Market Returns

Highlights The level of Fed interest rates, in absolute or relative terms, has been a poor determinant of dollar bull markets. A more useful marker has been the relative performance of U.S. assets as well as relative growth rates. The U.S. economy should continue to outperform the rest of the G10 on a cyclical basis, suggesting that the USD could rise further on a 12-18 months basis. April is seasonally the cruelest month for the USD. Once this hurdle is passed, the likelihood grows that the dollar correction will be over. The conditions are slowly falling into place for the SNB to abandon the floor under EUR/CHF. Bank of Canada: Bye-bye easing bias, hello neutrality. Feature One of the great paradox of modern finance is the relationship between the dollar and the Fed. Contrary to a priories, rising U.S. interest rates are not synonymous with a rising dollar (Chart I-1). In fact, since 1975, out of seven protracted Fed tightening campaigns, the greenback fell four times. Obviously, one could argue that domestic interest rates per say are irrelevant, what matters should be the trend of U.S. interest rates relative to the rest of the world. Here again, the evidence is rather inconclusive. As Chart I-2 illustrates, since 1975, out of the eight episodes where U.S. policy rates rose relative to the rest of the advanced economies, the dollar was down or flat five times. Chart I-1The Fed Is Not An All-Weather Friend Chart I-2Rate Differentials Are Also A Fickle Ally This modern Gordian knot is not as intractable as it seems. In fact, we would argue that focusing on the Fed misses some key drivers of flows inside the U.S. economy. What really matters for the U.S. dollar is not just what the Fed does, but in fact, how U.S. assets are performing relative to the rest of the world. It's Not Just The Fed, It's Everything Simple interest rate differentials have a poor long-term track record explaining the U.S. dollar. However, one factor does seem to work better: the relative performance of a portfolio of U.S. stocks, bonds, and money market securities relative to the rest of the world. This does make sense. Investors who want to buy the USD do so because they expect to receive higher returns on their U.S. assets, independently of whether these assets are cash, stocks or bonds. As Chart I-3 shows, the ups and down of the USD have been contemporaneous with the gyrations of a U.S. portfolio invested 40% in stocks, 30% in bonds, and 30% in cash relative to the same portfolio in the euro area (and its predecessor national markets), Japan, the U.K., and Canada. However, there is a problem with this observation. It is expected returns that should drive the inflows into a currency, not the ex-post returns like the one used in the previous chart. But this forgets a key factor influencing asset returns: the momentum effect. As Chart I-4 illustrates, playing momentum continuation strategies has historically been one of the best performing investment philosophies, a fact not lost on investors.1 As such, there is a very rational reason for previously outperforming markets to attract funds by virtue of their previous outperformance. This would also explain why peaks and troughs in the relative U.S. / global portfolios tend to lead the turning points in the dollar itself. Chart I-3It's All About Returns Chart I-4Don't Get Against The Crowd The same dynamics are prevalent when one looks at bilateral pairs. This is particularly true of the EUR/USD, which has a 58% weight in the dollar index vis-à-vis major currencies. As Chart I-5 illustrates, as was the case with the dollar against the majors, EUR/USD dynamics are a function of the relative performance of a European portfolio of various assets against a similar U.S. portfolio. As an aside, it is true that the secular trend in the dollar is not nearly as well explained by the dynamics in the asset markets. On longer time horizons, other factors dominate currency returns. While the most well know long-term exchange rate determinant has been relative inflation rates (the PPP effect), our research has corroborated well-known academic findings that relative productivity differentials and net international investment positions (NIIP) also play important roles.2 While U.S. productivity growth has been equal or superior to that of the other nations comprised in the dollar index against the majors, the other variables have forced the long-term fair value of the dollar downward. Relative to Europe and Japan (the crucial weights in the dollar index), the U.S. NIIP grows each year more deeply into negative territory, and the U.S. has also experienced structurally more elevated inflation than these currency blocs (Chart I-6). Going back to the cyclical moves in the dollar, another factor has had a very strong explanatory power for the USD: Relative trend growth (Chart I-7). The 5-year moving average of real growth rate differentials - when GDP is measured at PPP, thus eliminating some currency effects - has mimicked the moves in the greenback. In the context of portfolio flows, this also makes sense. Ultimately, a faster growing economy should be able to generate higher rates of returns than slower growing ones, and thus attract more funds. Chart I-5EUR/USD And Asset Returns Chart I-6Secular Drags On The USD Chart I-7Growth Is Paramount What do these observations mean for the future path of the dollar? Despite continued noise by President Trump, we think the outlook for the dollar remains bright. First, the dollar is still not nearly as expensive as it has been at the peak of previous cyclical bull markets, which raises the likelihood that the USD has yet to hit the historical pain thresholds of the U.S. economy (Chart I-8). Further reinforcing this probability, U.S. employment in the manufacturing sector represents 10% of the working population today, versus 15% in 2001 and more than 22% in 1985 (Chart I-9). Not only does this mean that the sector of the U.S. economy most exposed to the pain created by a strong dollar is much smaller than at previous dollar peaks - raising the resilience of the U.S. economy to the tightening created by a strong dollar - the share of employment in that sector today remains much lower in the U.S. than it is in Japan and Europe. Chart I-8Valuations Have Yet To Bite Chart I-9The U.S. Is More Resilient To XR Moves Second, on a multi-year basis, the U.S. economic outlook remains more exciting than what the majority of the rest of the G10 has to offer. Most obviously, even if Trump changes immigration laws, the U.S. demographic outlook still outshines that of other nations (Chart I-10). Also, the U.S. benefits from being much more advanced than the rest of the G10 in its deleveraging cycle. As Chart I-11 illustrates, U.S. non-financial private debt to GDP fell from 170% of GDP to a low of 146% of GDP, while outside of the U.S., the same ratio has plateaued at 175%. This means that debt is likely to represents a greater ceiling on growth outside than inside the United States. Chart I-10A Structural Help To The U.S. Chart I-11Lower Deleveraging Pressures In The U.S. Third, U.S. markets can continue to attract funds. For one, most of the net inflows in the U.S. since 2015 has been driven by a surge in U.S. funds repatriation. Foreign investors remain timid buyers of U.S. assets (Chart I-12). This phenomenon is most pronounced in the equity space, where investors have been net sellers of U.S. equities (Chart I-13). Additionally, if the U.S. continues to grow faster than most other large advanced economies, FDIs inflow into the U.S. are likely to improve further, something that could be reinforced by Trump's hard-nosed trade negotiations with the rest of the world (Chart I-14). Chart I-12Foreigners Still Have Room To Buy Chart I-13Big Deficit In U.S. Stock Purchases Chart I-14FDI Inflows In The U.S. Can Grow More Finally, when it comes to money markets, the U.S. continues to hold the advantage. As we have argued, U.S. rates are likely to remain in the top of the G10 distribution. While the level and direction of rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world has been a poor predictor of the USD's trend, how high U.S. rates rank globally has been a better explanatory variable of the greenback (Chart I-15). This means that money markets in the U.S. are likely to remain more attractive to investors needing to park liquidity than money markets outside the U.S. We are currently still positioned negatively on the U.S. dollar against European currencies and the yen on a tactical basis. We expect this phenomenon to be toward its tail end. First, when it comes to seasonality, April is historically the weakest month for the dollar (Chart I-16). Second, Trump's comments on Wednesday regarding the dollar's strength were enough to prompt a vicious sell-off in the dollar. Yet, this seems overdone. Unlike Reagan in 1985, Trump has little levers to force a strong re-evaluation of the euro and the yen. Moreover, his endorsement of Janet Yellen implies that the Fed is less likely to lose its independence in the near future, suggesting that U.S. rates will continue to be tightened if the economy improves. Thus, a plunge in U.S. real rates relative to the rest of the world prompted by a too easy Fed is less of a risk, reducing the probability of the re-emergence of the 1970s.3 Chart I-15Being The Leader Of The Pack Is What Matters Chart I-16April Is The Cruelest Month Bottom Line: On a cyclical basis, more than simple interest rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world, what matters for the dollar's trend is the return on U.S. assets vis-à-vis the rest of the world as well as the growth rate of the U.S. compared to other nations. On this front, relative growth rate differentials continue to be the best factor pointing toward further USD outperformance. Tactically, the USD is in the midst of its seasonally weakest month, suggesting another down leg in DXY is likely in the coming weeks. However, it may soon be time to start buying the USD once again. EUR/CHF: Getting Closer To The End Recent data in Switzerland have shown great improvement. The PMIs are at their highest levels in six years and CPI has moved back into positive territory. This raises the specter of the end of the Swiss National Bank floor under EUR/CHF (Chart I-17). Chart I-17The SNB Floor Lives On While we think this peg might be in its final innings, its end is not imminent. However, we think that if Swiss data continues to improve, late 2017 will be a more supportive environment for the SNB to bury this strategy. What key signals are we looking for? First, inflation may be in positive territory, but it remains very low by recent standards. Most specifically, core CPI stands at a low 0.1%, well below the 0.8% average experienced from 1999 to 2010, an era when the euro already existed, but when the euro area crisis was still outside of investors' lexicons. As well, wage dynamics continue to underwhelm. Swiss wages are growing at a 2.4% rate compared to 3.3% from 1999 to 2010. Growth conditions also remain weak. Swiss real GDP is growing at 1%, half of the average that existed before the euro area crisis. Nominal GDP growth is undershooting the mark by an even greater margin, standing at 0.7% versus an average of 3%. What does this mean for the SNB? We would expect these datasets to move closer to their historical average before the SNB adjusts its policy stance. The main reason for this is 2015. In late 2014, just before the SNB tentatively let the CHF float, nominal and real GDP growth were outperforming current readings, yet the Swiss economy was not strong enough to handle a stronger franc. While Europe and the global economy are in a better place than in these days, risk management and precaution are likely to dictate a more careful approach by the central bank, especially as the ECB has eased monetary policy since that period, potentially causing another slingshot move in the franc if the SNB lets it float once again. In terms of strategy, we would expect the SNB to manage any appreciation in the franc following a lifting of the floor. We expect a move more akin to that of the PBoC in 2005, when the yuan, after an original 2% move, was allowed to increase progressively to minimize disruptions. We think this type of strategy is also currently being employed by the Czech central bank, and that EUR/CZK will continue to depreciate over time. This means that we would use any rebound in EUR/CHF to 1.08 to begin shorting this cross, knowing that the timing of an SNB policy change will be uncertain, but that the conditions are falling into place. Bottom Line: Even if it is still too early to bet on an imminent fall in EUR/CHF, Swiss data is moving in the right direction to expect a lift of the EUR/CHF floor later this year. As such, with the large amount of uncertainty surrounding such a decision, we would use any rebound in EUR/CHF to 1.08 to implement some short positions on the cross to bet on the eventuality of a policy change in Switzerland. Bank Of Canada: Less Dovish But Far From Hawkish The Bank of Canada this week officially removed its dovish bias. Canadian data has been very strong, with recent housing starts coming in at 254 thousand, a 10-year high. Additionally, recent employment data has been strong and so have purchasing managers index and business surveys. As a result, the BoC used this meeting as an opportunity to increase its growth expectation for the year - albeit a move heavily based on a stronger Q1 - and also brought forward in time its expectation of the closing of the output gap to early 2018. Chart I-18Canadian Surprises: More Likely##br## To Roll-Over Than Not Despite this more upbeat picture, the Bank of Canada also highlighted heavy risks to the Canadian economy. Obviously, the risks from the potential for a U.S. border adjustment tax and renegotiations of NAFTA were seen as crucial. The housing market too continues to be a big worry for the Bank of Canada, with affordability being extremely poor. Moreover, the BoC also decreased its estimate of the neutral rate and observed that monetary conditions are not as accommodative as was believed in January. Going forward, we think that the upside for the CAD remains limited. Canadian economic surprises are stretched and are very likely to rollover in the coming months (Chart I-18). This suggests that further upgrades to the Canadian economic outlook may take some time to emerge. As such, we continue to expect rate differentials between the U.S. and Canada to continue to support a higher USD/CAD, especially as Canadian money markets are already pricing in a full rate hike by Q1 2018. Bottom Line: The Bank Of Canada abandoned it dovish bias, but it is still far away from moving toward a hawkish bias. While a rate hike in 2018 is now much more likely, the market already anticipates this. As such, since the Canadian surprise index is very elevated, the likelihood of a move downward in interest rate expectations grows as surprises are likely to roll over. Stay long USD/CAD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a discussion on why momentum continuation strategies may have worked, see the April 24, 2015 Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled "Investing In Style" available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "A Guide To Currency Markets (Part I)", dated April 8, 2016, and the Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets", dated February 26, 2016, both available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 For a more detailed discussion of the 1970s stagflation, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "Trump: No Nixon Redux", dated December 2, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 President Trump, once again, delivered dollar-nuking remarks, after saying it was "getting too strong". The dollar dropped 0.7% on the news, while other currencies appreciated. The dollar has since regained most of its losses, but further upside remains questionable in the coming weeks. The market has already priced-in large amounts of monetary tightening, and recent producer price figures disappointed expectations: PPI increased at a 2.3% annual pace and contracted 0.1% monthly; core PPI increased at a 1.6% annual pace, and did not grow at a monthly pace. Additionally, in the past 5, 10 and 26 years, April has been the weakest month for the dollar. Upside is most likely limited until after the French elections. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 USD, Oil Divergences Will Continue As Storage Draws - March 17, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent movements in the euro remain largely a function of the dollar. Even after the Trump-induced dollar gyrations, the euro appreciated this week. The ZEW Survey for Economic Sentiment and Current Situation both outperformed expectations, however weak industrial production figures were also evident, which contracted by 0.3% on a monthly basis, and grew at less than expectations at 1.2%. Peripheral economies are also showing strength, with inflation outperforming expectations in Italy and Greece. Nevertheless, the outlook for the euro this month remains decent, as April is notorious for dollar weakness. Moreover, Melanchon's rising popularity is a double-edge sword: while it increases the risk that yet another euro-sceptic becomes the French president, if it grows further it is likely to take away potential voters from Le Pen. In fact, with the chances of Macron winning remaining elevated, this election could ultimately could provide further support to the euro. Report Links: ECB: All About China? - April 7, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 USD/JPY continues to fall rapidly, and now stands at 109. However, we believe the yen could still have more upside. Indeed, EM assets continue to struggle with a technical resistance, and a down leg seems imminent, given the tightening in liquidity conditions that China is currently experiencing. As evidenced by the events of early 2016, such as sell off of EM assets could supercharge yen rallies. On the data side the Japanese economy continues to show mixed signs: Labor cash earning underperformed expectations, growing by a paltry 0.4% from a year ago. However domestic corporate goods prices outperformed expectations, growing by 1.4% year on year. Overall Japanese economic activity continues to be too tepid for the BoJ to have a shift from its ultra-dovish policy. This makes us yen bears on a 12 to 18 month basis. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data from the U.K. has been mixed this week: Industrial production growth underperformed coming in at 2.8% The goods trade balance also underperformed coming in at -12.46 billion pounds. However, average hourly earnings including bonus outperformed coming in at 2.3%, while core inflation come in at 1.8%, below expectations. This last point bodes well for consumption as it would limit the downside to real income caused by the inflationary shock resulting from the depreciation of the pound. Moreover, long term inflation expectations remain relatively stable, which means that British households are looking past the temporary nature of the inflation caused by the pound sell-off. Both of these factors should help the British economy outperform expectations, and ultimately help the GBP rally against the EUR. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The ConqueringDollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 An unfortunate tropical storm, Cyclone Debbie, ravaged through the state of Queensland at the end of March. Queensland is known for its agriculture and mining industries, which suffered heavily during the hurricane. March and April export figures are likely to weaken as output was destroyed and reparations may delay production. Exacerbating this weakness is the risk of faltering import demand from China, which is the most likely the reason behind the current weakness in industrial metal prices. As this trend continues, the AUD is likely to suffer for the remainder of the year. On the bright side, the labor market has regained some vigor as full-time employment outperformed part-time employment in two consecutive months, with full-time job growing at a 30-year-high pace. However, a durable trend needs to be apparent for the labor market to fully strengthen. