Geopolitics

Special Report

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Year Of Living Dangerously The latter half of May was a wild wide for global financial markets, which had finally shown signs of healing after the VIX shock from earlier in the year. The cause this time was Italian political turmoil as the populist 5-Star Movement/League coalition attempted to form a government full of fiscal largesse, sprinkled with a hint of euroskepticism. Investors got spooked into thinking that a 2011-style euro "redenomination" (i.e. breakup) risk premium might once again need to be priced into Peripheral government bond yields. The rout in Italian BTPs felt like a classic sovereign debt crisis, emerging markets style. There were even reports of Italian banks providing no price quotes for Italian debt on electronic trading platforms - the 21st Century version of dealers "not answering their phones" during a crisis. All that was missing was an IMF delegation heading to Rome with checkbook in hand. The announcement late last week that the coalition would get another shot at forming a government, rather than throwing Italy into fresh elections that could turn into a referendum on euro membership, restored order to Italian financial markets. The meltdown in Italian yields was almost as rapid as the melt-up, with the 2-year BTP yield ending last week around 1%, almost two full percentage points lower than the peak in yields seen just a few days earlier, but still much higher than the sub-zero yields seen as recently as May 15th. We made a timely decision to cut our recommended stance on Italian debt to underweight two weeks and we are maintaining that call despite the respite from the political turmoil.1 (NOTE: we are putting out a joint Special Report next week with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy on June 13th, a day later than our usual Tuesday publishing slot, which will discuss the political outlook for Peripheral Europe and what it potentially means for their bond markets). Our more pessimistic view on Italian bonds was based on our assessment that Italian growth was slowing and would continue to do so. For a country like Italy with a large debt stock and structurally low growth, cyclical downturns always lead to increased worries about debt sustainability. Coming at a time when the ECB is looking to begin the long process of exiting its hyper-easy policies, the growth and monetary backdrop was also becoming more challenging for Italian government bonds. The same thing can be said for the rest of the world. The rapid coordinated acceleration in global growth seen in 2017 has clearly peaked, as has the pace of central bank asset purchases that helped support that recovery through low bond yields (Chart of the Week). The growth convergence has turned into a divergence between growth in the still-strong U.S. and most other major economies. This poses a new threat to financial markets - a rising U.S. dollar - which, combined with some cooling of global growth, is already triggering underperformance of emerging market assets. So after the tumultuous market price action of the past few weeks, we think the most critical potential impact on the direction of bond yields, and our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, can be boiled down to two big questions. Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? NO. The U.S. economy continues to exhibit impressive resilience of late, even as the rest of the world has seen some softening in growth. The Payrolls report for May released last Friday showed another sturdy gain of 223,000 jobs, with upward revisions of 15,000 to the prior two months. This pushed the unemployment rate to 3.8% - the lowest level since April 2000 - while boosting the annual growth in Average Hourly Earnings up to 2.7% (Chart 2). The overall employment/population ratio also inched higher. Both wage growth and the employment/population ratio are well below the peaks seen in the past two business cycles, even with similarly low levels of unemployment. During those cycles, the Fed was forced to raise the funds rate to restrictive levels to cool growth to rein in overshooting inflation. The real fed funds rate was consistently above equilibrium measures like the Williams-Laubach "r-star" (bottom panel), which eventually crimped growth and led to a recession in both cases. In the current cycle, wage inflation is struggling to reach 3% and core PCE inflation at 1.8% has still not returned back to the Fed's 2% target. There is no need for the Fed to push harder on the brakes by raising rates faster than inflation is accelerating and pushing the real rate above r-star. If a growing economy continues to absorb labor market slack, however, the Fed could be chasing a higher level of r-star to prevent inflation from continuing to accelerate (bottom panel). Looking ahead, it does look like the Fed will continue to play a bit of catch-up to an accelerating U.S. economy. Leading economic indicators (both from the OECD and Conference Board), as well as our forward-looking models for employment and capital spending, all point to faster growth in the next couple of quarters (Chart 3). This will only support the case for the Fed to continue with its current rate "measured" pace of one rate hike per quarter over the next year. Chart 2Labor Market Tightening##BR##Leads To Fed Tightening Chart 3U.S. Growth Still##BR##In Good Shape With the U.S. dollar now reconnecting to the widening interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other major economies, there is a risk that the implied tightening of monetary conditions from a higher greenback could limit the need for the Fed to continue with its rate hike plans. Yet at the moment, the trade-weighted dollar is still not accelerating on a year-over-year basis, in contrast to the +15% appreciation seen during the 2014/15 dollar bull run (Chart 4). At the peak of that episode, net exports were a drag on real GDP growth of -1% and headline CPI inflation hit 0% (aided by collapsing oil prices). While an appreciation of that magnitude is unlikely, it would still take a much larger increase in the dollar to meaningfully dent growth in a way that could cause the Fed to pause on the rate hikes. A bigger dollar rally could also raise financial instability, primarily by hitting emerging markets where currency weakness versus the dollar would trigger tighter monetary policy and slower growth. That is certainly a risk for the Fed to consider. Yet given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy today, the Fed would only react to any turmoil in emerging markets if it meaningfully impacted U.S. financial markets, but not before then. While the Fed is still likely to continue on its rate hike path over the rest of 2018, the market has largely discounted that outcome - even after the late May decline in U.S. interest rates on the back of Italy-fueled risk-aversion (Chart 5). The market is still not completely priced to the Fed's interest rate projections over the next year, however, which does raise the potential for a return to the +3% level on the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield that was seen before the Italy crisis flared up. However, our colleagues at our sister publication, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, continue to point out the risks to a continued near-term period of declining (or at least, consolidating) Treasury yields given persistent short positioning in the Treasury market at a time of slowing data surprises (Chart 6). We remain bearish on Treasuries over a strategic horizon, however. Chart 4USD Rally Not Yet##BR##Enough To Impact The U.S. Chart 5Market Still Priced Close To##BR##The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Chart 6UST Yields Likely To##BR##Consolidate In The Near-Term Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? PROBABLY NOT. The latest volatility in European financial markets stemming from the Italy crisis came at a difficult time for the ECB. The central bank has been incrementally preparing the market for an eventual tapering of its asset purchase program after it expires in September. Yet the slowdown in euro area growth in the first quarter of the year, amid sluggish readings on inflation, has raised some doubt that the ECB would even be able to announce any sort of withdrawal of monetary stimulus. Chart 7Market Buying Into The ECB's##BR##'Low Rates For Longer' Message It is now a consensus expectation that the ECB will taper its net new asset purchases fully to zero by the end of 2018. What has moved, however, is the market's expectation for the timing of the first rate hike by the ECB. That has now been pushed out to April 2020 after the Italy turbulence (Chart 7). The ECB has been consistently signaling to the markets that it views the two decisions - tapering and rate hikes - as separate choices to make. In other words, tapering does not mean that rate hikes will come soon afterward. So far, the market appears to be listening to the ECB's signals by moving out the timing of any rate hike to nearly two full years from today. Given the magnitude of the slide in euro area growth seen in the first few months of 2018 (2nd panel), that may be taken as a sign that the market thinks the slump can continue. This also is consistent with the market believing the ECB's views on seeing through any impact on euro area inflation from changes in oil prices and the euro. The annual growth of the Brent oil price, in euro terms, has climbed to nearly 50% over the past few months (3rd panel). There has always been a strong correlation of that growth rate to overall headline euro area inflation, as evidenced by the early read on May CPI inflation released last week that came in at 1.9%. Yet core CPI inflation in the euro area is still only 1.1%, well below the ECB's inflation target of "just below" 2%. Market-based inflation expectations are still below the level as well, with the 5-year euro CPI swap, 5-years forward now sitting at 1.7%. So the market pricing is consistent with an ECB that will be very slow to begin raising interest rates. That would also be consistent with the behavior of the ECB when it comes to its past tightening cycles. In Chart 8, we show diffusion indices at a country level for euro area industrial production growth (as a proxy for economic growth), headline inflation and core inflation. These show the percentage of all euro area countries that are seeing accelerating growth or inflation versus those countries seeing slowing growth and inflation. A higher diffusion index means that any acceleration in growth or inflation is broad-based, and vice versa. Chart 8ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns As can be seen in the chart, the ECB's past tightening cycles since the beginning of the euro in 1998 have all occurred when the diffusion indices for inflation have risen into the 60-80% zone. In other words, the ECB is more aggressive on lifting rates when a large majority of countries in the euro zone is seeing accelerating inflation. During those same tightening cycles, however, the diffusion indices for growth have been decelerating, suggesting less broad-based economic strength. The implication from this analysis is that the ECB cares more about inflation than growth when making its monetary policy decisions. The ECB's reputation for sometimes making overly hawkish policy mistakes, like in 2010-11, is well deserved. Looking ahead, the current readings on the diffusion indices for both growth and, more importantly, inflation are all quite depressed. This suggest that the slowing growth seen in the overall euro area data so far in 2018 has been broad-based, while the increase in the overall euro area inflation data has not been broad-based. This can be seen when looking at the some of the individual country data for the major core euro area countries (Chart 9) and Peripheral countries (Chart 10). For example, Netherlands and Portugal stand out as having inflation trends that are much weaker than the other countries. Yet the more divergent trends in euro area inflation does not mean that the ECB will decide to defer any decision to taper, however. The ECB will have to make that decision at either the June or July meetings, with the current program set to end in September. Absent a significant drop in euro area inflation, the ECB is still likely to signal a full taper by the end of the year. Yet even if they did extend the current program into 2019, at the same pace of 30 billion euros per month, this would likely not have a meaningful impact on the level of euro area bond yields. We have found that is the growth rate of those purchases, and not the absolute level, that is most correlated to the level of euro area bond yields (Chart 11). Even if the current program were to be extended to March 2019, to be followed by a tapering of net purchases to zero by September 2019, then the annual growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet (driven by the asset purchases) would remain mired below 10% - a far slower pace compared to the peak years of ECB bond buying. Chart 9Growth Convergence,##BR##Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Chart 10And In##BR##Peripheral Europe Chart 11Extending ECB Bond Purchases##BR##Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact In other words, an extension of the asset purchases would not drive euro area bond yields any lower, and would entail operational constraints on country sizes, etc. The ECB will have better success at driving down yields by keeping policy rates lower for longer, as it is signaling it will do. Bottom Line: The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22nd 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Recommended Allocation A Series Of Unfortunate Events Markets have taken a series of hits in recent months - sharp drops in emerging market currencies, a political crisis in Italy, and the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China - not to mention a slowdown in cyclical growth. But risk assets have been remarkably resilient: the U.S. stock market is in the middle of its year-to-date range, and U.S. small cap stocks (more attuned to domestic conditions) are at record highs (Chart 1). The uncertainty is set to continue for a while. But, with global growth likely to settle at an above-trend pace, fiscal and monetary policy still accommodative, and earnings continuing to grow strongly, the recent resilience says to us that risk assets are likely to grind higher and to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. A major underlying cause of the recent volatility has been the growing disparity between growth in the U.S. and in the rest of the world (Chart 2). This is partly due to the strength of the euro and yen last year, which is now dampening activity in these regions, but the slowdown in Chinese industrial growth and a higher oil price may also be having a disproportionate effect on growth outside the U.S. This growth disparity has widened interest rate differentials, which have again become the major driver of currencies, pushing up the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). Chart 1Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Chart 2Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Chart 3...