Developed Countries

Highlights Global Growth & Inflation: An increasing number of growth indicators worldwide are tracing out a “v”-shaped pattern from the COVID-19 recession. However, high unemployment and a lack of inflationary pressure will ensure that global monetary policies remain highly stimulative for some time. Duration:  Maintain a neutral duration stance in global fixed income portfolios, as the recent negative correlation between inflation expectations and real yields is likely to continue.  Stay overweight higher-yielding government bonds in the US, Canada and Italy versus core Europe and Japan.  Also, favor inflation-linked bonds over nominals - particularly in the US, Canada and euro area – as breakevens will continue drifting higher over the next 6-12 months. Corporate Credit: Maintain a neutral overall allocation to global spread product, focused on overweights in markets directly supported by central bank purchases (US investment grade corporates of maturities up to five years, US Ba-rated high-yield). Feature Today marks the midway point of what has already become one the most eventful years of our lifetimes. Investors have had to process multiple massive shocks: a global pandemic; a historically deep worldwide recession; and in the US, nationwide social unrest and a now politically vulnerable president.  Yet despite the severe economic shock and persistent uncertainties, financial market performance over the entire first six months of the year has not been terrible. The S&P 500 index is only down -5.5% year-to-date, while the NASDAQ index is up +10.5% over the same period. Meanwhile, the Barclays Global Aggregate benchmark fixed income index is up +3.9% so far in 2020 (in hedged US dollar terms).  In light of the magnitude of losses suffered by global equity and credit markets in February and March, those are impressive year-to-date returns. CHART OF THE WEEKA Tug Of War Falling government bond yields, driven lower by an aggressive easing of global monetary policies through rate cuts and quantitative easing (QE), have played a major role in driving the recovery in risk assets. With the number of global COVID-19 cases now accelerating rapidly once again, however, the odds are increasing that investors become more reluctant to drive equity and credit valuations even higher (Chart of the Week). At the halfway point of the calendar year, this is a good time to review our most trusted indicators, and current investment recommendations, for global government debt and corporate credit. Duration Allocation: A Non-Inflationary Growth Recovery – But With Higher Inflation Expectations Our current recommended overall global duration stance is NEUTRAL. Global growth has started to recover from the sharp COVID-19 recession.  Survey data like manufacturing and services purchasing managers indices (PMIs) have rapidly rebounded from the huge March/April drops, although most PMIs remain below the 50 level suggesting accelerating economic growth (Chart 2). While there is less timely “hard data” available due to reporting lags, there are signs of improvement in critical measures like US durable goods orders, which soared +15.8% in May after falling by similar amounts in both March and April.  Global realized inflation data remains very weak, however, with headline CPI flirting with deflation in most major develop economies.  Combined with still very high levels of unemployment, which will take years to return anywhere close to pre-COVID levels, the backdrop will keep central banks highly dovish for a long time. The US Federal Reserve has already signaled that the fed funds rate will remain near 0% until the end of 2022, while the Bank of Japan has said no rate hikes will happen before 2023 at the earliest. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of three elements - our global leading economic indicator and its diffusion index, along with the global ZEW measure of economic expectations - has already returned to pre-COVID levels (Chart 3).  This leading, directional indicator of bond yields suggests that the downward pressure on yields seen over the first half of 2020 is over.   Chart 2Growth, But Not Inflation, Is Recovering Chart 3Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 However, it is far too soon to expect a big bond selloff, with nominal government bond yields now pulled in opposing directions by their real yield and inflation expectations components. As we discussed in last week’s report, our models for market-based inflation expectations indicate that breakevens derived from inflation-linked bonds are too low.1 Hyper-easy monetary policies from the Fed, ECB and other major central banks will help lift inflation expectations, especially with oil prices likely to continue rising over the next 12-18 months according to BCA’s commodity strategists.  Chart 4Higher Inflation Breakevens Should Eventually Help Steepen Yield Curves The rise in inflation breakevens already seen over the past three months in places like the US, Canada and Australia – combined with dovish forward guidance on future interest rates that has kept shorter-maturity bond yields anchored -  should have resulted in a bearish steepening of government bond yield curves.  Yet the differences between 10-year and 2-year yields across the major developed markets have gone sideways since the beginning of April, even as 10-year inflation breakevens have increased (Chart 4). This has also kept the overall level of nominal 10-year yields nearly unchanged over the same period; for example, the 10-year US Treasury yield is now at 0.64% compared to the 0.58% closing level seen back on April 1. An outcome of rising inflation expectations with stable nominal yields must mean that real bond yields have declined by nearly as much as breakeven inflation rates have increased.  That is exactly what has happened when looking at the actual real yield on 10-year inflation-linked bonds in the US, euro area, Canada, Japan, the UK and Australia. Using the US as an example, the 10-year inflation breakeven has increased +44bps since April 1, while the 10-year real yield has declined by -38bps. The decline in global real bond yields has coincided with the major central banks aggressively easing monetary policy, including large-scale purchases of government bonds.  This occurred even in countries that had not engaged in major QE programs before, like Australia and Canada. The sizes involved for the new QE purchases have been massive, given the significant increase in the size of central bank balance sheets in absolute terms and relative to GDP (Chart 5).  An outcome of rising inflation expectations with stable nominal yields must mean that real bond yields have declined by nearly as much as breakeven inflation rates have increased.   Chart 5Global QE Is Helping Drive Real Bond Yields Lower It is possible that the decline in real yields is due to other factors besides QE purchases, like markets pricing in structurally slower economic growth (and lower neutral interest rates) following the severe COVID-19 recession.  Or perhaps it is more fundamentally economic in nature, reflecting a surge in domestic savings at a time of falling investment spending.  The key takeaway for investors is that rising inflation expectations do not necessarily have to translate into higher nominal bond yields if the markets do not expect central banks to signal a need to tighten monetary policy in the near future, which would push real bond yields higher. For this reason, we continue to prefer structural allocations to inflation-linked bonds out of nominal government debt, rather than maintaining below-benchmark duration exposure in fixed income portfolios.  That is a position that benefits from both higher inflation breakevens and lower real yields, while still having the benefit of maintaining a neutral level of safe-haven duration exposure given the lingering uncertainties over the accelerating global spread of COVID-19. At the specific country level, we recommend overweighting inflation-linked bonds over nominals in the US, Italy and Canada where breakevens appear most cheap on our models. Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral duration stance in global fixed income portfolios, as the recent negative correlation between inflation expectations and real yields is likely to continue.  Stay overweight higher-yielding government bonds in the US, Canada and Italy versus core Europe and Japan.  Also, favor inflation-linked bonds over nominals - particularly in the US, Canada and euro area – as breakevens will continue drifting higher over the next 6-12 months. Corporate Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying Our current recommended overall stance on global corporate credit is NEUTRAL. The same reflationary arguments underlying our recommended inflation-linked bond positions also help support our views on global corporate debt.  Aggressively easy monetary policies, combined with some recovery in global economic growth, will help minimize the risk premium on corporate debt.  Yield-starved investors will continue to have no choice but to look to corporate bond markets for income over the next 6-12 months. The same reflationary arguments under-lying our recommended inflation-linked bond positions also help support our views on global corporate debt.   