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 After positive import and export data out of China, the kiwi rallied strongly. The market interpreted this data as evidence that global growth is on a solid footing and that it will continue to surprise to the upside. Although we agree with the first point we disagree with the second one, as outperformance in global growth amid a sharp tightening in Chinese monetary conditions, a slowdown in Chinese shadow banking credit and a deceleration in Chinese house prices, is highly unlikely. Thus, carry currencies like the NZD are likely to underperform against the dollar. Against other commodity currency the picture is more nuanced, as strong PMI numbers of 57.8 as well as solid credit and employment numbers are evidence that the kiwi economy is better equipped to deal with a Chinese shock than Australia. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The BoC left its overnight rate unchanged at 0.5%, citing recent stronger than expected economic activity and a sooner-than-previously-anticipated closure of the output gap. The gains in the energy sector are unlikely to provide as much of a tailwind as earlier this year as the base effects from rising oil prices prove transitory on inflation and exports. The Bank highlighted labor market slack as a key factor which may contribute to the brevity of this growth impulse, as well as the business sector being hampered by low investment aimed at maintenance rather than expansion. Similarly strong data are needed to keep growth rate high enough for the Bank to become hawkish. For the time being, employment data still remains mixed. Although employment increased by 19,400, the unemployment rate ticked up to 6.7%. With only 38% of firms planning to add jobs over the next 12 months, job gains could be modest and slack could remain. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 After a short rally in early March, EUR/CHF cross is once again at 1.066, very close to the SNB's implied floor of 1.065. This sell-off is most likely the result of risk-off flows caused by the French presidential elections. However, we believe these fears are overstated, as Macron seems primed to win the election. Once these political fears dissipate, and economic fundamentals take over, EUR/CHF would likely be at a point where it would become an attractive short, given that there are some early signs that inflation is slowly coming back to the alpine country and that the franc has strong structural forces pushing up its value. While an abandonment of the SNB's floor in unlikely until the end of the year, investors could still begin positioning themselves for this eventuality given that a rally in EUR/CHF beyond the French election should be limited. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The relationship between the NOK and oil prices continues to be a strange one, as the NOK has depreciated this last month even in the face of a strong rally in oil prices. Plummeting inflation and inflation expectations in Norway are probably the main culprit, as it entrenches the Norges Bank dovish bias. All this being said, there are some faint signs that the economy is starting to recover as manufacturing PMI is at 5 year highs while consumer confidence keeps creeping up and is now at its highest point since early 2015. While we are still NOK bears, we will continue to monitor these developments, as the NOK could become an attractive buy against other commodity currencies. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent inflation numbers corroborate downside risk to the krona. Headline inflation dropped by 0.5% to 1.3% on an annual basis; Core inflation dropped by 0.3% to 1%. This is most likely a follow-through of February's producer prices contraction. This may justify the Riksbank's fear over deflationary risks, as inflation remains tamed despite increased economic activity. However, it is likely that this proves to be a temporary phenomenon, as manufacturing new orders expanded at 12% in February, while industrial production expanded at 4.1%. Given that the next monetary policy meeting is in July, it is too early to tell if the Riksbank will further pursue its dovish stance: inflation will need to be consistently underperform further for that to happen, which is still not our base case. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights This week, we provide one of our occasional updates on Commodities as an Asset class (CAAC), examining the strategic case for getting long commodity index exposure. Commodity index exposure is more highly correlated with inflation than equities or bond exposure, indicating commodities - and real assets generally - provide a better hedge against inflation than financial assets. A pure investment case for getting long broad commodity index exposure can be made if backwardation is expected in one or more of the components of a given index. Given our expectation for higher inflation, and our positioning for backwardation in the oil market, we recommend getting long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI index as a strategic portfolio position. Energy: Overweight. Deeper-than-expected production cuts from OPEC were reported by Reuters Tuesday, suggesting Cartel members are at 104% of pledged output reductions.1 Our $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl WTI calls spreads in Jul-Aug-Sep settled at an average of $3.06/bbl, and we are taking profits of 76.9%, per the upside $3.00/bbl stop we established for these positions on March 23/17. We also are taking profits on our Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 WTI backwardation trade basis tonight's close, after registering a gain of more than 700% when we marked to market earlier this week. We are keeping our long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 Brent backwardation spread open; it is up 426.3% since we recommended it on March 23/17. We are recommending a strategic long position in the energy-heavy S&P GSCI basis today's close. Given this commodity index's overweight to oil and refined products, we believe price appreciation will offset negative roll returns until crude markets go into backwardation later this year. We expect WTI and Brent to trade on either side of $60/bbl by year end. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at Southern Copper's Toquepala and Cuajone mines struck Monday seeking higher wages and improved working conditions, according to Metal Report. Front-line copper on the COMEX has been chopping between ~ $2.50/lb and $2.70/lb since the beginning of the year through multiple strike actions. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold rallied slightly, but our long volatility play still is down 14.7%. Markets do not appear to be overly concerned with Fed actions over the next couple of months. Feature There's a long-standing argument among equities investors as to whether they trade the stock market or a market of stocks. In the case of the former, getting long index exposure makes sense. In the case of the latter, stock pickers sensitive to the idiosyncratic risk of individual equities outperform the broad-exposure devotees. Sometimes, both are right at the same time. Commodities are no different. There are times when broad exposure to commodities is warranted - e.g., in the early stages of a global industrial rebound or when investors expect higher inflation. However, there are periods in which sensitivity to idiosyncratic risk reflecting different fundamental states for each market works best. And, as is the case with equities, there are times when both points of view can co-exist without contradiction. The relative performance of commodities vs. equities post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) leaves much to be desired (Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The re-balancing of commodities generally, led by crude oil, but apparent in key base metals like copper, suggests the overall commodity down-cycle - with the exception of ags - has leveled out. Fundamentals - supply, demand and inventories - will be far more important for commodities going forward, particularly as the Fed pursues its rates-normalization policy and markets are slowly weaned off the excessive monetary accommodation they've seen in the post-GFC period. Chart 1ACommodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, ##br##Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse Chart 1BCommodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, ##br##Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse There are two global-macro considerations driving our expectation commodities will outperform the other major asset classes going forward, which we consider below. First, consistent with our House view and recent analysis from our Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) service, we expect higher inflation, which already is being reflected in the forward CPI swaps markets. This could be exacerbated if oil supplies tighten on the back of massive capex cuts following the 2015 - 16 oil-price collapse, and if U.S. fiscal stimulus overheats an economy that already is at or near full capacity and full employment. Second, backwardation in crude oil markets will be a positive development for commodity index products generally, and the energy-heavy S&P GSCI in particular. Together, these fundamentals will provide investors portfolio diversification via non-correlated returns vis-à-vis the other asset classes. Higher Inflation Expectations Support Commodity Index Exposure We have been highlighting the inflationary "tail risks" in commodity markets for a number of months. These include the possibility of 1) higher oil prices after 2018, following the more-than-$1 trillion cuts in oil-and-gas capex in the wake of the 2015 - 16 oil price collapse; and 2) a large injection of fiscal stimulus to the U.S. economy from the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress working with President Trump's White House. The fiscal stimulus could become material next year, revving an economy that is at or near full employment and an output gap at or close to being closed.2 Our colleagues on BCA's GFIS desk note, "underlying U.S. inflation pressures remain strong, particularly given the evidence that conditions in the labor market are getting progressively tighter." While inflationary forces are a bit more subdued in Europe and Japan, our colleagues continue to favor being long CPI swaps in both markets (Chart 2).3 BCA's GFIS expects inflation expectations to rise to a level of ~ 2.5% p.a. on 10-year TIPS breakevens, which are priced off the CPI index. If markets do raise the odds of higher inflation over the medium term, it most likely will continue to show up in the 5-year 5-year (5y5y) CPI Swaps in the U.S. and Europe, which we have found to be cointegrated with 3-year forward WTI futures (Chart 3). The oil market will be especially sensitive to the supply-demand balances after 2018, and will move higher if it senses a supply squeeze from too-little investment in production following the massive cuts to supply-side capex. This will feed into the 5y5y CPI swaps markets, which, in turn, will drive TIPS yields higher. Chart 2Early Days Yet, But ##br##U.S. Inflation Pressures Are Building Chart 3Watch 3-Year Forward WTI Futures ##br##For Early Signs Of Higher Inflation Apart from active commodity positioning, commodity index exposure offers better inflation risk coverage than equities or bonds, as can be seen in Table 1.4 Chart 4 shows the out-performance of the commodity indices, the S&P GSCI in particular, in higher-inflation environments. Table 1Correlations Between Real And Financial Assets Our own modeling supports the academic findings. When we estimated the yoy S&P GSCI returns as a function of U.S. CPI yoy changes and the difference between 1st-nearby WTI futures (CL1) and 12th nearby WTI futures (CL12), we found this specification explained just over 84% of the commodity index's annual returns. Our model indicates the S&P GSCI can be expected to increase in value by close to 15bp for every 1% increase in U.S. CPI (Chart 5). This energy-heavy index - crude oil and refined products comprise more than half of the S&P GSCI - performs much better than the more evenly disbursed Bloomberg Commodity Index (BCI) as an inflation hedge. Chart 4Commodities Outperform In##br## Inflationary Markets Chart 5S&P GSCI Index Exposure ##br##Moves With Inflation Profiting From Backwardation Long-only commodity index products generate returns from three sources: Price appreciation; roll yield - the returns generated by selling and replacing futures contracts approaching their terminal trading date (the expiring contract in the index is sold and replaced by a contract with a deferred delivery); and on the collateral posted to carry positions. An investor with a strong view on prices can express it by getting long or short futures. When an investor wants to express a view on the structure of the market - chiefly the shape of the forward curve and whether it will be backwardated (prompt delivery costs more than deferred delivery), or in contango (prompt delivery costs less than deferred delivery) - they can do so either by trading spreads (buying prompt-delivered contracts vs. selling deferred-delivered contracts, and vice versa) or getting long commodity-index exposure such as the S&P GSCI or Bloomberg Commodity Index (BCI). Typically, long-only commodity-index products largest returns are generated via price appreciation and roll yield, which simply are returns generated by "rolling" the underlying futures contracts in the index as these contracts approach the termination of trading to a deferred month. In a backwardated market, prompt-delivered contracts are sold and replaced with lower-cost contracts. In contango markets the opposite occurs. Indexes with heavy concentrations in futures that are likely to be backwardated for a length of time are preferred to indexes with futures that, on a fundamental basis, are more likely to have a flat or contango term structure. We have been positioning for a backwardation in crude oil later this year for some time. We continue to expect backwardation in crude oil markets, and remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent to express this view. Given the very high concentration of energy exposure in the S&P GSCI index - more than half of the index is crude oil or refined products, according to S&P - this index is best-suited, in our estimation, to benefit from a backwardated oil market.5 Indeed, our modeling, shown in Chart 5, supports our view that backwardation would significantly boost performance in the S&P GSCI index: A 1% increase in the spread between 1st-nearby WTI vs. 12th-nearby WTI contracts likely would translate into gain in the index of slightly more than 1.14%. Bottom Line: We expect higher inflation and backwardation in the oil market later this year. For this reason, we are recommending a long exposure in the energy-heavy S&P GSCI index. Commodities outperform equities and bonds in inflationary markets. In addition, this index's overweight to crude oil and refined products suggests it will outperform when markets backwardate. Given we expect WTI and Brent prices to trade on either side of $60/bbl later this year, we believe price appreciation will offset minor roll-yield losses until markets backwardate. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Exclusive: OPEC futures show oil output cuts exceed pledge in March - sources" published by Reuters.com on April 11, 2017. 2 Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Gold's 'Known Unknowns' And Fat Tails," dated February 23, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Global Fixed Income Strategy weekly Report "The Song Remains The Same," dated April 11, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Bhardwaj, Geetesh, Gary Gorton and Geert Rouwenhorst (2015), "Facts and Fantasies about Commodity Futures Ten Years Later*" published by Yale University. This article updates earlier research and notes, "In the original study we found that commodities had historically offered a risk premium similar to equities, and at the same time would provide diversification to a traditional portfolio of stocks and bonds. What set commodities apart from these traditional assets was their positive correlation with inflation. (Emphasis added.) Here we provide 10 years of additional data. Although a decade is sometimes too short to draw firm conclusions, our-of-sample period is rich because it includes a global economic expansion led by the industrialization of China, a housing boom and bust in the United States, the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, followed by a monetary policy stimulus response which has driven interest rates around the world towards zero. ... Many of the basic conclusions of the original study continue to hold." (p. 22) 5 Please see "WTI Crude Oil Remains On Top As S&P Dow Jones Indices Announces 2017 Weights For The S&P GSCI," at http://ca.spindices.com/indices/commodities/sp-gsci, website for the index. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Trades Closed In 2016

