JUNE 2018

Global Natural
Resources
Strategy

GOEHRING & Natural Resource

ROZENCWAJG Investors
 3
Table of 7
The Case for Commodities
Why G&R
Contents 10 History
12 Philosophy
13 Investment Process
19 Portfolio Guidelines
20 Role in Portfolio
26 Performance
27 Positioning
29 Current Market Views
37 Our Research in Action
44 Team Biographies
45 Related Performance
47 Contact Us

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 2

THE
CASE
FOR
Commodities

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 3

 Why NATURAL
RESOURCES
Improving Fundamentals
Our models suggest that supply/demand fundamentals have improved while most
investors remain historically underweight to the industry. Improving data will likely lead
to a renewed interest in the sector with resulting inflows.

Valuation
Natural Resource markets have been in a five-year bear market and today we believe
offer very attractive valuations. Historically, the strongest natural resource investment
returns occur after long periods of market under-performance ever recorded.1

Low Correlation
Natural Resources tend to exhibit a low correlation with the broad market. The S&P
Natural Resource Stock Index has a 0.59 correlation of monthly total returns with the S&P
500 Index since 1996.1

1
Source: Bloomberg, Goehring & Rozencwajg models FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 4
 W H Y N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S ?

Commodities Have Never Been Cheaper

Compared to the S&P 500, the price of commodities has never been cheaper.

G O L D M A N S A C H S CO M M O D I T Y I N D E X S&P 500 Ratio CAGR

D
Period GSCI S&P Relative

F A to B
49% -13% 62%
B
B to C 5% 13% -8%
C to D
40% 2% 37%
D to E -4% 19% -23%
E to F 19% 0% 19%
C

F to G -16% 7% -23%
E
G Average
A Inflationary
Period
36% -4% 40%
G Average
Deflationar y
Period
-5% 13% -18%

As of 6/30/18; Source: Bloomberg FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 5

 W H Y N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S ?

Investor Interest Is Low

The weight of Energy and Materials in the S&P 500 is at a 13-year low
and is approaching the lowest reading ever recorded.

E N E R G Y & M AT E R I A L W E I G H T I N G of the S&P 500

21.0%

19.0%

17.0%

15.0%

13.0%

11.0%

9.0%

7.0%

5.0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

As of 6/30/18; Source: Bloomberg FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 6

WHY
Goehring &
Rozencwajg
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 7
 37
YEARS
Combined experience managing
natural resource investments
with extensive industry contacts
$8 BN
Raised for natural resource funds.
$5 BN for a natural resource hedge
fund, $3 BN for a mutual fund
91%
Versus Lipper peer group net of fees
since inception (1/1/92)
Top Quintile
Amongst Lipper peer group
on 1-3-5-10-20 year basis
We are value investors. We think
the best time to find value is when
investor sentiment is bearish, price
is depressed, equities are cheap,
and our fundamental analysis tells
us the S/D dynamics have changed.
R E SEAR CH -DR I VE N P R O C E SS
Our investment process is entirely driven by original research from
which we derive our long-term commodity price assumptions, which
often differ significantly from consensus opinion.
CON TRAR I AN VALU E P H I LO S O P H Y
We are value investors. We strive to realize the highest level of
capital appreciations by investing in global natural resource
markets without incurring excessive risk.
FOCUS ON P ER FOR M A N C E & F E E S
We seek to deliver top quartile performance in our peer group
over a 3 – 5 year time horizon while simultaneously striving to keep our
expenses and fees in the lowest quartile in our peer group.
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 8
Portfolio Managers
Leigh R. Goehring
2 6 YEA RS OF NAT URA L R ES OURCE INVESTMEN T MAN AGEMEN T
2005 - 2015 Launched/managed Chilton Global Natural Resources Fund
1991 - 2005 Managed Jennison/Prudential Natural Resources Funds
1986 - 1991 Managed Prudential-Bache Option Growth Fund
1982 - 1985 Trust Department of the Bank of New York
1982 BA, Hamilton University, Economics and Mathematics

Adam A. Rozencwajg, CFA

1 1 YEA RS OF NAT URA L R ES OURCE INVESTMEN T MAN AGEMEN T
2007 - 2015 Worked exclusively for Chilton Global Natural Resources Fund
2006 - 2007 Lehman Brothers, Investment Banking Division
2006 BA, Columbia University, Economics and Philosophy

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 9

 History
December 1991 May 2005 November 2007 December 2016
Leigh Goehring starts Leigh joins Chilton Adam Rozencwajg Launch of Goehring
managing Prudential Investment Company; joins Chilton; Chilton & Rozencwajg
Jennison Natural managing Chilton Global Global Natural Natural Resources
Resources Fund Natural Resources Fund Resources Fund Mutual Fund

March 2005 December 2007 December 2015 January 2016

AUM of Prudential AUM of Chilton Goehring & Launch of the Goehring
Jennison Natural Global Natural Rozencwajg & Rozencwajg
Resources Fund Resources Fund Associates LLC Global Natural
reaches $3 billion reaches $5 billion is established Resources Strategy