The combined growth rate of the balance sheets for the major central banks (the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England) has been a reliable leading indicator of excess returns for global investment grade and high-yield debt since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 6). With that combined balance sheet now expanding at a 34% year-over-year pace after the ramp up of global QE, this suggests continued support for global corporate outperformance versus government bonds over the next year. Corporate debt is also benefitting from direct central bank purchases by the Fed, ECB and Bank of England. Unsurprisingly, the 2020 peak in US investment grade and high-yield corporate spreads occurred on March 20, literally the last trading day before the Fed announced its corporate bond purchase programs (Chart 7).  Chart 6Global QE Will Continue To Support Risk Assets Chart 7The Fed Has Removed The 'Left Tail' Risk Of US Credit   The Fed’s announced plan for its corporate bond buying was to have it focused on shorter maturity (1-5 year) investment grade credit.  Later, the Fed allowed the programs to buy high-yield ETFs while also allowing “fallen angel” debt of investment grade credits downgrade to junk to be held within the programs.  Since that announcement in late March, risk premiums for US corporate debt across all credit tiers and maturities have narrowed.  However, the limits of that broad-based spread tightening may have now been reached, as some of the dislocations in US corporate bond markets created by the global market rout in February and early March have now been corrected.  Chart 8Relative US Corporate Spread Relationships Have Normalized For example, the spread on the Bloomberg Barclays 1-5 year US investment grade index – a proxy for the universe of bonds the Fed is buying – has moved from a level 25bps above that of the 5-10 year US investment grade index, seen before the Fed announced its purchase programs, to 53bps below the longer maturity index (Chart 8, top panel). This is a more normal “slope” for that spread maturity curve relationship, in line with levels seen over the past decade. This suggests that additional spread tightening in US investment grade corporates may be more widespread across all maturities, even with the Fed still focusing its own purchases on shorter-maturity bonds. A similar dynamic is evident in the US high-yield universe.  The spread between the riskier B-rated and Caa-rated credit tiers to Ba-rated names has narrowed since late March to the lower bound of a rising trend channel in place since mid-2018 (bottom panel).  The market appears to be pricing in a structurally rising risk premium between lower-rated junk and higher-rated US high-yield debt – likely a sign of a US credit cycle that was already maturing before COVID-19. The implication going forward is that additional outperformance of lower-rated US junk bonds will be difficult to achieve. The market appears to be pricing in a structurally rising risk premium between lower-rated junk and higher-rated US high-yield debt – likely a sign of a US credit cycle that was already maturing before COVID-19.  European corporate debt has also been witnessing similar trends to those seen in the US.  Euro area investment grade corporate spreads have tightened alongside US spreads since the March 20 peak, but that trend has now stabilized given the recent uptick in market volatility measures like the VIX and VStoxx index (Chart 9).  The spread tightening in euro area high yield has also stalled, with spreads seeing a slight uptick alongside the recent increase in market volatility (Chart 10). Chart 9Global IG Spread Tightening Has Stalled Chart 10Have Global HY Spreads Bottomed? Given the renewed uncertainty over the accelerating number of global COVID-19 cases, hitting large US population areas in the US southern states and across the emerging economies, it will be difficult for global market volatility and credit spreads to return to even the recent lows, much less the pre-COVID levels. Thus, we continue to recommend a “selective” approach to global corporate bond allocations, based on valuations, while maintaining a neutral exposure to credit versus government bonds. Our preferred method for evaluating the attractiveness of credit spreads is to look at 12-month breakeven spreads, or the amount of spread widening that would make corporate bond returns equal to duration-matched government debt over a one-year horizon.  We compare those breakeven spreads to their own history to determine if the current level of credit spreads offer value, while adjusting for the underlying spread volatility backdrop. In the US, the 12-month breakeven spread for investment grade corporates is now less attractive than was the case back in March, now sitting at the long-run median level (Chart 11, top panel). The 12-month breakeven for US high-yield is much more attractive, sitting near the highest readings dating back to the mid-1990s (bottom panel).  Of course, this approach only looks at spreads relative to their volatility and does not incorporate credit risk, which is an obvious risk after the recent collapse in US economic growth. In other words, high-yield needs to offer very high 12-month breakeven spreads to be attractive in the current environment. In the euro area, 12-month breakevens for high-yield are only at long-run median levels, while the breakevens for investment grade are a bit more attractive sitting at the 65th percentile of its own history (Chart 12). Chart 11US Corporate Breakeven Spreads: HY Looks Attractive, But Beware Defaults Chart 12European Corporate Breakeven Spreads: Now At Median Levels Importantly, 12-month breakeven spreads in both the US and euro area, for investment grade and high-yield, have not fallen into the lower quartile rankings, even after the sharp tightening of spreads since late March. This is a sign the current rally in global corporates has more room to run, strictly from a spread compression perspective.  For high-yield credit, however, the risk of default losses coming after a short, but intense, recession must be factored into any assessment of valuation. Chart 13Default-Adjusted HY Spreads In The US & Europe Are Unattractive Looking at default-adjusted spreads – spread in excess of realized and expected credit losses – shows that the current level of junk spreads on both sides of the Atlantic offers little-to-no compensation for credit losses (Chart 13).  Default-adjusted spreads are already well below long-run median levels, but if a typical 10-12% recessionary default rate is applied, expected credit losses over the next twelve months will exceed the current level of spreads, thus ensuring negative excess returns on allocations to junk bonds versus government bonds. Tying it all together, our valuation metrics for corporates suggest the following recommended allocations: Overweight US investment grade corporates, but focused on the 1-5 year maturity range that is supported by Fed purchases Overweight US Ba-rated high-yield (also eligible for Fed holdings), while underweighting lower-rated B- and Caa-rated junk Neutral allocation to euro area investment grade Underweight euro area high-yield across all credit tiers This allocation is in line with our current allocations within our model bond portfolio, which are on pages 13-14. Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral overall allocation to global spread product, focused on overweights in markets directly supported by central bank purchases (US investment grade corporates of maturities up to five years, US Ba-rated high-yield).   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations”, dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear client, We are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of the year and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, July 9 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Markets will trade nervously over the coming weeks in response to the second wave of the pandemic and the looming US fiscal cliff. Nevertheless, we would “buy the dip” if global equities were to fall 5%-to-10% from current levels. While the pace of reopening will slow, there is little appetite for the sort of extreme lockdown measures that were implemented in March. The US Congress will ultimately extend fiscal support for households and firms. Around the world, both fiscal and monetary policy will remain highly accommodative, which should provide a supportive backdrop for stocks. Many institutional investors missed the rebound in stocks and are eager to get back in. High levels of “cash on the sidelines” will further buttress equities. Remain overweight stocks versus bonds on a 12-month horizon. Favor cyclical sectors over defensives and non-US stocks over their US peers. The US dollar has entered a bear market. A weaker greenback will boost commodity prices and EM assets. Global bond yields will rise modestly over the next few years. However, they will remain extremely low by historic standards. Bond yields will only surge once inflation reaches uncomfortably high levels. At that point, the equity bull market will end. Fortunately, this is unlikely