Highlights High Conviction Views: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Medium Conviction Views: Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. Euro Area Bond Distortions: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Feature Chart of the WeekWhy Are Yields Falling? After publishing two Special Reports in the past two weeks, this Weekly Report is our first opportunity to comment on the markets in April. We find it somewhat surprising that government bonds in the developed world have rallied as much as they have since the most recent peak last month, with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund seeing yield declines of -29bps and -22bps, respectively. Most of the move in Treasuries has been in the real yield component, while Bunds have seen a more even split between declines in real yields and inflation expectations. This has occurred despite minimal changes in actual growth or inflation pressures in either the U.S. or Europe (Chart of the Week). The price action in the Treasury market after last week's U.S. Payrolls report is a sign that the bond backdrop remains bearish. Yields initially fell all the way to 2.26% after the March increase in jobs fell short of expectations, before subsequently rebounding sharply to end the day at 2.38%. While intraday yield reversals on Payrolls Fridays are as typical as the sun setting in the west, a 12bp swing is one of the larger ones in recent memory (perhaps because investors eventually noticed the weather-related distortions in the data or, more importantly, that the U.S. unemployment rate had fallen to 4.5%). We continue to favor a pro-growth bias for bond investors, staying below-benchmark on overall duration and selectively overweight on corporate credit (favoring the U.S.). Ranking Our Current Market Views, By Conviction We have seen little in the economic data over the past few weeks to change our main strategic market views and portfolio recommendations. We summarize our main opinions below, ranked in order of our conviction level: Highest conviction views: Below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration exposure (for dedicated bond investors). Global bond yields have more room to rise alongside solid economic growth, tightening labor markets, inflation expectations drifting higher and central banks moving to slightly less accommodative monetary policies, on the margin. While the sharp upward momentum in coincident bond indicators like the global ZEW sentiment index has cooled of late, the solid upturn in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator continues to point to future upward pressure on real yields (Chart 2). The recent pullback in yields also appears to have run too far versus the trend in global data surprises, which remain elevated (bottom panel). One factor that we see having a potentially huge negative impact on global bond markets is the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing a move to a less accommodative policy stance later this year. A taper of asset purchases starting in 2018 is the more likely outcome than any hike in policy interest rates, which we see as more of a story for 2019. This should help push longer-dated bond yields higher within the Euro Area, and drag up global bond yields more generally. Underweight U.S. Treasuries. We still expect the Fed to deliver at least two more hikes this year, and there is still room for U.S. inflation expectations to rise further and put bear-steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. Our two-factor model for the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield, which uses the global purchasing managers index (PMI) and investor sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as the explanatory variables, indicates that yields are now about 18bps below fair value. From a technical perspective, the Treasury market no longer appears as oversold as it did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. The large short positions indicated by the J.P. Morgan duration survey and the Commitment of Traders report for Treasury futures have largely been unwound, while price momentum has flipped into positive territory (Chart 3). This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in Treasury prices, and we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.30%-2.60% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.80%-3% area by year-end. Chart 2Maintain A Defensive Duration Posture Chart 3Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Underweight Italian government bonds, versus both Germany and Spain. Italian government debt continues to suffer from the toxic combination of sluggish growth and weak domestic banks. The OECD leading economic indicator for Italy is declining, in contrast to the stable-to-rising trends in Germany and Spain (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the 5-year credit default swaps (CDS) for the major banks in Italy remain elevated around 400bps, in sharp contrast to the declining CDS in Germany and Spain which are now at 100bps. It is no coincidence that the widening trend in Italy-Germany and Italy-Spain spreads began around the same time last year that Italian bank CDS started to disengage from the rest of Europe (bottom panel). Markets understand that the undercapitalized Italian banking system will need government assistance at some point, which will add to the Italian government's already huge debt/GDP ratio of 133%. Political uncertainty in Italy, with parliamentary elections due by the spring of 2018 and populist parties like the anti-euro Five-Star Alliance holding up well in the polls, will also ensure that the risk premium on Italian bonds stays wide both in absolute terms and relative to other Peripheral European markets. Overweight U.S. corporate bonds, versus both U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area equivalents. The positive case for U.S. corporate debt is built upon two factors - the cyclical decline in default risk and the marginal improvement in balance sheet metrics. The latest estimates from Moody's are calling for a decline in the U.S. speculative grade corporate default rate to 3.1% this year. This leaves our measure of default-adjusted spreads in U.S. high-yield at levels that our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, have shown to have a high probability of delivering positive excess returns over Treasuries in the next 12 months.1 Add to that the recent change in trend of our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), which appears largely driven by some more positive numbers coming from lower-rated issuers in the Energy space given the recovery in oil prices, and the optimistic case for U.S. corporate debt is compelling. This is in contrast to our Euro Area CHM, which shows that the improving trend in balance sheet metrics has stalled of late (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Stay Underweight Italy Chart 5Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates vs Europe The difference between the U.S. and European CHMs has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative return performance between the two markets, and is currently pointing to continued outperformance of both U.S. investment grade and high-yield debt versus European equivalents (bottom two panels). The threat of an ECB taper also hangs over the Euro Area investment grade corporate bond market, given the large buying of that debt by the central bank over the past year that has helped dampen both yields and spreads. Chart 6Stay Overweight Inflation Protection Medium-conviction views: Overweight inflation protection (both inflation-linked bonds and CPI swaps) in the U.S., Euro Area and Japan. In the U.S., the breakeven inflation rate on 10-year TIPS looks a bit too wide relative to our shorter-term model based on financial variables. However, underlying U.S. inflation pressures remain strong (Chart 6, top panel), particularly given the evidence that conditions in the labor market are getting progressively tighter. We expect inflation expectations to eventually rise back to levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target on headline PCE inflation (which is around 2.5% on 10-year TIPS breakevens that are priced off the CPI index). The reflation story is somewhat less compelling in Europe and Japan, although CPI swaps are now at levels consistent with the underlying trends in realized inflation in both regions (bottom two panels). We continue to view long positions in CPI swaps in Europe and Japan as having a positive risk/reward skew given the tightening labor market in the former and the yen-negative monetary policies in the latter. Long France government bonds (10yr OATs) versus Germany (10yr Bunds). This is purely a call on the upcoming French election, which our political strategists believe will not end in a victory for the populist Marine Le Pen. While Le Pen has seen a recent bump in support heading into the first round of voting on April 23rd, her strong anti-euro position will eventually prove to be her undoing in the run-off election on May 7th (Chart 7). We first made this recommendation back in early February, and even though France-Germany spreads have been volatile since then as both Le Pen and the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon have seen a pickup in their poll numbers, the yield differentials are essentially at the same levels.2 We take this as a sign that the market believes current spreads are enough to compensate for the likely probability that either candidate could win the French presidency. Overweight JGBs Vs. the Global Treasury index. The argument here is a simple one - in an environment where there is cyclical upward pressure on global bond yields, favor the lowest-beta bond market (Chart 8). Persistently low inflation will prevent the Bank of Japan (BoJ) from making any changes to its current hyper-accommodative policies this year, especially the 0% cap on the benchmark 10-year JGB yield.3 The lack of yield limits the prospects for JGBs on a total return basis, but relative to other government bond markets, JGBs should outperform over the next 6-12 months as non-Japanese yields rise further. Chart 7Stay Overweight France Vs Germany Chart 8Stay Overweight Low-Beta JGBs Underweight U.S. Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Investors should remain underweight U.S. MBS, as spreads remain tight by historical standards. Our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy note that nominal MBS spreads have been flat in recent weeks as the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, has tightened to offset a widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS).4 Chart 9Stay Underweight U.S. MBS We tend to think of the OAS as being influenced by trends in net issuance while the option cost is linked to mortgage prepayments (Chart 9). Looking ahead, the supply of MBS should increase further when the Fed starts to shrink its balance sheet later this year (as was mentioned in the minutes of the March FOMC meeting that were released last week), leading to a wider OAS. At the same time, refinancing applications should stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise. This will keep downward pressure on the option cost component of spreads. But with the option cost already near its historical lows, it is unlikely to completely offset the widening in OAS going forward. We see little value in U.S. MBS at current spread levels. Bottom Line: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. How Much Has The ECB Distorted The European Bond Market? Last week, Benoit Coeure of the ECB Executive Board gave a speech entitled "Bond Scarcity and the ECB Asset Purchase Program."5 That title piqued our interest, as that exact topic has come up in several of our conversations with clients this year. In his speech, Coeure discussed how the huge rally at the short-end of the German government bond curve over the past year has been at odds with what has occurred in the Euro swap curve, where interest rates are much higher for shorter-maturity swaps. Typically, German yields and Euro swap rates move in tandem, with the only differences being a function of technical factors like fixed-rate corporate debt issuance or government bond repo rates - and, on occasion, shifts in the perceived health of Euro Area banks that are the counterparties to any interest rate swap. The latter has become much less of an issue in recent years given the regulatory changes to the swap market, where trading has moved to centralized exchanges to reduce counterparty risks. In this environment, the difference between German bond yields and Euro swap rates, a.k.a the swap spread, should be relatively modest. Yet as can be seen in Chart 10, there has been a notable divergence at the shorter-maturity portions of the respective yield curves, where swap rates are rising but bond yields remain subdued. We can also see the divergences in the slopes of the relative yield curves, with the Euro Area swap curve much flatter than the German bond curve, particularly at longer maturities (Chart 11). Chart 10Large Distortions At The Front End Of The German Curve Chart 11Euro Area Swap Curves Are Generally Flatter Coeure argued that part of this distortion can be attributed to ECB asset purchases, especially after the decision taken last December to allow bond buying at yields below the -0.4% ECB deposit rate. This created a more favorable demand/supply balance for German debt, especially given the dearth of short-dated issuance. In addition, Coeure noted that there have been substantial safe-haven flows into shorter-dated German bonds (including treasury bills) by non-Euro Area entities. Some of this demand comes from large institutional investors like sovereign wealth funds and currency reserve managers, who are worried about political risks in France and Italy, and about the general rising trend in global bond yields, and are thus seeking the safety of low duration German debt. But some of the demand for short-dated German paper also comes from non-Euro Area banks, who have excess liquidity that needs to be parked in Euros but do not have access to the ECB deposit facility for the excess reserves of Euro Area banks. We can see this in Chart 12, which shows ECB data for the relative government bond ownership trends for Germany, France and Italy. The data is broken into holdings for bonds with maturities of one year or less (short-term) and bonds with maturities greater than one year (long-term). It is clear that the non-Euro area buyers own a much larger share of short-term German paper, around 90%, than in France and Italy, while Euro Area entities own nearly 80% of long-term bonds in all three countries. Coeure is correct in pointing out that there is an excess demand condition for short-dated core European debt, exacerbated by foreigners who need Euro-denominated safe assets - particularly GERMAN safe assets, if those investors are at all worried about redenomination risks given the rise of anti-euro populist parties in Europe.6 It is clear that the economic messages sent by looking at the German bond and Euro swap curves are very different. The flatter swap curve is more consistent with a steadily growing Euro Area economy where economic slack is being steadily absorbed and inflation pressures are building (albeit slowly). Also, the sovereign spread differentials within Europe do not look as problematic using swaps as the reference rate rather than German bonds. That is the case in France, where spreads versus swaps look in line with the averages of the past few years (Chart 13). This contrasts with the yield differentials versus Germany, which have reportedly gone up as investors have priced in a higher sovereign risk premium before the French presidential election. Chart 12French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 13French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps The story is a little different for Italy, where bond spreads versus both German bonds and Euro Area swaps have risen for all but the shortest maturities (Chart 14). This could be consistent with an interpretation that Italy's banking sector woes will add to the nation's longer-term fiscal stresses (as discussed earlier in this report), but not in a way that raises immediate default risks (which is why the 2-year Italy vs swap spread is well-behaved). Regardless of the "bias of interpretation", one thing that is clear is that the ECB's extraordinary monetary policies have created distortions in Euro Area bond markets. These may start to unwind, though, if the ECB begins to signal a shift towards a tapering of asset purchases next year, as we expect. The distortions in Euro area government bond yields (and, by association, swap spreads) have occurred alongside both the cuts in ECB policy rates into negative territory and the expansion of its balance sheet to purchase government bonds (Chart 15). As the ECB moves incrementally towards less accommodative monetary policy, we would expect to see front-end Euro swap spreads narrow in absolute terms and relative to longer-tenor spreads, and the German bond curve to flatten toward levels seen in the swap curve. Chart 14Only Short-Dated Italian Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 15ECB Policies Have Caused The Distortions In Euro Swap Spreads Bottom Line: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2017/html/sp170403_1.en.html 6 Coeure noted that, at the time that the ECB began its asset purchase program in March 2015, the share of German bonds of less than TWO years maturity held by foreigners was 70%, but that rose to 90% by the 3rd quarter of 2016. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. Fed's Balance Sheet: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Credit Cycle: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Feature The bond bear market has been on pause for the past few months, with Treasury yields confined to a trading range since last November's post-election sell off. While yields have not moved meaningfully higher during this time, firm floors have also formed beneath both the 5-year and 10-year yields (Chart 1). Even after last Friday's disappointing payrolls number, the 10-year did not move below 2.3% and the 5-year did not move below 1.8%. Trading Range About To Break? Our sense is that the current consolidation phase in Treasuries is approaching its end and yields will soon head higher. Global growth indicators have continued to improve during the past few months, and as we noted in last week's report,1 our 2-factor Treasury model, based on Global PMI and U.S. dollar sentiment, pegs fair value for the 10-year yield at 2.54%. We attribute the recent leveling-off in yields to technical shifts in bond positioning and sentiment. Earlier this year, net positions in Treasury futures and asset manager duration allocations were deep in "net short" territory (Chart 2). Extreme short positioning usually leads to a period of bond market strength until short positions are washed out. Now that bond market positioning is closer to neutral, a key impediment to further yield increases has been removed. Chart 1Poised For A Breakout? Chart 2Positioning Has Normalized The elevated level of economic surprises has also been flagged as a potential roadblock to the bond bear market. Extended readings from the economic surprise index tend to mean revert as investor expectations are revised higher in the face of improving data. However, our research suggests that the change in Treasury yields tends to lead the economic surprise index by 1-2 months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Given this relationship, we suspect that the bond market has already discounted a lot of mean reversion in the economic surprise index. Chart 3Approaching Full Employment Finally, last week's employment report should not be taken as a signal that U.S. economic growth is weakening. Bad weather in the northeast played a key role in the low March payrolls number - only 98k jobs added. But more importantly, at this stage of the cycle we should expect payroll growth to slow and wage pressures to increase as we approach full employment. As can be seen in Chart 3, the late cycle trends of slowing payroll growth and rising wages are very much in place. Further, even broad measures of labor market tightness, such as the U6 unemployment rate,2 are quickly approaching levels that suggest the economy is operating at full employment. Increasingly it is measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation that will guide the Fed's decision making, and these measures continue to improve. It was even noted in the minutes from the March FOMC meeting that "tight labor markets [are] increasingly a factor in businesses' planning". The minutes also reported that: Business contacts in many Districts reported difficulty recruiting workers and indicated that they had to either offer higher wages or hire workers with lower qualifications than desired Accordingly, surveys show that households are increasingly describing jobs as "plentiful" (Chart 3, panel 3) and small businesses are indeed ramping up their compensation plans (Chart 3, bottom panel). At this stage of the cycle, continued progress on measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation will be sufficient for the Fed to continue lifting rates, pushing Treasury yields higher. Bottom Line: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. The Fed Will Shrink Its Balance Sheet This Year Last week's release of the minutes from the March FOMC meeting also contained some new information about how the Fed plans to deal with its large balance sheet. To summarize, we learned that: The Fed intends to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year (assuming growth maintains its current pace). The Fed will shrink its balance sheet by ceasing the reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. Still no decision has been made about whether reinvestments will stop entirely or whether they will be phased out over time ("tapered"). On February 28, we published a detailed report about the Fed's balance sheet policy.3 In that report we explained why the winding down of the balance sheet will not have much of an impact on Treasury yields, but could lead to a material