Financial Markets

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s report, BCA Research will hold webcasts over the coming days to discuss the economic and financial outlook amid the myriad of uncertainties gripping global markets. I will take part in a roundtable discussion alongside my fellow BCA Strategists Arthur Budaghyan, Mathieu Savary, and Caroline Miller for a live webcast on Friday, March 13 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). In addition, I will hold a webcast on Monday, March 16 at 12:00 PM EDT (4:00 PM GMT). Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights A global recession is now a fait accompli. The only question is whether there will be a technical recession lasting a couple of quarters, or a more prolonged downturn that produces a sizeable increase in unemployment rates. We lean towards the former outcome. Unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand will be mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. This will limit the rise in unemployment, at least initially. The pandemic is likely to prompt firms to increase inventory levels for fear of further disruptions to their supply chains. This should provide a short-term boost to output. While it is possible that spending will remain broadly depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis, while ultra-low government bond yields will incentivize increased fiscal outlays. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021, but much of this demand will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. Health care expenditures will also increase. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 represents a positive supply shock for the global economy, albeit one that will have negative consequences for oil-extraction sectors. We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. However, this is a low-conviction view, and we would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. What A Way To Start The Decade So far, the 2020s may not be roaring, but they are certainly not boring. At the outset of the crisis, there were three scenarios for the COVID-19 outbreak: 1) A regional epidemic largely confined to China; 2) a series of global outbreaks, successfully short-circuited by a combination of government intervention and voluntary “personal distancing” measures; 3) A full-blown pandemic that exposes a significant proportion of the planet to the virus. Unfortunately, the first scenario has been ruled out. Policymakers are now trying to achieve the second scenario. Successful containment would “flatten the curve” of new infections, while allowing the sick to receive better treatment than they would otherwise. It would also buy precious time to develop a vaccine and increase the output of face masks, hand sanitizers, and other products that could slow the spread of the disease. Health Versus Growth Ironically, while the second scenario is clearly preferable to a full-blown pandemic from a health perspective, it may be more damaging from the very narrow, technical perspective of GDP accounting. It all depends on how severe the measures to quash each outbreak need to be. If simple hygiene measures and social distancing turn out to be enough, the economic fallout will be minimal. If ongoing mass quarantines and business closures are necessary, the damage will be severe. History suggests that containment efforts can work. During the Spanish flu, US cities such as St. Louis, which took early action to slow the spread of the disease, ended up with far fewer deaths than cities such as Philadelphia which did not (Chart 1). Western Samoa did not impose any travel restrictions and lost a quarter of its population. American Samoa closed its border and suffered no deaths. Chart 1Containment Efforts Can Be Effective: The Case Of The Spanish Flu Recent experience suggests that COVID-19 can be stopped, even after community contagion has set in. The number of new Chinese cases has fallen from 3,892 on February 5 to 31 on March 11. South Korea seems to be getting the virus under control. The number of new cases there has declined from 813 on February 29 to 242 (Chart 2). Japan and Singapore also appear to be succeeding in preventing the virus from spreading rapidly. Chart 2Coronavirus: The Authorities In East Asia Seem To Be In Control Of The Situation What remains unclear is whether other countries can replicate East Asia’s experience. A recent Chinese study estimated that R-naught – the average number of people someone with the virus ends up infecting – fell from 3.86 at the outset of the outbreak to 0.32 following interventions (Chart 3).1 In other words, China was able to lower R-naught to one-third of what was necessary to stabilize the number of new infections. If one wanted to be optimistic, one could argue that other countries could get away with less heavy-handed measures, even if it is at the expense of a somewhat slower decline in the infection rate. Chart 3Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Unfortunately, given how contagious the virus appears to be, it is unlikely that simple measures such as regularly washing one’s hands, avoiding large gatherings, and wearing a face mask in public when sick will suffice. Trade-offs will have to be made between growth and health. Moreover, if the virus becomes endemic in a few countries that do not have the institutional capacity to contain it, this could create a viral reservoir that produces repeated outbreaks in the wider world. The result could feel like a ghastly game of whack-a-mole. The Fatality Rate The degree to which countries pursue costly containment measures depends on how deadly the virus turns out to be. On the one hand, there is some evidence that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is lower than the 2%-to-3% that has been widely reported once mild or asymptomatic cases, which often go undetected, are taken into account. This may explain why South Korea, which has arguably done a better job of testing suspected patients than any other country, has reported a fatality rate of only 0.7%. Like the seasonal flu, the death rate from COVID-19 appears to be heavily tilted towards the elderly. In Italy, 89% of COVID-19 deaths have occurred among those who are 70 and older. On the ill-fated Diamond Princess cruise liner, not a single person under the age of 70 has died. The fatality rate for passengers on the ship older than 70 is 2.4%. The seasonal flu kills about 1% of those it infects over the age of 70. Based on this simple calculation, COVID-19 is more lethal, but not light-years more lethal, than the typical flu (and possibly less lethal than the flu is for young children). Unfortunately, these optimistic estimates assume that patients with COVID-19 can continue to receive appropriate care. As we saw in Wuhan, where the official death rate stands at 4.5% compared to 0.9% in the rest of China, and as we are now seeing in Italy, once the health care system becomes overwhelmed, death rates can rise sharply. Bottom Line: Containing the virus will be economically costly, but given the potentially large death toll from a full-blown pandemic, most countries will be willing to pay the price. A Global Recession Even before the virus became endemic outside China, we estimated that global growth would fall to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. As we cautioned back then, the risk to our forecast was tilted to the downside, and that has proven to be the case. We now expect the global economy to shrink not just in the first quarter but in the second quarter as well, as country after country experiences a surge in new infections. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth constitute a technical recession. Despite the drop in new cases in China over the past two weeks, most high-frequency measures of economic activity such as property sales, railway-loaded coal volumes, and traffic congestion have yet to return anywhere close to normal levels (Chart 4). In the US, hotel occupancy rates, movie ticket sales, and attendance at sporting events were all close to normal levels as of last week. However, that is changing quickly. Already, automobile traffic in Seattle, one of the cities most hard-hit by the virus, has fallen sharply (Chart 5). Chart 4China: It Will Take Time For Life To Return To Normal Chart 5US: Staying Home More In Seattle Due To The Virus? Qualitatively Different While a recession in the first half of 2020 is now unavoidable, the nature of this recession is likely to be quite different than in the past. To understand why, it is useful to review what causes most recessions. A typical recession involves a prolonged loss of aggregate demand. Such a loss of demand can result from either financial market overheating or economic overheating. Financial market overheating can occur if a credit-fueled asset bubble bursts, leaving people with less wealth struggling to pay off debt. For example, US residential investment fell from 6.6% of GDP in 2005 to 2.5% of 2010. Thus, even after the credit markets thawed, there was still a large hole in aggregate demand that needed to be filled. A similar, though less severe, loss of demand occurred when the bursting of the dotcom bubble led to severe cutbacks in IT spending. Economic overheating occurs when a lack of spare capacity puts upward pressure on inflation. Wary of accelerating prices, central banks slam on the brakes, raising interest rates into restrictive territory. This often results in a recession. In both types of recessions, there are usually second-round effects that can swamp the initial shock to aggregate demand. As spending falls, firms start to lay off workers. The resulting loss in household income leads to less spending. Even those who retain their jobs are apt to feel less confident, leading to an increase in precautionary savings. For their part, businesses tend to cut production as inventory levels swell. Things only return to normal once enough pent-up demand has accumulated and/or policy has become sufficiently stimulative to revive spending. Framed in this way, one can see that the current downturn differs from past downturns in at least three important respects. First, unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand this time around will be partly mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. While this will not prevent many workers from temporarily losing income, it will limit the increase in unemployment, at least initially. We have already seen this in China, where GDP growth collapsed but companies are complaining about a shortage of migrant labor. Second, rather than falling, inventory levels may actually rise. Since companies will have to deal with pervasive supply shocks of unknown frequency, duration, and magnitude, their natural inclination will be to increase inventory levels for fear that they will not be able to access their supply chains when they need them. If recent reports of hoarding of toilet paper and bottled water are any guide, the same sort of behavior will show up among consumers. Again, in the short term, this additional demand will help to keep unemployment from rising as much as it would otherwise. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ongoing crisis is the result of an exogenous shock rather than an endogenous slowdown. In fact, a variety of economic indicators such as US payrolls, the Chinese PMI, and German factory orders were all pointing to an acceleration in global growth before the crisis began. This suggests that growth could recover quickly once the panic subsides. While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long it will take for the panic to end, it may not last as long as many fear. Investors should particularly pay attention to the situation in Italy. If the number of new cases peaks there, it could create a sense that other western countries will be able to get the virus under control. Second-Round Effects? Although it is possible that economies will remain depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis. The private-sector financial balance – the difference between what companies and households earn and spend – is in surplus in most countries, including China (Chart 6). Chart 6The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Chart 7Lower Oil Prices Eventually Lead To Higher Growth Granted, not all sectors are likely to prove equally resilient. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 will also wreak havoc on oil producers. In both cases, however, there will be offsetting benefits. Much of the demand for travel and entertainment will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. And while lower oil prices will hurt producers, they represent a boon for consumers and companies that use petroleum as an input. In general, as Chart 7 illustrates, global growth usually accelerates following declines in oil prices. Fiscal Policy Will Turn More Stimulative Even before the crisis began, we argued that most governments should permanently increase fiscal deficits in order to raise the neutral rate of interest. At the current juncture, with a recession upon us and government bond yields at ultra-low levels, the failure to enact meaningful fiscal stimulus would be economic malpractice of the highest order. In addition to easing measures being rolled out by central bankers, our sense is that we will get a lot of fiscal stimulus, sooner rather than later. During most recessions, there is always a chorus of voices from people whose own jobs are secure about how a downturn is necessary to cleanse the system. This time around, it is obvious that the victims are not to blame. Politicians will not endear themselves to voters by denying the need for fiscal support to households struggling with medical bills and lost time from work and businesses facing bankruptcy. President Trump’s pledge this week to cut payroll taxes and increase transfers to those affected by the virus is just a taste of what’s to come. Investment Conclusions Chart 8Stock-To-Bond Ratio: A Lot Of The Bad News Has Already Been Priced In We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own analysis in our report “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. The total return ratio between stocks and bonds has fallen by a similar magnitude as in the run-up to prior recessions, suggesting that much of the bad news has already been priced in (Chart 8). Nevertheless, significant downside risks remain, which is why we would characterize our equity overweight as a fairly low-conviction view. We would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. As discussed above, containing the virus could lead to significant economic disruptions. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. Safe-haven government bond yields will probably not rise much from current levels, at least in the near term. The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points last week and will cut rates by another 50 basis points next week. Looking further out, however, bonds are massively overvalued and will suffer mightily as life returns to normal.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

On a happy personal note, I will be away on paternity leave for a short time, reacquainting myself with nappies. As such, there will be no Weekly Reports for the next two weeks, but you will receive two excellent Special Reports penned by my colleagues. Given the ongoing turbulence in the financial markets I will also send out short Alerts as and when necessary. Highlights After the worst three-day rout for stocks versus bonds in living memory, six-month investors have fully capitulated, and the markets are now priced for a technical recession. If the recession can be limited to two quarters, stocks are more likely to outperform long-dated bonds by 12 percent than to underperform by a further 12 percent. Tactical trade: overweight S&P500 versus German 30-year bund, currency hedged, setting a 12 percent profit target with symmetrical stop-loss. The closer that a bond yield gets to the -1 percent lower bound, the more limited becomes the possibility for a further yield decline. Overweight positive yielding bonds versus negative yielding bonds, currency hedged. The most attractive structural pair is overweight the US 30-year T-bond versus the German 30-year bund. Feature Chart of the WeekWidow Makers: Shorting Bonds In Japan, Switzerland... And Now The US A Recession Is Now Fully Priced Financial markets have fully priced a downturn when the time horizon of investors that have fully capitulated = the length of the downturn. A week can be a long time in the financial markets. Seven days ago, the markets were not priced for a global recession. Then came the worst three-day rout for stocks versus bonds in living memory, in which stocks underperformed long-dated bonds by 25 percent (Chart I-2).1 Chart I-2The Worst 3-Day Rout: Stocks Underperformed Bonds By 25 Percent The upshot is that investors with six-month horizons have now fully capitulated, meaning the markets are now fully priced for a technical recession (Chart I-3) – defined as a downturn lasting two straight quarters. But the markets are not priced for a more prolonged downturn lasting longer than two quarters. Raising the question: can the downturn be limited to the first half of the year? Chart I-3Six-Month Investors Have Capitulated, Meaning A Recession Is Fully Priced The pessimistic case is that the coronavirus can neither be contained nor normalised by the summer. Or that even if its direct impact ebbs, there might be second-round effects. A major credit default from, say, a distressed airline or other travel-dependent company could trigger aftershocks in the financial system. Moreover, the recent collapse in the oil price injects new uncertainty into the energy patch as well as into geopolitics. The optimistic case is that large segments of the economy are set to receive a 2009 type triple-boost: from a sharp deceleration in bond