to happen for at least three years. I. Macro And Markets Financial markets’ response to the pandemic has followed three distinct phases: Phase One: Hope and Denial. While equities did buckle on the news that a previously unknown coronavirus had emerged in China, they quickly recovered in the hope that the epidemic would be contained. Equities remained resilient even as the virus resurfaced in South Korea and Iran, prompting us to pen a report in February entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.”1 Phase Two: The Wile E. Coyote Moment.2 The second phase began with the outbreak in Italy. Scenes of overflowing emergency rooms prompted governments to order all non-essential workers to stay home. The resulting decline in commerce caused equities to plummet. Credit spreads widened, while funding markets began to seize up (Chart 1). Phase Three: Recovery. With memories of the 2008 global financial crisis still fresh in their minds, policymakers sprung into action. The combination of massive monetary and fiscal easing helped stabilize financial markets. Risk assets received a further boost as the number of new cases in Italy, Spain, New York City and other hotspots began to decline rapidly in April (Chart 2). The hope that lockdown measures would be relaxed continued to power stocks in May and early June. Chart 1Echos Of The Global Financial Crisis Prompted A Powerful Policy Response Chart 2Sharp Decline Of New COVID-19 Cases In April Allowed Equities To Recover Fast forward to the present and things do not seem as straightforward. Despite today’s rally, global equities are still down 4.7% from their June 8th high. The key immediate question for investors is whether the recent bout of volatility marks the end of Phase Three or just a temporary pause in a new cyclical bull market for stocks. On balance, we lean towards the latter scenario. As we discuss in greater detail below, while we do think that the next few months will be more treacherous for investors due to a resurgence in the number of Covid cases in some countries, as well as uncertainty over how the looming US fiscal cliff will be resolved, we expect global equities to be higher 12 months from now. Stocks And The Economy Pundits such as Paul Krugman often like to recite the mantra that “the stock market is not the economy.” While there is some truth to that, equities still tend to track the ups and downs of the business cycle. This can be observed simply by looking at the strong correlation between the US ISM manufacturing index and the S&P 500 (Chart 3).  Chart 3Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks As happened in 2009 and during prior downturns, stocks bottomed this year at roughly the same time as leading economic indicators such as initial unemployment insurance claims peaked (Chart 4). Chart 4Equities Bottomed This Year At Around The Same Time As Leading Economic Indicators Peaked Will the economic data continue to improve, allowing equities to move higher? In the past, recoveries following exogenous shocks have tended to be more rapid than those following recessions that arose from endogenous problems. The pandemic would seem to qualify as an exogenous shock. Temporarily furloughed workers have accounted for the vast majority of the increase in US unemployment this year (Chart 5). As lockdown measures are relaxed, the hope is that most of these workers will return to their jobs. Chart 5Temporarily Laid Off Workers Account For The Vast Majority Of The Increase In US Unemployment This Year Bumps In The Road Nevertheless, the recovery will be a bumpy one. In the near term, the main barrier will be the virus itself. Globally, the number of new cases has been trending higher since early May. The number of deaths has also reaccelerated (Chart 6). In the US, the epicenter of the pandemic has shifted from the Northeastern tri-state corridor to the southern states. Florida, Texas, and Arizona have been particularly hard hit. Contrary to President Trump’s claims, more testing does not explain the rise in case counts. As Chart 7 shows, the fraction of tests coming back positive has actually been trending higher in all three states. Chart 6Globally, The Number Of New Cases Has Been Trending Higher Since Early May, While The Number Of Deaths Has Moved Off Its Recent Lows Chart 7Fraction Of Tests Coming Back Positive Has Been Moving Higher In Certain States It did not have to be this way. The evidence suggests that the widespread use of masks could have kept the virus at bay while still allowing most economic activities to resume (Chart 8). Unfortunately, the question of whether to wear a mask, like almost everything else in the US, has become another front in the culture war. Chart 8Masks On! Mask wearing is much more common in China and the rest of east Asia, which is one key reason why the region has suffered far fewer casualties than elsewhere. Hence, a second wave is likely to be much more muted there. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand should also remain largely unscathed going forward. Luckily, treatment options have improved over the past few months, as medical professionals have learned more about the virus. Hospitals have also built up capacity to deal with an influx of patients. Another less well recognized development is that protocols have been put in place to protect residents in long-term care facilities. In Canada, more than 80% of COVID deaths have occurred in nursing homes. All this suggests that while a second wave will weigh on global growth over the coming months, we are unlikely to see the sort of broad-based economic dislocations experienced in March. A Structural Break Even if a second wave does not turn out to be as disruptive as the first, it probably will be several years before spending in the sectors most affected by the virus returns to pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, there is a chance that some sectors may not ever fully recover. The technology to work from home was in place before the pandemic began. Many workers chose not to do so because they did not want to be the odd ones out. The pandemic may have nudged society to a new equilibrium where catching a red-eye flight to attend a business meeting becomes more the exception than the rule, while working from home is seen as perfectly acceptable (and safer) than going to the office. If that happens, there will be, among other things, less business travel going forward, as well as less demand for office space. Such a transformation could end up boosting productivity down the road by allowing companies to slash overhead costs and unnecessary expenses. However, it will impose considerable near-term dislocations, particularly for airlines, hotels, commercial real estate operators and developers, and associated lenders to these sectors. The Role Of Policy It would be unwise for policymakers to try to prevent the shift of capital and labor towards sectors of the economy where they can be more efficiently deployed. However, policy can and should smooth the transition. Chart 9Residential Construction Accounted For Less Than 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession Most of the suffering during recessions comes in the form of collateral damage. For example, more than 80% of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were outside the residential real estate sector (Chart 9). One does not have to fill a half-empty swimming pool through the same pipe from which the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs will likely find new jobs in other sectors. This is where the role of monetary and fiscal policy takes center stage. Central banks moved quickly to ease monetary policy as soon as the pandemic began. Unfortunately, with rates already quite low in most countries, there was only so much that conventional monetary policy could achieve. The Federal Reserve, which had more scope to cut rates than most, brought the fed funds rate down 150 bps to a range of 0%-to-0.25%. As helpful as this action was, it fell well short of the more than five percentage points in easing that the Fed has delivered, on average, during past recessions (Chart 10). Chart 10Fed Easing Has Fallen Short This Time Around With conventional monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, central banks turned to unconventional tools, the most important of which were asset purchases, lending backstops, and forward guidance. These tools blurred the line between fiscal and monetary policy. To some extent, this was by design. By offering to buy government debt in unlimited quantities and at extremely low rates, central banks incentivized governments to run larger budget deficits. Even if one excludes loan guarantees, governments have eased fiscal policy by an extraordinary degree this year (Chart 11). The G7 as a whole has delivered 11.7% of GDP in fiscal stimulus, compared to 4% of GDP in 2008-10. In China, we expect the credit impulse to reach the highest level since the Global Financial Crisis, and the budget deficit to hit the highest level on record (Chart 12).  