Oil

Oil price volatility will remain elevated, as markets transition from a pronounced demand slowdown in 1H19, which is apparent in actual consumption data, to stronger growth. We expect global fiscal and monetary accommodation will arrest and reverse this slowdown in 2H19, and spur oil demand growth in 2020. Consistent with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, we are not expecting a resolution to the Sino – U.S. trade war that boosts demand; however, we could see a limited deal by 2H20 that partially addresses tariff barriers and boosts trade in the short run.1 In line with the EIA’s and IEA’s weaker 1H19 oil-consumption assessments, we now expect global demand to grow 1.25mm b/d this year, and 1.50mm b/d next year. These expectations are down 100k b/d and 50k b/d, respectively, from our June estimates. Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0’s Storage Strategy Continues To Drive Production Supply – demand factors combine to push our 2019 Brent forecast to $70/bbl from $73/bbl last month. We are holding our 2020 Brent forecast at $75/bbl. On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0’s production strategy to be driven by its primary goal – reducing global oil inventories – which means it will maintain production discipline this year and possibly into 1Q20 (Chart of the Week). We also expect capital discipline in the U.S. to restrain shale-oil production. Lastly, news flows around U.S. – Iran tensions continue to oscillate between hopeful resolution and a hardening of positions, which fuels price volatility. At the end of the day, we expect any increase in Iranian exports resulting from an easing of U.S.-GCC-Iran tensions to be accommodated by OPEC 2.0, as it was prior to the re-imposition of U.S. export sanctions.2 These supply – demand factors combine to push our 2019 Brent forecast to $70/bbl from $73/bbl last month. We are holding our 2020 Brent forecast at $75/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl below Brent this year, and $5/bbl lower next year (Chart 2). Chart 2Demand Slowdown In 1H19 Pushes Brent Forecast Lower Highlights Energy: Overweight. Given our expectation for tighter markets, we are getting long 1Q20 Brent vs. short 1Q21 Brent at tonight’s close, expecting steeper backwardation in the benchmark forward curve as global inventories draw in 2H19. Base Metals: Neutral. At $52.50/MT, Fastmarkets MB’s spot copper TC/RC Asia – Pacific index remains depressed, suggesting smelters will have to continue to discount their services due to tight physical supplies. Expecting tighter markets, we are getting long Dec19 $3.00/lb COMEX call spreads, vs. short Dec19 $3.30/lb COMEX calls at tonight’s close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices are largely being driven by U.S. real interest rates and the broad trade weighted USD, which we will explore in detail next week in a Special Report written with our colleagues in BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy. Given our expectation for Fed accommodation this year, we remain long gold. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA lifted expected ending stocks for corn in its latest WASDE released last week. The department expects supply growth to outstrip use, which will raise stocks 335mm bushels to 2.0 billion. Feature Last week, we had the good fortune to visit U.S. clients in “The Great State,” otherwise known as Texas. It was a fortuitous swing through the Promised Land, because we had the opportunity to gain insight on a wide range of topics impacting commodity markets, particularly oil and gold, which are responding to many of the same factors driving markets for risky assets generally. Demand for industrial commodities in particular should pick up this year and next. More than a few of our discussions centered on global aggregate demand for real and financial assets. Prior to the Osaka G20 meeting last month, it looked like the odds of a global recession were increasing. Markets were contending with tightening financial conditions in the wake of the Fed’s December 2018 rate hike, the fourth such hike last year; escalating Sino - U.S. trade tensions, which were depressing capex and demand for industrial commodities; and slowing growth generally ex U.S. (Chart 3). Positioning as if the Fed was too late in reversing the policies that led to tighter financial conditions in 2H18 and earlier this year, and in a manner consistent with a deepening of the Sino - U.S. trade war was not unreasonable. That said, a client at one of the Lone Star state's larger investment managers observed that the powerful rallies in markets for risky assets following Fed accommodative signaling beginning earlier this year strongly suggest the markets’ verdict — at least for the moment — is the Fed acted in time to arrest the risk of a global recession this year. Chart 3Global Growth Slowdown Likely Drove Policy Responses Chart 4BCA's GIA Index Signaling Industrial Commodity Rebound Added to this is the fact that the U.S. central bank is being supported by other systematically important central banks (specifically the PBOC, BOJ, and ECB), and that fiscal stimulus is being deployed globally. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to remain bearish re global aggregate demand going forward, which is to say demand for industrial commodities in particular should pick up this year and next. Indeed, this is starting to show up in our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index, which is heavily weighted toward EM industrial commodity demand (Chart 4).3 Oil Demand Will Roar Back In 2H19 Our updated 2019 demand estimates align with the EIA’s and IEA’s depressed 1H19 oil-consumption assessments: We now expect global consumption to grow 1.25mm b/d this year, down 100k b/d vs. our previous estimate. Next year, however, we expect demand to be up 1.50mm b/d in the wake of global stimulus, which is only 50k b/d below our June estimate.4 The IEA’s assessment of 1H19 demand weakness is particularly striking. In its latest forecast, the agency noted that in 2Q19, they show a global surplus of 500k b/d (i.e., supply exceeded demand), where previously they expected a 500k b/d deficit. This million-barrel swing – if it is confirmed when data are later revised with more accurate reporting – suggests the global economy did come close to entering recession earlier this year. We are not as bearish as the IEA, but we do incorporate the severity of the trend they highlight in our forecast. We expect 1H19 global demand grew 520k b/d y/y. In 2H19, like the IEA, we expect demand to come roaring back. We expect consumption to grow at a rate of slightly over 2mm b/d, whereas the IEA’s expecting a 1.8mm b/d rate (Table 1). We believe this momentum will be maintained into 1H20, with growth expected to come in at just over 1.8mm b/d, followed by a more subdued 1.35mm b/d growth rate in 2H20.5 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) It is important to note here that monetary stimulus hits the economy after “long and variable lags,” in the phrasing of Nobel laureate Milton Freidman. Therefore, we will be closely monitoring our demand estimates for signs the coordinated stimulus being deployed by central banks globally actually is translating into higher industrial commodity demand.6 It also is worthwhile pointing out there is a non-trivial risk – i.e., greater than Russian-roulette odds of 1:6 – the Sino – U.S. trade war metastasizes into a global trade war as positions on both sides harden. This could usher in a new Cold War, and see global supply chains broken and reconstituted within trading blocks. The transition to such a realignment of global trade no doubt would be volatile, but, at the end of the day likely would support commodity demand as supply chains are re-built. OPEC 2.0 Remains Sensitive To EM Demand On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0’s production strategy to be driven by its primary goal – i.e., reducing global oil inventories. This means the coalition will continue to exercise production restraint: We expect OPEC 2.0 to reduce output by 540k b/d this year per this strategy. In addition to its inventory goals, we believe OPEC 2.0 also does not want to see Brent price go through $85/bbl. This is because many EM states removed fuel subsidies following the oil-price collapse of 2014 – 2016, and the demand-destruction effects of higher prices would be realized in fairly short order above $85/bbl.7 We view this as a binding constraint – prices above the $80 - $85/bbl range will destroy EM demand, which makes them counterproductive for OPEC 2.0. As a result, next year, we expect the producer coalition to gradually raise output by 800k b/d over the January – August 2020 period, to restrain prices below $80/bbl (Chart 5). It is worthwhile mentioning, since it came up repeatedly in conversations during our Texas swing, we do not share the view OPEC 2.0’s production restraint allows U.S. shale producers to increase production and steal market share from OPEC 2.0. This restraint does play a pivotal role in our balances estimates, and is part of the equation propelling prices higher in our modeling. It is a necessary condition for U.S. shale output to grow, but it is not sufficient. U.S. shale oil is filling a market need for light-sweet crude and condensate, and is attracting investment to meet this need. It does compete with light-sweet OPEC production ex Persian Gulf, but investment in these provinces has proven to be difficult to sustain and commit to over the long haul for a variety of reasons, many of which spring from the lack of rule of law, corruption, and hostile operating environments. Shale oil production, in addition to presenting an opportunity to tap into an abundant resource, allows E&Ps to operate in a low-risk political and geological environment, where contracts are enforced by a disinterested judiciary. In terms of its importance, these factors cannot be overestimated. More importantly, the medium and heavier crudes produced and marketed by KSA and Russia are not in direct competition with U.S. shale oil, which means OPEC 2.0’s leadership is not directly fighting for market share with this output. However, there are constraints to shale-oil production, coming mostly from capital markets. We are modeling slower U.S. onshore production growth this year and next, arising from capital constraints on shale-oil producers. Our recent Special Report on the financial performance of E&P companies and the Majors highlighted the importance they attach to prioritizing investors’ interests, which is clearly visible in the financial metrics of these companies.8 Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Will Raise Supply In 2020 To Keep Brent Prices Below /bbl Chart 6Capital Discipline Will Reduce U.S. Onshore Output In 2020 Consistent with our investor-driven framework for modeling U.S. output, we reduced our expectation for U.S. onshore supply growth by 160k b/d for next year (Chart 6). As a result, we now expect U.S. onshore production to grow by 1.2mm b/d to ~ 10.0mm b/d this year and by 900k b/d to ~ 10.8mm b/d next year – mostly from shales. We expect U.S. offshore production to increase 170k b/d this year and 130k b/d next year, to 1.9mm b/d in 2019 and 2.0mm b/d in 2020. Expect Tighter Balances, Steeper Backwardation The fundamental supply – demand expectations above combine to push our 2019 Brent forecast to $70/bbl from $73/bbl last month. We are holding our 2020 Brent forecast at $75/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl below Brent this year, and $5/bbl lower next year (Chart 7). As can be seen in the Chart of the Week, our balances estimates indicate inventory draws will resume this year, which will lead to a steeper backwardation in benchmark crude streams (Chart 8). Given this expectation, we are getting long 1Q20 Brent vs. short 1Q21 Brent at tonight’s close, expecting steeper backwardation in the benchmark forward curve as global inventories draw in 2H19. Bottom Line: Oil price volatility will remain elevated, as markets transition from the profound demand slowdown reported for 1H19 to a higher-growth footing (Chart 9). We expect Brent crude to average $70 and $75/bbl this year and next, with WTI trading $7 and $5/bbl lower, respectively. On the back of our expectation balances will tighten, we are getting long 1Q20 Brent vs. short 1Q21 Brent at tonight’s close. Chart 7Balances Will Tighten In 2H19, Following 1H19 Weakness Chart 8Backwardations Will Steepen, As Inventories Draw Chart 9Volatility Will Remain Elevated We are not sounding an all-clear on aggregate demand in the wake of the fiscal and monetary stimulus being deployed globally. The odds the Sino – U.S. trade war expands to encompass global markets are not trivial (we make them greater than 1:6 in our estimation), and this could keep demand and demand expectations uncertain for an indefinite period. Evidence of this will be visible in the options markets, which will price to higher implied volatilities for a longer period of time.