widening in MBS spreads. The new information received last week does not change either of these conclusions. The minutes did make clear that the Fed favors what Governor Lael Brainard recently called a "subordination strategy" for dealing with its balance sheet.4 [A subordination strategy] would prioritize the federal funds rate as the sole active tool away from the effective lower bound, effectively subordinating the balance sheet. Once federal funds normalization meets the test of being well under way, triggering an end to the current reinvestment policy, the balance sheet would be set on autopilot, shrinking in a gradual, predictable way until a "new normal" has been reached, and then increasing in line with trend increases in the demand for currency thereafter. Under this strategy, the balance sheet might be used as an active tool only if adverse shocks push the economy back to the effective lower bound. Essentially, the Fed is trying to de-emphasize the size of the balance sheet and would rather investors focus on the fed funds rate to assess the stance of monetary policy. For our part, we think it would be unwise to "fight the Fed" on this issue. For Treasury yields, we observe that the real 10-year Treasury yield closely tracks changes in the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months, while the inflation component of the 10-year yield tracks changes in realized inflation (Chart 4). These two relationships will continue to determine trends in bond yields going forward, and Fed balance sheet shrinkage is only important if it impacts the expected pace of rate hikes or inflation. The Fed's "subordination strategy" should ensure that the act of winding down the balance sheet does not have much of an impact on the expected pace of rate hikes. Ironically, if Treasury yields were to rise sharply following the announcement of balance sheet runoff, then the ensuing tightening of financial conditions would probably lower the expected pace of rate hikes and bring Treasury yields back down again. The story for MBS is somewhat different. Nominal MBS spreads remain tight by historical standards and closely track implied interest rate volatility (Chart 5). But we can also think of nominal MBS spreads as being split between the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, and the option-adjusted spread (OAS), which tends to correlate with net supply (Chart 5, panel 2). Chart 4Focus On Rate Expectations Chart 5Stay Underweight MBS In recent weeks, the OAS has widened alongside rising net issuance, but this has been offset by a sharp decline in the option cost. This is generally the pattern we would expect to play out as the Fed lifts rates and removes itself from the MBS market. The increased supply of MBS should lead to wider OAS, but refinancing applications should also stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise (Chart 5, bottom panel). However, netting it all out, the option cost component of MBS spreads is already near its historical lows and the OAS could move materially wider just to catch up to net issuance. In prior reports,5 we have also made the case that rate volatility should rise as the fed funds rate moves further away from the zero-lower-bound. Investors should stay underweight MBS. Bottom Line: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Checking In On The Credit Cycle We continue to recommend overweight allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. This optimistic outlook is predicated on low inflation and a Fed that will support risk assets by remaining sufficiently accommodative until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. We think this "reflationary window" will stay open at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range.6 Behind the scenes, however, leverage is building in the nonfinancial corporate sector. In this week's report we take a look at several different indicators of corporate credit quality and conclude that once the support from low inflation and accommodative monetary policy vanishes, it is very likely that corporate defaults will start to increase and corporate spreads will widen. If our anticipated timeline plays out, we will be looking to scale back on credit risk in 2018. Corporate Health Vs. The Yield Curve Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, see Appendix for further details) has been signaling deteriorating nonfinancial corporate health since late 2013 (Chart 6), and moved even deeper into 'deteriorating health' territory in Q4 of last year. Chart 6Corporate Health Is Deteriorating, But Monetary Policy Remains Supportive Periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory are marked by shaded regions in Chart 6. We see that these regions usually correspond with periods when corporate spreads are widening. Even in the current episode, corporate spreads have yet to regain their mid-2014 tights. However, the bottom panel of Chart 6 shows that periods of deteriorating corporate health and wider corporate spreads are typically preceded by a very flat (often inverted) yield curve. This makes sense because a flat yield curve usually signals that interest rates are high and monetary policy is tight. Tight policy and elevated rates lead to more stringent bank lending standards and increase firms' interest burdens. With the curve still quite steep, we think the risk of sustained spread widening is minimal. However, if the CHM is still above zero when the yield curve is flatter, no support will remain for excess corporate bond returns. Net Leverage & The Payback Period We would further argue that the CHM will almost certainly be in 'deteriorating health' territory once the yield curve is close to flat. In Chart 7 we see that net leverage (defined as: total debt minus cash, as a percent of EBITD) is not only positively correlated with spreads, but also has never reversed its uptrend unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. Chart 7The Uptrend In Leverage Will Only Be Broken By Recession Closer inspection of Chart 7 reveals that the period between 1986 and 1989 is the only period when corporate spreads tightened even though leverage remained in an uptrend. In the late 1980s, leverage and corporate spreads both shot higher as a collapse in the energy sector caused overall corporate earnings to contract (Chart 7, bottom panel). But then the energy sector recovered just as quickly, and earnings growth bounced back. This caused spreads to tighten for a couple of years, even though the trend in net leverage only ever managed to flatten-off. Debt growth stayed robust during this time, despite the wild fluctuations in earnings. If any of this sounds familiar, it should. The energy sector collapse of 2014 caused net leverage and spreads to shoot higher, and now spreads have started to tighten again as earnings have rebounded. Notice that just like in the late-1980s, net leverage has not reversed its uptrend. We believe that corporate spreads have entered a "payback period" very similar to the late 1980s. Spreads can tighten as earnings rebound, but because the economy is not in recession, debt growth will remain solid and leverage will continue to trend higher. Once inflationary pressures start to bite and Fed policy becomes less accommodative, the payback period will end and spreads will head wider. Debt Growth Chart 8Bond Issuance Is Back Although we have made the case that the corporate sector does not delever unless prompted by a recession, it is notable that net corporate bond issuance was negative in Q4 of last year and the growth rate in bank lending to the corporate sector has slowed sharply. We do not think this cycle is different, and expect corporate debt growth (both bonds and loans) to rebound in the coming months. We chalk up weak corporate bond issuance in 2016Q4 to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election. In fact, we see that gross corporate bond issuance has already rebounded strongly in January and February of this year (Chart 8). Turning to bank loans, we observe that the outright level of outstanding bank loans only contracts following a recession, and that the rate of increase follows bank lending standards with a lag (Chart 9). In other words, Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loan growth is still responding to the surge in defaults that resulted from the energy sector's 2014 collapse. Now that defaults have waned, this process will soon be thrown into reverse. In fact, our model of the 6-month rate of change in C&I lending - based on private non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and corporate defaults - points to an imminent bottoming in C&I loan growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Loan Growth Follows Lending Standards Chart 10BCA C&I Loan Growth Model Bottom Line: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Ratings Trends & Shareholder Friendly Activities Chart 11Shareholder Friendly Activity Has Ebbed Our assessment of the cyclical back-drop for corporate spreads is primarily based on the combination of balance sheet quality - as determined by our Corporate Health Monitor and its underlying components - and the stance of monetary policy - as determined by the slope of the yield curve and C&I lending standards (among other factors). However, ratings migration and "shareholder friendly" activities have also historically provided advance notice of turns in the credit cycle. Net transfers to shareholders, i.e. payments to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks, are a direct transfer of capital from bondholders to equityholders. These transfers tend to rise late in the cycle, just before defaults start to increase and spreads start to widen (Chart 11). Net transfers to shareholders had been moving higher, but have recently rolled over. Similarly, ratings downgrades related to shareholder transfers have also moderated (Chart 11, panel 2). Historically, ratings migration related to "shareholder friendly" activities has been a more reliable indicator of the credit cycle than overall ratings migration. It has tended to move into "net downgrade" territory later in the cycle, closer to the onset of recession (Chart 11, panel 3). Ratings trends and transfers to shareholders are not flagging any imminent risk of spread widening. However, there is the additional risk that downgrades have simply not kept pace with the actual deterioration in credit quality of the nonfinancial corporate sector. Using firm-level data, we calculated the percent of high-yield rated companies with net debt-to-EBITDA ratios above 5. We see that actual ratings migration is too low relative to the number of highly-levered firms (Chart 11, bottom panel). It is possible that ratings agencies have already incorporated the rebound in energy prices and profit growth into their assessments while the actual debt-to-EBITDA data are lagging, but this is still a risk that bears monitoring. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Reflation Window Still Open", dated April 4, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The U6 unemployment rate is a broader measure than the headline (U3) unemployment rate. It also includes those "marginally attached" to the labor force and those working part-time for economic reasons. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170301a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 12Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole (Chart 12). These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Portfolio Strategy Any meaningful weakness in the U.S. dollar could accelerate the budding recovery in corporate revenue growth after a multiyear malaise. Following this year's underperformance, lift the industrials sector to neutral via an upgrade in machinery stocks. The recent jump in auto parts stocks is a selling opportunity. Recent Changes S&P Industrial Machinery - Boost to overweight from underweight. S&P Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks - Lift to neutral from underweight. S&P Industrials Sector - Remove from high conviction underweight and augment to neutral. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Consolidation remains the dominant tactical market theme. The question is whether momentum behind the cyclical advance will fade at the same time? Our sense is that the overshoot will reassert itself once the corrective phase has run its course. Two weeks ago we updated a number of qualitative factors that suggested that a major market peak had not yet arrived, even though the rally is approaching retirement age and valuations are full. Other variables concur. For instance, while cash holdings are being depleted, they are not yet running on empty, gauging from survey data or depicted as a share of total market capitalization. Surprisingly, there are still a large number of bearish individual investors (Chart 1). Thus, drawing sidelined cash back into stocks at current stretched valuations and with buoyant expectations requires a resumption of top-line growth. Revenue growth has been conspicuously absent throughout the past few years of the bull market. Companies have supported per share profits through cost cutting and aggressive share buybacks, typically funded through debt issuance. Sustaining high valuations without reinvesting for growth is hard enough, but it becomes an even more onerous task without top-line expansion. There is room for cautious optimism. Deflation pressures have abated, and companies are enjoying a modest pricing power revival. As outlined in our regular industry group pricing power updates, the majority of sectors and industries are now able to lift selling prices, and an increasing number are able to keep pace with overall inflation. Our pricing power proxy has moved decisively back into positive territory (Chart 2), following a pattern typically reserved for when the economy exits recession. Even deflation in the chronically challenged retailing sector is ebbing. Chart 1Bears Still Have A Little Cash Chart 2Revenue Revival Importantly, both core inflation and inflation expectations remain well below the zone that would cause the Fed to tighten more aggressively than is currently expected (Chart 3). If financial conditions remain relatively easy, then business activity should stay sufficiently brisk to foster further pricing power improvement, i.e. a return to deflation is unlikely. The readings from both the ISM services and manufacturing sectors, and firming business confidence (Chart 2), indicate brighter revenue opportunities. The pickup in world trade volumes implies that goods and services are flowing more freely than they have for several years, and provided protectionist policies do not gain traction, a rebound in global growth should be supportive of total business sales. We doubt there is a vigorous top-line thrust ahead given that potential GDP growth around the world is limited, but modest growth is probable. If the U.S. dollar were to weaken substantially, especially if it occurred within the context of better economic growth abroad, then revenue upside would increase. Chart 4 shows that S&P 500 sales advanced significantly after the last two major U.S. dollar bull markets peaked. Chart 3The Fed Still Has Latitude Chart 4A Top-Line Boom ##br##Requires Dollar Depreciation In sum, the sales outlook has brightened, which is critical to absorbing the increase in labor costs and cushioning the profit margin squeeze. If investors begin to factor in sales-driven earnings growth, rather than buyback and cost cutting-dependent improvement, then it is plausible that the overshoot in stocks will be extended for a while longer. As outlined in recent weeks, the easing in the U.S. dollar allows for some selective bargain hunting in the lagging deep cyclical sectors, which have underperformed this year. This week we are prospecting in the industrials sector. The Wheels Are Turning: Upgrade Machinery Machinery stocks have been stronger than we anticipated. It is doubtful that an underweight position will pay off even if the broad market stays in a corrective phase. Many of the sales and earnings drags on the broad machinery industry, which comprises both industrial machinery and construction machinery & heavy trucks indexes, are lifting. Our primary concerns had been that the overhang from a lack of resource-related investment and a strong U.S. dollar would undermine sales performance (Chart 5). The former may not change much given poor resource balance sheet health, but the U.S. dollar has stopped appreciating. The currency bull market may have gone on extended hiatus if foreign growth continues to improve and the recent disappointing U.S. labor market report was the beginning of a period of economic cooling, as we expect. Despite the resilience of relative share performance, the machinery group is not overpriced based on a normalized relative forward P/E basis (Chart 5). A move to above average valuations requires an acceleration in relative profits. The objective message from our models has turned upbeat. Our Global Capital Spending Indicator has climbed back into positive territory. That primarily reflects the firming in global purchasing manager's surveys. G3 capital goods order momentum has not yet pushed above zero, but should soon recover based on our model (Chart 6). Chart 5Two Drags, But... Chart 6... Other Engines Are Revving Developing economies may soon participate to a greater degree, if the budding turnaround in long moribund Chinese loan demand gains traction (Chart 6). While China has begun to target a cooler housing market, the improvement in overall credit demand should provide an important offset. Other developing countries are easing policy and trying to spur growth, which should help machinery consumption. When global output growth recovers, machinery demand tends to demonstrate its high beta characteristics. Chart 6 shows that our global, excluding the U.S., machinery new orders proxy has jumped sharply in recent months, consistent with our global machinery exports proxy (Chart 6). While the previously strong U.S. dollar threatened to divert this demand to non-U.S. competitors, the playing field has leveled: U.S. machinery new orders have accelerated. The revival in coal prices is a major plus, given that the coal industry is a key source of domestic machinery demand (Chart 7, second panel). The new order jump, especially compared with inventories, bodes well for additional strength in machinery output (Chart 7, middle panel). Faster production should further propel our productivity proxy, which already suggests analyst earnings upgrades lie ahead (Chart 7). Better machinery sales prospects will add to the productivity gains already evident from cost control and capacity restraint. Chart 8 shows that machinery companies have had a clear focus on profit margin preservation. Headcount continues to contract, while inventories at both the wholesale and manufacturing levels are lean. Chart 7New Order Recovery Chart 8Lean There is corroborating evidence of tight supplies, as machinery selling prices are climbing anew even though factory utilization rates are not far off their lows (Chart 8). If demand strength persists, then additional pricing power upside is probable. All of this argues for making a full shift from underweight to overweight in the S&P industrial machinery group. This full upgrade does not extend to the S&P construction machinery & heavy trucks sub-component. Heavy truck sales are very weak, and the outlook for agriculture and food prices is shaky. Food commodity prices remain depressed (Chart 9), which will limit agricultural spending budgets. There is a high correlation between raw food price inflation and relative forward earnings estimates. Moreover, we remain skeptical that the resource industry is about to embark on a major expansion. Instead, only maintenance capital spending is probable, which is not conducive to driving a meaningful increase in construction machinery demand. It is notable that Caterpillar's machine sales to dealers continue to contract throughout most regions of the world. As such, chronic pricing power pressure will persist, keeping relative forward earnings under wraps (Chart 9). In sum, we are shifting our industrial machinery recommendation from underweight to overweight, to reflect the hiatus in the U.S. dollar bull market and firming in other leading top-line growth indicators. The S&P construction machinery & heavy trucks index only warrants an upgrade to neutral. These allocation changes argue for removing the overall industrials sector from our high-conviction underweight list, protecting the profit that accrued from year-to-date underperformance. From an industrials sector standpoint, it has paid to be skeptical of extrapolating the scale of the surge in leading sentiment indicators, such as capital spending intentions. However, enough evidence has now materialized to expect that the contraction in industrials sector relative forward earnings momentum should soon draw to a close. Core durable goods orders recently returned to growth territory, supporting the budding upturn in our Cyclical Macro Indicator (Chart 10). Both herald profit stabilization. Pricing power has rebounded, although capital goods import prices are still deflating, albeit at a lesser rate. Chart 9A Laggard Chart 10Our Models Have Perked Up Importantly, U.S. export price inflation is no longer lagging the rest of the world, suggesting that the U.S. manufacturers are regaining competitiveness (Chart 10). The upshot is that deflationary pressures are easing. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P industrial machinery index to overweight and the S&P construction machinery & heavy trucks index to neutral. We are also taking the industrials sector off of our high-conviction underweight list and raising allocations to neutral, partially to protect against a continued lateral move in the U.S. dollar. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index are: BLBG: S5CSTF-CAT, PCAR, CMI. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P industrial machinery index are: BLBG: S5INDM-ITW, IR, PH, SWK, FTV, DOV, PNR, SNA, XYL, FLS. Auto Components: Engine Trouble While we are upbeat on the broad consumer discretionary index and recently augmented restaurants to overweight, the niche S&P auto components index remains in the underweight column. Is such bearishness still warranted, especially following recent signs of life in share prices? The short answer is yes. Vehicle sales have plateaued and are unlikely to reaccelerate because pent-up demand has been fully exhausted and auto credit is harder to come by. Banks have started tightening the screws on auto loans. Auto loan delinquency rates are hooking up and charge-off rates have been rising sequentially since Q2/2016 according to the latest FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile. That reflects previous lax lending standards, especially in the sub-prime category. As credit availability dries up, auto loan growth will continue to deteriorate. Chart 11 shows that subprime auto loan originations have an excellent track record in leading light vehicle sales, given that they represent the marginal buyer. Moreover, rising interest rates are also denting affordability (Chart 11, bottom panel). All of this suggests low odds of renewed strength in vehicle demand. The last time vehicle sales flat-lined was in the middle of the last decade, from 2003 to 2007, share prices underperformed reflecting a relative valuation squeeze (Chart 11). Importantly, deflation has taken root in the auto industry and will likely intensify in the coming months. Auto factories are reasonably quiet, in sharp contrast with the recovery in overall industrial production (Chart 12). Chart 11Tighter Auto Loan Standards... Chart 12... Will Sustain Deflationary Forces The auto shipments-to-inventories ratio is probing multi-decade lows and car parts inventories both at the retail and manufacturing levels are beginning to pile up (Chart 13). Without a resurgence in vehicle sales, inventory liquidation pressures will rise, reinforcing the deflationary impulse and warning that industry earnings will likely underwhelm. Moreover, used car prices have nosedived. Used car prices tend to lead new car price inflation (Chart 12). Recent anecdotes of cutthroat competition in dealerships, with massive incentives failing to turn around sales, signal that deflation along the supply chain will likely become entrenched. Finally, international sales are unlikely to fill in the domestic void. Emerging markets (ex-China) automobile sales have been contracting, heralding an underperformance phase for the S&P auto components index (Chart 14, top panel). Chart 13Too Much Supply Chart 14No Global Relief There could be a respite if the U.S. dollar weakens substantially (Chart 14, second panel), but historically high relative valuations warn that optimism has already run ahead of the cloudy earnings outlook (Chart 14, bottom panel). Adding it up, auto demand will remain uninspiring as banks tighten their grip on auto loan lending standards, industry deflation is gaining steam owing to inventory accumulation, and there is no sizeable offset from foreign sales. This is recipe for an underweight position. Bottom Line: We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P auto components index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P 1500 auto components index are: DLPH, GT, BWA, GNTX, DAN, DORM, LCII, CTB, CPS, THRM, AXL, FOXF, SMP, MPAA, SUP. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Special Report

Highlights Small caps have not consistently outperformed large caps. However, the cyclical nature of small-cap relative performance may provide tactical timing opportunities. Index methodology plays a very important role in the behavior of small-cap performance. Currently, we recommend being neutral on size in a balanced global equity portfolio because risk/reward between small and large caps is balanced, and because GAA is overweight cyclicals versus defensives, a similar play but with a better risk/reward profile. Feature The Academic Evidence On Size Premium In academic research, the size premium, or the outperformance of small-cap common stocks relative to large-cap common stocks, has been calculated mostly based on the difference between the return of the smallest cap portfolio and that of the largest cap portfolio. Since the first academic paper that "discovered" the "size premium" in 1981, by Rolf Banz of the University of Chicago,1 a great deal of research has been devoted to this subject, both for and against the validity of the size premium.2 Table 1 comes from Asness et al.3 It summarizes the statistics of monthly size premium over time using the two most widely used zero-cost portfolio approaches to capture the returns to size. 1) The "small minus big" (SMB) stock factor return of Fama and French:4 the average return of three small portfolios minus the average return of three large portfolios obtained from Ken French's website;5 and 2) the return spread between size-sorted and market cap-weighted decile portfolios. The universe is all the stocks listed on the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ, including delisted securities from the CRSP (Center for Research in Security Prices) database. Table 1Size Premium Over Time* The size premium is statistically significant at the 5% level with a t-stat of 2.27 for SMB and 2.32 for D1-D10 for the full sample period from 19266 to 2012;7 However, most of the size premium comes from January, while in the rest of the year the size return is economically and statistically not different from zero; The size premium was not always positive over time, as evidenced during the period 1980-1999 when small cap suffered a 20-year underperformance right after the size premium was "discovered" in 1981. Compared to SMB, the more extreme approach, Decile 1 minus Decile 10, has produced a larger positive size premium (as well as a larger negative size premium in periods of underperformance), suggesting that micro caps, the most volatile segment of the market, may have a significant impact on the overall size premium. However, for non-quant practitioners, especially asset allocators, the portfolio approaches used in academic research may not be practical. In this report, we will study a series of small cap and large cap benchmark indexes in the U.S. and globally that are commonly used by practitioners to shed some light on the size premium and how it can be harvested, if it indeed exists. Not All Small-Cap Indexes Are Created Equal, Even In The U.S. There is no definitive definition of small cap. The general consensus is that it refers to companies with market value between US$300 and US$2 billion in the U.S., while in other markets this may vary. In the U.S., the first small-cap index, the Russell 2000 (R2K), was created in 1984, after the size premium was discovered in 1981 by Rolf Banz. While Banz was not sure if size per se was responsible for the effect or if size was just a proxy for one or more true unknown factors correlated with size, Fama and French published their ground breaking work in 19926 and 19934 confirming the existence of size and value factors. Then in 1994 the S&P launched its own small-cap index, the S&P 600. Chart 1U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence Chart 1 shows that the performance of these two indexes has been quite different even though they have been highly correlated. Since December 1994, the S&P 600 has outperformed the R2K by about 50%-about 2% per year on a compound basis. From 1980 to 1994, however, the back-calculated8 S&P 600 significantly underperformed the R2K. So what has contributed to such significant performance difference between these two U.S. small-cap indexes? The answer may lie in the different methodologies used in constructing them. Different Universe And Size Distribution: FTSE Russell9 and S&P Dow Jones10 use different eligibilitFy conditions to define their respective universes for the U.S. equity market. Russell 3000 (R3K) contains the 3000 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. by market cap. The smallest 2000 names go into the R2K, which currently accounts for about 8% of the R3K by market cap weight.11 The S&P 1500 contains the 1500 largest names, also by market cap, with the S&P 600 being the smallest 600 of these names, which account for less than 3.5% of the S&P 1500. Even though the stated target market-cap range is US$30 million to US$2 billion for the R2K, and US$450 million to US$2.1 billion for the S&P 600, respectively, currently about 50% and 40% of the companies in the R2K and the S&P 600 respectively have a market cap over US$2 billion, as shown in Chart 2. The R2K even has 25% over US$3 billion, about 15% more than the S&P 600. Different Sector Compositions: Both indexes' sector composition has evolved over the years due to changes in the economy and financial markets. Their current sector compositions are shown in Table 2. Most notably, the S&P 600 has higher weights in industrials and consumer discretionary, while R2K has higher weights in technology, financials, real estate and utilities. Chart 2U.S. Small-Cap Index Market Cap Distribution Table 2Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Global Small Caps Have Not Consistently Outperformed Large Caps MSCI also produces small-cap indexes for each country. According to the MSCI Global Investable Markets Index methodology,12 the size cut-off for each size segment needs to be a balance between the minimum size requirement and the target coverage range, in addition to other requirements such as liquidity and free float. As shown in Table 3, large caps comprise the top 70% of the investable universe, mid caps the next 15%, and small caps a further 14%. As of October 2016, the market-cap range for the DM small-cap index is from US$527 million to US$5 billion, and about half that for the EM small-cap index. Table 3MSCI Size Cut-Offs* MSCI indexes apply the same rules to all markets, which aids the global comparison analysis. Unfortunately, MSCI indexes have very short histories. Chart 3 shows the relative performance of small caps vs. large caps based on the MSCI indexes, and also local exchange indexes (where available). All panels are rebased to 1 as of March 2009 when the S&P 500 reached its low during the most recent financial crisis. The shaded areas are U.S. recession periods as defined by NBER. Several observations from Chart 3: U.S., U.K. and Japan have relatively long histories for the small-cap indexes. Based on the three countries' local indexes, small caps have barely outperformed large caps over the full history available; From the index inceptions until 1999, small-cap indexes broadly underperformed large caps in the U.S., U.K. and Japan, in line with the findings of the academic research shown in Table 1; Since 2000, however, small caps have outperformed large caps in most countries (in line with the academic findings shown in Table 1) with the exception of Canada and Australia, which both have extremely skewed sector composition. As shown in Table 4, a bet on Canadian small caps vs. large caps is essentially a bet on materials, real estate and industrials versus financials and telecoms; In the most recent cycle from March 2009, small-cap outperformance has been most prominent outside the U.S., especially in the U.K. and euro area. This might be due to the fact that the U.S. is the most academically researched market and that most small-cap funds are U.S. oriented. In the U.S., the MSCI and the S&P small-cap indexes have performed better than the Russell indexes, which is likely due to the fact that Russell does not have a midcap segment, with both the R2K and R1K including stocks that would elsewhere be classified as mid caps. Table 4Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Drivers Of Small/Large Cap Performance Even though small-cap stocks have not consistently outperformed large-cap stocks over the long run, Chart 3 indicates that the relative performance does have cycles, which may provide tactical opportunities for investors. In line with our investment approach across all asset classes, we try to identify the key factors that drive the relative performance of small caps versus large caps based on economic fundamentals, valuation metrics, and technical conditions. Economic Conditions: Compared to large-cap companies, small-cap firms are usually smaller-scale enterprises with a more domestic focus and less tried-and-tested business models. On average, they have less predictable cash flows, lower profit margins and lower credit ratings. As such, their ability to withstand hard times is lower, while their likelihood to prosper in good times is higher. Chart 4 (panel 1) shows that the rate of change in the small/large cap performance ratio has a good correlation with the PMI, indicating that stronger economic growth is indeed better for the more cyclically-oriented small-cap firms. Other factors such as credit spreads and small enterprise confidence also have good correlations with small/large cap performance in the most recent cycle, but historical correlations were much looser (panels 2 and 3). Chart 3Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Chart 4What Drives Size Performance? Valuation Metrics: Asness et al4 labelled 2000-2012 as the "resurrection" period for small-cap outperformance. Chart 4 (panel 4), shows that the first uninterrupted outperformance from 2000 to 2006 started at an extremely cheap valuation in 2000 when small caps were trading at a 36% discount to large caps, two standard deviations below the five-year average discount of 8%. The six-year uninterrupted outperformance was largely driven by relative valuation expansion such that by 2006, when the outperformance peaked, small caps were trading at a 20% premium, two standard deviations above the five-year average, which was a discount of 4%. The unwinding of the excessive valuation over the next two years brought the valuation metrics back to an extremely cheap level again in 2008, which kick-started another strong period of outperformance for small caps. However, since 2012 valuation has failed to expand even though small caps continued to outperform, albeit at a slower pace. This might be due to the fact that, on an absolute basis, small caps have been trading at a premium to large caps, and because valuation expansion became more difficult given how low small-cap profit margins have been (panel 5). Technically, based on our factor studies on momentum, a simple 12-month rate of change has generated positive alpha in a statistically significant way. We use the standardized 12-month rate of change of the relative performance ratio to gauge the relative momentum (panel 6) Portfolio Recommendation: Neutral On Size Over The Next 9-12 Months Chart 5There Is A Better Alternative The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative performance of global small caps versus large caps had a close correlation with cyclicals/defensives from 1995 to 2011, but that the two have diverged over the past five years, during which time small caps have outperformed large caps by 7%, but cyclicals have underperformed defensives by 4%, despite a strong reversal in 2016. This divergence could be explained by relative earnings growth, as shown in panel 2: small-cap earnings outpaced large-cap over the past five years, while cyclicals' earnings growth lagged defensives' until 2016 when a reversal occurred. Given our view on global growth and the historical correlation shown in panel 3, it's likely that cyclical earnings growth will further outpace the defensive earnings growth over the next 12 months. GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where risk is most likely to be rewarded. We already have overweights on equities versus bonds at the asset class level, and on cyclicals versus defensives in our global equity sector positioning, on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we do not feel comfortable adding a similar, but less rewarding, risk into our recommended global equity portfolio. In addition, current readings on the key performance drivers also support a neutral rating: as shown in Chart 4, both valuation and technical indicators are at the neutral level. The Global PMI is strong, but credit spreads are tight and small enterprise surveys in the U.S. and Japan are already at extremely optimistic levels. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Banz, Rolf (1981), "The relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, vol.6, 103-126 2 Van Dijk, Mathijs A, (2011), "Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns," Journal of Banking and Finance, 35, 3263-3274. 3 Asness, Clifford S., Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel, Tobias Moskowitz and Lasse H. Pedersen, "Size Matters, If You Control Your Junk", AQR Working Paper, 2015. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds", The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 5 Kenneth R. French website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library/f-f_bench_factor.html 6 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1992), "The Cross Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance 47, 427-465 7 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds," The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 8 S&P600 history before October 1994 was back calculated by Datastream, Russell 2000 history before 1984 was back calculated by FTSE Russell. 9 Please see "Construction and Methodology : Russell U.S. Equity Indexes, v.2.4," FTSE Russell, March 2017. 10 Please see "S&P U.S. Indices Methodology," S&P Dow Jones, March 2017. 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_2000_Index 12 Please see "MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes Methodology," MSCI, Feb 2017.