yields; from a sharp deceleration in the oil price; and from government spending and/or tax cuts – creating a potent cocktail of stimulants for the second half of this year. Investors with six-month horizons have now fully capitulated. Balancing the pessimistic and optimistic cases, we assess that the downturn can be limited to two quarters – albeit this cannot be our highest conviction view, as we are not experts in epidemiology or immunology. Nevertheless, if this assumption holds, there is now a higher probability that stocks outperform long-dated bonds by 12 percent than that they underperform by a further 12 percent. This three-month tactical trade has a slight twist. It is best expressed as: overweight US stocks versus European bonds (currency hedged). This is because core European bond yields are close to their lower limit, meaning that core European bond prices are close to their mathematical upper limit. All of which brings us to a much higher conviction recommendation. The ‘Widow Maker’ Is Back First the widow maker came to Japan, next to Switzerland, then to the rest of Northern Europe. Now the widow maker has come to America. In the financial lexicon, ‘widow maker’ refers to the fatal strategy of shorting high-quality government bonds in an era when yields have been grinding inexorably lower. Any investment manager who has dared to bet that government bond yields would rise, whether starting from 3 percent, 2 percent, or even 1 percent, and whether in Japan, Switzerland, or even the US – has ended up being carried out of their job in a box, feet first (Chart of the Week). Except that in Switzerland over the past year, the widow maker trade has not been as fatal as it used to be. While the 5-year yield in the US has collapsed by 200 bps, in Switzerland it has edged down by just 20 bps (Chart I-4). Put another way, shorting the US 5-year T-bond has cost 11 percent, but shorting the Swiss 5-year bond has been relatively painless (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Swiss Bond Yields Cannot Fall Much... Chart I-5...Meaning Swiss Bond Prices Cannot Rise The simple reason is that Swiss government bond yields are now very close to their lower bound. The Lower Bound To Bond Yields Is Around -1 Percent The practical lower bound to the policy interest rate is -1 percent, because -1 percent counterbalances the storage cost of holding physical cash and/or other stores of value.2   Imagine the policy rate fell to well below -1 percent. If banks passed this deeply negative rate to their depositors, it would be logical for the bank depositors to flee wholesale into cheaper-to-hold physical cash. This deposit flight would kill the banking system. But if the banks didn’t pass the deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, it would wipe out the banks’ net interest margin – the gap between rates on loans and deposits. This inability to make profits would also kill the banking system. At deeply negative interest rates, bank deposits would flee. Could policymakers just abolish physical cash, forcing us all into ‘digital cash’ with unlimited negative interest rates? No, because that would just push us into other stores of value: for example, gold, or ‘decentralised’ cryptocurrencies. The common objections to cryptocurrencies are that their susceptibility to volatility and fraud makes them a poor store of value. But both objections are also true for gold. Yet who has ever argued that gold cannot be a store of value just because it is volatile and can be stolen (Chart I-6)! Chart I-6Gold Is A Store Of Value Despite Its Volatility The lower bound to the policy rate at around -1 percent also sets the lower bound of the bond yield, because a bond yield is just the expected average policy rate over the bond’s lifetime. For completeness, we should mention one technical exception. If bond investors price in the possibility of being repaid in a different and more valuable currency, the bond yield will carry a further redenomination discount as an offset for the potential currency gain. This is relevant to euro area bonds because there remains the remote possibility of euro disintegration. Therefore, bonds which carry the small possibility of a currency redenomination gain – notably, German bunds – possess a small additional discount on their yields. But in jurisdictions where no currency redenomination is possible, such as Switzerland or Sweden, the practical lower bound to bond yields is around -1 percent. Overweight Positive Yielding Bonds Versus Negative Yielding Bonds Switzerland teaches us that the closer that a bond yield gets to the -1 percent lower bound, the more limited becomes the possibility for a further yield decline (price gain), whereas the possibility for a yield increase (price loss) stays unlimited. Making such bonds a ‘lose-lose’ proposition. The convergence in bond yields has much further to go. Therefore, our high conviction recommendation is to short negative yielding bonds in relative terms. In other words, overweight positive yielding bonds versus negative yielding bonds. And currency hedge the position – as, right now, the cost of currency hedging is low. The recommendation is applicable for both tactical (3-month) and structural (2-year plus) investment horizons, and it is applicable for all bond maturities: 5-year, 10-year, and 30-year. Given where yields now stand, the most attractive structural pair is overweight the US 30-year T-bond versus the German 30-year bund (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Expect Yields To Converge At 10-Year Maturities... Chart I-8...And At Ultra-Long ##br##Maturities Our structural overweight to a 50:50 combination of U.S. T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus a 50:50 combination of German Bunds and Spanish Bonos at 30-year bond maturities is up by 7 percent in just nine months. But the convergence in yields has much further to go (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Overweight Positive Yielding Bonds Versus Negative Yielding Bonds Fractal Trading System* As discussed, this week’s recommended trade is to overweight stocks versus long-dated bonds expressed as overweight S&P500 versus German 30-year bund. The profit target is 12 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In a turbulent week for financial markets, overweight Poland versus Portugal achieved its profit target, short US utilities versus oil and gas and short EUR/CHF hit their stop-losses, and short palladium versus nickel moved comfortably into profit. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-10Poland Vs. Portugal When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 MSCI All-Country World Index (in dollars) versus US 30-year T-bond. 2 The cost of holding physical cash or gold is the cost of its safe storage. Fractal Trading Model Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Bear markets occur in phases, and their narrative can mutate. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. We are reiterating our short positions in the EM equity index and a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar as well as our defensive positioning in EM domestic bonds and credit markets. We are taking profits on our long gold/short oil and copper trade. Oil prices may stabilize, but risks are still skewed to the downside. We are also booking gains on our long Russian domestic bonds/short oil position. Feature Chart I-1A Record Low Currency VOL Is Followed By Major Market Disturbances Global financial markets are witnessing the unwinding of the policy put. For the past several years, the consensus in the global investment community was that risk assets could not go down because of policy puts from the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury and President Trump, the European Central Bank and the Chinese authorities. Similarly, crude oil prices had been supported by OPEC 2.0’s put from December 2016 until recently. The latest panic and broad-based liquidation of risk assets has been due not only to fear and uncertainty related to the rapid escalation in COVID-19 cases around the world, but also to investor realization that these policy puts are ineffectual. The Fed’s 50-basis-point intra-meeting rate cut proved incapable of stabilizing global risk assets. Investors have begun to doubt the efficacy of policy puts and have thrown in the proverbial towel. Crucially, the high-speed and intensity of the selloff was due to widespread complacency and overbought conditions in risk assets. In our January 23 report, we quoted Bob Prince, co-CIO of Bridgewater, who stated in Davos that “…we have probably seen the end of the boom-bust cycle.” This comment was consistent with prevalent complacency in global financial markets, reflected in very tight credit spreads worldwide, high US equity multiples and record-low implied volatility in various asset classes. In the same January 23 report, we wrote: “Any time an influential person has made a similar declaration in the past, it marked a major turning point in financial markets. Remarkably, implied volatility for the US dollar has plummeted to a record low, as it has for EM currencies and a wide range of equity markets. Chart I-1 illustrates the implied volatility for EM currencies and the US dollar. Such low levels of implied currency market volatility historically preceded major moves in currency markets and often led to a material selloff in broad EM financial markets.” In that same report , we recommended going long implied EM currency volatility. Since then JP Morgan’s EM currency volatility has risen from 6% to 10%. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. Consistent with this thesis, we reinstated our short EM equity index recommendation in the following week’s report – on January 30. The MSCI EM stock index is down 11% since then. Our target is 800, which is 18% below current levels (Chart I-2, top panel). Chart I-2EM Stocks: A Breakdown In The Making Market Narratives Mutate Chart I-3VIX Surge In Early 2018 Was A Trigger Not Cause Of Selloff Narratives of all large market moves are always expounded in retrospect. Only after a selloff is well-advanced do investors and commentators come up with reasons for it and build a plausible narrative describing it. Critically, bear markets occur in phases, and their narrative can evolve. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. For example, the early 2018 selloff in global equities and industrial commodities was at the time attributed to the spike in US equity volatility (Chart I-3, top and middle panels). In retrospect, January 2018 marked a major top in the global business cycle (Chart I-3, bottom line). Hence, the true reason for the late-January 2018 top in global stocks and industrial commodities was a downturn in global manufacturing and trade and not the surge in the VIX. The key question investors are currently wrestling with is the following: How deep will this selloff be, and how long will it last? Our view is that the selloff in EM and global risk assets is not yet over. As such, we are reiterating our short positions in the EM equity index and a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar, as well as our defensive positioning in EM domestic bonds and credit markets. Gauging The Downside There is no doubt that global growth will be affected by the spread of COVID-19 and the precautionary measures taken by the authorities, companies and households around the world to contain the outbreak.   Further, growth visibility is extremely low, and that uncertainty is raising the risk premiums that investors demand. The latter is weighing on risk assets in general and global share prices in particular.  Presently, precise forecasts for GDP growth and a potential trajectory of COVID-19 cases are not credible, and hence cannot be relied upon to formulate a sound investment strategy. If the current bloodbath in risk assets persists, a market bottom could be reached well before bad economic data are released or COVID-19 infection cases peak. Given the uncertainty related to both the global growth trajectory and the Covid-19 epidemic, the only way for investors to gauge a market bottom is to continuously examine valuations, technicals and market internals. With respect to valuations and technicals, we have the following observations: The EM equity index seems to breaking below its major support lines. If this breakdowns transpires, there is an air pocket until the index reaches its next technical support, which is 18% below its current level (please refer to the top panel of Chart I-2 on page 3). If the EM MSCI equity index drops to this support range, it would be trading at 11 times its trailing earnings (please refer to the bottom panel of Chart I-2 on page 3). At those levels, the EM equity index would be discounting a lot of bad news, making it immune to dismal economic data and general uncertainty. For the S&P 500, if the current defense line – which held been during 2011, 2015 and 2018 selloffs – is violated, the next long-term technical support is around 2400-2500 (Chart I-4). Inflows to EM fixed-income funds were enormous in 2019. Meanwhile, EM corporate and sovereign spreads have broken out (Chart I-5). Provided this selloff commenced from very overbought and expensive levels, the odds are that liquidation forces will not abate right now and that the selloff in EM fixed income has further to go. Chart I-4S&P 500: Where Technical Support Lies? Chart I-5EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Have Broken Out   In a nutshell, we suspect that EM local currency bonds and credit markets received a lot of inflows from European investors in recent years because yields were negative across European fixed-income markets. A weak euro was a boon for European investors investing in EM. That, however, is reversing. Since the recent sharp appreciation in the euro and the nosedive in EM currencies, EM financial market returns in euros have collapsed. This will likely prompt an exodus of European investors from EM financial markets. Chart I-6A Major Breakdown In This Cyclical Indicator Even though the EM equity index is not expensive or overbought, rising EM USD and local currency bond yields herald lower share prices, as we discussed at length in last week’s report. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1  has plummeted below its major technical support and the next level is significantly lower. In other words, this indicator is also in an air pocket (Chart I-6). Given it is extremely well-correlated with EM share prices, the latter will not bottom until this indicator stabilizes. Technical configurations of high-beta and cyclical segments of the global equity universe are consistent with failed breakouts. Such a profile is typically not followed by a correction, but by a major drawdown. These include the European aggregate equity index, the Nikkei, global industrials and US high-beta stocks (Chart I-7). Chart I-7AFailed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Chart I-7BFailed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Chart I-8The Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio Is Back To 2011 Levels Finally, the global stock-to-bond ratio has decisively broken below the upward sloping channel that has been in place since 2009 (Chart I-8). Typically, when a market or ratio experiences such a major breakdown, the recovery does not occur quickly and is unlikely to be V-shaped. In short, the structural breakdown in the global stocks-to-bond ratio suggests that global share prices will likely stay under downward pressure for some time. Bottom Line: Odds are that risk assets remain in a liquidation phase and investors should avoid catching a falling knife. The odds are also high that EM share prices in US dollar terms have another 18% downside. We reckon at those levels – where the MSCI EM equity index is around 800 – it would be safe to start accumulating EM equities, even if the global growth outlook remains mired in uncertainty. For now, we recommend playing EM on the short side. What To Do With Oil Plays Despite periodic spikes in crude prices over the past few years, we have held our conviction that oil is in a structural bear market. We doubted the sustainability of the OPEC 2.0 arrangement, arguing that Russia would not cooperate with Saudi Arabia in the long term. Russia did cooperate much longer than we had expected, temporarily supporting oil prices. Ultimately, Russian President Vladimir Putin abandoned the cartel late last week, and the Saudis have hit back with massive price discounts amid large output increases. Consequently, oil prices have crashed and are presently oversold (Chart I-9). Given the uncertainty related to both the global growth trajectory and the Covid-19 epidemic, the only way for investors to gauge a market bottom is to continuously examine valuations, technicals and market internals. However, there will be no rapprochement between the Saudis and the Russians for some time. Given the drop in demand amid sharp increases in supply, crude oil prices may well slide further. Since July 11, 2019, we have been recommending a long gold/short oil and copper trade (Chart I-10). This position has generated a large 40% gain. Today, we are taking profits on this trade. Instead, we are replacing it with a new position: long gold/short copper. Chart I-9A Long-Term Profile Of Oil Prices Chart I-10Book Profits On Long Gold / Short Oil And Copper Trade   Among oil plays, we have been overweight Mexico and Russia within EM, both in fixed income and equity universes. That said, for absolute return investors, we have not been recommending unhedged long positions in either Mexico or Russia because of our expectation of a drop in oil prices and the ensuing broad-based EM selloff. Regarding Russia, for investors who were looking to gain exposure to local currency bonds, we have been recommending that they hedge this position by shorting oil since November 14, 2019. This recommendation has paid off well, and we are closing this position with a 26% gain. We will be looking to buy Russian local bonds unhedged in the weeks ahead. Chart I-11Relative Performance Of Russian And Mexican Domestic Bonds Is Facing Near-Term Headwinds In Mexico, we have also been reluctant to recommend naked exposure to local currency or US dollar bonds because of our bearish view on oil and the risk of large outflows from EM that would hurt the peso. Indeed, the oil crash and outflows from EM have led to a plunge in the Mexican currency. Instead, in Mexico we have been recommending betting on yield curve steepening. The proposition has been that short rates are anchored by a disinflationary backdrop and tight fiscal policy in Mexico while the long end of the curve could sell off in a scenario of capital outflows from EM. As with Russia, we are monitoring Mexican markets and are looking to recommend buying domestic bonds without hedging the currency risk in the weeks or months ahead. Bottom Line: We are taking profits on our long gold/short oil and copper trade. Oil prices may stabilize, but risks are still skewed to the downside. In the near term, the relative performance of Mexican and Russian stocks and local currency bonds versus their respective EM benchmarks could be undermined by capital outflows from EM in general and these countries in particular (Chart I-11). Nevertheless, both nations’ macro fundamentals remain benign, and their fixed-income and equity markets will outperform their EM peers in the medium term. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1     Calculated as ratio of equal-weighted average of total return indices of cad, aud, nzd, brl, idr, mxn, rub, clp & zar relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry); rebased to 100 at January 2000. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Dear Clients, This week we are issuing two Special Alerts on the Russo-Saudi market share war, one of which you have already received. Our weekly publication will proceed as usual on Friday, March 13. In this Special Alert, we update our view of the US election and address the urgent question of US fiscal stimulus. Upcoming reports will address the question of stimulus outside the United States. All very best, Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Feature Turmoil has engulfed financial markets as a Russo-Saudi market share war erupts at the same time as panic over the coronavirus spreads from China to Europe and the United States. The US and global stock markets are nearing bear market territory while the 10-year Treasury and global bond yields plumb new lows and deeper negatives (Chart 1). Our key risk-off indicators have all broken down (Chart 2). Chart 1The Bear Awakens Chart 2Global Risk-Off While the daily new cases of the virus are far from peaking in the US, the Democratic Party nomination process has eliminated the downside risk of a left-wing populist presidency. Political risk in the US will shift to Congress, fiscal stimulus, the general election, and the “lame duck” risk now threatening President Trump. Trump Not Yet Doomed, But No Longer Favored The US election is now “too close to call,” with the risks tilted toward a Trump loss. Bear markets tend to coincide with recessions (Chart 3). Woe betide a president seeking reelection amid a recession. Chart 3Bear Markets Tend To Coincide With Recessions We need to look to a previous era to identify precedents for Trump’s survival. William McKinley hung onto the office in 1900, Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, and Calvin Coolidge in 1924, all despite recessions.1 Rising unemployment will undo Trump’s re-election bid. In today’s terms, it is still possible that the virus panic will subside over the summer while a wave of global monetary and fiscal stimulus will kick in around September, creating a rebound that sends voters to the polls in an optimistic mood. But it is increasingly unlikely. Unemployment will rise as consumer confidence collapses in the face of the virus outbreak (Chart 4). This is deadly to a president with such narrow margins of victory in the key swing states. Chart 4Confidence Will Suffer, Layoffs To Ensue Chart 5Trump’s Approval Heading South Chart 6Republican Revival To Fall Back The coronavirus scare is already derailing President Trump’s approval rating. It had only tentatively recovered from a very low level throughout his first term and is highly unlikely ever to breach 50% (Chart 5). The surge in voters identifying as Republicans – which had recently, remarkably, surpassed Democrats – will reverse (Chart 6). Our quant election model is “too close to call” but will soon signal Trump loss. Our quant model was already flashing that the election is “too close to call,” due to the negative impact of Trump’s trade war on key swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. The weight of a feather can shift Wisconsin into the Democratic camp and turn the election against Trump (Chart 7). The model will inevitably show Trump losing the election once state-level data starts to reflect the virus shock. Chart 7Our Quant Election Model Says “Too Close To Call” … But Virus Panic Will Cause Wisconsin To Switch Bottom Line: The US election is too close to call at this point. With eight months to go, many things could still change, but a spike in unemployment will ruin Trump’s reelection bid. Biden, Not Sanders, Waiting In The Wings Chart 8Biden Has All But Clinched The Democratic Nomination The bad news for Trump – but the good news for markets – is that former Vice President Joe Biden has solidified his status as presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party presidential candidate. Biden romped to victory in Michigan and Missouri on March 10 – and is virtually tied with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in Washington, a liberal state that should favor the self-professed democratic socialist Sanders. Biden now clearly leads the count of pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention on July 13 – and voting patterns in the remaining primary elections would have to reverse entirely in order to give Sanders a 1,991-vote majority of delegates in the first round of voting in July (Chart 8). It is unlikely that Sanders can deprive Biden of a majority of delegates even though he will trounce Biden in the final debate on March 15. The important state elections on March 17 are all favorable to Biden: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio. Our delegate projections show Biden winning an outright majority by May 12 (Chart 9). Chart 9Biden Set To Win Majority Of Democratic Delegates By Spring Over the past year many clients have argued to us that neither Biden nor Sanders is electable. We have rejected this view on the basis that the economic cycle would most likely determine the election, since Trump had the misfortune of being a late-cycle president. The financial markets have dodged a bullet with Biden’s nomination since Sanders was capable of winning the nomination and now, with an impending recession, would be even odds (or favored) to take the White House. Chart 10Head-To-Head Polls Show Trump Vulnerability Average head-to-head polls show both Biden and Sanders beating Trump in the battleground states. This always suggested that Trump was highly vulnerable. But on the margin Biden is more electable than Sanders: he polls better against Trump than any Democrat, while Trump polls worse against him than any Democrat. Biden has an Electoral College pathway to victory via Florida and Arizona, as well as via the Midwestern states where Sanders is also competitive (Chart 10). Democrats ultimately chose Biden because he seemed the most likely to beat Trump. He also has the best position on the issue most important after the economy, which is health care (Chart 11). This reputation comes from his association with both President Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). A contested convention, in which the Democratic Party splits and progressive voters sit out the election, was always unlikely and is now virtually foreclosed. As he clinches the nomination Biden will seek to win over the support of progressives by choosing a progressive running mate and adopting more left-leaning policies on issues like inequality and the environment. Chart 11Democrats Chose Biden To Win And Restore Obamacare Chart 12Democratic Primary Turnout Strong In Vital Midwest Voter turnout in the primary elections suggests that voters are fired up in the Midwest (Michigan, Minnesota) but more complacent in the South (Texas, North Carolina) (Chart 12). Primary elections are different from general elections, but a worsening economy will provoke higher turnout. At minimum these data reinforce the point above that Trump is highly vulnerable in the Midwestern “Blue Wall” that narrowly brought him to power. Bottom Line: Biden is not only electable but at this stage equally likely as Trump to sit in the Oval Office in 2021. This is a market-positive policy outcome compared with the alternative – a Sanders presidency – which was almost equally probable in the event of a recession. Financial markets will see Biden as less negative than Sanders on regulation and taxes, and less negative than Trump on trade and foreign policy. Fiscal Stimulus A major source of uncertainty surrounding the election is fiscal policy, as a Democratic victory implies an increase in taxes on households and businesses. Not only is there a spike in tax provisions set to expire (top panel, Chart 13), but President Trump’s signature Tax Cut and Jobs Act could be repealed if he loses or made permanent if he wins. Chart 13Fiscal Uncertainty Looms Over US The short-term outlook is also in flux because the Trump administration is frantically trying to piece together an economic stimulus package to respond to the coronavirus shock. Democrats control the House of Representatives and have an incentive to delay and water down Trump’s stimulus proposals. However, they cannot be seen as playing politics with the nation’s health and livelihood and will ultimately agree to fiscal stimulus. This contradiction implies that financial markets will experience ongoing volatility as talks take place. Ultimately, Trump and the Democrats will cooperate, particularly as the financial constraint intensifies through market selling. Trump’s bid will be to stimulate the overall economy while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will target the virus so as to keep the nation’s attention on health care without granting Trump a re-election fiscal bonus. The most significant short-term stimulus on offer would be a cut to payroll taxes. Trump’s preference may be to eliminate the entire 6% tax levied on worker income permanently, but he is more likely to get something on the magnitude of the 2011-12 temporary payroll tax cut (second panel, Chart 13). This was a two percentage point reduction in the tax (to 4%) for one year that ended up being extended for a second year. The size of the impact is roughly $75 billion for each percentage point for each year ($300 billion for two percentage points over two years). The risk is that the House Democrats may require modifications to Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act that cause an impasse and financial markets to sell off before an agreement is reached.2 The Democrats, for their part, have a wish list of spending programs that they will insist on in exchange for a payroll tax cut. In particular they will seek to expand unemployment insurance for workers who lose their jobs in the impending slowdown, food stamps for unemployed and for children at home amid school closures, and mandatory paid leave (for parents with kids at home as well as sick people). The bill for such items can easily add up to $50-$100 billion in new spending. In addition, Congress and the White House have already approved an $8 billion virus mitigation package and additional packages of this size can happen quickly as the crisis requires. Trump is interested in another round of farm aid, given that China will fall short of its commodity purchases under the “phase one” trade deal, which could amount to $12-$15 billion. And Trump could always unilaterally rollback some of his tariffs on China or other trade partners. The combination of new spending and payroll tax cuts could bring the package to the $300-$400 billion range that Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, disapprovingly said was out of the question. It could easily amount to half of that. If the market continues to tank and the outlook for the US economy grows blacker, it will convince the Democrats that Trump is ruined unless they hurt their own image by appearing blatantly obstructionist amid a crisis. Bear in mind that the market wants a substantial stimulus not only because of the desire for a clear rebound in activity once the virus panic subsides, but also because the increasing odds of a Democratic victory in November mean that US tax rates will go up and corporate earnings will be revised downward. The country now faces a 50% chance of a 1%-2% fiscal tightening for each year in 2021-25 (Chart 14). Chart 14Biden Tax Hike Will Hit Corporate Earnings Chart 15US Fiscal Thrust To Surprise To Upside Thus a 1% of GDP fiscal stimulus for 2020 is the minimum necessary to improve sentiment. The US fiscal thrust – the change in the cyclically adjusted budget deficit – has already turned slightly positive this year, from what was expected to be a slight negative, due to a fiscally profligate budget deal between Trump and the Democrats last year (Chart 15). The one thing these blood enemies have in common is the need for more spending. Infrastructure spending is popular and has room to rise. Eventually the US will get stimulus, and it will surprise to the upside, even if the Democrats drag their feet to ensure that maximum political damage is inflicted on Trump this year. Not only is the fiscal setting inherently more dovish than it was in 2008, but Congress is bailing out plague-stricken households, not just Wall Street, this time around. The real game changer would be an infrastructure package. Americans spend about $140 billion or 0.7% of GDP each year on transport infrastructure, but popular opinion in both major political parties supports increases (Chart 16). The proposed sums are very large – Trump is proposing $1 trillion over a decade while Biden is proposing $1.3 trillion. The House Democrats have a bill worth $760 billion in new spending over five years ready to be passed. Also Trump is willing to capitulate on the Democrats’ preferred type of spending (direct deficit spending) due to his election constraint. These plans are all projecting considerable infrastructure spending on top of the Congressional Budget Office’s base line projection (Chart 17). Chart 16US Spends 0.7% Of GDP On Infra Each Year Chart 17Median Voter Wants More Infra Spending The fiscal multiplier of government spending is generally higher than tax cuts. Furthermore, the coronavirus hurts the economy by frightening households into their homes, which means that even the Democrats’ proposed cash transfers for low-income earners (those with a high marginal propensity to consume) may be impeded. Government-mandated infrastructure spending, by contrast, ensures that economic activity will pick up once the measures take effect (that is, with a 6-12 month lag … something the Democrats will become increasingly willing to agree to this spring given the election calendar). The impending US fiscal stimulus provides justification for going long infrastructure, construction, engineering, materials, mining, and environmental services sub-sectors included in the BCA Infrastructure Equity Basket (Chart 18). China’s large-scale stimulus measures reinforce this recommendation, since these firms are levered to China/EM growth. On a tactical basis, this trade is akin to catching a falling knife. Given our expectation that the world still faces challenges in overcoming the current turmoil, and the Democrats will hem and haw so as not to grant Trump his re-election wish list immediately, we await an opportune time to initiate this trade. A final reason to remain defensive on risk assets: the “lame duck” risk. If and when Trump’s re-election appears out of reach, he has an incentive to turn the tables. This could involve a radical or disruptive move in foreign or trade policy (e.g. on Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China, or even Russia). At that point Trump could attempt to cement his legacy of cold war with China, or he could even lash out against Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has ostensibly stabbed him in the back by initiating a market share war with Saudi Arabia that may not be pieced back together in time to prevent job losses in shale oil swing states (Chart 19). Chart 18Look For Chance To Go Long Infrastructure Stocks Chart 19A Russo-Saudi Oil Market War Hurts Trump In Shale Swing States Presidential powers are least constrained in the international sphere. At the moment Trump is trying to save the economy and his presidency. But if it becomes a foregone conclusion that they cannot be saved, then he becomes a pure liability for risk assets. Housekeeping We are throwing in the towel on our US tech sector shorts for a loss of 36% and 11%, respectively, and also closing our long Thailand relative trade for a loss of 17%. We are also closing our tactical long Italian government bonds relative to Spanish for a loss of 2%. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Coincidentally all were Republicans, like Trump – not that it matters. 2 The Democrats may seek to have Trump increase the tax rate on the highest income earners to the pre-TCJA level, or they may seek to increase the cap on the state and local tax deduction, which allows households (mostly high-income earners) in high-tax states to reduce their federal tax bill.