Chart 11Fiscal Stimulus Is Greater Today Than It Was During The Great Recession Chart 12China Has Opened The Spigots   Fiscal Austerity? Don’t Bet On It The recovery following the Great Recession was hampered by the decision of many governments, including the US, Germany, and Japan, to tighten fiscal policy prematurely, despite a lack of pressure from bond markets to do so. While a repeat of such an outcome cannot be excluded, we think it is quite unlikely. Politically, stimulus remains very popular (Table 1). Unlike during the housing bust, there has been little moral handwringing about bailing out households and firms that “don’t deserve it.” Thus, while the US faces a daunting fiscal cliff over the next two months – including 3% of GDP in expiring Paycheck Protection Program funding and over 1% of GDP in expanded unemployment benefits and direct payments to individuals – we expect Congress to ultimately take action to avert most of the cliff. Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus This will probably involve rolling over some existing programs and supplanting others with new measures such as increased aid to state and local governments. The same pattern is likely to be repeated globally. II. Long-Term Focus: Inflation And The Fiscal Hangover The combination of large budget deficits and falling output has caused the ratio of government debt-to-GDP to explode. The IMF now expects net government debt to reach 132% of GDP in advanced economies in 2021, up from an earlier estimate of 104% made last October (Chart 13). What will happen to all that debt? The answer partly hinges on what happens to the neutral rate of interest, or more precisely, the difference between the neutral rate and the trend growth rate of the economy. The neutral rate of interest is the interest rate that is consistent with full employment and stable inflation. When policy rates are above the neutral rate, unemployment will tend to rise, and vice versa. Most estimates of the neutral rate, such as those produced by the widely used Laubach-Williams model, suggest that it is currently quite low — certainly lower than the potential growth rate of most economies (Chart 14). Theoretically, when GDP growth exceeds the interest rate the government pays on its borrowings, the debt-to-GDP ratios will eventually converge to a stable level, even if the government keeps running a huge budget deficit.3 Chart 13Ratio Of Government Debt-To-GDP Is Exploding Higher On The Back Of Large Budget Deficits And Falling Output Chart 14The Neutral Rate Is Lower Than The Potential Growth Rate In Most Economies   The catch is that this “stable” level of the debt-to-GDP ratio could turn out to be very high. This would leave the government extremely vulnerable to any future change in interest rates. Specifically, if at some point the neutral rate were to rise above the trend growth rate of the economy – and the central bank were to align policy rates with the new higher neutral rate – the government’s borrowing costs would soar. The government would then need to cut spending and/or increase in taxes to make room for additional interest payments.4  The Inflation Solution What if highly indebted governments refuse to tighten fiscal policy? At that point, they would either have to: 1) allow debt levels to spiral out of control; 2) default on the debt; or 3) lean on their central banks to keep rates low. The first two options are unlikely to be politically feasible, implying that the third one would be chosen. By definition, the third option would entail keeping policy rates below their neutral level, or in other words, keeping monetary policy more stimulative than is necessary to maintain full employment and stable inflation. Eventually, this would result in rising inflation. In theory, the increase in inflation can be temporary and limited. Rising consumer prices will lift nominal GDP, causing the ratio of debt-to-GDP to decline. Once the ratio shrinks by enough, central banks could raise interest rates to a suitably high level in order to bring inflation back down. Unfortunately, in practice, the whole process of driving inflation up in order to erode the real value of a government’s bond obligations could be quite destabilizing. This would be especially the case if, as is likely, a period of high inflation leads to a significant repricing of inflation expectations. Long-Term Inflation Risk Is Underpriced Chart 15Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Very Depressed Investors are not too worried that inflation will accelerate anytime soon. The CPI swap market expects inflation to remain subdued for decades to come (Chart 15). This could turn out to be an erroneous assumption. While central banks do not want inflation to get out of hand, they would be happy for it to increase from current levels. After all, they have been obsessing about the zero-lower bound constraint for the better part of two decades. If inflation is, say, 4% going into a downturn, central banks could cut nominal rates to zero, taking real rates to -4%. That would be quite stimulative. Such a deeply negative real rate would not be achievable if inflation were running at 1% going into a downturn.  As noted above, heavily indebted governments would also prefer higher inflation to higher interest rates. The former would erode the real value of debt, while the latter would require that tax dollars be diverted from social program to bondholders. The Neutral Rate May Rise The catch is that for inflation to rise, the neutral rate has to increase well above current policy rates. Will that happen? Our guess is that such an outcome is more likely than most investors believe. For one thing the neutral rate itself depends on the stance of fiscal policy. Looser fiscal policy will generate more demand in the economy. Since one can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply, this implies that larger budget deficits will increase the neutral rate. If, as seems likely, we are entering an era where political populism promotes big budget deficits, this makes it more likely that economies will, at some point, overheat. Savings Glut May Dissipate The structural forces that have depressed the neutral rate over the past few decades could also abate, and perhaps even reverse course. Take the example of demographics. Starting in the mid-1970s, the ratio of workers-to- consumers – the so-called “support ratio” – began to steadily increase as more women entered the labor force and the number of dependent children per household declined (Chart 16). An increase in the number of workers relative to consumers is equivalent to an increase in the amount of production relative to consumption. A rising support ratio is thus deflationary. More recently, however, the global support ratio has begun to decline as baby boomers leave the labor force in droves. Consumption actually increases in old age once health care spending is included in the tally (Chart 17). As populations continue to age, the global savings glut could dissipate, pushing up the neutral rate of interest in the process. Chart 16The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling Chart 17As Populations Continue To Age, The Global Savings Glut Will Dissipate Meanwhile, globalization, a historically deflationary force, remains on the backfoot. The ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 18). Globalization took a beating from last year‘s trade war, and is taking another bruising from the pandemic, as more companies relocate production back home in order to gain greater control over their supply chains. It is possible that newfangled technologies will allow companies to cut costs, thereby helping them to bring down prices. But, so far, this remains more a hope than reality. As Chart 19 shows, productivity growth in the major economies remains abysmal. Weak supply growth would slow income gains, potentially leading to a depletion of excess savings. Chart 18The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Failed To Rise For Over A Decade Chart 19Productivity Growth In The Major Economies Remains Abysmal   Social Unrest Continued social unrest could further disrupt the supply side of the economy. Violent crime has already spiked in a number of major US cities,5 just as it did five years ago in the aftermath of demonstrations in cities such as Baltimore and St. Louis (the US homicide rate rose 23% between 2014 and 2016, partly because police pulled out of many troubled neighbourhoods6). Markets generally ignored the social unrest back then, and they may do so again over the coming months. However, if recent developments herald the beginning of an extended crime wave, this could have momentous implications for asset markets. The number of people institutionalized in prisons and mental hospitals dropped dramatically during the 1960s. This corresponded with a sharp increase in the homicide rate (Chart 20). As violent crime soared, equity valuations dropped. Inflation also accelerated, hurting bondholders in the process (Chart 21). If a country cannot credibly commit to protecting its citizens, it is reasonable to wonder if it can credibly commit to maintaining price stability. Chart 20Dramatic Drop In Institutionalizations During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Chart 21Rising Homicide Rates Coincided With A Drop In Equity Valuations And Higher Inflation In The 1970s As we discuss in greater detail below, the implication is that