Highlights The European economy has outperformed that of the U.S. recently, prompting investors to bring forward their estimates of the first ECB rate hike. To make this judgement, one really needs to be positive on EM economies in general, and China in particular. This sphere is the source of the growth delta between Europe and the U.S. The recent tightening in Chinese monetary conditions points to risks for European growth bulls. In fact, we would expect emerging markets growth to begin disappointing in the coming months, which will limit the capacity of the ECB to hike by 2019. Cyclically, stay short the euro and commodity currencies. While cyclical headwinds against the yen are plentiful, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions could provide a further temporary fillip for the JPY. Feature Chart I-1The Reason Behind The Euro's Resilience 2016 witnessed an astounding phenomenon: Euro area growth outperformed that of the U.S. This performance is even more impressive as Europe's trend GDP growth is around one percentage point lower than that of the U.S. As investors internalized this development, their perception of the ECB changed: from the first hike being expected 59 months in the future in July 2016, the ECB is now expected to hike in 2019 (Chart I-1). Obviously, with this kind of a move, the euro was able to remain resilient, even as 2-year real rates differentials moved in favor of the USD. Are markets correct to extrapolate the recent European economic strength into the future, or is there more at play? We believe that in fact, Europe's growth outperformance has mostly reflected something else: EM and Chinese resilience. This means that if our Emerging Market Strategy team is correct and EM economic conditions begin to soften anew, the days of economic outperformance in Europe are marked. Other FX crosses will feel the blow. Betting On Faster European Rate Hikes = Betting On A Further EM Rally Core inflation in Europe remains muted and in fact, slowed substantially last month (Chart I-2). Meanwhile, U.S. core CPI and PCE inflation are still clocking in at 2.2% and 1.8%, respectively, and remain perky when compared to the euro area. Going forward, for the path of the ECB policy to be upgraded relative to the Fed, thus, prompting a durable rally in the euro, economic slack in Europe needs to continue to dissipate faster than in the U.S. The recent economic data still points toward future growth improvement in Europe and in the global manufacturing cycle. Not only have euro area PMIs been very strong, Sweden's have also shot to the moon (Chart I-3). The small, open nature of Sweden's economy suggests that some real improvement is brewing behind the scenes. Hence, it would suggest that this European inflation underperformance should soon pass. Chart I-2No Domestic Inflationary Pressures Chart I-3European Growth Indicators Are On Fire However, this misses one key point: the source of the economic outperformance of Europe. It is true that Europe continues to create a fair amount of jobs as the unemployment rate has fallen to 9.5%, but the U.S. too is generating healthy job gains, averaging 210,000 jobs over the past nine months. Labor market dynamics are unlikely to be the source of the European economic outperformance, especially as European wages continue to underperform U.S. ones (Chart I-4). Instead, it would seem that some of the positive growth delta that has lifted European economic activity above U.S. activity comes from outside Europe. Indeed, euro area PMIs and industrial production have outperformed that of the U.S. on the back of improving monetary conditions in China. As Chart I-5 illustrates, since 2008, easing Chinese MCI has led to stronger European PMI and IP. Even more interesting is the relationship exhibited in Chart I-6. The difference in economic activity between Europe and the U.S. is even more tightly correlated with the gap between Chinese M2 and Chinese M1. When M2 underperforms M1, the growth rate of time deposits slows. This is akin to saying that the marginal propensity to save in China is slowing. This boosts European economic activity. Meanwhile, when M2 outperforms M1, Chinese time deposits accelerate relative to checking deposits, Chinese savings intentions grow, and the European economy underperforms. Chart I-4U.S. Domestic Demand##br## Is Better Supported Chart I-5Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials ##br##And Chinese Liquidity (I) Chart I-6Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials ##br##And Chinese Liquidity (II) The dynamics between Europe's relative performance vis-à-vis the Chinese MCI and vis-à-vis time deposits are congruent. It highlights that China's economy does respond to tightening monetary conditions by raising its savings, which subtracts from domestic economic activity. These increased savings tend to be deflationary (as demand falls relative to supply), and also tend to limit the growth rate of imports. This is a shock for countries exporting to China. Here lies the key link explaining why Europe is more sensitive to Chinese dynamics: Europe trades more with China and EM than the U.S. does. The euro area's growth is therefore more sensitive to EM economic conditions than the U.S., a proposition supported by the IMF's work, which shows that a 1% growth shock in EM economies affect European growth by nearly 40 basis points, versus affecting U.S. growth by around 10 basis points (Chart I-7). So what does this mean going forward? We continue to be worried by dynamics in Chinese monetary conditions, even if the timing of their repercussion on economic activity is uncertain. Chinese monetary conditions have already begun to tighten, suggesting savings should rise and that growth in the industrial sector should deteriorate. Buttressing this tightening, nominal rates in China keep rising with the 7-day interbank repo rate in a clear uptrend (Chart I-8, top panel). Chart I-7Europe Is More Sensitive To EM Chart I-8Higher Chinese Rates Have Consequences This rise in interest rates could have a material impact on Chinese credit growth. As the bottom panel of Chart I-8 illustrates, bond issuance by small and medium banks has already fallen substantially. In this cycle, this variable has been a reliable leading indicator of the Chinese credit impulse. This makes sense: much of the recent Chinese credit growth has happened in the "shadow banking system", outside of the traditional channels. Research by the Kansas City Fed has shown that securitized credit tends to be very sensitive to short-term rates, thus, this slowing in bond issuance by small Chinese lenders is very likely to genuinely affect broader credit growth.1 Moreover, the risk of a vicious circle emerging is real. At the peak of the hard lending fears in China, real rates were at 10.5%, mostly reflecting deep producer prices deflation of 6%. This meant that for many highly indebted borrowers, debt servicing was a herculean effort that cut funding available for investments and economically accretive activities. As Chart I-9 shows, tightening Chinese monetary conditions have led to slowing PPI inflation. As the current tightening in China's MCI progresses, Chinese PPI inflation is likely to weaken, putting upward pressure on real rates and further hurting monetary conditions. These dynamics are dangerous, even if a repeat of the 2015 hecatomb is unlikely. Preventing as negative an outcome as occurred in 2015 are a few key factors: some of the excess capacity in the steel and material sector has been removed; the authorities have now better control of the capital account; and while PPI has downside, it is unlikely to plunge as deeply as it did in 2015 - oil prices are now better anchored, as consequential amounts of oil supply have been cut globally. This means that deep commodity deflation like in 2015 is unlikely to repeat itself and annihilate PPI inflation in China in the process (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Chinese PPI Will Roll Over Soon Chart I-10Commodity Prices: Friend And Foe Thus, as the Chinese monetary tightening progresses without spiraling out of control, it is likely that the window of opportunity for the ECB to increase interest rates will dissipate. When this reality dawns on the markets, we would expect the bear market in the euro to resume. Additionally, the global inflation surprise index has spiked massively. Historically, a surge in positive inflation surprises tends to prompt global tightening cycles (Chart I-11). In other words, because inflation surprises have been so strong, it is likely that global liquidity conditions tighten exactly as Chinese monetary and fiscal conditions do. In addition, the fiscal thrust in other EM economies deteriorate.2 This represents a potential headwind for growth in the EM space, which could temporarily limit the upswing in global inflation. These dynamics also reinforce the risks highlighted by Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's head of EM research, that EM spreads have little downside from here and may in fact be selling off in the coming quarters. As Chart I-12 shows, this would also imply that the ECB's perceived months-to-hike metric has more upside from here than potential downside. This is a cyclical handicap for the euro. Chart I-11Global Tightening On Its Way? Chart I-12EM Spreads, ECB Month-To-Hike: Same Battle These forces may also have implications for EUR/JPY. In the long-term, the yen is likely to be the main victim of the dollar strength as the Bank of Japan is currently the G7 central bank with the strongest dovish bias. But the short-term dynamics resulting from the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions could nonetheless prompt a fall in EUR/JPY over the next six months. To begin with, since 2014, the spread between German and Japanese inflation expectations has been linked to Chinese monetary conditions (Chart I-13). German 5-year / 5-year forward inflation expectations are already melting. An underperformance relative to Japan would suggest that the perception by investors of the increasing proximity of an ECB rate hike is likely to be disappointed. Chart I-13China Tightens, Germany Feels It More Moreover, the yen continues to display stronger "funding currency" attributes than the euro. Japan has a positive net international investment position of 170% of GDP versus -8% for the euro area. This suggests that the potential for repatriations when global market turbulence emerges is greater in Japan than in the euro area. Additionally, the market currently expects the ECB to begin hiking one year before the Bank of Japan. This would also mean that there is more room in the European fixed-income markets to further push away the first rate hike than there is in Japanese markets in the event of an EM deflationary shock. Does the reasoning described above have any implications for the dollar? On a 12-to-18-months basis, these dynamics support being more bullish the USD than the euro. The U.S. economy is less exposed to EM growth than that of Europe. This implies that on over such a horizon, the Fed will be less constrained than the ECB by EM economies, especially as the domestic side of the ledger is more promising in the U.S. Additionally, our Geopolitical Strategy team continues to argues that tax cuts are far from dead in the U.S., and that some significant fiscal stimulus will emerge over the course of the next 12 months in the U.S. In Europe, while no fiscal drag is tabulated, the potential for a similarly-sized fiscal boost is more limited. These same dynamics are also unambiguously bearish commodity and EM currencies versus the USD as commodity currencies are a direct play on EM activity (Chart I-14). The Australian dollar is the most poorly placed currency in the G10. It is 11% overvalued on our productivity-adjusted metrics and investors are now very long the AUD. Most crucially, Australian's terms of trade are especially vulnerable to a slowdown in the Chinese sectors most exposed to the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions (Chart I-15). These risks are further compounded by the fact that China has accumulated large inventories of some of the natural resources most important for the Australian terms of trade. Chart I-14Problems In EM Equals Problems ##br##For Commodity Currencies Chart I-15AUD Is Most Exposed To ##br##The Chinese Tightening Tactically, the picture is more nuanced. Since 2015, the euro has benefited from some risk-off attributes, managing to rise against the USD when market sell-offs are at their most acute point. Again, while EUR does not display these "funding currency" attributes as strongly as the yen, it nonetheless does more so than the USD. Also, April is traditionally a month of seasonal weakness for the greenback. A homegrown shock could also give the euro a further fillip: the French election. Le Pen's probability of winning is low but not 0%. In a report co-published nine weeks ago, we and our Geopolitical Strategy team argued that a Le Pen victory was very unlikely.3 Hence, we expect that her bookies' odds of winning, which stands between 20% and 30%, will dissipate to 0% after the second round of the election, supporting the euro independently of relative monetary dynamics. Practically, in the short run, the euro could remain well bid until this summer. We prefer to express our positive tactical stance on the euro against the AUD instead of the USD. We are also more tactically positive on the yen than any other currency and thus hold short USD/JPY and short NZD/JPY positions. Cyclically, we are looking for either a market correction to unfold or a clear upswing in U.S. wages before moving outright short EUR and JPY against the USD. Our tactical and cyclical views on commodity currencies are lined up: we are shorting them. Bottom Line: The source of the delta in European growth seems to be emanating out of EM and China in particular. This means that if one wants to bet on the ECB being able to increase rates sooner than what is currently priced in - a key precondition to bet on a cyclical rebound in the euro - one needs to remain bullish EM. Currently, our Emerging Markets Strategy sister publication remains negative on the medium-term outlook for EM, this represents a big problem for cyclical euro bulls. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Tobias Adrian and Hyun Shong Shin, "Financial Intermediaries, Financial Stability and Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Staff Report No. 346, September 2008. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Et Tu, Janet?" dated March 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The March FOMC minutes reveal that members discussed the possibility of a normalization of the bank's balance sheet in the near future, through phasing out or ceasing reinvestments of both Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. This is quite a hawkish comment, as the Fed acknowledges a strengthening economy: ADP employment change recorded a 263,000 new jobs, above the 187,000 consensus; Initial jobless claims decreased to 234,000; ISM Manufacturing PMI came in at 57.2; ISM Prices Paid was at 70.5. Despite this data, some members also stated that stock prices were "quite high", which prompted weakness in the S&P, Treasury yields, and the dollar, as markets revised their growth outlook. Although this is most likely a misinterpretation, as the data quite accurately depicts the economy's fundamentals, the dollar will likely display a neutral bias this month due to seasonality effects. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 USD, Oil Divergences Will Continue As Storage Draws - March 17, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro is likely to see some temporary strength on the back of improving economic conditions: Producer prices picked up to 4.5%, beating the 4.4% consensus; Retail sales remain strong at 1.8%; German manufacturing PMI remained unchanged at 58.3, while composite increased to 57.1. Nevertheless, PMIs were weak for many of the smaller, peripheral economies, which will cause downside for the euro in the longer-term. Adding confirmation to Praet's comments last week, Vitas Vasiliauskas, governor of Bank of Lithuania, stated that "the recovery of inflation is still fragile" and that they will first "have to end purchases and only then we can discuss other actions", further corroborating a weaker euro in the longer-term. In other news, the CNB seems to be softening its peg with the EUR as the bank progressively reverts to conducting an independent monetary policy. EUR/CZK depreciated more than 1.5%. Report Links: Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent Japanese data has been mixed: The unemployment rate outperformed expectations, falling down to 2.8%. However, household spending contracted further, falling by 3.8%, underperforming expectations. Furthermore, the Nikkei manufacturing PMI, also underperformed expectations, falling to 52.4 This deterioration in Japanese economic data is most likely a byproduct of the appreciation that the yen this year. Indeed, inflationary pressures and economic activity in Japan have been closely linked to the yen. This relationship will embolden the BoJ to keep its aggressive monetary stance in place, as the rate-setting committee understands that a weakening yen is a key lever to kick star Japan's tepid economy. Thus, while we are bullish on the yen on a 3-month horizon, we remain yen bears on a cyclical basis. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data in the U.K. has been disappointing as of late: GDP grew at 1.9% in Q4, against expectations of 2% growth. Construction and manufacturing PMI also underperformed, coming in at 52.2 and 54.2 respectively. Both measures also decreased from the previous month. Amid disappointing data, one bright spot for the pound was the massive reduction in their current account deficit. At 12 Billion pounds, the British current account deficit now stands at the lowest level since 2013. This is positive for the U.K. economy, as it provides a buffer against any slowdown in financial inflows that could materialize from the separation with the European Union. Thus, we continue to be bullish on the pound, particularly against the euro, as we believe that Brexit-related fears are overstated. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The latest dwelling figures indicate the fastest increase since May 2010, with Sydney and Melbourne witnessing 19% and 17% increases, respectively. They are up 8.3% nationally. What really highlights risks for Australia is that interest-only loans account for 40% of the country's housing finance, which prompted the APRA to put forward a limitation to interest-only lending to 30% of new mortgages, as a part of numerous other restrictive macro-prudential measures put in place to curb euphoria. Low rates, while sustaining robust housing activity in the past years, have been a primary factor in this exuberance. Worryingly, these low rates have not been enough to support wages, leading to increasing debt-to-income ratios. The RBA will find it hard to lift rates in the face of high household debt and the large share of interest-only loans, limiting the AUD's upside. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Although the NZD has been slightly weak this week against the U.S. dollar, it has appreciated against the Aussie. This might have something to do with the recent uptick in dairy prices, stopping a correction in prices that started in late 2016. Furthermore, the weakness in this cross seems to be sending an ominous signal, as AUD/NZD tends to lead relative activity dynamics between the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors in China. There is a reason behind this relationship, as the staple commodities of Australia and New Zealand (iron and dairy prices) cater to the industrial sector and the consumer sector, respectively. We believe that the outperformance by the Chinese industrial sector might be on its last legs, thus AUD/NZD is an attractive short. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 As highlighted numerously, the Canadian economy is haunted by the same underlying risk as the Australian economy. With the average price for a detached home in Toronto now at CAD 1.2 million, risks are coming into sharper focus. News media now highlights that the housing market is in a shortage, with multiple buyers in competition to purchase a single home, with buyers even skipping home inspections. In better news, the RBC Manufacturing PMI read at 55.5 in March, more than a 3-year high, with its output, new orders and employment components also at multi-year highs. Furthermore, the Business Outlook Survey highlights business intentions to expand and hire continue to be buoyant, which should augur well for the economy in the near future. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has rebounded after coming close to hitting the SNB implied floor of 1.065 on Tuesday. It seems that this strategy is paying off for the SNB, as recent data shows an improving Swiss economy: Real retail sales outperformed expectations, as they exited contractionary territory. They are now growing at 0.6%. SVME PMI also outperformed, coming in at 58.6. This measure now stands at its highest level since 2011. Moreover Swiss headline inflation month-on-month grow came in above expectations at 0.6%, while the annual inflation rate came in at 0.2%. This batch of strong data will certainly reassure the SNB that its intervention in the currency market is helping kick start the Swiss economy. However, for the time being the peg will remain as the economy is not yet strong enough to handle a change in this policy. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK appreciated by almost 1.5%, even on the face of a nearly 5% rally in oil. This is not an isolated case: since the beginning of the year USD/NOK has become much less sensitive to oil and more sensitive to the changes in the dollar. The poor state of the Norwegian economy explains this phenomenon as core and headline inflation continue to plummet and the credit impulse still stands in negative territory. One could point to unemployment as a bright spot, as it now stands at 2.9%. However this reduction in unemployment is accompanied by a contraction in employment, which suggests that people are just leaving the labor market. These factors will continue to solidify the Norges Bank's dovish bias, causing NOK to underperform terms-of-trade dynamics. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 As momentum retreats from oversold levels, the krona is displaying some strength on the back of buoyant economic data: Manufacturing PMI hit 65.2 for March; Industrial production in February increased at a 4.1% annual pace; New orders were up 12% in February. This data augurs well for Sweden's export sector, the economy's most key area. The Riksbank's Business Survey highlights these developments, with their proprietary economic activity indicators pointing to good growth. An interesting development in pricing pressures is that negotiated prices are no longer being reduced as often as before, which is "regarded as an incipient sign of demand, which in turn creates expectations of future price rises". The effects of rising commodity prices and a weaker krona are also now kicking in. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights WTI and Brent forward curves remain more or less backwardated beginning in 2018. On its face, this indicates hedgers and speculators are trading and positioning as if the OPEC - non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia in late 2016 will succeed in drawing inventories, leaving the market in a physical deficit this year. Over the short-term, this induced supply shock benefits producers generally. Longer term, KSA and Russia will have to continue to manage supplies if they are to exert any influence on oil prices. This is a three-level game, which now involves U.S. shale-oil producers as a permanent feature of the market. It will be difficult to manage. But the stakes are sufficiently high for KSA and Russia that we believe it has to be played. Energy: Overweight. We closed the first quarter on an up note, with our trade recommendations still open and closed in 2017Q1 up 420.75% on average. Base Metals: Neutral. Striking miners at Freeport McMoRan's Cerro Verde facility in Peru are back on the job, as are workers at BHP's Escondido mine in Chile. Export licensing difficulties at Freeport's Grasberg facility in Indonesia are close to being resolved.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long volatility play in gold is down -32.8%, which, from a macro perspective, indicates markets are not fearful of a Fed-related surprise over the next couple of months. Ags/Softs: Underweight. U.S. farmers' corn planting intentions came in 1mm acres less than expected at 90mm; beans came in at 89.5mm acres, or 1.4mm over expectations; and wheat was up 100k acres at 46.1mm. Stocks remain high, and we remain bearish. Feature KSA, Russia and their allies - OPEC 2.0 - are trying to regain control of oil fundamentals produced by one of the most unlikely combinations of events ever seen in the history of the oil market. This week, we review how we arrived at the market conditions we now confront, and consider a possible strategy evolving out of the production-cutting Agreement (the "Agreement" for short) that may allow them to do so. Current markets conditions were spawned by a surge in EM oil demand in the early part of the 21st century, which met an almost perfectly inelastic supply curve. This took prices from $55/bbl in 2005 to more than $140/bbl by the end of 2008H1 (Chart of the Week). Along the way, some 5mm b/d of DM oil demand had to be destroyed by higher prices to make room for the EM growth depicted in Chart 2, which is taken from an analysis by Hamilton (2009).2 Chart of the WeekEM Consumption Surge, Flat Production ##br##Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC Chart 2High Prices Were Required##br## To Balance Markets Pre-GFC These high prices combined with the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) low-interest rate regime into a perfect storm, which allowed the supply side to evolve the shale technology in the U.S. Steadily rising light-tight-oil (LTO) production has profoundly altered the market, forcing OPEC and non-OPEC petro-states to devise a strategy to contain this surge. Whether they can do so is yet to be determined. In this article we consider one strategy that might allow OPEC 2.0 to regain some control over pricing and the rate of growth in shale production, but it is highly dependent on them maintaining production discipline and finding a way to coordinate their production. First, though, a quick review. How Did We Get Here? The GFC dragged all markets lower, leaving oil prices just above $40/bbl by the end of 2008. In the wake of the GFC, central banks led by the Fed pursued massively accommodative monetary policies, which took interest rates to the zero lower bound. OPEC, led by KSA, drastically cut supplies to remove a huge unintended inventory accumulation that developed as demand collapsed (Chart 3). While DM oil demand remained depressed in the wake of the GFC, EM governments, led by China, massively stimulated their economies, which lifted global oil consumption more than 4% by 2010 (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices, ##br##Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 Chart 4EM Lifted Global Demand Post-GFC Growth in global supplies post-GFC, meanwhile, was more measured. OPEC total liquids production from 2009 to 2014 averaged just below 0.05% growth yoy. Part of this meager growth in OPEC production no doubt was explained by lower production from the Cartel resulting from civil war in Libya and nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, which reduced overall output. It also is possible the fall-out from the GFC and the euro-area crisis of 2009 - 2011 kept OPEC producers from committing to higher production as well. Be that as it may, EM demand growth, along with OPEC's lower output, allowed prices to again trade above $100/bbl by 2011 and stay there till mid-2014 (Chart 5). The years-long combination of near-zero interest rates and high oil prices allowed U.S. shale-oil production to advance in leaps and bounds, such that by 2014, yoy light-tight oil (LTO) production from the shales was growing at more than 1mm b/d (Chart 6). Chart 5EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation##br## Keep Prices Above $100/bbl To 2014H1 Chart 6High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale ##br##Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 Now What? OPEC underestimated the magnitude of the shale-oil revolution, as did most observers. However, KSA, the leader of the Cartel, was pre-occupied with geopolitical considerations, chiefly its ongoing proxy wars throughout the Middle East with Iran and its allies. High prices allowed it to build its reserves and fund these proxy wars. This ended when Iran and western powers began negotiating an end to sanctions, which, if successful, would once again allow Iran to access foreign capital and technology to develop its economy.3 As the negotiations to remove sanctions on Iran progressed, KSA led OPEC into a market-share war at the end of 2014, presumably to take back customers lost to shale, particularly in the U.S. We do not believe OPEC's primary aim in declaring a market-share war was to crush U.S. shale output. Indeed, we have consistently maintained the market-share war was more an extension of KSA's and Iran's proxy wars throughout the Middle East, and that KSA was using the pump-at-will strategy to limit revenues that would flow to Iran in the post-sanctions environment. The secondary target of the market-share war was U.S. shale production, but, even then we maintained shale-oil production was needed to keep prices from revisiting $140/bbl-plus levels.4 The market-share war tanked prices, as OPEC increased the quantity of oil it would supply at lower prices. In particular, Saudi Arabia surged production from November 2014, into the collapse of oil prices. Over time, the market-share strategy destroyed high-cost supply worldwide. U.S. shale production fell ~ 15% from a high of ~ 5.3mm b/d in March 2015 in the four largest LTO basins to a low of ~ 4.5mm b/d, by our reckoning, in 2017Q1. At the same time, non-Gulf OPEC production fell dramatically as well, close to 8% in 2016 yoy to an average of 7.7mm b/d. Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia, however, saw production increase 6.5% and 2% yoy, respectively, to close to 25mm b/d and 11.2mm b/d in 2016. In the aftermath of the price collapse, U.S. shale producers retreated to their "core" producing properties - those areas with the lowest-cost, most accessible shale reserves - and dramatically improved their productivity (Chart 7). A collapse in services costs allowed LTO producers to maintain core operations and continue to advance shale-oil technology. At the end of the day, this made the global supply curve more elastic, in that LTO production now allowed higher demand to be met by smaller price increases than had been the case in the lead-up to the GFC. The increased elasticity of supply from U.S. shales, and the increased quantity supply by OPEC is depicted in Chart 8, which picks up from Hamilton's (2009) analysis shown in Chart 2. Chart 7U.S. Shale Productivity Surged ##br##During OPEC's Market-Share War Chart 8Global Oil Supply##br## Transformed By 2014H1 OPEC's Market-Share War Failed We contend the KSA - Russia production Agreement negotiated at the end of last year represents an abandonment of OPEC's market-share strategy. If, as recent research suggests, this strategy was an attempt to "squeeze" higher-cost shale production from the market by increasing OPEC crude supplies, it was a failure: The market-share strategy imperiled the finances of OPEC and non-OPEC states heavily dependent on oil revenues to sustain themselves, and left U.S. shale production more resilient than it was prior to the market-share war being declared.5 The surge in shale supplies and in OPEC's quantity supplied to the market during its market-share war, coupled with slower growth following the dramatic increase in EM demand in 2010 - 2012, led to unintended inventory accumulation worldwide, which has kept global storage at record levels. This is the central issue being addressed by the OPEC - non-OPEC production Agreement to remove up to 1.8mm b/d of production from the market. In effect, the KSA - Russia deal is inducing a supply shock to shift the global supply curve back to the left, after it was pushed down and to the right from 2014H2 to 2015H2, as depicted in Chart 9. In and of itself, this should lift and stabilize prices by the end of this year. We expect this induced supply shock will begin to force more visible inventories - e.g., in the U.S. and OECD generally - to draw rapidly. We continue to expect OECD stocks to reach 5-year average levels by year-end 2017, and for prices to reach $60/bbl by year end (Chart 10). We do not believe an extension in OPEC 2.0's production Agreement is needed to achieve this. Chart 9KSA - Russia Deal Is An Induced Supply Shock##br## Intended To Shift The Curve Back To The Left Chart 10Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year ##br##Averages By End-2017 It goes without saying, the parties to OPEC 2.0's production-management deal must maintain production discipline for this strategy to be able to evolve to the next level, where they attempt to restore a measure of price inelasticity to the global supply curve. If they are successful, then they will be able to exercise a degree of control over prices using spare capacity, storage and forward guidance to achieve and defend specific targets. If not, the market will do the hard work of destroying high-cost supply with lower prices. The End Game For KSA - Russia For the KSA - Russia Agreement to affect U.S. shale output over the medium to longer term, they have to coordinate production in a way that keeps WTI prices from rising to the point where shale-oil producers are able to step outside their "core" production areas. We believe over the short term, this price is between $55/bbl and $60/bbl. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has illustrated that the "true" breakeven for shale producers is much closer to $50/bbl, than the $30/bbl figure oft cited in the media.6 However, above $60/bbl, more costly reserves can be developed and still produce acceptable returns for LTO drillers. Therefore, if prices can be kept below $60/bbl, and the induced supply shock engineered by KSA and Russia causes oil inventories to draw as we expect this year, we believe the resulting backwardation in WTI will limit the rate at which rigs return to the field. In our modeling, we find shale rig counts to be sensitive to the shape of the forward curve for WTI. A backwardated curve translates into fewer rigs returning to the field than a flat or contango curve. In one model we estimated, we found a 10% backwardation from mid-2017 to end-2018 resulted in a rig count that was close to 18% below the rig count that could be expected from a relatively flat forward curve. The only way we see for KSA and Russia to affect the shape of the WTI forward curve over the short term - to end 2018 - is to use their own spare capacity and storage to keep the front of the curve below $60/bbl, and to provide forward guidance that they are able to adjust supply markets over the short- to medium-term in a manner that keeps the forward curve backwardated. This will require short-term production coordination among the states comprising OPEC 2.0, so that refinery demand is met out of current production plus inventories, and that unforeseen outages are remedied quickly. This is a short-term fix. It likely can be implemented this year and carried into next year. However, beyond that, it is difficult to see how KSA and Russia, and their respective allies, will coordinate production, storage operations and forward guidance having never attempted such an effort in the past. However, we are reasonably sure members of OPEC 2.0 are discussing how to implement such coordination. Keeping the front of the curve at a price that dissuades shale producers from expanding beyond their "core" production also will limit the amount of investment that can be made in non-Gulf OPEC production, which already is in decline, and other higher-cost conventional production like deep water.7 This, coupled with the $1-trillion-plus cuts to global capex for projects that would have been producing between 2015 - 2020 resulting from the 2015 - 16 price collapse could produce a supply deficit by 2019 that only can be remedied by significantly higher prices that not only encourage new higher-cost production but destroys demand in the meantime while that production is being developed. Bottom Line: We expect the KSA - Russia Agreement to produce a physical deficit this year that draws OECD oil inventories down by ~ 300mm barrels by year end. We also expect to see deeper coordination among the petro-states that are party to this Agreement - OPEC 2.0 - this year and next, which will keep the WTI forward curve backwardated into 2018. While we expect WTI prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 - and to trade between $45 and $65/bbl most of the time - our level of conviction in that forecast is low beyond 2018. It is not clear OPEC 2.0 can endure beyond the short term (into 2018). We will be watching the response of U.S. shale producers to increasing demand, and increasing decline-curve losses outside the U.S. shales, the Gulf OPEC producers and Russia, where we expect production declines to accelerate. As we have noted often in the past, the loss of more than $1 trillion of capex will place an enormous burden on U.S. shales, Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia. If any one of these cannot deliver higher volumes when called upon, prices could move sharply above $65/bbl after 2018 going forward. Likewise, we will be watching to see if OPEC 2.0 is capable of setting and meeting production and inventory goals. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Workers to end strike at Peru's top copper mine Cerro Verde," published March 30, 2017, by miningweekly.com. 2 Please see "Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08," by James D. Hamilton, in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2009, particularly pp. 228 - 234. 3 Please see "P5+1 and Iran agree on nuclear negotiation framework in Vienna," published February 20, 2014, by cnn.com. The sanctions were lifted in early 2016; see "Iran nuclear deal: Five effects of lifting sanctions," published January 18, 2016, by bbc.com. 4 For an in-depth analysis of OPEC's market-share war, please see the Special Report entitled "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," published jointly by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy groups on April 9, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash," published September 8, 2016, and our "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," published December 8, 2016, in which we discuss the toll lower oil prices were taking on oil-dependent states including KSA and Russia. See also "The Dynamics of the Revenue Maximization - Market Share Trade-Off: Saudi Arabia's Oil Policy in the 2014 - 2015 Price Fall," by Bassam Fattouh, Rahmatallah Poudineh and Anupama Sen, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in October 2015, and "An analysis of OPEC's strategic actions, US shale growth and the 2014 oil price crash," by Alberto Behar and Robert A. Ritz, published by the IMF July 2016. Both papers consider OPEC's market-share war vis-à-vis U.S. shale-oil production, the strategy of squeezing shale producers from the market by increasing supply and lowering prices, and the likelihood for success. 6 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient," dated March 15, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" in this week's Energy Sector Strategy, which takes an in-depth look at the stagnant-to-declining production in conventional oil-producing provinces outside the U.S. onshore, Middle East OPEC and Russia, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Trades Closed In 2016