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 10

INVESTMENT
PHILOSOPHY
& PROCESS

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 11

 Philosophy
A fundamental research firm focused exclusively on contrarian natural resource investments,
with a team with over 30 years of dedicated resource experience.
There are four pillars to our investment philosophy, values and approach:

RESEARCH CONTRARIAN BEST FOCUS ON

FOCUSED VALUE IDEAS PERFORMANCE
PHILOSOPHY APPROACH PORTFOLIO AND FEES

If there is one thing
that defines our Firm,
it is our top-quality
differentiated research
focused on both
the commodity level
as well as the specific
security level.
We believe the best way
to find value in global
commodity and natural
resource markets is when
prices are depressed,
investors are discouraged,
and financial
measurements
are cheap.
We believe that portfolios
of 50 - 70 positions offer
investors access to our
best ideas while mitigating
idiosyncratic risks and
providing diversification.
We are long term investors;
target range for portfolio
turnover is 20 - 25% per year.
We seek to deliver top
quartile performance in
our peer group over a
3 – 5 year time horizon
while simultaneously
striving to keep our
expenses and fees in
the lowest quartile in
our peer group.

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 12

 Top-down
COMMODITY
ANALYSIS
Investment
Process Bottom-up
SECURITY
Our research identifies situations
where we believe the industry
ANALYSIS
fundamentals have shifted, but
the market has not yet noticed.
Our investment approach tries to be
contrarian in nature and we often find
ourselves early to an investment thesis, PORTFOLIO
with periods of under-performance that
we anticipate will be reversed as the
CONSTRUCTION
commodity’s fundamentals become
more widely accepted.

RISK
MANAGEMENT
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 13
 Top-down
COMMODITY
ANALYSIS
We begin with a top-down analysis of various
commodity sectors. We utilize publicly available
data when available, combined with proprietary
databases to create an in-depth supply and
Bottom-up
demand model. SECURITY
We model the cost to bring on new supply, the ANALYSIS
unit economics of existing production, and
trends in the underlying current production base
in an attempt to understand supply dynamics.

On the demand side, we attempt to model the

relationship between regional considerations, PORTFOLIO
macro factors, and consumer trends in an
attempt to project demand under case-based
CONSTRUCTION
scenarios.

RISK
MANAGEMENT
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 14
 Top-down
COMMODITY
ANALYSIS
We compute net asset values ("NAV") for the
commodity producers we look at. Using our
long-term commodity price forecast, we model Bottom-up
current and future expected production profiles,
operating costs and capital spending to SECURITY
approximate a NAV.
ANALYSIS
Our process is largely driven by extensive
fundamental modeling of companies in our
universe, extensive management meetings and
whenever possible, site visits to the projects
in question. PORTFOLIO
We attempt to identify new profitable growth
CONSTRUCTION
projects and compare them against other
investments available in the industry.

RISK
MANAGEMENT

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 15

 Top-down
COMMODITY
ANALYSIS
Our universe is primarily global equities. We
invest across market capitalization & geography.

A fully expressed theme in our portfolio typically

represents approximately 20-30% with the exception
Bottom-up
of energy which, given its many subsectors, could
be weighted as much as 60%.
SECURITY
ANALYSIS
At the security level, our portfolio is typically
comprised of 50 – 70 of our “best ideas”
across market cap and geography. We size our
positions with an eye toward managing risk
and reward; max position size is typically
around 5%.
PORTFOLIO
We are long term investors; a target range for
CONSTRUCTION
turnover is 20 – 25% per year.

RISK
MANAGEMENT

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 16

 Top-down
COMMODITY
ANALYSIS
When a commodity market turns favorable, it
is often the poorest quality, most marginal and
highly-levered companies that outperform.
These investments also tend to carry the most
risk. If either the commodity markets take longer Bottom-up
than expected to turn, or the capital markets
undergo periods of adverse conditions, stocks SECURITY
can become distressed. ANALYSIS
Therefore, it is critical to balance expected
future investment returns with security-specific
risk. We attempt to balance this risk by being
more heavily weighted towards higher-quality
more stable-securities. Investments that offer PORTFOLIO
higher expected returns, but with a greater level
of security specific risk carry smaller weights
CONSTRUCTION
and are more diversified in the portfolio. We
actively manage risk by continuously monitoring
position size, sector and country weights, and
balance sheet quality.

RISK
MANAGEMENT

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 17

PORTFOLIO
OVERVIEW
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 18
 Portfolio Guidelines
INVESTABLE UNIVERSE Global Equities
MARKET CAP RANGE Invested across all market caps
# OF POSITIONS 50 - 70 of “best ideas”
POSITION SIZE Max position size is typically around 5%
TARGET TURNOVER 20 - 25% per year

A fully expressed theme in the portfolio would represent

THEME EXPOSURE approximately 20-30%, with the exception of Energy which
could be as high as 65%.
CASH EXPOSURE 0 - 10%
TARGET TURNOVER 20 - 25% per year

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 19

 Role in Portfolio
Currently, investors are utilizing the Strategy as both a return enhancer/alpha generator
and also as a diversifier to their equity and real asset portfolios.