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see The Polybius Solution published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy July 5, 2019. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. It was founded in 2016 to manage oil production, so as to reduce global inventory levels, which were bloated by a market-share war launched by the original OPEC cartel in 2014. In the political-economy framework driving our analysis, OPEC 2.0 treats U.S. and Chinese policy as exogenous factors, and maintains sufficient flexibility to respond to whatever these states do. We develop our paradigm for this in The New Political Economy Of Oil, published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “Oil, Copper Demand Worries Are Overdone,” where we introduce and discuss the GIA index, published February 14, 2019, in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4      The EIA has lowered its growth estimates for oil consumption six consecutive times this year, with the publication of this month’s forecast. This is the third time we’ve lowered our forecast. 5      Global oil demand is extremely difficult to estimate. It is an estimate subject to large revisions, as we discussed last year: From 2010 to 2016, “On average, the EIA has increased net demand (increases in estimated demand in excess of the increase in estimated supply) by about 470,000 b/d, with the lowest retroactive increase of net demand being 260,000 b/d (2012).” Copies of this research are available upon request. 6      Please see The Lag in Effect of Monetary Policy, by Milton Friedman (1961). Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69, pages 447-466. 7      Please see With the Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014-16 Oil Price Collapse, published January 13, 2018, by the World Bank for a discussion of subsidy removal by EM states. 8      Please see Shale-Oil E&Ps Turning A Corner?, published June 13, and U.S. Shales, GOM Production Reinforce Our Robust Production Forecasts, published July 11, 2019. These are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights So What? Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical risks and still-elevated domestic risks reinforce our cyclically constructive view on oil prices. Why? Saudi Arabia is still in a “danger zone” of internal political risk due to the structural transformation of its economy and society. External risks arising from the Iran showdown threaten to cutoff oil production or transportation, adding to the oil risk premium. We expect oil price volatility to persist, but on a cyclical basis we are constructive on prices. We are maintaining our long EM oil producer equities trade versus the EM equity benchmark excluding China. This basket includes Saudi equities, although in the near term these equities face downside risks. Feature The pace of change in Saudi Arabia has been brisk. Women are driving, the IPO of Aramco is in the works, and the next monarch is likely to be a millennial. Changes to the global energy economy have raised the urgency for an economic transformation that will have political and social consequences, forcing a structural transformation. While the results thus far are attractive, the adjustment phase will be rocky. Saudi Arabia’s successful transition depends on its ability to navigate three main threats: Chart 1The Epic Shale Shake-Up Continues The growth of U.S. shale producers and the dilution of Saudi Arabia’s pricing power: Since the emergence of shale technology, Saudi Arabia faces a new reality in oil markets (Chart 1). Even in the current environment of supply disruptions from major producers such as Iran, Venezuela, and Libya, Brent prices have averaged just $66/bbl so far this year, weighed down by the global slowdown, and the macro context of rising U.S. production. Saudi Arabia has had to enlist the support of Russia in the production management agreement (OPEC 2.0) in effort to support oil prices. But continued oil production cuts come at the expense of the coalition’s market share, and crude exports are no longer a dependable source of revenue for Saudi Arabia. Domestic social and political uncertainties: The successful functioning of the political system has been dependent on the government’s ability to support the lifestyles of its citizens, who have grown accustomed to the generosity of their rulers. But economic challenges bring fiscal challenges. Moreover, shifting powers within the state raise the level of uncertainty and risks during the transition phase. Saber-rattling in the region: Heightened tensions with arch-enemy Iran are posing significant risks of instability and armed conflict that could affect oil production and transportation. And as the war in Yemen enters its fifth year, it poses risks to Saudi finances and oil infrastructure – as highlighted by the multiple drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities in May. These structural risks now dominate Saudi Arabia’s policy-making. OPEC 2.0’s decision at the beginning of this month to extend output cuts into 2020 aims to smooth the economic transition by maintaining a floor under oil prices. Meanwhile Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s Vision 2030 is underway – it is a blueprint for a future Saudi Arabia less dependent on oil (Table 1). Table 1Vision 2030 Highlights Saudi leadership will struggle to minimize near term instability without jeopardizing necessary structural change. In addition to an acute phase of tensions with Iran that could lead to destabilizing surprises this year or next, Saudi Arabia’s economy has just bottomed and is not yet out of the woods. Saudi Arabia’s Economy And Global Oil Markets: Adapting To The New Normal The trajectory of Saudi Arabia’s economic performance has improved since the U-turn in its oil-price management. From 2014-16 Riyadh attempted to drive U.S. shale producers out of business by cranking up production and running prices down. Since then it has supported prices through OPEC 2.0’s production cuts (Chart 2). Export earnings have rebounded over the past two years, reversing the current account deficit (Chart 3). Although net inflows from trade in real terms contribute a much smaller share of overall economic output compared to the mid-2000s, the good news is that the trade balance is back in surplus. Chart 2Return To Cartel Tactics Boosted Economy Nevertheless, the external balance remains hostage to oil prices and may weaken anew over a longer time horizon. Chart 3Current Account Balance Has Improved Chart 4Oil Revenues Easing Budget Strain ... For Now Greater government revenues are helping to improve the budget (Chart 4), but it remains in deficit. Moreover, we do not expect Saudi Arabia to flip the budget to a surplus over the coming two years. Despite our Commodity & Energy Strategy team’s expectation of higher oil prices in 2019 and 2020,1 Saudi Arabia will struggle to balance its budget in the coming 18 months (Chart 5). Their average Brent projection of $73-$75/bbl over the next 18 months still falls short of Saudi’s fiscal breakeven oil price. Most importantly, the kingdom’s black gold is no longer a reliable source of income. Weak oil revenues create a “do-or-die” incentive for Saudi policymakers to diversify the economy. As Chart 1 above illustrates, Saudi Arabia is losing global oil influence to U.S. shale producers. While OPEC 2.0 restrains production, the U.S. will continue dominating production growth, with shale output expected to grow ~1.2mm b/d this year and ~1 mm b/d in 2020.2 Saudi Aramco has been the driving force behind the production cuts (Chart 6), yielding more and more of its market share to American producers. The bad news for Saudi Arabia is that shale producers are here to stay. The kingdom is poorly positioned for this loss of control over oil markets (Chart 7) and is being forced to adapt by diversifying its economy at long last. Chart 7A Long Way To Go In Diversifying Exports Little progress has been made on this front, despite the fanfare surrounding the Vision 2030 plan. 70% of government revenues were derived from the oil sector last year, an increase from the 64% share from two years prior, and Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil trade has actually increased over the past year (Chart 8).3 This week’s announcement of Aramco’s plans to increase output capacity by 550k b/d does not support the diversification strategy. Nevertheless, the Saudis appear to be redoubling their efforts on Aramco’s delayed initial public offering. The IPO is an important aspect of the diversification process. It is also a driver of Saudi oil price management – other things equal, higher prices support the Saudis’ rosy assessments of the company’s total worth. While an excessively ambitious timeline and indecision over where to list the shares have been setbacks to the plan, last weekend’s meeting between King Salman and British finance minister Philip Hammond follows Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s reassertion last month that the IPO would take place in late 2020 or early 2021.4 On the non-oil front, given that Saudi Arabia’s fiscal policy is procyclical, activity in that sector is dependent on the performance of the oil sector. Strong oil sales not only improve liquidity, but also allow for greater government expenditures – both of which stimulate non-oil activity (Chart 9). This means the improvement in the non-oil sector is more a consequence of the rebound in oil revenues than an indication of successful diversification. Chart 8Saudi Reliance On Oil Not Falling Yet Yet the reform vision is not dead. Weak oil revenues may be a blessing in disguise, presenting Saudi policymakers with a “do-or-die” incentive to intensify diversification efforts. Chart 9Non-Oil Activity Still Depends On Oil Sales Bottom Line: By enlisting the support of Russia, Saudi Arabia has managed to maintain a floor beneath oil prices. However, this comes at the expense of falling market share. This leaves authorities with no choice but to diversify the economy – a feat yet to be performed. Domestic Instability Is A Potential Threat Political and social instability in Saudi Arabia is the second derivative of the new normal in global oil markets. So far instability has been limited, but the transition phase is ongoing and the government may not always manage the rapid pace of structural change as effectively as it has over the past two years. Traditionally, Saudi decision-making has comprised the interests of three main social actors: (1) the ruling al Saud family and Saudi elites (2) religious rulers, and (3) Saudi citizens. In the past, the royal family has been able to mitigate social dissent and maintain stability by ensuring that the financial interests of its citizens are satisfied while granting extensive authority to religious groups. The government has transferred profits amassed from oil to Saudi citizens in the form of subsidies for housing, fuel, water, and electricity; public services; and employment opportunities in bloated and inefficient bureaucracies. Going forward, pressure on Riyadh to reduce expenditures and adapt its budget to the changing oil landscape will persist. The authorities will have to continue to shake down elites for funds, or make cuts to these entitlements, or both. Hence policymakers are attempting to walk a thin line between near-term stability and long-term structural change. Several instances of official backtracking show that authorities fear the potential backlash. Following mass discontent in 2017, the Saudi government rolled back most of a series of cuts to public sector wages and benefits that would have led to massive fiscal savings. Instead, the government raised revenue by increasing prices of subsidized goods and services, including fuel, while doling out support to low-income families. The government also introduced a 5% value-added tax in January 2018. Unemployment – especially youth unemployment – is elevated. This is frightening for the authorities. What about the guarantee of cushy government jobs? 45% of employed Saudis work in the public sector. The consequence is an unproductive labor force lacking the skills necessary to succeed in the private sector. Declining oil revenues remove the luxury of supporting a large, unproductive labor force. Chart 10Youth And Woman Unemployment A Structural Constraint Against this backdrop, unemployment – especially youth unemployment – is elevated (Chart 10). This is frightening for the authorities as over half of Saudi citizens are below 30 years of age and the fertility rate is above replacement