We have been cyclically bearish the broad equity market and vindicated, especially given yesterday's circuit breaker drawdown in the SPX, heeding the messages of our EPS profit model, that had no pulse, and of the bond markets, with the 10/2 yield curve inversion last summer forewarning of recession. As a reminder, we have been a proponent that "it will not be different this time" and a recession would ensue, and there is little doubt we are in recession now. We believe the only sustainable way out of this mess is a big fiscal package as the Fed's easing via ZIRP and QE5 are given. With regard to a fiscal package we are looking for something similar to TARP in magnitude in order to stem the equity market hemorrhaging and instill some confidence that there is plenty of money available to deal with the fallout of the coronavirus. Q1 earnings season will be a kitchen sink quarter similar to Q4/2018 as CEOs have an opportunity to flush all the bad news in one shot. What worries us most is a doubling in the junk spread near the 2016 peak that will further tighten financial conditions and the looming bankruptcies that would push the default rate higher as the VIX has been forecasting (see chart). Counter-party risk is also on our radar screens as these violent moves in FX, fixed income, vol and equity markets will leave a visible mark. Bottom Line: With regard to equity market investment strategy, we would stay patient at the current juncture before deploying cyclically oriented capital and really hide in staples and health care stocks. Please look forward to the upcoming Monday's report for an update on our overweight recommendation in the health care sector and its key subcomponents.

Highlights Uncertainty & Yields: Global bond yields, driven to all-time lows as investors seek safety amid rioting markets, now discount a multi-year period of very weak global growth and inflation. Bond Portfolio Strategy: Maintain overall neutral portfolio duration exposure with so much bad news already priced into yields. Downgrade overall global spread product exposure to underweight versus governments on a tactical (0-3 months) basis given intense uncertainties on COVID-19 and oil markets. Model Bond Portfolio Changes – Governments: Upgrade countries that are more responsive to changes in the level of overall global bond yields and with room to cut interest rates (the US & Canada) to overweight, while downgrading sovereign debt with a lower “global yield beta” and less policy flexibility (Germany, France, Japan) to underweight. Model Bond Portfolio Changes – Credit: Downgrade US high-yield, euro area corporates and emerging market USD sovereigns & corporates to underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekOn The Verge Of Global ZIRP The title of this report is a quote from a worried BCA client this morning, discussing his daily commute into Manhattan from the New York suburbs. We can think of no better analogy for the mood of investors in the current market panic. After having enjoyed a decade of riding the gravy train of recession-free growth and robust returns on risk assets, all underwritten by accommodative monetary policies, worries about a deflationary bust following the boom have intensified. The global spread of COVID-19, the ebbs and flows of the US presidential election and, now, a stunning collapse in oil prices – markets have simply been unable to process the investment implications of these unpredictable events all at once. At times of such stress, the obvious thing to do is to stand aside and hedge portfolios while awaiting better visibility on the uncertainties. At times of such stress, the obvious thing to do is to stand aside and hedge portfolios while awaiting better visibility on the uncertainties. It is clear that global government bonds have been a preferred hedge, with yields collapsing to record lows worldwide. While most of the market attention has been on the breathtaking fall in US yields that has pushed the entire Treasury curve below 1% as the market has moved to discount a swift move to a 0% fed funds rate. New lows were also hit yesterday in countries that had been lagging the Treasury rally: the 10-year German bund reached -0.85% yesterday, while the 10-year UK Gilt fell to an intraday all-time low of 0.08% with some shorter-maturity Gilt yields actually dipping into negative territory (Chart of the Week). The common driver of yesterday’s yield declines was the 25% plunge in global oil prices after the weekend collapse of the OPEC 2.0 alliance between Russia and Saudi Arabia. The inflation expectations component of global bond yields fell accordingly, continuing the correlation with energy prices seen over the past decade. Yet the real component of global bond yields has also been falling, with markets increasingly pricing in an extended period of weak growth and negative real interest rates – especially in the US. Collapsing US Treasury Yields Discount A Recession, Not A Financial Crisis Chart 2Re-opening Old Wounds While this latest plunge in US equity markets has been both rapid and powerful, the damage only takes us back to levels on the S&P 500 last seen as recently as January 2019 (Chart 2). The turmoil, however, has reopened old wounds in markets that had suffered their own crises over the past decade, with European bank stocks hitting new all-time lows and credit spreads on US high-yield Energy bonds and Italian sovereign debt (versus Germany) sharply blowing out. The backdrop remains treacherous and global equity markets will likely remain under pressure until the number of new COVID-19 cases peaks outside of China (especially in the US). If there is one silver lining amidst the market carnage, it is that there appears to be few signs of 2008-style systemic financial stress. If there is one silver lining amidst the market carnage, it is that there appears to be few signs of 2008-style systemic financial stress. Bank funding indicators like Libor-OIS spreads and bank debt spreads have widened a bit over the past week but remain at very subdued levels (Chart 3). This is in sharp contrast to classic risk aversion indicators like the price of gold and the value of the Japanese yen versus the Australian dollar, which are closing in on the highs seen during the 2008 global financial crisis and 2012 European debt crisis. Chart 3A Growth Downturn, Not A Systemic Crisis We interpret this as investors being far more worried about a deep global recession than another major financial crisis. That is also confirmed in the pricing of US Treasury yields, especially when looking at the real yield. Chart 4Does The UST Market Think R* Is Negative? Chart 5Another Convexity-Fueled Bond Rally The entire TIPS yield curve is now negative for the first time, even with the real fed funds rate below the Fed’s estimate of the “r*” neutral real rate (Chart 4). The combination of low and falling inflation expectations, and plunging real yields, indicates that the Treasury market now believes that the neutral real funds rate is not 0.8%, as suggested by the Fed’s estimate of r*, but is somewhere well below 0%. With the fed funds rate now down to 0.75% after last week’s intermeeting 50bps cut, the Treasury market is not only pricing the Fed quickly returning to the zero lower bound on the funds rate, but staying trapped at zero for a very long time. The Treasury market is not only pricing the Fed quickly returning to the zero lower bound on the funds rate, but staying trapped at zero for a very long time. Yet that may be too literal an interpretation of the incredible collapse of US Treasury yields. The power of negative convexity is also at work, driving intense demand for long-duration bonds that puts additional downward pressure on yields. Large owners of US mortgage backed securities (MBS) like the big commercial banks have seen the duration of their MBS holdings collapse as yields have fallen. The result is that banks are forced to buy huge amounts of Treasuries (or receive US dollar interest rate swaps) to hedge their duration exposure of negative convexity MBS, hyper-charging the fall in Treasury yields – perhaps over $1 trillion worth of buying, by some estimates.1 This is a similar dynamic to what occurred last summer in Europe, when sharply falling bond yields triggered convexity-related demand for duration from large asset-liability managers like pension funds, further fueling the decline in bond yields (Chart 5). Yet even allowing that some of the Treasury yield decline has been driven by a mechanical demand for duration, a 10-year US Treasury yield of 0.56% clearly discounts expectations of a US recession, as well – which appears justified by the recent performance of some critical US economic data. In Charts 6 & 7, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” analysis of some key US financial and indicators and how they behave before and after the start of the past five US recessions. The charts are set up so the vertical line represents the start of the recession, and we line up the data for the current business cycle as if the latest data point represents the start of a recession. Done this way, we can see if the current data is evolving in a similar fashion to past US economic downturns. Chart 6The US Business Cycle Looks Toppy Chart 7COVID-19 Will Likely Trigger A Confidence-Driven US Recession The charts show that the current flat 10-year/3-month US Treasury curve and steady decline in corporate profit growth are both accurately following the path entering past US recessions. Other indicators like the NFIB Small Business confidence survey, the Conference Board’s leading economic indicator and consumer confidence series typically peak between 12-18 months prior to the start of a recession, but appear to be only be peaking now. The same argument goes for initial jobless claims, which are usually rising for several months heading into a recession but remain surprisingly steady of late – a condition that seems unlikely to continue as more companies suffer virus-related hits to their sales and profits and begin to shed labor. Net-net, these reliable cyclical US data suggest that the Treasury market is right to be pricing in elevated recession risk – especially with US cases of COVID-19 starting to increase more rapidly and US financial conditions having tightened sharply in the latest market rout. Bottom Line: Global bond yields, driven to all-time lows as investors seek safety amid rioting markets, now discount a multi-year period of very weak global growth and inflation – most notably in the US. Allocation Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio The stunning fall in global bond yields has already gone a long way. Yet it is very difficult to forecast a bottom in yields, even with central banks easing monetary policy to try and boost confidence, before there is evidence that the global COVID-19 outbreak is being contained (i.e. a decreasing total number of confirmed cases). By the same token, corporate bonds (and equities) will continue to be under selling pressure until the worst of the viral outbreak has passed. We raised our recommended overall global duration stance to neutral last week – a move that was more tactical in nature as a near-term hedge to our strategic overweight corporate bond allocations in our Model Bond Portfolio amid growing market volatility. Yet with the new stresses coming from the collapse in oil prices and increasing spread of COVID-19 in the US and Europe, we are moving to a much more cautious near-term stance on global credit. Yet with the new stresses coming from the collapse in oil prices and increasing spread of COVID-19 in the US and Europe, we are moving to a much more cautious near-term stance on global credit. This week, we are making the following additional changes to our model bond portfolio to reflect the growing odds of a global recession: Downgrade global corporates to underweight versus global governments Maintain a neutral overall portfolio duration, but favor countries within the government bond allocation that are more highly correlated to changes in to the overall level of global bond yields. Chart 8Favor Higher-Beta Bond Markets With Room To Cut Rates Given how far yields have declined already, we think raising allocations to “high yield beta” countries that can still cut interest rates, at the expense of reduced weightings toward low beta countries that have limited scope to ease policy, offers a better risk/reward profile than simply raising duration exposure across the board. Such a nuanced argument is less applicable to global corporates, where elevated market volatility, poor investor risk appetite and deteriorating global growth momentum all argue for continued near-term underperformance of corporates versus government bonds. Specifically, we are making the following changes to our recommended allocations, presented with a brief rationale for each move: Upgrade US Treasuries and Canadian government bonds to overweight: Both Treasuries and Canadian bonds are higher beta markets, as we define by a regression of monthly yield changes to changes in the yield of the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index (Chart 8). The Fed cut 50bps last week as an emergency measure and has 75bps to go before reaching the zero bound, which the market now expects by mid-year. Additional bond bullish moves after reaching the zero bound, like aggressive forward guidance, restarting quantitative easing and even anchoring Treasury yields in a BoJ-like form of yield curve control, are all possible if the US enters a recession. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada (BoC) followed the Fed’s cut with a 50bp easing the next day and signaled that additional rate cuts are likely to prevent a plunge in Canadian consumer confidence. The collapsing oil price likely seals the deal for additional rate cuts by the BoC in the next few months. Downgrade Japanese government bonds to maximum underweight: Japanese government bonds (JGBs) are the most defensive low-beta market in model bond portfolio universe, thanks to the Bank of Japan’s Yield Curve Control policy that anchors the 10yr JGB yield around 0%. This makes JGBs the best candidate for a maximum underweight stance when global bond yields are not expected to rise in the near term, as we expect. Downgrade Germany and France to Underweight: The ECB meets this week and will be under pressure to ease policy given recent moves by other major central banks. A -10bps rate cut is expected, which may happen to counteract the recent increase in the euro versus the US dollar, but there is also possibility that ECB will increase and/or extend the size and scope of its current Asset Purchase Program. Given the ECB’s lack of overall monetary policy flexibility, and low level of inflation expectations, we see limited scope for the lower-beta German and French government bonds to outperform their global peers. Remain overweight UK and Australia: While both Australian government bonds and UK Gilts have a “median” yield beta in our model bond portfolio universe, both deserve moderate overweights as there is still the potential for rate cuts in both countries. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cut the Cash Rate by -25bps last week and they are still open to cut further to boost a sluggish economy hurt by wildfires and weak export demand from China. The RBA will stay more dovish for longer until we will see clear signs of a rebound of the Chinese economy from the COVID-19 outbreak. The Bank of England (BoE) will likely cut its policy rate later this month, or even before the next scheduled policy meeting, as COVID-19 is starting to spread through the UK. Downgrade US High-Yield To Underweight: US junk bonds had already taken a hit during the global market selloff in recent weeks, but the collapse in oil prices pummeled the market given the high weighting of US shale producers in the index (Chart 9). With additional weakness in oil prices likely as Russia and Saudi Arabia are now in a full-fledged price war, US high-yield will come under additional spread widening pressure focused on the weaker Caa-rated segment that contains most of the energy names. We recommend a zero weight in the Caa-rated US junk bonds, within an overall underweight allocation to the entire asset class. Downgrade euro area investment grade and high-yield corporates to underweight: COVID-19 is now spreading faster in Germany and France, after leaving Italy in a full-blown national crisis. The export-oriented economies of the euro area were already vulnerable to a global growth slowdown, but now domestic growth weakness raises the odds of a full-blown recession – not a good environment to own corporate bonds, especially with the euro now appreciating. Downgrade emerging market (EM) USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to underweight: EM debt remains a levered play on global growth, so the increased odds of a global recession are a problem for the asset class – even with sharply lower interest rates and early signs of a softening in the US dollar (Chart 10). Chart 9Downgrade US Junk Bonds To Underweight Chart 10Still Not Much Broad-Based Weakness In The USD We will present the new specific model bond portfolio weightings, along with a discussion of the risk management implications of these changes, in next week’s report. Bottom Line: Maintain overall neutral portfolio duration exposure with so much bad news already priced into yields. Downgrade overall global spread product exposure to underweight versus governments on a tactical (0-3 months) basis given intense uncertainties on COVID-19 and oil markets. Upgrade high-beta countries with room to cut interest rates (the US & Canada) to overweight, while downgrading lower-beta countries with less policy flexibility (Germany, France, Japan) to underweight. Downgrade US high-yield, euro area corporates and emerging market USD sovereigns & corporates to underweight.