Return G&R
+ Diversifier = Global Natural
Enhancer Resources Fund

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 20

 ROLE IN PORTFOLIO

Return Enhancer / Alpha Generator

Since inception, the Strategy has produced equity-like returns and
high alpha generation.

Equity Risk (Beta) / Reward (Alpha)

Time Period: 1/1/1992 to 6/30/2018
Annualized Returns (%)
ANNUALIZEDSource
As of Date: 6/30/2018
RETURN as of 6/30/18
Data: Total, Monthly Return
EQUITY RISK/REWARD(BETA/ALPHA)
Source Data: Monthly Return
Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1/1/92 - 6/30/18
10.5 9.9 5.0
9.7
9.8
9.0
8.3
3.0
7.5
6.8
6.0
5.3 1.0
4.5
3.8
3.0 -1.0
2.2
2.3
1.5
Return

Alpha

0.8
0.0 -3.0
Since Inception (1/1/92) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Beta
G&R (Net) Bloomberg Commodity TR G&R Global Natural Resources
S&P 500 TR G&R (Net)Strategy (net) Bloomberg Commodity TR S&P 500 TR
Bloomberg Commodity TR
S&P 500 TR

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 21

 ROLE IN PORTFOLIO

Return Enhancer / Alpha Generator

Since inception, the Strategy has produced equity-like returns and high alpha generation.

PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS
Portfolio Characteristics - Since Inception 1/1/92 to 6/30/18
Time Period: 1/1/1992 to 6/30/2018 Source Data: Total, Monthly Return Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD

Cumulative
Cumulative Annualized Sharpe
Excess Alpha Beta Correlation
Return Return Ratio
Return

G&R (Net) 1,117.26 0.36 9.89 3.56 0.33 0.75 0.48

Bloomberg Commodity TR 90.94 -7.06 2.47 -1.43 -0.01 0.32 0.30

S&P 500 TR 1,015.61 0.00 9.53 0.00 0.49 1.00 1.00

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 22

 ROLE IN PORTFOLIO

Complement to Commodity Allocation

The ability to capture equity risk premium and create value independent of commodity prices,
in addition to not being impacted by the futures curve, make commodity equities an attractive
complement to a commodity futures allocation.
Cumulative Excess Return (%) - vs. Bloomberg Commodity Index
Time Period: 1/1/1992 to 6/30/2018
EXCESS RETURN
Source Data: Total Return VS. COMMODITY
Calculation INDEX
Benchmark: Bloomberg 1/1/92
Commodity TR USD to 6/30/18

1,200.0%

1,000.0%

800.0%
G&R Global Natural Resources Strategy (net)
600.0%
Bloomberg Commodity TR
400.0%

200.0%

0.0%

-200.0%
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

G&R (Net) Bloomberg Commodity TR

Since inception, the Strategy has outperformed the commodity index by +1000%.

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 23

 ROLE IN PORTFOLIO

Complement to Commodity Allocation

The ability to capture equity risk premium and create value independent of commodity prices,
in addition to not being impacted by the futures curve, make commodity equities an attractive
complement to a commodity futures allocation.
Equity Risk (Beta) / Reward (Alpha)
Time Period: 1/1/1992 to 3/31/2018
EQUITY RISK/REWARD
Source Data: Monthly Return
(BETA/ALPHA) 1/1/92 to 6/30/18
Calculation Benchmark: Bloomberg Commodity TR USD

11.0

9.0

7.0
G&R Global Natural Resources Strategy (net)
5.0 Bloomberg Commodity TR
3.0

1.0
Alpha

-1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Beta
G&R (Net) Bloomberg Commodity TR

Since inception, the Strategy has produced an annualized alpha of +8%.

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 24

 ROLE IN PORTFOLIO

Diversifier
For investors looking for a differentiated return profile relative to their traditional
equity/bond portfolio or real asset portfolio, the G&R Global Natural Resources Strategy
offers extremely attractive diversification benefits.

CO R R E L AT I O N M AT R I X 1/1/08 to 6/30/18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. G&R (net) 1.00
2. S&P 500 TR 0.59 1.00
3. MSCI ACWI Ex USA NR USD 0.67 0.89 1.00
4. US Agg Bond TR 0.07 0.05 0.18 1.00
5. Commodities 0.77 0.62 0.71 0.07 1.00
6. Natural Resources 0.89 0.77 0.80 0.04 0.81 1.00
7. REITs 0.35 0.73 0.67 0.31 0.39 0.49 1.00
8. Infrastructure 0.46 0.62 0.59 0.36 0.49 0.53 0.53 1.00
9. MLP 0.58 0.53 0.54 -0.06 0.51 0.63 0.32 0.41 1.00
10. TIPS 0.33 0.27 0.39 0.76 0.35 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.15 1.00
11. CPI 0.17 0.25 0.18 -0.30 0.31 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.29 0.02 1.00

Low correlation to traditional equity, fixed income, & real assets.