level implying continued rapid population growth. It will be a challenge to find employment for the rising number of young people. All the while, jobs in the private sector – which will need to take in the growing labor force – are dominated by expatriate workers. Saudi citizens hold only 20% of jobs in the private sector – but this sector makes up 60% of the country’s employment. Fixing these distortions is challenging. Overall, monthly salaries of nationals are more than double those of expatriates (Chart 11). High wage gaps also exist among comparably skilled workers, reducing the incentive to hire nationals. With non-Saudis holding over 75% of the jobs, the incentive to employ low-wage expatriate workers has also weighed on the current account balance through large remittance outflows (Chart 12). And while the share of jobs held by Saudi citizens increased, this is not on the back of an increase in the number of employed Saudis. Rather, while the number of nationals with jobs contracted by nearly 10% in 2018, jobs held by non-Saudis declined at a faster pace. The absolute number of employed Saudis is down 37% since 2015. “Saudization” efforts are aimed at reducing the wage gap – such as a monthly levy per worker on firms where the majority of workers are non-Saudi; wage subsidies for Saudi nationals working in the private sector; and quotas for hiring nationals. But these have mixed results. While Saudi employment has improved, the associated reduced productivity and higher costs have been damaging. Thus, these labor market challenges pose risks to both domestic stability, and the economy. Moreover, even though improved liquidity conditions have softened interbank rates, loans to government and quasi-government entities still outpace loans to the private sector (Chart 13). This “crowding out” effect is not conducive to a private sector revival. It is conducive to central government control, which the leadership is tightening. Chart 12Jobs For Expatriate Workers Have Declined Chart 13Monetary Conditions Ease But Private Credit Lags Facing these structural factors, authorities are attempting to appease the population through social change. There has been a marked relaxation in the ultra-conservative rules governing Saudi society. Permission for women to drive cars has been granted and the first cinemas and music venues opened their doors last year. Critically, religious rulers are seeing their wide-ranging powers curtailed. The hai’a or religious police are now only permitted to work during office hours. They no longer have the authority to detain or make arrests, and may only submit reports to civil authorities. While these changes appeal to the new generation, they also run the risk of provoking a “Wahhabi backlash.” This risk is still alive despite the past two years of policy change. The recently approved “public decency law” – which requires residents to adhere to dress codes and bans taking photos or using phrases deemed offensive – reveals the authorities’ need to mitigate this risk. Popular social reforms are occurring against a backdrop of an unprecedented centralization of power. Mohammad bin Salman will be the first Saudi ruler of his millennial generation. The evolving balance of power between the 15,000 members of the royal family will hurl the kingdom into the unknown. The concentration of power into the Sudairi faction of the ruling family, through events such as the 2017 Ritz Carlton detentions, is still capable of provoking a destabilizing backlash. Discontent among royal family members and Saudi elites may give rise to a new, fourth faction, resentful of the social and political changes. At the moment, the state’s policies have generated some momentum. A number of major hardline religious scholars and clerics have apologized for past extremism and differences over state policy and have endorsed MBS’s vision of a modern Saudi state and “moderate” Islam – the crackdown on radicalism has moved the dial within the religious establishment.5 But structural change is not quick and the social pressures being unleashed are momentous. Saudi Arabia’s oil production and transportation infrastructure are currently in danger from saber-rattling or conflict in the region. The government is guiding the process, but the consensus is correct that internal political risk remains extremely high. There has been a structural increase in that risk, as outlined in this report – and it is best to remain cautious even regarding the cyclical increase in political risk over the past two years. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia’s new economic reality is ushering in social and political change at an unprecedented pace. Unless the interests of the three main social actors – the royal family, religious elites, and Saudi citizens – are successfully managed, a new faction comprised of disaffected elites may arise. A Dangerous Neighborhood Putting aside the longer term threat from U.S. energy independence, Saudi Arabia’s oil production and transportation infrastructure are currently in danger from saber-rattling or conflict in the region. Saudi officials originally expected the war in Yemen to last only a few weeks, but the conflict is now in its fifth year and still raging. The claim by the Iran-backed Houthi insurgents that a recent drone attack on Saudi oil installations was assisted by supporters in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province – home to the majority of the country’s 10%-15% Shia population and oil production – is also troubling as it shows that the above domestic risks can readily combine with external, geopolitical risks. The U.S. is also joining Israel and Saudi Arabia in applying increasing pressure on Iran, which risks sparking a war. Our Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree illustrates that the probability of war between the U.S. and Iran – which would involve the Saudis – is as high as 40% (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree We are not downgrading this risk in the wake of President Trump’s decision not to conduct strikes on Iranian radars and missile launchers on June 20. President Trump claims he wants negotiations instead of war, but his administration’s pressure tactics have pushed Iran into a corner. The Iranian regime is capable of pushing the limits further (both in terms of its nuclear program as well as regional oil production and transport), which could easily lead to provocations or miscalculation. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry is structurally unstable as a result of Iran’s capitalization on major strategic movements of the past two decades. The Saudis have lost a Sunni-dominated buffer in Iraq, they have lost influence in Syria and Yemen, and their aggressive military efforts to counter these trends have failed.6 The Israelis are equally alarmed by these developments and trying to persuade the Americans to take a much more aggressive posture to contain Iran. As a result, the Trump administration reneged on the 2015 U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement and broader détente – intensifying a cycle of distrust with Iran that will be difficult to reverse even if the Democratic Party takes the White House in 2020. Hence there is a real possibility of attacks on Saudi oil production facilities, domestic pipelines, and tankers in transit in the near term. Moreover, the majority of Saudi Arabia’s exports transit through two major chokepoints making these barrels vulnerable to sabotage: The Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has resumed threatening to block; The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, located between Yemen and East Africa, which was the site of an attack on two Saudi Aramco tankers last year, forcing a temporarily halt in shipments. Saudi Arabia is acutely aware of these risks. It is the top buyer of U.S. arms and, as a result of the dramatic strategic shifts since the American invasion of Iraq, it is the world’s leading spender on military equipment as a share of GDP (Chart 14). One of our key “Black Swan” risks of the year is that the Saudis may be emboldened by the Trump administration’s writing them a blank check. Bottom Line: In addition to the structural risks associated with Saudi Arabia’s economic, social and political transition, geopolitical tensions in the region are elevated. Warning shots are still being fired by Iran and their proxies (such as the Houthis), and oil supplies are at the mercy of additional escalation. Investment Implications Saudi Arabia’s equity market is halfway through the process of joining the benchmark MSCI EM index. The process will finish on August 29, 2019 with Saudi taking up a total 2.9% weighting in the index. Research by our colleague Ellen JingYuan He at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy shows that in the case of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Pakistan, inclusion into MSCI created a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon and suggested that a top of the market was at hand.7 Saudi equities have recently peaked in absolute terms and relative to the emerging market benchmark, supporting this thesis. Saudi equity volatility has especially spiked relative to the emerging market average, which is appropriate. We expect ongoing bouts of volatility due to the immediate, market-relevant political risks outlined above. The risk of a disruptive conflict stemming from the Saudi-Iran and U.S.-Iran confrontation is significant enough that investors should, at minimum, expect minor conflicts or incidents to disrupt oil markets in the immediate term. We expect oil price volatility to persist. Because Riyadh is maintaining OPEC 2.0 discipline in this environment, oil prices should experience underlying upward pressure. It is not that the Saudis are refusing to support the Trump administration’s maximum pressure against Iran but rather that they are calibrating their support in a way that hedges against the risk that Trump will change his mind, since that risk is quite high. This is the 55% chance of an uneasy status quo in U.S.-Iran relations in Diagram 1, which requires at least secret U.S. relaxation of oil sanction enforcement. Moreover, the Saudis want to reduce the downside risk of weak global growth and support their national interest in pushing Brent prices toward $80/bbl for fiscal and strategic purposes. Our pessimistic assessment of the Osaka G20 tariff truce between the U.S. and China is more than offset by our expectation since February that China’s economic policy has shifted toward stimulus rather than the deleveraging of 2017-18. We assign a 68% probability to additional trade war escalation in Q4 this year or at least before November 2020. But since a dramatic trade war escalation would lead to even greater stimulus, we still share our Commodity & Energy Strategy’s cyclical view that the underlying trend for oil prices is up. We are maintaining our recommendation of being long EM oil producers’ equities relative to EM-ex-China. This trade includes Saudi Arabian equities, but as a whole it has upside in the near-term as Brent prices are below our expected average and Chinese equities are still down 10% from their April highs.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects Brent prices to average $73/bbl this year and $75/bbl in 2020. For their latest monthly balances assessment, please see “Supply-Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices,” dated June 20, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Supply-Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices,” dated June 20, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 The higher export dependence on oil reflects the rebound in oil prices in 2018, rather than a decline in non-oil exports. Given the strong relationship between activity in the oil and non-oil sectors, non-oil exports also increased in 2018. 4 Saudi Aramco’s purchase of a 70 percent stake in SABIC from the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) earlier this year reportedly contributed to the IPO delay. The deal will capitalize the PIF, enabling it to diversify the economy. 5 See, for example, James M. Dorsey, “Clerics and Entertainers Seek to Bolster MBS’s Grip on Power,” BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1220, July 7, 2019, available at besacenter.org. 6 The U.S., Saudi Arabia, and their allies are trying to restore Iraq as a geopolitical buffer by cultivating an Iraq that is more independent of Iranian influence – and this is part of rising regional frictions. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s recently issued decree to reduce the power of Iraq’s Iran-backed milita, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and integrate them into Iraq’s armed forces by forcing them to choose between either military or political activity. Just over a year ago, Iraq’s previous Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued a decree granting members of the PMF many of the same rights as members of the military. 