the long-term outlook for stocks and bonds is unlikely to be as rosy as the cyclical (3-to-12 month) outlook. III. Investment Implications For Now, Buy The Dip As anyone who has watched a horror movie knows, that scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always fathom something much more frightening than Hollywood can create. COVID-19 is a deadly disease, much deadlier than the common flu. But, at this point, it is a “known known.” The next few weeks will bring news reports of overflowing emergency rooms in some US states, delayed reopenings, and increased talk of renewed lockdowns. The knee-jerk reaction among investors will be to sell stocks. While that was the right trade in March, it may not be the right trade today, at least not for very long. Chart 22Betting Markets Now Expect Joe Biden To Become President At this point, we know how the movie will end. As was the case during the first wave, the latest outbreak will be brought under control through a combination of increased voluntary social distancing and the cessation of activities that are known to significantly contribute to the spread of the disease (allowing bars and nightclubs to reopen was, as many predicted, a huge mistake). Likewise, while the next few weeks could see plenty of posturing among politicians in Washington, the end result will be a deal to avert most of the fiscal cliff. Investors who run for the hills now will end up making the same mistake as those who jettisoned stocks every time the debt-ceiling issue came to the fore in the past. Panicking about the outcome of November’s US presidential election would also be unwise. Yes, if Joe Biden wins and the Democrats take control of the Senate, then Trump’s corporate tax cuts would be in jeopardy. A full repeal would reduce S&P 500 EPS by about 12%. However, the betting markets are already expecting the Democrats to win the White House and Senate (Chart 22). Thus, some of this risk is presumably already priced in. Moreover, it is possible that the Democrats only partially reverse the corporate tax cuts, focusing more on closing some of the more egregious loopholes in the tax code. And even if corporate tax rates do rise, spending would likely rise even more, resulting in a net increase in fiscal stimulus. Lastly, a Biden presidency would result in less trade tension with China, which would be a welcome relief for equity investors. Are Stocks Already Pricing In A Benign Scenario? Chart 23Earnings Optimism Driven By Tech And Health Care Bottom-up estimates foresee S&P 500 earnings returning to 2019 levels next year. Does this mean that Wall Street analysts are banking on a V-shaped recovery? Not quite. Outside of the health care and technology sectors, EPS is still expected to be down 9% next year relative to 2019 (Chart 23). Globally, earnings estimates are still fairly downbeat. This suggests that analysts are expecting more of a U-shaped recovery. Of course, what matters to investors is not so much what analysts expect but what the market is pricing in. Given that the S&P 500 is down only 4% year-to-date, have investors gotten ahead of themselves? Again, it is not clear that they have. The value of the stock market does not simply depend on expected earnings growth. It also depends on the discount rate one uses to calculate the present value of future earnings. In a world of exceptionally low interest rates, the contribution from earnings far out into the future to this present value calculation is almost as important as the path of earnings over the next year or two. Provided that the pandemic does not permanently impair the supply-side of the economy, the impact on earnings should be transitory. In contrast, if long-term bond yields are any guide, the impact on the discount rate may be longer lasting. The 30-year US TIPS yield, a proxy for long-term real rate expectations, has fallen by 76 basis points since the start of the year, representing a significant decline in the risk-free component of the discount rate (Chart 24). If we put together analysts’ expectations of a temporary decline in earnings with the observed decline in real bond yields, what we get is an increase in the fair value of the S&P 500 of about 15% since the start of the year (Chart 25). Chart 24The 30-Year TIPS Yield Is Pointing To A Significant Decline In The Risk-Free Component Of The Discount Rate Admittedly, the notion that there could be a temporary decline in corporate earnings but a permanent decline in bond yields sounds contradictory. However, it need not be. Imagine a situation where the pandemic does permanently reduce private demand, but that this is fully counteracted by looser monetary policy and increased fiscal stimulus. The result would be the same level of GDP but a lower interest rate.7 As odd as it sounds, this suggests that the pandemic might have increased the fair value of the stock market. Chart 25The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Lots Of Cash On The Sidelines Chart 26Lots Of Savings Slushing Around The combination of surging government transfers and subdued household spending has resulted in a jump in personal saving. Accumulated US personal savings totalled $1.25 trillion in the first five months of the year, up 123% from the same period last year. Much of that money has made its way into savings deposits and money market funds (Chart 26). As a share of stock market capitalization, US cash holdings currently stand at 51%, up nearly 12 percentage points from the start of the year. Looking at it differently, if the ratio of cash holdings-to-stock market capitalization were to return to January 1st levels, stocks would have to rise by about 30%. Retail Bros Versus The Suits Thanks to a steady flow of income from Uncle Sam, plenty of spare time, zero brokerage commissions, and a lack of opportunities for sports betting, the popularity of day trading has surged (Chart 27). It would be easy to dismiss the rise of the “retail bros” as another comical, and ultimately forgettable, chapter in financial history. That is what most have done. Not us. The late 1990s stock market bubble was as much a consequence of the boom in day trading as the cause of it. That boom lasted for more than four years, taking the S&P 500 to one record high after another. The current boom has lasted less than four months. It may have much further to run. Chart 27Day Trading Is Back In Style These Days Keep in mind that every time an institutional investor sells what they regard as overpriced shares to a retail trader, the institutional investor is left with excess cash that must be deployed elsewhere in the stock market. Buying begets buying. Then there are the hedge funds. Brokerages like Robinhood make much of their money by selling order flow data to hedge funds, who then trade on this information. This activity probably lifts prices by enhancing liquidity and reinforcing the price momentum generated by retail trades.  One would also be remiss not to point out that the mockery levelled at retail traders has an aura of hypocrisy to it. The average mutual fund underperforms its benchmark, even before fees are included. As we discussed before, this is not because active managers cannot outperform the market.8 It is because most don’t even bother to try. In contrast to retail traders, a large fraction of institutional investors did not participate in the stock market recovery that began in late March. According to the latest BoA Merrill Lynch Survey, fund managers were still more than one sigma underweight stocks and nearly one sigma overweight cash in June. Along the same vein, speculators increased short positions in S&P 500 futures contracts soon after stocks rallied, paring them back only recently (Chart 28). As of last week, bears exceeded bulls by 25 percentage points in the AAII survey (Chart 29). When positioning is underweight equities and sentiment is bearish, as it is today, stocks are more likely to go up than down.   