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.wsj.com/articles/fear-isnt-the-only-driver-of-the-treasury-rally-banks-need-to-hedge-their-mortgages-1158347080 Recommendations Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: It is too soon to call the bottom in bond yields. To help make that call we will be looking for when: daily new COVID-19 infections reach zero, global growth indicators improve, US economic indicators worsen, technical indicators signal a reversal. Fed: Low inflation expectations mean that the Fed is unconstrained when it comes to easing policy. Rate cuts will continue until either the funds rate reaches zero, or financial markets signal that enough stimulus has been delivered. Spread Product: Investors with 12-month investment horizons should neutralize allocations to spread product versus Treasuries, including high-yield where the recent oil supply shock will weigh heavily on returns. Investors should also downgrade exposure to MBS with the goal of re-deploying into corporate credit once the current risk-off episode runs its course. Feature Risk off sentiment prevailed in financial markets again last week, as COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the world. Most recently, the city of Milan has been placed under quarantine and New York state has declared a state of emergency. It is difficult to have much certainty about the virus’ ultimate economic impact, but the prospect of US recession looms larger and larger. In bond markets, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen to 0.54% and the yield curve is pricing-in 91 bps of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 1). If those expectations are met, it would bring the funds rate down to 0.18%, only slightly above the zero-lower-bound. Chart 1Market Priced For A Return To The Zero-Lower-Bound On the bright side, there is ample evidence that global economic growth was trending up before the virus struck in late January, and we remain confident that a large amount of pent-up demand will be unleashed once its impact fades. However, we have no clarity on how much longer COVID-19 might weigh on growth. For this reason, we recommend a much more defensive US bond portfolio allocation, even for investors with 12-month horizons. Specifically, investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and reduce spread product allocations to neutral. The market is sending the message that more rate cuts are needed. We will be quick to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation when we think that bond yields are close to bottoming. In the below section titled “How To Call The Bottom In Yields”, we discuss the factors that will help us make that decision. A State Of Monetary Policy Emergency The Fed took quick action last week, delivering an inter-meeting 50 basis point rate cut as the stock market tumbled on Tuesday morning. Alas, the market is sending the message that those 50 bps won’t be enough. Fed funds futures are pricing-in another 82 bps of easing by the end of next week’s FOMC meeting, followed by further cuts in April (Table 1). Table 1Expectations Priced Into The Fed Funds Futures Curve Of course, easier monetary policy is not the solution to what ails the global economy. At his press conference last week, Fed Chair Powell justified the emergency cut by saying that it will help “avoid a tightening of financial conditions which can weigh on activity, and it will help boost household and business confidence.” This is a fair assessment of what monetary policy can hope to accomplish in the current environment. At most, monetary policy can limit the damage in financial markets, which is a worthwhile goal given the strong historical correlation between financial conditions and economic growth (Chart 2). Chart 2Fed Must Do Its Best To Support Financial Conditions What’s more, with inflation expectations at very low levels – as we go to press the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a mere 1.03% – there is no reason for the Fed to resist easing policy, even if the expected benefits from easing are small. Chart 3Markets Demand More Easing From our perch, the only possible reason for the Fed to refrain from cutting rates quickly all the way back to zero would be to preserve some monetary policy ammunition for when it is needed most. The Fed probably doesn’t see things this way. In conventional economic models it is the level of interest rates that influences economic activity. Therefore, the way to get the most bang for your stimulus buck is to cut rates to zero as quickly as possible. However, if monetary policy is primarily influencing the economy via its impact on financial conditions and investor sentiment, as Chair Powell claimed, then it would be advisable to only deliver rate cuts when financial conditions are tightening rapidly. That is, don’t cut rates if the stock market is rebounding, save your ammo for when equities are in free fall and panic is widespread. We can’t know for certain what the Fed will do between now and the next FOMC meeting. But we can say that, with inflation pressures low, there are no constraints against cutting rates back to the zero bound. The safest takeaway for bond investors is to assume that rate cuts will continue until either (i) the fed funds rate hits zero or (ii) we see signs that the markets and economy are no longer calling for further stimulus. Those signs would be (Chart 3): Yield curve steepening, particularly at the short end. Stocks outperforming bonds. A rising gold price. A falling US dollar. Bottom Line: More rate cuts are coming, and they won’t stop until either the fed funds rate hits zero or financial markets signal that sufficient stimulus has been delivered. We can’t be certain whether that will occur with more or less than the 91 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced for the next 12 months. As such, we recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark. How To Call The Bottom In Yields The US economy is on the cusp of entering a downturn of uncertain duration that will likely be followed by a rapid recovery. Given that outlook, the next big call to make is: When will bond yields put in a bottom? We identify four catalysts that we will monitor to make that call. 1. Virus Panic Abates This is the most important catalyst that could lead us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation. The pattern of past viral outbreaks is that bond yields tend to fall until the number of daily new cases reaches zero. This is precisely what happened during the 2003 SARS epidemic (Chart 4A). As for COVID-19, the number of daily new cases looked like it was approaching zero a few weeks ago, but then reversed course as the virus moved on from China to the rest of the world (Chart 4B). One ray of hope is that the number of new cases in China is approaching zero. This suggests that it will also be possible for other countries to contain the virus, but right now it is unclear how long that will take. Chart 4AYields Will Bottom When New Cases Reach Zero Chart 4BNew COVID-19 Cases Still ##br##Rising   In sum, we will keep tracking the global daily number of new cases and will shift to a below-benchmark duration recommendation as it approaches zero. 2. Global Economic Data Improve (Especially China) Chart 5Waiting For A Global Growth Rebound China is where the COVID-19 outbreak started and it is also where we are now seeing the impact in the economic data. The Global Manufacturing PMI dropped from 50.4 to 47.2 in February, due in large part to the plunge in China’s index from 51.1 to 40.3 (Chart 5). In order to call the bottom in US bond yields we will need to see evidence that China can come out the other side of the economic downturn. This means seeing an improvement in the Chinese and Global Manufacturing PMIs. We would also like to see improvement in other global growth indicators such as the CRB Raw Industrials index (Chart 5, panel 2) and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors (Chart 5, bottom panel). Aggressive Chinese stimulus (both monetary and fiscal) might help speed this process along. China’s credit impulse is on the rise (Chart 5, panel 2), and our China Investment Strategy service observed that recently announced policy initiatives related to infrastructure, housing and the automobile sector resemble those that led to a V-shaped Chinese economic recovery in 2016.1  We will be inclined to shift back to below-benchmark portfolio duration when the Global Manufacturing PMI, CRB Raw Industrials index and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equities move higher. 3. The US Economic Data Worsen Chart 6Waiting For Weaker US Data While the Global and Chinese economic data are currently in the doldrums, we still haven’t seen COVID’s impact on the US economy. The US ISM Manufacturing PMI is in expansionary territory and the Services PMI is at a healthy 57.3 (Chart 6). Meanwhile, US employment growth has averaged +200k during the past 12 months (Chart 6, panel 2) and the US Economic Surprise Index is above 60 (Chart 6, bottom panel)! Until the US economic data take a hit, another downleg in US bond yields is likely. Looking ahead, if the Global and Chinese economic data are improving as the US data are weakening, financial markets will extrapolate from the Chinese experience and start to price-in an eventual US recovery. Therefore, bond yields will probably start to move higher while the US economic data are still weak. For this reason, one catalyst for us to re-initiate below-benchmark portfolio duration will be when the US economic data weaken. 4. Technical Signals Table 2The 3-Month Golden Rule We don’t recommend relying on technical trading rules when forming a 12-month investment view, but technical signals can help add discipline to investment strategies, especially when calling tops and bottoms. One framework with a decent track record is our Golden Rule of Bond Investing applied to a shorter 3-month investment horizon.2 While this 3-month rule doesn’t work as well as when it is applied to a 12-month horizon, we still find that if you correctly predict whether the Fed will deliver a hawkish or dovish surprise relative to market expectations during the next three months, you will make the right duration call 63% of the time (Table 2). The 3-month Golden Rule worked better for dovish surprises than for hawkish surprises in our sample but delivered solid results in both cases. The median 3-month excess Treasury index return versus cash was -1.09% (annualized) when there was a hawkish Fed surprise, compared to +2.56% (annualized) when there was a dovish Fed surprise. For context, the median annualized 3-month excess Treasury index return versus cash during our sample period was +1.79%. Until the US economic data take a hit, another downleg in US bond yields is likely. The overnight index swap curve is currently priced for 94 bps of rate cuts during the next three months, which would essentially take the funds rate back to the zero bound. As of now, we cannot rule out this possibility and are therefore not inclined to look for higher yields during the next 3 months. Momentum, Positioning & Sentiment Other technical signals can also help call tops and bottoms in bond yields. One such signal comes from our Composite Technical Indicator, an indicator that is based on yield changes, investor sentiment surveys and positioning in bond futures markets. Right now, the indicator is sending a strong “overbought” signal with a reading below -1 (Chart 7). Chart 7Technical Treasury Signals In isolation, an overbought signal from our Composite Technical Indicator is not a strong reason to call for higher yields. We found that, historically, a reading below -1 from our indicator precedes a 3-month move higher in the 10-year Treasury yield only 53% of the time (Table 3). Table 3Technical Treasury Indicator Performance (1995 – Present) One reason for the Composite Technical Indicator’s mediocre performance is that, even at low levels, the market can always become more overbought. But we can partially control for this by combining the overbought signal from our indicator with simple momentum measures that might signal a trend reversal. For example, a reading below -1 from our Composite Technical Indicator combined with a 1-week increase in the 10-year yield precedes a higher 10-year yield during the next three months 58% of the time. If we wait for a 2-week increase in the 10-year yield the rule’s success rate rises to 60%, and it rises to 71% if we wait for the 10-year yield to break above its 4-week moving average. At present, our Composite Technical Indicator shows that Treasuries are extremely overbought, but momentum measures are sending no signals about an imminent trend change (Chart 7, bottom 3 panels). Bottom Line: It is too soon to call the bottom in bond yields. To help make that call we will be looking for when: daily new COVID-19 infections reach zero, global growth indicators improve, US economic indicators worsen, technical indicators signal a reversal. Some Quick Notes On TIPS, MBS And Spread Product Allocations Along with raising recommended portfolio duration to benchmark on a 12-month horizon, we also recommend neutralizing exposure to spread product in US bond portfolios. This includes reducing exposure to high-yield corporate bonds. High-yield remains attractively valued but will continue to sell off as long as risk-off market sentiment prevails. The looming oil price war will also weigh heavily on the sector, which is highly exposed to the US shale energy space. Once again using the SARS epidemic as a comparable, we see that – like Treasury yields – junk excess returns bottomed when the number of daily new cases approached zero (Chart 8). We could still be relatively far from this point, so taking risk off the table makes sense.  New all-time lows in Treasury yields will drag mortgage rates lower and lead to a spike in refinancing activity. We also recommend moving MBS allocations to underweight. New all-time lows in Treasury yields will drag mortgage rates lower and lead to a spike in refinancing activity. This spike is not yet fully reflected in MBS spreads, which remain relatively tight (Chart 9) Chart 8Too Soon To Call For Peak Junk Spreads Chart 9Downgrade MBS . Going forward, even after the economic fallout from COVID-19 has passed and it is time to increase exposure to spread product, we will likely continue to recommend an underweight allocation to MBS because better opportunities will be available in investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds where spreads will be much more attractive. On TIPS, last weekend’s oil supply shock – combined with the demand shock from COVID-19 – will conspire to keep long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates well below their “fundamental fair value” for some time yet. But for investors with longer time horizons we see exceptional value in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Even before yesterday’s big drop in oil, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 52 bps cheap relative to the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 10).3 Chart 10TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Investors with 12-month investment horizons should continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries, but those with shorter horizons may be advised to stand aside and wait for the daily number of new COVID-19 cases to reach zero before re-initiating the position.