - and global oil inventory levels for signs the production cuts engineered late last year by OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC producers, led by Russia, are taking hold. Uncertainty regarding the incoming Trump administration's tax and trade policies - and responses from states targeted by such policies (e.g., China and Mexico) - will keep decisions affecting supply and demand fluid. The incoming Trump administration's trade policies could alter global oil flows: e.g., a re-working of NAFTA that reduces U.S. refined-product exports to Latin America would result in lower demand for crude at American refineries, and present an opening to Chinese refiners. In addition, as mentioned above, legislation authorizing border-adjusted taxes favoring exports and penalizing imports likely will be taken up this year in the U.S. Congress. If we did see tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports, we believe it would prompt a USD rally via reducing America's current account deficit. This would, all else equal, send commodity prices sharply lower, as EM commodity demand will contract, owing to higher USD prices for commodities, and production ex U.S. will increase, due to lower local costs. That said, border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. also would increase the price of imports, and lift realized and expected inflation. How this plays out is highly uncertain at present. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session. If it passes, it would have major implications for pricing relationships globally - chiefly WTI vs. Brent, and Brent vs. Dubai crudes, along with product differentials that drive shipping economics. If such a bill looks like it will pass, we expect a sharp increase in commodity-price volatility globally. If the odds do favor such a tax regime shift, we would look to get long WTI and short Brent further out the curve, expecting higher U.S. exports and lower imports. In addition, we would look to get long gold volatility - buying puts and calls - as policy uncertainty effects resolve themselves. Heightened Uncertainty Means Tactical Positioning Once Again Trumps Passive Commodities Allocation The primacy of tactical positioning was demonstrated in 2016 in the oil market, when strategic positions quickly became tactical, either because they were stopped out or reached their P&L targets quicker than expected. Supply destruction dominated price formation last year, following OPEC's decision to abandon its strategy to support prices via production management in November 2014. This destruction occurred mostly in non-Gulf OPEC, which was down 7.0% yoy in 2016 (Chart 2), and non-OPEC producers, particularly the U.S. shale-oil fields, where yoy production was down 12.0% by year-end 2016 (Chart 3). Chart 2Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production... Chart 3...And U.S. Production Even in states where production increased - chiefly KSA and Russia (Chart 4) - domestic finances crumbled, leaving them in dire straits. By our estimates, between July 2014, just prior to its decision to launch OPEC's market-share war, and December 2016, KSA had burned through $220 billion of it foreign reserves, equivalent to 30% of its central-bank holdings. Russia had drawn down its official reserves by $77 billion over the same period, or 16% of its holdings; its burn rate was reduced by allowing its currency to depreciate, which lowered the local cost of producing oil and boosted profitability of exports priced in USD. This was the background that forced OPEC, led by KSA, and non-OPEC, led by Russia, to negotiate the year-end pact that resulted in an agreement to cut production by up to 1.8 mm b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 mm from OPEC, 300k b/d from Russia, and another 300 from other non-OPEC producers. The goal of this agreement is to reduce global oil inventories to more normal levels (Chart 5). Chart 4KSA, Russia Production Ramp ##br##Exacerbated Price Weakness Chart 5KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed ##br##At Lowering Inventories Throughout 2016, as the supply-destruction drama was unfolding, numerous opportunities opened up to investors to fade market overshoots, brought about by over-reactions to fast-moving news flows. Unrestrained output by OPEC and non-OPEC producers strained oil-storage facilities early in the year, taking markets to the brink of breaking down entirely. Unexpected shifts in U.S. monetary policy - driven by random-walking data - also contributed to oil price volatility and opened numerous trading opportunities. Markets essentially ignored the cumulating right-tail price risks last year, following the supply destruction wrought by OPEC's declaration of a market-share war, and Russian overtures to OPEC seeking a production-allocation dialogue, which were very much in evidence in January 2016. The continual OPEC-Russia dialogue, which appeared to be bearing fruit in Doha before it was scuppered by KSA at the last minute in April, was the underlying geopolitical driver last year, and kept the odds of a production deal elevated. Based on our modeling, the supply surge following OPEC's decision made getting long contingent upside price exposure extremely compelling, particularly as it imperiled the finances of all oil producers - rich and poor, but mostly the poorer states like Venezuela and Nigeria. Our reasoning was lower prices would accelerate rebalancing of global markets and raise the odds of a major supply disruption at one of these failing states.2 Our modeling consistently indicated global oil markets would rebalance in 2016H2.3 Ultimately, this is how things played out, aided in no small measure by mid-year wildfires in Canada, which temporarily removed move than 1mm b/d from global markets, and sabotage of pipelines and loading facilities in Nigeria. Even with that, markets remained under pressure as Canadian barrels returned, and foreign reserves in KSA and Russia were rapidly depleted. These fundamentals, along with constantly changing Fed guidance, provided numerous opportunities to exploit recurring patterns thrown up by chance, as is evident in the returns on recommendations we made - averaging 95.1% last year - that naturally followed from our analysis (Table 1). Our favored exposure was getting long contingent exposure (i.e., options), using deferred call spreads in WTI and Brent, given our assessment the odds of higher prices exceeded the market's. Later in the year, following the OPEC-Russia pact, we got long a front-to-back crude oil spread (Dec/17 WTI vs. Dec/18 WTI) expecting the goal of the deal - reducing global inventories - stood a good chance of being realized. We got lucky putting the trade on as the market was correcting, but just ahead of the statement by KSA's oil minister that the Kingdom would do "whatever it takes" to make the deal work. This transformed a strategic position - one we expected to hold for months - into a one-week exposure that returned 493% (Table 1). Table 1Energy Trades Closed In 2016 In order to obtain a more detailed assessment of our energy portfolio's performance, we built an information ratio (IR) to evaluate how our energy recommendations performed compared to a selected benchmark, the S&P GS Commodity Index (GSCI). Essentially, our IR is used to assess whether an active portfolio has outperformed the selected benchmark in a consistent manner during the period of analysis, given the risk it incurred. To that end, our ratio looks at the average excess return of the active portfolio against the benchmark. This average excess return is then divided by its standard deviation (also referred to as the tracking error volatility) in order to get a risk-adjusted metric to evaluate whether the risk we took were compensated by the returns we generated. Our IR thus is calculated as: Formula The higher the IR, the better the risk-adjusted relative performance of the portfolio. Three elements can explain a high IR: high returns in the portfolio, low returns in the benchmark, or low tracking error volatility. Hence, this measure helps analyzing the notion of risk-reward tradeoff; it tells us whether or not the risk assumed in our trades was compensated by larger returns. In our case, to get the risk-adjusted returns of the energy portfolio, we selected the GSCI as a benchmark, as it is heavily skewed towards Energy commodities (around 60% of its composition). We believe this is a plausible benchmark alternative to our energy trade recommendations for an investor, whose choice is passive index exposure with a significant energy weighting. Our portfolio's average return in 2016 was 95%, while the GSCI return was 11%. The tracking error volatility was 56%.4 Using these inputs, we calculated the IR of our recommendations was 1.47. This is an excellent risk-adjusted return, and indicates the high volatility of our returns was more than compensated for by consistent positive excess returns our recommendations generated relative to passive GSCI exposure, which also can be used as a benchmark for energy-heavy commodity index exposure (i.e., "commodity beta"). Remain Overweight Oil We expect the combination of production cuts and natural declines will remove enough production from the market this year to restore global oil stocks to five-year average levels toward the end of 2017Q2 or early Q3 (Chart 5), even with cheating by OPEC and non-OPEC producers capable of increasing production. As a result, in 2017, we expect the OPEC-Russia deal to result in inventory draws of ~ 10% by 2017Q3. On the demand side, we continue to expect global growth of ~ 1.3 to 1.5mm b/d. Given these expectations, we expect U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl, up $5 from our 2016 forecast, on the back of the end-year OPEC-Russia pact. We are moving the bottom of the range in which we expect WTI prices to trade most of the time to $45/bbl and keeping the upside at $65/bbl. Markets already are pricing in a normalization of global inventories by year end (Chart 6 and Chart 7). We will look for opportunities to re-establish our long front-to-back positions, expecting the backwardation further out the curve will steepen. Chart 6Backwardation Steepening Near Term... Chart 7...And Further Out the Curve Further out the curve - i.e., mid-2018 and beyond - our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry for projects expected between 2015 - 2020 will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers, chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia. It will be difficult to offset natural