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise In combination with rising U.S. interest rates (the 10-year Treasury yield rose above 3% last month, before correcting a little), dollar appreciation is a threat for emerging markets. EM assets have long shown a consistently strong inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 4). We expect the EM sell-off to continue. Further Fed hikes and rising inflation expectations in the U.S. (relative to the euro area and Japan) will increase interest-rate differentials and push the dollar up further: we forecast 1.12 for euro/dollar. Investors are still far from capitulating on EM assets after several years of large purchases (Chart 5). Many EM central banks are being forced to raise rates to defend their currencies, which will dent growth. Some may even be forced into reintroducing capital controls. Several emerging economies besides Argentina and Turkey remain vulnerable, having worryingly high amounts of foreign currency debt (Chart 6). Chart 4Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Chart 5Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Chart 6Worrying Levels Of FX Debt Chart 7Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Geopolitics is likely to remain a drag on markets for a while, too. Italy remains the biggest threat. The discontent of the Italian population is unsurprising given the country's stagnation since it joined the euro (Chart 7). The probable coalition government of the Lega and Five Star Movement would introduce aggressive fiscal stimulus, putting it in confrontation with the EU's budgetary rules. But BCA's geopolitical strategists see little risk of Italy exiting the euro in the next two years (though 10 years might be a different story).1 Political gyrations may continue for some months, particularly if the new government persists with its plan to blow the fiscal deficit out to 7% of GDP, but the sell-off in short-term Italian bonds looks to be overdone. Developments in trade tariffs, Iran and North Korea could also weigh on markets in coming months. But ultimately economic fundamentals almost always outweigh geopolitical risk. Global growth is slowing, but to an above-trend pace. Fiscal policy is particularly stimulative this year, with 17 of the 33 OECD countries undertaking large fiscal easing, and a further 11 some easing. The overall cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance in OECD countries is forecast to ease by 0.5% of GDP this year and 0.4% next (Chart 8). Monetary policy remains accommodative almost everywhere. The FOMC, in its May statement, by adding the word "symmetric" to describe its 2% inflation objective, was clearly emphasizing that it sees no need to accelerate the pace of rate hikes, despite the recent pickup in core PCE inflation. We expect the Fed to continue to raise rates once a quarter, meaning that monetary policy will not become restrictive until around Q1 next year. With inflation expectations not yet fully normalized (Chart 9), the Fed could still exercise its "put option" by holding for a quarter or two if global risk were to rise significantly. Italy's problems also make it more likely that the ECB will stay easier for longer, and the probability is rising of its deciding to extend asset purchases into next year. Chart 8Fiscal Stimulus (Almost) Everywhere Chart 9Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise With the consensus already forecasting global GDP to grow 3.4% this year, and U.S. earnings by 22%, there is no obvious catalyst for risk assets to rebound sharply (Chart 10). However, we find it inconceivable that equity markets will not be higher in 12 months' time - and will not have outperformed bonds over that time - if the macro environment plays out as we expect. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on equities and underweight on fixed income, but might start to turn more defensive around the end of the year if the signs are in place that the recession we expect in 2020 is still on the cards. Equities: For the reasons described above, we remain cautious on EM equities. Within EM, our preference would be for markets such as China, Korea and India, which are likely to be less affected by investors' concerns about current account deficits and foreign-currency denominated debt. In DM, our preference remains for late-cyclical sectors, especially energy, financials and industrials. We mainly view regional and country selection as a derivative of the sector call: this supports our preference for euro zone and Japanese stocks over those in the U.S. and U.K. Fixed Income: A combination of quarterly Fed rate hikes, a further normalization of inflation expectations, and moderate rises in the real rate and term premium are likely to push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield up to 3.5% by year-end (Chart 11). We, therefore, remain underweight duration and prefer TIPs to nominal bonds. We keep our overweights on spread product within the fixed-income bucket, since it should continue to outperform for another couple of quarters. U.S. high-yield spreads are likely to remain steady, giving an attractive carry even after accounting for defaults; investment grade spreads might start to recover, given that the sell-off of quality bonds by companies repatriating short-term investments held offshore ($35 Bn from the 20 largest U.S. companies in Q1) is now mostly over (Chart 12). Chart 10Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Chart 11Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Chart 12Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Currencies: Interest-rate differentials, as described above, are likely to push the dollar up further, especially against the euro. This should continue until the effect of a strong dollar/weak euro starts to rebalance growth surprises back to the euro area, perhaps around the end of the year. We see less chance of dollar appreciation against the yen (which is still undervalued against its PPP value of 98, and may benefit from its safe-haven status) and against the Canadian dollar (given the Bank of Canada's hawkish stance). Commodities: Industrial commodities are likely to continue to struggle against headwinds from the appreciating dollar, and the continuing moderate slowdown in China (Chart 13). The oil price has become a tougher call recently, with talk that OPEC may agree later this month to bring back as much as 1 million barrels/day in production, but Venezuelan and Iranian supply likely to exit the market. BCA's energy strategists now forecast WTI and Brent to average $70 and $78 in 2H18, and $67/$72 in 2019, but expect higher volatility in the price over coming months (Chart 14).2 Chart 13Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Chart 14Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!," dated 30 May 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output: Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," dated 31 May 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights The 10-year Italian BTP yield at 4% yield marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stay underweight in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. The equity market's range-bound pattern can continue, as long as the line in the sand isn't breached. It is a good time to own a small portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. Feature Italian politics have blindsided almost everybody, us included. Few anticipated that the unlikely bedfellows 5S and Lega would try and form a 'government of change'. In March we wrote: "The Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if 5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low." Even fewer anticipated that Italy's President, Sergio Mattarella, would then scupper this government of change by vetoing the proposed Finance Minister. This has cast a new pall of uncertainty over Italian politics and Italian public support for EU rules and institutions. The 10-Year BTP Yield At 4% Marks A 'Line In The Sand' The market's response has been to fear the worst: shoot first, ask questions later. The danger is that this sets off a negative feedback loop. Higher bond yields weaken Italy's still-fragile banks; which threatens Italy's economic recovery; ahead of a possible new election, this increases the support for parties and policies that push back against EU rules; which further lifts bond yields; and then in a vicious circle until the fear of the worst becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... Chart of the WeekItalian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% The Italian BTP versus German bund yield spread is effectively a fear gauge for Italy's future in the euro (Chart I-2). As these fears increase, and Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Chart I-2The BTP-Bund Yield Spread Is A Fear ##br## Gauge For Italy's Future In The Euro As a rule of thumb, investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this rule, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn It follows that there would be fresh doubts about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of just a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4%.1 Hence, the 10-year BTP yield at 4% marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse (Chart of the Week). To short-circuit the negative feedback loop, the financial markets would need to sense a discernible shift in Italian support for its populist parties; or an explicit de-escalation in the populist pushback against the EU. The question is: could this happen quickly enough? Global Growth Is In A Mini-Downswing The market's concerns about Italy come at a time when global growth has in any case been losing momentum. This is one development that did not blindside us, and has unfolded exactly as predicted. In January we wrote: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging 8 months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half - contrary to what the consensus is expecting." The theory underlying these mini-cycles is an economic model called the Cobweb Theorem.2 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a delay. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a delay. The delay occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Turning Points In The Bond Yield Lead Turning Points In The Credit Impulse As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months, and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of these cycles, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the predictability. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase, and exactly as predicted in January, the majority of economically sensitive sectors have underperformed. The glaring anomaly is oil, whose supply-side dynamics have dominated price action (Chart I-5). Given oil's major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and on central bank reaction functions, the global bond yield has also disconnected from the mini-cycle - until now. Chart I-5Oil Is The Glaring Anomaly Mini-downswings last six to eight months and the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. So one concern is that the apparent disconnect between decelerating global activity and slow-to-react bond yields could extend the current mini-downswing phase beyond the summer. How To Invest Right Now From an equity market perspective, the relative performance of the classically cyclical sectors - banks, basic materials and industrials - very closely tracks the phases of the global credit impulse mini-cycle (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). For example, in all five of the last five mini-downswings, banks have underperformed healthcare, and we are seeing exactly the same in the current mini-cycle. Chart I-6In A Mini-Downswing##br## Banks Underperform Chart I-7In A Mini-Downswing ##br##Basic Materials Underperform For the next few months at least, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. This strategy has worked extremely well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it should continue to do so. Sector strategy necessarily impacts stock market allocation. Our core philosophy of investment reductionism teaches us that for most stock markets, the sector (and dominant company) skews swamp any effect that comes from the domestic economy. The defining skew for Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX is their large overweighting to banks (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Irrespective of the political uncertainties, our sector allocation establishes our near-term caution on these two markets. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. Chart I-8Italy's MIB = Long Banks Chart I-9Spain's IBEX = Long Banks For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the global economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Hence, it is a good time to own a portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. Regarding currencies, the recent developments in Italy have hurt our 50:50 combined long position in EUR/USD and SEK/USD; but this has been countered by gains in our short position in EUR/JPY. We have no tactical conviction on any of these crosses, but we will maintain this medium term currency portfolio unless the Italian 10-year BTP yield breaches the 4% line in the sand. Finally, the hardest call to make is on the direction of equity market. This is because a mini-downswing in global growth creates a headwind to earnings expectations; conversely, if bond yields are capped, this will provide some support to equity market valuations. On balance, this suggests that the year-to-date pattern of a range-bound equity market is set to continue. The caveat is that if Italy's line in the sand is breached, it would warrant a substantial de-risking. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. This week, we note that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Polish zloty / U.S. dollar (or inverse) is approaching its lower limit. Go long PLN/USD with a profit target of 3.5% and symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The risk/reward balance for risk assets remains unappealing this month, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The number of items that could take equity markets to new highs appears to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have eased, but the U.S./China trade war is heating up. Trump's voter base and many in Congress want the President to push China harder. Eurozone "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. The Italian President is trying to install a technocratic government, but the interim between now and a likely summer election will extend the campaign period during which the two contending parties have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. The next Italian election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked, especially since Italy's economic growth appears set to slow. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. One reason for the economic "soft patch" is that the Chinese economy continues to decelerate. Our indicators suggest that growth will moderate further, with negative implications for the broader emerging market complex. Dearer oil may also be starting to bite, although prices have not increased enough to derail the expansion in the developed economies. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. While the U.S. economy will enjoy a strong rebound in the second quarter, leading economic indicators in most of the other major countries have rolled over. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. U.S. inflation is almost back to target and the FOMC signaled that an overshoot will be tolerated. Policymakers will likely transition from "normalizing" policy to targeting slower economic growth once long-term inflation expectations return to the 2.3%-2.5% range. The advanced stage of the U.S. business cycle, heightened geopolitical risks and our bias for capital preservation keep us tactically cautious on risk assets again this month. Feature The major stock indexes are struggling, even though 12-month forward earnings estimates continue to march higher (Chart I-1). One problem is that a lot of good earnings news was discounted early in the year. The number of items that could take markets to new highs appear to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Not the least of which is ongoing pain in emerging markets and the return of financial stress in Eurozone debt markets. Last month's Overview highlighted the unappealing risk/reward balance for risk assets, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The advanced stage of the business cycle and our bias for capital preservation motivated us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. We also were concerned about a raft of geopolitical tensions. Fast forward one month and the backdrop has not improved. Our Equity Scorecard Indicator edged up, but is still at a level that historically was consistent with poor returns to stocks and corporate bonds (see Chart I-1 in last month's Overview). Our 'exit' checklist is also signaling that caution is warranted (Table I-1). Meanwhile, the "global synchronized expansion" theme that helped to drive risk asset prices higher last year is beginning to unravel and trade tensions are escalating. Chart I-1Struggling To Make Headway Table I-1Exit Checklist For Risk Assets U.S./Sino Trade War Is Back? The "on again/off again" trade war between the U.S. and China is on again as we go to press. Investors breathed a sigh of relief in mid-May when the Trump Administration signaled that China's minor concessions were sufficient to avoid the imposition of onerous new tariffs. However, the proposed deal did not go down well with many in the U.S., including some in the Republican Party. The President was criticized for giving up too much in order to retain China's help in dealing with North Korea. Trump might have initially cancelled the summit with Kim in order to send a message to China that he is still prepared to play hard ball on trade, despite the North Korean situation. We expect that U.S./North Korean negotiations will soon begin, and that Pyongyang will not be a major threat to global financial markets for at least the near term. It is a different story for U.S./China relations. Trump's voter base and many in Congress on both sides of the isle want the President to push China harder. This is likely to be a headwind for risk assets at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. The Return Of Eurozone Breakup Risk Turning to the Eurozone, "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. Italian President Sergio Mattarella's decision to reject a proposed cabinet minister has led to the collapse of the populist coalition between the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the euroskeptic League. President Mattarella's choice for interim-prime minister, Carlo Cottarelli, is unlikely to last long. It is highly unlikely that he will be able to receive parliamentary support for a technocratic mandate, given the fact that he cut government spending during a brief stint in government from 2013-14. As such, elections are likely this summer. Chart I-2Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Investors continue to fret for two reasons. First, the interim period will extend the campaign period during which both M5S and the League have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. Second, M5S has suggested that it will try to impeach Mattarella, a long and complicated process that would heighten political risk, though it will likely fail in our view. As our geopolitical strategists have emphasized throughout 2017, Italy will eventually be the source of a major global risk-off event because it is the one outstanding major European country capable of reigniting the Euro Area break-up crisis.1 While a majority of Italians support the euro, they are less supportive than any other major European country, including Greece (Chart I-2). Meanwhile a plurality of Italians is confident that the future would be brighter if Italy were an independent country outside of the EU. That said, the next election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. The current conflict arises from the coalition wanting to run large budget deficits in violation of Europe's Stability and Growth Pact fiscal rules. Given that the costs of attempting to exit the Euro Area are extremely severe for Italy's households and savers, and that even the Five Star Movement has moderated its previous skepticism about the euro for the time being, it is likely going to require a recession or another crisis to cause Italy seriously contemplate an exit. We are still several steps away from such a move. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked. Italy's leading economic indicator points to slowing growth, which will intensify the populist push for aggressive fiscal stimulus. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. Global Growth Has Peaked Chart I-3Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum, as highlighted by the indicators shown in Chart I-3. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. What is behind this year's loss of momentum? First, growth in 2017 was flattered by a rebound from the oil-related manufacturing recession of 2015/16. That rebound is now topping out, while worries regarding a trade war are undoubtedly weighing on animal spirits and industrial activity. Second, the Eurozone economy was lifted last year by the previous recapitalization of parts of the banking system, which allowed some pent-up credit demand to be satiated. This growth impulse also appears to have peaked, which helps to explain the sharp drop in some of the Eurozone's key economic indicators. Still, we do not expect European growth to slip back below a trend pace on a sustained basis unless the Italian situation degenerates so much that contagion causes significantly tighter financial conditions for the entire Eurozone economy. The third factor contributing to the global growth moderation is China. The Chinese economy surged in 2017 in a lagged response to fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2016, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) and import growth (Chart I-4). Both are now headed south as the policy backdrop turned less supportive. Downturns in China's credit and fiscal impulses herald a deceleration in capital spending and construction activity (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The LKI has a strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. In turn, the latter is important for the broader EM complex that trade heavily with China. Weaker Chinese import growth has also had a modest negative impact on the developed world (Chart I-5). We estimate that, for the major economies, the contribution to GDP growth of exports to China has fallen from 0.3 percentage points last year to 0.1 percentage points now.2 Japan and Australia have been hit the hardest, but the Eurozone has also been affected. Interestingly, U.S. exports to China have bucked the trend so far. Chart I-4China Growth Slowdown... Chart I-5...Is Weighing On Global Activity China is not the only story because the slowdown in global trade activity in the first quarter was broadly based (Chart I-5). Nonetheless, softer aggregate demand growth out of China helps to explain why manufacturing PMIs and industrial production growth in most of the major developed economies have cooled. Our model for the LKI is still moderating. We do not see a hard economic landing, but our analysis points to further weakening in Chinese imports and thus softness in global exports and manufacturing activity in the coming months. Oil's Impact On The Economy... Finally, oil prices are no doubt taking a bite out of consumer spending power as Brent fluctuates just below $80/bbl. Our energy experts expect the global crude market to continue tightening due to robust growth and ongoing geopolitical tensions. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude production and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we expect OPEC 2.0 to keep its production cuts in place in the second half of the year. Increasing shale output will not be enough to prevent world oil prices from rising in this environment, and we expect oil prices to continue to trend higher through 2018 and into early 2019 (Chart I-6). Brent could touch $90/bbl next year. There are a few ways to gauge the size of the oil shock on the economy. Chart I-7 shows the U.S. and global 'oil bill' as a share of GDP. We believe that both the level and the rate of change are important. Price spikes, even from low levels, do not allow energy users the time to soften the blow by shifting to alternative energy sources. Chart I-6Oil: Stay Bullish Chart I-7The Oil Bill The level of the oil bill is not high by historical standards. The increase in the bill over the past year has been meaningful, both for the U.S. and at the global level, but is still a long way from the oil shocks of the 1970s. U.S. consumer spending on energy as a share of disposable income, at about 4%, is also near the lowest level observed over the past 4-5 decades (Chart I-8). The 2-year swing in this series shows that rapid increases in energy-related spending has preceded slowdowns in economic growth, even from low starting points. The swing is currently back above the zero line but, again, it is not at a level that historically was associated with a significant economic slowdown. Chart I-8Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Moreover, the mushrooming shale oil and gas industry has altered the calculus of oil shocks for the U.S. The plunge in oil prices in 2014-16 was accompanied by a manufacturing and profit mini recession in the developed countries, providing a drag on overall GDP growth. Chart I-9 provides an estimate of the contribution to U.S. growth from the oil and gas industry. We have included capital spending and wages & salaries in the calculation, and scaled it up to include spillover effects on other industries. Chart I-9Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale The oil and gas contribution swung from +0.5 percentage points in 2012 to -0.4 percentage points in 2016. The contribution has since become only slightly positive again, but it is likely to rise further unless oil prices decline in the coming months. We have included the annual swing in consumer spending on energy as a percent of GDP in Chart I-9 (inverted) for comparison purposes. At the moment, the impact on growth from the shale industry is roughly offsetting the negative impact on consumer spending. The bottom line is that the rise in oil prices so far is enough to take the edge off of global growth, but it is not large enough to derail the expansion in the developed countries. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. ...And Asset Prices As for the impact on asset prices, it is important to ascertain whether rising oil prices represent more restrictive supply or expanding demand. A mild rise in oil prices might simply be a symptom of increased demand caused by accelerating global growth. Higher oil prices are thus reflective of robust demand, and thus should not be seen as a threat. In contrast, the 1970s experience shows that supply restrictions can send the economy into a tailspin. In order to separate the two drivers of prices, we regressed WTI oil prices on global oil demand, inventories and the U.S. dollar. By excluding supply-related factors such as production restrictions, the residual of the regression model gives an approximate gauge of supply shocks (panel 2, Chart I-10). This model clearly has limitations, but it also has one key benefit: it estimates not just actual disruptions in supply, but also the premium built into prices due to perceived or expected future supply disruptions. For example, the 1990 price spike appears as quite a substantial deviation from what could be explained by changes in demand alone. Similar negative supply shocks are evident in 2000 and 2008. Chart I-10Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market We then examined the impact that supply shocks have on subsequent period returns for both Treasury and risk assets. We divided the Supply Shock Proxy into four quartiles corresponding to the four zones shown in Chart I-10: strong positive shock, mild positive shock, mild negative shock and strong negative shock; the last of these corresponds to the region above the upper dashed line, which we have shaded in the chart. The performance of risk assets does not vary significantly across the bottom three quartiles of the supply shock indicator (Chart I-11). However, performance drops off precipitously in the presence of a strong negative supply shock. This is consistent with the "choke point" argument: investors are initially unconcerned with a modest appreciation in oil prices. It is only when prices are driven sharply above the level consistent with the current demand backdrop that risk assets begin to discount a more pessimistic future. The total returns to the Treasury index behave in the opposite manner (Chart I-12). Treasury returns are below average when the oil shock indicator is below one (i.e. positive supply shock) and above average when oil prices rise into negative supply shock territory. In other words, an excess of oil supply is Treasury bearish, as it would tend to fuel more robust economic growth. Conversely, a supply shock that drives oil prices higher tends to be Treasury bullish. This may seem counterintuitive because higher oil prices can be inflationary and thus should be bond bearish in theory. However, large negative oil supply shocks have usually preceded recessions, which caused Treasurys to rally. Chart I-11Effect On Risk Assets Chart I-12Effect On Treasurys The model clearly shows that the drop in oil prices in 2014/15 was a positive supply shock, consistent with the oil consumption data that show demand growth was fairly stable through that period. The model indicator has moved up toward the neutral line in recent months, suggesting that the supply side of the market is tightening up, but it is still in "mild positive supply shock" territory. The latest data point available is April, which means that it does not capture the surge in oil prices over the past month. Some of the recent jump in prices is clearly related to the cancelled Iran deal and other supply-related factors, although demand continues to be supportive of prices. The implication of this model is that it will probably require a significant further surge in prices, without a corresponding ramp up in oil demand, for the model to signal that supply constraints are becoming a significant threat for risk assets. A rise in Brent above US$85 would signal trouble according to this model. As for government bonds, rising oil prices are bearish in the near term, irrespective of whether it reflects demand or supply factors. This is because of the positive correlation between oil prices and long-term inflation expectations. The oil bull phase will turn bond-bullish once it becomes clear that energy prices have hit an economic choke point. Desynchronization Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. First quarter U.S. GDP growth was underwhelming, but the long string of first-quarter disappointment points to seasonal adjustment problems. Higher frequency data are consistent with a robust rebound in the second quarter. Forward looking indicators, such as the OECD and Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicators, continue to climb. This is in contrast with some of the other major economies, such as the Eurozone, U.K., Australia and Japan (Chart I-13). First quarter real GDP growth was particularly soft in Japan and the Eurozone, and one cannot blame seasonal adjustment in these cases. Chart I-13Growth & Inflation Divergences The divergence in economic performance likely reflects Washington's fiscal stimulus that is shielding the U.S. from the global economic soft patch. Moreover, the U.S. is less exposed to the oil shock and the China slowdown than are the other major economies. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. While U.S. inflation continues to drift higher, it has lost momentum in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. (Chart I-13). Renewed stresses in the Italian and Spanish bond markets have sparked a flight-to-quality in recent trading days, depressing yields in safe havens such as U.S. Treasurys and German bunds. Nonetheless, prior to that, the divergence in growth and inflation was reflected in widening bond yield spreads as U.S. Treasurys led the global yields higher. Long-term inflation expectations have risen everywhere, but real yields have increased the most in the U.S. (prior to the flight-to-quality bond rally at the end of May). This is consistent with the growth divergence story and with our country bond allocation: overweight the U.K., Australia and Japan, and underweight U.S. Treasurys within hedged global portfolios. The dollar lagged earlier this year, but is finally catching up to the widening in interest rate spreads. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. Expect More Pain In EM Dollar strength and rising U.S. bond yields are a classic late-cycle combination that often spells trouble for emerging market assets. We do not see the recent selloff across EM asset classes as a buying opportunity since markets have only entered the first stage of the classic final chapter; EM assets underperform as U.S. bond yields and the dollar rise, but commodity prices are resilient. In the second phase, U.S. bond yields top out, but the U.S. dollar continues to firm and commodity prices begin their descent. If the current slowdown in Chinese growth continues, as we expect, it will begin to weigh on non-oil commodity prices. Thus, emerging economies may have to deal with a deadly combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger greenback, falling commodity prices and slowing exports to China (Chart I-14). Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? BCA's Emerging Market Strategy services has ranked EM countries based on foreign funding requirements (Chart I-15). The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-14EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown Chart I-15Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. These mostly stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen as it becomes more difficult to service the foreign debt.3 It is too early to build positions even in Turkish assets. Our EM strategists believe that it will require an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms, to create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial instruments. FOMC Expects Inflation Overshoot Escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could potentially lead the Federal Reserve to put the rate hike campaign on hold. However, that would require some signs of either domestic financial stress or slowing growth. The FOMC is monitoring stress in emerging markets and in the Eurozone, but is sticking with its "gradual" tightening pace for now (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter). May's FOMC minutes signaled a rate hike in June. However, the minutes did not suggest that the Fed is getting more hawkish, despite the Staff's forecast that growth will remain above trend and that the labor market will continue to tighten at a time when core inflation is already pretty much back to target. Some inflation indicators, such as the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, suggest that core inflation will overshoot. The minutes signaled that policymakers are generally comfortable with a modest overshoot of the 2% inflation target because many see it as necessary in order to shift long-term inflation expectations higher, into a range that is consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target on a "sustained" basis (we estimate this range to be 2.3-2.5% for the 10-year inflation breakeven rate). The fact that the FOMC took a fairly dovish tone and did not try to guide rate expectations higher contributed to some retracement of the Treasury selloff in recent weeks. Nonetheless, an inflation overshoot and rising inflation expectations will ultimately be bond-bearish, especially when the FOMC is forced to clamp down on growth as long-term inflation expectations reach the target range. As discussed in BCA's Outlook 2018, one of our key themes for the year is that risk assets are on a collision course with monetary policy because the FOMC will eventually have to transition from simply removing accommodation to targeting slower growth. Timing that transition will be difficult, and depends importantly on how much of an inflation overshoot the FOMC is prepared to tolerate. Is 2½% reasonable? Or could inflation go to 3%? The makeup of the FOMC has changed, but we expect Janet L. Yellen4 to shed light on this question when she speaks at the BCA Annual Investment Conference in September. Investment Conclusions The risks facing investors have shifted, but we do not feel any less cautious than we did last month. Geopolitical tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have perhaps eased. But trade tensions are escalating and investors are suddenly faced with another chapter in the Eurozone financial crisis. The major fear in the first and second chapters was that bond investors would attack Italy, given the sheer size of that economy and the size of Italian government debt. That dreadful day has arrived. The profit backdrop in the major economies remains constructive for equity markets. However, even there, the bloom is coming off the rose. Global growth is no longer synchronized and the advanced economies have hit a soft patch with the possible exception of the U.S. While far from disastrous, our short-term profit models appear to be peaking across the major countries (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking The typical U.S. late cycle dynamics are also threatening emerging markets, at a time when investors are generally overweight and many EM countries have accumulated a pile of debt. U.S. inflation is set to overshoot the target, the FOMC is tightening and the dollar is rising. Throw in slowing Chinese demand and the EM space looks highly vulnerable. If the global economic slowdown is pronounced and drags the U.S. down with it, then bonds will rally and risk assets will take a hit. If, instead, the soft patch is short-lived and growth re-accelerates, then the U.S. Treasury bear market will resume. Stock indexes and corporate bond excess returns would enjoy one last upleg in this scenario, but downside risks would escalate once the Fed begins to target slower economic growth. Either way, EM assets would be hit. Our base case remains that stocks will beat government bonds and cash on a 6-12 month horizon. However, the risk/reward balance is unattractive given the geopolitical backdrop. Thus, we remain tactically cautious on risk assets for the near term. We still expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will peak at close to 3½% before this economic expansion is over. Nonetheless, this would require a calming of geopolitical tensions and an upturn in the growth indicators in the developed world. The risk/reward tradeoff for corporate bonds is no better than for equities and we urge caution in the near term. On a 6-12 month cyclical horizon, we still expect corporate bonds to outperform government bonds, at least in the U.S. European corporates are subject to the ebb and flow of the Italian bond crisis, and face the added risk that the ECB will likely end its QE program later this year. Looking further ahead, this month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, analyzes the Eurozone corporate sector's vulnerability to the end of the cycle that includes rising interest rates and, ultimately, a recession. We find that domestic issuers into the Eurozone market are far less exposed than are foreign issuers. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2018 Next Report: June 28, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 This underestimates the impact on the major countries because it does not account for third country effects (i.e. trade with other countries that trade with China). 3 For more information, please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (2014-2018). II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in May. We remain cautious, despite the supportive profit backdrop. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio fell a bit in May, but it remains well in positive territory. Forward earnings continued their ascent, and the net earnings surprise index rose further to within striking distance of the highest levels in the history of the series. Normally, an earnings backdrop this strong would justify an overweight equity allocation within a balanced portfolio. Unfortunately, a lot of good earnings news is discounted based on our Composite Valuation Indicator and extremely elevated 5-year bottom-up earnings growth expectations (see the Bank Credit Analyst Overview, May 2018). Moreover, our equity indicators are sending a cautious signal. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator continued to decline in May. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on its 'sell' signal in May, for the second month in a row. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Moreover, our composite equity Technical Indicator is on the verge of breaking down and our Monetary Indicator moved further into negative territory in May. Meanwhile, market froth has not been completely extinguished according to our Speculation Indicator (which is a negative sign for stocks from a contrary perspective). As for bonds, the powerful rally at the end of May has undermined valuation, but the 10-year Treasury is not yet in expensive territory. Our technical indicator suggests that previously oversold conditions are easing, but bonds are a long way from overbought. This means that yields have room to fall further in the event of more bad news on Italy or on the broader geopolitical scene. The dollar has not yet reached overbought territory according to our technical indicator. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Special Report

Highlights Trade war between China and U.S. is back on; President Trump is politically constrained from making a quick deal with China; Italian uncertainty will last through the summer and beyond; But bond market will eventually price profligacy over Euro Area exit, which favors bear steepening; A new election in Spain is market positive, there are no Euroskeptics in Iberia; Our tactical bearish view is playing out, stay long DXY and expect more summer volatility. Feature Geopolitical risks are rising across the board. This supports our tactically bearish view, elucidated in April.1 In this Client Note, we review our views on trade wars, Italy, and Spain. Is The U.S.-China Trade War Back On? Most relevant for global assets is that the first official salvo of the trade war between China and the U.S. has been fired: the White House announced, on May 29, tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports as well as yet-to-be-specified restrictions on Chinese investments in the U.S. and U.S. exports to China.2 We have long raised the alarm on U.S.-China relations, but President Trump threw us a curve-ball last week when Chinese and American negotiators issued a joint statement meant to soothe trade tensions. We responded that "we do not expect the truce to last long."3 Apparently it lasted merely eight days. The significance of the administration's about-face on trade is that it invalidates the conventional view that President Xi and Trump would promptly make a deal to ease tensions. Many of our clients have responded to our bearish view on Sino-American relations by suggesting that Beijing will simply offer to buy more "beef and Boeings," and that Trump will take the deal in order to declare a "quick win." The last ten days should put this view to rest. China did offer to buy more beef explicitly - with the offer of more Boeings also rumored - and yet President Trump rejected the deal. Why? Our suspicion is that President Trump was shocked by the backlash against the deal among Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators in the press. As we have argued since 2016, there is no political constraint to being tough on China on trade. This is a highly controversial view as many in the investment community agree with the narrative that the soybean lobby will prevent a trade war between the U.S. and China. President Trump's election, however, has revealed the preference of the median voter in the U.S. on trade. That preference is far less committed to free trade than previously assumed. Republicans in Congress, once staunch defenders of free trade, have therefore adjusted their policy preference, creating a political constraint to a quick deal with China. Bottom Line: Yes, the trade war is back on. We are re-opening our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms. Is Italy Going To Leave The Euro Area? The Italian bond market is beginning to price severe geopolitical stress. The 10-year BTP spread versus German bunds has grown 98 basis points since the election (Chart 1), while the 2/10 BTP yield curve has nearly inverted (Chart 2). The latter suggests that investors are beginning to price in default risk, or rather Euro Area exit risk, over the next two years. Chart 1Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Chart 2...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated We have long contended that Italy is the premier developed market political risk.4 Its level of Euroskepticism is empirically higher than that of the rest of Euro Area (Chart 3) and we have expected that Italy would eventually produce a global risk off. It is just not clear to us that this is the moment. Chart 3Italy: No Euro Support Rebound First, support for the Euro Area remains in the high 50% range and has largely bounced between 55-60% for several years. This is low relative to its Euro Area peers, prompting us to raise the alarm on Italy. But it is also still a majority, showing that Italians are not sold on leaving the Euro Area. Second, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) has adjusted its policy towards the euro membership question in view of this polling. In other words, M5S is aware that the median Italian voter is not convinced that exiting the Euro Area is the right thing to do. We would argue that the anti-establishment parties performed well in this year's election precisely because of this strategic decision to abandon their Euroskeptic rhetoric on the currency union. Nonetheless, the deal that M5S signed to form a coalition with the far more Euroskeptic Lega was an aggressive deal that signals that Rome is preparing for a fight against Brussels, the ECB, and core Europe. The proposed tax cuts, unwinding of retirement reforms, and increases in social welfare spending would raise Italy's budget deficit from current 2.3% of GDP to above 7%. Given rules against such profligacy, and given Italy's high debt levels, the coalition might as well be proposing a Euro Area exit. There are three additional concerns aside from fiscal profligacy: New Election: President Sergio Mattarella's choice for interim prime minister - now that M5S and Lega have broken off their attempt to form a government - has no chance of gaining a majority in the current parliament. As such, the president is likely to call a new election. The leaders of M5S and the Lega, as well as the leaders of the center-left Democratic Party (DP), want the election to be held on July 29, ahead of the ferragosto holidays that shuts down the country in August.5 The market does not like the uncertainty of new election as the current M5S-Lega coalition looks likely to win again, only this time with even more seats. As such, the last thing investors want is a summer full of hyperbolic, populist, anti-establishment statements that will undoubtedly be part of the electoral campaigns. Polls: The two populist parties, M5S and the Lega, are gaining in the polls, particularly the latter, which is the more Euroskeptic (Chart 4). This suggests to investors that the more Euroskeptic approach is gaining support. Impeachment: The leader of M5S, Luigi Di Maio, has called for the impeachment of President Mattarella. Di Maio accused Mattarella of overstepping his constitutional responsibility when he denied the populist coalition's preferred candidate for economy minister, Paolo Savona. Impeachment would be a major concern for the markets as Mattarella's mandate is set to expire only in 2022, which means that he remains a considerable constraint on populism until then. Our reading is that Mattarella did not violate the constitution and that he is unlikely to be removed from power, even if the parliament does impeach him.6 Over the next month, investors will watch all three factors closely. In our view, it is positive that the election may take place over the summer - for the first time in Italy's history - as it would reduce the period of uncertainty. Second, it is understandable that investors will fret about Lega's rise in the polls. However, the closer Lega approaches M5S in the polls, the less likely the two parties will be to maintain their current coalition. At some point, it will not be in the interest of M5S to form a coalition with its chief opponent, especially if Lega gains support and therefore demands a greater share of power in the revised coalition deal. A much preferable coalition partner for M5S would be the center-left PD, which will be weaker, and hence more manageable, and would be a better ideological match. Therefore we believe that the market is getting ahead of itself. Italian policymakers are looking for a fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB over fiscal room and profligacy. This is a fight that will take considerable time to resolve and should add a fiscal premium to the long-dated Italian bonds. In fact, May 29 had the biggest day-to-day selloff since 1993 (Chart 5). However, policymakers are not (yet) looking for exit from the Euro Area. As such, risk premium on the 10-year BTPs does make sense, but the sharp move on the 2-year notes is premature. Chart 4Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Chart 5Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Bottom