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook?”, dated February 26, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2  For more details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights Oil prices fell 30% when markets opened Monday morning, following a split between OPEC 2.0’s putative leaders – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – over production cuts to balance global oil markets (Chart 1). If KSA and Russia are able to repair the break in what OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo once called their “Catholic Marriage” the sudden collapse in prices could serve a useful purpose in reminding producers, consumers and investors of the need for full-time management of production and inventories, and restore prices to the $60/bbl neighborhood in 2H20.1 If not, markets could be in for a drawn-out market-share war lasting the better part of this year, with damaging consequences for all involved, with Brent prices remaining closer to $30/bbl (Chart 2). Feature Much as we rely on modeling to guide our expectations, this is purely political at the moment. How Long Will The Oil Price Rout Last? That’s the question that repeatedly is being asked by clients following the breakdown in Vienna last week, and news over the weekend that KSA would engage a market-share war opened by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak prior to departing Vienna. Novak gave every impression of renewing a market-share war after Russia rejected the plan put forth by OPEC to remove an additional 1.5mm b/d of production from the market, to combat the demand destruction expected in the wake of COVID-19. The only answer we have to the question: No one knows with certainty. Chart 1Oil Sell-Off Accelerates, As Market-Share War Looms Chart 2A Market-Share War Will Keep Oil Prices Depressed Neither of the principal actors responsible for the 30% rout in oil prices on Monday morning when markets opened for trading – KSA and Russia – are providing guidance at present. Prices since recovered slightly and were down ~ 20% Monday afternoon. Much as we rely on modeling to guide our expectations, this is purely political at the moment. There are two large personalities involved – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Russian President Vladimir Putin – who have staked out opposing positions on the level of production cuts needed to balance markets in the short term, as the COVID-19 outbreak spreads beyond China leaving highly uncertain demand losses in its wake.2 If a meeting of OPEC 2.0’s leadership can be arranged before the end of March, a hope expressed by Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh in a Bloomberg interview over the weekend,3 the stage could be set for a rapprochement between KSA and Russia allowing them to repair the rupture in the OPEC 2.0 leadership. Should that occur, the rally in prices could be dramatic – maybe not as dramatic as today's price collapse when markets awoke to the opening rounds of a full-on market-share war between OPEC and Russia. But, over the course of the next few weeks, prices for 2H20 Brent and WTI would begin recovering and moving back toward $60/bbl as markets price in lower inventories on the back of a return to production discipline by OPEC 2.0. If we do not see such a meeting next week, markets will be forced to price in a prolonged price-war that could extend into the end of this year, which will not be easy to arrest. If, as seems to be the case, the Russians' goal is to directly attack shale-oil production in the US with a market-share/price war, the effort most likely will fail. True, there will be an increase in bankruptcies among the shale producers and their services companies. This will set up another round of industry consolidation – i.e., more M&A in the US shales – with the large integrated multinational oil companies that now dominate these provinces adding to their holdings. It is worthwhile remembering that US bankruptcy law recycles assets; it does not retire them permanently. In addition, the acquirers of bankrupt firms’ assets get them at a sharp discount, which greatly helps their cost basis. So, shale assets will change hands, stronger balance sheets will take control of these assets, and a leaner, more efficient group of E+Ps will emerge from the wreckage. What’s Being Priced? It is in neither KSA’s nor Russia’s interest to engage in a prolonged market-share war that keeps Brent prices closer to $30/bbl than to $70/bbl. We estimate oil markets now have to price in the return of ~ 2.8mm b/d of OPEC 2.0 production at the end of this month – i.e., a 10% increase of GCC output, led by KSA’s production getting up to 11mm b/d by year-end; ~ 600k b/d of cuts we were assuming would be approved in last week’s Vienna meetings; and ~ 260k b/d from Russia (Chart 3). This could be understated, as KSA claims 12.5mm b/d of capacity (including its spare capacity). Unchecked supply growth would force inventories to build this year (Chart 4).  In fact, absent a return to production-management by OPEC 2.0, oil markets will extrapolate the higher production and low demand into an expectation for steadily rising inventories, that will – once it becomes apparent the supply of storage globally will be exhausted – force prices toward $20/bbl. Weaker-than-expected demand growth would accelerate this process. Chart 3Higher Production Will Overwhelm Demand In Market-Share War Chart 4Market-Share War Could Exhaust Storage Forcing Production Out of The Market It is in neither KSA’s nor Russia’s interest to engage in a prolonged market-share war that keeps Brent prices closer to $30/bbl than to $70/bbl. The apparent unwillingness of Putin and the Russian oligarchs running the country’s oil companies to make relatively small additional production cuts – vis-à-vis what KSA already has delivered – to support prices has not been well explained by Russian producers. The revenue benefits from small production cuts almost surely exceed the additional revenue that would accrue from a 200-300k b/d increase in  output and keeping prices in the $30-$40/bbl range, a level that is below Russian producers' cost of production onshore and offshore, according to the Moscow Times.  KSA's costs are ~ $17/bbl on the other hand.4 Russia’s economy was wobbly going into the Vienna meetings, which makes sorting this out even more complicated. One thing that can be said for certain is that over the past six months Vladimir Putin has entered into another consolidation phase in attempting to quell public unrest, improve the government’s image, and tighten up control over the country, while preparing for another extension of his time as Russia’s supreme leader. A Battle For Primacy? At one level, it would appear the Russians were pushing back against an apparent demand by OPEC (the old cartel led by KSA) to fall in line. Russia’s rejection of the OPEC proposal could be read as an assertion of their position to show they were, at the very least, KSA’s equal in the coalition. A stronger read of the rejection, given the Russian Energy Minister’s comments following the breakdown in Vienna at the end of last week – "... neither we nor any OPEC or non-OPEC country is required to make (oil) output cuts” – would be Russia was attempting to assert itself as the leader of OPEC 2.0. Giving Russia what amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum on production cuts was a high-stakes gamble on KSA’s part. On KSA’s side, it is likely the Saudis grew irritated with the Russian failure to get on board to address a global oil-demand emergency that was spreading beyond China, when they were discussing extending and deepening production cuts in the lead-up to last week’s meetings. Giving Russia what amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum on production cuts was a high-stakes gamble on KSA’s part, to say the least. However, as OPEC’s historic kingpin, KSA may have believed its role was to lead the coalition.  Russia’s in a better position now relative to KSA in the short term vis-à-vis foreign reserves ($446 billion), budget surplus (~ $8 billion), and its lower fiscal breakeven price for oil ($50/bbl) vs KSA’s ($84/bbl), as we discussed in our Friday alert (Chart 5). However, with Russian per-capita GDP at ~ half that of KSA’s, it is highly likely – if this market-share war is prolonged – its citizens are going to be hit with the consequences of the oil-price collapse in short order: FX markets are selling ruble heavily today, and, in short order this will feed through into higher consumer prices and inflation. Indeed, we estimate a 1 percentage-point (pp) depreciation in the ruble vs. the USD y/y leads to a 0.14pp increase in Russian inflation (Chart 6). Chart 5Foreign Exchange Reserves Chart 6Russian Ruble Sell-Off Presages Inflation The Saudi riyal is pegged to the USD, and does not move as much as the ruble. However, KSA’s citizens also will be buffeted once again by a collapse in oil prices, as they were during the 2014-16 market-share war when government revenues came under severe stress. Things To Watch The OPEC 2.0 joint market-monitoring committee could meet again next week in Vienna, but that is not a given. If they do meet, the agenda likely will be dominated by trying to find a face-saving way for both sides to resume production management. Arguably, the presumptive target of the Russian strategy – US shale producers – will be severely damaged by this week’s price collapse, and both could argue the short-term tactic of threatening a price war was a success. The Saudis could also go for a quick solution, if their primary objectives are to sort things out with Russia, stabilize the global economy, and keep President Trump in office, rather than to push down prices in an adventurous attempt to escalate Iran’s internal crisis. We believe Russia badly miscalculated, and was too early in making a play for dominance in OPEC 2.0, if that was its intent. If, on the other hand, these large personalities cannot agree, the price collapse begun today will continue until global oil storage – crude and products – is filled, forcing prices through cash costs of all but the most efficient producers in the world. This level is below $20/bbl. These lower prices could redound to the benefit of China, as fiscal and monetary stimulus provided by policymakers there in the wake of COVID-19 to get the economy back on track for 6% p.a. growth gets super-charged by low oil prices. Bottom Line: We believe Russia badly miscalculated, and was too early in making a play for dominance in OPEC 2.0, if that was its intent. Russian GDP has twice the sensitivity to Brent prices that KSA does, which means such a tactic takes a toll on it as well as the shale producers (Chart 7). Capital markets had the US shale producers on the ropes, so it is difficult to argue there was a need to accelerate the process and shock the world. We again note a full-blown market-share war will set up another round of industry consolidation in the US shales, but, over the medium to longer term, the shale assets of bankrupt companies will only be re-cycled to more efficient operators, as we saw following the last market-share war. This will contribute to a stronger shale sector in the US in the medium term. Chart 7Russian GDP More Sensitive to Brent Prices The only other consolation for Russia is a higher likelihood of regime change in the US (more political polarization in the US benefits Russia), and yet the Trump administration has been the most pro-Russian administration in years so this is not at all a clear objective. We will be watching very closely for a meeting of OPEC 2.0’s joint committee next week. If we get it and a face-saving resolution is agreed by KSA and Russia we would expect stronger demand growth in 2H20 to absorb whatever unintended inventory accumulation a still-born price war causes. If not, we will expect a price war into the end of the year, after which the economies of oil producers globally will have been sufficiently battered to naturally force production lower and investment in future production to contract sharply. At that point, oil and oil equities will be an attractive investments for the medium and long term.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russia and Saudi Arabia Hold 'Catholic Marriage' with Poem and Badges, Form Enormous Oil Cartel published by Newsweek July 3, 2019. 2     We will be updating our demand estimates in Thursday’s publication, after we get fresh historical data from the principal providers (EIA, IEA, OPEC). 3     Please see Iran's Oil Minister Wants OPEC+ Output Cut, Hopes for Russia Meeting Soon published by Bloomberg, March 8 2020. 4     Please see Russian Oil Production Among Most Expensive in World published November 12, 2019 by The Moscow Times.  

Highlights Financial markets have experienced two weeks of wild swings: Following the negative 5-standard-deviation weekly move in the S&P 500 two weeks ago, the index moved at least 2.8% in each of last week’s first four sessions. 10- and 30-year Treasury yields made one all-time low after another. The coronavirus has arrived in the United States: It would appear inevitable that the coronavirus is going to spread across the US; the unknowns are how long it will spread, how deadly it will be, and how much it will impact the economy. Confronted with these unknowns, markets shot first and left asking questions for later. The selling may have gone a little far. The Fed and the Democratic candidates for president were in the news last week, … : The Fed made its first intra-meeting rate cut since the financial crisis was raging, cutting the fed funds rate by 50 basis points instead of waiting for its regularly scheduled March 17-18 gathering. Super Tuesday upended the chase for the Democratic presidential nomination, as our geopolitical strategists foresaw. … and we offer our quick read on their market impact: We expect that the Fed’s rate cut will be modestly positive for markets and the economy, while Joe Biden’s move to the head of the Democratic pack greatly diminished a risk that would otherwise have troubled investors all the way to November 3rd. Feature US equities have endured a rollercoaster ride over the last two-and-a-half weeks. From its all-time intraday high of 3,393.52 on February 19th, to the February 28th intraday low of 2,855.84, the S&P 500 corrected by 15.8% in just seven sessions. The brunt of the decline occurred two weeks ago, when the index lost 11.5% in its fourth worst week in the last six decades. The decline amounted to more than a negative 5-standard-deviation event, and took its place among what we now consider to be landmark episodes in US stock market history (Table 1). Table 1Socialism + Pandemic = History (But Not The Good Kind) The epic rout followed a weekend of distressing news. First, the coronavirus (COVID-19) slipped its Asian bonds, popping up fully formed in Italy and Iran in a sobering demonstration of its global reach. Second, Bernie Sanders had seemingly solidified his grip on the Democratic presidential nomination by trouncing the rest of the crowded field in the Nevada caucuses with nearly twice the share of the vote that he captured in his Iowa and New Hampshire wins. We therefore characterize the February 28th intraday low as the coronavirus/Sanders bottom. The former is still running around freely, but the latter has been largely contained. COVID-19 will surely be with us for a while longer, and may yet push the S&P 500 below its February 28th low, but it will have to do so without help from Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden reclaimed front-runner status following his tremendous Super Tuesday performance, and support for him coalesced with remarkable speed, relieving investors’ acute concern about a Sanders presidency. The primary campaign is still in its early stages, and the gaffe-prone Biden is capable of multiple stumbles between now and the nominating convention, but a general election without a self-declared socialist bent on ending health insurance as we know it will provoke considerably less market anxiety. The Rate Cut Equities had been pining for a rate cut, beginning last week’s surge upon the news that central bankers would be joining the G-7 Finance Ministers on their hastily arranged Tuesday morning conference call. After an immediate 2.5% pop upon the announcement of the intra-meeting cut, however, the S&P 500 sagged and wound up ending Tuesday’s session nearly 2% lower than its pre-cut level. The dismal market reception, and Powell’s own halting, tepid responses to questions at the press conference to discuss the rationale for the move left investors wondering if the Fed had made a mistake. We neither know nor care if it will turn out to be good policy, but we expect that the rate cut will lend support to risk assets over our 12-month investment horizon. Why would the Fed use monetary policy to try to combat a public health crisis, or any supply shock? Monetary policy tools were not made to fight public health crises. They will not speed the development of an antidote, make medical care more widely available, or make up for a lack of preparedness at the public health agencies leading the effort to blunt COVID-19’s spread. They also are not particularly well-suited to combat supply shocks. They cannot resolve global supply bottlenecks, put more people back to work in China, South Korea and Italy, or create and distribute all the test kits and protective clothing that medical professionals sorely need. It is within the Fed’s power, however, to try to keep COVID-19’s second-order economic consequences from taking root. Negative headlines, deserted shopping districts and runs on products like hand sanitizer and face masks can drag down business and consumer confidence. Falling confidence can weigh on consumption and investment, hobbling output, stifling employment