7 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy, “Pakistani Stocks: A Top Is At Hand,” March 13, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights The U.S. oil market has always been dynamic, but, over the past couple of years, profound changes have been occurring at increasingly rapid rates. In Part 1 of this two-part Special Report, we presented our forecasts for U.S. independent E&P companies’ crude oil production.1 We concluded that U.S. producers would increase production by 15% and 10% yoy this year and next, roughly in line with guidance. We argued that this could be done with flat/higher capex this year, and that current guidance for more than a 10% yoy decrease in capex would not allow for the estimated production increase. This week, we publish Part 2 of our Special Report and look at some of the larger changes occurring in the U.S., and assess the big factors we believe could significantly impact the evolution of oil production: The Majors’ increasing presence in the Permian Basin; Rising U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) production; and Bottlenecks at U.S. Gulf Coast export facilities. Feature The world’s largest privately held energy companies – the "Majors" – have committed to the U.S. in a big way – mostly in the Permian Basin in Texas – directing their formidable technology, scale, and, most importantly, strong balance sheets to expanding U.S. production. Guidance from supermajors2 indicates capital expenditures increased by 11.6% in 2018, and will increase by 17.3% in 2019 (Chart of the Week). U.S.-directed capex for the group has been in a steep upward trend since 2016. In 2018, Chevron, Exxon and BP increased their U.S upstream capex by ~ 50% y/y. Additionally, Exxon’s and Chevron’s U.S. upstream capex represented 30% and 36% of each company’s total capex vs. an average 22% and 23%, respectively, over the past 5 years. This is not exclusively related to tight-oil developments in the major shale basins. Nonetheless, it corroborates comments from these companies re the expansion of their activity in the U.S. tight oil market.3 The major oil companies are expected to invest more than $10 billion in the Permian this year, according to IHS Markit.4 The supermajors could add close to 1mm b/d by 2021 and ~ 2mm b/d of production from U.S. shales alone by 2024, most of it in the Permian and at the lower end of the shale production cost curve. Adding this to the guidance from the E&Ps highlighted in Part 1 of our Special Report motivates our positive U.S. crude production outlook. We expect U.S. onshore production will increase by close to 1.3mm b/d in 2019, and ~ 1mm b/d in 2020. Longer term, the presence of these major integrated oil companies in the U.S. shale patch will reduce production’s price-elasticity. This is because, for some of these companies with all-in sustaining costs close to $40/bbl, tight-oil production out of the Permian will become baseload production, which higher-cost producers will be forced to adjust to going forward.5 These major oil producers focus mainly on the medium- to long-term, on sustainable and stable production, and dividend growth versus short-term production in response to higher – and often transient – prices. The latter production strategy – i.e., ramping production as prices rise – can only be sustained by outspending cash flow (Chart 2). Chart 2E&Ps Have Outspent Their Cash flow Since 2011 Moreover, large integrated oil companies can sustain extended periods of low prices from their shale projects, because their focus is on being the lowest-cost producers wherever they operate. This is the strongest risk-management policy an oil producer can pursue, because it minimizes revenue and profit exposure to low and volatile prices. In addition, these firms develop a presence in midstream and downstream operations to diversify revenues, which reduces direct exposure to E&P activity, thus benefiting balance sheets and income statements. Our updated full-cycle breakeven price for our group of independent E&P companies – arguably the marginal light-tight-oil producer – suggests shale production’s average breakeven (excluding land acquisition costs) is around $50.10/bbl.6 Chart 3 illustrates the impact of this new wave of low cost supply – coming from the supermajors’ focus on Permian production – on our estimated full cycle cost breakeven. Assuming a constant breakeven for independent E&P companies, this could significantly lower the average breakeven cost for shale production by 2021. These operating features brought to the shales by the supermajors have important implications for how we model U.S. onshore production. In our current methodology, we estimate the rig count elasticity with respect to variation in oil prices based on the historical relationship between realized prices, the forward curve (its level and slope), and rig counts. Subsequently, we use these rig count estimates – along with our own estimates of production decline rates and productivity per rig by basin – as an input to forecast oil production.7 Rig count is a core input to our U.S. production estimates. It is a straightforward metric entirely driven by the E&Ps’ willingness to increase capex. Thus, the ongoing capital discipline evident in the E&Ps and the Majors, combined with rising production from the supermajors, could affect our estimated rig count elasticity.8 This in turn, would increase the uncertainty of forecasts obtained from models estimated on historical data over the short run, as we – and the market – become accustomed to a less-elastic production profile in the U.S. shales. Over the short term, this will not have a material effect to our 2019 production estimates. As shown in Part 1 of this report, our modeling based on historical rig count price-elasticity is in line with E&P’s production guidance. If we are right that the current capital discipline theme will remain a top priority for independent U.S. E&P companies in the future, this will gradually affect our forecasting methodology starting next year. U.S. Gulf Production Since 3Q18, our modeling of U.S oil production has focused mainly on onshore production ex GOM. We’ve relied largely on the U.S. EIA‘s estimates of GOM production, given that our own assessment did not differ materially from the EIA’s during that period. Going forward, we believe GOM production could surprise to the upside and surpass the EIA’s estimates in the short term. The EIA recently revised down its GOM forecasts for 2020 (Chart 4). Since the 2014 global oil prices collapse, producers in the Gulf have been increasingly leveraging existing infrastructure with short-cycle field developments using subsea tie-backs to boost production at reduced costs. Previously omitted locations – i.e. smaller fields not profitable enough to support the massive investment required for their own infrastructure – can now be tied in to existing infrastructure using subsea flowlines connected to existing platforms that have surplus production-carrying capacity. GOM producers’ business model is evolving to prosper in volatile oil price environments and sustained lower oil prices. The shorter cycle time and lower capex requirements for subsea tie-backs allow for more flexible production at costs that come close to Permian shale plays. Flowlines can reach wells more than 25 miles away from the main platform; this could be extended to reach 30 miles by 2020, allowing for more field to be profitably developed.9 Chart 4EIA GOM Production Forecasts Are Too Low The theme of subsea tie-backs and low-risk development will remain in place going forward, according to IHS Markit.10 Producers are favoring these projects to limit their exposure to oil price fluctuations. BP and Shell signaled they are expanding development at existing GOM fields.11 However, production at most sites will most probably start towards the end of next year, or slightly after our end-2020 forecast horizon. Chart 5Medium Term, Large Scale Investments Are Needed In the medium term, the risk of stagnating GOM production remains elevated due to a lack of large investments and decline rates at newer fields (2014-2017) (Chart 5). Furthermore, as the majors and large E&Ps continue to focus on increasing their free cash flow, the aggressive shift toward onshore-shale projects risks starving the development of large fields in the GOM of much-needed capex. Future expansions in the Permian and GOM could increasingly be competing for funding by major oil companies. In fact, recent cost-reduction measures could allow for the development of greenfield projects at competitive costs. The recent completion of Shell’s giant Appomattox field – one quarter earlier at a cost 40% lower than initially expected – came in with a breakeven cost between $40-50/bbl, something that could signal a bright future for this type of development.12 U.S. Gulf Export Capacity Buildout Combining our production forecasts for independent E&Ps, majors and GOM projections, we expect total U.S. crude oil production to increase by 1.43mm b/d to 12.38mm b/d in 2019 and 1.16mm b/d to 13.55mm b/d in 2020. However, much of the new shale production, which will represent the bulk of the output growth in the U.S., will have to be sold in export markets, given U.S. refiners still run mostly medium and heavy crude oil slates. This is a problem, taking into account the speed at which Gulf Coast export facilities can be expanded. We believe current export facilities will reach full capacity sometime next year (Chart 6). We will be exploring this topic in greater depth next month. Over the short-term, this implies production bottlenecks likely will move from the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast. U.S. refineries cannot absorb these large volumes of new light sweet oil in such a short period. Hence, the bulk of additional production will have to be exported to foreign buyers. Additionally, Permian production is becoming lighter as the supply of West Texas Light (WTL) increases – recently reaching more than 10% of the basin’s total production.13 Gulf Coast refiners’ crude slate has become lighter and sweeter as shale-oil production has expanded in the U.S (Chart 7). However, this trend cannot continue without large investments in new capacity, especially with the rising domestic supply of ultra-light WTL-type crude. Chart 6U.S. Crude Exports Are Trending Higher Chart 7Gulf Coast Refiners Crude Slate Has Become Lighter In fact, since 2007, the abundant domestic light-sweet supply has mainly been absorbed through (1) the blending of lighter crude with heavier imported crude, (2) the rising utilization rate of atmospheric distillation units, and (3) declining light oil imports, which have fallen from more than 1.6mm b/d in 2009 to 0.36mm b/d – and close to zero at PADD 3 (Gulf Coast) – as of April 2019. These strategies are at or close to their limits (Chart 8). On the other hand, imports of the heavy crude U.S. refiners continue to need remained constant, reflecting refiners’ stable demand for these grades. Chart 8Domestic Absorption Of Light Crude Is Close To Maximum Chart 9Crude Price Spreads Starting To Signal Export Constraints Historically, logistical imbalances have been resolved quickly in the U.S. shale sector. The price mechanism incentivizes investment where it’s needed the most, and we believe this is already happening in the U.S. Gulf with planned deep-water harbor expansions (Chart 9). In the medium-term – i.e., over the next 2 – 5 years – these export-capacity issues will be fixed. In fact, there already are plenty of projects proposed to alleviate the bottlenecks. We estimate up to 12mm b/d of export capacity increase have been proposed so far. This would be a massive overbuild of Gulf export facilities. We estimate ~ 500k b/d of additional export capacity will be needed by end-2020, which implies only one offshore or a few onshore projects would have to be built. By 2023, the U.S. would need new capacity to reach around 5mm b/d (Chart 10).14 Nonetheless, the buildout of U.S. Gulf coast hydrocarbon-export infrastructure could be a bumpy ride. Risks remain, as these large projects require complicated permitting and massive funding which can drastically increase construction time. The LLS-Brent spread will probably be volatile in 2020 until the first project receives its Final Investment Decision, and markets are able to assess the timeline these new investments are on. Given the number of projects in the pipeline, however, export capacity could significantly expand by end-2020 or 2021. This evolution will be most visible in the different price spreads we follow, which offer a market-based assessment of these developments. First, we track the WTI- and Midland- LLS prices to grasp the evolution of Cushing and Permian pipeline debottlenecks toward the Gulf Coast – i.e. the domestic constraints. Second, we use the LLS-Brent spread as a gauge for the Gulf Coast export buildout – i.e. the external constraints (Chart 11). Bottom Line: Independent U.S. E&Ps will manage to increase production in line with current guidance while remaining profitable. This will be supported by completion of excess DUCs and rising WTI prices. Moreover, the emergence of the supermajors in the Permian and other prolific shale regions will contribute to increasing total U.S. onshore production in line with our current forecasts. Our base case suggests the U.S. Gulf Coast export capacity buildout will allow the excess production to reach foreign buyers. Nonetheless, risks remain re potential delays in these massive projects. The LLS-Brent spread could be volatile this year and next   Chart 11Tracking Domestic And External Constraints With Crude Price Spreads Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity And Energy Strategy Special Report titled “Shale-Oil E&Ps Turning A Corner?” published June 13, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Supermajors include XOM, CVX, RDS/Shell, BP AND TOTAL. 