Line: Italian policymakers are not looking to exit the Euro Area. Their fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB will last throughout 2018 and makes it dangerous to try to "catch the falling knife" of the BTPs. However, expecting the yield curve to invert is premature as an Italian Euro Area exit over the next two years is unlikely. Over the next ten years, however, we would expect Italy to test the markets with a Euro Area exit attempt. We are sticking to our view that such an event is far more likely to occur following a recession than it is today. Is Spanish Election Threat The Same As Italy? Chart 6Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spain is having its own political crisis. The inconclusive June 2016 election produced a minority conservative government, with the center-right People's Party (PP) supported on critical matters by the center-left Socialist Party (PSOE). The leader of the PSOE, Pedro Sanchez, has decided to withdraw his support for the minority government due to alleged evidence of PP corruption, allegations that have dogged the conservatives for years. A vote of confidence on Friday could bring down the government. Why did the PSOE decide to challenge PP now? Because polls are showing that PP is in decline, as is, Podemos, the far-left party that nearly outperformed PSOE in the 2016 election (Chart 6). The greatest beneficiary of the political realignment in Spain, however, is Ciudadanos, a radically centrist and radically pro-European party that originated in Catalonia. Ciudadanos's official platform in the December 2017 regional elections in Catalonia was "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country, and Europe is our future." New elections in Spain are likely to produce a highly pro-market outcome where the centrist and pro-EU Ciudadanos forms a coalition with PSOE. While such a coalition would lean towards more fiscal spending, it would not unravel the crucial structural reforms painfully implemented by Mariano Rajoy's conservative governments since 2012. It also is as far away from Euroskepticism as exists in Europe at the moment. Bottom Line: A new Spanish election would be a market-positive event. The country would have a more stable government, replacing the current minority PP government that has lost all its political capital after implementing painful structural reforms and being dogged by corruption allegations. There is no Euroskeptic political alternative in Spain at the moment. As such, we are recommending that clients go long 10-year Spanish government bonds against Italian.7 Any contagion from Italy to Spain is inappropriate politically and is a misapplied vestige of the early days of the Euro Area crisis when all peripheral bonds traded in concerto. As such, it should be faded. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, and "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 According to the White House statement, the specific list of covered imports subjected to tariffs will be announced on June 15. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016 and "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Corriere Della Sera, "Governo: cresce l'ipotesi del voto il 29 luglio. Salvini: "Al voto con Savona candidato," dated May 29, 2018, available at www.corriere.it. 6 Like in the U.S., the threshold for impeachment in Italy is low. Both chambers of parliament merely have to impeach the president with a simple majority. However, in Italy, the trial is not held in the parliament, but rather by the Constitutional Court's 15 judges and an additional 16 specially appointed judges - selected randomly. It is highly unlikely that Mattarella, himself a previous member of the court, would be found guilty, particularly since he acted in accordance with presidential powers outlined in Article 87 of the constitution ("The President shall appoint State officials in the cases provided for by the law") and in accordance with precedent (in 1994, the president then refused to appoint Silvio Berlusconi's personal lawyer as the country's minister of justice). In addition, leader of Lega, Matteo Salvini, has stated that he would not want to see Mattarella impeached. This is likely because the process has a low probability of success. Furthermore, the president cannot disband the parliament and call new elections if impeachment proceedings begin against him. 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades," dated May 29, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Average Brent and WTI oil prices should rise to $80/bbl and $72/bbl in 2019 even without adding the full range of events that will drive up the geopolitical risk premium. Risks lie to the upside. Feature Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 To put some numbers on the difference between our view and the market's view, we rely on the implied option volatilities for crude oil futures.4 As Chart 2 illustrates, the oil markets are currently pricing in just under 30% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end, and merely 14% that they will touch $90/bbl in the same timeframe. We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Chart 2The Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.5 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.7 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."8 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).9 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.10 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.11 Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.12 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.14 In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Chart 6Great Power Competition Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.15 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.16 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. BOX 1 Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1 Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.17 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##br## Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##br## Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##br## 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" ##br##Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy therefore projects that the combination of stable global demand, steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output, and the loss of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions in 2019 will lift the average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl respectively (Chart 14).18 This forecast, however, represents our baseline based on fundamentals of global oil supply and demand (Chart 15) and does not include our potential scenarios outlined in Diagram 2, which would obviously add additional geopolitical risk premium. Chart 13Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 14Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 15Balances Tighter As Supply Falls For investors looking for equity-market exposure in this scenario, BCA's Energy Sector Strategy recommends overweighing U.S. shale producers and shale-focused service companies for investors looking for equity-market exposure to oil prices. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has broken down this recommendation into specific equity calls, which we encourage our clients to peruse.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We use Brent implied volatility - of at-the-money options of the selected futures contract - as an input to construct the cumulative normal density of future prices. Thus, the probability obtained is one where the terminal futures price, at the selected months, exceeds the strike price quoted. In order to derive this probability, we need the current market price of the selected future contract, the number of days to expiration, the strike price, and a measure of the volatility of this contract. 5 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 6 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 7 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 11 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 12 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019," dated May 24, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)

Highlights The dollar rally is set to continue. The dollar tends to perform best when real rates are rising and above r-star. We are entering this environment and raising our DXY target to 98. Moreover, the rest of the world is likely to be more vulnerable to higher U.S. rates than the U.S. itself. Not only does the Federal Reserve set the cost of capital for the world, debt excesses are more prevalent outside the U.S. than in it. Additionally, the U.S. is less impacted by slowing global industrial activity than the rest of the world. Relative growth dynamics will therefore flatter the greenback. Italy is weighing on the euro, and any deterioration in the pricing of Italian risk will further hurt the common currency. However, EUR/USD does not even need Italian drama to depreciate. Relative growth and inflation are enough to push the euro toward 1.12. Feature The beginning of the year was a tough time for the dollar, with the DXY plunging nearly 4% from January 1 to February 15th. However, soon after Valentine's day, the market became enamored with the greenback, prompting the USD to rally a hefty 6%. Now that the dollar has hit our target of 94, it is time to pause and ask a simple question: can the U.S. currency rally further, or is it time to bail on the rally? While we do think the secular trend for the greenback is down, we also believe the current rebound has further to run. We are revising our DXY price target to 98. Essentially, we are entering a window where both U.S. monetary policy and the global growth backdrop will give the dollar an additional boost. The Over And Under On R-Star Table I-1Fed And The Dollar: Where We Stand ##br##Matters As Much As The Direction A common market lore is that the dollar tends to appreciate in anticipation of rising rates, but once the Fed actually begins to increase rates, the dollar weakens. There is some truth to this assertion. The 1994 and 2004 experiences do bear these facts. Moreover, the DXY fell 8.5% after the ill-fated December 2015 hike, and fell more than 11% as the Fed hiked rates through 2017. However, these kinds of simple heuristics can be deceiving. Where we stand in the hiking process matters just as much. In other words, it is not only whether interest rates are rising that counts, but whether or not they are rising above the neutral rate, or r-star. This distinction makes all the difference. As Table I-1 illustrates, the heuristic holds true when the Fed begins lifting rates but the real fed funds rate is below r-star. In this environment, the average annual return of the DXY since 1973 has been -5%, and the dollar has generated negative returns 75% of the time. However, the picture changes drastically if the real fed funds rate rests above the r-star. In this environment, the DXY rises alongside the fed funds rate, generating average annual gains of 4.7% 70% of the time. These results have been robust, independent of what was expected in interest rates futures. When the fed funds rate is falling, it is difficult to generate any strong views, as neither the expected returns nor the batting averages are statistically different from the expected outcomes of coin tosses. Chart I-1We Are Entering The Dollar-Bullish##br## Part Of The Fed Cycle Interwoven behind this picture is global growth. We have long argued that global growth is a key determinant for the dollar: When it is strong, the dollar weakens; when it is weak, the dollar strengthens.1 Essentially, when the fed funds rate rises but is still below r-star, global growth is improving, often even more so than U.S. growth, leading to a soggy greenback. When the fed funds rate moves above r-star, we tend to see hiccups around the world, essentially because the global cost of capital starts to rise, hurting the most vulnerable places. This helps the dollar. Sometimes, the most vulnerable country to higher U.S. interest rates happens to be the U.S., in which case the dollar does not respond positively to rising rates, even if they are above r-star. This is exactly what happened between 2005 and 2006. Today, we are entering an environment where the dollar is likely to receive a fillip from the Fed. As Chart I-1 illustrates, the real fed funds rate is about to punch above the Laubach-Williams estimate for r-star. It is true that the LW measure for r-star is only an estimate of this crucial but unobservable concept, and that it is subject to revisions, but the Fed is set to increase rates at least four times over the next 12 months, which in our view will definitely push the fed funds rate above realistic estimates of r-star. As a result, we should anticipate the dollar to rally further. Bottom Line: When we think about the Fed and the dollar, rising interest rates are not enough to boost the greenback. Actually, if U.S. real rates rise but are still below the neutral rate of interest, this generally results in very poor dollar performance, like what transpired in 2017 and the first month of 2018. If, however, the fed funds rate is both rising and above the neutral rate, the dollar rallies. We are entering this environment. Why Is This Time NOT Different? If one were to make the argument that the dollar will not rally as the fed funds rate moves above the neutral rate - which has happened in 30% of past occurrences - one needs to make the case that the U.S. is more vulnerable to higher U.S. rates than the rest of the world. We do not want to make this bet. First, there does not seem to be any obvious imbalances in the U.S. economy right now. Historically, periods of vulnerability in the U.S. have been preceded by an elevated share of cyclical sectors as a percentage of GDP. This was particularly obvious last cycle, when cyclical sectors represented 28% of GDP in 2006, and residential investment was particularly out of norm, at almost 7% of GDP (Chart I-2). Today, cyclical sectors represent 24.3% of GDP, in line with the average of 25.4% since 1960. Moreover, while there are rampant fears that the U.S. current account deficit will blow up, at the moment - thanks to decreasing oil imports - it only stands at -2.5% of GDP, much narrower than the levels that prevailed in 2006 (Chart I-3). Second, the key ingredient that would generate vulnerability in the U.S. is not present, but it is visible around the world: too fast a pace of debt accumulation. Not only do debt buildups make financial systems and economies illiquid, if the accretion is built swiftly it raises the probability of a misallocation of capital. After all, investing is a time-consuming activity, and if done too quickly chances are that due diligence was not very diligent. Today, it is true that there has been a deterioration in the quality of the corporate sector debt in the U.S., but nonetheless, the U.S. private sector has curtailed its debt load, and has been rather reluctant to re-lever. In the rest of the G-10, debt loads are as elevated as ever, and in fact are hitting record highs in Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavian economies. In EM and China, not only are debt levels elevated, they have also been rising briskly (Chart I-4). The vulnerabilities are therefore outside the U.S. and not in the U.S Chart I-2No Cyclical Imbalances In The U.S. Chart I-3Better External Balance As Well Chart I-4Debt: U.S. Robust, RoW Not So Much Third, global growth is facing an important headwind emanating from China. The Chinese economy has been in the process of slowing, and continues to do so: Leading the charge have been efforts by Chinese policymakers to diminish the pace of debt accumulation. As Chart I-5 illustrates, not only has the Chinese credit impulse rolled over, but the decline in working capital of small financial intuitions suggests that more pain is in the pipeline. Real estate activity is slowing down. The prices of newly built units in the main cities are contracting on an annual basis, and in second-tier cities price appreciation is slowing. As a result, construction activity is also downshifting. The growth of industrial profits has slowed considerably, hitting a 14-month low. Railway traffic, electricity production and excavator sales are all decelerating sharply. The Li-Keqiang index is also slowing and, according