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 25

 Performance
P E R F O R M A N C E as of 6/30/18

G&R Global Natural Resources Strategy (Net) Bloomberg Commodity TR

ANNUALIZED RETURN as of 6/30/18

1 3 5 10 15 20 Since
YTD Inception
Year Years Years Years Years Years (1/1/92)
G&R Global Natural Resources Strategy (Net) 1.79% 25.42% 13.26% 6.85% -2.70% 9.11% 10.32% 9.89%
S&P North American Natural Resources TR 5.29% 19.80% 3.29% 1.74% -1.08% 8.38% 6.53% -
Bloomberg Commodity TR 0.00% 7.35% -4.54% -6.40% -9.04% -0.63% 1.38% 2.47%
MSCI ACWI NR USD -0.43% 10.73% 8.19% 9.41% 5.80% 8.19% - -

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Please refer to disclosure information at the back of this presentation.
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 26
 Positioning
SECTOR BREAKDOWN+ CO U N T RY B R E A K D O W N + TOP 10 HOLDINGS
4.1% 3.8% 2.4%
5.9% PXD 4.9%
7.2%
7.6% CCJ 4.6%

33.7% NTR 4.3%

9.0%
DO 3.9%
55.6%
29.7%
PDCE 3.8%
10.4%
APY 3.7%
11.5% 16.5% PE 3.6%
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production United States MOS 3.6%
Oil & Gas Drilling Canada MTDR 3.5%
Copper Great Britain
Fertilizers Cayman Islands CRZO 2.9%
Other Energy Switzerland
Precious Metals
Uranium
Other As of 5/31/18, subject to change.
+
Excludes cash position of 1.3%

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 27

 Themes
OVERALL BREAKDOWN+ THEME BREAKDOWN+

11%
38% Exploration/Prod.
17% Drillers

64% 9% Other Energy

12% Copper
26%
8% Precious Metals
6% Uranium
11% Fertilizers
5% Other

Energy Energy
Mining Mining
Agriculture Agriculture
Other
As of 5/31/18, subject to change.
+
Excludes cash position of 1.3%

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 28

MARKET
VIEWS
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 29
 THEME: OIL

U.S. Petroleum Inventories Drawing

at Fastest Rate Ever
U. S . CO R E P E T R O L E U M I N V E N TO R I E S (relative to long-term average)
250,000

200,000

150,000
(000 bbl)

100,000

50,000

-50,000
5

8
14

15

15

16

16

17

17
/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1
2/

2/

2/

2/

2/

2/

2/
12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12
/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1
2/

4/

6/

8/

2/

4/

6/

8/

2/

4/

6/

8/

2/

4/

6/
12

10

12

10

12

10

12
As of 6/30/18; Source: Energy Information Agency
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 30
 THEME: OIL

Demand Revised Higher in

7 out of the 8 Last Years
I E A G LO B A L D E M A N D R E V I S I O N S 2010 - present
99 2018 -100k b/d

2017 +400k b/d

IEA Global Demand Estimate (mm b/d)

97
+1.0mm b/d
95 2016 +900k b/d
2015
93 +1.1mm b/d
2014 +800k b/d
91 2012 2013
-300k b/d
+1.7mm b/d
89
+3.3mm b/d
2011
87
2010
85
9 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 8
200 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201
07 / 03 / 11 / 07 / 03 / 11 / 07 / 03 / 11 / 07 / 03 / 11 / 07 / 03 /

As of 6/30/18; Source: Energy Information Agency FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 31

 THEME: OIL

Oil Demand is Likely to Surge

S O U T H KO R E A O I L I N T E N S I T Y THE "S-CURVE" TIPPING POINT
20 The “tipping-point” occurs when an economy
reaches a certain level of real per-capita GDP
18
and begins to consume more resources.
Capita (b/person/year)

16
Every additional unit of GDP per capita requires
per (b/person/year)

14
3x more oil for countries in the “tipping-point”
12 than for those that are not, in our opinion.
10
Thailand China and India are both just entering their
Oil Demand

Today
8 “tipping-point” according to our estimations.
Oil Consumption

4 Indonesia
Today
2 China
Today
0
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000
Real per capita GDP

Source: BP Statisical Review, World Bank

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 32
 THEME: OIL

Oil Demand Will Surge Over Coming Decade

P O P U L AT I O N going through "Tipping Point"1 UNPRECEDENTED TIMES
4500 Never in history have so many people gone
4000
through the “S-Curve Tipping Point” simultane-
ously. The result is that global commodity demand
Point"
Point"

3500
is set to surge over the coming decade.
in "Tipping
in T"ipping

3000
Our models indicate that while the last commodity
2500 bull-market was largely caused by problems with
(in millions)

supply, this one will be driven by increased demand.

(in billions)

2000

300% more people are going through the

People

1500
People

1000 tipping point today vs. the past 40-year average.