decline-curve losses - which will increase as U.S. shales account for a larger share of global supply - and meet increasing demand. As we've often noted, any indication U.S. shales or conventional supplies (Gulf states and Russian production) will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand and replace natural declines could spike prices further out the curve. We expect U.S. oil exports to increase this year, which means the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, will increasingly price to move WTI into global markets. We expect U.S. WTI exports to increase from an average ~ 500k b/d, which should keep the price differential roughly around +$1.50/bbl differential (Brent over) for 2017. If we see border-adjusted taxation laws take effect, we would look to get long WTI vs. short Brent, and long U.S. products (e.g., U.S. Gulf gasoline and distillate exposure) vs. short Brent exposure. Remain Neutral Bulks, Base Metals Over in the bulks and base metals markets, a full-fledged iron-ore market-share war at the beginning of last year threatened to take prices to $30/ton. Then, seemingly out of the blue, an unexpected pivot by Chinese policymakers toward stimulating the "old economy" caught many bulks and base-metals traders and analysts - ourselves included - flat-footed. Powerful rallies in iron ore, steel and base metals early in the year on Chinese exchanges were dismissed as irrational exuberance on the part of retail investors. But, at the end of the day, these market participants were responsible for well-informed price signals that fully reflected low inventories and surging demand.5 The -0.5% average return in our bulks and base metals recommendations last year attests to how difficult we found these markets to read and anticipate (Table 2). Table 2Base Metals Trades Closed In 2016 As always, the evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced to slightly oversupplied globally and in China. Production globally and in China is growing yoy, while consumption shows signs of slowing. (Chart 8 and Chart 9). Chart 8World Base Metals Consumption Slowing,##br## Relative to Production... Chart 9...As Is ##br##China's Uncertainty re the direction of China's fiscal and monetary policy - chiefly, whether policymakers will, once again, resort to stimulating the "old economy" - will keep us broadly neutral bulks and base metals until we get further clarity on the direction of policy. We expect the monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. Odds favor "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, but we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. The fate of border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. Congress is critically important to bulk and base-metals markets, since it would encourage exports and discourage imports (along with raising their prices). Tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports likely would prompt a USD rally, which would send commodity prices generally sharply lower. It would boost U.S. steel production and base metals exports, while raising the cost of imports. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session of Congress. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector will eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. Manufacturing will play a larger role in copper markets, and will drive the demand side this year. However, if we see a stronger USD - either as a result of Fed policy or U.S. fiscal policy - price appreciation will be limited. We remain neutral copper, expecting a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in China. Reflationary policies will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. The supply deficit in nickel will widen on the back of rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017, which will support prices. We expect nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. Aluminum supply - for the moment - will lag demand globally, which keeps us tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. Stay Neutral Precious Metals Precious metals, gold in particular, staged an impressive rally on the back of unexpected easing by the U.S. Fed in response to weaker-than-expected sub-1% GDP growth in 1Q16 GDP. Markets had been pricing in as many as four interest-rate hikes earlier in the year into short-term expectations, which were quickly dashed. Markets lowered their expectations for multiple rate hikes last year, which weakened the USD and U.S. real rates, setting the stage for the gold rally. Nonetheless, gold proved a difficult commodity to trade last year, as our results indicate - the average return on our precious metals recommendations amounted to a paltry -0.65% (Table 3). For the near term - i.e., until greater clarity on Fed policy and the incoming Trump administration's fiscal policy direction becomes clear - we remain neutral precious metals, and will avoid taking any further exposure other than perhaps getting long gold volatility - i.e., buying puts and calls in the gold market - if the odds of border-adjusted taxation legislation passing increase. Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand and increase supply ex U.S. at the margin for commodities generally, oil and base metals in particular. This would be deflationary, given the high correlations between oil and base metals consumption and U.S. inflation (Chart 10).6 However, such a taxation scheme also would raise U.S. inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, sending the U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, higher. The global disinflationary impulse from a stronger USD would run headlong into higher U.S. inflation, which would be a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Table 3Precious Metals Trades ##br##Closed In 2016 Chart 10Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted ##br##Taxes Prove Deflationary This will complicate U.S. monetary policy. We believe the Fed also will be waiting on such direction, and that interest-rate policy will, therefore, remain pretty much be on hold, keeping precious metals - gold, in particular - rangebound. For the moment, the possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. We are taking profits on the tactical long gold position we opened December 15, 2016, as of today's close. Remain Underweight AGS Lastly, Ag markets provided us no joy, as the El Nino wreaked havoc on our recommendations. Our average -1.0% return for the year amply demonstrates the difficulty of trading markets so heavily influenced by weather (Table 4). Going into 2017, we believe there is a limited downside for grains. The downtrend since August 2012 like forms a bottom this year, if, as we are modeling, we see a return to normal weather conditions. That said, the principal upside risk remains unfavorable weather in major grain-producing countries, which could send badly battered grain prices surging as they did in 2016H1. Among grains, we favor wheat and rice over corn and soybeans. Global soybean acreage is likely to expand as the crop provides higher returns than other grains. South American corn output will continue rising on favorable policies and weak currencies, adding further pressure to already-high U.S. corn inventories, in particular, and global inventories globally (Chart 11). Table 4AGS Trades Closed In 2016 Chart 11Global Grain Inventories Remain High Softs - cotton and sugar - likely will underperform grains in 2017, reversing their outperformance this year. We are tactically bearish cotton, as U.S. cotton acreage is likely to increase next spring. Strategically, we are neutral cotton. For the global sugar market, barring extremely unfavorable weather, we are tactically and strategically bearish. This year's extreme rally in prices may result in a small supply surplus in 2017. Our Ag strategies will continue to focus on relative-value investments. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodities & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Belanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Tactics Cliff Notes; A Synopsis of MCDP 1-3 Tactics," published by the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. 10 May 1998 (pp. 2, 3. sf). 2 In our January 7, 2016, publication we noted investors were ignoring growing upside price risk and suggested they get long a Dec/16 $50/$55 WTI call spread to gain exposure to higher volatility. We also recommended remaining long Dec/16 and Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent following passage of legislation to allow U.S. crude exports. We ultimately took profits on these recommendations of 172% on the call spread in June, and 97% on the Dec/16 WTI vs. Brent spread in June, and 88% on the Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent spread in July, respectively (Table 1). Please see "Oil Market Ignores Right-Tail Saudi Risks" in the January 7, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 In our January 21, 2016, Commodity & Energy Strategy article entitled "Global Oil Sell-off Will Accelerate Rebalancing," we noted, "We expect oil markets to rebalance by late 2016Q3 or early Q4. We remain long Dec/16 $50 calls vs. $55 calls, in anticipation of rebalancing and as a hedge against geopolitical risk." 4 Note: In order to find the standard deviation of the portfolio's excess returns (tracking error volatility), we averaged the daily percentage change in each trade's underlying assets. Any given trade only weighed in the daily average return if it was open during that day of the year. We are not accounting for the type of trades (spreads, pairs or single trades), we only track the underlying asset returns. From these daily average returns we subtracted the daily return of the preferred benchmark to obtain the daily excess return. Using this, we computed an historical standard deviation (based on 20-day periods) for every day during which a trade was open in our portfolio (we had 203 days with at least one energy trade opened). Lastly, we annualized this standard deviation to obtain our tracking error volatility. 5 Please see "Dead-Cat Bounces Notwithstanding, Iron Ore Will Trade Lower" in the January 21, 2016 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and "Fade The Copper Rally" in the February 25, 2016 issue. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 In earlier research, we've shown U.S. core PCE inflation is highly correlated with EM oil and base metals demand. Please see "2017 Commodity Outlook: Precious Metals" published December 15, 2016. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017