Special Report

Highlights Dear Client, In this analysis, my colleague Bob Ryan of the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy argues that there is more upside to oil prices. First, Russia and OPEC will continue to coordinate their production for at least the rest of the year. Second, oil prices are too low to incentivize high cost, non-Gulf OPEC production, such as deep-water production. Third, the world lost roughly $1-trillion-plus of capex due to the oil-price collapse. Bob collaborates frequently with the Geopolitical Strategy team. As we controversially argued in February 2016, Saudi-Iranian tensions have peaked and created the geopolitical conditions for a renewal of OPEC production coordination. With oil prices plumbing decade lows in 2015-2016, both countries have set regional differences aside for the sake of domestic stability. I hope that you will enjoy Bob's note as much as I did. Many clients with whom I have met in person already know the view well, as it forms the core of Geopolitical Strategy's view on the Middle East. For those of you who are not subscribed to BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, I would recommend that you reach out to your account manager for a trial of both services. Kindest Regards, Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Feature KSA, Russia and their allies - OPEC 2.0 - are trying to regain control of oil fundamentals produced by one of the most unlikely combinations of events ever seen in the history of the oil market. This week, we review how we arrived at the market conditions we now confront, and consider a possible strategy evolving out of the production-cutting Agreement (the "Agreement" for short) that may allow them to do so. Current markets conditions were spawned by a surge in EM oil demand in the early part of the 21st century, which met an almost perfectly inelastic supply curve. This took prices from $55/bbl in 2005 to more than $140/bbl by the end of 2008H1 (Chart Of The Week). Along the way, some 5mm b/d of DM oil demand had to be destroyed by higher prices to make room for the EM growth depicted in Chart 2, which is taken from an analysis by Hamilton (2009).1 Chart Of The WeekEM Consumption Surge, Flat Production##br## Drove Prices Past $140/bbl Pre-GFC Chart 2High Prices Were Required ##br##To Balance Markets Pre-GFC These high prices combined with the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) low-interest rate regime into a perfect storm, which allowed the supply side to evolve the shale technology in the U.S. Steadily rising light-tight-oil (LTO) production has profoundly altered the market, forcing OPEC and non-OPEC petro-states to devise a strategy to contain this surge. Whether they can do so is yet to be determined. In this article we consider one strategy that might allow OPEC 2.0 to regain some control over pricing and the rate of growth in shale production, but it is highly dependent on them maintaining production discipline and finding a way to coordinate their production. First, though, a quick review. How Did We Get Here? The GFC dragged all markets lower, leaving oil prices just above $40/bbl by the end of 2008. In the wake of the GFC, central banks led by the Fed pursued massively accommodative monetary policies, which took interest rates to the zero lower bound. OPEC, led by KSA, drastically cut supplies to remove a huge unintended inventory accumulation that developed as demand collapsed (Chart 3). While DM oil demand remained depressed in the wake of the GFC, EM governments, led by China, massively stimulated their economies, which lifted global oil consumption more than 4% by 2010 (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC Cut Production To Defend Prices,##br## Make Room For Shale To End-2014H1 Chart 4EM Lifted Global##br## Demand Post-GFC Growth in global supplies post-GFC, meanwhile, was more measured. OPEC total liquids production from 2009 to 2014 averaged just below 0.05% growth yoy. Part of this meager growth in OPEC production no doubt was explained by lower production from the Cartel resulting from civil war in Libya and nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, which reduced overall output. It also is possible the fall-out from the GFC and the euro-area crisis of 2009 - 2011 kept OPEC producers from committing to higher production as well. Be that as it may, EM demand growth, along with OPEC's lower output, allowed prices to again trade above $100/bbl by 2011 and stay there till mid-2014 (Chart 5). The years-long combination of near-zero interest rates and high oil prices allowed U.S. shale-oil production to advance in leaps and bounds, such that by 2014, yoy light-tight oil (LTO) production from the shales was growing at more than 1mm b/d (Chart 6). Chart 5EM Surge, OPEC Production Moderation##br## Keep Prices Above 0/bbl To 2014H1 Chart 6High Prices, Low Interest Rates Propel Shale##br## Production To 1mm b/d+ Growth By 2014 Now What? OPEC underestimated the magnitude of the shale-oil revolution, as did most observers. However, KSA, the leader of the Cartel, was pre-occupied with geopolitical considerations, chiefly its ongoing proxy wars throughout the Middle East with Iran and its allies. High prices allowed it to build its reserves and fund these proxy wars. This ended when Iran and western powers began negotiating an end to sanctions, which, if successful, would once again allow Iran to access foreign capital and technology to develop its economy.2 As the negotiations to remove sanctions on Iran progressed, KSA led OPEC into a market-share war at the end of 2014, presumably to take back customers lost to shale, particularly in the U.S. We do not believe OPEC's primary aim in declaring a market-share war was to crush U.S. shale output. Indeed, we have consistently maintained the market-share war was more an extension of KSA's and Iran's proxy wars throughout the Middle East, and that KSA was using the pump-at-will strategy to limit revenues that would flow to Iran in the post-sanctions environment. The secondary target of the market-share war was U.S. shale production, but, even then we maintained shale-oil production was needed to keep prices from revisiting $140/bbl-plus levels.3 The market-share war tanked prices, as OPEC increased the quantity of oil it would supply at lower prices. In particular, Saudi Arabia surged production from November 2014, into the collapse of oil prices. Over time, the market-share strategy destroyed high-cost supply worldwide. U.S. shale production fell ~ 15% from a high of ~ 5.3mm b/d in March 2015 in the four largest LTO basins to a low of ~ 4.5mm b/d, by our reckoning, in 2017Q1. At the same time, non-Gulf OPEC production fell dramatically as well, close to 8% in 2016 yoy to an average of 7.7mm b/d. Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia, however, saw production increase 6.5% and 2% yoy, respectively, to close to 25mm b/d and 11.2mm b/d in 2016. In the aftermath of the price collapse, U.S. shale producers retreated to their "core" producing properties - those areas with the lowest-cost, most accessible shale reserves - and dramatically improved their productivity (Chart 7). A collapse in services costs allowed LTO producers to maintain core operations and continue to advance shale-oil technology. At the end of the day, this made the global supply curve more elastic, in that LTO production now allowed higher demand to be met by smaller price increases than had been the case in the lead-up to the GFC. The increased elasticity of supply from U.S. shales, and the increased quantity supply by OPEC is depicted in Chart 8, which picks up from Hamilton's (2009) analysis shown in Chart 2. Chart 7U.S. Shale Productivity Surged##br## During OPEC"s Market-Share War Chart 8Global Oil Supply ##br##Transformed By 2014H1 OPEC's Market-Share War Failed We contend the KSA - Russia production Agreement negotiated at the end of last year represents an abandonment of OPEC's market-share strategy. If, as recent research suggests, this strategy was an attempt to "squeeze" higher-cost shale production from the market by increasing OPEC crude supplies, it was a failure: The market-share strategy imperiled the finances of OPEC and non-OPEC states heavily dependent on oil revenues to sustain themselves, and left U.S. shale production more resilient than it was prior to the market-share war being declared.4 The surge in shale supplies and in OPEC's quantity supplied to the market during its market-share war, coupled with slower growth following the dramatic increase in EM demand in 2010 - 2012, led to unintended inventory accumulation worldwide, which has kept global storage at record levels. This is the central issue being addressed by the OPEC - non-OPEC production Agreement to remove up to 1.8mm b/d of production from the market. In effect, the KSA - Russia deal is inducing a supply shock to shift the global supply curve back to the left, after it was pushed down and to the right from 2014H2 to 2015H2, as depicted in Chart 9. In and of itself, this should lift and stabilize prices by the end of this year. We expect this induced supply shock will begin to force more visible inventories - e.g., in the U.S. and OECD generally - to draw rapidly. We continue to expect OECD stocks to reach 5-year average levels by year-end 2017, and for prices to reach $60/bbl by year end (Chart 10). We do not believe an extension in OPEC 2.0's production Agreement is needed to achieve this. Chart 9KSA - Russia Deal Is An Induced Supply Shock ##br##Intended To Shift The Curve Back To The Left Chart 10Oil Stocks Will Fall To 5-Year##br## Averages By End-2017 It goes without saying, the parties to OPEC 2.0's production-management deal must maintain production discipline for this strategy to be able to evolve to the next level, where they attempt to restore a measure of price inelasticity to the global supply curve. If they are successful, then they will be able to exercise a degree of control over prices using spare capacity, storage and forward guidance to achieve and defend specific targets. If not, the market will do the hard work of destroying high-cost supply with lower prices. The End Game For KSA - Russia For the KSA - Russia Agreement to affect U.S. shale output over the medium to longer term, they have to coordinate production in a way that keeps WTI prices from rising to the point where shale-oil producers are able to step outside their "core" production areas. We believe over the short term, this price is between $55/bbl and $60/bbl. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has illustrated that the "true" breakeven for shale producers is much closer to $50/bbl, than the $30/bbl figure oft cited in the media.5 However, above $60/bbl, more costly reserves can be developed and still produce acceptable returns for LTO drillers. Therefore, if prices can be kept below $60/bbl, and the induced supply shock engineered by KSA and Russia causes oil inventories to draw as we expect this year, we believe the resulting backwardation in WTI will limit the rate at which rigs return to the field. In our modeling, we find shale rig counts to be sensitive to the shape of the forward curve for WTI. A backwardated curve translates into fewer rigs returning to the field than a flat or contango curve. In one model we estimated, we found a 10% backwardation from mid-2017 to end-2018 resulted in a rig count that was close to 18% below the rig count that could be expected from a relatively flat forward curve. The only way we see for KSA and Russia to affect the shape of the WTI forward curve over the short term - to end 2018 - is to use their own spare capacity and storage to keep the front of the curve below $60/bbl, and to provide forward guidance that they are able to adjust supply markets over the short- to medium-term in a manner that keeps the forward curve backwardated. This will require short-term production coordination among the states comprising OPEC 2.0, so that refinery demand is met out of current production plus inventories, and that unforeseen outages are remedied quickly. This is a short-term fix. It likely can be implemented this year and carried into next year. However, beyond that, it is difficult to see how KSA and Russia, and their respective allies, will coordinate production, storage operations and forward guidance having never attempted such an effort in the past. However, we are reasonably sure members of OPEC 2.0 are discussing how to implement such coordination. Keeping the front of the curve at a price that dissuades shale producers from expanding beyond their "core" production also will limit the amount of investment that can be made in non-Gulf OPEC production, which already is in decline, and other higher-cost conventional production like deep water.6 This, coupled with the $1-trillion-plus cuts to global capex for projects that would have been producing between 2015 - 2020 resulting from the 2015 - 16 price collapse could produce a supply deficit by 2019 that only can be remedied by significantly higher prices that not only encourage new higher-cost production but destroys demand in the meantime while that production is being developed. Bottom Line: We expect the KSA - Russia Agreement to produce a physical deficit this year that draws OECD oil inventories down by ~ 300mm barrels by year end. We also expect to see deeper coordination among the petro-states that are party to this Agreement - OPEC 2.0 - this year and next, which will keep the WTI forward curve backwardated into 2018. While we expect WTI prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 - and to trade between $45 and $65/bbl most of the time - our level of conviction in that forecast is low beyond 2018. It is not clear OPEC 2.0 can endure beyond the short term (into 2018). We will be watching the response of U.S. shale producers to increasing demand, and increasing decline-curve losses outside the U.S. shales, the Gulf OPEC producers and Russia, where we expect production declines to accelerate. As we have noted often in the past, the loss of more than $1 trillion of capex will place an enormous burden on U.S. shales, Gulf Arab producers in OPEC and Russia. If any one of these cannot deliver higher volumes when called upon, prices could move sharply above $65/bbl after 2018 going forward. Likewise, we will be watching to see if OPEC 2.0 is capable of setting and meeting production and inventory goals. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08," by James D. Hamilton, in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2009, particularly pp. 228 - 234. 2 Please see "P5+1 and Iran agree on nuclear negotiation framework in Vienna," published February 20, 2014, by cnn.com. The sanctions were lifted in early 2016; see "Iran nuclear deal: Five effects of lifting sanctions," published January 18, 2016, by bbc.com. 3 For an in-depth analysis of OPEC's market-share war, please see the Special Report entitled "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," published jointly by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy groups on April 9, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash," published September 8, 2016, and our "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," published December 8, 2016, in which we discuss the toll lower oil prices were taking on oil-dependent states including KSA and Russia. See also "The Dynamics of the Revenue Maximization - Market Share Trade-Off: Saudi Arabia's Oil Policy in the 2014 - 2015 Price Fall," by Bassam Fattouh, Rahmatallah Poudineh and Anupama Sen, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in October 2015, and "An analysis of OPEC's strategic actions, US shale growth and the 2014 oil price crash," by Alberto Behar and Robert A. Ritz, published by the IMF July 2016. Both papers consider OPEC's market-share war vis-à-vis U.S. shale-oil production, the strategy of squeezing shale producers from the market by increasing supply and lowering prices, and the likelihood for success. 5 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient," dated March 15, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" in this week's Energy Sector Strategy, which takes an in-depth look at the stagnant-to-declining production in conventional oil-producing provinces outside the U.S. onshore, Middle East OPEC and Russia, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com.