Approximately 60% of people on earth will
500
be in the S-curve tipping point by 2025.1
0
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019

Source: World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Goehring & Rozencwajg Models
1
"Population in tipping point" is an estimate number of people in the world living between $2000-10000 in real per capita GDP as measured by real USD from
2000 at any moment in time. FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 33
 T H E M E : CO P P E R

Installed Copper Base Growth

TOTA L CO P P E R I N S TA L L E D B A S E vs. real GDP INSTALLED VS. CONSUMED
400 For commodities that are “consumed” (like oil), it
makes sense to study consumption vs. real GDP.
Total Installed Copper Base per Capita (kg per person)

350 However, for commodities that have long useful lives,

it is preferable to study the commodity’s total
300
installed base.
250
A commodity’s total installed base correlates
200
extremely well with real GDP per capita, across
many countries and over many decades.
150
China will grow from consuming 50% of the
100 world’s copper production today to over
China 70% by 20251 according to our models.
50 Today

0
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Real GDP per Capita

1
Source: World Bank, International Monetary Fund, International Copper Study Group, Goehring & Rozencwajg Models.
Chart points represent an annual historical reading of Real GDP per Capita and Total Installed Copper Base for various countries. Total Installed Copper Base is
calculated based upon Goehring & Rozencwajg models and is an attempt to measure the total amount of copper installed in a country, adjusted for depreciation. FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 34
 T H E M E : P R E C I O US M E TA LS

An Opportune Time To Invest in Gold...

G O L D / M O N E TA R Y B A S E R AT I O KEY OBSERVATIONS
200% While gold has certain unique properties (both good
and bad), it is an asset like any other and cycles between
180%
periods of over-valuation and undervaluation.
US Treasury Gold Holdings as % of Monetary Base

160%
The value of US Treasury’s gold holdings has traded
140% Gold radically overvalued in a band between ~20 – 180% of the value of the
120% monetary base. There have been two historical
100% periods of extreme over-valuation: 1938 and 1979.
Similarly there have been two historical periods
80%
of extreme undervaluation: 1971 and 2001.
60%
Gold has been an excellent investment after periods
40%
of undervaluation and a terrible investment after
20% Gold radically undervalued periods of over-valuation, according to our models.
0%
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016

Source: Bloomberg, St. Louis Federal Reserve FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 35
 ... But An Even Better Opportunity
for Oil Investments
G O L D / O I L R AT I O last 150 years
40.0x
40.00x
MVA
MVA

Oil radically overvalued

6 mon.

30.0x
30.00x
(oz/bl)6 mon.
(bbl/oz)

20.0x
20.00x
Ratio
Ratio

10.0x
10.00x
Gold-Oil
Gold-Oil

Oil radically undervalued

0.0x
0.00x
1861
1861 1873
1870 1879 18861888 1898
1897 19061911 1915 1923
1924 1936
1933 1942 1948 1951 1961
1960 1973
1970 1979 19861988 1998
1997 20062011 2015

The ratio is currently at a bullish level that investors rarely see during their lifetime. According to our models, oil
is by far the most critical industrial commodity, while gold is the most important financial commodity. As a result, it
stands to reason that the ratio of these two commodities can offer many valuable insights. Historically our research has
shown when oil is cheap relative to gold, oil and oil-related investments represent excellent investment opportunities.

Over the last 150 years, a gold-to-oil ratio above 30 is exceptionally rare, occuring only when sentiment is incredibly
negative and oil prices are extraordinarily depressed. In the post-World War II environment, every time this ratio
surpasses 30 (or even 25), it has been a great opportunity to buy oil and oil related investments in our opinion.

As of 6/30/18; Source: Bloomberg, Energy Information Agency FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 36
OUR
RESEARCH
in ACTION

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 37

 Selected Research
Natural Resource Market Commentary
2nd Quarter 2017

Introduction
Chart 1: 100 Years of Commodity Valuation

(1) Goldman Sachs Commodity Index to 1970. Goehring & Rozencwajg Commodity Index pre-1970.
Source: Bloomberg, Goehring & Rozencwajg Models.

We are at the bottom in global commodity prices. As you can see from Chart 1 (which plots
the price of commodities as measured against the US stock market going back 100 years), commodities
are as cheap today as they have ever been. Only in the depths of the Great Depression and at the
end of the dying Bretton Woods Gold Exchange Standard did commodities reach this level of
undervaluation relative to equities. For those investors willing to ignore the noise and extreme negative
commentary (regarding surging shale production, OPEC disunity, electric cars, and China’s
impending collapse), there is a proverbial fortune to be made if they invest today When commodities
are this cheap relative to stocks, the returns accruing to commodity investors have been spectacular.
For example, had an investor bought the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (or something equivalent)
in 1970, by 1974 he would have compounded his money at 50% per year. From 1970 to 1980
commodities compounded annually in price by 20%. If that same investor had bought commodities