to our leading index based on credit activity, is set to continue to do so (Chart I-6). Unsurprisingly, Chinese import growth is also slowing significantly, implying that China is not providing as much of a shot in the arm for the rest of the world as it did 12 months ago (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Chart I-5Chinese Policy Tightening In Action Chart I-6The China Syndrome EM economies are particularly exposed to these dynamics. As we like to put it when we talk to our clients, if EM economies were a security, Chinese activity would drive cash flow growth, while U.S. monetary policy dictates the cost of capital. This is especially true today, as a record amount of EM-ex-China exports go to China, while USD-debt as a percentage of EM GDP, reserves and exports is at multi-decade highs (Chart I-7). This analogy suggests that EM economies are therefore the most vulnerable corner of the world to higher U.S. rates: Not only is their indebtedness high, but they are also facing a potent headwind from China. Hence, we expect EM financial conditions to deteriorate further, with negative implications for EM growth. However, EM have been the most dynamic contributor to global growth and global trade. This implies that if EM growth conditions deteriorate, so will global trade and global industrial activity (Chart I-8). As we have highlighted before, the U.S. is normally insulated from these dynamics as commodity production, manufacturing and exports represent a relatively low share of gross value added in what is fundamentally a domestically driven economy. Through this aperture, the relative resilience of the U.S. to the recent decline in global growth is unsurprising. To the contrary, we can expect this current bout of growth divergence to stay in place for much of 2018 (Chart I-9). Chart I-7EM Have A Lot Of Dollar Debt Chart I-8Weak EM Equals Weak Global IP Chart I-9Global Growth Divergences As a result, global growth dynamics are likely to buttress the bullish implications for the dollar of a Fed lifting rates above r-star. As Chart I-10 shows, slowing global growth is good for the dollar. This is likely to be especially true this time around as investors have yet to purge their overhang of short-dollar bets (Chart I-11). Moreover, as we highlighted five months ago, from a stylistic perspective, the dollar is the epitome of momentum currencies within the G-10.2 The indicator that has empirically best captured the momentum-continuation behavior of the dollar is the gap between the 1-month moving average and the 6-month moving average. Currently, this indicator is flashing an unabashedly bullish signal for the USD (Chart I-12). Chart I-10The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart I-11Still Short The Dollar Chart I-12Momentum Currrently Favors The Dollar Bottom Line: This time will not be different, and the dollar should rise as the Fed pushes interest rates above r-star. The U.S. private sector has not experienced any material debt buildup in recent years, and is less vulnerable to higher rates than emerging markets. Since the U.S. is less sensitive to EM growth than other advanced economies, the U.S. is relatively insulated from any EM slowdown, explaining why the U.S. economy is not slowing like the rest of the world is right now. This is a positive backdrop for the dollar. Euro Weakness: More Than Just Italy The euro's weakness through the recent dollar rally has been particularly striking. Recent developments in Italy have supercharged this weakness, as investors are once again questioning the commitment of Italy to staying in the euro area - an assessment that is weighing on Italian assets (Chart I-13). However, Marko Papic argues in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service that Italy is not on the verge of leaving the euro area.3 However, the Five-Star movement / Lega Nord coalition wants to challenge the EU's Stability and Growth Pact 3% limit on budget deficits. As Dhaval Joshi argues in BCA's European Investment Strategy service, Italy has a fiscal multiplier greater than one, and thus more spending is likely to help the Italian economy over the coming year - whether or not the now-infamous issuance of mini-BOTs are involved.4 And to be honest, the Italian economy needs all the help it can get (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Markets Are Worried About Italy Chart I-14Italian Economy Has Yet To Heal However, it remains to be seen how much Italy will be able to open the fiscal spigot. Much depends on the willingness of the bond market to finance this intended profligacy. So far, the move in Italian BTPs has been small, but any repeat of 2010-2012 will prevent the coalition government from implementing its desired spending plans. Such a confrontation between the bond market and Italian politicians could cause a sharp decline in the euro. To be clear, it is highly unlikely that the coalition will be able to increase the deficit by the EUR100bn planned in its manifesto. To note, Rob Robis has downgraded Italian bonds to underweight in BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service.5 While Italian risks have exacerbated the weakness in the euro, ultimately the weakness in the common currency simply reflects the greater shock to European growth resulting from a slowing China. As Chart I-15 illustrates, European growth tends to underperform U.S. growth when Chinese monetary conditions are tightened, or when China's marginal propensity to consume - as approximated by the growth rate of M1 relative to M2 - declines. We are currently facing this environment. Chart I-15AChina's Deceleration Is Filtering Into Europe (I) Chart I-15BChina's Deceleration Is Filtering Into Europe (II) In addition, not only is European growth falling behind the U.S., but the European economy is also feeling the pinch from the tightening in financial conditions vis-à-vis the U.S. that ensued following the furious euro rally of 2017. In response to these combined shocks, European core inflation is now weakening relative to the U.S., which normally portends to a weakening euro over the course of the subsequent six months (Chart I-16). Since investors have yet to clear their massive long bets on the euro, we think the euro will need to flirt again with fair value before being able to stage a durable rally (Chart I-17). While the euro's fair value is currently 1.12, we will re-evaluate the situation once EUR/USD moves below 1.15. Despite the upbeat picture we have painted for the dollar, the greenback still faces potent structural headwinds, which means that we cannot be too careful and need to approach any dollar rebound with a great deal of care, always keeping an eye open for potential risks to the dollar. Chart I-16Relative Inflation And The Euro Chart I-17More Downside In EUR For Now Bottom Line: Italian political developments are currently hurting the euro. The euro will suffer further if the bond market ends up rioting, unwilling to finance the coalition's deficit-busting proposals. While such dynamics would precipitate a sharp and violent fall in the euro, EUR/USD does not need Italian misadventures to weaken further. The euro continues to trade at a premium to its fair value, and the euro area is feeling the pain of a slowing China deeper than the U.S. is. Therefore, European growth and inflation are likely to weigh further on the euro. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "More Than Just Trade Wars", dated April 6 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Some Goods News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)", dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see European Investment Strategy Special Report, titled "Italy Vs Brussels: Who's Right?", dated May 24, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The U.S. economy continues to perform well with the Manufacturing and Services PMI coming in at 56.6 and 55.7, respectively, beating expectations. However, the dovish Fed minutes were the highlight of this week. While inflation seems to finally be making a comeback, members of the FOMC opined that it was "premature to conclude that inflation would remain at level around 2 percent". This implies a higher possibility of the Fed's pursuit towards a more "symmetric" inflation target, indicating that the Fed doesn't want to raise rates more aggressively than what is implied it the current dot forecasts. The 2-year yield fell by 7.1 bps, while the 10-year fell by 6.9 bps on the news. Furthermore, the Fed has become increasingly cautious in its communications in the face of a flattening yield curve. Despite these potential negatives, the dollar continues to appreciate as global growth softens. This rally could run further as European and EM data continues to disappoint. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? - April 27, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 This week was negative across the board for the euro area. French, German and overall euro area Manufacturing, Services and Composite PMIs all underperformed expectations. In addition to lackluster economic data, the eurosceptic M5S-Lega coalition is now putting the Brussels to the test. As expected, the BTP-Bund spread spiked to just below 2%, near levels that last prevailed in early 2017, and the euro has been suffering as a result of this. While the ECB's QE program is scheduled to end in September, the current situation is a threat and may necessitate a lower euro to ease monetary conditions. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: The Nikkei Manufacturing PMI came in below expectations, coming in at 52.5. This measure also decreased from last month's reading. Annualized gross domestic product growth for Qtk surprised to the downside, coming at -0.6%. Moreover, machinery orders yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at -2.4%. After rising by more than 2% the last couple weeks, USD/JPY has come back below 110 recently. We believe that the yen will most likely be amongst the best performing G-10 currencies, given that an environment of declining global growth and rising risk normally supports the yen. However, on a longer term basis, the yen is likely to see downside, given that the BoJ will not allow an appreciating yen from derailing the economy. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been negative: Headline and core inflation both surprised to the downside, coming in at 2.4% and 2.1% respectively. They also both decreased from last month's number. Industrial Production yearly growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.9%. Finally, Halifax house price yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.2%. GBP/USD has gone down by nearly 1.5% these past few weeks, dragged down by the euro's weakness. Overall, we remain bearish on cable, given that inflation should continue to surprise to the downside in the U.K, as a result of the appreciation of the pound last year. On the other hand inflation in the U.S. should outperform, as a result of the decreased excess capacity and tight labor market. This will force the Fed to raise rates more than the BoE, putting downward pressure on the pound. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data has been mixed recently: Westpac Consumer Confidence was negative in May, at -0.6%; The Wage Price Index annual growth remain unchanged at 2.1%, also in line with expectations; The unemployment rate picked up to 5.6% from 5.5%, however, the participation rate also increased by 0.1% to 65.6%; Employment grew by 22,600, with full-time employment at 32,700 and part-time contracting by 10,000; Governor Lowe spoke in Sydney this week at the Australia-China Relations Institute, citing Australia increased dependence on the second largest economy in the world, and the "bumpy" journey along the path of financial reform that China is likely to experience. This is likely to bring increased volatility to an Australian economy already replete with excess capacity. The RBA is unlikely to raise interest rates any time soon. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: Both exports and imports surprised to the upside, coming in at 5.05 billion and 4.79 billion respectively. Additionally, the trade balance also outperformed expectations, coming in at -3.78 billion dollars. Finally, the Producer Input Price Index quarterly growth also surprised positively, coming in at 0.6%. The kiwi has declined by more than 1.5% this past weeks. Overall we continue to be bearish on NZD/USD, given that we expect the current environment of heightened volatility to persist. That being said, we are bullish on the NZD against the AUD, as Australia is much more exposed to a slowdown in the Chinese industrial cycle and as the Australian economy exhibits more signs of slack than New Zealand's. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The Canadian dollar has managed to remain flat despite the recent broad-based selloff of commodity currencies against the greenback. Canada's inflation has been in line with the BoC's target. Furthermore, a resilient labor market and robust wage growth point to favorable domestic demand conditions and greater inflationary pressures in the coming quarters. External factors such as a favorable oil market, relative to metals, have helped the CAD against other commodity currencies, despite this week's weakness. Going forward, these variables are likely to continue to support the loonie against the likes of the Aussie or the Kiwi. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been negative: The Producer Price index underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.7%. Moreover, headline CPI inflation also underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.8%. EUR/CHF has declined by almost 2% these past weeks. We continue to be bearish on this cross, given that an environment of continued risk aversion should hurt the euro, while giving a boost to safe heavens like the franc. Italy's political tumult only adds credence to this argument. However, on a long term basis we are positive on EUR/CHF, given that the SNB will maintain an extremely easy monetary policy, much more so than the ECB, in order to prevent an appreciating franc which would derail its objective of ever reviving inflation in Switzerland. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Headline CPI inflation outperformed expectation, coming in at 2.4%. Meanwhile, core CPI inflation came in line with expectations, at 1.3%. USD/NOK has been relatively flat in the month of May. Overall rising U.S. real rates relative to Norway should lift USD/NOK, even amid rising oil prices. That being said, the krone is likely to outperform other commodity currencies like the AUD or the NZD. This is because oil is less sensitive to China than other commodities, and the black gold is supported by a friendlier supply backdrop, especially as tensions in the Middle East are once again rising and Venezuela is circling down the drain. NOK should continue to appreciate against the EUR as well. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 While Swedish producer prices annual growth picked up to 4.9% from 4% in April - suggesting a resurgence in inflationary pressures, labor market conditions softened as the unemployment rate climbed to 6.8% from 6.5%. The Riksbank also released a commentary on household debt, citing a "poorly functioning housing market" and a "tax system not being well designed from a financial stability perspective" as reasons for the current predicament. There was also emphasis placed on the uncertainty of house prices going forward. While these factors are present, resurgent inflation will ultimately prompt the Riksbank to hike, albeit cautiously, in order to avoid having to raise rates too violently down the road, which could cause serious harm to a Swedish economy afflicted by considerable internal imbalances. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Feature The prospect of a 5S-Lega government in Italy is unnerving some analysts and commentators. Italy's sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio is already one of the highest in the world. A seemingly endless economic stagnation is constraining GDP, and now the populists are proposing policies that would increase the deficit, lifting sovereign debt even higher. Feature ChartFiscal Thrust Has Driven Italy's ##br##Growth In Recent Years The suggested cures to Italy's high sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio divide into two opposing camps. One camp - Italy's populists - wants to boost GDP, the ratio's denominator. The other camp - Brussels - wants to rein in sovereign debt, the ratio's numerator. Who's right? It is not a simple choice. Growth and debt are not independent variables. It is impossible to boost growth quickly without a positive credit impulse from some part of the economy. Equally, reducing government borrowing can have a devastating impact on growth (Chart I-2). Therefore, to resolve the conflict between Italy's populists and Brussels, we need to understand the specific relationship in Italy between government debt, GDP, and their interaction: the fiscal multiplier. Chart I-2The Fiscal Multiplier Is High ##br##When The Private Sector Or Banks Are Financially Unhealthy Italy Is Right, Brussels Is Wrong Imagine that government debt starts at 130 and GDP starts at 100. Imagine also that each unit of government borrowing to spend lifts GDP by one unit, meaning the fiscal multiplier equals one. Under these assumptions, three units of fiscal thrust would lift debt to 133 and lift GDP to 103, reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 129%. Conversely, three units of fiscal drag would reduce debt to 127 and reduce GDP to 97, paradoxically increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 131% and making the austerity strategy entirely counterproductive. Critics will snap back that these two assumptions appear inconsistent. When sovereign indebtedness is already high, at say 130% of GDP, it seems implausible that the fiscal multiplier could also be high: the government has already done its useful borrowing to spend and, at the margin, additional borrowing is likely to be 'fiscally irresponsible'. This criticism would be valid if the government was the only part of the economy that could borrow. But it isn't. Whether the fiscal multiplier is high or low also depends on what is happening in the private sector (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Fiscal Multiplier Is Low ##br##When The Private Sector And Banks Are Financially Healthy Fiscal multipliers become very high when there is a breakdown in the ability of households and firms to borrow and/or a breakdown in the ability of banks to lend. After such a breakdown, credit flows to the private sector remain depressed however low (or negative) interest rates go. Specifically, this happens after a severe economic trauma when large numbers of households and firms are simultaneously repairing their badly damaged balance sheets and/or when banks are insolvent. If the one and only engine of demand - government spending - then cuts out, the economy can enter a prolonged stagnation. Under such conditions, thrift reinforces thrift: one unit of fiscal drag can trigger an additional private sector spending cut, magnifying the impact of the original cut. In other words, the fiscal multiplier can exceed one and reach a level as high as two according to several academic and empirical studies.1 During and immediately after the global financial crisis, fiscal multipliers surged. Through 2009-12, fiscal thrust had a very strong explanatory power for GDP growth; across 14 major economies, the regression slope of 1.5 confirms a high average fiscal multiplier. In other words, each unit of fiscal thrust boosted GDP by 1.5 units; and each unit of fiscal drag depressed GDP by 1.5 units.2 Another way to see this is to observe that in the global financial crisis the economies that had the largest fiscal thrusts tended to experience the least severe recessions. The annual fiscal thrust in the U.S., U.K. and France equalled 2% of GDP; in Spain it equalled 3%.3 By contrast, Germany and Italy had negligible fiscal thrusts, and they suffered the worst recessions. But by 2012, households and firms around the world were willing to borrow again, and banks were sufficiently recapitalised to lend. Hence, fiscal multipliers slumped: fiscal thrust no longer had any explanatory power for GDP growth (Charts I-4 - I-7). Chart I-4Post 2012: No Connection Between##br## Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The U.S. Chart I-5Post 2012: No Connection Between##br## Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The U.K. Chart I-6Post 2012: No Connection Between ##br##Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The Germany Chart I-7Post 2012: No Connection Between##br## Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The France There was one glaring exception to this trend: alas, poor Italy. Trapped in the EU's inflexible and misguided fiscal compact, and without an outright crisis, the Italian government could not recapitalise the dysfunctional banks. Although the solvency of the banks has improved in the past year, the evidence strongly suggests that fiscal thrust remains the main driver of the Italian economy (Feature Chart). On this evidence, the best economic policy for Italy right now is not to adhere slavishly to the misguided one-size-fits-all EU fiscal compact. The best policy is to use fiscal thrust intelligently to boost growth. We conclude that, on this specific point, Italy's populists are right and Brussels is wrong. Italy Needs Growth Italian BTPs offer a yield premium over German bunds as a compensation for two possible risks. One risk is a haircut or, more euphemistically, a 'restructuring'. But the likelihood of such a restructuring is very low. Putting aside the damage it would do to Italy's international standing, the simpler explanation is that it would kill the Italian banking system. As a rule of thumb, a bank's investors start to get nervous about its solvency when equity capital no longer covers its net non-performing loans (NPLs). In this regard, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion. The banks also hold around €350 billion of Italian government bonds (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Italian Banks Own 350 Billion Euro Of Italian Government Bonds So a mere 10% haircut on these BTPs could cripple the banking system and send the economy into a new tailspin. Meaning, it is in nobody's interest to restructure Italian bonds. The more likely risk to BTP holders - albeit still small - is redenomination out of the euro and into a reinstated lira. In which case the yield premium on BTPs ought to equal: (The likely loss on being paid in liras rather than deutschmarks) multiplied by (the annual probability of Italy leaving the euro) The first of these terms captures Italy's competitiveness shortfall versus Germany, which will change quite gradually. The second term captures a political risk, as leaving the euro would require a mandate from the Italian people. This means that the second term is very sensitive (inversely) to the popularity of the euro in Italy. It follows that a policy that kick starts growth and improves living standards - thereby boosting the popularity of the euro amongst the Italian people - is also a good policy for Italian bonds, banks, sustainable growth in Italy, and therefore for the euro itself. Bear in mind that Italy's structural deficit, at just 1%, is nowhere near the double-digit percentage levels that reliably signal the onset of a sovereign debt trap (Table I-1). Table I-1Italy's Structural Deficit Has Almost Disappeared Given Italy's high fiscal multiplier, we conclude once again that Italy's populists are right and Brussels is wrong. Some Investment Considerations Italian assets rallied strongly at the start of the year and certainly did not discount an election outcome in which the unlikely bedfellows 5S and La Lega formed a government. Therefore, from a technical perspective, the rally was extended and ripe for a pullback. A further consideration for Italy's MIB is that it is over-weighted to banks, so a sustained outperformance from the stock market requires a sustained outperformance from global banks, which we do not expect to start imminently. So in the near term, we prefer France's CAC to Italy's MIB. We have also opened a tactical pair-trade: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. However, later this year, we expect both our credit impulse (cyclical) indicator and fractal dimension (technical) indicator to signal a better entry point into banks, into the Italian equity market and for BTP yield spread compression. Italy's structural deficit, at 1%, is amongst the lowest in the world, so Italy has plenty of 'fiscal space'. Moreover, fiscal stimulus can deliver bang for its buck because Italy appears to have a high fiscal multiplier. This differentiates Italy from other major economies, and makes the EU's one-size-fits-all fiscal compact entirely counterproductive for the euro area's third largest economy. This means that policies that push back against Brussels on this specific point might finally permit Italy to escape its decade-long growth trap. And therefore, somewhat paradoxically, they will enable the yield premium on 10-year Italian BTPs versus 10-year French OATs ultimately to compress. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, please see: When Is The Government Spending Multiplier Large? Christiano, Eichenbaum and Rebelo, Northwestern University. 2 Even removing the outlier data point that is Greece, the best-fit line has a slope of 1.1. And the r-squared explanatory power remains significant at 0.5. 3 Through 2008-9.

Highlights China-U.S. trade détente goes against our alarmist forecast, prompting us to reassess the view; We do not expect the truce to last long, as China has not given the U.S. what we believe the Trump administration wants; Instead, we see the truce lasting until at least the completion of the North Korea - U.S. summit, at most early 2019; Market is correct to fret about Italy, as the populist agenda will be constrained by the bond market in due course; Stay long DXY, but close our recommendations to short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. Feature Our alarmist view on trade wars appears to be in retreat, or at least "on hold," following the conclusion of the latest trade talks between U.S. and Chinese officials. Global markets breathed a sigh of relief on Monday, after a weekend of extremely positive comments from President Trump's advisers and cabinet members. Particularly bullish were the comments from Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, who claimed that China had agreed to reduce its massive trade surplus with the U.S. by $200 billion (Chart 1). Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, Is The Problem The official bilateral statement, subsequently published by the White House, was vague. It claimed that "there was a consensus" regarding a substantive - but unquantifiable - reduction in the U.S. trade deficit.1 The only sectors that were mentioned specifically were "United States agriculture and energy exports." China agreed to "meaningfully" increase the imports of those products, which are low value- added commodity goods. With regard to value-added exports, China merely agreed that it would encourage "expanding trade in manufactured goods and services." The two sides also agreed to "attach paramount importance to intellectual property protections," with China specifically agreeing to "advance relevant amendments to its laws and regulations in this area." Subsequent to the declaratory statement, China lowered tariffs on auto imports from 25% to 15%. It will also cut tariffs on imported car parts, to around 6%, from the current average of about 10%. Is that it? Was the consensus view - that China would merely write a check for some Boeings, beef, and crude oil - essentially right? The key bellwether for trade tensions has been the proposed tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of goods, set to come in effect as early as May 21. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, this tariff action is now "on hold." Mnuchin was also supposed to announce investment restrictions by this date, another bellwether that is apparently on hold. This is objective evidence that trade tensions have probably peaked for this year.2 On the other hand, there are several reasons to remain cautious: Section 301 Investigation: Robert Lighthizer, the cantankerous U.S. Trade Representative who spearheaded the Section 301 investigation into China's trade practices that justified the abovementioned tariffs and investment restrictions, immediately issued a statement on Sunday dampening enthusiasm: "Real work still needs to be done to achieve changes in a Chinese system that facilitates forced technology transfers in order to do business in China." In the same statement, Lighthizer added that China facilitates "the theft of our companies' intellectual property and business know-how." In other words, Lighthizer does not appear to be excited by the prospect of trading IP and tech protection for additional exports of beef and crude oil. Political Reaction: The reaction from conservative circles was less than enthusiastic, with both congressional officials and various Trump supporters announcing their exasperation with the supposed deal over the weekend.3 The Wall Street Journal claimed that China refused to put a number - such as the aforementioned $200 billion - in the final statement.4 The implication is that Beijing won this round of negotiations. But President Trump will not want to appear weak. If a narrative emerges that he "lost," we would expect President Trump to pivot back to tariffs and confrontation. Support for free trade has recently rebounded among Republican voters but remains dramatically lower among them than among Democrats (Chart 2). As such, it is a salient issue for the president politically. Chart 2Support For Free Trade Recovering, ##br##But Republicans Still Trail Democrats Chart 3China Already ##br##Imports U.S. Commodities... Investment Restrictions: Senator Cornyn's (Texas, Republican) bill to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process continues to move through the Senate.5 The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Of 2017 (FIRRMA) is currently being considered by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and should be submitted to a vote ahead of the November election. Congress is also looking to pass a bipartisan bill that would prevent President Trump from taking it easy on Chinese telecommunication manufacturer ZTE. Chart 4U.S. Commodity Export Growth Is Solid Chart 5... But Impedes Market Access For Higher Value-Added Goods Beef And Oil Is Not Enough: The U.S. already has a growing market share in China's imports of commodities and crude materials, although it could significantly increase its exports in several categories (Chart 3). As the Chinese people develop middle-class consumption habits, the country was always going to import more agricultural products. And as their tastes matured, the U.S. was always going to benefit, given the higher quality and price point of its agricultural exports. In fact, China's imports of U.S. primary commodity exports have been increasing faster than imports of U.S. manufacturing goods (Chart 4). As such, the statement suggests that the U.S. and China have opted for the easiest compromises (commodities) to grant U.S. greater market access; the U.S. may have fallen short on market access for value-added manufacturing (Chart 5). In addition, there was little acknowledgment of the American demands that China cease forced tech transfers, cut subsidies for SOEs, reduce domestic content requirements under the "Made in China 2025" plan, and liberalize trade for U.S. software and high-tech exporters (Chart 6). Given these outstanding and unresolved issues, there are three ways to interpret the about-face in U.S. trade demands: Geopolitical Strategy is wrong: One scenario is that we are wrong, that the Trump administration is not focused on forced tech transfers and IP theft in any serious way.6 On the other hand, if that is true, the U.S. is also not serious about significantly reducing its trade deficit with China, since structurally, IP theft and non-tariff barriers to trade of high-value exports are a major reason why China has a massive surplus. Instead, the U.S. may only be focused on reducing the trade deficit through assurances of greater market access - a key demand as well, but one that could prove temporary or un-strategic, especially if access is only granted for commodities.7 If this is true, it suggests that President Trump's demands on China are transactional, not geopolitical, as we asserted in March.8 Midterms matter: Another scenario is that President Trump does not want to do anything that would hurt the momentum behind the GOP's polling ahead of the November midterms (Chart 7). The administration can always pick up the pressure on China following the election, given that 2019 is not an election year. Trump's political team may believe that Beijing concessions on agriculture, autos, and energy will be sufficient to satisfy the base until then. By mid-2019, the White House can also use twelve months of trade data to assess whether Beijing has actually made any attempt to deliver on its promises of increased imports from the U.S. Chart 6China's High-Tech Protectionism Chart 7Republicans Are Gaining... North Korea matters: Along the same vein as the midterms, there is wisdom in delaying trade action against China given the upcoming June 12 summit between President Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. President Trump's approval ratings began their second surge this year following the announced talks (Chart 8), and it is clear that the administration has a lot of political capital invested in the summit's success. Recent North Korean statements, suggesting that they are willing to break off dialogue, may have been the result of the surprise May 8 meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Kim, the second in two months. As such, President Trump may have had to back off on the imposition of tariffs against China in order to ensure that his summit with Kim goes smoothly. At this point, it is difficult to gauge whether the decision to ease the pressure against China was due to strategic or tactical reasons. We expect that the market will price in both, easing geopolitical risk on equity markets. However, if the delay is tactical - and therefore temporary - then the risk premium would remain appropriate. We do not think that we are wrong when it comes to U.S. demands on China. These include greater market access for U.S. value-added exports and services (not just commodities), as well as a radical change in how China awards such access (i.e., ending the demand that technology transfers accompany FDI and market access). In addition, China still massively underpays for U.S. intellectual property (IP) rights and has been promising to do more on that front for decades (Chart 9). Given that China has launched some anti-piracy campaigns, and given its recent success in other top-down campaigns like shuttering excess industrial capacity, it is hard to believe that Beijing could not crack down on IP theft even more significantly. Chart 8...Thanks To Tax Cuts And Kim Jong-un Chart 9What Happened To ~$100 Billion IP Theft? Furthermore, U.S. demands on China are not merely about market access and IP. There is also the issue of aggressive geopolitical footprint in East Asia, particularly the South China Sea. The U.S. defense and intelligence establishment is growing uneasy over China's pace of economic and technological development, given its growing military aggressiveness. In fact, over the past two weeks, China has: Landed the Xian H-6K strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons on disputed "islands" in the South China Sea; Installed anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as surface-to-air missiles, on three of its outposts in disputed areas. Of course, if we are off the mark on our view of Sino-American tensions, it would mean that the Trump administration is willing to make transactional economic concessions for geopolitical maneuvering room. In other words, more crude oil and LNG exports in exchange for better Chinese positioning in vital sea and air routes in East Asia. We highly doubt that the Trump administration is making such a grand bargain, even if the rhetoric from the White House often suggests that the "America First" agenda would allow for such a strategic shift. Rather, we think the Trump administration, like the Obama administration, put the South China Sea low on the priority list, but will focus greater attention on it when is deemed necessary at some future date. Bottom Line: Trade tensions between China and the U.S. have almost assuredly peaked in a tactical, three-to-six month timeframe. While still not official, it appears that the implementation of tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports from China, set for any time after May 21, is now on hold. As such, a trade war is on hold. We are closing our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms, a trade that has returned 3.94% and long European / short U.S. industrials, which is down 2% since inception. This greatly reduces investment-relevant geopolitical risk this summer and makes us far less confident that investors should "sell in May and go away." Our tactical bearishness is therefore reduced, although several other geopolitical risks - such as Iran-U.S. tensions, Italian politics, and the U.S. midterm election- remain relevant.9 We do not think that Sino-American tensions have peaked cyclically or structurally (six months and beyond). The Trump Administration continues to lack constraints when it comes to acting tough on China. As such, investors should expect tensions to renew either right after the summit between Trump and Kim in early June or, more likely, following the November midterm elections. Italy: The Divine Comedy Continues Since 2016, we have noted that Italy remains the premier risk to European markets and politics.10 There are two reasons for the view. First, Italy has retained a higher baseline level of Euroskepticism relative to the rest of Europe (Chart 10). While support for the common currency has risen in other member states since 2013, it has remained between 55%-60% in Italy. This is unsurprising given the clearly disappointing economic performance in Italy relative to that of its Mediterranean peers (Chart 11). Chart 10Italy Remains A Relative Euroskeptic Chart 11Lagging Economy Explains Cyclical Euroskepticism Italy's Euroskepticism, however, is not merely a product of economic malaise. Chart 12 shows that a strong majority of Europeans are outright pessimistic about the future of their country outside of the EU. But when Italians are polled in that same survey, the population is increasingly growing optimistic about the option of exit (Chart 13). The only other EU member state whose citizens are as optimistic about a life outside the bloc is the U.K., where population obviously voted for Brexit. Chart 12Europeans Are Pessimists About EU Exit... Chart 13...But Italians Are More Like Brits Furthermore, Italian respondents have begun to self-identify as Italian only, not as "European" also, which breaks with another long-term trend in the rest of the continent (Chart 14) and is also reminiscent of the U.K. The second reason to worry about Italy is its economic performance. Real GDP is still 5.6% below its 2008 peak, while domestic demand continues to linger at 7.9% below its pre-GFC levels (Chart 15). As we posited at the end of 2017, the siren song of FX devaluation would become a powerful political elixir in the 2018 election, as populist policymakers blame Italy's Euro Area membership for the economic performance from Chart 15.11 Chart 14Italians Feel More Italian Chart 15Italian Demand Never Fully Recovered Is the Euro Area to blame for Italy's ills? No. The blame lies squarely at the feet of Italian policymakers, who flubbed efforts to boost collapsing productivity throughout the 1990s and 2000s (Chart 16). There was simply no pressure on politicians to enact reforms amidst the post-Maastricht Treaty convergence in borrowing costs. Italy punted reforms to its educational system, tax collection, and corporate governance. Twenty years of complacency have led to a massive loss in global market share (Chart 17). Chart 16Italy Has A Productivity Problem Chart 17Export Performance Is A Disaster While it is difficult to prove a counterfactual, we are not sure that even outright currency devaluation would have saved Italy from the onslaught of Asian manufacturing in the late 1990s. Euro Area imports from EM Asia have surged from less than 2% of total imports to nearly 10% in the last twenty years. Italy began losing market share to Asia well before the euro was introduced on January 1, 1999, as Chart 18 illustrates. The incoming populist government is unfortunately coming to power with growing global growth headwinds (Chart 19), with negative implications for Italy (Chart 20). These are likely to act as a constraint on plans by the Five Star Movement (M5S) and Lega coalition to blow out the budget deficit in pursuit of massive tax cuts, reversals of pension reforms, minimum wage hikes, and a proposal to increase spending on welfare. Our back-of-the-envelope calculation sees Italy's budget deficit growing to over 7% in 2019 if all the proposed reforms were enacted, well above the 3% limit imposed by the EU on its member states. Chart 18Italy Lost Market Share Amid Globalization Chart 19Tepid Global Growth... Chart 20...Is Bad News For Italy How would the EU Commission react to these proposals, given that Italy would break the rules of the EU Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)? We think the question is irrelevant. The process by which the EU Commission enforces the rules of the SGP is the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), which would take over a year to put into place.12 First, the Commission would have to review the 2019 budget proposed by the new Italian government in September 2018. It would likely tell Rome that its plans would throw it into non-compliance with SGP rules, at which point the EU Commission would recommend the opening of a Significant Deviation Procedure (SDP). If Italy failed to follow the recommendations of the SDP, the Commission would then likely throw Italy into EDP at some point in the first quarter of 2019, or later that year.13 And what happens if Italy does not conform to the rules of the EDP? Italy would be sanctioned by the EU Commission by forcing Rome to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of 0.2% GDP.14 (Because it makes perfect sense to force a country with a large budget deficit to go into an even greater budget deficit.) Even if Rome complied with the sanctions, the punishment would only be feasible at the end of 2019, most likely at the end of Q1 2020. The point is that the above two paragraphs are academic. The Italian bond market would likely react much faster to Rome's budget proposals. The EU Commission operates on an annual and bi-annual timeline, whereas the bond market is on a minute-by-minute timeline. Given the bond market reaction thus far, it is difficult to see how Rome could be given the benefit of the doubt from investors (Chart 21). Investors have been demanding an ever-greater premium on Italian bonds, relative to their credit rating, ever since the election (Chart 22). Chart 21Uh Oh Spaghettio! Chart 22Bond Vigilantes Are Coming As such, the real question for investors is not whether the EU Commission can constrain Rome. It cannot. Rather, it is whether the bond market will. Rising borrowing costs would obviously impact the economy via several transmission channels, including overall business sentiment. But the real risk is Italy's banking sector. Domestic financial institutions hold 45% of Italian treasury bonds (BTPs) (Chart 23), which makes up 9.3% of all their assets, an amount equivalent to 77.8% of their capital and reserves (Chart 24). Foreign investors own 32%, less than they did before the Euro Area crisis, but still a significant amount. Chart 23Foreign Investors Still Hold A Third Of All Italian Debt Chart 24Italian Banks Also Hold Too Many BTPs In 2011, when the Euro Area crisis was raging, Italian 10-year yields hit 7%, or a spread of more than 500 basis points over German bunds. This was equivalent to an implied probability of a euro area breakup of 20% over the subsequent five years (Chart 25).15 What would happen if the populists in Rome followed through with their fiscal plans by September 2018 by including them in the 2019 budget? The bond market would likely begin re-pricing a similar probability of a Euro Area breakup, if not higher. In the process, Italian bonds could lose 20%-to-30% of their value - assuming that German bunds would rally on risk-aversion flows - which would result in a potential 15%-to-25% hit to Italian banks' capital and reserves. With the still large overhang of NPLs, Italian banks would be, for all intents and purposes, insolvent (Chart 26). Chart 25In 2011, Italian Spreads Signal Euro Break-Up Chart 26Italian Banks Still Carry Loads Of Bad Loans The populist government in Rome may not understand this dynamic today, but they will soon enough. This is perhaps why the leadership of both parties has decided to appoint a relatively unknown law professor, Guiseppe Conte, as prime minister. Conte is, according to the Italian press, a moderate and is not a Euroskeptic. It will fall to Conte to try to sell Europe first on as much of the M5S-Lega fiscal stimulus as he can, followed by the Italian public on why the coalition fell far short of its official promises. If the coalition pushes ahead with its promises, and ignores warnings from the bond market, we can see a re-run of the 2015 Greek crisis playing out in Italy. In that unlikely scenario, the ECB would announce publicly that it would no longer support Italian assets if Rome were determined to egregiously depart from the SGP. The populist government in Rome would try to play chicken with the ECB and its Euro Area peers, but the ATM's in the country would stop working, destroying its credibility with voters. In the end, the crisis will cause the populists to mutate into fiscally responsible Europhiles, just as the Euro Area crisis did to Greece's SYRIZA. For investors, this narrative is not a reassuring one. While our conviction level that Italy stays in the Euro Area is high, the scenario we are describing here would still lead to a significant financial crisis centered on the world's seventh-largest bond market. Bottom Line: Over the next several months, we would expect bond market jitters concerning Italy to continue, supporting our bearish view on EUR/USD, which we are currently articulating by being long the DXY (the EUR/USD cross makes up 57.6% of the DXY index). Given global growth headwinds, which are already apparent in the European economic data, and growing Italian risks, the ECB may also turn marginally more dovish for the rest of the year, which would be negative for the euro. Our baseline expectation calls for the new coalition government in Rome to back off from its most populist proposals. We expect that Italy will eventually flirt with overt Euroskepticism, but this would happen after the next recession and quite possibly only after the next election. If we are wrong, and the current populist government does not back off, then we could see a global risk-off due to Italy either later this summer, or in 2019. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Joint Statement of the United States and China Regarding Trade Consultations," dated May 19, 2018, available at whitehouse.gov. 2 President Trump later tweeted that the announced deal was substantive and "one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" 3 The most illustrative comment may have come from Dan DiMicco, former steel industry CEO and staunch supporter of President Trump on tariffs, who tweeted "Did president just blink? China and friends appear to be carrying the day." 4 Please see Bob Davis and Lingling Wei, "China Rejects U.S. Target For Narrowing Trade Gap," The Wall Street Journal, dated May 19, 2018, available at wsj.com. 5 Please see "S. 2098 - 115th Congress: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Of 2017," dated May 21, 2018, available at www.govtrack.us. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018; and "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see, The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, "Excessive deficit procedure (EDP)," available at eur-lex.europa.eu. 13 Have you been missing the European alphabet soup over the past three years? 14 The EU Commission can also suspend financing from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), but Italy has never participated in a bailout and thus could not be sanctioned that way. 15 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Threats And Opportunities In The Bond Market," dated April 7, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.