growth, and raising the specter of a negatively self-reinforcing dynamic in which layoffs lead to less consumption, which feeds more layoffs, and less investment, etcetera. If the Fed can bolster the spirits of consumers and businesses, it can help to contain COVID-19’s adverse economic impact. Won’t this move leave the Fed with less ammunition down the road? Yes, it surely will, especially if the Fed would prefer to stick to conventional policy tools to combat the next recession. Last week’s cut may postpone the start date of that recession, however, affording the Fed a chance to execute a series of rate hikes before it arrives. For an investor with a timeframe that doesn’t exceed twelve months, it may not matter, provided the increased accommodation successfully reduces near-term recession risk. Do you think this move will be effective? At the margin, yes, we think it will. First of all, it will contribute to the mortgage-refinancing wave that has been building since the beginning of the year (Chart 1). With an average 3.45% 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rate, data provider Black Knight estimates 11 million borrowers could save at least 75 basis points by refinancing their existing loans.1 If the average rate were to fall to 3%, as it would if the spread between mortgage rates and Treasury yields simply eases back to the 2% neighborhood (Chart 2), the pool of potential refinancers would expand to 19 million. Reduced mortgage payments put more money in homeowners’ pockets and will help support consumption at the margin. Chart 1Mortgage Refis Were Already Ramping Up, ... Chart 2... And There Will Be Even More Activity Once Mortgage Spreads Normalize Lower rates will also increase demand for new-home purchases, which have positive multiplier effects, and other big-ticket consumer goods. They will also support investment at the margin, as hurdle rates fall, and more opportunities are projected to generate a positive net present value. Potential homebuyers may be less prone to attend open houses or conduct home searches if COVID-19 spreads, and skittish managers may be less prone to invest, but easier monetary conditions do promote economic activity. Finally, a Fed that is demonstrably committed to easing monetary conditions to mitigate COVID-19’s potential negative impacts may help shore up business and consumer confidence. It will take confidence to keep gloomy virus headlines from becoming a self-fulfilling recession prophecy. As Figure 1 illustrates, the Fed does have the means to boost demand in financial markets and the real economy. Figure 1Monetary Policy And The Economy What will it mean for markets? It may encourage investors to pay more for each dollar of a corporation’s earnings, helping to cushion equities from falling earnings projections (the Confidence/Risk Taking channel in Figure 1), though we think a surer outcome is that it will keep the search for yield at a fever pitch. Life insurers, pension funds and endowments can no longer rely on highly-rated sovereign bonds to deliver the income to meet their fixed obligations, but have very little leeway to allocate away from fixed income. They have therefore been forced to venture further and further out the risk curve (Figure 1’s Portfolio Balance Effect), which has had the effect of providing an ample supply of funds for less-than-pristine borrowers. Under zero- and negative-interest-rate policy (ZIRP and NIRP, respectively) just about any borrower aside from brick-and-mortar retailers and thinly capitalized oil drillers can attract a line of would-be lenders out the door and around the corner simply by offering an incremental 50-75 bps of yield. Since no borrower defaults, or goes bankrupt, as long as there is a lender willing to roll over its maturing obligations, extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy has had the effect of limiting default rates. We expect that the Fed’s move back in the direction of ZIRP will continue to squeeze spreads and ease financial conditions. That’s far from an ideal fundamental basis for owning spread product, and it won’t keep credit outperforming forever, but we expect it will allow spread product to continue to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. Recession Prospects There is no doubt that the probability of a recession is rising. COVID-19 is already exerting intense pressure on the airline and hotel industries, and strapped small businesses will find themselves in its crosshairs soon. It is certainly possible that a recession could sneak up on us while we focus on our assessment of the monetary policy backdrop. But just as COVID-19 survival rates are heavily influenced by a patient’s intrinsic condition, the economy’s prognosis may be a function of its pre-outbreak status. To assess the economy’s vital signs, we begin with housing, the major economic segment with the greatest interest-rate sensitivity. If monetary policy is less accommodative than we’ve estimated, the housing market might be gasping for air, but it appears to be as fit as a fiddle. Permits and starts turned sharply higher in the middle of last year (Chart 3, top panel), following the sales component of the NAHB survey (Chart 3, bottom panel) and purchase mortgage applications (Chart 3, middle panel). Homes are already quite affordable, relative to history (Chart 4, top panel), and they’re bound to get even more affordable as mortgage rates fall. Chart 3Housing Charts Are Up And To The Right Across The Board Chart 4Homes Are Amply Affordable Nothing in the available data indicates that housing is running too hot. Residential investment’s contribution to GDP has flipped from barely negative to modestly positive (Chart 5), and there are no signs that its current course is unsustainable. Unsold inventories and the share of vacant homes are at 25-year lows (Chart 6), and starts and permits are only just catching up with the multi-year average of household formations, suggesting that the market has been undersupplied since the crisis excesses were worked off. The overall takeaway is that the housing market is in the early days of an overdue recovery that has plenty of room to run. Chart 5Residential Investment's Current Pace Is Easily Sustainable, ... Chart 6... And The Housing Market Still Looks Undersupplied Chart 7The Labor Market Is Strong Table 2No Sign Of Recession Here February’s employment situation report, ignored by markets in the throes of Friday's selloff, suggests that the labor market, and by extension the economy, was in fighting trim before COVID-19 took root in American soil (Chart 7). February’s net job additions far surpassed consensus estimates, and the figures for January and December were revised appreciably higher (Table 2). With the three-month moving average of net additions coming in one-third higher than expected, the report was nothing short of tremendous. The March release is sure to be worse, and the all-time record streak of expanding monthly payrolls may well come to an end, but the patient was in an awfully robust state before it encountered the virus, and that bodes well for its immediate future. The Democratic Primaries Super Tuesday turned out to be super for US financial markets. With all of the Democratic party’s machinery now at the service of Joe Biden, the probability that frightening left-tail outcomes might emerge from the general election has been dramatically reduced. Markets can live with a Biden-Trump contest no matter how it turns out. Although we thought that markets were exaggerating the potentially negative conditions that would ensue under President Sanders, they would have been subject to rolling bouts of angst every time his general election prospects rose. Though our geopolitical strategists unwaveringly saw the former vice president as the Democratic frontrunner, theirs was a decidedly minority view. Following the Nevada caucus, Sanders was viewed far and wide as the presumptive nominee. Although a Biden administration would presumably be less market-friendly than the current administration, he himself is a card-carrying member of the establishment and wouldn’t do anything that would upset the apple cart. From an investment perspective, Biden is the candidate that would Make America Predictable Again, and even if re-election is markets’ preferred outcome, the prospect of a Biden presidency is hardly frightening. Investment Implications Although our conviction level has fallen in the face of COVID-19 uncertainties, we hold to our view that a soft patch is more likely than a recession, and a correction is more likely than a bear market. We remain constructive on risk assets because we think the selling has gotten overdone. There may well be more of it, and the S&P 500 could reach its 2,708.92 bear-market level before we can publish again next Monday, but we will be buying it in our own account all the way there. We think the most plausible worst-case scenario is a sharp but short recession, produced by a nasty supply shock that frightens households and businesses enough that they cease to consume or invest. The demand strike would imperil indebted businesses that suffered the biggest revenue declines: airlines, hotels, restaurants, retailers, thinly capitalized oil producers and a range of small businesses. They would shrink their workforces and many would default on their loans. That would be bad, as all recessions are bad, but it wouldn’t be a replay of the crisis. Credit extended to the sorts of borrowers listed above, ex-small businesses, is well-dispersed throughout the economy via corporate bonds and securitizations. The exposures the SIFI banks and their large- and mid-cap regional bank cousins have retained will be easily absorbed by the layers of additional capital mandated by Dodd-Frank and Basel 3. It seems to us that markets are pricing in a significant probability of something much worse than a run-of-the-mill recession, and we think that sets up an attractive risk-reward profile for investors in risk assets. We reiterate our risk-friendly recommendations, though we now recommend that fixed-income investors maintain benchmark duration positioning. We failed to appreciate the potential scope for a decline in long yields and are correcting course now.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Boston, Claire and Raimonde, Olivia, “A 30-Year Mortgage Below 3%? Treasury Rally Offers Bargain Loans,” Bloomberg, March 5, 2020.

Special Report

Highlights Joe Biden is the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee following Super Tuesday. The onus is on Bernie Sanders to upset the race yet again. This is unlikely. Biden’s nomination is less market-negative than that of Sanders, but increases the risk of a Democratic Senate and hence tax hikes. The coronavirus threat to Trump’s reelection is two-pronged – and rising. Go long global equities ex-US on the basis that the virus fears will give way to public resilience and global stimulus. Feature A non-populist, non-protectionist candidate is emerging as the Democratic Party nominee for the US presidency – a positive development for global risk assets in 2020. Judging by preliminary results from the Democratic Party’s “Super Tuesday” primary elections, former Vice President Joe Biden has become the presumptive nominee, one of our key 2020 views. Our simple, back-of-the-envelope projection of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 13-16 shows that as long as Biden maintains his average vote share thus far, he is narrowly on track to win a majority of pledged delegates and thus clinch the nomination by June (Chart 1).  Chart 1Projection Of Democratic Delegates To National Convention, Milwaukee, July 2020 The chief risk to our view – that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a left-wing populist, would run away with his momentum in February – has peaked. While Sanders won an average of 38% of the delegates on offer, he only won 28% of the popular vote, compared to Biden’s 44% of the delegates and 33% of the popular vote. The centrists as a bloc are outvoting the progressives and only two candidates are left. Ultimately Biden’s two-pronged path to victory in the Electoral College in November reinforces the Super Tuesday results, giving him greater electability and making him the likeliest victor of the Democratic Party primary. Super Tuesday Makes Biden Presumptive Nominee Biden racked up victories in key states including Texas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Virginia. He is now the leader in delegates to the party’s national convention (Chart 2), the popular vote, the number of states won, and the biggest states. The exception is California, one of the country’s most left-leaning states, where Sanders won, albeit with the combined progressive vote less than 50%. The voting pattern shows that Democrats still prefer centrist candidates to left-wing or “progressive” candidates by 50% to 40% on average (Chart 3). With two candidates left, this dynamic should favor Biden. Chart 2The Delegate Count Thus Far Chart 3Popular Vote: Biden/Centrists Versus Sanders/Progressives Chart 4Super Tuesday And Beyond By winning Texas and sweeping the South, Biden is heavily favored to win Florida on March 17 – always one of his strong suits vis-à-vis Sanders and a sign of electability in November. But his surprise victories over Sanders in Minnesota and Massachusetts show that he is competitive in the Midwest and Northeast, meaning that he is also likely favored to come out on top in Michigan and Ohio on March 10. The same goes for Illinois, the home state of his 2008-12 running mate Obama, on March 17 (Chart 4). True, in Minnesota and Massachusetts Biden benefited from Senator Elizabeth Warren’s clearing the 15% threshold, thus subtracting from Sanders’s vote share and delegate share. Warren may or may not drop out of the race. Sanders needs to arrest Biden’s Super Tuesday bounce and convince Democratic voters that he is more electable against Trump than Biden. This is a tall order for March 10-17, but Sanders has performed as well or better than Biden in the Northeast and Midwest as a whole, and these are the two regions that yield the most delegates in the rest of the primary (Chart 5).  Biden’s centrist rivals dropped out of the competition after his big win in South Carolina on February 29. His remaining centrist rival, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, suffered a humiliating defeat – pulling in Aspen, Colorado and Napa Valley California along with American Samoa despite spending over $400 million in advertisements (Chart 6). As we have argued, it takes votes, not just money, to win elections. Chart 5The Battle For The Northeast And Midwest Chart 6Bloomberg’s Folly It is a two-man race. If Biden can beat Sanders surrounded by competitors, then the onus is on Sanders to change the game from here. Otherwise Biden wins. Bottom Line: Biden is the likeliest winner. We will have to see another drastic change in momentum for this outcome to be overturned. Sanders’s underperformance on Super Tuesday suggests that his challenge to our base case (a centrist nomination) has peaked.    A Contested Convention? Still Unlikely Chart 7Biden’s Super Tuesday Bounce The coalescing of the centrist and progressive blocs, combined with a likely Super Tuesday bounce, will put Biden back in the lead in national polling (Chart 7). A contested Democratic convention remains unlikely, though it cannot be ruled out. Biden and Sanders are racing neck-and-neck for delegates and another twist in the race could deprive Biden of the simple majority of pledged delegates needed to clinch the nomination. The problem for Sanders is that in a close delegate matchup, a centrist candidate is favored to come out with the nomination. VIX futures suggest that this outlook is priced in, as they are falling for July (the month of the convention) relative to June (the conclusion of the primary election). Volatility induced by the primary election should gradually subside from now through July. Volatility will spike with the conventions in July mostly because of the uncertainty over the general election, and it should also pick up in September and October ahead of the November 3 vote. The spike in volatility that is always to be expected in the October ahead of a presidential election should continue increasing relative to July (Chart 8).   