3      Please See ExxonMobil to increase, accelerate Permian output to 1 million barrels per day by 2024 published March 5, 2019 by exxonmobil.com. Please see Chevron eyes 900,000 b/d from Permian by yearend 2023 published March 6, 2019 by ogj.com. 4      Please see The ‘Monster’ Texas Oil Field That Made the U.S. a Star in the World Market published February 3, 2019 by nytimes.com. 5      For instance, Exxon communicated it could sustain double-digit returns in the Permian with prices falling to $35/bbl. Please see ExxonMobil to increase, accelerate Permian output to 1 million barrels per day by 2024 published March 5, 2019 by exxonmobil.com. 6              Our analysis is based on a sample of selected public independent U.S. E&P companies. As a group, these companies represent ~3.0mm b/d of production (or close to 35% of U.S. onshore production). Our full cycle cost breakeven represents oil price that provides a ~10%+ return on the incremental capital plus the cost of overhead and the capital cost of the drilling right acquisition. 7              Our production estimate is equal to [rig count X estimate of new production per rigs] – [estimate of decline rates X legacy production]. 8              In Part 1, we discussed the likelihood independent E&P companies will deliver on investors’ demand for fiscal discipline. In our view, this will contribute, at the margin, to lowering the supply price-elasticity of U.S. shale development. In periods of high oil prices, these companies will increase production within the limit of their growing cash flow (i.e. without raising external financing via debt or equity). This implies production will have less upside as prices increase or remain elevated. On the other hand, in periods of declining or low prices, the healthy balance sheets of fiscally disciplined companies keeps the external financing window open in case of reduced cash flow. Moreover, the larger the share of companies that manage to improve their balance sheets, the lower the number of bankruptcies when prices decline. This limits the production decline. Hence, on average, production will grow at more steady pace than in the past, decreasing its price-elasticity. 9              Please see “Take a Look at Me Now – Gulf of Mexico Crude Output Is Approaching 2 MMb/d,” published May 7, 2019 by RBN Energy. 10     Please see Subsea tie-backs de-risk Deepwater Gulf of Mexico published June 4, 2019 by ihsmarkit.com. 11     BP plans to increase its production in the GoM by ~400k boe/d through expansion using existing facilities at its Atlantis, Thunder Horse and Na Kika fields. Please see BP plans for significant growth in deepwater Gulf of Mexico published January 8, 2019 by bp.com. Shell signaled it would leverage its new Appomattox infrastructure to tie-back adjacent fields -- e.g. production from Vicksburg and Fort Sumter. Shell's upstream director mentioned “Appomattox creates a core long-term hub for Shell in the Norphlet through which we can tie back several already discovered fields as well as future discoveries.” Please see Appomattox field comes on stream in GOM published May 23, 2019 by ogj.com. 12     Please see Shell starts production at giant Appomattox field in Gulf of Mexico published May 23, 2019 by reuters.com. 13     Please see As Permian oil production turns lighter, price outlook darkens published June 6, 2019 by reuters.com. West Texas Light (WTL) is a newly available crude grade from the Permian basin with an API of 44.1 to 49.9 and maximum sulfur of 0.4% vs. an API of ~ 40 for WTI. Most of the growth in WTL production comes for the Delaware basin within the Permian. The API is a measure of the density of a petroleum liquid. The higher the API, the lighter the crude is. This will determine the complexity of refining a certain crude input into finished products. 14     Please see BCA Research’s Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Oil Price Diffs: Global Convergence,” published March 7, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Oil prices will remain volatile as markets work through the lingering effects of tighter financial conditions prevailing last year, which, along with extended angst over Sino-U.S. trade tensions, slowed commodity demand growth (Chart of the Week). In 2H19, globally accommodative monetary policy and fiscal stimulus will revive demand for industrial commodities, particularly in EM economies. This will be most apparent in oil markets, where we continue to expect demand growth to strengthen going into 2020, aided in part by a weaker USD. On the supply side, this week’s extension of OPEC 2.0’s production cuts into 1Q20 means growth will remain constrained. Prices will rise, and forward curves, particularly for Brent, will steepen as refiners are forced to draw inventories to meet product demand.1 We continue to expect Brent to average $73/bbl this year and $75/bbl next, respectively. We expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below that this year and next. Chart of the WeekEasing Financial Conditions Will Spur Oil Demand Highlights Energy: Overweight.  Venezuela’s oil production reportedly recovered to 1.1mm b/d in June.  Most of the increased production found its way to China, which accounted for just under 60% of crude and product exports.2  Given its modus operandi, we believe OPEC 2.0 likely will accommodate higher production in Venezuela by reducing production in other member states, keeping overall output relatively constant. Base Metals: Neutral.  Copper treatment and refining charges fell to new lows at the end of last week, with Fastmarkets MB’s Asia – Pacific TC/RC index recording its lowest level on record at $52.40/MT ($0.0524/lb).3  TC/RC levels fall when supplies are low, as refiners have to discount their services to attract concentrate supplies.  Elsewhere, workers at Codelco’s Chuquicamata copper mine agreed to a new contract last week, ending a brief strike.  Precious Metals: Neutral.  Gold’s rally resumed this week, reflecting investors’ expectations for expanded central-bank accommodation globally, which, all else equal, will keep interest rates lower for longer. The Fed's dovish turn, in particular, will weaken the USD later this year, which will be positive for EM commodity demand, the engine for commodity demand growth globally. Ags/Softs: Underweight.  The USDA reported 56% of corn in the ground was in good to excellent condition last week, vs. 76% of the crop last year.  For soybeans, 54% of the U.S. crop was in good or excellent condition, vs. 71% last year.  The USDA’s Crop Progress reports cover 92% and 95% of total acreage planted in the U.S., respectively. Feature Oil prices will remain volatile over the short term, as markets transition from tighter monetary conditions to a more accommodative global backdrop (Chart 2). Based on our research into the drivers of oil-price volatility, this should translate into a less stressful pricing environment for industrial commodities generally, base metals and oil in particular (Chart 3).4 Chart 2Volatility Indicators Are Moderating Chart 3Signaling Oil Price Volatility Will Fall Much of the current oil-price volatility is being driven by worries over damage to aggregate global demand and growth expectations in the wake of the Sino-U.S. trade war, and by what now appears to be a too-aggressive posture by central banks implementing rates-normalization policies last year. Both of these can affect consumption and investment locally and globally.5 Fear That Real Demand Will Weaken At present, any indication real demand is faltering – e.g., weaker manufacturing PMIs – gives industrial commodities an excuse to sell off (Chart 4). In the case of the Sino-U.S. trade war, presidents Xi and Trump appear to have agreed to re-start trade negotiations. Markets are not going to be terribly concerned with the specifics of a trade deal between the U.S. and China, but it does appear some rollback in U.S. tariffs will be necessary for a trade deal – perhaps in exchange for greater access to Chinese markets. However, our geopolitical strategists make the odds of a trade deal by the time U.S. elections roll around 1:3. Our colleagues in BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy note, “The specifics of the deal are less important than there being a deal – any deal – that avoids a major escalation. Ultimately, the distinction between a ‘small’ trade war and a ‘moderate’ trade war is a function of how high tariffs end up being. Tariffs are taxes, and while no one likes to pay taxes, they are a familiar part of the global capitalist system.”6 As for monetary policy, major central banks are embarked on a coordinated effort to reverse falling inflation expectations, and will be vigorously stimulating their money supply and credit growth over the balance of the year. In addition, fiscal stimulus globally – in the U.S. and China most prominently – will boost real demand for industrial commodities, particularly oil and base metals.7 Monetary and fiscal stimulus operates with a lag, which is why we continue to expect its more visible for commodity demand to become apparent in commodity prices later in 2H19 and next year. This lagged effect can be seen in our expectation for the evolution of EM import volumes to year end, which we estimate using data compiled the CPB World Trade Monitor (Chart 5). EM import volumes are closely tied to the evolution of EM income, which drives global commodity demand.8 Chart 4Globally, The Real Economy Has Slowed Chart 5EM Imports and Income Will Rebound In our modeling of supply-demand balances and prices, we accounted for the reduced EM GDP growth brought about by more restrictive monetary policy last year and the slowdown in global trade in our most recent forecast. In our base case, we took our expected global oil-demand growth this year down to 1.35mm b/d from 1.5mm b/d earlier, and to 1.55mm b/d next year from 1.6mm b/d previously. These adjustments reduced our price expectation for Brent crude oil slightly to $73/bbl this year and $75/bbl next year, with WTI trading $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those respective levels (Chart 6). Chart 6Our Forecasts Reflect Lower Demand, Tighter Supply Oil Markets Will Get Tighter   For all of the concern over real demand, prompt demand remains stout relative to available supply, as can be seen in the backwardations for global benchmark crude oil prices (Chart 7). This week’s extension of OPEC 2.0’s production cuts into 1Q20 means supply growth will remain constrained, which, given our demand expectation, will tighten balances globally (Chart 8).9 Chart 7Global Oil Benchmarks Remain Backwardated Chart 8Oil Supply Demand Balances Will TightenChart 9Oil Inventories Will Fall, As Supply Is Constrained As balances tighten in the wake of global fiscal and monetary stimulus, oil prices will rise, and forward curves, particularly for Brent, will steepen as refiners are forced to draw inventories to meet product demand (Chart 9). For this reason we remain long September – December 2019 Brent vs. short September – December 2020 Brent, expecting backwardation to increase.10 Bottom Line: We remain constructive toward oil markets, as they transition to a more accommodative monetary backdrop globally. Combined with fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and China in particular, demand will remain supported in 2H19 and 2020. The extension of OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal will tighten markets, forcing refiners to draw down inventories.