110 Wall Street ∙ New York, NY ∙ 10005

PAL LA D I U M BO O ST BULLISH NON-OPEC D EC LINING CO PPER DEC REASE IN

FR O M E M I SS I O N S CUT ON GOLD S U P P LY L E V E L S H EAD G RADES OIL SUPPLY
Barron's, 1/24/00 Forbes Magazine, 7/24/04 Barron's, 2/9/04 Chilton Commentary, 10/18/05 Market Commentary, 6/30/17

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 38


GREEN
METAL?
“All that could give a big boost to an
obscure precious metal, palladium,
one of the few commodities to buck
the bear market in recent years.
"All that could give a big boost to palladium...
It could produce the kind of parabolic rise
associated with Internet stocks."
PA L L A D I U M P R I C E 1 Chart Title
$1,200
$1,000

We think tightened exhaust emission $800

standards will make auto manufacturers
much less price-sensitive to both
$/oz

$600
palladium and platinum. Palladium
usage in catalytic converters has $400
increased tenfold over the last decade. Article Published

$200
A 100% increase in palladium prices
would raise the price of an SUV by
just $60.” $0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

01
/0

/0

/0
4/

4/

4/

4/

4/

4/

4/

4/

4/

4/
/4

/4

/4
1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

7/

8/

9/

1/
10

11

12
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Source: Barron’s, "Green Metal?", 1/24/2000
1
Source: Bloomberg, 4/24/2018 FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 39
 “If all of the dollars in circulation ($560B)
GOLD were backed with gold, the implied price
would be about $2,500.”
AT $2,500?
GOLD PRICE vs. S&P 5001
“In making the case for gold, Goehring
700
points to the relationship between the
price of an ounce of gold and the level 600
of the Dow Jones Industrial average.
Price Index (1/1/99 = 100)

Over most of this century, the Dow 500

traded at eight times the price of gold.

400
As recently as 1980, when gold spurted
to $800 an ounce, the Dow and gold 300
were at parity.
200
Article Published
I am a raging bull when it comes to 100
gold... In times of inflation, people
always end up gravitating to it.” 0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Source: Forbes Magazine, "Gold for $2,500", 7/24/2000
1
Source: Bloomberg, 2/28/2017 FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 40
 “We are looking at a major bull market,
where we were in oil-service stocks [now]
PUMPED is where we were in tech stocks
UP back in 1993 or 1994.”

“The biggest surprise could be oil,”

[Goehring] says. He sees tight supplies WTI CRUDE OIL PRICE per barrel1
pushing prices steadily upward -- $160
bad news for motorists but terrific for
certain types of oil companies.
$120
We’re just beginning to see a noticeable
slowdown in non-OPEC supply of oil,
which is bound to press more power $80

into the hands of the oil cartel.

$40
Article Published

$0
01/2004 10/2004 07/2005 04/2006 01/2007 11/2007 08/2008

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Source: Barron's, "Pumped Up", 2/9/2004
1
Source: Bloomberg, 12/31/2016 FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 41
 CO P P E R M I N E H E A D G R A D E global average2
1.0%

Declining
0.9% Article Published

0.8%

COPPER 0.7%

GRADES 0.6%
1985 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

“We completed a study of 115 copper

mines throughout the world... Our
analysis indicated that over the last CO P P E R P R I C E per pound2Chart Title
five years there has been a drop in $4.50
the head grade amounting to about
$4.00
a 1% decrease per year. Our
conclusion is copper supply from $3.50
new mines will be insufficient to
$3.00
close the structural gap between total
supply and global demand.” $2.50

Under that scenario, copper prices $2.00

must remain high.
$1.50 Article Published

$1.00
1/7/05 6/7/05 11/7/05 4/7/06 9/7/06 2/7/07 7/7/07 12/7/07 5/7/08

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

1
Source: Chilton Investment Company Commentary, 10/18/2005
2
Source: Bloomberg, 12/31/2016 FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 42
 GOEHRING &
ROZENCWAJG U. S . CO R E P E T R O L E U M I N V E S TO R I E S vs. 5-year average
Natural Resource Investors 250,000

Oil Prices 200,000 Article Published

US Core Inventory (000 bbl)

HEADED
150,000

100,000

HIGHER 50,000

-50,000
"The events that took place at the end 1/1/16 5/1/16 9/1/16 1/1/17 5/1/17 9/1/17 1/1/18 5/1/18
of 2006 have now been repeated: OPEC
has […] cut production into an oil
market that has already slipped into
deficit, just like they did in 2006. As
recently as September, the IEA was
writing about how “the supply-demand
dynamic may not change significantly
“This complacency in the market
in the coming months.” has left the world today in
Our model tells us that inventories will
approach 2008’s dangerously low levels
a very precarious situation
by the end of 2018.”
(with very bullish implications).