Chart 28Speculators Still Net Short S&P 500 Futures Contracts Chart 29Many Investors Are Bearish On Stocks The bottom line is that stocks could fall another 5%-to-10% from current levels to about 2850 on the S&P 500 and 68 on the ACWI ETF but are unlikely to go much lower, as investors start to anticipate a peak in the number of new cases and a deal to maintain adequate levels of fiscal support. Start Of The Dollar Bear Market A weaker dollar should also help global equities (Chart 30). After peaking in March, the broad trade-weighted US dollar has fallen by 4.4%. Unlike last year, the dollar no longer benefits from higher US interest rates. Indeed, US real rates are below those of many partner countries due to the fact that US inflation expectations are generally higher than elsewhere (Chart 31). Chart 30A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Global Equities Chart 31The Dollar Has Been Losing Interest Rate Support The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 32). If global growth recovers over the coming quarters, the dollar should weaken. The negative pressure on the dollar may be amplified by the fact that the second wave of the pandemic seems likely to affect the US more than most other large economies. Chart 32The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Commodities And Commodity Currencies To Benefit Once fears of a second wave abate, the combination of stronger global growth, infrastructure-intense Chinese stimulus, and a weaker dollar will also boost commodity prices (Chart 33). BCA’s commodity strategists remain particularly fond of oil. They expect demand to pick up gradually this year, with supply continuing to be curtailed by shut-ins among US producers and production discipline from OPEC and Russia. Their latest projections foresee WTI and Brent prices rising more than 50% above current market expectations in 2021 (Chart 34). Chart 33Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 34Oil Prices Are Expected To Recover Higher oil prices will be particularly beneficial to currencies such as the Norwegian krone, Canadian dollar, Mexican peso, Colombian peso, and Malaysian ringgit. A Weaker Dollar Will Support Non-US Stocks Stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and higher commodity prices will disproportionately help the more cyclical sectors of the stock market (Chart 35). Since cyclical stocks tends to be overrepresented outside the US, non-US equities should outperform their US peers over the next 12 months. A weaker dollar will also reduce the local-currency value of dollar-denominated debt. This will be especially helpful for emerging markets. Despite the recent rally, the cyclically-adjusted PE ratio for EM stocks remains near historic lows (Chart 36). EM equities should fare well over the next 12 months. Chart 35Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers Chart 36EM Stocks Are Cheap Chart 37Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Chart 38Expected Earnings Recovery: US Lags Slightly Behind More broadly, non-US stocks look quite attractive in both absolute terms and in relation to bonds compared to their US peers (Chart 37). They are also unloved. In the BofA Merrill Lynch survey mentioned above, equity managers are heavily overweight the US, despite the fact that consensus earnings estimates point to a slightly faster recovery in EPS outside the United States (Chart 38). Thus, earnings trends, valuations, and sentiment all currently favor non-US stocks. Bond Yields To Stay Subdued… For Now It will probably take a couple of years for the unemployment rate in the G7 to fall to pre-pandemic levels. It will likely be another year or two before labor markets tighten to the point where inflation takes off. And, as discussed above, even if inflation does rise, central banks will be slow to raise rates both because they want higher inflation and because governments will pressure them to keep rates low in order to avoid having to redirect tax revenue from social programs to bondholders. All this suggests that short-term rates could remain depressed across much of the world until the middle of the decade. Chart 39Corporate Debt Metrics Among Publicly-Traded Issuers Are Worrisome Yield curves will steepen marginally over the next few years as global growth recovers and long-term bond yields rise in relation to short-term rates. In absolute terms, however, long-term yields will remain low. An initial bout of higher inflation will not be enough to lift long-term yields to a significant degree given the ability of central banks to cap yields via the threat of unlimited bond purchases – something that Japan and Australia are already doing. Yields will only rise substantially when central banks start feeling uneasy about accelerating inflation. As noted above, that point is probably still 3-to-5 years away. But, when it does come, it will be very painful for bondholders and equity holders alike. Not Much Scope For Further Spread Compression Spreads are unlikely to widen much in a low-rate, higher growth environment. Nevertheless, one should acknowledge that spreads are already low and corporate debt levels were quite elevated going into the recession, especially among companies with publicly-traded bonds (Chart 39). As such, while we generally favor a pro-risk stance over the next 12 months, we would recommend only benchmark exposure to high-yield credit. Within that category, we would favor consumer credit or corporate credit. We would especially shy away from credit linked to urban office and brick-and-mortar retail shopping, given the unfavorable structural shifts in those sectors.  Gold Is Still Worth Owning Chart 40Real Price Of Gold Is Elevated Relative To Its Long-Term History Lastly, a few words on gold. We upgraded our view on gold in late March. A weaker dollar will boost gold prices over the next 12 months, while higher inflation down the road makes gold an attractive hedge. Yes, the real price of gold is elevated relative to its long-term history (Chart 40). However, gold prices were distorted during most of the 20th century as one country after another abandoned the gold standard. The move to fiat money eliminated the need for central banks to hold large amounts of gold, which reduced underlying demand for the commodity. Had this move not happened, the real price of gold – just like the price of other real assets such as property and art – would have risen substantially. Thus, far from being above their long-term trend, gold prices could still be well below it. Our full suite of tactical, cyclical, and structural market views are depicted in the matrix below. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020. 2  For those unfamiliar with Saturday morning cartoons, Wile E. Coyote is a devious and scheming Looney Tunes cartoon character usually depicted unsuccessfully attempting to catch his prey, the Road Runner. Wile E. Coyote is outwitted each time by the fast-running bird, but fails to learn his lesson and tries anew. One popular gag involves the coyote running off a cliff, stopping mid-air to look down, only to realize that there is no more road beneath him. 3 This is a tricky point to grasp, so it might be helpful to think through an example. Suppose that government debt is 100 and GDP is also 100. Let us assume that the interest rate is 1%, trend growth is 3%, and the government wishes to run a primary budget deficit of 5% of GDP (the primary deficit is the deficit excluding interest payments). It does not matter if the interest rate and growth are expressed in nominal terms or real terms, as long as we consistently use one or the other. Initially, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. The following year, debt increases to 100+5+100*0.01=106, while GDP rises to 103. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumps to 106/103=102.9%. The debt-to-GDP ratio will keep rising until it reaches 250%. At that point, debt-to-GDP will stabilize. To see why, go back to the original example but now assume that debt is 250 while GDP is still 100. The following year, debt increases to 250+5+250*0.01=257.5, while GDP, as in the first example, rises to 103. 257.5 divided by 103 is exactly 250%. 4 The standard equation of debt sustainability, which we derived in Box 1 of the Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?”, says that the ratio of government debt-to-GDP will be stable if the primary budget balance (expressed as a share of GDP), p, is equal to the debt-to-GDP ratio (D/Y) multiplied by the difference between the interest rate and the growth rate of the economy, that is, p=D/Y (r-g). When p>D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will fall. When, p<D/Y (r-g), debt-to-GDP will rise. Note that the higher the debt-to-GDP ratio is at the outset, the more the primary budget surplus would need to increase in response to a rise in interest rates.  5 Please see Ashley Southall and Neil MacFarquhar, “Gun Violence Spikes in N.Y.C., Intensifying Debate Over Policing,” The Wall Street Journal, dated June 23, 2020; “Gun Violence Soars in Minneapolis,” WCCO/CBS Minnesota, dated June 22, 2020;  and Tommy Beer, “18 People Were Murdered In Chicago On May 31, Making It The City’s Single Deadliest Day In 60 Years,” Forbes, dated June 8, 2020. 6 Please see “Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence,” npr.org, dated December 31, 2017. 7 For economics aficionados, one can model this as a permanent inward shift of the IS curve and permanent outward shift of the LM curve which leaves the level of GDP unchanged but results in lower equilibrium interest rate. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Quant-Based Approaches To Stock Selection And Market Timing,” dated November 9, 2018. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Money Supply Drivers: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. Money Supply Impact: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Bank Bonds: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Feature The COVID-19 recession and associated policy response have led to unprecedented moves in a number of economic indicators. In this week’s report we focus on one such move that is particularly difficult to square with the rest of the economic landscape, at least judging by the large volume of client questions we’ve received on the topic. The move in question: Broad money supply growth (M1 & M2) is faster today than at any time since the mid-1940s (Chart 1). This week, we look at what has driven money growth to such heights and consider what it might mean for bond investors. We also update our call to overweight subordinate bank bonds based on last week’s release of the Fed’s bank stress tests. Chart 1Massive Money Growth! Money Supply Drivers The US economy’s broad money supply is more or less the sum total of all the money sitting in bank deposits at any point in time. More specifically, the M1 measure includes currency in circulation, demand deposits and traveler’s checks. The M2 measure includes all of M1 plus savings accounts, time deposits and retail money market funds. Fed asset purchases and bank lending are the two drivers of money supply growth. There are two ways for these broad money supply measures to grow. First, the Fed can purchase securities from the private market. Second, banks can lend money to the private sector. We consider both of these drivers in turn. The Federal Reserve’s Contribution To Money Growth The Fed influences the money supply by changing the amount of reserves in the banking system. To see how this works, Table 1 shows recent balance sheets for both the Fed and the aggregate US banking system. Table 1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The largest line items on the Fed’s balance sheet are the securities it owns (on the asset side) and the reserves it supplies to the banking system (on the liability side). The Treasury Department’s General Account has also become a sizeable liability for the Fed during the past couple of months (see Box). Box 1: The Large Treasury General Account Is Not Stimulus Waiting To Be Deployed The Treasury General Account (TGA), aka the Treasury Department’s cash account at the Fed, has skyrocketed during the past couple of months and now totals $1.6 trillion (Chart 3). This has prompted more than a few client questions, mostly asking whether this large amount of money represents fiscal stimulus that is waiting to be deployed. Chart 3Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer It does not. Any new fiscal stimulus must be authorized by Congress and with most of the funds from the CARES act having already been paid out, any further fiscal stimulus is contingent upon Congress passing a follow-up bill. So why is the TGA balance so large? The Treasury Department’s job is to finance the federal government’s deficit by issuing bonds. To do this, it must make estimates about what tax revenues and government spending will be in the future. To avoid a situation where it has not issued enough bonds to finance the deficit, it will typically err on the side of caution and issue some extra bonds, holding the proceeds in cash in its account at the Fed. Due to the heightened uncertainty of the current macro environment, it recently decided to target a larger-than-usual cash balance of $800 billion. It even overshot that target during the past couple of months, likely because tax revenues came in higher than expected. Going forward, heightened uncertainty about federal deficit projections will ensure that the Treasury continues to hold an elevated cash balance. However, it will probably try to bring the TGA balance down a bit in the second half of the year, closer to its stated $800 billion target. It will accomplish this by simply issuing fewer T-bills in the second half of the year. This will have the result of increasing the broad money supply through the same mechanism as Fed asset purchases. That is, any drawdown in the TGA increases the amount of reserves supplied on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet. When the Fed buys a Treasury security it removes that security from the private market and replaces it with cash in the form of a bank reserve. Those bank reserves are a liability for the Fed, but appear on the asset side of the banking sector’s aggregate balance sheet. Please note that the amount of reserves supplied on the Fed’s balance sheet in Table 1 doesn’t exactly match the amount of reserves shown on the banking sector’s balance sheet. This is only because the numbers were recorded on different days. Turning to the banking sector’s balance sheet, we see that when the amount of reserves increases there are only a few different things that can occur to keep the balance sheet in balance. Banks can accommodate the increase in reserves by reducing the amount of loans or securities they hold. Alternatively, banks can raise capital, borrow in private debt markets or show an increase in deposits. When banks accommodate the increase in reserves by raising deposits, the money supply rises. Charts 2A and 2B show the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of February. First, we see that banks did not reduce their other asset holdings in response to the sharp increase in reserves. Neither did they raise capital or debt. Rather, deposit growth accommodated the entire increase in bank reserves. Chart 2AChange In Commercial Bank Assets: February 26 To June 17, 2020 Chart 2BChange In Commercial Bank Liabilities & Capital: February 26 To June 17, 2020 In fact, deposits have grown by about $2 trillion since February compared to reserve growth of $1.4 trillion. Roughly, we can say that Fed asset purchases are responsible for 70% of the growth in the money supply since then. The remaining 30% is attributable to the second driver of the money supply: bank lending. Bank Lending’s Contribution To Money Growth Looking again at Table 1, we see that an increase in bank loans must also lead to an increase in deposits, unless the bank raises debt and/or capital instead. Further, Chart 2A shows that increased bank lending since February accounts for about 30% of the growth in deposits. However, we expect bank loan growth to moderate in the coming months, easing some of the upward pressure on the money supply. This year's increase in bank loan growth has been driven entirely by C&I loans. A look at bank loan growth by category shows that this year’s increase has been driven entirely by Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loans (Chart 4). Growth in other major loan categories – commercial real estate, residential real estate and consumer – has flagged. Further, the increase in C&I lending has been mostly due to firms drawing on existing credit lines. Chart 4A Spike In C&I Lending The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for the first quarter of 2020 showed a small increase in C&I loan demand. But the survey also asked about potential reasons for the demand uptick (Chart 5). When faced with that question, 95% of respondents reported that “precautionary demand for cash” was a “very important” reason for increased C&I loan demand in Q1. 71% of respondents also pointed to a lack of internally generated funds as a “very important” reason. Importantly, no respondents reported increased C&I loan demand due to investment needs or M&A activity. Chart 5Possible Reasons For Greater C&I Loan Demand In Q1 2020 The distinction is important. Greater investment needs and M&A activity would suggest an improving economic back-drop, and would imply a more sustainable increase in bank lending. In contrast, there is a limit to how much firms can tap existing credit lines for immediate cash needs, and this activity should taper off during the next few months. Bottom Line: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. The Implications Of Rapid Money Growth According to some theory and popular thought, there are three possible channels through which rapid money growth could impact the economy and financial markets: Fast money growth could lead to stronger economic growth in the future. Fast money growth could lead to rising inflationary pressures. A larger money supply could suggest that there are more funds available to deploy in financial markets. As such, it could lead to price appreciation in risky financial assets. We are inclined to downplay the importance of M1 and M2 as indicators in all three of these areas, for reasons discussed below. The Money Supply’s Impact On Economic Growth In the past, measures of the broad money supply (M1 and M2) did a good job of forecasting economic growth and were tracked closely (and at times targeted) by the Federal Reserve. But as the banking and monetary systems evolved, M1 and M2 became less important. As Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan explained in 1996:1 At different times in our history a varying set of simple indicators seemed successfully to summarize the state of monetary policy and its relationship to the economy. Thus, during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, trends in money supply, first M1, then M2, were useful guides. […] Unfortunately, money supply trends veered off path several years ago as a useful summary of the overall economy. Chairman Greenspan’s insight is backed up by the empirical data (Chart 6). Real M2 growth was an excellent leading indicator of economic growth until the early 1990s. The relationship has broken down since then, and in fact, the only reliable trend in Real M2 since the 1990s is that it tends to spike during recessions. Chart 6Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s The Conference Board also noticed this trend and removed Real M2 from its Leading Economic Indicator in 2012. According to the Conference Board, Real M2 ceased to function as a leading economic indicator because (i) the Fed