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is a name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC oil-producing coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Their agreement to extend production cuts of 1.2mm b/d into 1Q19 was announced this week in Vienna. Please see OPEC/non-OPEC rolls over oil output cuts for 9 months published by S&P Global Platts on July 2, 2019. Compliance with these cuts has been higher by ~ 400k b/d in 1H19 by our reckoning. 2      Please see Venezuela's June oil exports recover to over 1 million bpd: data published July 2, 2019, by reuters.com. 3      Please see Copper concs TCs drop marginally on traders purchase; Cobre Panama’s fresh supply hits market published by Fastmarkets MB June 28, 2019. 4      We are using “volatility” in the technical sense here – i.e., the standard deviation of per-annum returns. We have shown this can be explained by different variables, including EM volatility; U.S. financial conditions – as seen in the St. Louis Fed’s financial-stress index; and by speculative positioning, which tends to follow the evolution of prices as news flows change. For discussions of our volatility modeling, including the construction of Working’s T index, please see Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil, published April 26, 2018, and Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility, published May 10, 2018, by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see The economic implications of rising protectionism: a euro area and global perspective published by European Central Bank April 24, 2019. 6      Please see Third Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: The Long Hurrah, BCA Research’s global macro outlook for 3Q19, published June 28, 2019, by our Global Investment Strategy. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com.  The larger issues that will have to be addressed at some point in the future are non-tariff barriers to trade, exemplified by Huawei’s exclusion from access to U.S. technology on national security grounds.  An expansion of such non-tariff barriers would strand huge amounts of capital globally, which likely would lead to a global recession. 7      Our chief global strategist, Peter Berezin, notes in the above-cited BCA Research third-quarter outlook that Fed policy is expected to remain ultra-accommodative into late 2021, which will push the USD lower later this year, and will support commodity demand generally. 8      We use an FX-based model to estimate EM import volumes to year end off the CPB data. 9      We will be updating our Venezuela and OPEC 2.0 production estimates to reflect this development in our July global oil market balance publication later this month. 10     We have been long 2H19 Brent vs. short 2H20 Brent since February 28, 2019.  The July and August pieces of this position returned 222.7% and 273% since inception. We remain long the September – December exposure. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Central banks globally have turned dovish, with the Fed virtually promising to cut rates in July. But this will be an “insurance” cut, like 1995 and 1998, not the beginning of a pre-recessionary easing cycle. The global expansion remains intact, with the fundamental drivers of U.S. consumption robust and China likely to ramp up its credit stimulus over the coming months. The Fed will cut once or twice, but not four times over the next 10 months as the futures markets imply. Underlying U.S. inflation – properly measured – is trending higher to above 2%. U.S. GDP growth this year will be around 2.5%. Inflation expectations will move higher as the crude oil price rises. Unemployment is at a 50-year low and the U.S. stock market at an historical peak. These factors suggest bond yields are more likely to rise than fall from current levels. The upside for U.S. equities is limited, but earnings growth should be better than the 3% the bottom-up consensus expects. The key for allocation will be when to shift in the second half into higher-beta China-related plays, such as Europe and Emerging Markets. For now, we remain overweight the lower-beta U.S. equity market, neutral on credit, and underweight government bonds. To hedge against the positive impact of China stimulus, we raise Australia to neutral, and re-emphasize our overweights on the Industrials and Energy sectors. Feature Overview Precautionary Dovishness – Or Looming Recession?   Recommendations Central banks everywhere have taken a decidedly dovish turn in recent weeks. June’s FOMC statement confirmed that “uncertainties about the outlook have increased….[We] will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion,” hinting broadly at a rate cut in July. The Bank of Japan’s Kuroda said he would “take additional easing action without hesitation,” and hinted at a Modern Monetary Theory-style combination of fiscal and monetary policy. European Central Bank President Draghi mentioned the possibility of restarting asset purchases. There are two possible explanations. Either the global economy is heading into recession, and central banks are preparing for a full-blown easing cycle. Or these are “insurance” cuts aimed at prolonging the expansion, as happened in 1995 and 1998, or similar to when the Fed went on hold for 12 months in 2016 (Chart 1). Our view is that it is most likely the latter. The reason for this is that the main drivers of the global economy, U.S. consumption ($14 trillion) and the Chinese economy ($13 trillion) are likely to be strong over the next 12 months. U.S. wage growth continues to accelerate, consumer sentiment is close to a 50-year high, and the savings rate is elevated (Chart 2); as a result core U.S. retail sales have begun to pick up momentum in recent months (Chart 3). Unless something exogenous severely damages consumer optimism, it is hard to see how the U.S. can go into recession in the near future, considering that consumption is 70% of GDP. Moreover, despite weaknesses in the manufacturing sector – infected by the China-led slowdown in the rest of the world – U.S. service sector growth and the labor market remain solid. This resembles 1998 and 2016, but is different from the pre-recessionary environments of 2000 and 2007 (Chart 4). There is also no sign on the horizon of the two factors that have historically triggered recessions: a sharp rise in private-sector debt, or accelerating inflation (Chart 5). Chart 1Insurance Cuts, Or Full Easing Cycle? Chart 2Consumption Fundamentals Are Strong... Chart 3...Leading To Rebound In Retail Sales Chart 4Manufacturing Weak, But Services Holding Up   Chart 5No Signs Of Usual Recession Triggers China’s efforts to reflate via credit creation have been somewhat half-hearted since the start of the year. Investment by state-owned companies has picked up, but the private sector has been spooked by the risk of a trade war and has slowed capex (Chart 6). China may have hesitated from full-blown stimulus because the authorities in April were confident of a successful outcome to trade talks with the U.S., and a bit concerned that the liquidity was going into speculation rather than the real economy. But we see little reason why they will not open the taps fully if growth remains sluggish and trade tensions heighten.1 Chinese credit creation clearly has a major impact on many components of global growth – in particular European exports, Emerging Markets earnings, and commodity prices – but the impact often takes 6-12 months to come through (Chart 7). A key question is when investors should position for this to happen. We think this decision is a little premature now, but will be a key call for the second half of the year. Chart 6China's Half-Hearted Reflation Chart 7China Credit Growth Affects The World Chart 8Fed Won't Cut As Much As Market Wants... The Fed has so clearly signaled rate cuts that we see it cutting by perhaps 50 basis points over the next few months (maybe all in one go in July if it wants to “shock and awe” the market). But the futures market is pricing in four 25 bps cuts by April next year. With GDP growth likely to be around 2.5% this year, unemployment at a 50-year low, trend inflation above 2%,2 and the stock market at an historical high, we find this improbable. Two cuts would be similar to what happened in 1995, 1998 and (to a degree) 2016 (Chart 8). In this environment, we think it likely that equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. When the Fed cuts by less than the market is expecting, long-term rates tend to rise (Chart 9). BCA’s U.S. bond strategists have shown that after mid-cycle rate cuts, yields typically rise: by 59 bps in 1995-6, 58 bps in 1998, and 19 bps in 2002.3 A combination of rising inflation, stronger growth ex-U.S., a less dovish Fed that the market expects, and a rising oil price (which will push up inflation expectations) makes it unlikely – absent an outright recession – that global risk-free yields will fall much below current levels. Moreover, June’s BOA Merrill Lynch survey cited long government bonds as the most crowded trade at the moment, and surveys of investor positioning suggest duration among active investors is as long as at any time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 10). Chart 9...So Bond Yields Are Likely To Rise Chart 10Investors Betting On Further Rate Decline The outlook for U.S. equities is not that exciting. Valuations are not cheap (with forward PE of 16.5x), but earnings should be revised up from the currently very cautious level: the bottom-up consensus forecasts S&P 500 EPS growth at only 3% in 2019 (and -3% YoY in Q2). We have sympathy for the view that there are three put options that will prop up stock prices in the event of external shocks: the Fed put, the Xi put, and the Trump put. Relating to the last of these, it is notable that President Trump tends to turn more aggressive in trade talks with China whenever the U.S. stock market is strong, but more conciliatory when it falls (Chart 11). For now, therefore, we remain overweight U.S. equities, as a lower beta way to play an environment that continues to be positive – but uncertain – for stocks. But we continue to watch for the timing to move into higher-beta China-related markets as the effects of China’s stimulus start to come through. Chart 11Trump Turns Softer When Market Falls   Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 12Temporary Forces Drove Inflation Downturn Why Is Inflation So Low? After reaching 2% in July 2018, U.S. core PCE currently stands at 1.6%, close to 18 month lows. This plunge in inflation, along with increased worries about the trade war and continued economic weakness, has led the market to believe that the Fed Funds Rate is currently above the neutral rate, and that several rate cuts are warranted in order to move policy away from restrictive territory. We believe that the recent bout of low inflation is temporary. The main contributor to the fall in core PCE has been financial services prices, which shaved off up to 40 basis points from core PCE (Chart 12, panel 1). However, assets under management are a big determinant of financial services prices, making this measure very sensitive to the stock market (panel 2). Therefore, we expect this component of core PCE to stabilize as equity prices continue to rise. The effect of higher equity prices, and the stabilization of other goods that were affected by the slowdown of global growth in late 2018 and early 2019, may already have started to push inflation higher. Month-on-month core PCE grew at an annualized rate of 3% in April, the highest pace since the end of 2017. Meanwhile, trimmed mean PCE, a measure that has historically been a more stable and reliable gauge of inflationary pressures, is at a near seven-year high (panel 3). The above implies that the market might be overestimating how much the Fed is going to ease. We believe that the Fed will likely cut once this year to soothe the pain caused by the trade war on financial markets. However, with unemployment at 50-year lows, and inflation set to rise again, the Fed is unlikely to deliver the 92 basis points of cuts currently priced by the OIS curve for the next 12 months. This implies that investors should continue to underweight bonds. Chart 13Turning On The Taps Will China Really Ramp Up Its Stimulus? The direction of markets over the next 12 months (a bottoming of euro area and Emerging Markets growth, commodity prices, the direction of the USD) are highly dependent on whether China further increases monetary stimulus in the event of a breakdown in trade negotiations with the U.S. But we hear much skepticism from clients: aren’t the Chinese authorities, rather, focused on reducing debt and clamping down on shadow banking? Aren’t they worried that