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

1
Source: Energy Information Agency , Goehring & Rozencwajg Models FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 43
APPENDIX
FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 44
 Team Biographies
Leigh R. Goehring
Leigh Goehring has 26 years of investment experience specializing in natural resource investments. From 2005 until late 2015, Mr.
Goehring was the portfolio manager of Chilton Global Natural Resources Fund. This dedicated natural resources focused hedge
fund grew to over $5b at its peak. Prior to joining Chilton, he managed the Prudential Jennision family of natural resources funds
from 1991 to 2005, accumulating over $3B at their peak. Mr. Goehring began working on Wall Street in 1982 in the Trust Depart-
ment of the Bank of New York. He holds a Bachelors of Arts degree with a major in Economics and a minor in Mathematics from
Hamilton University.

Adam A. Rozencwajg, CFA

Adam Rozencwajg has 11 years of investment experience. From 2007 to 2015, Mr. Rozencwajg worked exclusively at Chilton Invest-
ment Company on the Global Natural Resources Fund with Mr. Goehring. Prior to joining Chilton, he worked in the Investment
Banking department at Lehman Brothers between 2006 and 2007. In 2005, Mr. Rozencwajg also worked with the MLG group at
Neuberger Berman. Mr. Rozencwajg holds a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Economics and Philosophy from Columbia
University. He is also a CFA charter holder.

Joseph Herlihy
Joseph Herlihy has nearly 40 years of diversified Financial Services experience, most recently serving as Managing Director and
Chief Operating Officer of Neuberger Berman’s Equities Division from 2003 to 2017. From 1984 to 2003, he served in a variety of
positions at Neuberger, including Head of Operations, Head of NYSE Floor Operations, and Head of Regulatory Reporting. Prior
to Neuberger, Mr. Herlihy worked at Becker Paribas, Prudential Bache Securities and the Dreyfus Corporation. Mr. Herlihy holds
a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Accounting from Siena College and is a Certified Public Accountant.

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 45

Related Calendar Year

1992
Fund

3.69%
Lipper

1.52%
IGE

-
MSCI

-4.23%
SPX

7.62%

Performance 1993
1994
1995
30.68%
-4.89%
26.54%
18.35%
-2.38%
19.27%
-
-
-
24.88%
5.03%
19.46%
10.08%
1.32%
37.58%

Prudential Jennison
From January 1st 1992 until May 31st 2005 represent Mr. Goehring’s performance at the Prudential / Jennison Natural 1996 28.16% 32.63% - 13.20% 22.96%
Resources Fund and is total returns net of all fees incurred. Mr. Goehring stopped managing the Prudential / Jennison 1997 -12.21% 0.99% - 15.00% 33.36%
Natural Resources Fund on May 31st 2005 and began managing the Chilton Global Natural Resources Fund on August
1998 -17.57% -25.33% -14.19% 21.97% 28.58%
1st 2005. During the interim period, the performance figures represent the Prudential / Jennison Natural Resources
Fund even though Mr. Goehring was not the manager. Returns for the Chilton Global Natural Resources Fund are 1999 45.15% 28.07% 27.23% 26.82% 21.04%
calculated on a total return basis net of all fees incurred and include all dividends and interest, accrued income, and 2000 29.08% 32.31% 15.79% -13.94% -9.10%
realized and unrealized gains and losses.
2001 -10.46% -6.19% -15.60% -15.91% -11.89%
Returns for the Prudential/Jennison Natural Resources Fund were calculated using the standardized methodology 2002 20.07% 3.48% -12.98% -18.98% -22.10%
prescribed for registered investment companies by the SEC. Performance from the Chilton Global Natural Resources 2003 37.10% 39.21% 34.40% 34.63% 28.68%
Fund includes the (i) Chilton Global Natural Resources Partners, L.P., which was managed by Mr. Goehring between
August 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015 and consisted of a long/short portfolio (the “Partners Fund”), and (ii) Chilton 2004 27.06% 31.07% 24.59% 15.75% 10.88%
Global Natural Resources Long Opportunities, L.P., which was managed by Mr. Goehring between January 1, 2013 and 2005 48.41% 46.90% 36.61% 11.37% 4.91%
December 31, 2015 and consisted of a long-only portfolio (the “Opportunities Fund”). The performance information
presented below for the Chilton Composite reflects the returns of each Fund’s entire portfolio (including both long 2006 17.63% 16.20% 16.85% 21.53% 15.79%
and short positions). Although the Fund may take short positions, it does not expect to do so to the same extent as the 2007 30.56% 39.19% 34.44% 12.18% 5.49%
Partners Fund. The Fund believes that the return of the Partners Fund’s combined portfolio, on a cumulative basis,
2008 -30.84% -50.70% -42.55% -41.85% -37.00%
over the 10-year period shown was not materially different from the return of the long-only portion of its portfolio.
2009 33.73% 47.89% 37.54% 35.41% 26.46%
The table also includes return information for the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI), the Lipper Natural