began targeting interest rates instead of monetary aggregates and (ii) the creation of interest-bearing checking accounts and money market funds increased safe haven demand for M2. The latter helps explain why money growth has surged during the last three recessions. All in all, broad money growth is now a poor indicator for GDP. The Money Supply’s Impact On Inflation Another popular theory is that money growth is a leading indicator of inflation. This stems from the following identity, aka the Equation of Exchange: MV = PY Where: M = money supply, V = velocity of money, P = price level and Y = real output The identity holds, but is of little practical value, mainly because there is no good way to measure (or model) velocity (V) without relying on money growth and nominal GDP (P*Y). This means that an increase in the money supply doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about inflation, because we have no idea how velocity will respond. In fact, many commentators have observed that the stronger empirical correlation is actually between money velocity (PY/M) and core inflation (Chart 7). When nominal GDP growth exceeds money growth, core inflation tends to rise 18 months later. However, this relationship also holds if we remove money supply from the equation entirely (Chart 7, bottom panel). What we’re actually observing is that core inflation tends to lag economic growth by about 18 months. Chart 7Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Since we’ve already seen that money supply does a poor job forecasting economic growth, it’s clear that indicators such as M1 and M2 don’t improve our ability to forecast inflation, and in fact probably only confuse the picture. The Money Supply’s Impact On Financial Markets BCA’s US Bond Strategy definitely subscribes to the notion that the stance of monetary policy is one of the most important drivers of financial market performance. If the Fed keeps interest rates low and signals to the market that rates will stay low for a long time, then we would expect investors to chase greater returns in riskier assets, driving up the prices of corporate bonds and equities. That being said, the appropriate way to measure the stance of monetary policy is with interest rates. Money supply measures like M1 and M2 are not helpful guides for risk asset performance. We have already seen that an increase in the money supply can only arise via (i) greater bank lending or (ii) the Fed’s purchase of securities and injection of reserves into the banking system. Both of these things are likely to occur when interest rates are low and monetary policy is accommodative. Low interest rates boost loan demand, and large-scale Fed asset purchases are more likely to occur when interest rates are already at the zero-lower-bound. We would argue that it is, in fact, low interest rates that influence both money growth and financial asset prices. The drivers of money supply growth – bank lending and Fed asset purchases – don’t offer any new information beyond what the interest rate already tells us. On loan growth, both loan demand and risk asset price appreciation are functions of low interest rates. In fact, financial markets will respond more quickly to changes in interest rates than will bank lending: Stock prices are included in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator, while C&I bank lending is included in the Lagging Economic Indicator.2 This means that, practically, any money supply growth that is driven by bank lending is not useful as an indicator for financial asset prices. What about money growth that is driven by Fed asset purchases? Here, we need to distinguish between the signaling impact of Fed asset purchases and any other potential impact that purchases might have on asset prices. In the first half of 2019, financial markets responded to the Fed's dovish interest rate policy, not to its shrinking balance sheet. Though the data are difficult to parse, our reading is that the only meaningful impact of Fed purchases on financial asset prices is through what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the future path of interest rates. To test this theory, we need to search for periods when the Fed’s signaling about its future interest rate policy diverges from its balance sheet policy. That is, we need to find periods when the balance sheet is shrinking and Fed rate guidance is becoming more dovish, or periods when the balance sheet is growing and rate policy is becoming more hawkish. Unfortunately, we can only identify one such period and that is the first half of 2019 when the Fed was simultaneously shrinking its balance sheet and signaling to markets that interest rate policy was becoming more dovish (Chart 8A). During that period, financial markets responded to the more dovish interest rate policy and not to the shrinking of the Fed’s balance sheet (Chart 8B). Bond yields fell, the dollar weakened and both corporate bonds and equities delivered strong returns. Chart 8ARates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Chart 8BRates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Bottom Line: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Subordinate Bank Bonds: Still In The Sweet Spot Chart 9Still In The Sweet Spot Two months ago we made the case for owning subordinate bank bonds.3 The premise for this call is that subordinate bank bonds are a high-quality cyclical sector, exactly the sweet spot of the investment grade corporate bond market that we want to own in the current environment. We expect that extraordinary Fed support for the market will cause investment grade corporate bond spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months. In that environment we want to focus on cyclical (or “high beta”) bond sectors, ones that outperform the index during periods of spread tightening. However, we also recognize that the Fed’s emergency lending facilities will not prevent a surge in ratings downgrades. Therefore, the sweet spot we want to own is cyclical bonds that are unlikely to be downgraded. High-quality Baa-rated securities, like subordinate bank bonds, fit the bill nicely. Chart 9 shows that the subordinate bank bond index has a duration-times-spread ratio above 1.0.4 This confirms that the sector will trade cyclically relative to the corporate benchmark. We also see that subordinate bank bonds have outperformed both the overall corporate index and other Baa-rated bonds since the start of the year (Chart 9, panel 2). Further, subordinate bank bonds offer a spread pick-up versus the corporate index in both option-adjusted spread terms (Chart 9, panel 3) and 12-month breakeven spread terms (Chart 9, bottom panel).   What Did We Learn From The Stress Tests? Last week the Fed released the results of its 2020 bank stress tests. Results for individual banks were released for a “severely adverse scenario”, the details of which had been publicly available since February. However, because of concern that the “severely adverse scenario” wasn’t dire enough to capture the potential fallout from the pandemic, the Fed also stress tested three COVID-specific scenarios and released results only for the banking system in aggregate. The three scenarios are: A ‘V’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 and Q4 of this year after contracting significantly in the first half. A ‘U’-shaped recovery, where the growth pick-up in the second half of 2020 is much milder. A ‘W’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 but then dips again near the end of the year. Table 2 shows a few key assumptions of the three scenarios along with how the actual economy is tracking. It seems that, absent the re-imposition of lock-down measures, the economy is tracking to be in a slightly better place than in any of the three scenarios. Note that the unemployment rate has already peaked below 15%, lower than assumed by any of the three scenarios. Table 2Three Stress Test Scenarios* Chart 10Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Chart 10 shows the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio for the aggregate banking sector, and the dashed horizontal lines show how far it would fall in the three different COVID scenarios. The results show that the ‘V’-shaped scenario is manageable for the banking system, but a significant number of banks would run into trouble in the ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios.   The good news for bank credit quality is that, based on how the economy is tracking and the prospects for further fiscal stimulus, the worst ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios will probably be avoided. Further, the Fed has already suspended share buybacks and capped dividend payouts. It will also re-run the stress tests later this year. Another round of stress tests this year is credit positive, as it will encourage banks to strengthen their capital buffers during the next few months. Bottom Line: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/19961205.htm 2 https://www.conference-board.org/data/bci/index.cfm?id=2160 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, top panel). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Bottom Line: Odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details.