liquidity will simply flow into speculation and have little impact on the real economy? Now the government has someone to blame for a slowdown (President Trump), won’t they use that as an excuse – and, to that end, are preparing the population for a period of pain by quoting as analogies the Long March in the 1930s and the Korea War (when China ground down U.S. willingness to prolong the conflict)? We think it unlikely that the Chinese government would be prepared to allow growth to slump. Every time in the past 10 years that growth has slowed (with, for example, the manufacturing PMI falling significantly below 50) they have always accelerated credit growth – on the basis of the worst-case scenario (Chart 13, panel 1). Why would they react differently this time, particularly since 2019 is a politically sensitive year, with the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic in October and several other important anniversaries? Moreover, the government is slipping behind in its target to double per capita income in the 10 years to end-2020 (panel 2). GDP growth needs to be 6.5-7% over the next 18 months to achieve the target. The government’s biggest worry is employment, where prospects are slipping rapidly (panel 3). This also makes it difficult for the authorities to retaliate against U.S. companies that have large operations, such as Apple or General Motors, since such measures would hurt their Chinese employees. Besides a significant revaluation of the RMB (which we think likely), China has few cards to play in the event of a full-blown trade war other than fully turning on the liquidity tap again. Aren’t There Signs Of Bubbliness In Equity Markets? Clients have asked whether the current market environment has been showing any classic signs of euphoria. These usually appear with lots of initial public offerings (IPO), irrational M&A activity, and excess investor optimism. The IPO market has some similarities to the years leading up to the dot-com bubble, but it is important to look below the surface. The percentage of IPOs with negative earnings in 2018 was similar to the previous peak in 1999. However, the average first-day return of IPOs in 2019, while still above the historical average, has been much lower than that during the dot-com bubble period (Chart 14, panel 1). There is also a difference in the composition of firms going public. There are now many IPOs for biotech firms that have heavily invested in R&D, and so have relatively low sales currently but await a breakthrough in their products; by their nature, these are loss-making (panel 2). Cross-sector, unrelated M&A activity has also often been a sign of bubble peaks. It is a consequence of firms stretching to find inorganic growth late in the cycle. Such deals are characterized by high deal premiums, and are usually conducted through stock purchases rather than in cash. The current average deal premium is below its historical average (panel 3). Additionally, 2018 and 2019-to-date M&A deals conducted using cash represented 60% and 90% of the total respectively, compared to only 17% between 1996 and 2000. Investor sentiment is also moderately pessimistic despite the rally in the S&P 500 since the beginning of the year (panel 4). This caution suggests that investors are fearful of the risk of recession rather than overly positive about market prospects, despite the U.S. market being at an historical high. Given the above, we do not see any signals of the sort of euphoria and bubbliness that typically accompanies stock market tops. Will Japan Benefit From Chinese Reflation? Japan has been one of the worst-performing developed equity markets since March 2009, when global equities hit their post-crisis bottom in both USD (Chart 15) and local currency terms. Now with increasing market confidence in China’s reflationary policies, clients are asking if Japan is a good China play given its close ties with the Chinese economy. Our answer is No. Chart 16Downgrade Japan To Underweight   It’s true that Japanese equities did respond to past Chinese reflationary efforts, but the outperformances were muted and short-lived (Chart 16, panel 1). Even though Japanese exports to China will benefit from Chinese reflationary policy (panel 5), MSCI Japan index earnings growth does not have strong correlation with Japanese exports to China, as shown in panel 4. This is not surprising given that exports to China account for only about 3% of nominal GDP in Japan (compared to almost 6% for Australia, for example). The MSCI Japan index is dominated by Industrials (21%) and Consumer Discretionary (18%). Financials, Info Tech, Communication Services and Healthcare each accounts for about 8-10%. Other than the Communication Services sector, all other major sectors in Japan have underperformed their global peers since the Global Financial Crisis (panels 2 and 3). The key culprit for such poor performance is Japan’s structural deflationary environment. Wage growth has been poor despite a tight labor market. This October’s consumption tax increase will put further downward pressure on domestic consumers. There is no sign of the two factors that have historically triggered recessions: a sharp rise in private-sector debt, or accelerating inflation. As such, we are downgrading Japan to a slight underweight in order to close our underweight in Australia (see page 16). This also aligns our recommendation with the output from our DM Country Allocation Quant Model, which has structurally underweighted Japan since its inception in January 2016. Global Economy Chart 17Is Consumption Enough To Prop Up U.S. Growth? Overview: The tight monetary policy of last year (with the Fed raising rates and China slowing credit growth) has caused a slowdown in the global manufacturing sector, which is now threatening to damage worldwide consumption and the relatively closed U.S. economy too. The key to a rebound will be whether China ramps up the monetary stimulus it began in January but which has so far been rather half-hearted. Meanwhile, central banks everywhere are moving to cut rates as an “insurance” against further slowdown. U.S.: Growth data has been mixed in recent months. The manufacturing sector has been affected by the slowdown in EM and Europe, with the manufacturing ISM falling to 52.1 in May and threatening to dip below 50 (Chart 17, panel 2). However, consumption remains resilient, with no signs of stress in the labor market, average hourly earnings growing at 3.1% year-on-year, and consumer confidence at a high level. As a result, retail sales surprised to the upside in May, growing 3.2% YoY. The trade war may be having some negative impact on business sentiment, however, with capex intentions and durable goods orders weakening in recent months. Euro Area: Current conditions in manufacturing continue to look dire. The manufacturing PMI is below 50 and continues to decline (Chart 18, panel 1). In export-focused markets like Germany, the situation looks even worse: Germany’s manufacturing PMI is at 45.4, and expectations as measured by the ZEW survey have deteriorated again recently. Solid wage growth and some positive fiscal thrust (in Italy, France, and even Germany) have kept consumption stable, but the recent tick-up in German unemployment raises the question of how sustainable this is. Recovery will be dependent on Chinese stimulus triggering a rebound in global trade. Chart 18Few Signs Of Recovery In Global Ex-U.S. Growth Japan: The slowdown in China continues to depress industrial production and leading indicators (panel 2). But maybe the first “green shoots” are appearing thanks to China’s stimulus: in April, manufacturing orders rose by 16.3% month-on-month, compared to -11.4% in March. Nonetheless, consumption looks vulnerable, with wage growth negative YoY each month so far this year, and the consumption tax rise in October likely to hit consumption further. The Bank of Japan’s six-year campaign of maximum monetary easing is having little effect, with core core inflation stuck at 0.5% YoY, despite a small pickup in recent months – no doubt because the easy monetary policy has been offset by a steady tightening of fiscal policy. Emerging Markets: China’s growth has slipped since the pickup in February and March caused by a sharp increase in credit creation. Seemingly, the authorities became more confident about a trade agreement with the U.S., and worried about how much of the extra credit was going into speculation, rather than the real economy. The manufacturing PMI, having jumped to almost 51 in March, has slipped back to 50.2. A breakdown of trade talks would undoubtedly force the government to inject more liquidity. Elsewhere in EM, growth has generally been weak, because of the softness in Chinese demand. In Q1, GDP growth was -3.2% QoQ annualized in South Africa, -1.7% in Korea, and -0.8% in both Brazil and Mexico. Only less China-sensitive markets such as Russia (3.3%) and India (6.5%) held up. Interest rates: U.S. inflation has softened on the surface, with the core PCE measure slipping to 1.6% in April. However, some of the softness was driven by transitory factors, notably the decline in financial advisor fees (which tend to move in line with the stock market) which deducted 0.5 points from core PCE inflation. A less volatile measure, the trimmed mean PCE deflator, however, continues to trend up and is above the Fed’s 2% target. Partly because of the weaker historical inflation data, inflation expectations have also fallen (panel 4). As a result, central banks everywhere have become more dovish, with the Australian and New Zealand reserve banks cutting rates and the Fed and ECB raising the possibility they may ease too. The consequence has been a big fall in 10-year government bonds yields: in the U.S. to only 2% from 3.1% as recently as last September. Global Equities Chart 19Worrisome Earnings Prospects Remain Cautiously Optimistic, Adding Another China Hedge: Global equities managed to eke out a small gain of 3.3% in Q2 despite a sharp loss of 5.9% in May. Within equities, our defensive country allocation worked well as DM equities outperformed EM by 2.9% in Q2. Our cyclical tilt in global sector positioning, however, did not pan out, largely due to the 2% underperformance in global Energy as the oil price dropped by 2% in Q2. Going forward, BCA’s House View remains that global economic growth will pick up sometime in the second half thanks to accommodative monetary policies globally and the increasing likelihood of a large stimulus from China to counter the negative effect from trade tensions. This implies that equities are likely to rally again after a period of congestion within a trading range, supporting a cautiously optimistic portfolio allocation for the next 9-12 months. The “optimistic” side of our allocation is reflected in two aspects: 1) overweight equities vs. bonds at the asset class level; and 2) overweight cyclicals vs. defensives at the global sector level. However, corporate profit margins are rolling over and earnings growth revisions have been negative (Chart 19). Therefore, the “cautious” side of our allocation remains a defensive country allocation, reflected by overweighting DM vs. EM. Our macro view hinges largely on what happens to China. There is an increasing likelihood that China may be on a reflationary path to stimulate economic growth. We upgraded global Industrials in March to hedge against China’s re-acceleration. Now we upgrade Australia to neutral from a long-term underweight, by downgrading Japan to a slight underweight from neutral, because Australia will benefit more from China’s reflationary policies (see next page). Chart 20Australian Equities: Close The Underweight Upgrade Australian Equities To Neutral The relative performance of MSCI Australian equities to global equities has been closely correlated with the CRB metal price most of the time. Since the end of 2015, however, the CRB metals index has increased by more than 40%, yet Australian equities did not outperform (Chart 20, panel 1). Why? The MSCI Australian index is concentrated in Financials (mostly banks) and Materials (mostly mining), as shown in panel 2. Aussie Materials have outperformed their global peers, but the banks have not (panel 3). The banks are a major source of financing for the mining companies (hence the positive correlation with metal prices). They are also the source of financing for the Aussie housing markets, which have weighed down on the banks’ performance over the past few years due to concerns about stretched valuations. We have been structurally underweight Australian equities because of our unfavorable view on industrial commodities, and also our concerns on the Australian housing market and the problems of the banks. This has served us well, as Australian equities have done poorly relative to the