How can we be confident? The combination of the party establishment and the alternate or “reformist” centrist faction should be sufficient to overwhelm the combined “progressive” or anti-establishment bloc. Biden could fail to win the nomination on the first ballot, but the pro-establishment “super delegates” (party stalwarts who are not pledged to any particular candidate) would have the ability to swing subsequent ballots either in his favor or in favor of an alternate centrist (Chart 9). From a game-theoretical point of view, a sequential voting procedure is deadly to Sanders. His only hope was to rack up such a strong plurality in the primaries that he could take the convention by force. That is now unlikely. Chart 8VIX, Rightly, Not Pricing Contested Convention Chart 9Which Way Will The Super Delegates Swing? Even without a contested convention – and certainly with one – the Democratic Party could suffer from internal divisions that affect its challenge to the Republicans in November. The closer Sanders comes to Biden in delegate count, and especially if he should lead Biden yet still lose the nomination, the more his supporters will cry foul. In that case the party would send anywhere from 30%-40% of its voters away feeling disenfranchised. The worst-case scenario for the Democrats would be a convention troubled by open partisan rancor and social unrest, as occurred in the infamous 1968 convention in Chicago. Peace protesters against the Vietnam War and supporters of anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy besieged the convention and were hounded and repressed by police forces under Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Moderate Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the nomination despite the strong showing of anti-war sentiment in the primary election. The convention exposed the party’s rifts for all the nation to see. Humphrey went on to lose the election to Republican Richard Nixon. Chart 10Democrats Need To Avoid 1968 Replay Something akin to 1968 could occur this summer if Sanders’s supporters believe he has, for the second time, been deprived of the nomination unfairly in preference for a lackluster establishment candidate who will lose to Trump. But circumstances today are not (yet) so dire. The backdrop in 1968 was one of general upheaval, with opposition to the Vietnam War and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and Robert F. Kennedy, the latter directly contributing to the dispute over delegates at the convention. The labor market was extremely tight (as today), but inflation was spiking (unlike today), fueling domestic unrest (Chart 10). The Democratic Party establishment is neither as disconnected from its base nor as draconian as in 1968. Biden or any other centrist nominee will seek to placate the left wing, likely through a leftward shift on some policies and a progressive vice-presidential pick. Opposition to Trump will act as a unifying force among Democrats. Bottom Line: A contested convention remains unlikely, but it cannot be ruled out. Biden is more likely to win the nomination due to his Super Tuesday bounce and the tailwind for centrists over progressives within the primary voting patterns thus far. If the convention is contested, it will likely result in a centrist candidate and the alienation of the progressive wing, and thus favor Trump’s reelection odds. Implications For The General Election Since November 2018 we have emphasized that US presidential elections are referendums on the incumbent party. Only rarely can the opposition defeat a sitting president amid an expanding economy, even if the ruling party lost the midterm election (as did the GOP in 2018). Major scandals reduce the historic reelection rate, but Trump has been acquitted so his biggest scandal is largely neutralized (Chart 11). The uptick in his approval rating after signing trade deals with China, Canada, and Mexico and getting acquitted by his fellow Republicans in the Senate confirms that he should be seen as favored for reelection. His approval is historically low but not prohibitive, as it tracks with Obama’s ahead of the 2012 election – low approval being in part a structural indicator of highly partisan times (Chart 12).  Chart 11Unseating An Incumbent Is Difficult Chart 12Trump’s Low Approval Not Prohibitive Yet Trump is only slightly favored. The coronavirus outbreak – and more importantly, the fear of it – threatens to damage Trump’s economy and highlight his fatal policy flaw: health care. Most of his first year in office consisted of a failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), leaving 28 million Americans without health insurance (uninsured individuals increased by 2 million in 2018, the first increase since Obamacare was passed). The Democrats weaponized this gaping policy vulnerability in the vital Rust Belt swing states during the midterm election. Anything that shifts the focus of the election to health, as opposed to the growing economy, is positive for the Democrats on the margin (Chart 13). Granted, the narrative over Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis will become a non-diagnostic partisan battle. Neither Xi Jinping nor Donald Trump are responsible for the virus outbreak, but Trump is accountable for the popular perception of his handling of it whereas Xi is not. Ultimately the underlying material conditions of the economy will prove decisive. If the fear factor at home and abroad results in a sharper slowdown and higher unemployment by November, Trump is doomed. The swing states are already vulnerable because they took a heavy blow as a result of Trump’s trade war with China (Chart 14). Chart 13Is Health Care Trump’s Fatal Flaw? Chart 14Virus Fears Threaten Trump's Economy On the other hand, if the fear factor subsides due to the virus’s non-apocalyptic death rate, globally coordinated stimulus – starting with China but reinforced by the Federal Reserve’s surprise 50 basis point rate cut on March 3 – could generate a rebound by Q4 that redounds to Trump’s favor. Doesn’t America’s extreme political polarization create a kind of tribalism that overwhelms traditional “pocketbook” variables in forecasting an election (Chart 15)? Aren’t Democrats sufficiently fired up against President Trump to generate massive voter turnout that wipes out his thin margins of victory in the key swing states? After all, turnout in some of the primary elections is on par with the year the Great Recession began (Chart 16). Chart 15Does Reality Matter Amid Polarization? YES Chart 16Democrats Not Turning Out At 2008 Levels Most likely the economy will be decisive. Democratic fury against Trump will not translate as easily to the broader public if the economy is decent or rebounding in the second half of the year. Voter turnout tends to correlate with unemployment, including in the swing states (Chart 17). The coronavirus shock to the economy, not the blame game surrounding the virus or health care system, will be the determining factor. Chart 17Voter Turnout Responds To Economy … Including In Key Swing States This offers little consolation for Trump, since the brunt of the coronavirus impact on the economy is yet to be felt. While we still give Trump the benefit of the doubt for reelection, our quantitative election model says that the election is “too close to call,” primarily because of weak state-by-state leading economic indicators for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Chart 18). These indicators will tick down further due to the virus impact before they tick back up. Our base case is that the uptick will occur, but clearly the fear factor is the biggest risk to Trump’s reelection. Chart 18Quant Model Says US Election “Too Close To Call” The fact that Biden is a slightly more competitive candidate against Trump than Sanders will not help. Biden has a broader Electoral College pathway than Sanders. Both are competitive in the key Rust Belt swing states on which the 2016 election hinged – Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. But Biden is also competitive in Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina, states largely closed to Sanders. Still, the difference between the Democratic challengers is marginal as neither is extremely charismatic and the election is a referendum on the ruling party and national direction as a whole. The Senate race is critical to the general election outcome (Chart 19). A Democratic president will be constrained if the Republicans maintain control – Sanders’s revolutionary agenda would be put on ice from the beginning, whereas Biden would have to focus on compromise (and would be prevented from repealing Trump’s tax cuts). Because Republicans saw a banner year in the Senate election in 2014 they must defend a larger number of competitive seats this year (10) than Democrats do (3) (Chart 20). If Democrats win the White House then they also need to win all three “toss up” races (Arizona, Colorado, Maine) – which is very doable – as well as keeping hold of their weakest seat (Alabama) or winning one additional seat (Kansas? North Carolina? Iowa?) in order to get an even balance in the Senate. This would give them the minimum necessary for majority voting since the vice president casts the decisive vote in a tie. Chart 19Democrats Lead Generic Ballot Chart 20Balance Of Power In The US Senate, 2020   Winning this many seats seems extremely difficult, based on the voting patterns in 2016 and 2018 (Table 1, Appendix), unless one considers the type of national environment that would see the incumbent Trump removed from office: it is an environment in which either voter turnout or support rates have shifted, in which case voters who view the Republicans as discredited are less likely to retain Republican senators who carried Trump’s water in the impeachment trial. Note that Biden is an asset in every key Senate race mentioned above except Colorado, whereas Sanders is probably a liability. Chart 21Balance Of Power In the US House Of Representatives, 2020 By contrast the Democrats are defending many more seats than Republicans in the House of Representatives (Chart 21). Yet Republicans would have to retain their five toss-up seats, three vacant seats, while poaching 18 of the Democrats 19 toss-up seats, to reclaim a majority (Table 2, Appendix). This is possible if there is a strong economic rebound in the second half of the year and Trump is “winning” on other policies, but it is unlikely. Thus a second-term President Trump is much more likely to be constrained by the House than a first-term President Biden is likely to be constrained by the Senate. It follows that Trump would focus on foreign policy, where he faces the fewest constitutional constraints – and in a second term he would be unshackled from reelection concerns. He would only be constrained by the desire for a magnificent legacy that keeps Ivanka Trump electable someday. This is not a constraint worth betting money on, especially not in the first two years when he is fresh off reelection (2021-22). The implication is more trade war with China, Europe, or both. Meanwhile Biden with the Senate would focus on the Democrats’ domestic legislative agenda – and would be likely to rack up successes. Without the Senate he too would be driven toward foreign policy, and given his age he would face a limited reelection constraint, like Trump. Bottom Line: Biden’s likely nomination solidifies our view that if Democrats win, they are likely to eke out a bare one-vote majority in the Senate, though not guaranteed. Biden is a Democratic asset for key Senate races while Sanders would be more likely to be constrained by a Republican Senate. If Democrats lose, they would have to lose in the context of a big economic rebound (or some other policy windfall for Trump) in order to yield the House of Representatives. In the context of the coronavirus shock, this seems unlikely. But it is likeliest if the economy is rebounding and the Democrats run a “socialist” for the presidency. Economic Policy Implications The most important investment takeaway from Super Tuesday is that the “Bernie Sanders Panic Index” risk will now tend to subside and the key sectors of the US stock market – tech and health – plus financials and energy will no longer have as big of a threat of punitive regulation hanging over their heads (Chart 22). Chart 22Bernie Panic Index Will Subside Biden’s approach to health would be to restore and expand Obamacare, which is already the law of the land and thus not nearly as disruptive as the attempt by Sanders to create a universal single-payer program that would eliminate private insurance (a large source of uncertainty since it would have been extremely difficult to achieve yet central to his agenda). Incidentally, Big Pharma faces headwinds under Democrats or Republicans, as the populist demand for lower prices will carry the day. President Biden would certainly re-regulate, reversing the deregulatory tailwind for corporate profits and animal spirits under President Trump (Chart 23). But there is much less negative of an impact on business optimism and the job market under Biden than Sanders. Business concern over tax hikes, as outlined, will largely depend on the Senate outcome (Chart 24). The consolation for the financial markets is that, with Biden the presumptive nominee, the tax cut rollback would not be complete: Biden aims for a 28% corporate rate, which is still a net seven percentage point cut from 2016. Chart 23Trump’s De-Regulatory Shock Chart 24The Oval Office Has A Pen And A Phone   The financial industry has faced a long and rocky recovery since the 2008 crash, reminiscent of the tech sector in the wake of the dotcom bubble (Chart 25). A Democratic victory will be negative on the margin, as even Biden will need to sharpen his knives when it comes to the banks. Even the Wall Street candidate Bloomberg had proposed a financial transactions tax. By contrast, Trump would clearly benefit this sector – as long as the business cycle recovers and the yield curve steepens. Chart 25Regulation Returns To Financial Industry? The loser, in either outcome, is the tech sector – which is the most richly valued. Both Republicans and Democrats are investigating Big Tech for anti-competitive practices. Wealth inequality, and the eventual end of the bull market and business cycle, will generate public unrest and encourage the government to identify and punish scapegoats, as in the past with leading companies that had excessive market concentration (Chart 26). Yet neither Trump nor Biden will be as aggressive on this front as Sanders would be. Chart 26Anti-Trust Suits Distract From Inequality, Late-Cycle Woes Chart 27Infrastructure Stocks Will Reboot There is little difference between Trump and Biden (or Sanders for that matter) on the question of infrastructure. Americans want better infrastructure but an economic slowdown is required to provide the impetus. Democrats are unlikely to grant new spending to Trump prior to the election unless he is reelected or a full-blown economic collapse is occurring (in which it is his final act). The performance of BCA’s Infrastructure Basket will improve after the election given that both parties are embracing expansive fiscal spending while China is launching another stimulus mini-cycle (Chart 27). The fiscal trajectory of the United States is unlikely to correct anytime soon. Trumpism has routed the fiscal hawks within the Republican Party and Biden is attempting to lead a Democratic Party that is making increasingly extravagant spending demands. The median American voter is demanding greater government provision of services and social spending. If Democrats win the White House and Senate, they will be able to claw back some revenue by repealing Trump’s tax cuts, but the pressure to spend will outweigh their ability to increase taxes (Chart 28). They will need to expand non-defense discretionary spending even as mandatory outlays rise inexorably due to the aging of the population (Chart 29). Chart 28More Fiscal Profligacy In The US Outlook Chart 29Zero Chance Of Entitlement Cuts Investment Conclusions The US election is eight months away and much can change between now and then. What we know is that Biden now has the clearest path to the Democratic nomination, while Sanders would require another rapid reversal in momentum in order to take the lead. Even if he does, the Democratic convention will favor a centrist as long as Sanders falls short of a commanding lead, which is likely given the 50%-versus-40% split in favor of centrists over progressives thus far. A two-man race will favor Biden as long as this dynamic persists. Biden is slightly more competitive against Trump than Sanders, and slightly more likely to take the Senate for the Democrats. Yet ultimately Trump’s presidency will live or die based on the economy. Otherwise a significant policy humiliation (or surprise right-wing third party candidate) would be required to undo his reelection bid. Chart 30Valuations Favor Non-US Stocks Unfortunately for Trump, the coronavirus outbreak presents precisely this two-pronged risk of worsening economy and policy failure. If this risk fully materializes then he is finished, but markets will most likely have the consolation that it is Biden, not Sanders, waiting in the wings. Our base case remains constructive over the next twelve months, particularly for global stocks ex-US, which are much more heavily discounted and will benefit from Chinese stimulus (Chart 30). The virus shock is clearly a massive risk, but as long as the death rate does not surprise to the upside the ultimate impact will be public resilience and global stimulus.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1Democrats Likely To Win The Senate If They Win White House Table 2Republicans Unlikely To Reclaim House Even If They Keep White House Footnotes