Chilton
Resources Index, and the IGE. The MSCI ACWI is a free float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that is 2010 21.43% 14.14% 23.88% 13.21% 15.06%
designed to measure the equity market performance of developed and emerging markets. Performance data shown for 2011 -27.19% -16.74% -7.35% -6.86% 2.11%
the MSCI ACWI is net of dividend tax withholding. MSCI data may not be reproduced or used for any other purpose. 2012 -10.60% 2.54% 2.20% 16.80% 16.00%
MSCI provides no warranties, has not prepared or approved this report, and has no liability hereunder. The Lipper
Natural Resources Index is an unmanaged equally weighted index of the largest mutual funds in the Lipper Natural 2013 6.82% 14.32% 16.49% 23.44% 32.39%
Resources category of funds. The IGE represents the performance of the IShares North American Natural Resources 2014 -9.64% -13.32% -9.77% 4.71% 13.69%
ETF, which tracks the S&P North American Natural Resources Sector Total Return Index. 2015 -17.48% -23.08% -24.28% -1.84% 1.38%

G&R
Index returns reflect the reinvestment of income dividends and capital gains, if any. Unlike the accounts described in 2016 69.76% 22.48% 30.87% 8.48% 9.34%
the table, an index does not incur fees or expenses.
The results presented in the table may not necessarily equate with the return experienced by any particular investor as
a result of the timing of investments and redemptions. In addition, the effect of taxes on any investor will depend on Cumulative (1992-2016)
such person’s tax status, and the results have not been reduced to reflect any income tax that may have been payable.
Total 1096% 521% 187% 519% 875%
The related performance information is being provided for information purposes only and is not intended to predict or
CAGR 10.43% 7.42% 5.54% 7.41% 9.34%
suggest the return that will be experienced by GRA’s clients. The performance of a client’s account may have been different
than the performance of the accounts shown in the table due to, among other things, differences in fees and expenses, invest-
ment limitations, diversification requirements, and tax restrictions. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 46

Disclosures
Goehring & Rozencwajg Associates
The information provided in this presentation is intended to provide the investor with an introduction to Goehring & Rozencwajg
Associates, LLC. Nothing in this presentation should be construed as a solicitation, offer, or recommendation to buy or sell any

& Risk
security or as an offer to provide advisory services. Information in this presentation is intended only for United States citizens and
residents. Nothing contained in this presentation constitutes investment, legal, tax, or other advice nor should be relied upon
in making an investment or other decision. Investors should always obtain and read up-to-date investment services description
before deciding whether to appoint an investment advisor. All investments are subject to risk, including the possible loss of the

Disclaimers
money you invest. You may owe taxes on any capital gains realized through trading or through your own redemption. For some
investors, income may be subject to state and local taxes. Natural Resource investments may have different characteristics and
risk than do traditional investments, and can have more volatility than a more diversified portfolio.

Commodities Risk
The Firm concentrates its investments in the natural resources industry. Natural resources include, among other things, energy
commodities such as oil, natural gas, coal and uranium, precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium and rhodium,
diamond, base metals such as copper, lead and zinc; ferrous metals; agricultural commodities; and fertilizer commodities such
as potash, phosphate and nitrogen. Historically, commodity investments have had a relatively high correlation with changes
in inflation and a relatively low correlation to stock and bond returns. Commodity-related securities and other instruments
provide exposure, which may include long and/or short exposure, to the investment returns of physical commodities that
trade in commodities markets, without investing directly in physical commodities. The Firm’s accounts will be exposed to
commodities through its investments in natural resources companies and its investments (such as derivatives and ETFs)
which are intended to provide economic exposure to one or more commodities or commodities indexes. The Firm’s
accounts may invest in commodity-related securities and other instruments, such as structured notes, swap agreements,
options, futures and options on futures that derive value from the price movement of commodities, or some other readily
measurable economic variable dependent upon changes in the value of commodities or the commodities markets. However,
investments in commodity related instruments do not generally provide a claim on the underlying commodity. The value
of commodity related instruments may be affected by changes in overall market movements, volatility of the underlying
benchmark, changes in interest rates or factors affecting a particular industry or commodity, such as droughts, floods,
weather, livestock disease, embargoes, tariffs and international economic, political and regulatory developments. The value
of commodity-related instruments will rise or fall in response to changes in the underlying commodity or related index.
To the extent that the Firm’s accounts are more heavily exposed to a commodity sub-sector that undergoes a period of
weakness, an investor can expect poor returns from the Firm’s accounts. Investments in commodity-related instruments
may be subject to greater volatility than non-commodity-based investments. A highly liquid secondary market may not
exist for certain commodity-related instruments, and there can be no assurance that one will develop. Commodity-related
instruments are also subject to credit and interest rate risks that in general affect the values of debt securities. The Fund may
lose money on its commodity investments.
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI) is a composite index of commodity sector returns which represents a broadly diversi-
fied, unleveraged, long-only position in commodity futures.

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 47

 Contact Us
Goehring & Rozencwajg Associates
PORTFOLIO 110 Wall St, New York, NY 10005
MANAGEMENT (646) 216-9777 | www.gorozen.com

Havener Capital Partners

SALES & 1 Mill Street, 2nd Floor, Newport, RI 02840
MARKETING (401) 314-0430 | www.havenercapital.com

FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY 48