global aggregate since late 2012. Now interest rates in Australia have come down significantly. Lower mortgage rates should help stabilize house prices, which suffered in Q1 their worst year-on-year decline, 7.7%, in over three decades. Australian equity earnings growth is still slowing relative to the global earnings, but the speed of slowing down has decreased significantly. With 6% of GDP coming from exports to China, Aussie profit growth should benefit from reflationary policies from China (panel 4). Relative valuation, however, is not cheap (panel 5). All considered, we are closing our underweight in Australian equities as another hedge against a Chinese-led re-acceleration in economic growth. This is financed by downgrading Japan to a slight underweight (for more on Japan, see What Our Clients Are Asking, on page 11). Government Bonds Chart 21Limited Downside In Yields Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration: After the Fed signaled at its June meeting that rates cuts were likely on the way, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dropped to 1.97% overnight on June 20, the lowest since November 2016. Overall, the 10-year yield dropped by 40 bps in Q2 to end the quarter at 2%. BCA’s Fed Monitor is now indicating that easier monetary policy is required. But that is already more than discounted in the 92 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months priced in at the front end of the yield curve, and by the current low level of Treasury yields. (Chart 21). We see the likelihood of one or two “insurance” cuts by the Fed, but the current environment (with a record-high stock market, tight corporate spreads, 50-year low unemployment rate, and 2019 GDP on track to reach 2.5%) is not compatible with a full-out cutting campaign. In addition, the latest Merrill Lynch survey indicated that long duration is the most crowded global trade. Given BCA’s House View that the U.S. economy is not heading into a recession but rather experiencing a manufacturing slowdown mainly due to external shocks, the path of least resistance for Treasury yields is higher rather than lower. Investors should maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Chart 22Favor Linkers Over Nominal Bonds Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds: Global inflation expectations have dropped anew in the second quarter, with the 10-year CPI swap rate now sitting at 1.55%, 41 bps lower than its 2018 high of 1.96%. However, historically, the change in the crude oil price tends to have a good correlation with inflation expectations. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service revised down its 2019 Brent crude forecast to an average of US$73 per barrel from US$75, but this implies an average of US$79 in H2. (Chart 22). This would cause a significant rise in inflation expectations in the second half, supporting our preference for inflation-linked over nominal bonds. We also favor linkers in Japan and Australia over their respective nominal bonds. Corporate Bonds Chart 23Profit Growth Should Still Outpace Debt Growth We turned cyclically overweight on credit within a fixed-income portfolio in February. Since then, corporate bonds have produced 120 basis points of excess return over duration-matched Treasuries. We believe this bullish stance on credit will continue to pay dividends. The global leading economic indicators have started to stabilize while multiple credit impulses have started to perk up all over the world. Historically, improving global growth has been positive for corporate bonds (Chart 23, panel 1). A valid concern is the deceleration in profit growth in the U.S., as the yearly growth of pre-tax profits has fallen from 15% in 2018 Q4 to 7% in the first quarter of this year. In general, corporate bonds suffer when profit growth lags debt growth, as defaults tends to rise in this environment. Is this scenario likely over the coming year? We do not believe so. While weak global growth at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019 is likely to weigh on revenues, the current contraction in unit labor costs should bolster profit margins and keep profit growth robust (panel 2). Additionally, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that C&I loan demand has decreased significantly this year, suggesting that the pace of U.S. corporate debt growth is set to slow (panel 3). How long will we remain overweight? We expect that the Federal Reserve will do little to no tightening over the next 12 months. This will open a window for credit to outperform Treasuries in a fixed-income portfolio. We have also reduced our double underweight in EM debt, since an acceleration of Chinese monetary stimulus would be positive for this asset class. Commodities Chart 24Watch Oil And Be Wary Of Gold Energy (Overweight): Supply/demand fundamentals continue to be the main driver of crude oil prices. However, it seems as though the market is discounting something else. President Trump’s tweets, OPEC+ coalition statements, and concerns about future demand growth are contributing to price swings (Chart 24, panel 1). According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, weak demand has reduced oil prices by $2/barrel this year. That should be offset, however, by a much larger contribution from supply cuts, speculative demand, and a deteriorating geopolitical environment. We see crude prices tilted to the upside, as OPEC’s ability to offset any supply disruptions (besides Iran and Venezuela) is limited (panel 2). We expect Brent to average $73 in 2019 and $75 in 2020. Industrial Metals (Neutral): A stronger USD accompanied by weakening global growth since 2018 has put downward pressure on industrial metal prices, which are down about 20% since January 2018. However, we now have renewed belief that the Chinese authorities will counter with a reflationary response though credit and fiscal stimulus. That should push industrial metal prices higher over the coming 12 months (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Allocators to gold are benefiting from the current environment of rising geopolitical risk, dovish central banks, a weaker USD, and the market’s flight to safety. Escalated trade tensions, falling global yields, and lower growth prospects are some of the factors that have supported the bullion’s 18% return since its September 2018 low. Until evidence of a bottom in global growth emerges, we expect the copper-to-gold ratio – another barometer for global growth – to continue falling (panel 4). The months ahead could see a correction, as investors take profits with gold in overbought territory. Nevertheless, we continue to recommend gold as both an inflation hedge as well as against any uncertain escalated political tensions. Currencies Chart 25Stronger Global Growth Will Weigh On The Dollar U.S. dollar: The trade-weighted dollar has been flat since we lowered our recommendation from positive to neutral in April. We expect that the Fed will cut rates at least once this year, easing financial conditions, and boosting economic activity. This will eventually prove negative for the dollar. However as long as the global economy is weak the greenback should hold up. Stay neutral for now. Euro: Since we turned bullish on the euro in April, EUR/USD has appreciated by 1.5%. Overall, we continue to be bullish on EUR/USD on a cyclical timeframe. Forward rate expectations continue to be near 2014 lows, suggesting that there is little room for U.S. monetary policy to tighten further vis-à-vis euro area monetary policy, creating a floor under the euro (Chart 25, panel 1). EM Currencies: We continue to be negative on emerging market currencies. However, some indicators suggest that Chinese weakness, the main engine behind the EM currency bear market might be reaching its end. Chinese marginal propensity to spend (proxied by M1 growth relative to M2 growth), has bottomed and seems to have stabilized (panel 2). The bond market has taken note of this development, as Chinese yields are now rising relative to U.S. ones (panel 3). Historically, both of these developments have resulted in a rally for emerging market currencies. Thus, while we expect the bear market to continue for the time being, the pace of decline is likely to ease, making EM currencies an attractive buy by the end of the year. Accordingly, we are reducing our underweight in EM currencies from double underweight to a smaller underweight position. Alternatives Return Enhancers: Hedge funds historically display a negative correlation with global growth momentum. Despite growth slowing over the past year, hedge funds underperformed the overall GAA Alternatives Index as well as private equity. Hedge funds usually outperform other risky alternatives during recessions or periods of high credit market stress. Credit spreads have been slow to rise in response to the slowing economy and worsening political environment. A pickup in spreads should support hedge fund outperformance (Chart 26, panel 2). Inflation Hedges: As we approach the end of the cycle, we continue to recommend investors reduce their real estate exposure and increase allocations towards commodity futures. Our May 2019 Special Report4 analyzed how different asset classes perform in periods of rising inflation. Our expectation is that inflation will pick up by the end of the year. An allocation to commodity futures, particularly energy, historically achieved excess returns of nearly 40% during periods of mild inflation (panel 3). Volatility Dampeners: Realized volatility in the catastrophe bond market is generally low. In fact, absent any catastrophe losses, catastrophe bonds provide stable returns, with volatility that is comparable to global bonds (panel 4). In a December 2017 Special Report,5 we tested for how the inclusion of catastrophe bonds in a traditional 60/40 equity-bond portfolio would have impacted portfolio risk-return characteristics. Replacing global equities with catastrophe bonds reduced annualized volatility by more than 1.5%. Risks To Our View Chart 27What Risk Of Recession? Our main scenario is sanguine on global growth, which means we argue that bond yields will not fall much below current levels. The risks to this view are mostly to the downside. There could be a full-blown recession. Most likely this would be caused either by China failing to do stimulus, or by U.S. rates being more restrictive than the Fed believes. Both of these explanations seem implausible. As we argue elsewhere, we think it unlikely that China would simply allow growth to slow without reacting with monetary and fiscal stimulus. If current Fed policy is too tight for the economy to withstand, it would imply that the neutral rate of interest is zero or below, something that seems improbable given how strong U.S. growth has been despite rising rates. Formal models of recession do not indicate an elevated risk currently (Chart 27). We continue to watch for the timing to move into higher-beta China-related markets as the effects of China’s stimulus start to come through. Even if growth is as strong as we forecast, is there a possibility that bond yields fall further. This could come about – for a while, at least – if the Fed is aggressively dovish, oil prices fall (perhaps because of a positive supply shock), inflation softens further, and global growth remains sluggish. Absent a recession, we find those outcomes unlikely. The copper-to-gold ratio has been a good indicator of U.S. bond yields (Chart 28). It suggests that, at 2%, the 10-year Treasury yield has slightly overshot. In fact, in June copper prices started to rebound, as the market began to price in growing Chinese demand. Chart 28Can Bond Yields Fall Any Further? Chart 29Are Analysts Right To Be So Gloomy?   For U.S. equities to rise much further, multiple expansion will not be enough; the earnings outlook needs to improve. Analysts are still cautious with their bottom-up forecasts, expecting only 3% EPS growth for the S&P500 this year (Chart 29). This seems easy to beat. But a combination of further dollar strength, worsening trade war, further slowdown in Europe and Emerging Markets, and higher U.S. wages would put it at risk. Footnotes 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 9 of this Quarterly for further discussion on why we are confident China will ramp up stimulus if necessary. 2 Trimmed Mean PCE inflation, a better indicator of underlying inflation than the Core PCE deflator, is above 2%. Please see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 8 of this Quarterly for details. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Track Records,” dated June 18, available at usb.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “A Primer On Catastrophe Bonds,” dated December 12, 2017 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation